EPA/540/4-90/043
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES?
Texas
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume , xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets ..i
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets .G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
I s the 1970s came to a
:; close, a series of head-
! line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil/and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA — commonly
known as the Superfund —
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
iii
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half
— have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies — like
those designed to clean up
groundwater — must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans'
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make — as a
Nation — in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume — Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large —
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
— How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites? —
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
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
-------
v«x\\sw.vwx*vi^vi.\\ v>i
* ts^
•flow does HFA leant * - Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
nabout potential
!hazardo«s waste
Ssites?
I
ta
t
I
i %
M •,» •
va <*
jWhat happens if ~^
'there is an imminent^
Danger?
IB
IS
c
-xkq^ ^
jf *
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.
rif there isn't am s ^
; imminent danger, % j
I how does EPA „,, N f
jj determine what, if s Jj
* any, cleanup actions ;
I should be taken? %
t* *.
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
viii
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site/ so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the 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
«^.
%V%
v*. •,>.
. >« _ «.
•. -.^
.
> weal's the
• " "
-------
SUPERFUND
If
t
How do people £md
•dut whether EPA ^
considers a site a
^national ptio;
cleanup using
money?
"•«. •
1S * *
.V.V. %\ « I4,V<&<&t*'tti
reqtiirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). Thafs why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund — the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site wiU 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.
X\ '
«: ^v. •
. '-<
x->
•••Sv
-V
.vv. ""
vws v.
^ f
v
'fH& %
"•C.lw-^ -'
•• ^
v. v™-...
v»gmw
^
^ „
\
•^
Z.fw?
XI
-------
f"*
*
I
t
i'l
v
ttf
"" ™^"SW8S«JS: 5^ •.
"XV; "
P '
jHow are
^alternatives
identified and
Devaluated?
; itHlm*11 n i s ^ussx v.
-^™.,
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.
Vs. *
Does the public have " * Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
3 Say in the final kvl opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
'cleanup decision? ,-T k concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
-^i-y
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.
*£
-v*
'\
«i
f
"X-
"^ T^-
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
-. > ' ^ % ^
% If every cteantq?
< -action. nee4b to fee
o-
xeihi
_
o fee
^^v,%S
^f-- - ",
X l*i ^'
->••
Xlll
-------
ill 11
Once the design is ^|
complete, how long j
does it take to xx;xl
actually clean up the J
site and how mjjch „, *
• does it cost? " x"-\,
HHHI||lfl III I III PI if liPillplFlltlli 1C ni j ajiipjji W ft M v x
!'
t
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup — called the
remedial action — are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them — an
action that takes limited time and money, In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
the cleanup
.action is complete, is *
the site atttomatically -t
^deleted^ from the
Ifert^it
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to <^_ . «**«
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination ^Jespojtis|ble fp* &E@ : """ "\
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. '
XV
-------
TAX
-------
f - he Site Fact Sheets
% v presented in this book
^^ are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and'involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
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.
xvu
-------
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
Site Description
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach •
Response Action Status
XV*" * „.
Site Facts: W\-V *-W to*
Environmental Progress
Asummary 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.
XVUl
-------
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 informafon 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.
*X^^
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes,
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some' idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Texa£
Texas is the second largest state in the nation, covering 262,017 square miles. Th'e
State topography is made up of varied regions including the Gulf Coast Plain in the
south and southeast, the North Central Plains, the Great Plains extending over the
Panhandle, and the southern extension of the Rockies known as the Trans-Pecos.
Texas experienced a 18.4 percent increase in population through'the 1980s, and
currently has approximately 16,841,000 residents, ranking 3rd in U.S. populations. :
Principal .State industries: include trade, services, and manufacturing. Texas produces a
variety of agricultural products and livestock, machinery, transportation equipment,
refined petroleum, and apparel.
How Many Texas Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
4
24
1
29
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 04, 07,10, 22, 23, 24, 25 1 site
Cong. District 12, 18, 19 2 sites
Cong. District 01,02, 08, 09 4 sites
30--
25--
|20-
|l6~
10--
5 --
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), creosote
(organics), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and plastics.
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and creosote (organics).
Surface Water and Sediment:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), creosote
{organics), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and
petrochemicals.
Soil GW SW
Air Solid & Seds
Liquid
Waste
Contamination Area
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
'Appear at 15% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process* 7
Initial actions have been taken at 25 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Texas, providing specific information on
tnreats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress Should vou
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Texas Superfund Office
EPA Region VI Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region VI Superfund Public
Relations Office
(512)463-7785
(214) 655-6705
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(214) 655-2240
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
-------
The NPL Progress Report —
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow {•>-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*• An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
«*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
•*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
•^ An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
«>- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
.15
'17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
A
Site Name
AIR FORCE PLANT #4
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
BIO-ECOLOGY SYSTEMS
BRIO REFINERY COMPANY
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY
CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS, INC.
FRENCH, LTD.
GENEVA INDUSTRIES/FUHRMANN
HARRIS (FARLEY STREET)
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
LONE STAR ARMY AMMO PLANT
MOTCO, INC.
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET
ODESSA CHROMIUM #1
ODESSA CHROMIUM #2
PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY
County
TARRANT
ORANGE
DALLAS
HARRIS
HARRIS
ZAVALA
HARRIS
HARRIS
HARRIS
HARRIS
HARRIS
BOWIE
BOWIE
GALVESTON
HARRIS
ECTOR
ECTOR
TARRANT
rtur ***** «*4bj
NPL
Prop.
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
Final
Delete
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
10/15/84 *- 4-
06/10/86 + + + +.
09/08/83 + + + + +-
03/31/89 *•*•*.*.
09/08/83 4- 4-
06/10/86 + + + + +.
06/24/88 *~ *- *- *,
09/08/83 •*- «K *• *- *~
09/21/84 + »f- ^ i^ ^
04/01/88 4- 4- 4- *- ^
09/08/83 4- 4- *» ^ ^
06/10/86 4- 4- 4- *-
07/22/87 4- 4-
09/08/83 4- *•>• ^ *,
06/10/86 4- ^ ^~
06/10/86 4- 4- ^~
06/10/86 4- 4- *- ^
06/10/86 4- 4- 4- 4-
xxiy
-------
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
IMPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
37
39
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
PETRO-CHEMICAL
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
SOL LYNN/INDUSTRIAL TRANSFRMRS
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET
STEWCO, INC.
TEX-TIN CORPORATION
TEXARKANAWOOD PRESERVING CO.
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL
UNITED CREOSOTING
US ARMY LONGHORN ARMY AMMO
LIBERTY
WALLER
HARRIS
HARRIS
HARRIS
HARRISON "
GALVESTON
BOWIE
ORANGE
MONTGOMERY
HARRISON
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop'.
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
06/10/86 *• •*- . . "fr" •*• .*•'•
03/31/89 *- MK *- **
09/08/83 «** *• ••"-•*•' *-
03/31/89 *• ' * *- *- ' '
06/10/86 *- **
06/10/86 *• *• "^
06/24/88 "*- ^- ' "' -
- 06/10/86 "*" «4^:
09/08/83 "^ *= ' ^ ^ ' • *r '
09/21/84 •>!•'"• . *- ^ "K: ^>
07/14/89 «*7 "^
XXV
-------
-------
-------
-------
AIR FORCE PLA
TEXAS
EPA ID# TX7572024605
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Tarrant County
6 miles west of Fort Worth
Site Description
This 700-acre Air Force site has been used for the production and testing of military
aircraft and associated equipment since 1941. The plant produces approximately 6,000
tons of spent process chemicals each year. Twenty-one hot spots responsible for the
chemical contamination are found around the site, including landfills, chrome pits, fire
department training areas, and fuel saturation areas. The site is bordered by Garswell
AFB, recreational Lake Worth, and the community of White Settlement. The base and
the town both draw drinking water from seven nearby municipal wells; the closest are
850 and 1,500 feet from the site. Approximately 13,400 people live in White
Settlement.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is polluted with halogenated and aromatic organic
chemicals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals
including chromium, lead, and arsenic. VOCs, chromium, and alpha and
beta radiation have been found in the soil. Surface water is contaminated
with VOCs and chromium. Aquifers supplying the drinking water wells
are contaminated by VOCs. Contamination is generally restricted to the
site, although pollution of the upper aquifer has a potential impact on
surrounding wells. Possible paths of exposure include ingestion of
contaminated drinking water; direct contact with or drinking contaminated
groundwater; and possible health threats due to emission of
radionuclides.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
AIR FORCE PLANT #4
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a lona-term
remedial phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In 1983, the Air Force removed about 21,000 cubic
yards of soil contaminated with heavy metals from closed waste pits and
disposed of them at an EPA-approved facility.
Entire Site: Polluted water from a stormwater outfall continues to be
collected, stored, and disposed of in an EPA-approved facility. The Air
Force is continuing to conduct investigations to determine the extent and
nature of contamination to groundwater and surface waters and to select remedies for
permanent cleanup of the site.
Site Facts: On-site personnel could have been exposed to radiation. In 1982 the Air
Force and the potentially responsible parties notified the EPA that hazardous
substances were found in the stormwater outfall that drains into an adjacent creek
This site is being cleaned up under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) which
seeks to identify investigate, and control hazardous waste on military or Dep'artemnt
Or Defense installations.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil by the Air Force has reduced possible exposure to
hazardous materials at this site, making the Air Force Plant #4 safer while it awaits
further cleanup actions.
-------
BAILEY WASTEffllSPOSAL REGION e
^mS^T^c' CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
TEXAS STOgSf^ 1 Orange County
EPAID#TXD980864649 ^TrfflMM^V H 3 mUes southwest of Bridge City
Aliases:
Gulf Street Utilities
Bailey's Sabine Lake Bridge
Site Description
The Bailey Waste Disposal site is a closed industrial waste facility and is part of a
saltwater marshland near the confluence of the Neches River and Sabine Lake. It lies
within the 100-year floodplain. Although the size of the site is officially 280 acres,
waste has been documented on only 10 acres. Two rectangular ponds were
constructed during the 1950s when Bailey's was a fish camp; one of them was
subsequently used for waste disposal in the 1950s and 1960s, while the fish camp was
still in operation. Four separate areas of contamination have been identified near this
pond: a waste channel containing at least 44,000 cubic yards of industrial waste and
debris; an area containing 32,000 cubic yards of municipal and industrial waste; a drum
disposal area, where corroded drums hold about 880 cubic yards of industrial waste;
and a series of waste pits holding 1,900 cubic yards of tar-like wastes. The site was
closed in 1971. About 7,600 people within 3 miles of the site use wells for drinking
water, the nearest residence being within 1/2 mile of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater pollutants include organic chemicals such as chloroform,
and benzene, as well as heavy metals including lead and arsenic. Volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs), aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons,
organics including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy
metals have been found in sediments. Contaminants in the soil include
VOCs and heavy metals including copper, lead, and arsenic. Heavy
metals including arsenic and selenium have been found in the surface
water. Potential risks include touching or accidentally eating soils and
inhaling dust from the site. Continued restriction of access to the site
should lessen these risks. Area drinking water wells are located in deeper
aquifers where contamination has not been found. The site is located in
the floodplain of the Neches River and is subject to periodic flooding.
Fish, shellfish, and livestock grazing the marsh are also at risk; tissues of
aquatic creatures have been found to be contaminated. People may also
be exposed by eating contaminated fish and crabs.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Ix* Immediate Action: The potentially responsible parties fenced the site and
posted EPA warning signs. Because the site is relatively inaccessible the
fencing is sufficient to control access.
Entire Site: A site study was conducted by the Texas Water Commission
to identify the extent of contamination and to suggest options for cleanup.
The selected remedy was to remove affected sediments from the marsh
and drainage channel, as well as wastes from the drum disposal area and
one of the waste pits, and relocate all materials to the waste channel. This channel and
the area east of one of the ponds will then be stabilized by solidifying contaminants to.
prevent their movement off the site. An engineering study is under way to develop the
cleanup design and to recommend cleanup alternatives. The results of the study are
expected to be available in 1991.
Site Facts: The EPA and the potentially responsible parties have signed a Consent
Decree that describes the selected remedy.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the area and posting warning signs have limited access to the site, thereby
reducing the potential of exposure to hazardous substances at the Bailey Waste
Disposal while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
-------
BIO-ECOLOGY
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980340889
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 24
Dallas County
Grand Prairie
Alias:
Bioecology
Site Description
The Bio-Ecology Systems site consists of approximately 11 acres in an industrial area.
It was a solid waste management facility permitted by the State of Texas in 1972.
Operators burned or treated industrial wastes with chemical or biological processes
before landfilling them. About 40,000 cubic yards of wastes and contaminated soils
exist at Bio-Ecology. It is surrounded by private property and is bounded by the
tributaries of Old Mountain Creek. It lies within the floodplain of the creek and is
1 mile northeast of Mountain Creek Lake. The site was operated until 1978 when, after
numerous permit violations and court orders to improve operations, the site owners
went bankrupt. The site contains tanks with mixed oils, solvents, and ketones and
buried chromium, cyanide, and heavy metal sludges. Approximately 12,500 people live
within 3 miles of the site. The City of Grand Prairie draws its domestic drinking water
from wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. There is a residential area about 1/2 mile
from the site and a school about 2 miles to the northwest.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LUSTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Shallow groundwater is contaminated with low concentrations of lead,
nickel, and trichloroethane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). High
concentrations of lead and chromium have been found in soils both on
and off site. VOCs have also been identified in soils. Surface water
runoff from the area, which has been flooded at least twice, flows directly
into Old Mountain Creek. However, specific pollutants were not
identified. Slight groundwater contamination has been detected to a
depth of 50 feet. Area residents could be exposed to contaminants by:
(1) direct contact with on- and off-site contaminated soils, sediments, and
standing surface water; (2) drinking contaminated surface water or
groundwater; or (3) inhalation of evaporated and airborne chemicals.
Mqrch 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
BIO-ECOLOGY SYSTEMS
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase for cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Workers removed 15 storage tanks and surface
contamination in 1985. The area was fenced and signs posted to restrict
access. ^
Entire Site: Investigators recommended that the site be reconstructed as a
safe landfill for its own contaminants. The remedies selected include raising
the level of the site above the floodplain, building an on-site disposal cell
with a synthetic liner and a collection system for seeping liquids, constructing an
environmentally safe cover and liner and liquid collection and removal system,
stabilizing the waste and placing it in the on-site cell, fencing and posting the site, and
installing a groundwater monitoring system. All activities selected for site cleanup
were completed by 1988. Groundwater monitoring will continue to determine when
the groundwater resources reach approved cleanup levels.
Environmental Progress
The Immediate removal of contaminated tanks, the construction of a fence, the security
measures, and subsequent long-term cleanup measures have achieved the surface and
surface water cleanup goals for this site. Monitoring activities will continue to ensure
the effectiveness of the site cleanup until final deletion of the Bio-Ecology site from the
-------
BRIO REFINER
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980625453
NY REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Harris County
2 miles north of Friendswood
Aliases:
JOC Oil Aromatics, Inc.
Lowe Chemical Company
Site Description
The Brio Refinery site occupies about 58 acres: 49 acres north of Dixie Farm Road were
used for storage, and the 9 acres south of the road were used for processing activities.
Operations began at the site in 1957, and until 1969, the major work done there was
regeneration of copper catalysts and recovery of petrochemicals from styrene tars and
vinyl chloride still bottoms. About 23 unlined pits were dug during this time and used
to store both raw and process materials. Recycle and recovery operations continued
until 1978 when the plant was converted to a crude oil topping unit for jet fuel
production. Throughout the 1970s, the pits were closed by mixing the stored material
with soil and clay and covering the resulting waste with soil, and by 1980, all pits were
closed. Studies have shown that 500,000 to 700,000 cubic yards of soil on site are
contaminated and that high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOGs) exist in
groundwater under the site. The area is heavily populated, with approximately 5,700 "
people living near the site. Residences, businesses, a hospital, and a school are
located within 1/2 mile of the site. Cattle grazing and oil and gas exploration activities
also occur nearby.
site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The air is contaminated with various VOCs. Plastics and VOCs have been
found in the groundwater; copper exists to depths below 18 feet. The soil
is contaminated with heavy metals, VOCs, styrene tars, chlorinated
solvent residues, metallic catalysts, and fuel oil residues. Surface water in
Mud Gully near Pit B and runoff from Pit Q have been shown to be
contaminated with VOCs and petrochemicals. Workers or others on site
may be exposed by inhaling airborne contaminants or by direct contact
with contaminated soil. If contaminants seep into the deeper aquifer,
which is not imminent, drinking well water could become a problem.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
BRIO REFINERY COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase concentrating on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: A fence was installed at the site in 1985.
Entire Site: Remedies selected for the Brio Refinery site include: (1)
excavating affected materials and soils; (2) burning or biological treatment
of these materials; (3) consolidating and disposing of surface debris and
• /« w rubble; (4) measures to widen bottle-necked Mud Gully as it passes the Brio
site; (5) decommissioning the wastewater treatment system; (6) removing the contents
of all storage tanks for proper disposal and dismantling the structures; (7) dismantling
the process facility; (8) recovering and treating shallow groundwater; (9) grading
planting, tending, and landscaping the site; (10) installing a stormwater drainage'
system; (11) monitoring air, surface water, and groundwater; and (12) restricting use of
the land. The engineering planning is expected to take 12 to 18 months. Cleanup work
will start after approval of the plans.
Site Facts: In 1982, Brio Refining, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. Some of the parties
pptentjally responsible for the wastes have organized into the Brio Task Force and are
discussing cleanup remedies with the EPA. In 1985, a Consent Decree was signed by
the Task Force to accept financial responsibility for cleanup. Task force members
involved with this and the Dixie Oil Processors site have negotiated with the EPA on
selection of the cleanup remedy and cleanup responsibility.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a fence has reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous wastes
at the Brio Refinery site, making it safer while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
-------
CRYSTAL CHE
COMPANY
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD990707010
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Harris County -
Rogerdale Road in Houston
Site Description
The Crystal Chemical Company began producing arsenic-based pesticides at this
5-acre site in 1968. During plant operations, containers of raw and finished materials
were stored on the ground, where they spilled and leaked into the soil. Arsenic '
contamination spread outside the process areas Jn 1976 when rain caused waste ponds
to overflow. Prompted by the State, the company built a dike around the plant and
undertook other cleanup actions. The company declared bankruptcy in 1981. The site
lies within a residential and light industrial area that is within a 100-year floodplain. '
Approximately 20,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the abandoned plant.
Twenty water wells are also situated within 1 mile. The nearest drinking water well is
300 feet away; the nearest residence is 1/2 mile away.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
m
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with arsenic:.:
Possible hazards include direct contact, inhaling, or ingesting
contaminated soils, dusts, or surface water. Groups likely to be exposed
include workers on-site, children playing near the area, or maintenance ,
workers cleaning and dredging the site.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an emergency action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
CRYSTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Between 1981 and 1982, the EPA dewatered the
site, filled in the contaminated ponds, temporarily capped most of the plant
site with 6 inches of clay, and added topsoil and seed. Hurricane damage
to the site resulted in a restart of the work. Restart actions included repairing the
fence, removal of contaminated liquids from two buildings, capping of the building floor
and installing gravel berms. Four hundred cubic yards of soils and about 2 million
gallons of contaminated water were removed. Repairs to the clay cap and fence were
made in 1983. Presently, more contaminated soils and deteriorated drums are being
removed and the erosion control ditch is being repaired.
Entire Site: A remedy for the site will be selected in 1990. Under the
terms of a Consent Decree, the parties potentially responsible are currently
performing a feasibility study of the various cleanup options for the site.
Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA filed with the bankruptcy court to recover Federal funds
expended at the site. The parties potentially responsible agreed through a Consent
Decree signed in 1987 to do a supplemental feasibility study.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove or cap contaminated soils and liquid wastes, as well
as repair and upkeep activities, have reduced the actual exposure potential at the
Crystal Chemical site, making it safer while awaiting further remedial activity.
10
-------
CRYSTAL CITY
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980864763
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 23
Zavala County
Northeast Crystal City
Alias:
Frank's Cropdusting Services
Site Description
The 120-acre Crystal City Airport site has served as a municipal airport since 1949 and
is owned by the city. Several aerial pesticide applicator businesses were based at the
airport until 1982; all are now out of business. City officials were concerned about the
possible health threat posed by spilled agricultural chemicals and contacted the Texas
Water Commission. The Commission took soil samples in 1983; analysis disclosed
high pesticide levels. The airport has been closed to the public since 1987 while
cleanup investigations and activities are carried out. The approximate population of
Crystal City is 8,000. The nearest home and drinking water well is 300 feet away. A
municipal water supply well and two schools are within 1/4 mile of the site. *
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and State.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with various pesticides and heavy metals
including arsenic. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of the soil
are the primary contamination exposure pathways for area residents.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1982, the EPA repaired a dike and pumped most
of the discharged sludges back into an on-site pit. In 1983 the EPA
consolidated 40 cubic yards of waste and 50 to 70 drums in two on-site
disposal cells. In 1984, the EPA disposed of 19 drums off site andTlcured the si e
with a fence. In 1988, the EPA repaired the fence and posted signs
Entire Site: The selected remedy for the site focuses on source control
Workers will consolidate the contaminated soil, drums, and other materials
on site and cover the materials with an EPA-approved cap consisting of
of ronTammflSnetcehw j ^?r ^ °^ 'S dp?i9ned to Protect against potential migration
wil?h« ^ OH by rainfa" and eros'on- Liauids used in the decontamination process
? ,and'^ected Into.a deeP well off site. The State will fence the area and
Hte-f°rK° YearS' re,viewln9 the remedy's effectiveness every 5 years. The
1? assured that the site can continue to be used as an airport.
' Ides'9n Includes plans for decontaminating building waHs and
1nH,3?/ excavaJioP- ^tate-led cleanup activities started at the end of
1988 and are scheduled for completion in 1990.
Environmental Progress
aud the disposal of contaminated drums have reduced the
and the environment whne finai cieanup
12
-------
DIXIE OIL PROC
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD089793046
ORS
JNC, REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Harris County
20 miles southeast of
Houston near Friendswood
Site Description
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc. (OOP) is situated on 27 acres and borders Dixie Farm Road.
The site has had several owners and operators since 1969. In 1978, DOP, the most
recent owner, began oil recovery operations on the parcel south of Dixie Farm Road,
converting liquid organic wastes such as phenolic tars and glycol cutter stock to
creosotes, fuel oil extenders, and other petroleum products. Additional wastes and
contaminated soils remain on site; DOP stores wastes on site before disposing of or
recycling them. Former owners operated olefin washing and copper recovery
processes on the parcel north of Dixie Farm Road. Buried there in at least six closed
lagoons are accumulated copper sediment and, allegedly, 500 barrels of a tarry copper
catalyst. The leaking lagoons have affected shallow groundwater quality to a limited
degree. In 1984, DOP found lead, benzene, toluene, and copper in on-site wells.
About 140 people obtain drinking water from shallow public and private wells within 3
miles of the site. The nearest residence is adjacent to site, and the nearest drinking
well is within 1/2 mile of the site. A subdivision was recently developed north of the
site, and a children's ball field borders it to the southwest.
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
IV
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including copper and lead. Spills
from the copper recovery operation have entered nearby Mud Gully and
Clear Creek. Possible threats include accidental ingestion and direct
contact with contaminated soil, inhalation of contaminated dust, and
accidental ingestion of shallow groundwater on the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: In 1984, OOP disposed of more than 6,000 cubic
yards of soils contaminated with phenolic tars in an approved hazardous
waste facility.
Entire Site: The following remedies were selected for the OOP site: (1)
fencing and deed restrictions to prevent site access; (2) excavation and
removal of contaminated off-site soils to background levels; (3)
consolidation and disposal'of debris and rubble; (4) cleanup of Mud Gully
(5) operation of the existing wastewater treatment system during cleanup then
dismantling and removing it; (6) removal and disposal of tank contents and drums- (7)
decomissionmg, disposing, and recycling of tanks; and (8) dismantling and disposing of
all process equipment. The site will then be landscaped by regrading and plantings
Site monitoring after cleanup is completed will include air sampling and control of air
emission from treatment processes, if necessary, and sampling and monitoring of Mud
Gully sediments and groundwater to determine the effectiveness of the listed
remedies. Design work began in 1989 and is scheduled for completion in 1991.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties signed an amended Administrative
Order in 1986 agreeing to conduct a study to determine the extent and nature of
contamination at the site, and have agreed to finance all cleanup activities
Environmental Progress
The initial removal of contaminated soils undertaken by OOP in 1984 has greatly
reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances, making the Dixie Oil site
safer while it awaits further planned cleanup activities.
14
-------
FRENCH, LIMI
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980514814
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Harris Counly
2 miles southwest of Crosby and
1 mile east of the San Jacinto River
Site Description
The 22 1/2-acre French Ltd. site contains a 15-acre waste pit which, from 1966 to 1972,
received 100,000 barrels of industrial waste each year and was then abandoned.
Industrial wastes, heavy metals, phenols, polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs), and acids
were disposed of in a 7-acre lagoon. The company declared bankruptcy in 1973. The
site is located in the 100-year floodplain of the San Jacinto River and has been flooded
on severalpccasions, washing contaminated water and sludges off site. PCB-
contamipated leachate migrated into a nearby wetlands area and tributary to the river.
The soil is permeable sand, and drainage ditches discharge to the river. The area is
ruraj, with the nearest residence being 500 feet from the main pit, the nearest drinking
well 1,500 feet away, and the nearest town, Crosby, is 2 miles away from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of State, Federal, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
T\
The air is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenols,
heavy metals, and PCBs. The groundwater, sludges, surface water, and
soil are contaminated with similar substances, in addition to oil, grease,
acids, and solvents. The surface water and the shallow groundwater are
used by nearby residents, thereby posing potential risks. Air near the site
may be hazardous to breathe as a result of vapors and airborne
contaminants close to the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
FRENCH LIMITED
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA consolidated waste from the area and
constructed a dike around the lagoon in 1980. In 1982, the EPA repaired
the dike which had been breached during a flood, and contaminated
-S ?el dlschar9ed durin9 the flood were pumped back into the pit. The
«? f th2 iud9es was removed and disposed of in an approved landfill in
nH+h P ' aHd ^oS?8^8 capped ln 1985' the Potentially responsible parties
fenced the area, and in 1989, they removed contaminated sediments from the ditch
Entire Site: The selected remedy for the site is biological treatment of the
sludges and contaminated soils in the on-site lagoon with aeration of the
lagoon waste to enhance degradation. The potentially responsible parties
tr*a* ~ * W" stabilize residues and dispose of them on site. They will recover and
treat contaminated groundwater once the biological treatment process begins
Groundwater recovery and treatment will continue until monitoring shows a significant
t±S?Z ^tc?ncerf ation of vocf Surface water from the lagoon wHI be treated
nJZLrS^t It3 ?Urface Water quallty standards for the San Jacinto River. Residues
2fm 2S T h ?+9 Iea!T» I1 pfocess wi" be stabill'zed to prevent their leaching and
w h rfpan ,nn eTh° ^'^he, agoon The remaining lagoon volume will be backfilled
with clean so I. The surface will then be graded to promote drainage away from the
afulfa^ ? nTriTH6™ °f the f??edy involves monitorin9 of the upper and lower
aquifers for a period of 30 years. The potentially responsible parties began the desiqn
win^U?mTHdlteS, !nt 1989' Th? dlS i9n and const™tion of flood projection Ske?
will begin immediately to prevent further flooding of the site. Construction of the
by ^ °f S'Ud9eS and 9rounclwater started in 1 989 and is P|anned to
Site Facts: In _1 982, the EPA signed a Cooperative Agreement with the State to
hW ^npH^ ;™est|9f,!pn- The EPA and a task group of potentially responsible parties
have signed a Consent Decree outlining the responsibilities for correctinq
contamination. a
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above have significantly reduced threats to nearby
residents and the public while long-term cleanup activities continue to reduce
contamination at the French Limited site.
16
-------
GENEVA INDU
FUHRMAN EN
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980748453
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Harris County
Houston, 2 miles east of Hobby Airport
Site Description
Geneva Industries/Fuhrman Energy is a 13-acre abandoned petrochemical
manufacturing and reprocessing plant and was used for petroleum exploration prior to
1967. From 1967 to 1984, the facility produced polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under
two owners. The current owner salvaged equipment from the site until 1985. High
levels of PCBs are concentrated in the soil. This area of Houston, adjacent to the city of
South Houston, is heavily populated, and light industry is located nearby.
Approximately 35,000 people live within 1 mile of the site and the nearest residence is
50 feet away. The nearest drinking water well is about 1/4 mile southwest of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, surface Water, and sludges are contaminated with
petrochemical compounds, PCBs, and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs).
The soil, site ponds, shallow and intermediate groundwater, and waste
piles on site are contaminated. People who come into contact with the
soil or who drink contaminated surface or groundwater are at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
GENEVA INDUSTRIES/FUHRMAN ENERGY
Response Action Status
U*" Immediate Actions: To control the source of contamination, the EPA
installed a partial security fence, stabilized a deteriorated chlorine tank car,
and drilled and sampled an old oil well. Abandoned on-site wells were
plugged. Six leaking tanks were emptied of PCB-contaminated liquids and sludge and
were dismantled. The EPA removed highly contaminated off-site soils, while highly
contaminated on-site soils were capped. The EPA closed three lagoons and removed
the drummed waste on the surface.
Entire Site: The Texas Water Commission (TWC), under a Cooperative
Agreement with the EPA, removed and disposed of surface structures in
the off-site hazardous landfill, excavated PCB-contaminated soils and buried
drums on site, and then disposed of them at an EPA-approved facility A
multi-layer surface cap is being installed over the site and a slurry wall, tied into the clay
below the site to prevent contaminants from moving off site, is also being constructed
Tnchloroethylene (TCE) will be recovered from contaminated groundwater, treated by
carbon adsorption, and the treated water will be discharged into the adjacent flood
control channel. Treatment of the groundwater is slated to begin in 1991 and will
continue for 7 years.
Site Facts: All cleanup activities have been conducted by the State under a
Cooperative Agreement between the Texas Water Commission and the EPA.
Environmental Progress
The immediate cleanup actions performed by the EPA have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to wastes remaining at the site, making it safer while long-term
cleanup activities continue to reduce contamination at the Geneva Industries/Fuhrman
Energy site.
18
-------
HARRIS
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980745582
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 22
Harris County
Southeast Houston
Site Description
The Harris (Farley Street) site in Houston is an abandoned landfill thai was leased in
1958 to be a disposal facility for chemical wastes. One thousand tons of tars and
..sludges were disposed of by local chemical industries. Black tarry wastes were,
dumped into two open pits. Accumulated wastes were periodically burned, leaving a
charred residue. The property was sold in 1975, and the new owner subsequently
gave the land to his daughter, who then constructed a house on top of the abandoned
disposal area. The buried waste was discovered during the construction of a swimming
pool in 1981. In 1982, the house was destroyed by fire. A well is located on the site.
The nearest residence is located within 1 mile of the site.
S£te Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of State, Federal, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deleted: 04/01/88
Threats and Contaminants
The soil was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). While the soil at the site was
contaminated, no contamination of the groundwater was found. There
are no known human exposure risks at this site. The wastes that were
present on site were contained within high plasticity clays, and the
migration of contamination was minimal.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in one long-term remedial phase which focused on the entire
site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
HARRIS (PARLEY STREET)
Response Action Status
Site: From 1986 to 1988, the potentially responsible party Dow
Cnem'cal' excavated non-contaminated soils from the trenches and
_ . stockpiled them, excavated contaminated wastes and disposed of them in
a Federally approved landfill, and sampled the excavated area. Because the action was
a complete removal of the contamination source, no groundwater monitoring was done
afterwards, and no operation or institutional controls were found to be necessary The
?mSe!$ has been turned over to a disposal company and will become part of a Class IV
landfill (a non-hazardous materials landfill), which now bounds the site on two sides A
sandpit that lies to the south of the site is also scheduled to become a landfill once the'
sand has been removed. The Harris Farley site was deleted from the NPL in 1988 The
EPA, in conjunction with the State, determined that the site is fully protective of human
health and the environment.
Site Facts: In 1985, an EPA Enforcement Decision Document instructed Dow
Chemical to remove all hazardous substances and dispose of them in an off-site
privately owned landfill which meets Federal requirements
Environmental Progress
With the complete removal of all contaminants and the deletion of the Harris Farley site
from the NPL in 1988, final cleanup goals have been achieved and the EPA has
determined that the site no longer poses threats from chemical contamination
20
-------
HIGHLANDS
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980514996
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST, 08
Harris County
les east of Houston, 1 mile from Highlands
Site Description
In.the 1950s, sulfuric acid sludges from an unknown chemical process (possibly
refinery operations) were dumped into the Highlands Acid Pit, which is a 6-acre
peninsula in the San Jacinto River. The nearest resident lives about 1/2 mile from the
site. Twelve water wells also exist within a 1-mile radius of the site. The land use in
the area is primarily residential and recreational. The San Jacinto River is used for
boating and swimming activities, as well as for commercial and recreational fishing.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through •
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and surface water contaminants include heavy metals,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene and benzene, and
sulfate. The upper sand aquifer has been heavily contaminated, but no
private or public wells currently withdraw water from it. Use of the river
for swimming or fishing may have posed a threat by direct contact or by
accidental ingestion of water. Workers or others on site could have been
exposed to chemicals by inhaling, eating, drinking, or touching
contaminated materials.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on source control and groundwater monitoring.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
HIGHLANDS ACID PIT
Response Action Status
x" Initial Action: A fence was constructed around the pit by EPA emergency
response personnel to prevent further illegal dumping and to protect
monitoring wells from vandalism. The fences were vandalized and repaired
in 1985. Warning signs were installed around the perimeter of the fence.
Source Control: The remedy selected for control of the source of
contamination was: extensive excavation and disposal off site of highly
contaminated soil; backfilling, grading, seeding and fencing of the site; and
installation of monitoring wells. Approximately 33,000 tons of excavated
materials were disposed of at a hazardous waste d sposal site. The State also
conducted evaluations to determine if the site needs ccrrective groundwater measures.
The Texas Water Commission will continue to moni .or groundwater. Some residual
contamination probably remains at and below the ground surface beyond the
excavation limit, and these residues will be a continu ng but diminishing source of
contamination to the groundwater.
Groundwater: Monitoring actions of the groundwater have indicated no
further action is needed. No health threats are anticipated since the source
control is complete. However, monitoring of groundwater and surface
water will continue for 30 years at the site.
Environmental Progress
The construction of a fence to limit access to the site lessened the actual exposure
potential while surface contamination cleanup goals were fully achieved Monitoring
groundwater will continue to ensure that no further health threats exist at the Highlands
r\CIQ i It.
22
-------
KOPPERS COM
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980623904
INC.
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bowie County
West Third Street in Texarkana
Site Description
The Koppers Company site, 1 mile west of the downtown area, was a 62-acre wood
treatment facility between 1910 and 1961 that was run by a succession of owners.
Koppers Company closed the facility and sold the land in 1961, and all the old facilities
were demolished in 1962. Carver Terrace built 78 homes on 34 acres of the site in
1964, and the remaining 28 acres became a sand and gravel mining operation between
the late 1970s and 1984. About 150 people in this residential community depend on
wells within 1/2 mile of the site as a source of drinking water. The entire site is within
a 100-year floodplain.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
II
Threats and Contaminants
The air, groundwater, and soil are contaminated with pentachlorophenol
(PCP), arsenic, zinc, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
creosote. Potential exposure risks include direct contact with and
accidental ingestion of contaminated soils and inhalation of contaminated
dust.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on soil and groundwater treatment.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
Response Action Status
^initial Actions: In 1985, the Koppers Company placed clean dirt and sod in
the yards of some residences to prevent exposure to the contaminated soils
. . whlle tne site was being studied. About 24 homes were treated in this way
and the southern portion of the site was fenced.
V Soil and Groundwater Treatment: Soil washing and groundwater
kJHBj''pumping and treatment are the remedies selected for the Koppers site. Soil
I K^£?i treatment entails excavating contaminated soils from yards in the Carver
Terrace subdivision and moving them to the Kennedy Sand and Gravel
Company property, where they will be treated by mechanical soil washing. The yards
will be backfilled with clean soil from off site, and re-sodding and landscaping will be
done where necessary. The wash solution will be treated in the groundwater
treatment system and the decontaminated soil will be disposed of on the Kennedy
property. To clean the groundwater under the Kennedy property, workers will pump
groundwater up to a treatment unit constructed on the site, pass it through an oil and
water separator and a carbon filter, and pump the treated water back into the aquifer
The engineering design for the selected remedies is under way and is expected to be
completed in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions described above have reduced the immediate threats to affected
residents, making the Koppers Company site safer to residents while the design of final
cleanup actions proceeds.
24
-------
LONE STAR
AMMUNITIONS
TEXAS
EPA ID# TX7213821831
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bowie County
12 miles west of Texarkana
Site Description
The Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant has operated as a munitions plant since 1942.
During World War II, explosives were .disposed of by detonation above- and below-
ground in an area covering about 5 acres. Heavy metals have been detected in
monitoring wells south of the disposal site along the border of the facility. The
groundwater is shallow and drains to East Fork Elliot Creek, which is 800 feet away .
from the Old Demolition Grounds. The creek drains into Wright Patman Lake, a major
recreational area, this rural area has a school and a trailer park near the site boundary...
Approximately 76 people live within 2 miles of the site and depend on several municipal
and private wells for their water. Approximately T,200 people use private drinking wells
within 3 miles of the site. The nearest town is Hooks with a population of 2,500.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including lead,
chromium, and mercury. On-site soil is contaminated with explosives and
heavy metals. Off-site surface water is reported to contain low levels of
contamination. The drinking wells around the site may be tainted,
although no formal monitoring has occurred. The potential environmental
risks are the spread of contaminated groundwater, contaminated surface
water, and contaminated soil to off-site locations. There is little public
health concern due to restricted access to the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
LONE STAR ARMY AMMUNITIONS PLANT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Response: Contaminated surface soil was removed some time in
the past.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently conducting an investigation into the
nature and extent of the heavy metal and explosive contamination at the
site. The investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will
recommend cost-effective alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is
planned to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: The Lone Star Army plant is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP), the federally funded program established under the Department of
Defense (DOD) to identify, evaluate, and control hazardous wastes on military or other
uuu installations.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Lone Star Army Ammunition site to the NPL, the EPA assessed site
conditions and determined that no immediate actions are currently necessary to protect
public health and the environment. Previous removal of contaminated soils has
reduced the potential for exposure, making the site safer while it awaits further cleanup
action by the Army. p
26
-------
MOTCO, INC.
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980629851
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Galveston County
Near the junction of Hwy. 3 and the Gulf FYeeway
Site Description
The Motco, Inc. site occupies 11 acres of land near La Marque. Since 1958, a number
of waste recycling and storage operations have been conducted at the site. At various
times during its history, wastes have been disposed of in a number of storage tanks
and in seven unlined waste pits or lagoons. The on-site lagoons cover a total of about 4
1/2 acres and contain between 11 and 15 million gallons of wastes. The wastes
include tars and oils, and polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs). In 1974, the Motco
Corporation acquired ownership of the property and established an operation to remove
and market styrene tars left behind from a previous owner and reclaimed the site for
use as a commercial property. The business failed and Motco abandoned the site in
1974. Two years later, the State cancelled the site's permit and ordered Motco to
secure the site and submit plans to close the site because of repeated releases of
contaminants into the environment and a failure to comply with permit requirements.
Soon thereafter, Motco declared bankruptcy. Approximately 3,000 people live within a
1-mile radius of the site. The site is bounded by an abandoned trailer park and the
Houston Lighting and Power transmission line right-of-way. Two residential
communities are located on the opposite side of the Gulf Freeway from the site: the
Omega Bay Subdivision and the Bayou Vista Subdivision. Two commercial
establishments are located about 1/8 mile southeast of the site. Nearby residents do
not obtain their drinking water from the groundwater.
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
ZG
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). sediments are contaminated with heavy metals
including lead, copper, chromium, and silver. The sludge is contaminated
with styrene tars, VOCs, heavy metals, and PCBs. People who trespass
on the site may be at risk by touching or accidentally drinking or eating
contaminated groundwater, soil, sediments or sludges.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
MOTCO, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions to limit the spread of
contamination and two long-term remedial phases focusing on source control and
migration control.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Between 1980 and 1985, the EPA conducted various
emergency actions at the site including removing tanks, excavating and
_ removing contaminated soil, erecting a fence, and drawing the pond level
down to prevent the overflowing of contaminants.
Source Control: The remedies selected by the EPA to control the source
of the contamination at the site include treating approximately 12 million
gallons of contaminated liquid from the waste pits and the sludge, tar, and
_ soil by incineration. The responsible parties are currently constructing the
on-site equipment for incineration of the wastes. After a trial burn is conducted to test
the incinerator, on-site remedial action will begin and is expected to be completed in
Migration Control: The EPA has selected cleanup remedies to treat the
migration of contaminants off site. These remedies and technologies
include removing contaminated groundwater by pumping and on-site
treatment; recovering and incinerating oily wastes from the groundwater;
controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater by installing a
system of wells that would extract contaminants, treat the water, and reinject it The
potentially responsible parties will prepare the technical specifications and design for
the cleanup. The cleanup activities will start once the design phase is completed in
i yy t»
Site Facts: The EPA issued ah Administrative Order on Consent to the parties
potentially responsible for contamination at the site. Under the terms of the
agreement, those parties conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of the
contamination and recommended cleanup options.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated tanks and soil described above, as well as the installation
of the fence limiting access to the site, have reduced the potential of exposure to
hazardous materials at the Motco, Inc. site, making the site safer while it awaits further
cleanup activities.
28
-------
NORTH CAVALCA]
STREET
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873343
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Harris County
Houston
Site Description
The North Cavalcade Street site occupies 23 acres in northeastern Houston and was a
wood preserving operation from 1946 to 1964. This site is associated with the South
Cavalcade Street site, which is also listed on the NPL. The operation first used
creosoting techniques and added pentachlorophenol (PCP) treatment in 1955.
Operations ceased in 1961 and the property was sold in 1964, subdivided, and resold.
Two large warehouses currently occupy about 30% of the site. The wood preserving
facility left two waste ponds behind, one containing process wastes and the other
creosote and used industrial lubricants. As of 1988, the plume of contamination in a
shallow aquifer covered 4 acres. Areas surrounding the site are mixed residential,
commercial, and industrial properties. About 4,500 people live within a 1-mile radius;
the nearest residence is 200 feet to the west. Although there is no private well usage
within a 2-mile radius of the site, a city well exists about 1 mile away from the site. The
city well is screened at deeper than 600 feet, and it is unlikely that it will be impacted
by the site. One of the drainage ditches that moves stormwater off site flows into
Hunting Bayou, classified by Texas water quality standards as a limited aquatic habitat.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Shallow groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with
petrochemicals, and wood-treating metals, as well as volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), poly:yclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
components of creosote. Sediments are also polluted with VOCs, PAHs,
and components of creosote. Direct contact and accidental ingestion of
contaminated soils from the site pose a long-term threat to area workers
or any future residents. The same would be true for the groundwater if
water supply wells are installed on site.
March
1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
29
continued
-------
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase consisting of three
steps to clean up the soil, groundwater, and ultimately, the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The remedy for cleaning up the soil will consist of biological
treatment of 22,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil, in place. The
optimum method will be determined after pilot testing. The remedy
selected for cleaning up the groundwater includes extraction of 5.6 million
gallons of contaminated groundwater and treatment by oil/water separation and carbon
adsorption. The cleaned water will be reinjected into the aquifer or released into
Hunting Bayou, whichever serves the water balance better in the area. All
contaminated liquids separated out of the water will be taken off site and incinerated
The State of Texas has assumed responsibility for the site cleanup and is currently
designing the cleanup of the site. Site cleanup is expected to begin upon completion of
the engineering design in 1991. During the design phase, pilot tests will be conducted
to optimize the remedy. Water percolation tests and biological treatment studies will
be performed.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed conditions at the North Cavalcade Street site and determined that
the site currently poses no immediate threat to human health or the environment while
it awaits planned cleanup activities.
30
-------
ODESSA CHR
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980867279
#1
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 19
Ector County
Odessa
Site Description
The Odessa Chromium #1 site consists of a series of chromium-contaminated wells
within 300 acres of residential, commercial, and industrial properties near 44th Street
and Brazos Avenue, just outside the northwestern city limits. This site is associated
with Odessa Chromium #2, also listed on the NPL. Several chrome plating operations
existed at the Brazos location between 1972 and 1977. Operators at the now-
abandoned Brazos property dumped plating wastewaters and heavy metal
.contaminants directly onto the ground and allowed storage tanks and drums to
overflow frequently. The estimated areal extent of the groundwater contamination is
more than 20 acres. Nearly every nearby residence or establishment is served by one
or more water wells tapping the Trinity Aquifer, the only source of potable
groundwater. The EPA has identified that an abandoned well on the site provided a
potential pathway to the aquifer. This source area is within a 10-acre industrial area.
The nearest residence and drinking water well are on the site. About 3,500 people live
outside the city limits within 1 mile of the site. About 200 water wells are within 1/2
mile of the site, and a municipal water well lies within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The major groundwater pollutant is chromium from wastewater dumping.
Based on a risk assessment, the contaminant levels present in the soil do
not present either a direct contact or inhalation risk. People were
threatened by exposure to contaminated drinking water before the city
water system was extended. Groundwater contamination was
documented in 16 of 200 existing wells sampled. Five of 14 monitoring
wells contained detectable levels of chromium.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
31
continued
-------
ODESSA CHROMIUM #1
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases to provide an alternate
drinking water source and to achieve groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Water Supply: The State negotiated agreements with the city and local
consumers to extend the city water system and to construct a water
distribution system to the affected area. All affected residents have been
provided with an alternate drinking supply while the long-term remedy is under way.
Groundwater Cleanup: The long-term remedy focuses on groundwater
cleanup. The State is taking the lead. Contaminated water will be pumped
from the Trinity Aquifer and treated electrochemically to meet cleanup
standards. The cleaned water will be reinjected into the aquifer, and the site
will be monitored for at least 30 years. The facility at Brazos Avenue is slated for
demolition and disposal. The Texas Water Commission is currently desiqnina the
treatment processes. ./•».»
Site Facts: Under a Cooperative Agreement with the EPA, the State conducted
studies to determine the type and extent of contamination and cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply eliminated the potential of exposure to
contaminants at the Odessa Chromium #1 site while final groundwater cleanup
activities proceed. H
32
-------
ODESSA CHROMIUM #2
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980697114
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 19
Ector County
Andrews Hwy. •
Alias:
Andrews Highway
Site Description———• — —
The 200-acre Odessa Chromium #2 site, located in a mixed residential, commercial,
and industrial area, consists of a series of chromium-contaminated wells. This site is
associated with Odessa Chromium #1, also listed on the NPL Two properties are
suspected of originating the contamination. One, at 5329 Andrews Highway, housed
both a chromium-containing cooling water additive facility and a radiator shop between
1950 and the early 1970s. A leaking subsurface tank was the likely cause of
contamination at this site. The other suspect property is Wooley Tool and
Manufacturing, which used chromates in its cooling water system from 1950 to 1976.
A faulty backf lushing in this system is suspected as a source- of chromium
contamination. Until about 1970, the plant also disposed of chromate-contaminated
wastewater in an unlined pit. Nearly every residence or commercial facility in the
surrounding area is served by one or more water wells tapping the Trinity Aquifer,
which offers the only source of potable groundwater. About 3,500 people live within 1
mile of the site. Residences and drinking water wells are located on the site. There are
approximately 400 private wells within 1/2 mile, and 32 municipal wells are located
within a 3-mile radius. - . , , , •
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
municipal actions.
. NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed' Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with chromium. The soil is
contaminated with heavy metals including chromium, zinc, copper, nickel,
and lead. Contaminant levels in the soil do not pose a health threat,
based on a risk assessment conducted at the site. Ingestion of
contaminated drinking water is a possible health threat. More than 40
acres of the Trinity Aquifer, the only source of potable water in the area,
are contaminated with hexavalent chromium. Fourteen of 318 wells
sampled show a chromium level at or above the drinking water standard.
Four of 8 monitoring wells within an upper perched aquifer and 3 of 12
monitoring wells within the Trinity Aquifer also contain elevated chromium
levels. The affected wells lie outside the city water supply service area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
33
continued
-------
ODESSA CHROMIUM #2
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long term remedial phases to provide an alternate
drinking water supply and to achieve groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Water Supply: State authorities negotiated with local residents to extend
the municipal water supply to affected areas and to build a water
distribution system. Residents have been supplied with an alternate water
source while the long-term remedy is being pursued.
Groundwater Treatment: Workers will pump chromium-contaminated
groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer and a perched water-bearing zone,
treat it electrochemically to meet cleanup standards, reinject the cleaned
^MV water back into the aquifer, and monitor the site for at least 30 years. The
Texas Water Commission began the engineering design of the cleanup technology in
1988. Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The residents around the Odessa Chromium #2 site are now provided with safe
drinking water, eliminating possible health threats while the site awaits final
groundwater cleanup activities.
34
-------
PESSES CHEMIC
COMPANY
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980699656
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Tarrant County
South Main Street in Fort Worth
Site Description
The abandoned Pesses Chemical Company metals recycling facility is located on
approximately 4 acres of commercial property. The facility opened in 1978 to recover
cadmium and nickel from batteries and sludges. This process, for which the operators
had no permits, produced high-level cadmiunrvemissions. Even after permits were
obtained, cadmium levels measured extremely high above permit limits. The company
declared bankruptcy in 1981 and the facility closed. Operators left two thousand 55-
gallon drums of process material behind in an unprotected storage area. Most were
opened, deteriorating, or leaking. Operators had also dumped and spilled recycling
residues onto the ground. When a grass fire started in 1983, a responding firefighter
was overcome by noxious cadmium fumes. Although the owner initially agreed to
remove the drums, this action was never completed and the EPA took over
responsibility for the site. Approximately 19,500 people work or live within 1 mile of
the site. The nearest residence is 1/4 mile east of the site, and the nearest drinking
water well is about 1 mile south.. A drug rehabilitation center with outdoor facilities
adjoins the site to,the northeast. A hospital and five schools are within 1 mile of the
site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of State, Federal, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium, lead,
copper, and nickel. Sludges are contaminated with cadmium and nickel.
The surface water is contaminated with various heavy metals. The most
serious potential threat is contamination of surrounding areas from
airborne dust and surface water runoff. The risk of grass fires also exists.
Children often cross unsecured portions of the site, to reach a playground
and housing development, which are nearby.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
35
continued
-------
PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
i «i?eln? addr.essed ir? *"° Sta9es: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
n The,EPAuremoved3'400cubicyardsof contaminated
drums, wastes, and debris from the site in 1983. Also workers
th«S ? 5 *° ^ch f^ of clean fi" material over the southern fenced
S'te Snd,Seedld !t with grass' ln 1988« the Potentially responsible parties
Entire Site: Workers will excavate contaminated soil and wastes from off
site and combine their cleanup with that of on-site soils. These combined
S «hlKe trf tedjn Place 5V means of a stabilization technique suitable
for shallow soils. The fenced portion of the site around the south
warehouse and office building will receive a concrete cap; a cap also will be placed on
° e ' ^°rkerS Wl" dean the metal warehouse and mPisce?la^eous equTpmTnt
5Slld T f68 Cr^ated, dl^ring this decontamination process will be treated
fnSt Wt'h ** Stab'"Zed Wlth.the soils' Contaminated water will be treated
anri w«r t ^e S6Wer ^ystem' EcluiPment that cannot be cleaned well enough
and water that cannot meet pollution limits will require off-site disposal. The Texas
c^anuD ^n^SI°ThIS ^^^Y deigning the cleanup remedies and will take on all
efflSenes inspected every 5 years for a review of the remedy's
Environmental Progress
em,er9®ncv actions to restrict site access, the EPA and the potentially
Pa, ^ h3^ 9reatly reduced the potential for accidental contact with
mater?'f' The so!' caP installed as part of the emergency action also has
potential threats due to airborne dust or surface water runoff. These
activities have made the Pesses Chemical Company site safer while the State Water
Commission proceeds with the remedy design and final cleanup
36
-------
PETRO-CHEMICB
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873350
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Liberty County
7 miles north of Interstate 10
Alias:
Turtle Bayou
Site Description
Before 1970, Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. disposed of waste oils and other
petrochemical sludges at this 296-acre site. Operators stored waste oils in three
unlined pits on about 5 acres of land north of Frontier Park Road. Other waste disposal
areas were located along the south side of the road. The locations and types of waste
materials are still not fully known. Workers also spread waste oils on the site's roads to
control dust. Waste disposal and road oiling were apparently discontinued in 1970, and
the oil pits were covered. The facility's waste disposal permit was revoked in 1974.
The land was developed and subdivided into residential properties. The nearest
residence is on the site, and the nearest drinking well is 1,900 feet away. As many as
1T families have lived in the subdivision. Numerous shallow wells supply drinking
water to area. Turtle Bayou flows through the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with volatile organic compounds {VOCs)
including xylenes, as well as lead, waste oils, and petrochemical sludges.
Nearby residents may risk exposure through direct contact with
contaminated soil. Numerous shallow wells are the current source of
drinking water in the rural area. Residential wells sampled in 1984
showed the presence of some VOCs, but these were not detected when
the wells were resampled later that year. People using the unpaved road
could be exposed to contaminants through accidental ingestion, direct
contact, and inhalation.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUSWASTE SITES
37
continued
-------
PETRO-CHEMICAL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on Frontier Park Road and cleaning up the remaining site
areas.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The EPA installed a fence in 1986. Two families were
relocated away from the site by the EPA during cleanup. Both families have
returned to their homes.
Frontier Park Road: The road site was excavated, backfilled, and rebuilt in
asphalt. The contaminated materials are now in a double-lined on-site
,—,„, facility awaiting final disposal. The EPA workers improved drainage in the
area and reconstructed the Turtle Bayou crossing. Work was approved as completed in
Entire Site: The Texas Water Commission has begun a study of other
contaminated areas both on and off the site, including areas where wastes
f have been deposited, where contaminants have migrated, or where
potential human exposure pathways exist. Their report is scheduled for completion in
I WWW*
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has greatly reduced the potential
for accidental contact or exposure to contaminated soil and dust along Frontier Park
Road. The two families temporarily relocated during the cleanup have returned to their
homes, and Turtle Bayou again flows freely across the area.
38
-------
SHERIDAN DIS
SERVICES
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD062132147
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Waller County
9 miles northwest of Hempstead
Site Description
Approximately 110 acres of the 697-acre Sheridan DisposalServices site operated as a
commercial and industrial waste disposal facility from 1958 through 1984. A 15-acre
sludge lagoon, a 42-acre evaporation landfarm, 9 storage tanks, and incineration plots
were used for waste disposal. A pond levee around the lagoon was constructed,
encompassing 17 acres. The State ordered the lagoon closed in 1976, and revoked
Sheridan Disposal Services' waste disposal permit in 1984 because the firm lacked
technical and financial resources to adequately close the site. The site is in alluvial
deposits about 250 feet from the Brazos River, within the 100-year floodplain. Elevated
levels of heavy metals were found downstream of the site. The Town of Brown
College, with approximately 60 people, is about 1 1/2 miles north of the site. The
owner and a caretaker live southeast of the site. Land immediately surrounding the site
is agricultural, including pasture and range lands.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with chloroform and isophorone. The
soil and sludge is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
including benzene and toluene, as well as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). The upper aquifer, which is connected to the Brazos River, is
contaminated and is probably connected to the lower Evangeline Aquifer.
The Brazos River, the shallow alluvial aquifer, and Evangeline Aquifer are
used for drinking water supplies. Direct contact to contaminated soil is
unlikely, since access to the site is limited. In 1978, water overflow from
the site killed fish in Clark Lake, but off-site sampling of the Brazos River
and Clark Lake from 1984 to 1986 detected no contamination.
Marshlands lie 3,000 feet east of the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
39
continued
-------
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on soil and sludge cleanup and groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
H
Initial Actions: In 1984, approximately 11 million gallons of pond water
were transferred to the evaporation system for on-site treatment; the pond
t> * * ™nan°,evaP°/ftion system dikes were repaired, strengthened and raised; and
about 6,000 gallons of floating oil were removed and placed in on-site tanks In 1986 a
fence was installed on the top perimeter. Periodic maintenance of the levee system'
also has occurred to prevent flooding of former disposal areas and possible
contamination of the Brazos River. In 1987, parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination lowered the level of the stormwater in the pond.
Soil and Sludges: In order to control the source of contamination the
potentially responsible parties will, under supervision of the EPA use
bioremediation to reduce PCB levels in soil and sludges. Residues of the
treatment having greater levels of PCB contamination will be returned to a
federally approved landfill in the pond area.
Groundwater Treatment: The EPA selected natural attenuation as the
IHf remedy for groundwater contamination. This remedy relies on natural
processes such as sorption and biodegradation to alleviate contamination
_• u SorPtlon is the tendency of natural materials, such as clay, to bind or to
reduce the mobility of contaminants. Biodegradation is a process by which
microorganisms break down contaminants in groundwater. Because groundwater
moves so slowly it is expected to take a minimum of 30 years for the contamination to
be eliminated. The remedy provides for: monitoring of surface water to ensure that
protective levels are maintained in the Brazos River, which would be the first point of
potential exposure to contaminated groundwater; monitoring of groundwater to track
movement of the contaminant plume; and prevention of future use of groundwater as a
source of drinking water for nearby residents through deed restrictions and other
precautions. The remedy also established contaminant concentration limits specifically
for this site, including enforceable water quality measurements which are designed to
ensure that no contamination is found in the Brazos River. Cleanup activities are
scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: In 11987, 58 potentially responsible parties entered into an Administrative
Ofcfef with the EPA to conduct an investigation on the feasibility of various methods of
cleanup. The order was amended to include eight additional potentially responsible
parties. Under a Unilateral Order issued by the EPA in 1987, eight potentially
responsible parties lowered the water level in the pond. A group of parties potentially
responsible for the contamination has formed the Sheridan Site Committee
continued
40
-------
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to secure the site and treat or contain liquid wastes and contaminated
pond waters have greatly reduced exposure risks at the Sheridan Disposal Services
site. The site is'safe while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
41
-------
SIKES DISPOS
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980513956
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Harris County
2 miles southwest of Crosby
Site Description
The 185-acre Sikes Disposal Pits site has been used as a dump for petrochemical
wastes. Between the early 1960s and 1967, the site operated as a waste depository
and petrochemical wastes and numerous drums were deposited in the old sand pits '
Indiscriminate dumping of wastes is found throughout the site. The site is in the
floodplam of the San Jacinto River. It has been flooded six times since 1969 and the
waste overflowed the pit boundaries, contaminating the surrounding area There are
two shallow water-bearing zones, and the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers are found
below several hundred feet of clay. A residential development lies 1,000 feet to the
south. The area immediately surrounding the site is wooded and largely undeveloped
with numerous active and abandoned sand pits and low-lying swamp areas. Sport '
fisherman and water sports enthusiasts use the surrounding river and bayou
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, sludge, and soil are contaminated with
heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene and
xylene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including creosote
phenolic compounds, and halides. The frequent flooding of the area
threatens the San Jacinto River and the Jackson Bayou, both of which are
used for recreation. Although the groundwater contamination in the
shallow aquifer is heavy, no residential wells are currently affected.
Neither surface water nor groundwater contamination has migrated
beyond the site boundaries.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
42
-------
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
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 1983, approximately 40 cubic yards of phenolic tars and
sand were removed by the EPA and landfilled at an off-site hazardous
waste disposal site. The EPA backfilled the pit and covered it with clean
sand. The EPA fenced the site in 1988 and repaired fences that were damaged by
floods in 1989.
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA selected the cleanup remedies for
contaminated soil and water, including on-site incineration of the sludge
and soil, using the residue ash to backfill the excavated areas. The
contaminated surface water on site will be treated as necessary to meet
discharge criteria and then it will be discharged to the San Jacinto River. Natural
attenuation over 30 years is expected to reduce contamination to acceptable levels.
During and after site cleanup, the State will monitor both the upper and lower aquifers,
and they will not be used as drinking water sources. The cleanup design was
completed in 1989, and action is expected to begin in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated tars and sand and fencing of the site has greatly reduced
the exposure potential at the Sikes Disposal Pits site. The area is safe while it waits for
planned cleanup activities, which are soon to begin.
43
-------
SOL LYNN/IND
TRANSFORMS
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873327
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 25
Harris (city of Houston) County
South Loop 610 West
Aliases:
Industrial Transformer Site
Industrial Transformers (Sol Lynn)
Site Description
The Sol Lynn Industrial Transformer site is a 2-acre facility where an abandoned
transformer reclamation and a chemical supply company have operated. From 1965 to
1975, the Industrial Transformer Company operated an electrical transformer cleaning
and recycling facility, which contaminated the soil and groundwater. The owner later
leased the property to Sila-King, a chemical supply company that bought used drums to
resell. Trichloroethylene (TCE) was released during this operation. The area around the
site is a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial facilities. Approximately
2,100 residents live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Four City of Houston water wells
and four private water wells, which serve more than 10,000 people, are within 3 miles
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: 10/15/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in off-site and on-site wells is highly contaminated with
TCE. Sediment samples from a drainage ditch and soils are contaminated
with polychtorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and TCE. It is unknown how deep
the TCE contamination has traveled in surrounding wells. The drainage
pathways and site soils make human contact with PCBs a possible threat.
The site also supports substantial animal and plant life, which are also
threatened by the contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an immediate action and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on source control and groundwater treatment.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
44
continued
-------
SOL LYNN/INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS
Response Action Status
x" Immediate Action: The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination installed a fence around the site in 1989 to limit direct access
to hazardous chemicals.
Source Control: The EPA-selected remedial action for source control at
this site includes excavation of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soil and treatment using alkali metal polyethylene glycolate
_ (APEG) complex dechlorination with on-site disposal of treated hazardous
residues; verifying the effectiveness of the dechlorination process through additional
studies; and pretreatment of liquid by-products, if necessary. The potentially
responsible parties will undertake this phase of cleanup and are currently performing
the engineering design. Work is expected to start in 1991 and continue through 1993.
Groundwater: As part of an agreement with the EPA, the State will
conduct cleanup of groundwater from site contamination. The remedy
entails pumping the groundwater and treating it using an air stripping
process to evaporate the TCE from the water. Cleaned groundwater will
either be discharged to a water treatment facility or reinjected into the water-bearing
zone. The Texas Water Commission is currently preparing sampling plans for additional
investigations of the aquifers at the site. Completion of the engineering design for
groundwater treatment is expected by 1991, at which time construction of extraction
wells and the treatment system will begin.
, Site Facts: In 1981, strong odors originating from the site prompted investigation,
which found approximately 75 punctured TCE drums scattered about the property. A
Consent Decree signed in 1989 made Gulf States Utilities Company responsible for the
' first phases of the cleanup.
By fencing this site, the potentially responsible parties have eliminated the possibility of
contact with contaminants at the Sol Lynn site, while further design and cleanup
activities are being completed.
45
-------
SOUTH CAVAL
STREET
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980810386
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Harris County
ities southwest of Intersection of Loop 610
North and U.S. Hwy. 59
Alias:
Hoppers Co., Inc.
Site Description
The 66-acre South Cavalcade Street site, located in northeastern Houston, was used as
a^wood preserving and coal tar distillation facility from 1910 to 1962. Subsequently the
site was subdivided and parts of the site were sold. This site is associated with the
North Cavalcade Street site, which is also listed on the NPL. Currently, much of the
site is owned or operated by three commercial trucking companies. In 1983 the
Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority investigated the site for potential mass transit
use and found evidence of buried creosote from previous site activities. The EPA's
analysis of historical aerial photographs indicates there are at least three waste pits on
the site that have been filled in or paved over. Beginning in 1985, the EPA sampled all
environmental media and found two discrete areas of contamination at the site
corresponding to the former locations of the wood treating operations and coal tar plant
in the southern portion of the site and a pond previously existing in the northern part of
the site. The site is surrounded by residential, commercial, and industrial properties
• onUo/'500 Pe°P|e reside within a 1-mile rad'us of the site, and the nearest residence
is 200 feet to the west. The nearest water well is 500 feet away, although no private
wells are used for drinking water within a 2-mile radius. A city well exists about a mile
from the site but is screened over at a 600-foot depth and will not likely be impacted by
the site. 1
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
High levels of polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals were found in the shallow zone of
the groundwater. VOCs were found in the sediments. PAHs, VOCs,
heavy metals, and components of creosote were detected in the soil.
VOCs and heavy metals were detected in on- and off-site surface water.
Off site, surface water and sediments pose minimal risk. On site,
workers and trespassers might touch or accidentally ingest contaminants
in soils, sediments, and surface water. On-site activities may stir up dusts
which would be hazardous to inhale.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
46
continued
-------
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET
Cleanup Approach
This site will be addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Based on the site investigation, the remedies for cleanup
selected by the EPA include the following: (1) exqavation and on-site
washing of 19,500 yards of soil and replacing the soil; (2) treatment and
flushing of 10,500 yards of soil in the excavation's washwater; (3) pumping
and treatment of 50 million gallons of groundwater using physical chemical
separation, pressure filtration, and carbon adsorption with reinjection into the aquifer or,
if necessary, discharging to the on-site drainage ditch that flows into Hunting Bayou; (4)
off-site incineration or recycling of all hazardous liquids separated out from the
groundwater; and (5) groundwater monitoring. The potentially responsible parties are
expected to begin design of the technologies to be used for the cleanup in 1990. Site
cleanup is expected to start in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1985, Koppers Company signed an Administrative Order agreeing to
perform the investigation to determine the extent of contamination on the site and to
identify alternatives for cleanup. The EPA is currently negotiating with the parties
potentially responsible for the development of the engineering design and cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After conducting site investigations at the South Cavalcade Street site, the EPA
determined that no immediate actions are currently needed to make the site safe while
awaiting further design and cleanup activities.
47
-------
STEWCO, INC.
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD007328149
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Harrison County
1/2 mile south of the intersection
of Hwy. 9 and Interstate 20
Site Description
The 2 1/2-acre Stewco, Inc. site, located in a mixed residential, commercial, and
industrial zone, consists of two non-adjacent locations. The first location is a 1/2-acre
plot that includes a maintenance shop with fueling facilities, a truck-tank washing
facility, and two backfilled and capped evaporation ponds that received wastewater
from the tank washing operation. The previous owner contracted with the oil and gas
industry to haul glue, resin, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and creosote. The tank trucks
were steam-cleaned between loads with an alkaline solution and the wash water was
routed to a pond to evaporate. The ponds were unlined and in poor condition, allowing
materials to contaminate the soil and groundwater. The second location consists of a
third pond that received excess wastewater conveyed by truck from the evaporation
ponds at the first location. The ponds were to be skimmed to lessen the oil layer on
the surface, but according to the EPA, no record exists of this activity. Thus, when the
ponds overflowed, the surface layer of oil moved with the overflow onto surrounding
drainage areas. The site overlies the Cypress Aquifer. Land close to the site is used for
limited grazing of livestock. Approximately 3,300 people live within 3 miles of the site-
50 residenc.es are within 1/2 mile of the first location, and30 residences are within 1/2
mile of the second location. Approximately 3,100 people living within a 3-mile radius
use groundwater wells for drinking water. The nearest'well is 1,850 feet from the site
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in the first location is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including toluene and xylene. The soil at the" first
location is contaminated with petrochemicals including fluorene and
chrysene as well as VOCs including benzene. Since the removal of
contaminated liquids and sludges from the first location, contamination
threats to the public are remote. However, groundwater contamination
has been identified that is not attributed to the site. The groundwater and
sediments at the second location are contaminated with VOCs including
benzene and anthracene and petrochemical compounds from wash-down
operations.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
48
continued
-------
STEWCO, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA removed contaminated liquids from both
, evaporation ponds at the first location in 1984. The liquids were then
treated and discharged. Pond sludges were removed and disposed of off
site, and the ponds were backfilled with clean soil and capped with clay. The EPA did
not deem it necessary for an emergency removal of any materials from the pond at the
second location. A fence was constructed at the second location to restrict access.
Entire Site: Although it was likely that the majority of the sources of
contamination at the site were removed in 1984, the EPA determined an
additional study would be appropriate. In 1988, the EPA concluded
investigations of potential off-site and active facilities which appeared to
be contributing to groundwater contamination at the site. The additional study
confirmed that residual contamination of soils, 'sediments, and groundwater at the site
posed no threat to public health and that no long-term monitoring Was necessary. The
EPA and the State have determined that remaining groundwater contamination is not
attributed to this site and no further actions are required at the Stewco site. The EPA
and the State will follow up with additional investigations to determine the source of
contamination. If within 2 years the existing monitoring wells at the Stewco site are
determined to be of no further use to the off-site source investigation, they will be
closed.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated waters and sludges from the ponds has eliminated
threats to the public at the Stewco, Inc. site. Although further investigations are being
done to identify off-site sources of the remaining groundwater contamination, surface
contamination from the site has been fully addressed and final site cleanup goals for
these sources of contamination have been achieved.
49
-------
TEX-TIN
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD062113329
CORM1RATION
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Galveston County
Texas City at the Intersection of
Highway 146 and FM 519
Alias:
Gulf Chemical Metallurgical
Site Description
The 128-acre Tex-Tin Corporation site is an active tin and copper smelting metals
recovery and ferrous chloride production plant. The site was developed as a smelting
operation by the U.S. government during World War II and was later sold to private
investors. The site consists of five wastewater treatment ponds, gypsum slurry ponds,
a pond containing about 19 million gallons of highly acidic ferric chloride waste, an area'
of iron sludge contaminated with pesticides, tin slag piles, about 20,000 drums of spent
catalyst, and a landfill containing radioactive waste. Monitoring wells near the acidic
ferric chloride pond are contaminated with copper and tin. An estimated 21,700 people
live within 4 miles of the site. Surface water within 3 miles downstream of the site is
an important source of shellfish and is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal State and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The air is contaminated with tin. The groundwater is contaminated with
copper, tin, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead. Sludges are
contaminated with pesticides. Human health threats include ingestion or
direct contact with contaminated groundwater or sludge and inhalation of
tin from the air. A coastal wetland is within 2 miles of the site and is
threatened by the site contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase-focusing on contaminants at the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
50
continued
-------
TEX-TIN CORPORATION
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The potentially responsible parties installed a fence
around the site to prohibit access to the contaminated materials.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties will conduct an
investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination at the site.
The investigation, planned to start in 1990, will define the contaminants
and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. After completion of the
investigation, the cleanup activities will begin and the contamination of air,
groundwater, and sludges will be reduced to acceptable levels.
Site Facts: The EPA and the Texas Water Commission have been investigating the
site since it was identified in a 1978 survey of waste disposal sites. In 1989, the
potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Orderlo conduct an
investigation into the type and extent of contamination at the site. This mining site is
being proposed for the NPL because it is a noncoal site with mining operations that
occurred after August 3, 1977, the enactment date of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act {SMCRA). Thus, the site is neither regulated by SMCRA nor eligible
for funds from the SMCRA Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program.
JEni>ir»fimen£q! Progress
By installing a fence, the potentially responsible parties at the Tex-Tin site have
restricted access to the contaminated materials, making the site safer while it waits for
investigation and cleanup activities to begin.
51
-------
TEXARKANA
PRESERVIN
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD008056152
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bowie County
Texarkana
Site Description
The 25-acre Texarkana Wood Preserving Company site is an abandoned wood-treating
facility that operated under various owners from 1909 to 1984. When the site was
placed on the NPL in 1985, approximately 793,000 gallons of hazardous waste were
stored in pressure vessels, steel tanks, retention ponds, surge tanks, and three
evaporation ponds. All units were heavily contaminated with creosote and
pentachlomphenol (PCP) used in the treatment process, as well as several by-products
Approximately 200 people live in a largely rural area within a 3-mile radius of the site
The nearest residence is 500 feet west of the site, and the nearest drinking well is
2,400 feet from the site. Groundwater is only 4 to 8 feet below the soil surface-
however, most area drinking water comes from Lake Wright Patman which is not
threatened by contaminants.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of State and Federal
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/29/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
An estimated 16 million gallons of groundwater and 67,000 cubic yards of
soil and sludge are contaminated with PCP and dioxins from wood-
treatment processes. Direct contact and inhalation of site wastes are the
major threats to health. Contamination is periodically spread off site by
runoff, threatening nearby residents and the environment.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on soil and groundwater contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
52
-------
TEXARKANAWOOD PRESERVING COMPANY
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1986, the EPA began an emergency pump-down
of the creosote and PCP ponds and process area. Workers pumped the
liquids to the evaporation ponds. In 1987, the EPA fenced and secured the
site and posted warning signs. Emergency workers returned to the site
later that year when a car accident destroyed a section of the fence. They made repairs
and put up new warning signs, as the old ones had been removed. In 1988, EPA
emergency response workers observed that the main process containment area was at
the point of overflowing and acted swiftly to stop the threat. The crew transferred
contaminated rainwater from the containment to the evaporation lagoons, which had
adequate space and posed no danger of overflow. In the fall of 1989, another pump
down occurred. Berms were also constructed to alleviate the overflow problem.
Soil and Ground water: The State is currently conducting an investigation
into the nature and extent of the soil and groundwater contamination at the
site. The study will define the contaminants at the site and recommend
strategies for final cleanup.
Site Facts: The plant had received three citations from the State for unauthorized
discharges of process waste water into the Days Creek drainage system.
The actions performed by the EPA's emergency response workers to control and
remove contamination at the site have protected nearby residents and the environment
from hazardous substances. The EPA will also be removing lagoon wastes to prevent
the spread of contaminants. These actions have made and will make the Texarkana
Wood Preserving site much safer while the State and EPA perform investigations at the
site to determine final cleanup actions to be taken.
53
-------
TRIANGLE CHEfflCAL
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD055143705
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Orange County
1/2 mile south of Orange County Airport
Site Description
The 2 1/3-acre Triangle Chemical Inc. site contains a brick office building, three metal
process and warehouse buildings, and 26 storage tanks in good condition. From the
early 1970s to 1981, the facility was used for the production of antifreeze, windshield
washer solvent, industrial cleaning compounds, hand cleaners, and brake fluids. In
1981, when a temporary injunction was issued, the company went bankrupt and
abandoned the site, leaving 950 unlabeled drums. There were volatile organic
compounds {VOCs) on site and the surface soil was contaminated with spilled
hazardous materials. This is a moderately populated residential area, with 15
residences and 50 mobile homes within 1/4 mile of site. The nearest drinking water
wells are located more than 3 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air, groundwater, soil, surface water, and liquids in the abandoned
tanks are contaminated with VOCs and various acids. In 1985, the
groundwater was only slightly contaminated, but has increased slightly
since then. Groundwater in the aquifer under the site flows to the
northeast and discharges into Coon Bayou. Some evidence exists that
fish kills in the Bayou were caused by contaminants at the site. The
concentrations of contaminants in the air and surface waters were low
and are unlikely to pose a threat to the nearby population. However, the
site was unfenced for a period, allowing nearby residents to come into
direct contact with hazardous materials.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
54
continued
-------
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the EPA installed a fence to stop public access to
the site. Drums were removed, and contaminated soils were bulked and
solidified and then landfilled along with equipment. In 1985, the EPA fixed
the fence, which had been destroyed by vandals. A drainage canal was dug. About
1,000 gallons of organic solvents, 170 cubic yards of contaminated solids, and one
drum of triethylamine'were removed.
Entire Site: Liquids in the storage tanks and drums were incinerated off
site or injected into a deep well. The storage tank sludges were landfilled
. off site. All on-site structures were decontaminated. Contaminated soils
were plowed and aerated to release contaminants. These actions were completed in
1987. The Texas Water Commission (TWO has completed a supplemental
investigation of the groundwater at the site, including a groundwater modeling study.
The study indicates that contaminants in the shallow groundwater will naturally decline
to acceptable levels prior to reaching Coon Bayou. Additional groundwater sampling
will be conducted as part of site operation and maintenance activities to monitor
contaminant reductions in the uppermost aquifer.
Emtirctnmenttil Progress
The initial actions to secure the site and to remove contaminated materials, as well as
the completed actions to decontaminate and treat remaining contamination areas have
eliminated the threat to residents and nearby Coon Bayou. Final goals have been
achieved for the cleanup of surface contamination. The TWC is continuing to monitor
groundwater at the site to determine when water quality achieves acceptable levels.
55
-------
UNITED CREOSHT
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980745574
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Montgomery County
Conroe
Site Description
The 100-acre United Creosoting site, north of Houston, was once«a wood preserving
facility. From 1946 to 1972, lumber was pressure-treated with creosote and
pentachlprophenoKPCP). Operators disposed of the wastes from the treatment
process in two surface lagoons on site, which are now covered. Prior to salvage
operations in 1972, the site contained a coal-tar distillation still, a processing building,
tanks and pressure cylinders, two waste ponds, and several lumber storage areas.
Only an office building, garage, and the remnants of the waste ponds were left behind
Redevelopment of the abandoned property began in 1977, and the site now contains a
residential subdivision and two commercial properties. In 1980, the County used soils
from the site to improve local roads in a nearby subdivision. Citizens living along one of
these streets complained of headaches, burns, and respiratory problems. Upon
discovering PCP contamination in the soils, the County removed them from the
roadway and disposed of them by tandfarming. Approximately 13,000 people live
within a 2-mile radius. The nearest drinking well is about 2 miles southeast and is
screened 160 feet below the surface.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of State, Federal, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Soils are contaminated with PCP, creosotes, and dioxin. Groundwater
sampling has shown low levels of PCPs and creosote compounds from
contact with soils. The major health threat is direct exposure to
contaminated soils; groundwater contamination is low and is not currently
a major threat to nearby residents or the environment.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
66
continued
-------
UNITED CREOSOTEVG
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions, and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on planned demolition of surrounding houses, and on cleaning up
contaminants at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Ix" Initial Actions: In 1983, under EPA supervision, the potentially responsible
parties covered a highly contaminated area with a synthetic membrane and
6 inches of compacted clay. They also built drainage structures to divert
water away from the subdivision and fenced the area.
Demolition of Surrounding Houses: The EPA's selected remedy for the
site includes demolition of the six houses directly above and next to the
former pond area, then compensating and relocating the residents of the
houses. Title transfers are complete for all properties, and residents have
been relocated in preparation for demolition activities. Demolition of the six houses and
removal of debris is planned to start in 1990. The pond area will be fenced to restrict
access until the permanent remedy can be developed.
Entire Site: The selected remedy for contamination at the entire site is on-
site critical fluid extraction of soil and reburial. The mechanism is similar to
that of solvent extraction and will clean soil to meet existing health
standards. The EPA and the State are conducting a focused site study that
will refine soil volume estimates before they proceed with the remedy's engineering
design.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties, under an Administrative Order from the
EPA, constructed a clay cap and drainage diversion berms to remedy the runoff
problem. Residents are concerned over health impacts from the site; although no
acute health threats exist, residents are asking that the entire subdivision be purchased
and the residents relocated.
Environmental Progress
By fencing, capping, and draining the contaminated area, the EPA has reduced the
possibility of exposure to contaminants to nearby residents. In addition, the relocation
of residents of the homes adjacent to the former waste pond and the pending
demolition of surrounding houses has eliminated any possible exposure at the United
Creosoting site, making the area safe while final cleanup activities are performed.
57
-------
U.S. ARMY LO]
ARMY AMMU]
PLANT
TEXAS
EPA D0# TX6213820529
HORN
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Harrison County
Karnack
Site Description
The U.S. Army Longhorn Ammunition Plant site is situated on approximately 8,500
acres in Karnack. Its mission is to load, assemble, and pack solid propellant rocket
motors and pyrotechnic and illuminating ammunition. The Longhorn Army Ammunition
plant produced TNT flake and acid for ammunition production during WWII. Flake
production ceased and the current mission commenced in 1945. Wastes have been
disposed off in ponds and landfills. Contamination has been confirmed in several areas:
.the active burning ground/rocket motor washout pond area, the TNT (trinitrotoluene)
production area, the flashing area, and the old landfill. Fifty groundwater monitoring
wells have been installed to determine the extent of contamination. An estimated
1,900 military personnel and area residents reside within 3 miles of the site. A creek
used for recreation has been polluted. Freshwater wetlands are located nearby.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Threats and Contaminants
Surface water, groundwater, and soil at areas of the site have been
shown to be contaminated with heavy metals, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), munitions-related wastes, petroleum, oil, and lubricants. These
materials were predominantly deposited at site areas during operation of
the base during WWII. The creek used for recreational purposes has been
polluted with wastes from the site and freshwater wetlands located
nearby may be threatened.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
58
continued
-------
U.S. ARMY LONGHORN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, the Army constructed a cap over the rocket motor
washout pond area to limit further migration of contamination.
Entire Site: The Army expects to commence a comprehensive
investigation into the contamination at several areas on the site in 1990.
Initial studies have confirmed two sources for VOC groundwater
contamination beneath the active burning ground and have identified a third potential
source. The studies have concluded that the contaminant plume has not moved
significantly in 30 years, nor migrated off the post. The additional investigation planned
for 1990 will further define water and soil contamination and identify the appropriate
cleanup activities.
Site Facts: The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), a federally funded Department of Defense (DOD)
mechanism to identify, investigate, and control hazardous waste on military or other
DOD installations.
Environmental Progress
With the construction of a cap to limit contaminants from migrating off the post, the
Longhorn Army Ammunition site does not currently present an immediate threat to the
public or the environment. Once the Army has completed its studies and determined
the cleanup alternatives, the final remedies to clean up the entire site will be selected
and the final cleanup to begin.
59
-------
-------
\
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
; fact sheets for the State of Texas. The terms and ab-
breviations contained in this glossary are often defined
in the context of hazardous waste management as described in
the site fact sheets/and apply specifically to work performed
under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms may
have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
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
G-l
-------
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.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of holes in a landfill where waste is
dumped, compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of water, such as streams, come together.
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.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract between EPA and the states wherein a State agrees
to manage or monitor certain site cleanup responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycydic 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.
Decommission: To revoke a license to operate and take out of service.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes, soils, or chemicals.
G-2
-------
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very good
oxidizing agents and, therefore, have many industrial uses. They are rarely found by
themselves; however, many chemicals such as polyehlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and dioxin are reactive because of the presence of
halogens. , '
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.
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.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.tj: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is discharged into receiving waters.
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.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often day or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering of water or other liquids through subsur-
face rock or soil layers, usually continuing downward to groundwater.
G-3
-------
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.
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.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundwater flow
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, and the den-
sity of contaminants.
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
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.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure. Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment. Radon, which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionudides which, when ingested, can also cause
G-4
-------
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid used for disposing wastes and to contain
overflow from production facilities. Sometimes retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store waste.
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.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the process of recovering spent solvents.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, in-
cluding liquid waste materials. .
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate info 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.
G-5
-------
GLOSSARY
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-6
------- |