\
EPA/540/4-90/046
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Virginia
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...
.111
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume
NPL SITES:
A State Overview.
.xvii
.xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets
.G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
"
: 7 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
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
kw 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
INTANDEM
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.
-------
TA
-------
T% he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
1 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
h Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
Vll
-------
Tfr. STEPl:'
jHow doe^tPA leaap.^
'about potentials -- i^l
It f - - *"«-v$£8i»^
hazardous waste^, -
> sites? " N-^^s
f*v\-s
>yhat happens if
there is aj
danger?
f
r
r
*, JL.
^"^'
**K^4*V^
. .
-------
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
shows
tfsat aserioms l&reat
* % >.
***ma# exist, wturifc the
* 'How does J
* the limits pi the, "
slif inspection?
IX
-------
How <3o people find
,'out whethe*.B£4 L x%;
a site a ^ ^
^cleanup using
money? 0 '1
t * >-. < ..%
> t >i t -k v-KSx 5? ^
it f ip [tufa-, ^ * ^ s% s ^^^^^^^;^^S
itiiinn i i 4 » 1 t tr^" -" ' s^**^^*
IIM Ill'
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (MRS). 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). Thars why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have then-
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.
"ttte steps to
--- - ,r --^^
V
XI
-------
w, iS
.v » ^ ;. j. x
:*yv%v,-v ^s^- L -
S:^VSXX1SV1!
*. ^v-- -^ >^'
, v ^*S»SS^
,\ V . "t^CW^
!How are
iltematives
^identified kndf
r
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.
f Does tlie public j^ave>v- \
|,a say m the jfinatl^^jo j
"cleanup
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
xii
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice/are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
" ,.v ",-]; v ,.> vX *s»
""S:X,.. , **&ya$
-v~ «" " VW.V.V.W.JXVJ. * v ^y-^C-v " ;
^0^%'*"^%~xX« -" ^-"-^
^gWu&i 5\^ ,, v Ssif * >? %> " 5
^^'^^"w- NKF^ «
"v..% %^ -. s ^ < %^w.v.v.vX% X^1 "" ?
Nw. ' f vv.;.-.-.^ -y-Xv-v. ,3, ^ ., ,s .
: . *« *w vA.y. % ^ v. * V % *« v XO £?* '* wMw«vS
. V* XV-V V.V-S. ^ * W >^% V.V.V&V?
\ >vTX*A%'.v-'.X^.v>'.v. w.-. v >Xv.v.v. ^'N^v^vJ'.'.v.v, v,v>^
"" « V ^ r'vv% 'v'"'^" ff %. v. "~ "* ."*
'^3?-^ ?\^ % >W\X*W$SCC>% > ^^*<* N
JV"-1^. SVSS'"I.VV%%J«.V.^.\\VLV. S^OV. . %% < VW-.V.-.S V.W, \\.v?*v.v.w
x«-V"₯-^^;-~ ;j^v^ZL -ft.*^'" -----.y.--
*.^, ^--^ ^ t;* v - -< * ^ .-.-^f-x-i
^SX\ % '^^ \ \\-.%-.-.-.-.\-.^ 5^-\ v
^^x^C^-v % ^ % % c*'?*^1''^
% J*1*" *"* » « ^x-\\x- '<;*» ««%* %s
,4, ,-X^l - ^^ C*, ,-, -^ , ,5>-5 X N ,x4
%M- \s w. v.%^ ** * % J
^ ^ ^fsvj "** ^^vv^V-V ^v»»">* ~^\ *|
" ff ^- ^\x-%-. vuwi^f^'" % *"i_ ^
* f . 'v.vx v % - *'v-\. ~" 5 ,^y^
.f^<^> %* ^f f f <''.'
^VXVM-VAV-XV.'.I.V, V V ^ ....<... j- ' »
v v. v^ j. "~ ~- MV^J' %. % X %f -"
.-.\\\\v. ^'w^ \ ^."- -,\%\v^
^>V--*"--.-.-.-. % \ . ^1 ^ * - vC^ X t v^. v""^
^.^-, " ^ r r <,<~,*.t 'X'%% " « ^ < .. i
^. "* -4* ^wy.Wff.^w.v. \
, ,taiiojre4to a site/ does
^ \\\v-. ^ _J|\. x % %w.w.vv,. v, -K-Vrf."-- ^
"-tfee resign of 49xe \"" !
^ ^ v. '>%. -. «-/ j-v.1. '-^j. ^ % i
> '''''* "« \ "K '* wvKwSv- * 5
^^cesaed j need to Be ;
**tiasSSito^-""^^ 7-
^S "%"^ Vr^s^y5»»SS
, .\:J_\ S>^ ^
^
\^XX% * » ^V.
' " '-.'I, «>s ^X *5-"^v--.^- -
A. %?. ^ ?**,' >»y %cx<- i < % *£ 5v t
% f ^ t ^ ^ <*^v «v % xv fjf.
'....y ^ ;%^s*y^»- - - . ^-i ^ \ /,,
"«,'' * .v ^ -Sx 55X;X 'S\^ " % ~ ^ !
*sx ^.. ,s,-.-. << "" * v\ ,, %-;
"" ^^ ^x ^^ % ^; % ^ ^ ^ %;
N:.^^ %%> ^5X^ -.isv^M,_*'\xt''.. ^% %^-.-K«%-%vx*x^-x-^%5
xiii
-------
SUPEKFUND
**»>
vto.
complete, how long ^
does it take to
actually cl<
-^1
does It cost?
f rt<
* ^ \
fix i ».
\\x
Once tKe cleantsp
the site automatically
NFL?
: ^_
: J
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
"vS^X
$&
% ''&.W. .
^5-Xv.Xb^
"' *»%£
\v.v,v.\
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
, are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
arid 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
itial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
XVlll
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized'are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
% , s s
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 informatipn on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
Commonwealth
The Commonwealth of Virginia is located on the eastern seaboard, bounded by the
Atlantic Ocean on the east and surrounded by North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia
and Maryland. The State covers 39,704 square miles, consisting of mountain and valley
regions in the west, including the Blue Ridge mountains, rolling piedmont plateau,
tidewater or coastal plain, and the eastern shore peninsula. Virginia experienced a 12.5
percent increase in population through the 1980s and currently has approximately
6,015,000 residents, ranking 12th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include
services, trade, government, manufacturing, tourism and agriculture. Virginia manufac-
turing produces textiles, transportation equipment, electric and electronic equipment,
food processing and chemical products.
How Many Virginia Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
4
16
1
21
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01, 06 2 sites
Cong. District 03, 05 3 sites
Cong. District 04 4 sites
Cong. District 07 6 sites
Cong. District 09 1 site
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
20y
15--
j§ 10-1-
«J
1 8t
4 --
Soil GW SW Seds Air Solid &
Liquid
Contamination Area
Waste
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Heavy metals (inorganics), creosote
(organics), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and creosote
(organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and
creosote (organics).
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
'Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* ?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 14 sites as interim cleanup measures
Who Do ! Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Virginia, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Virginia Superfund Office
EPA Region III Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region III Superfund Public
Relations Office
(804) 225-2667
(215)597-8132
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(215)597-9905
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
c»ate Overview
XXII
-------
The NPL Progress Report -
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow K-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- 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
-------
jrruj
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
36
gratis JLUWUXU VslCiiUUp 0.1
Site Name
ABEX CORP.
ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATES/SCOVILL
ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES
AVTEX FIBERS, INC.
BUCKINGHAM COUNTY LANDFILL
C & R BATTERY COMPANY, INC.
CHISMAN CREEK
CLARKE, L A. & SON
CULPEPER WOOD PRESERVERS
DIXIE CAVERNS COUNTY LANDFILL
FIRST PIEDMONT ROCK QUARRY
GREENWOOD CHEMICAL COMPANY
H&H, INC. BURN PIT
MATTHEWS ELECTRIC PLATING
RENTOKIL, INC.
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE
SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL
SAUNDERS SUPPLY COMPANY
I ViCJLt OllCd J.
County
PORTSMOUTH
WESTMORELAND
PORTSMOUTH
WARREN
BUCKINGHAM
CHESTERFIELD
YORK
SPOTSYLVANIA
CULPEPER
SALEM
PITTSYLVANIA
ALBEMARLE
HANOVER
ROANOKE
HENRICO
FREDRICK
SMYTH
SUFFOLK
U LUC
NPL
Prop
Prop
Prop
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Deleted
Final
Final
Final
Final
: OLttLC: UJ. vjnguuuet
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
06/16/88 4- 4-
06/24/88 4- 4-
06/01/86 4- 4-
06/01/86 4- 4- 4- 4-
09/25/89 4-
07/01/87 4- *
09/01/83 4-4-^-4- 4-
06/01/86 4- 4- 4-
10/04/89 4- 4-
10/04/89 4- 4-
07/01/87 4-
07/01/87 "4- 4- 4- 4" 4-
03/31/89 4- 4-
12/27/88 4-4-4-4- 4-4-
03/31/89 4- 4-
06/01/86 4-4-4-4- 4-
09/01/83 4-4-4-
10/04/89 4- 4-
-------
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
38 SUFFOLK CITY LANDFILL SUFFOLK Final 02/21/90
40 US DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER CHESTERFIELD Final 07/01/87
42 U.S. TITANIUM NELSON Final 09/01/83
XXV
-------
-------
* \ % ''Wv'v.
-------
-------
ABEX CORP.
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980551683
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
City of Portsmouth
Portsmouth
Site Description
The Abex Corp. site covers 2 acres in Portsmouth. The company operated a brass and
bronze foundry from 1928 to 1978. Abex produced parts such as brake shoes and ball
bearings for railroad cars. The EPA estimates that lead was released to the air at a rate
of 10 pounds per day from a 1-acre process area and that 3,500 cubic yards of lead-
laden furnace sands were dumped into an adjoining 1-acre area. In 1984, the EPA
identified elevated levels of lead in the fill area and in residential lots next to the fill area.
Abex has found significant soil contamination around both the landfill and the old
process areas. Approximately 10,000 people live or work within 1 mile of the site. A
number of those residents live either on or immediately adjacent to the lead-
contaminated soils. The site also is adjacent to an elementary school.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Threats and Contaminants
The air has been contaminated with heavy metals including lead, copper,
and tin. Soils exhibit high pH levels and are contaminated with lead.
Human health threats include direct contact with soil, surface water, and
air. No groundwater is used as a drinking water source within 3 miles of
the site. In 1986, the EPA sampled home surfaces that demonstrated the
presence of contaminated air.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ABEX CORP.
Response Action Status
immediate Actions: In 1978, Abex graded the site and surrounded it with
fencing topped with barbed wire. The Company also covered much of the
old landfill with asphalt, excavated some areas adjacent to the landfill, filled
them in and revegetated. The site is secured against direct contact with contaminated
areas while cleanup actions are pending.
Entire Site: The State of Virginia is scheduled to conduct site
investigations in 1990 to determine the extent of the contamination and to
recommend cleanup technologies. Investigations are expected to be
completed in 1991. Once completed, the EPA will evaluate the study findings and
select final cleanup remedies to address contamination at the Abex Corp. site.
Site Facts: On August 11, 1986, EPA and Abex signed an Emergency Consent Order
which required Abex to reduce human exposure to lead to the levels that do not
constitute an imminent threat to health.
Environmental Progress
While the investigations leading to a permanent solution for the site contamination are
being conducted, the Abex Corp. site has been securely fenced and most exposed
sources of contamination have been excavated or covered to eliminate the direct
exposure to hazardous materials or air at the site.
-------
ARROWHEAD
ASSOCIATES
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD04291636
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Westmoreland County
Near Montross
Site Description
The Arrowhead Associates/Scovill site is located on 25 acres in a rural area near
Montross. The Scovill Corp. electroplated cosmetic cases from 1966 to 1972, when
Arrowhead, Inc. of Delaware acquired the business and its assets. Arrowhead
continued the electroplating operations until 1979. During 1979 to 1981, Arrowhead
also filled the cases with cosmetics. From 1981 to the present, several other firms
have assembled and filled cosmetic cases on the site, and from 1975 to the present,
wiring harnesses for automobiles have been manufactured on the site. Plating wastes
were treated in a surface impoundment system and discharged to Scates Branch under
a permit issued through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
After the plating operations ended in 1979, process equipment and materials were
abandoned at the site. An estimated 1,100 people obtain drinking water from shallow
private wells within 3 miles of the site. A coastal wetland is about 1 'mile from the site
and local surface water is used for recreational activities.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HIStORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Many drums of cyanide-containing wastes, heavy metals, and other
plating wastes and raw materials including solvents such as benzene and
trichloroethylene from the former electroplating operations remain on the
soil at the site. Five sludge beds contain elevated levels of chromium,
cyanide, and other hazardous substances. The Virginia State Water
Control Board detected cyanide, copper, and zinc in the discharge from
the settling pond to Scates Branch. Elevated levels of cyanide, chromium,
and other hazardous substances were detected in a settling pond on site.'
People currently working at the manufacturing facility were not restricted
from entering the abandoned electroplating process hazardous waste
area; therefore, the potential risk for having touched hazardous materials
exists.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WAST ESITES
3
continued
-------
ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATES/SCOVli/jv
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate response and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Ix** Immediate Response: To date, the Scovill Corp. has removed 300 drums
containing benzene, paints, lacquers, thinners, metal plating wastes, and
cyanide from the site. Contaminated surface water and soils were removed
from six lagoons on site. All wastes and waste residuals have also been removed from
inside the building. Final closure of the six lagoons is expected to be completed in the
summer of 1990.
Entire Site: The Virginia Department of Waste Management and the EPA
have approved a work plan developed by Scovill to investigate potential
contamination of groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils at the
site. The study will also evaluate the possible remedies to clean up any contamination
identified. In 1989, Scovill began conducting an investigation to determine the
contaminants affecting the groundwater. The results of this investigation and a study
to determine the alternative technologies for cleanup are expected to be completed in
1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, Scovill Corp. signed a Consent Orc/erwith the EPA requiring
Scovill to develop and undertake a cleanup plan. In 1989, Scovill and the Virginia
Department of Waste Management signed a Consent Order and Agreement requiring
Scovill to conduct an investigation to determine the extent of contamination and the
alternative technologies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of the contaminated drums, soils, and surface water from six
lagoons at the Arrowhead site have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials while it awaits further cleanup activities and the selection of a permanent
cleanup alternative.
-------
ATLANTIC
WOOD INDU
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD9907104
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Portsmouth
Tjniles from Chesapeake Bay on South
Branch of the Elizabeth River
Alias:
Atlantic Creosote
Site Description
The 47 1/2-acre Atlantic Wood Industries site houses an active wood-treating facility
that has been in operation since 1926. Contaminants from the wood preservatives
used by the facility are present in the soil and water. Sediments and 20,000 cubic feet
of land filled wood chips are contaminated with creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP)
as well. According to the State, wastes on site have entered the groundwater and are
infiltrating a city storm sewer that discharges into an intertidal drainage ditch which is
part of the South Branch of the Elizabeth River. In 1982, 350,000 gallons of
contaminated water in leaking aboveground storage tanks were removed. The site is
on the Elizabeth River, about 7 miles from the Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 14,000
people work within a 1/2-mile radius of the site. The water supply for a 3-mile radius
area is provided by public utilities. Groundwater within the 3-mile radius is not used as
a water source.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
Benzene, toluene, xylenes, and naphthalenes have been measured in the
air. Creosote, PCP, and other contaminants from former wood-treating
processes have been detected in the groundwater and soils. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are in on-site and off-site sediments. Off-
site sediments also contain phenol and PCP. PCP, arsenic, and chromium
have been detected in surface water near the site. Direct contact with
and ingestion of soil on site could harm people, and touching materials
that have moved off site or breathing dust from the site also pose threats
to health. Oyster beds are located within 3 miles downstream. Studies
by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science have shown that oysters within
this reach have accumulated significant levels of creosotes.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES
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: The parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination agreed to remove the creosote-contaminated drainage ditch.
Currently, the parties are designing the technical specifications for the ditch
cleanup, which is planned for completion in 1990. Removal of the ditch will end the
migration of creosote into the Elizabeth River.
Entire Site: A study to determine the nature and extent of contamination
related to the site is under way. The investigation also will address
techniques for site cleanup and is planned for completion in late 1990. Once the study
is completed, the EPA will evaluate and select the most timely and effective remedies
for permanent cleanup of the site.
Site Facts: A Consent Order to conduct a removal on site and to initiate site studies
was signed by the potentially responsible parties in 1987.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required to protect the public or the
environment while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place at the
Atlantic Wood Industries site.
-------
AVTEX FIBERS, IN<
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD070358684
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Warren County
Front Royal
Site Description
A rayon manufacturing plant has operated at this 440-acre site since 1940 under various
owners including American Viscose from 1940 to 1963; FMC Corporation from 1963 to
1976; and its present owner Avtex Fibers, Inc. There are 23 unlined surface
impoundments on the site that were used to dispose of rayon manufacturing wastes
and by-products as well as fly ash and boiler room solids; in 1983, these activities were
stopped. Since then, the waste has been routed directly to the on-site wastewater
treatment plant. State studies have detected groundwater contamination under and
across the river from the site.. In 1982r the State found carbon disulfide in wells in a
residential area near the site. Avtex purchased the properties with contaminated wells
in 1983 and 1984. A groundwater pumping system to keep contaminated groundwater
from moving was installed by Avtex in 1984. The plant held a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge its effluent into the
Shenandoah River until the fall of 1989. From 1987 to 1988, a significant number of
violations of the NPDES permit occurred. Approximately 1,300 people live within a 3-
mile radius of the site and depend on the use of groundwater as a drinking water
supply. The site is situated within the 100-year floodplain of the Shenandoah River.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with carbon disulfide, phenol, sodium,
and heavy metals including lead, arsenic, and cadmium from wastes
deposited in the disposal pits. The soil is contaminated with carbon
disulfide, phenol, arsenic, and lead. People may be threatened by drinking
or swallowing contaminated water or soil, and inhaling dust from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
AVTEX FIBERS, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on groundwater cleanup and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, Avtex supplied bottled drinking water for
four families and assisted one family in building a cistern.
\ Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the
\SH5V' groundwater which includes pumping and treating the groundwater;
lt\^S»! dewateringand covering the open viscose basins; monitoring the
groundwater; and placing deed restrictions prohibiting the use of
groundwater on the properties affected by contamination. Avtex pumped and treated
the groundwater under the direction of the State. FMC Corporation is currently
performing the treatment design for the selected remedy.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently negotiating with FMC Corporation to
perform a study to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to
identify alternatives for cleanup of the remaining disposal areas and the
South Fork of the Shenandoah River.
Site Facts: FMC Corporation signed a Consent Order and Avtex entered into an
Administrative Order with the EPA in 1985. EPA issued an Administrative Order to
FMC Corporation and Avtex Fibers on June 30, 1989 requiring the performance of a
study to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives
for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Providing bottled water to affected residents eliminated immediate threats at the Avtex
Fibers site while the EPA and the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination continue investigations and site cleanup activities.
-------
BUCKING
LANDFILL
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD0890:
TY
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Buckingham County
Virginia Route 640 near
the town of Buckingham
Aliases:
Love's Container Service
Love's Hazardous Waste Site
Site Description
The Buckingham County Landfill encompasses approximately 8 acres, including a 1-
acre hazardous waste site and a 7-acre solid waste landfill. The site is situated on 175
acres of wooded land. Love's Container Service operated as an unlicensed landfill
from 1962 until February 1972. In November 1972, the Virginia State Board of Health
(VSBH) issued a permit to the facility to dispose of municipal waste. In 1977, the
permit was modified to allow the disposal of chemical wastes that a local
furniture-making industry generated. In 1979, the solid waste landfill operation was
closed and covered to the satisfaction of VSBH; however, the facility received Interim
Status as a hazardous waste disposal facility. Subsequently, the facility accepted
approximately 1,250 drums of used organic solvents and flammable liquids and solids.
These wastes were poured into a clay-iined evaporation trench. After the liquids were
poured into the trench, the empty barrels were buried in a separate trench. The solid
residue remaining after the liquids had evaporated was then dug out and emptied into
hazardous waste trenches. Buckingham County purchased the site and retained its -
hazardous waste disposal permit in 1982; however, the site was never operated by the
County. In 1983, the County closed the hazardous waste portion of the site in
accordance with State regulations but not within EPA requirements. An estimated
1,100 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water.
Approximately 40 people live within 1/2 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 09/25/89
Threats and Contaminants
The EPA sampled the site in September 1983 and found that on-site
groundwater and some off-site residential wells were contaminated with
chromium and beryllium from former disposal practices. Soils were
contaminated with heavy metals and solvents. Potential risks exist if
individuals drink contaminated groundwater or make direct contact with or
swallow contaminated soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
BUCKINGHAM COUNTY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
are scheduled to conduct an investigation beginning in the fall of 1990 to
determine the extent of contamination. This investigation will suggest
various cleanup alternatives. After completing the investigation, an engineering design
will be developed and cleanup activities to reduce the levels of contaminants in the soil
and groundwater to acceptable standards will begin.
Site Facts: On November 8, 1985, the EPA terminated the landfill's Interim Status of
Operation and closed the non-hazardous waste disposal portion of the landfill, which
had remained open after the partial landfill closure in 1983.
Environmental Progress
After listing this site on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations at the
Buckingham County Landfill and determined that there were presently no immediate
threats to nearby residents or the environment. Once the investigations into cleanup
technologies are completed, they will be reviewed by the EPA and the permanent
cleanup of the site will begin.
10
-------
C & R BATTE
COMPANY, I
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD049957!
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Chesterfield County
Richmond
650 feet from the James River
Site Description
The 4 1/2-acre C & R Battery Company site is located in a rural and industrial area.
Between 1969 and 1985, the company recovered lead and lead oxide from old
automobile and truck batteries. In 1982, the company detected high levels of lead in an
on-site monitoring well, in soils, and in drainage ditches leading to the James River.
The population within 1 mile of the site is approximately 300. An estimated 1,200
people draw drinking water from private wells that tap the contaminated aquifer within
3 miles of the site. The nearest well is about 1,250 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
/A
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring of the air at several work stations during battery breaking
operations indicated lead contamination levels well above the standard.
The company detected high levels of lead in an on-site monitoring well
and in soils to a depth of 15 feet. Surface water was found to be
contaminated with heavy metals and acids. Drinking, eating, or touching
contaminated soil, surface water, or groundwater may pose potential risks
to people. Inhalation of contaminated particles in the air may also pose a
health risk to individuals. Prior to 1986, during routine health screenings,
some company employees were found to have elevated levels of lead in
their blood. Portions of the James River 3 miles downstream are
designated wetlands and are used for recreational purposes. The river [
shows no sign of contamination from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
n
continued
-------
C & R BATTERY COMPANY, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: The EPA took emergency action at the site in the
summer of 1986. Soils and pools of acid on the site were treated with lime
, to reduce acidity. Some contaminated soils were excavated and stored
pending final disposal. Drainage controls were installed, and the site was graded,
capped, and fenced. Direct access to contaminated areas of the site was restricted by
fencing.
Entire Site: The EPA initiated an investigation in March 1988 to determine
the extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative
technologies for its cleanup. The study was completed in early 1990. The
EPA is currently reviewing the results of the site investigation to select a
final remedy for the C & R Battery site.
Site Facts: The Commonwealth of Virginia took numerous enforcement actions at the
site between 1979 and 1984. Actions resulted in a court order requiring a cleanup plan,
construction of a treatment plant, and reclamation of the site. During site inspections in
1983, The Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noted
numerous violations of current OSHA standards. In 1985, Chesterfield County forbade
the C & R Battery Company from further operation due to OSHA violations.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions performed by the EPA, including the removal of acids and
contaminated soils and capping and fencing the site, greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the C & R Battery Company site while further
investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
12
-------
CHISMAN CR
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980712913
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
York County
Suburban York County
Alias:
Chisman Creek Disposal
Site Description
The 27-acre Chisman Creek site consists of four fly ash pits in a watershed of the
Chisman Creek Coastal Basin. These pits were originally sand and gravel borrow areas
but were filled with fly ash from the Yorktown Power Generating Station between 1957
and 1980. In 1980, and in subsequent studies, evidence of trace metals was found in
groundwater near the pits. In 1980, off-site shallow residential wells became
contaminated with vanadium and could no longer be used. These homes were later
connected to public water. Several homes remain on private wells in the area.
Approximately 500 to 1,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
L
Threats and Contaminants
Vanadium, nickel, selenium, and sulfate have been found in groundwater
near the four fly ash pits. Surface water in Chisman Creek has been
shown to be contaminated with vanadium, nickel, and sulfate. Drinking
contaminated groundwater poses a risk to the public; however, potential
risks have been reduced because residences with contaminated wells
were connected to the public water supply. The subsurface fly ash and
pond sediment materials should not pose a public health threat in their
present covered location. However, should these materials be disturbed
and contaminate surface areas, they could pose a threat to the public and
increase the potential for direct contact with contaminated soil.
March 1990
NPL. HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
CHISMAN CREEK
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases, focusing on groundwater and soil cleanup and on the contamination in
the pond areas and surface water.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Virginia Power Co., the party potentially responsible
for site contamination, connected public water lines to affected residences,
placed covers over pits, and conducted groundwater diversion in selected
areas, under the supervision of EPA.
Groundwater and Soils: Cleanup work included: (1) installing temporary
erosion and sedimentation control facilities; (2) relocating the creek adjacent
to one of the pits; (3) installing horizontal groundwater drains to collect groundwater
and cfewaterone of the pits; (4) installing discharge pipes and a tie-in to a discharge; (5)
constructing flow and water quality monitoring stations and outlet channels; (6) capping
of the fly ash pits using a low permeability cap and soil cover; (7) revegetating the
disturbed areas; and (8) installing an on-site treatment system to treat collected
groundwater from the pit area to remove nickel and vanadium. All cleanup actions
were completed as planned.
Pond Areas and Surface Water: Surface drainage modifications will be
made to divert runoff. This will include water quality monitoring and
sediment monitoring of ponds, tributaries, and estuaries. A treatment plant
has been constructed and treatment of the groundwater is under way. The
treatment facility will be in operation until groundwater standards are met.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed with Virginia Power Co. to conduct site
cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Most cleanup actions have been completed as planned at the Chisman Creek site,
making the surroundings safe again for nearby residents and the environment while
final modifications to surface drainage and treatment of groundwater continues to
reduce contamination levels at the site.
14
-------
CLARKE, L.
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD007972482
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Spotsylvania County
IFredericksburg
/4 mile north of Massaponax Creek
Site Description
LA. Clarke & Son, a railroad tie and wood treatment plant, is located southeast of
Fredericksburg. Wood preserving operations began at the site in 1937 and have
continued through 1988, with one inactive period lasting approximately 1 year from
1979 to 1980. The facility is no longer in operation. During the past 50 years, creosote
contamination that resulted from facility operation spills, waste streams entering the
drainage ditches, and on-site disposal has affected the soil, groundwater, surface
water, and sediments. Historical aerial photography indicates that from at least 1953
through 1975, wastewater was disposed into two concrete-lined pits. Also, an area
north of the process facility received wastes. Overflow from the concrete pits was
stored in an earthen pit. Excess water was also discharged to drainage ditches and
sprayed on the ground around the storage yard to control dust. Four additional
wastewater pits which date back to 1937 were filled in by 1979. In 1975, L.A. Clarke
& Son, Inc. was issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for outfalls from two on-site drainage ditches; these permits are still in effect.
Sixty-three homes are located within a 4,000-foot radius of the site, and 1,500 people
live within 1 mile of the site. The population within 3 miles of the site is 4,500. The
shallow contaminated aquifer underlying the site has only limited use at the present
time as a source of drinking water, but has the potential for wider use in the future due
to increased development in the area.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
The shallow aquifer underlying the site is contaminated with creosote
derivatives from former site activities. Sediments, soils, and surface water
are contaminated with creosote compounds and by-products including
polynuclear aromatics (PNAs) and benzene. Potential health risks exist if
people inhale contaminated vapors or dust or accidentally ingest or touch
contaminated soil, sediments, or surface water. Exposure to
contaminants also could occur from wading or swimming in Massaponax
Creek, West Vaco Pond, or Ruffins Pond. Fish and waterfowl may be
potentially contaminated and could pose health risks to individuals who
consume them.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
CLARKE, L. A. & SON
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases designed to clean up the
soils and the groundwater and sediment.
Response Action Status
Soil: The EPA completed an investigation into the extent of the site
contamination in 1988. Based on this study, cleanup plans for this phase
will include in-place soil flushing and on-site landfarming (soil
__ biodegradation) of contaminated soils and sediments. An estimated
118,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil will require treatment. Excavation, dredging,
and on-site consolidation of contaminated sediment, subsurface soil, and buried pit
materials will also be addressed in this phase of the site cleanup. In the spring of 1990,
the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Potomac (RF & P) Railroad began designing the
technologies to be used in the cleanup. Cleanup work is scheduled to begin in the fall
of 1990.
Groundwater and Sediment: In the spring of 1990 the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination began a study to determine the
, w extent of groundwater and sediment contamination and to identify
alternative technologies for cleaning up the site. Future plans include monitoring of
groundwater.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed with RF & P Railroad to conduct the first
phase of the cleanup work. The Decree became effective in the fall of 1989.
Environmental Progress
After placing the LA. Clarke & Sons site on the NPL, the EPA performed a thorough
investigation of site conditions and determined that the site does not presently pose an
immediate threat to the public or the environment while the investigation to select the
final remedy solutions is taking place,
16
-------
CULPEPPER
PRESERVER
VIRGINIA
EPA IDS VAD0591652
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Culpepper County
f~fl Catalpa District on the
hi outskirts of Culpepper
\r
Site Description
Culpepper Wood Preservers, Inc. is an active wood treating facility using a chromated
copper arsenate (CCA) waterborne treating process on a 20-acre site. The
two-part wood treatment process begins by pressure-treating dimensional lumber in a
housed processing plant. The wood is then moved to a dripping pad and left to dry for
3 days. The dripping.pad is uncovered, and CCA-contaminated drippings were allowed
to drop directly to the ground. In early 1981, approximately 100,000 gallons of CCA-
contaminated wastewater escaped from an unlined, on-site waste impoundment
contaminating neighboring surface waters. An estimated 8,750 people live within a 3-
mile radius of the site. Approximately 1,750 persons draw drinking Water from private
wells within that distance; the remaining population uses the Culpepper municipal
system which draws water upgradientof the contaminated area. Over 40 residences
that are located within 2,000 feet of the site rely on groundwater for their drinking
water supplies.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 10/04/89
ZE
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with arsenic and chromium from the
wood-treatment processes, according to analyses conducted by the
Virginia State Water Control Board (VSWCB). Contaminated soil was
removed from the site in 1983; however, some remaining soil
contamination might still be present.. Potential risks exist for individuals
who drink contaminated groundwater or surface water. The VSWCB
determined in 1986 that homeowner wells were not contaminated. An
unnamed tributary that lies 750 yards northeast of the site and extends
approximately 3 miles before entering Jonas Run could potentially be
contaminated. Contaminated groundwater or surface water may also
affect recreation and fishing.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
CULPEPER WOOD PRESERVERS
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In response to enforcement actions in 1981, the site
owner removed a quantity of contaminated soil, constructed new drip pads
to ensure return of drips and runoff to appropriately contained treatment
facilities, built a roof over the drip pads, and reconstructed the waste
impoundment. In addition, 20-foot trenches were dug downstream from the
impoundments to catch leachate, and barrier walls were constructed to prevent further
migration of contaminants.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
are currently negotiating with the EPA to conduct a study to determine the
extent of contamination and to identify alternative technologies for the? ,
cleanup. The study is expected to be complete in 1992. Once the
investigations are completed, the EPA will select final cleanup remedy for the site, with
design of the selected remedy and final cleanup actions slated to start soon thereafter.
Site Facts: One of the potentially responsible parties signed a Consent Agreement and
Consent Order requiring certain cleanup actions and a surface water and groundwater
monitoring plan. In April 1985, the EPA issued a Notice Letter informing another
potentially responsible party of its responsibility for operations at the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions performed at the Culpepper Wood Preservers site have reduced
the potential for contact with hazardous materials and have limited further
contamination at the site. These actions have stabilized conditions at the site while
final site investigations and cleanup remedies are being sought.
A
18
-------
DIXIE CAVERN
COUNTY LANDF
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980552095
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Salern County
Roanoke County
Site Description
This 27-acre site, known as the Dixie Caverns County Landfill, is located on a 62-acre
property and was operated as an unlicensed landfill from approximately 1965 to 1976
The landfill was officially closed in 1976, although it was never capped. The landfill had
been used for disposal of municipal refuse, scrap metal, sludge, fly ash (emission
control dust) from an electric arc furnace, and other unidentified industrial wastes. An
intermittent stream on the site flows through a large drum pile and fly ash pile and then
empties into the Roanoke River approximately 2 miles southeast of the landfill. The
river is the main water supply source for the City of Salem. The nearest water intake is
located in Glenvaar, 4 1/2 miles downstream of the landfill. Within 3 miles of the site,
an estimated 1,990 people reside in 525 dwellings, which are served by private water
supply wells. The closest residence is located approximately 1/2 mile south of the site.
The Dixie Caverns, a local tourist attraction, is located 1 mile downstream of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
County actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site sludge pit soil was found to be contaminated with aromatic
and polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) from former disposal practices. Organic chemical
contamination was also found in the soils in the drum disposal area.
Runoff water from the fly ash pile has contaminated the drainage area
with metals. Contamination also has been found in stream sediments
immediately downstream of the fly ash pile. Conditions at the site
threaten groundwater and surface water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
DIXIE CAVERNS COUNTY LANDFILI,
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA conducted a site inspection in 1983 and
observed four potential sources of hazardous waste contamination; a drum
disposal area, a sludge pit, a fly ash pile, and uncontrolled leachate from the
site entering local streams. The County of Roanoke has cleaned two areas of the site.
Drums and contaminated soils have been removed from the drum debris area and
sludge and contaminated soils have been removed from the sludge pit. The County of
Roanoke is also complying with an order from the Virginia State Water Control Board to
eliminate leachate discharge from the site to the nearby intermittent stream.
Entire Site: The EPA currently is investigating the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site. The study will define the contaminants and will
recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is planned
to be completed in 1991. Plans for cleanup of the fly ash pile area of the site include
treatment and on-site landfilling of wastes. The cleanup of the fly ash pile has presently
been delayed, pending a decision on whether the treated fly ash can be disposed of as
a solid or hazardous waste.
Site Facts: The EPA brought about an agreement with the County of Roanoke to
conduct removal actions at the site. The County agreed to clean up the sludge pit,
drum disposal area, and the fly ash pile.
Environmental Progress
The EPA cleaned up two areas of the site; contaminated soil was removed from the
drum debris area and the sludge pit. These immediate actions have reduced the
potential of exposure to hazardous materials while the planned cleanup of the ash pile
and remainder of the site are being considered.
20
-------
FIRST PIEDM
QUARRY
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980554984
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Pittsylvania County
Near Beaver Park
Alias:
Compton Farm
Site Description
The 4-acre First Piedmont Rock Quarry, part of a 182-acre farm, was leased by First
Piedmont Corporation in 1970. Between 1970 and 1972, First Piedmont disposed of
15,000 gallons of liquid waste generated by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company into the
quarry. The Virginia State Health Department ordered the site closed after a fire,
possibly caused by spontaneous combustion of waste materials buried in the quarry.
First Piedmont Corporation subsequently capped the site with 2 feet of local soil. The
site is adjacent to a residential development of approximately 260 people.
Approximately 380 people live within 1 mile of the site and an estimated 1,800 people
are within 2 miles of the site. Contaminants in soils on site have the potential of
migrating into groundwater that serves an estimated 1,700 people within 3 miles of the
site. . .
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federaland potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date:. 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Early sampling has shown elevated levels of heavy metals including
arsenic, chromium, lead, and zinc from former disposal practices in the
soils on the site. Elevated levels of lead and zinc have been found in
surface water. Iron and manganese were detected at low levels in two of
the residential wells. An initial investigation showed no immediate threats
to residents. Potential risks to individuals exist if they make direct contact
with or ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soils. Nearby
Lawless and Fall Creeks could potentially be affected by site
contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
21
-------
FIRST PIEDMONT ROCK QUARRY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the extent of contamination and
to identify alternative cleanup technologies was started in late 1987 by the
parties potentially responsible for the site contamination. The results of this
work are expected to be available in 1990. At that point, the EPA will select a cleanup
remedy to address the site contamination.
Site Facts: In December 1987, First Piedmont Corp., Corning Glass Works, and
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company signed a Consent Orcferto conduct an investigation
into the extent of the contamination and to identify alternative technologies available for
cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding the First Piedmont Rock Quarry site to the NPL, the EPA performed
preliminary investigations and determined that no immediate threats to nearby
residents or the environment presently exist. Once the results of the current
investigation are reviewed, the EPA will select the final cleanup methods.
22
-------
GREENWOOD
CHEMICAL CO
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD003125374
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Albemarle County
ff
Newton
Site Description
The 15-acre Greenwood Chemical Company site operated as a chemical manufacturing
plant for 40 years. The now inactive site manufactured specialty chemicals for the
industrial, pesticide, and pharmaceutical trades. The facility ceased operation in 1985
after a toluene explosion and fire killed four workers. Waste disposal within the 10-acre
site includes 5 waste treatment lagoons, approximately 500 buried drums, 100 drums
on the surface, and an unknown quantity of contaminated soil. Drums were broken,
leaking, and uncapped; soils were stained and vegetation was stressed. There are
approximately 1,600 people within 3 miles of the site. The site is surrounded by
homes, farms, and community buildings. Private wells within 3 miles of the site are the
sole source of drinking water for an estimated 1,600 people. The nearest well is within
600 feet of one of the site's lagoons. The site threatens an unnamed tributary to
Stockton Creek, about 3,200 feet downslope from one of the lagoons and along the
pathway of surface water migration. Stockton Creek is used for-fishing. .
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in on-site groundwater include volatile
organic compounds {VOCs) including toluene and chloroform from former
plant operations. On-site lagoon sludge contains VOCs including toluene
and benzene, as well as cyanide. Potential health threats include direct
contact, inhalation, and ingestion of contaminated groundwater and
sludges. There is also the possibility of contamination of the aquatic food
chain. . ,
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
GREENWOOD CHEMICAL COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on groundwater monitoring and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Emergency actions performed by the EPA included:
excavation and disposal of an estimated 500 previously buried drums;
^,. ,.... removal and disposal of an estimated 100 surface drums; draining and
treating liquids from three lagoons; removal and stabilization of sludges and underlying
soils from three lagoons; and removal and disposal of all shock-sensitive, explosive,
highly flammable, or highly toxic materials.
Groundwater Monitoring: In 1987 and 1989, the EPA installed a network
of groundwater monitoring wells and continued investigation of the
groundwater contamination.
Entire Site: The EPA conducted an investigation into the nature and
extent of the soil and groundwater contamination at the site. In late 1989,
an EPA final decision selected off-site incineration as the remedy for
, , contaminated soils associated with the on-site lagoons. An engineering
design is expected to be started in 1990. Also, the EPA has completed an investigation
of the nature and extent of the remaining contamination at the site. A remedy selection
for the remaining contaminated areas is expected later in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The numerous emergency actions performed by the EPA eliminated immediate threats
to nearby residents and the surroundings. After further investigations have been
completed and reviewed, the EPA will make a final selection of the cleanup alternatives
for the Greenwood Chemical Company site.
24
-------
H & H, INC.
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980539878
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Hanover County
1/2 mile south of Farrington
Site Description
The 1-acre H & H, Inc. Burn Pit site was used by Haskell Chemical Company for
disposal of solvents containing printing inks and paint manufacturing wastes between
1960 and 1976. These materials were transported in drums from the Haskell factory in
Richmond to the site and were emptied into a shallow unlined pit and burned. EPA
sampling in 1984 indicated that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were being
discharged off site through surface drainage. Approximately 600 people live within 1
mile of the site. The nearest residence is 1/2 mile away, and the nearest well is about
1,000 feet away. About 2,400 people draw drinking water from private wells within 3
miles of the site. Surface waters within 3 miles downstream of the site are used for
fishing.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with low levels of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene, as well as heavy
metals including chromium, barium, and beryllium from former site
activities. Leachate is contaminated with VOCs including phthalates, vinyl
chloride, toluene, and xylenes. Sediments are contaminated with PCBs
and metals. Soil is contaminated with PCBs, metals, and phthalates.
Although the source of contamination has been removed, there is a
potential that a contaminant plume may still affect private wells. The
contaminated aquifer Is the sole source of drinking water for residents in
the area. The site runoff drains into an area designated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service as a freshwater wetland within 3,000 feet of the pit.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
H & H, INC. BURN PIT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In response to a State order, H & H, Inc. and the
Haskell Chemical Company removed contaminated soil, installed monitoring
wells, and took measures to control erosion and sedimentation in 1982.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently studying the nature and extent of ,
groundwater, soil, and other contamination at the site. As a result of this
, ^ study, the EPA will recommend alternatives for cleanup. The study is
planned to be completed in 1990. Once the study has been completed, the EPA will
select a final cleanup method for the site.
Environmental Progress
Immediate actions performed at the site, including the removal of contaminated soil,
installation of monitoring wells, and erosion control have greatly reduced the potential
for exposure to contaminants at the H & H Burn Pit site while further investigations are
being completed.
26
-------
MATTHEWS
PLATING
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD9807129
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Roanoke County
2 miles west of Salem
Site Description
From 1972 to 1977, the 1 3/4-acre Matthews Electric Plating site, housed a facility that
plated automobile bumpers with a process using chromium and nickel. Beginning in
1975, surface and groundwater contamination associated with the electroplating
operation was noted in the area by residents. Liquid waste from the operation had
been discharged directly onto the ground and drained to a sinkhole beneath the
property. The Virginia State Water Control Board {VSWCB) began residential monitoring
in 30 wells. Subsequent investigations were performed by VSWCB and the EPA to
determine the extent of the contamination. In 1976, the VSWCB issued an Emergency
Order that prohibited the further discharge of electroplating waste from the plant. The
facility went out of business in 1977 and was used as a small-scale pig farming
operation. The population within 3 miles of the site is approximately 3,000 people.
One on-site well and ten local residential wells are contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through a
combination of Federal and State
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deletion Date: 12/27/88
Threats and Contaminants
L\
Groundwater was contaminated with chromium residues from the former
electroplating operations. Soil was contaminated with chromium, nickel,
and cadmium. People who accidentally touched or ingested
contaminated groundwater or soil were at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
MATTHEWS ELECTRIC PLATING
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1979, the owner of the property removed waste
materials, constructed diversion ditches, and covered parts of the area with
clay. In 1988, the EPA removed approximately 1,500 gallons of waste
solution and sludges.
Entire Site: The EPA's remedy included construction of an extension of
the municipal water supply from the water treatment plant in Salem. The
EPA constructed the waterline and 28 homes were connected in 1986. In
1987, the EPA conducted sampling and results showed no further action was needed.
This site was deleted from the National Priorities List in December 1988.
Site Facts: Potential human health and environmental hazards were first identified
when concerned residents notified the VSWCB of discolored drinking water in
November 1975.
Environmental Progress
By removing waste materials, constructing diversion ditches, covering the site with
clay, and extending a municipal water supply to affected residents, the contamination at
the Matthews Electric Plating site has been eliminated. Following subsequent site
evaluations, the EPA, in conjunction with the Commonwealth of Virginia, determined
that the site no longer posed a threat to human health or the environment and deleted
the site from the NPL in 1988.
28
-------
RENTOKIL,
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD071040752
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Henrico County
Northwest of Richmond near 1-95
Alias:
Virginia Wood Preservers
Site Description
The 10-acre Rentokil, Inc. site was a wood preserving plant and ceased operations in
early 1990. Virginia Properties, Inc. owns 5 acres and leases the adjacent 5 acres from
an affiliate of the RF&P Railroad. The original plant was built by the. Virginia Wood
Preserving.Company in 1956. Since 1982, the operation used only the chromated
copper arsenate (CCA) process to treat wood. In previous years, pentachlorophenol
(PCP), creosote, chromated zinc arsenate, xylene, ammonium phosphates, and sulfates
were also used. Preserving processes also required the plant to use mineral spirits and
fuel oil. Operators disposed of chemical wastes in an unlined lagoon until 1974. In
1976 or 1977, workers buried 1,100 to 1,400 pounds of CCA at the site. They also
improperly installed several wells, later abandoned, which may have spread
groundwater contamination. The area is mixed light industrial and residential, on the
outskirts of Richmond. The population within a 1-mile radius of the site is about 1,500.
When the site was placed on the NPL, approximately 350 people were drinking water
from wells drilled into the aquifers of concern. Runoff from the site enters nearby
wetlands and an unnamed stream that flows into North Run. Occasionally, stormwater
flows off site into the municipal storm sewer and the stream. North Run is used for .
swimming and is located within 1 1/2 miles of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
IA
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with PCP,
creosote, copper, chromium, arsenic, and dioxin from former wood
preserving operations. Potential risks exist if individuals accidentally
consume contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil.
Contaminated surface water may have an effect on nearby livestock or
crops if it is used for watering or irrigation.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
29
continued
-------
RENTOKIL, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
X* Immediate Actions: In 1987, public water lines were extended to
residents living next to the site, at Rentokil's expense. Later that year, the
owner removed some contaminated organic s/udgefrom an on-site, unlined
surface impoundment and had the sludge incinerated.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
began an intensive study of the site in late 1987. This investigation will
explore the nature and extent of water and soil pollution and will
recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is slated for completion in mid-
1991 . Once the investigations are completed, the EPA will evaluate the findings and
will recommend actions and will select a final remedy to clean up the contamination at
the site.
Site Facts: In 1987, Rentokil and the EPA signed a Consent Order to conduct a study
to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for
cleanup.
Environmental Progress
By extending public water lines and removing and incinerating contaminated sludges,
immediate threats at the Rentokil site have been eliminated while further investigations
and cleanup activities are taking place.
30
-------
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980831796
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Frederick County
6 miles west of Winchester
Alias:
Winchester Tire Fire
Site Description
The Rhinehart Tire Fire site is located on Mt. Pleasant. It originally served as a storage
area for 5 to 7 million tires until they caught fire in October 1983. The smoke plume
rose several thousand feet and spread a 50-mile long trail across four states. An EPA
emergency team controlled the fire within a few days, but the fire continued to smolder
for 6 months. Hot oil from the burning, melting tires quickly entered nearby Massey
Run. The migrating o\\ and firefighting residues also have contaminated the site and
local waters. The site is located in an agricultural area. Approximately 75 people live
within a 1-mile radius of the site, and two people live on the site itself. Residences use
private wells for drinking water. The site drains into Massey Run which flows 4,000
feet downstream of the site to Hogue Creek, a trout stream that flows into the
Potomac River. A municipal water supply intake is 22 miles downstream of the site.
There are two ponds on site, the larger of which is unlined. The smaller 50,000-gallon
lined pond collects runoff irom the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86 .
IA
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic,
cadmium, and lead as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including toluene and xylene. Sediments have been contaminated with
oils and residues from the tire fire, as well as heavy metals such as
arsenic, cadmium, lead, and nickel. The soil is contaminated with metals
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from tire burning. Massey
Run and other surface waters are contaminated with various heavy metals
and VOCs. Human exposure to contaminants may occur by inhaling,
touching, or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, surface
water, sediments, and soils. Eating trout with bioaccumulated
contaminants from Hogue Creek is a health threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
31
continued
-------
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: EPA emergency workers extinguished the tire fire
and removed more than 800,000 gallons of oily wastes released by the
burning tires. A lined catch basin was installed to trap the oil and to.provide
water for firefighting, and a monitoring program was initiated to identify
contaminant levels on and off site. The oily wastes were recycled into fuel oil and then
sold. Under orders from the EPA, the owner was required to build dikes and ditches for
drainage control and to collect and pump this water to minimize migration of wastes
from the site. The owner has also undertaken extensive excavation and regrading
activities and has restricted access to the site. These emergency activities have suc-
cessfully controlled the immediate threats to the public and the environment.
Entire Site: The final remedies selected for site cleanup in 1988 include:
(1) instituting soil erosion controls; (2) raising the existing dam on the
unlined pond by 13 feet; (3) collecting and treating surface water runoff with
gravity settling; (4) collecting shallow groundwater oily seeps; and (5)
separating water from oil and transporting it to a wastewater treatment plant. The EPA
completed the engineering designs for the selected remedies in 1989. Cleanup and
protective measures are scheduled to begin in 1990. In addition, the EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers are conducting an intensive study to investigate the potential
adverse impacts to groundwater and surface water, and to select the actions needed to
clean and restore the existing collection ponds and other off-site areas affected by the
tire fire. This study, which will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup, is
expected to be completed by late 1990.
Site Facts: The site owner agreed, under the terms of a 1984 Administrative Order, to
install surface runoff controls and to perform other activities to control contaminant
migration.
Environmental Progress
The numerous emergency actions performed by the EPA and the potentially
responsible parties have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials
and for the further migration of contaminants while final investigations and cleanup
activities are taking place at the Rhinehart Tire Fire site.
32
-------
SALTVILLE WASTE
DISPOSAL
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD0031275,
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Smyth County
Next to North Fork of the
Holston River near SalMUe
Aliases:
Saltville Muck Pond #5
Olin Corp. Saltville Waste Disposal Pond #5
Olin Corp. Saltville Waste Disposal Pond #6
Site Description
The Saltville Waste Disposal site consists of two large ponds, 45 and 80 acres in size,
and an empty lot next to the North Fork of the Holston River (NFH'R). The empty lot
once held a mercury cell chlor-alkali battery plant operated from 1951 to 1954 by Olin
Mathieson Alkali Works and from 1954 to 1972 by Olin Chemicals Corporation, the
current site owner. The waste disposal practices at the plant resulted in as many as
100 pounds of mercury being lost daily to nearby soil and rivers adjacent to the site.
Workers placed mercury-contaminated wastewater and process waste from soda ash
manufacture into the two large ponds, known as ponds #5 and #6. Mercury escaping
from the site contaminated 80 miles of the NFHR. Approximately 1,140 people live
within 1 mile of the site. The nearest residents are located 1,300 feet from the site.
The community's drinking water is obtained from uncontaminated surface springs.
Since 1970, people have been advised not to eat fish from the contaminated stretch of
the river, although catch-and-release game fishing is permitted. Because the Holston
River flows through both Virginia and Tennessee, a task force of EPA, Virginia,
Tennessee, and TVA staff was organized to study the mercury contamination problem.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Mercury from the plant's waste disposal ponds has contaminated soils
and surface water. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of soil or
surface water or eating contaminated fish from the Holston River pose a
health risk. The NFHR is a habitat for two endangered species remaining
in the river: the fine-rayed mussel and the spotfin chub. Six other
endangered species have been eliminated from the river.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
33
continued
-------
SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term
remedial phases focusing on source control, groundwater cleanup, and biomonitoring.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1982, Olin Corp. dredged 1,000 feet of the river to
remove mercury-contaminated sediments and built a diversion ditch along
the western edge of waste pond #5.
Source Control: An investigation of the site called for surface water
diversions, construction of a treatment plant for pond #5 outfall, and future
investigations. The cleanup activities selected for this site have been
organized into two separate categories to facilitate the work. Phase 1
addresses cleaning up the source of contamination and assessing its effects; Phase 2
focuses in more detail on groundwater and surface water contamination. The selected
remedy features: (1) building a diversion ditch around the eastern side of pond #5; (2)
building a facility that will treat pond #5's outfall to within the State levels for mercury;
(3) conducting a bioassessment of the NFHR to determine the extent of site impacts on
resident fauna and flora; and (4) developing a groundwater monitoring system. The
owner began the engineering design for this remedy in 1988. Cleanup activities are
scheduled to start in mid-1991. Remedial design of these technologies is currently
under way.
Groundwater Cleanup: A study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup is under way. The
owner will conduct an intensive study of the site that will assess
groundwater contamination and its biological impact of contaminated groundwater
discharge into the adjacent river systems. This investigation started in 1988 and will
identify the best cleanup strategies.
Biomonitoring: A study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup has begun. An
extensive investigation will be conducted to determine the past, current,
and future impact of the site on the North Fork of the Holston River. The study will
focus on sediment and several species of biota. Selected cleanup strategies will be
based on the extent of the impact.
Site Facts: In 1982, the Olin Corp. and Virginia signed a Special Order under which the
owner was to dredge 1,000 feet of the river to remove contaminated sediments and to
construct a diversion ditch along the edge of the western portion of waste pond #5.
The order also required monitoring of the outfall, fish, and sediments until 1988. Under
the terms of a 1988 Consent Decree, Olin Corp. will implement the remedy and
conduct a site investigation that will assess groundwater contamination at the site and
the biological impact on the NFHR.
continued
34
-------
SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions to dredge contaminants from the contaminated sediment of the
North Fork of the Holston River and building the diversion ditch to prevent mercury-
contaminated outfall from entering the river have reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Saltville Waste Disposal site while it awaits planned
cleanup activities and further studies.
35
-------
SAUNDERS SUPB
COMPANY
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD0031173
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Suffolk County
Chuckatuck
Site Description
The 3 1/2-acre Saunders Supply Company site is an active wood-treating operation.
Between 1964 and 1984, workers used a mixture of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and fuel
oil as a wood preservative. In 1974, they added a chromated copper arsenate process,
which is still in use. Part of the spent PCP/oil mixture was disposed of by burning it in
an unlined pit or in a conical burner on site, which resulted in the generation of dioxin
compounds. EPA tests in 1984 detected elevated levels of chromium in Godwin's Mill
Pond Reservoir, a source of drinking water for more than 30,000 people in Suffolk. The
Suffolk water treatment plant, however, reported that levels in treated drinking water
were well within safety limits. The tests also found PCP, chromium, and arsenic in the
Columbia aquifer, which supplies private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Approximately 1,300 people live within 3 miles of the site, and about 700 people are
served by municipal water systems within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with lead, cadmium, and PCP from
wood-treating process wastes. The soil is contaminated with arsenic,
chromium, copper, and lead. An off-site reservoir is contaminated with
chromium, arsenic, lead, and aluminum. Workers or trespassers may be
at risk from inhalation of contaminated dust and particles or through direct
contact with contaminated soil. The groundwater flow is reported to be
toward the reservoir, a primary drinking water source. A nearby
freshwater wetland may be threatened by site contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
36
continued
-------
SAUNDERS SUPPLY COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
* Immediate Actions: In 1983, the Saunders Supply Company excavated
some contaminated silt from the conical burn pit and transported it to a
State-permitted landfill. The owner also installed a recovery well and
pumped contaminated groundwater out of the well, recycling it back into the wood
treatment system.
Entire Site: The EPA is currently conducting an intensive study of
contamination on the site. This investigation will also identify the best
cleanup strategies for the situation. Completion is slated for late 1990, at
which time the EPA will make a selection of the final cleanup method.
Environrheritdl -Progress
By excavating contaminated silt, installing a recovery well, and pumping contaminated
groundwater out of the well, the potentially responsible parties at the Saunders Supply
Company site have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated resources while
the EPA conducts further studies into site contamination and selects the final remedy.
37
-------
SUFFOLK CIT
LANDFILL
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980917983
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Suffolk County
On Route 604 within the City of Suffolk
Site Description
The 67-acre Suffolk City Landfill is owned and managed by the City. It operated from
1967 to 1984 and is now closed. The City covered, graded, and replanted the landfill in
1988. The unlined landfill accepted primarily municipal solid wastes and, in 1983,
received a State permit to accept municipal wastes. On-site disposal of highly toxic
pesticides is the primary concern. Dixie Guano Company disposed of 27 tons of
chemicals into a portion of the landfill in 1970. The area is rural and agricultural.
Approximately 2,500 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of
the site. Surface runoff from the site discharges into two unnamed tributaries to the
Great Dismal Swamp, a major freshwater wetland.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and liquids in retention basins are contaminated
with various pesticides from former disposal practices. Potential health
hazards include drinking, eating, or touching contaminated groundwater
and soil. The site is not fenced, making it possible for people and animals
to come into direct contact with hazardous substances. The potential
exists for the Great Dismal Swamp to be contaminated from the site
runoff.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
38
continued
-------
SUFFOLK CUT LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under orders from the State, the City of Suffolk has agreed to
conduct an intensive study of soil and groundwater contamination at the
site, to determine its nature and extent, and to recommend strategies for its
cleanup. The study is scheduled for completion in 1992. Once the investigations are
completed, the EPA will evaluate the recommendations and will select a final cleanup
technology.
Site Facts: The City of Suffolk signed an Administrative Order of Consent with the
State requiring the City to perform studies and cleanup actions at the site.
Environmentdl Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that there currently are no immediate threats to nearby residents or the
surroundings at the Suffolk City Landfill site while further investigations and cleanup
activities are taking place.
39
-------
U.S. DEFENSE
SUPPLY CEN
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VA3971520751
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Chesterfield County
2 miles south of Richmond
Alias:
:hmond Defense General Supply
Site Description
The Defense General Supply Center manages and furnishes general military supplies to
the Armed Forces and several Federal civilian agencies. The 1/2-square-mile site
includes a hazardous waste landfill, a fire training pit, and storage areas where
hazardous substances were spilled. Beginning in 1942, the site was used as a storage
and recovery area for chemicals and as a reclamation area for drums. The pits were
used for training and for the disposal of chemical waste from the mid-1960s to the late
1970s. In 1983, the pits were filled in with soil and covered with sparse vegetation.
Groundwater on and off the site has been shown to be contaminated from past waste
disposal practices and hazardous waste spills. Groundwater and surface water flow
from the site toward Kingsland Creek, a tributary of the James River. There are 119
permanent residences on the site. About 3,500 people live within 1 mile of the area in
a residential and suburban setting. Residential areas dpwngradientof the site rely on
private wells and the municipal water system for drinking water. Kingsland Creek is
used for recreational fishing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with chloroform, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and chromium from former chemical wastes disposal
practices. Sediments are contaminated with pesticides. The soil is
contaminated with VOCs and pesticides, and the surface water on site is
contaminated with metals and pesticides. People who accidentally touch
or consume contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments
may be at risk. In addition, recreational use of contaminated streams and
water may pose a threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
40
continued
-------
U.S. DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases concentrating on
groundwater and cleanup of the other contaminated areas of the site.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The Defense General Supply Center is currently studying
the type and extent of groundwater contamination at the site. The study,
slated for completion in 1990, will recommend alternatives for cleaning up
the groundwater.
Other Contaminated Areas: Contamination has been identified in
separate study areas that will be addressed in future cleanup actions. The
Supply Center will initiate a study of the type and extent of contamination
associated with the landfill areas, fire training pit, and storage areas where hazardous
substances were spilled. These studies will be conducted between 1990 and 1992 and
will define the contamination for each area and identify alternatives for site cleanup.
Once completed, the EPA will select cleanup remedies to be carried out by the Federal
Government.
Site Facts: The Defense General Supply Center is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), the specially funded program established in 1978 under
which the Department of Defense (DOD) has been identifying and evaluating its past
hazardous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from
these sites.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to control the disposal pits have limited the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials. The studies being conducted at the Defense General Supply
Center will identify the cleanup alternative technologies that will best remedy the
contamination at the site. Once a final selection of the cleanup method has been
made, cleanup actions will be initiated to reduce site contamination to standards
established for the site.
41
-------
U.S. TITANIUM
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980705404
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Nelson County
the town of Piney River
Alias:
Piney River Disposal Site
Site Description
The 50-acre U.S. Titanium site covers the northeastern portion of a parcel formerly
occupied by an American Cyanamid Co. plant. Between 1931 and 1971, the company
mined and refined titanium ore and manufactured titanium dioxide for paint pigments.
A titanium mine, a processing plant, settling ponds, tailing ponds, lagoons, and a waste
disposal area are located on site. Heavy metals and ferrous sulfate. a by-product of
titanium dioxide manufacture, are the primary contaminants at the site. The site has
been divided into seven separate contamination areas that require cleanup. Ferrous
sulfate is highly acidic, and storm runofffrom the site's waste piles contributed to six
major fish kills in the Piney and Tye Rivers from 1977 to 1981. More than 200,000 fish
died during these events. Although recent work has greatly improved conditions at the
site, acidic runoff still threatens the Piney River. The closest residence is 1/4 mile from
the site. Piney River, the town in which the site is located, has a population of
approximately 100, and approximately 200 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site.
Local residents use groundwater for their drinking water supply.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is highly acidic and contaminated with manganese, iron,
nickel, zinc, and sulfates from the former plant operations. Sulfates, zinc,
and highly-acidic wastes are found in seeps off site. Sludges are
contaminated with iron, and off-site surface water is contaminated with
manganese and iron. Drinking and touching contaminated groundwater
poses only a slight threat since no well contamination has been detected
and municipal wells are located upstream from the site. Drinking or
touching contaminated surface water, although unlikely, and eating
contaminated fish also could threaten health. The acidity of the water and
waste seeps could harm skin as well as increase the solubility of metals,
which could enter water. This stream has not supported a viable
recreational fishery due mainly to the impact from titanium operation over
the last 40 years. The fishery has improved since plant operations were
stopped in 1971.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
42
-------
U.S. TITANIUM
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: American Cyanamid agreed in 1986 to undertake a temporary
remedy for the burial pit and to begin an intensive study of site conditions
and contamination. This work resulted in selection of final remedies for the
site and the signing of the EPA final decision in 1989. Seven areas have
been pinpointed for treatment. A passive system will collect and treat iron-bearing
acidic groundwater. French drains and trenches will bear the water to an oxidation and
settling pond, a constructed wetland, and a limestone treatment bed. The copper in
Area 1 will be dissolved and treated. Drainage controls and revegetation will be
implemented in Areas 2, 3, 4, and 5. Area 6 requires no action. Acidified soil in Area 7
will be mixed with lime to neutralize any leachate. Other features include monitoring,
road maintenance, and deed and access restrictions. These strategies are deemed
completely effective for reducing acidic and iron discharges to acceptable standards.
The engineering design for these remedies is planned to start in 1990 and cleanup
activities are scheduled for mid-1991. Completion of all cleanup activities is scheduled
for mid-1993.
Site Facts: American Cyanamid signed a Consent Agreement in April 1986 agreeing to
complete a temporary source control action for the burial pit and to begin investigations
at the site.
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that there currently are no immediate threats to nearby residents or the
environment. The potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the U.S. Titanium
site is low while further investigations and cleanup activities are undertaken.
43
-------
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 Bisulfide: A degreasing agent.formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and organic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also cause chemical reactions that increase its
hazard to human health and the environment.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecticide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This salt is used extensively as a wood pre-
servative in pressure-treating operations. It is highly toxic and water soluble, making it
a relatively mobile contaminant in the environment.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order, [see Administrative Order on Consent].
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.
Dewaten To remove water from wastes, soils, or chemicals.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh water from rivers and salt water from nearshore
ocean waters are mixed. These areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes,
and lagoons. These water ecosystems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and wildlife.
G-2
-------
Fly ash: Non-combustible residue that results from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain system constructed of perforated pipes,
which is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party that consists of a written proposal demonstrat-
ing a potentially responsible party's qualifications and willingness to perform a site
study or cleanup.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
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.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
G-3
-------
lls-Jt MV^lS^**** Jfcli
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
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.
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.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
G-4
-------
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.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land surface in which drainage collects; associ-
ated with underground caves and passages that facilitate the movement of liquids.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
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].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream or other water body.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-5
-------
------- |