United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/4-90/042
September 1990
vvEPA National
isf Sites:
TENNESSEE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
EPA/540/4-90/042
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Tennessee
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, Supeifund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxm
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
.%%% V. S f f . \ \ ^ , '. % . ^ >. %* ,.,.. , \
. . , f %>%. -.-. c ^ s V « V> % J- " ^ x -
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
ii
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
? s the 1970s came to a
s% 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
-------
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32/000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory/ and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
«he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
; waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
> establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous .waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
VII
-------
tow does &PA learn
j«| 111 (f imlnnpSjii'* Hm r> r.(i(uu *rnmrtrl" 1WC
lazardous waste
WK vi, ^ v T, -» XKS- ^^ ^ ^, v.^
FWhat happens It
Altere Is ait l
^danger?
ill!
there isn't
immijtient
w does BP&
1* j. t ,.«*!*
fdetetmine w|iatf if
.- - ............ -->. « - ~*v. ,.
|sho«ld
f.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
« What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases> the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
- - vx H*%%% ^ % _ s o-* * >" -
-. - f ^ WA ... ^\\sw ^ v *.
%S ^ <*.f <*' J2,* * ' "-^-H.* %- i-s **i-^^~^^ -3
x ^^ v\ ^ ^-5- -*v*r^ c"" '^-=^x«^
^ >X.v.%^% % %s%^ % % ^^^A-r- " ^-5. -n.A.^««%i>
% %% ^ . " 5V- V% ^ "^^X; V. "- O?^" S^*^ ^%%
,,_ wv»_ \-a^;T y^^jw
"* ! ^ "' r ^ ' <(*& *'*-f^. ..'.. - - O!
< « V~v^,o» -.-.^-^ sVy
^ % ^ % % wiVs v^- <-^ , Z.f '
5V%,, VvS*^. » ^,x''% -""", ^«*>'% ;,xi05
" '- "V "to-. T % "" "\X" " 'O'x-- - V%
X"\A^.»-W.V'" % .,.. fV. '' """ ^%s ""v S.
> < ^^ % % *s ^^VW^A* W* ^^^^~V$
^ " «\ ' ^- "^ \Xt^
^ %%\\%%v.*.w.-X%%%% ^ % v s-ss s%vw % vi/VS
'' > ^ y. .y, ^^ VA v. -^s^ "%₯ "^
"^* '"'"'''''' y^ ''^ '' \X 'X*%4»-^rt, : \
^:^jx,x,^^s^^v
IX
-------
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). Thafs why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection. ..-,
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
ffffj^
*»
<*..
-,r
fM&S
w.« \\ \ ; <
jC ^s
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
1»^?,-
1 ^ <^s
i
*
If
I How are cleanup
alternatives
Identified and
gtttaated?
x«wx*
V ,
11" I" IK'( '»(«
»
*
I i i i
>!
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.
fDoes the public have * 1 Yes. The Superfund law requires that the pubUc be given the
**k. j*.j*.t»« - "- iJlj. j*. C2u^^>:t /\T^y^/^'faln^^i4*Tr 4-f\ s+^t^^f^svt^i- ^-»-»^ 4-I-txs «^«*^v«^^^i^^k>«l .nly^«w&«<& «Al<«aA *T*l» *k--j
say In the fmal
decision?
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. ,
Projecb to clean up a hazardous w,aste 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
*
Piloted
r- ,M,?
ogMtti'io j>e
XUl
-------
SUPERFUND
Once the design Is
i complete, how Iqttg
i does it take to w
: jfctuatly clean up the^
site andi how much; ^
does it cost?
> "*"-
*>» ' 5 ;
« , «4^Xv
.&*
,1 mi
F
lf
i i 11
t
*\T
tfctce the
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-
* ,. ,,% * *.*-.***» w» **. i_rAbx^ J.AVAAI, MIX* J. KJ. LJ Xt> any i-i 111 iv^ L/Utt C1U.I,
JS complete/ is ' -; matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
M. ,*K*, -u- ^j. j. j. i* ^_i irt:!'.s s * Tnu^T1 T*H t^& HT^ 4*/*\ Oil ^r/^"^**^ y^1** lv-k-^» f*f*tf A ln^^. i^_ ii.
the site automatically
^
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 if 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.
daE BPA make" patties
'
s#
,?:
-.Xv.
XV
-------
IAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
^-Initial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
RODj\ Remedy Selected
^jj>\ indicates that site
d£
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.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOOO
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
*##«&'*.<< f?
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats arid Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental res9urces 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 dean 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 inL
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Ten
Tennessee is located, fn the east south central United States bounded by eight eastern,
south eastern and mid-western states. The State covers 42,144 square miles and
consists of rugged country in the east, the Great Smoky Mountains, low ridges of the
Appalachian Valley, the fiat Cumberland Plateau, and the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain,
which is laced with meandering streams. Tennessee has experienced a 6.6 percent
increase in population through the 1980s and currently has approximately 4,895,000
residents,, ranking 16th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries are trade,
services,.and manufacturing of machinery, transportation equipment, foods, refined
petrole.unV'and appSrel.
How Many Tennessee Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
1
13
Q
14
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 02, 03, 05, 06 1 site
Cong. District 04, 08 2 sites
Cong. District 07, 09 3 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
15--
12
6
3
GW Soil SW Seds
Contamination. Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), creosote (organics), and
pesticides.
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
pesticides, and creosote (organics)
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and
pesticides.
"Appear at 15% or more sites
State Overview
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 12 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Tennessee, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Tennessee Superfund Office
EPA Region IV Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IV Superfund Public
Relations Office
(615)741-6287
(404) 347-2234
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(404) 347-3004
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
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 (>-) 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
-------
JTJCUj
Page
1
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
27
29
gI.CSS» JLUWOJLU V/1COJ1.UJP 0.1
Site Name
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS
AMNICOLADUMP
ARLINGTON BLENDING
CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING CO
GALLAWAY PITS
LEWISBURG DUMP
MALLORY CAPACITOR COMPANY
MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING CO
MURRAY-OHIO DUMP
NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE)
USA MILAN ARMY AMMO PLANT
VELSICOL CHEMICAL COMPANY
WRIGLEY CHARCOAL
. 11 JEM/ A.
County
MADISON
HAMILTON
SHELBY
SHELBY
FAYETTE
MARSHALL
WAYNE
LAWRENCE
LAWRENCE
SHELBY
ANDERSON
CARROLL/GIBSON
HARDEMAN
HICKMAN
U LU
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
c OLaic; UJL J.C7JJUUG&9CC; - - -
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
06/01/86 * *- * * «K
09/01/83 + + +
07/07/87 ** *
06/24/88 * *
09/01/83 «* "^ * > «^ *
09/01 £3 *-
10/04/89 "^ *
06/24/88 * «*-
09/01/83 "^ *
09/01/83 > <*
11/21/89 * ^"
08/21/87 * B^
09/OM83 "* *-
03/31/89 "* *
xxiv
-------
-------
-------
AMERICAN
CREOSOTE
(JACKSON, TN)
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND007018799
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Madison County
Just south of Jackson
Site Description
The 60-acre American Creosote Works site was a wood-treatment plant that began
operations in the early 1930s and continued until late 1981, when the company filed for
bankruptcy. Originally, the site consisted of the treatment buildings, pressure cylinders,
boiler room tanks, oil storage tanks, tank cars, and railroad tracks. There were also four
large wastewater lagoons, two sand filter units, and drip yards. Operators used
creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat and.preserve wood. Workers
discharged process wastewater directly to Old River Run until 1973, when a levee was
built around the facility to contain surface water runoff and wastewater. From 1974 to
1975, the plant installed a wastewater treatment system. The pits created during
construction of the levee were used to store treated process water and derivative
sludges. Subsequently, flooding from the accumulation of rainfall caused the lagoons
to overflow into the main process area, Jackson has a population of 49,000. A city
well field lies approximately 1 1/2 miles east of the site, and several public and private
wells are located within a 3-mile radius. The closest homes are located within a mile of
the site. Homes with private wells are located upgradientfrom the site, a situation that
lessens risk. The south fork of the Deer River, less than 1/4 mile from the site,
receives runoff from the site via Central Creek and an unnamed tributary that follows -
the southern border of the site. Wetlands lying along both sides of the river support a
large variety of wildlife species.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the facility and on-site soils are contaminated
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and heavy metals from the wood-treating processes. Sediments
contain PAH levels similar to those in soils and low levels of Dieldrin, a
pesticide. Cleanup workers may incur a health risk if they accidentally
consume contaminated soil or water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (JACKSON, TN)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate 'actions and iwo long-term ~
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the water and the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 30 million gallons of
water from the site, treated 500,000 gallons of contaminated water, and
solidified more than 100,000 cubic yards of sludge from on-site lagoons
and treatment areas. Workers placed the solidified materials in an old
lagoon and capped it with clay to await further cleanup. In 1986, EPA emergency staff
treated about 225,000 gallons of contaminated water from the storage tanks using
hydrated lime and polymers, and 28,000 gallons of oil were consolidated in one secure
tank. Workers built covers for the treatment system and open storage tanks. In 1988,
the tank area and a large portion of the site was fenced. As of 1989, the EPA has
completed a modification of the drainage system on the river side of the site, an effort
being overseen by the State of Tennessee.
Entire Site: The following cleanup actions were selected in 1989 and
have been completed: (1) the contaminated soils and sludge were
removed from the process area and incinerated off site; (2) some tank
liquids were treated and disposed of; (3) a security fence was installed
around the site; and (4) the process area .was cleaned up. Some construction debris
still remains at the site. The State repaired the levee on the river side of the site and a
drainage pipe to the river was installed. Further cleanup activities are under way and
are planned for completion in 1990. Treatability studies for tank sludges are complete.
Treatability studies for the bioremediation of surface soils still need to be performed.
Water: Pending selection of the final remedy for cleaning up the water,
the EPA intends to monitor water levels behind the dikes and pump, treat
as needed, and discharge impounded water. Information still needs to be
gathered to model the grpundwater flow, and the semi-confining clay layer under the
site needs to be re-examined. Although the necessary preliminary studies have not yet
been performed, the EPA plans to include removal of structures from outside the
process area and other incidental construction in the final remedy.
Site Facts: A Superfund State Contract was signed in May 1989. Meetings with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USGS have been held concerning dike construction
and groundwater characterization. In late 1989, the EPA signed an Interagency
Agreement with the USGS fora Hydrogeological Study to determine the nature and
extent of contamination to the hydrology of the site. In March 1990, the USGS began
the field work for this study.
continued
-------
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (JACKSON. TN)
Environmental Progress
The numerous immediate actions to treat and contain wastes and secure the site with
a fence significantly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the
American Creosote Works site. Final source control cleanup is nearly complete and
further investigations leading to the selection of a final groundwater remedy currently
are taking place.
-------
AMNICOLA
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980729172
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Hamilton County
In Chattanooga,"along the east bank of the
Tennessee River
Site Description
The 18-acre inactive Amnicola Dump site, located in Chattanooga, was used for clay
mining operations in the 1930s, and several water-filled pits were left behind. These
were subsequently used for disposal of construction debris. The city operated the
dump between 1964 and 1973, incinerating waste wood on site and disposing of the
ashes over 12 acres. The operation was closed in 1973 due to concerns about
unauthorized dumping and leachate seeping into the Tennessee River. Streams of
leachate containing low concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) leave the site
seasonally and enter the Tennessee River; however, water quality downstream has not
been noticeably affected. The current site owner has been burning, storing, and
handling creosote railroad ties, activities that contribute to elevated contamination in
surface soil. The site lies in an industrial area and about 150,000 people live within a 2-
mile radius of the site. No residential areas are in the immediate vicinity, and the
nearest population center is about 1/2 mile away. The site is situated along the eastern
bank of the Tennessee River, 1/2 mile upstream from the city intake, although no site-
related contaminants have been identified.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Debris, groundwater, and soil on the site contain polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals including chromium from the
incineration of waste wood. Sediments are polluted with phenols.
People can be exposed to pollutants by touching contaminated soil or
leachate or inhaling contaminants that evaporate into the air. The
Tennessee River flows by the site and may be affected by contamination
from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
4
continued
-------
AMNICOLA DUMP
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected a final cleanup remedy for this site in
1989. It is intended to reduce the risks associated with exposure to
contaminated, on-site surface soils and features: (1) excavating , ,,
contaminated surface soil and debris and screening out debris; (2) treating
contaminated soil by solidifying it to keep chemicals from moving; (3)
restoring the ground surface, to its original condition; (4) imposing restrictions on
groundwater use and land use; (5) quarterly groundwater monitoring for 4 years; and (6)
public health assessment 5 years after cleanup. The EPA began the engineering design
for the cleanup activities in 1989.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and -
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Amnicola Dump site while
further studies and cleanup activities take place.
-------
ARLINGTON
BLENDING
TENNESSEE
EPA JD# TND980468557
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Shelby County
Arlington
Site Description
From 1971 to 1979, the 2 1/2-acre Arlington Blending site housed a pesticide blending
and packaging operation. When the site was abandoned for economic
reasons, operators left behind deteriorating bags of pesticides and 1,000 to 1,200
drums, many of which were leaking. In the mid-1970s, the State took action against
the company for its violations of the Clean Water Act, demanding that it reduce
pesticide contamination in tributaries leading to the Loosahatchie River Canal. The 1976
report issued by the company in response satisfied State concerns. In 1979, after
sampling the site and an adjacent housing development, the State recommended that
the developer install a fence between the homes and the plant and apply 1 to 2 inches
of clean topsoil in the backyards of the two homes closest to the plant. Between 1980
and 1983, the site owner removed some pesticide wastes from the site. There is a
small residential area to the east of the site; the closest home is 50 feet away.
Approximately 2,700 people live within 3 miles of the site, drawing drinking water from
two water systems serving the communities of Arlington and Gallaway. An Arlington
well is within 1,200 feet of the site. The site is in the floodplain of the Loosahatchie
River Canal. The probable drainage route from the site leads to a nearby canal that is
used for recreation.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/07/87
Threats and Contaminants
In 1983, the EPA discovered high concentrations of various pesticides in
on-site soils and around the housing development. In 1985, the State
detected pesticides in a shallow monitoring well from the deteriorating
bags left on the site. The three water-bearing zones under the site are
used as drinking water sources and have the potential for contamination
from pesticide residues at the site. The upper zone is contaminated with
chlordane and other pesticides. Although removal actions have reduced
the potential for exposure of people to contaminants, possible remaining
groundwater contamination could threaten people who drink it.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
6
continued
-------
ARLINGTON BLENDING
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term, remedial
phase focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 3,500 gallons of
chemicals from the drums, collected debris, and excavated 1,920 cubic
yards of contaminated surface soils both on and off the site. All materials
were transported to EPA-approved disposal facilities.
Soil and Groundwater: The EPA began ah intensive study of soil and
groundwater pollution at the site in 1988. This investigation will examine
the nature and extent of site pollution problems and will recommend the
best strategies for final cleanup.. It is scheduled for completion in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The immediate soil and drum removal actions described above have greatly reduced
the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Arlington Blending site while
further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place. :
-------
CARRIER AIR
CONDITION!
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA DD# TND044062222
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Shelby County
Collierville
Site Description
Carrier Air Conditioning Company, part of United Technologies, manufactures air
conditioners on approximately 145 acres of land. Three releases of trichlproethylene
(TCE) to the environment have been documented. Starting in 1972, Carrier operated an
unlined, 200-eubic-foot lagoon for storage of TCE-contaminated paint sludges which
leaked from 1972 to 1980. In 1978, a filter cover failed on a vapor degreaser, spilling
2,000 to 5,000 gallons of TCE. A third release occurred in 1985 when, following a
period of heavy rainfall, an unknown volume of TCE leaked from underground pipes.
The company was able to recover 542 gallons of TCE. As a result of this spill, wells
were installed at the facility to monitor the Memphis Sands Aquifer. The Carrier facility
is located within 2,000 feet of Water Plant Well #2 of the City of Collierville. An
estimated 12,800 people obtain drinking water from wells in the aquifer within 3 miles
of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
TCE was detected in several monitoring wells at the facility in 1986 from
plant operations. Low levels of TCE were found in both wells at Water
Plant #2 of the City of Collierville. Soil samples collected at the spill site
by the State in 1986 contained TCE. Direct contact with contaminated
groundwater or soil may pose risks to people on the site, as may drinking
or accidentally eating contaminated materials.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup at the entire site.
Match 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
8
continued
-------
CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1980, Carrier removed wastes and soil from the
lagoon and sent them to an EPA-regulated hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination began a study of the nature and extent of site
contamination along with an assessment of techniques for site cleanup. It
is expected to be completed by.1992, at which time the EPA will assess
the cleanup alternatives and make a final remedy selection.
Site Facts: The EPA and Carrier entered into an Administrative Order requiring the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination to conduct a study to determine
the extent of the contamination and to evaluate the technologies available for the
cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions reduced risks to the public health and the environment. After adding this
site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
there were no immediate threats at the Carrier Air Conditioning Company while further
investigations take place.
-------
GALLAWAY
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980728992
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Fayette County
2 miles northeast of Gallaway
Alias:
Gallaway Dump
Site Description
The Gallaway Pits site is on a 10-acre parcel of land that was extensively mined for ,
sand and gravel, producing a landscape dotted with water-filled pits up to 50 feet deep.
The site was used for unlicensed dumping of municipal and industrial wastes. Disposal
of hazardous materials at the site occurred for an undetermined period of time,
probably in the 1970s and 1980s. Wastes included pesticides, glass jars containing
solid waste, residential trash, demolition debris, and appliances. Drums containing
liquid waste were disposed of by emptying the drums into a small pond or by placing
the entire drum into the pond. The site is underlain by sand and gravel, which
facilitates the migration of the wastes on site to pptentiallycontaminate the :,
groundwater, surface water, and the soil. Approximately 50 homes are located within -,
1/2 mile of the site; the closest home is 1,600 feet away. These homes obtain their
drinking water from wells.
site Responsibility:
sjte is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Pesticides including chlordane and toxaphene from the former waste
disposal activities have contaminated the groundwater, soil, and surface
water. Direct contact with and ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
surface water, or soil may pose potential risks to individuals.
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.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
10
continued
-------
GALLAWAYPITS
Response Action Status
* Immediate Actions: The EPA set up a water treatment system in 1983 to
treat water from the pits at the rate of 100 gallons each minute.
Approximately 360,000 gallons of water were treated and 475 cubic yards
(66 truck loads) of soil was removed and disposed of.
Entire Site: The EPA selected the following activities to clean up the site:
(1) excavation of contaminated sediments from the water pits on site; (2)
dilution of contaminated water in some water pits with the city water to
meet water quality standards. The diluted water would be subsequently discharged to
an unnamed tributary; (3) monitoring of groundwater; and (4) installation of a cover,
designed and constructed to prevent the migration of contaminants. The EPA
completed the site cleanup in 1988 and has published a Public Notice announcing a
plan to delete the site from NPL
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Gallaway Pits site. The site is now
safe to nearby residents and the environment while the EPA formally deletes the site
from the NPL
11
-------
LEWISBURG
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980729115
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Marshall County
1/2 mile north of Lewlsburg
Site Description -
The 20-acre Lewisburg Dump operated as a municipal dump for 20 to 25 years. A
State-sponsored geological survey found the site unfit for use as a sanitary landfill and
was closed in 1979. The dump accepted industrial wastes, including inorganic
chemicals and solvents. Waste partially filled a former limestone quarry that contains a
lagoon fed by groundwater. Runoff from the site enters an unnamed tributary to Big
Rock Creek. The dump lies in a remote area; approximately 30 people reside in the
nearest homes to the site which are about 1/2 mile away. Private wells are located
within 1/4 mile from the site.
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
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, leachate, and surface water are contaminated with
lead from the site's dump activities. Researchers also detected
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) around the site. Sediments on site
contain lead, cyanide, and chlordane, and off-site sediments showed
contamination from heavy metals including lead, barium, manganese,
zinc, copper, and aluminum, as well as chlordane, and various volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Direct contact with or accidentally ingesting
contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil may be harmful. There
is a possibility for bioaccumulation of contaminants in locally grown food
products.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
12
continued
-------
LEWISBURG DUMP
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, under EPA orders, several parties potentially
responsible for site contamination began an intensive study of its pollution
problems. The first phase of this investigation is meant to explore the
nature and extent of site contamination; the second prescribes the best
alternatives for final cleanup. The final draft of the study was reviewed by the EPA and
the U.S. Geologic Survey {USGS). All reviewers still feel that the groundwater solutions
have not been identified. A contractor for the EPA sampled sediments in the pond and
well again in 1990 to determine if a dye tracer study could indicate the actual flow
directions of groundwater through, around, or under the site. It is possible that a plume
could be situated between two strategic monitoring wells on the south side of the site,
which would not show in sampling tests to date. If the groundwater issue is resolved,
the study will be completed in 1990, with cleanup activities to start soon thereafter.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Order with several parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination to perform the study characterizing the
contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After extensive investigations at the Lewisburg Dump, the EPA and the USGS have
determined that no immediate threats exist while further investigations and cleanup
activities are taking place.
13
-------
MALLORY C
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA ED# TND075453688
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Wayne County
Waynesboro
Site Description
Electrical capacitors were manufactured on the 8 1/2-acre Mallory Capacitor site from
1969 to 1984. The operators first used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as the
dielectric fluid in the capacitors, switching to a plastics chemical in 1978. The factory
changed hands when Dart Industries purchased it in 1979. Dart later sold the
property in 1980 to Emhart Industries, Inc. As part of the sales agreement with
Emhart, certain PCB wastes, a buried tank, and contaminated soil were removed from
the site and sent to an approved PCB disposal facility. The plant continued to operate,
but voluntarily closed in 1984 when PCBs were discovered throughout the site. The
EPA found that PCBs entered the environment through spills, leaks, and
intentional discharges. The plant is located in a small community. Approximately 900
people get drinking water from wells and springs within 3 miles of the site. The site is
in the floodplain of the Green River. Surface water within 3 miles of the site is used for
fishing and swimming.
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
L\
Threats and Contaminants
PCBs from the site's manufacturing activities were detected in fish in the
river next to the site. PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have
been detected in groundwater. Off-site wells, soil, and downstream
sediments are contaminated with low levels of PCBs. Touching or
accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater and soil poses a human
health threat. The presence of PCBs poses a threat to the environment
as they are toxic to aquatic wildlife.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
14
continued
-------
MALLORY CAPACITOR 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: Some cleanup was specified as part of the sales
agreement when the site was transferred to its current owner in 1979.
Workers removed certain PCB wastes, a buried tank, and contaminated soil
from the site and sent them to an approved PCB disposal facility. Before the start of
the field work on the site study, a potentially responsible party removed and sent to an
approved disposal facility approximately 9,700 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil
and 3,440 cubic yards of plant debris from 1988 to 1989.
Entire Site: Under EPA orders and monitoring, the parties potentially
responsible for, the contamination are undertaking an intensive investigation
of the site's pollution problems. The study will focus on the extent of PCB
and VOC contamination and will recommend the best approaches to final
cleanup. It began in 1988 and is slated for completion in early 1991. Also, in 1989, the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination contacted the EPA for permission
"to install additional monitoring wells off site to better define the extent of
contamination.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for contamination of the site are working
with the EPA under an Administrative Order Ho conduct a study of the nature and extent
of the contamination and to identify possible cleanup solutions. . ..
Environmental Progress
The immediate contaminated soil removal actions described above have greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the Mallory Capacitor
site while further investigations and cleanup activities are taking place.
15
-------
MURRAY-OHIO
MANUFACT
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND981014954
Site Description
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Lawrence County
11/2 miles southwest of Lawrenceburg
Aliases:
Murray-Ohio Dump
Horseshoe Bend Dump
Before 1956, a City of Lawrenceburg hydroelectric plant operated on the 12-acre
Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company site. Beginning around 1956, workers poured
paint sludge and other wastes into shallow pits at the site. They partially filled the pits
after the liquid part of the wastes had soaked in and then placed drummed waste into
them. In 1963, a large fire at the site produced toxic smoke and fumes that caused eye
and lung irritation to residents near the site. Fish were killed in nearby Shoal Creek
because of the fire. Following this setback, the operators apparently abandoned the
dump. Since then, it has been used only for occasional dumping of household trash. In
recent years, a nearby landowner restricted the access to the site. During a 1983
inspection, the Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management found partially buried
leaking drums at the site. Approximately 19,000 people obtain drinking water from
wells and springs within 3 miles of the site. The City of Lawrenceburg gets part of its
water supply from a large spring located a mile northeast of the site. Downstream
from the dump, local residents use Shoal Creek for fishing and recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including
chromium, lead, zinc, nickel, and cadmium from past plant activities.
There is a risk to human health resulting from possible exposure through
drinking, accidentally eating, or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soils. Soil conditions make it easy for water to move
under the site. Springs, caves, and sinkholes are plentiful and the
groundwater is near the land surface. These conditions help
contaminants move into the groundwater under the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
16
continued
-------
MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: Six thousand cubic yards of municipal waste and paint
sludge were sent to an incinerator in July 1989.
Entire Site: A Consent Order was signed in 1990 under which Murray-
Ohio Manufacturing Company and the City of Lawrenceburg, with EPA
monitoring, will study contamination at the site. The work plan for the study
is due in 1990. This study will explore the nature and extent of soil and any
attendant pollution problems and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup.
The EPA expects the work to be finished in mid-1992. .
Site Facts: Notice letters were sent to two parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination, the City of Lawrenceburg and the Murray-Ohio Manufacturing
Company. Murray-Ohio returned a positive response indicating that they want to
conduct the study to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Both Murray-
Ohio and the City of Lawrenceburg signed the Consent Order.
Environmental Progress
The removal of municipal wastes and paint sludges have reduced the potential for
exposure at the Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company site while further investigations
are taking place.
17
-------
MURRAY-O
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980728836
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Lawrence County
Lawrenceburg
Alias:
Murray Ohio Site #2
Site Description
The 27-acre Murray-Ohio industrial dump accepted paint and electroplating sludges
from 1963 until 1982. Wastes are buried on about 6 acres, and there is another 1/4-
acre disposal area located 1,000 feet away from the site. Seeps containing heavy metal
contamination have been observed along drainageways. Grpundwater under the site
and a tributary of Shoal Creek are contaminated with chromium. Shoal Creek is
approximately 1 mile from the site. The main site was capped, revegetated, and is
periodically maintained. Approximately 2,600 people live within 3 miles of the site. The
closest residence is about 1/3 mile away. Public and private water supply wells lie'
within a 3-mile radius.
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
73
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil contain contamination from heavy,metals
including chromium, nickel, and zinc. Sediments and off-site surface
water in a small tributary to Shoal Creek are contaminated with these
heavy metals and also manganese and iron. Human health threats may
arise from exposure to hazardous substances in contaminated
groundwater, sediment soil, and surface water. Groundwater poses the
most significant environmental pathway for contaminants. Private wells
within 1/3 mile of the site may be affected.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on soil and water cleanup at the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
18
continued
-------
MURRAY-OHIO DUMP
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: Murray-Ohio Manufacturing capped and vegetated the
site in 1981.
Soil and Water: Murray-Ohio Manufacturing will begin an extensive study
of soil and water pollution at the site in 1990. This investigation will explore
the nature and extent of contamination and will recommend the best
strategies for final cleanup. The EPA expects the study to be completed in late 1991.
Site Facts: A Consent Order Is being drafted which requires Murray-Ohio
Manufacturing to perform a study of the contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate capping actions have reduced the potential for exposure at-the Murray-
Ohio Dump and helped to minimize the migration of contaminants while further
investigations and cleanup activities take place.
19
-------
NORTH HO
DUMP
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980558894
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Shelby County
North Memphis
Aliases:
Hollywood Dump
Memphis Public Works/Hollywood Dump
Site Description
The 100-acre North Hollywood Dump site was used as a municipal dump from the
1930s until the City closed it in 1967. However, some dumping of non-chemical refuse
probably continued until 1980. In the late 1940s, the Hayden Chemical Company used
the dump to dispose of wastes generated in the production of sodium hydrochloride.
Hayden was later bought out by Velsicol Chemical Corporation, which continued the
practice of dumping at the site. At one time, pesticide-contaminated sludge from a
closed sewer line leading to the Velsicol plant was removed and buried in a small area
known as the "Endrin Pit." In 1980, the EPA found pesticide products in surface soil,
groundwater, and pond sediments on the dump. Because of high community concern
in the early 1980s, the State of Tennessee recommended this site as the State's
highest priority hazardous waste site. Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles
of the dump site. An elementary school is,situated in close proximity to the dump.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water are contaminated with pesticides
including endrin and heavy metals including copper, lead, and arsenic.
The soil is contaminated with pesticides and heavy metals including lead.
Accidentally drinking, ingesting, and touching contaminated groundwater,
surface water, and soil could adversely affect the health of people. Also,
people may be exposed to contaminants that may have entered the food
chain through contaminated fish, caught in ponds on or near the dump.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
20
continued
-------
NORTH HOIXYWOOD DUMP
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: In 1980, the EPA took an emergency action to slow
the movement of contaminants from the site. Also, the EPA installed a
chainlink fence around the site and began a program to monitor the wastes
on site. In 1981, a technical assistance group made up of representatives from the
State, the City of Memphis, Shelby County, local industry, and the EPA, removed some
of the chemical wastes from the surface.
Entire Site: The EPA has recently assumed the lead role from the State to
complete investigations into the extent and nature of contamination at the
North Hollywood Dump site. The EPA is currently evaluating the cleanup
alternatives for final selection of the cleanup strategies. Their decision is expected in
1990.
Site Facts: In 1984, the State of Tennessee ordered the potentially responsible parties
for the contamination to investigate the site under State monitoring. In late 1988, the
EPA replaced the State in the monitoring role.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove chemical wastes have greatly reduced the potential
for exposure to contaminated materials while further investigations and cleanup
activities continue.
21
-------
OAK RIDGE
RESERVATI
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TN1890090003
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Anderson
Oak Ridge
Alias:
USDOE Oak Ridge
Site Description
The Oak Ridge Reservation site, operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE),
covers 58,000 acres. The site consists of three major operating facilities: a research
lab that includes nuclear reactors, chemical and biological research programs, and
production labs; a production complex that formerly enriched uranium-235 by gaseous
diffusion; and a plant that formerly enriched uranium-235 by an electromagnetic
process and which now produces nuclear weapon components, processes nuclear
materials, and performs other functions that relate to energy and the national defense.
Site operations generate a variety of radioactive, non-radioactive, and mixed (radioactive
and non-radioactive) hazardous wastes, many of which in the past were disposed of or
stored on site. Leakage from inactive disposal and storage facilities, coupled with spills
and other accidental releases, has contaminated many areas in and around the site.
The USDOE estimates that 773,000 pounds of elemental mercury were released in the
1950s and 1960s, and 170,000 pounds of mercury are in the sediments and floodplain
of a 15-mile stretch of East Fork Poplar Creek, whose headwaters are near one of the
site's production facilities. Approximately 500 pounds of mercury annually leave this
watershed. An estimated 43,200 people obtain water from intakes along a 118-mile
stretch below this site on the Tennessee River. Wetlands in the Blyth Ferry Water
Fowl Management Area are also near the contaminated area.
site Responsibility: j^is site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals, organics, and radionuclides have been detected in on-site
groundwater, surface water, and soil. Mercury and Cesium-137 have
been detected in sediments of the Tennessee River near Chattanooga,
approximately 118 miles downstream of the site. Mercury has been
detected in the sediments at East Fork Poplar Creek. Soils in and along
the creek are contaminated with mercury. People who drink
contaminated groundwater may be at risk. East Fork Poplar Creek flows
through the City of Oak Ridge, exposing people to mercury-contaminated
soils in the easily accessible areas of the creek floodplains. Wetlands may
be threatened from site-related contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
22
continued
-------
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE)
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on soil cleanup and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The USDOE removed soil at several locations along the
East Fork Poplar Creek where mercury levels were particularly high.
Entire Site: The USDOE began a comprehensive study in 1989 to
determine the type and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives
for the cleanup. The cleanup of the site will be performed under a number
of phases to be fully determined when the study is completed.
Site Facts: The USDOE has removed contaminated soil and is conducting studies
which require the USDOE to close some units on site, conduct post-c/osure monitoring,
and evaluate over 500 solid waste management units.
Environmental Progress
The soil cleanup performed at the Oak Ridge Reservation site has significantly reduced
immediate threats while further studies and investigations take place.
23
-------
USA MILAN
ARMYAMM
PLANT
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TN0210020582
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Carroll/Gibson County
8 miles from the town of Milan
Site Description
The Milan Army Ammunition Plant site comprises 22,540 acres and is located in a rural
area. The plant currently produces munitions for the Army and is operated by Martin
Marietta Ordnance Systems, Inc. The "0" Line, a conventional munition
demilitarization facility at Milan, has operated since 1942. The major mission of the
"0" Line is to remove TNT and other explosives from munitions by injecting a high-
pressure stream of hot water and steam into the open cavity of the munitions. The
resulting wastewater fram these operations was subsequently discharged into 11
unlined settling ponds. The "O" Line Pond site is on the NPL, and 10 other sites are
Solid Waste Management Units under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Approximately 9,000 people live in the town of Milan, located 5 miles from the
facility and 8 miles from the NPL site. The nearest off-site residence is located
approximately 1 mile from the facility. There are currently 1,400 employees of Martin
Marietta, the current operator, who work at the site. Three water supply wells serve
the 9,000 residents of the city of Milan located 8 miles from the NPL site (5 miles from
the facility boundary). Some private wells are located less than 3 miles from the area of
known groundwater contamination. More than 13,000 people within 5 miles of the
facility depend on groundwater as a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 08/21/87
I
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and off-site surface water are contaminated with
explosives and heavy metals including cadmium, mercury, and lead;
volatile organic compounds (VOCS) including chloroform, benzene, and
methylene chloride; nitrates, and nitrites. Area residents may be subject
to exposure to contaminants when drinking or coming into direct contact
with polluted groundwater. Site-related contaminants have been detected
in off-site surface water used for the watering of livestock, irrigation and
recreational purposes. Area residents could be exposed to contaminants
in the surface water or by eating fish, crops, and locally raised meat and
dairy products that may contain bioaccumulated contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
24
V
continued
-------
USA MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the "O" Line Ponds area and the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Army had the unlined settling ponds dredged in 1971,
and the soils were placed near the side of the ponds. Areas of surface
soils suspected to be contaminated with the remnants of explosives were
removed and a multi-layer cover was placed on top of the ponds and the dredged soils
in 1984. Wells to monitor the migration of site-related contaminants into the
groundwater have been installed, and more wells will be installed. Activities associated
with post-c/osure, such as maintenance of grounds and fences, are underway. Regular
sampling and analysis to monitor groundwater contamination of existing wells
continues.
"O" Line Ponds Site: The Army has begun the investigation on
contaminants at the "O" Line Ponds Area. The EPA reviewed the initial
actions at the "O" Line Ponds Area in 1987 to determine whether they are
comparable to EPA guidelines for the investigation into the best and most effective
ways to clean up the site and to ensure that it complies with the National Contingency
Plan, the Federal regulations by which Superfund actions are conducted. An
investigation of cleanup remedies will be started in 1990 at the "0" Line Ponds Area
and 10 other RCRA Solid Waste Management Units. A feasibility study will be started
in 1991. A dispute is in process on field operating procedures.
Entire Site: A contract to perform an investigation into the best and most
effective ways to clean up the "O" Line Ponds, the open burning grounds,
and ten other Solid Waste Management Units was awarded in April 1989.
The difference between this and the previous investigation is that the resulting cleanup
activities will be designed to meet EPA standards for removing the site from the NPL.
The investigation is expected to be completed in December 1990.
Site Facts: Milan AAP is participating in the specially funded Installation Restoration
Program (IRP), in 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. The Army conducted a survey of area residents in 1988
to determine if they were concerned about potential health risks posed by the site. The
results indicated a high degree of public interest and moderate concern for potential
risks. The Milan Army Ammunition Plant has established a committee to review
technical aspects of the site cleanup. This group includes private citizens from the
community and local government. A public meeting will be held concerning site
cleanup activities in 1990.
continued
25
-------
USA MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
Environmental Progress
The covering of the "O" Line Ponds and excavation of contaminated soils have made
the site safer while further investigations continue, which will lead to selection of the
final cleanup remedies for the site.
26
-------
VELSICOL C
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980559033
REGION 4
(CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Hardeman County
Toone
Site Description
Velsicol Corporation purchased and used 242 acres of land as the Hardeman County
landfillior disposal of unapproved pesticides and related carrier compounds such as
methylene chloride beginning in 1964. As of 1973, when the site was closed, waste
had been disposed of in three specific areas, covering a total of approximately 27 acres.
Approximately 130,000 drums of plant waste were disposed of in these three areas in
trenches and were covered with 3 feet of soil. In 1980, a low permeability cap was
installed over the surface of the three disposal areas, the surface was regraded to
facilitate surface water drainage, sediment ponds were backfilled, and topsoil and seed
for revegetation were applied. Currently, the site is fenced with barbed wire and has a
locked gate. Approximately 60 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Since
1979, private wells in the vicinity have not been used for drinking water; alternate water
supplies have been provided. There are public supply wells within a 3-mile radius of
the site; however, monitoring data indicates that these wells are not contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water are contaminated with various volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and chloroform. Capping, regrading, fencing,
and security have virtually eliminated direct contact with the contaminants
on the site. However, there may be a potential health threat if the
contaminated groundwater in the area is used for drinking water
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
VBLSICOL CHEMICAL COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: As a result of chlorinated hydrocarbons detected in
two residential wells located adjacent to the site in 1979, Velsicol provided
an alternate water source to 26 homes that were located within a 1-mile
radius of the site. In 1980 capping, surface regrading, backfilling and revegetating were
performed.
Entire Site: In 1989, Velsicol Chemical Company began a study of the
type and extent of contamination and an evaluation of alternative remedies
for the site. Cleanup activities will begin soon after the study is
completed.
Site Facts: Under an Administrative Order on Consent, Velsicol will complete the
remedial investigation and feasibility study under EPA monitoring. Several citizens in
the area around the site have been involved in litigation with Velsicol Chemical
Company concerning pollution of their wells. Concerns about groundwater
contamination were very high about 10 years ago when water supply wells became
contaminated but have lessened since alternate water supplies were provided.
According to recent information, the citizens' litigation has been settled.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to cap the surface of the site, secure access to the site and provide
an alternate water supply to nearby residents have eliminated immediate threats at the
Velsicol Chemical Company site while further investigations and cleanup activities are
taking place.
28
-------
WRIGLEY C
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980844781
REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Hickman County
Old Charcoal Road, Wrigley
Site Description
The Wrigley Charcoal Plant site covers approximately 1 acre on Old Charcoal Road.
From the late 1800s to the early 1960s, Wright Charcoal, and other companies that
followed it, produced charcoal briquettes, iron products, and wood alcohol on the site.
After industrial and boot-legging activities ended, the Tennessee Farmers Co-op
acquired the site and later sold a portion of it to an individual. During a 1985 inspection,
the Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management discovered pits containing a tar-
like substance, waste piles, and old drums. Leachate was entering the north fork of
Mill Creek, which is adjacent to the site. In 1985, the State, and, in 1986, the EPA
detected toluene, benzenes, and phenols in the wastes and the leachate. The Bon
Aqua Utility District maintains a drinking water intake in Mill Creek 1 1/2 miles
downstream of the site. This intake serves an estimated 5,500 people. Approximately
300 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The leachate and wastes on the site contain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including toluene, benzene, and phenol. The north fork of Mill
Creek is contaminated with the same elements as those found in the
leachate. Health threats include accidental ingestion of or direct contact
with the wastes on site. Geologic conditions at the site make it easy for
contaminants to move into the shallow groundwater, which lies about 25
feet below the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
29
continued
-------
WRIGLEY CHARCOAL
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: In 1988, the EPA stabilized the tar pits by building a
16-foot berm to prevent erosion and seasonal flooding. A stream was
rerouted to prevent leachate from entering Mill Creek. In 1989, the EPA
excavated and shipped six truckloads of tar to a recycling facility. The recycling was
Incomplete, because large amounts of debris were still present in the tar.
Entire Site: The EPA installed five new monitoring wells in a study to
evaluate the nature and extent of the contamination. The study is expected
to be complete in 1992. The results of the study will help the EPA
determine the engineering methods needed to clean up the site.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA sent out notice letters to parties potentially responsible
for the site contamination and asked them to participate in the site investigation. The
public is concerned about the quality of the north fork of Mill Creek and the
groundwater.
Environmental Progress
Stabilizing the tar pits and removing some of the contaminated materials from the
Wrigley Charcoal site have lessened any immediate threats to the community or the
environment. Studies by the EPA and the parties potentially responsible are currently
assessing the site contamination to determine the best permanent remedy for the site.
30
-------
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Tennessee. The terms and
abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able agreement between EPA and the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of
the Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to
perform or pay for site studies or cleanups. It also de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in dhe aquifer is called groundwater.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants naturally and break them down into nonhaz-
ardous components.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
Cap: A layer of material, such as day 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.
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 Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynudear aromatic hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure.
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 deanup.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemis-
try and movement of water.
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.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site deanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agendes for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
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 nudear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.tj: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
G-2
-------
-V
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.
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.
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.
G-3
-------
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure. Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment. Radon, which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionudides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surf ace 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.
G-4
-------
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
-------
------- |