\
                                            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,_*'\x™t''.. ^% %^-.-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

-------

-------