United States
               Environmental Protection
                   Solid Waste And
                   Emergency Response
September 1991
                T9  9  1
                                                     Printed on Recycled Paper

                                  Publication #9200.5-705A
                                  September 1991
      Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
          Office of Program Management
             Washington, DC 20460

          If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
                    National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    5285 Port Royal Road
                    Springfield, VA 22161
                    (703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on  the  Nation  at Large  (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Brief Overview	1

How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites?	5

The Volume:
How to Use the State Book	13

NPL Sites:
In the State of Arkansas	17

The NPL Report:
Progress to Date	19

The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities	21
Appendix A:  Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets	45

Appendix B:  Repositories of
Site Information	61


        As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
        headline 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. Hazardous
 waste buried there over a 25-year period
 contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
 the health of nearby residents. The result:
 evacuation 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 envi-
 ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
 and property values were reduced. It became
 increasingly clear that there were large num-
 bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
 were falling through the cracks of existing
 environmental laws. The magnitude of these
 emerging problems moved Congress to enact
 the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
 Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
 CERCLA — commonly known as Superfund
 — was the first Federal law established to deal
 with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
 ous waste sites.

 After Discovery,  the Problem

Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever

Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
 ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
 mental concern in every part of the United
 States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
 taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
 cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
 water (a source of drinking water for many)
 and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
 Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
 sites, while improperly disposed or stored
 wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
 community and the environment at others.

 The EPA Identified More than 1,200
 Serious Sites

 The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
 sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
 sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
 targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
 site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
 mates that, while some will be deleted after
 lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
 the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
 mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.


From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could

not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices.  Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases.  The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.


The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the

Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. 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

Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.

The ultimate goal for a  hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The 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. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half— have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through  the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining


The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when  the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies — like those designed to clean up ground-
water — must operate for many years in  order
to accomplish their objectives.

The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed.  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, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site  where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental

 health are being safeguarded.  The EPA will
 correct any deficiencies discovered and will
 report to the public annually on all five-year
 reviews conducted that year.


 Superfund activities also depend upon local
 citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
 analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
 but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
 choices  for affected communities.

 Because the people in a community where a
 Superfund site is located will be those most
 directly affected by hazardous waste problems
 and cleanup processes,  the EPA encourages
 citizens  to get involved in cleanup decisions.
 Public involvement and comment does influ-
 ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
 information about site conditions, community
 concerns, and preferences.

 The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
 companion  National overview volume provide
 general Superfund background information
 and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
 These volumes clearly describe what the
 problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
 pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
 as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
 serious problems.


 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.
 Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in  hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
 The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
 on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
 tant information to help you understand the
 magnitude and challenges facing the
 Superfund program, 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, vital roles
 of the various participants in the cleanup
 process, the Superfund program's successes in
 cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
 waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
 If you did not receive this overview volume,
 ordering information is provided in the front of
 this book.

 This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
 on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
 up under the Superfund program. These sites
 represent the most serious hazardous waste
 problems in the Nation and require the most
 complicated and costly site solutions yet
 encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
 the conditions and cleanup progress that has
 been made at each NPL site. Information
 presented for each site is current as of April
 1991.  Conditions change as our cleanup
 efforts continue, so these site summaries will
 be updated annually to include information on
 new progress being made.

 To help you understand the cleanup accom-
 plishments made at these sites, this volume
 includes a description of the process for site
 discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
 cleanup of Superfund sites.  This description,
How Does the Program Work  to Clean  Up
 Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
 which to review the cleanup status at specific
 sites. A glossary defining key terms as  they
 apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.

      The diverse problems posed by hazard-
      ous waste sites have provided the EPA
      with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
             How Does  the
           Program  Work
                  to  Clean  Up

     Discover site and
     determine whether
     an emergency
     exists *
   STEP 2

Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or

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.
 during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.

The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
       flow diagram above provides a summary of the
       three-step process.

       Although this book provides a current "snap-
       shot" of site progress made only by emergency
       actions and long-term cleanup actions at
       Superfund sites, it is important to understand
       the discovery and evaluation process that leads
       to identifying and cleaning up these most
       serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous

waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
      How does the EPA learn about
      potential hazardous waste sites.?
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.  There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about 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.
      What happens if there is an imminent
 As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
 reported, the EPA determines whether there is
 an erne jem y requiring an immediate cleanup
 action,  if mere 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 con-
 taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
 rarily relocating residents until the danger is
 addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
 dents 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.

     If there isn't an imminent danger, how
     does the EPA determine what, if any,
     cleanup actions should be taken?
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 contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so 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 whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.

Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation 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 assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the

    •   Are hazardous substances likely to be

    •   How are they contained?

    •   How might contaminants spread?

    •   How close is the nearest well, home, or
       natural resource area such as a wetland
       or animal sanctuary?

    •   What may be harmed — the land,
       water, air, people, plants, or animals?

Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. 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 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.

      If the preliminary assessment
      shows a serious threat may exist,
      what's the next step?
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 pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
      How does the EPA use the results of
      the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
 To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
 developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
 The HRS is the scoring system the 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 that 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 poten-
 tially affected by contamination at the site.

 Only sites with high  enough health and envi-
 ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
 to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
 NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
 the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
 have a long-term cleanup paid for from
 Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
 fund. Superfund can, and does, pay  for emer-
 gency actions performed at any site,  whether
 or not it's on the NPL.
      Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL 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 proposed 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. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.

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 capabilities, and available tech-

nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.

A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.

     How do people find out whether the
     EPA considers a site a national
     priority for cleanup under the
     Superfund Program?

All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
      After a site is added to the NPL, what
      are the steps to cleanup?
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 chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:

  1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
    detail the extent of the site contamination
  2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
    possible cleanup remedies

  3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
    which remedy to use

  4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy

  5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy

This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.

The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity 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 the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private

Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, 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 of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is

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 prelimi-
 nary and conservative assessment of potential
 risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
 EPA may find either that there is no real threat
 or that the site does not pose significant human
 health or environmental risks.
      How are cleanup alternatives
      identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.

Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and

To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered 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,
 depending on the size and complexity of the
      Does the public have a say in the
      final cleanup decision?
 Yes.  The Superfund law requires that the
 public be given the opportunity to comment on
 the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
 considered carefully before a final decision is

 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. The
 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 commu-
 nity know where they can get copies of the
 study and other reference documents concern-
 ing the site. Local information repositories,
 such as libraries or other public buildings, are
 established in cities and towns near each NPL
 site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
 to review all relevant information and the
 proposed cleanup plans.  Locations of informa-
 tion repositories for each NPL site described in
 this volume are  given in Appendix B.

 The public has a minimum of 30 days to
 comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
 is published. These comments can be written
 or given verbally at public meetings that the
 EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
 the EPA nor the State can select the final
 cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
 ing written answers to specific community
 comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
 summary" is part of the 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 technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.

     If every cleanup action  needs to be
     tailored to a site, does the design
     ofthe remedy  need to be tailored,

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 rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.

Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two 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 site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
      Once the design is completed,
      how long does it take to actually
      clean up the site, and how much
      does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money.  In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup  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 de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account  these differences, each remedial
cleanup  action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .

      Once the cleanup action is
      completed, is the site
      automatically "deleted" from the

No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective.  After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating  of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD.  Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."

It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected

 remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
 site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
 until public comments are taken into consid-
 eration that a site actually can be deleted from
 the NPL.  All sites deleted from the NPL and
 sites with completed construction are included
 in the progress report found later in this book.
      Can a site be taken off the NPL if
      no cleanup has taken place?
 Yes.  But only if further site investigation
 reveals that there are no threats present at the
 site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
 sary.  In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
 action" remedy and may move to delete the
 site when monitoring confirms that the site
 does not pose a threat to human health or the

 In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
 the NPL if new information concerning site
 cleanup or threats show that the site does not
 warrant Superfund activities.

 A site may be removed if a revised MRS
 scoring, based on updated information, results
 in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
 A site also may be removed from the NPL by
 transferring it to other appropriate Federal
 cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
 cleanup actions.

 Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
 ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
 serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
 pressing hazardous waste problems where no
 other cleanup authority is applicable.

      Can the  EPA make parties
      responsible for the contamination

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 con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
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 the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for  actions
financed through the Superfund.

Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the 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 (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.

Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.

                                                             THE VOLUME
       The site fact sheets presented in this
       book are comprehensive summaries
       that cover a broad range of information.
       The fact sheets describe hazardous
 waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
 well as the conditions leading to their listing
 ("Site Description"). The summaries list the
 types of contaminants that have been discov-
 ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
 cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
 "Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
 the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
 planned.  The fact sheets conclude with a brief
 synopsis of how much progress has been made
 in protecting public health and the environ-
 ment.  The summaries also pinpoint other
 actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
 ers responsible for site contamination and
 community concerns.

 The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
 order by site name.  Because site cleanup is a
 dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
 tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
 bottom of each page. Progress always is being
 made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
 will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
 actions and will publish updated State vol-
 umes.  The following two pages show a ge-
 neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
 mation under each section.

You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities 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 clean-
           How to  Use
                 the  State
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways.  Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary 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 the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.

The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can 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 involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's


 Dates when the site was
 Proposed, made Final, and
 Deleted from the NPL.

 Identifies the Federal, State,
 and/or potentially respon-
 sible parties that are taking
 responsibility for cleanup
 actions at the site.


     Other NMIIM:
  Site Responsibility: •
   NPL Listing History


  Fhreats and Contaminants
                            Cleanup Approach
                             Response Action Status
                            Site Facts: ^
                            Environmental Progress

 A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
 nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
 progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
 the cleanup plan are given here.

                                               THE  VOLUME
                         SITE DESCRIPTION

This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.

The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
                       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 often are 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 descrip-
                            SITE FACTS

Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.


The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
       Contaminated Groundwater resources
       in the Contaminated Groundwater in
       the vicinity or underlying the site.
       (Groundwater is often used as a
       drinking water source.)

       Contaminated Surface Water and
       Sediments on or near the site. (These
       include lakes, ponds, streams, and

        Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
        the site.  (Air pollution usually is
        periodic and involves contaminated
        dust particles or hazardous gas emis-

       Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
       near the site. (This contamination
       category may include bulk or other
       surface hazardous wastes found on the

       Threatened or contaminated Environ-
       mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
       ity of the site. (Examples include
       wetlands and coastal areas or critical
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 to determine the
        nature and extent of contamination are
        planned or underway.

       Remedy Selected indicates that site
       investigations have been concluded,
       and the EPA has selected a final
       cleanup remedy for the site or part of
       the site.

        Remedy Design means that engineers
        are preparing specifications and
        drawings for the selected cleanup

        Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
        selected cleanup remedies for the
        contaminated site, or part of the site,
        currently are underway.

        Cleanup Complete shows that all
        cleanup goals have been achieved for
        the contaminated site or part of the
                               Environmental Progress summa-
                               rizes the activities taken to date to
                               protect human health and to clean
                               up site contamination.

                                                             JVPL SITES
                                                 The  State of
Arkansas is the smallest state between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean. The state is
located in EPA Region 6, which includes five south central states. The topography consists of
prairies, southern lowlands, forests, northwestern highlands, the Ozark Plateaus, and the eastern
delta regions. According to the 1990 Census, Arkansas experienced a 3% increase in population
between 1980 and 1990, and currently has approximately 2,351,000 residents, ranking 33rd in
U.S. populations. Principal state industries include manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, mining
and forestry. Arkansas manufacturers produce food products, chemicals, lumber, paper, electric
meters, furniture, appliances, automobile parts, transformers, apparel, fertilizers, machinery, and
petroleum products.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Arkansas?
                     Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1      4 sites
Congressional District 2      4 sites
Congressional District 3      3 sites
                       What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
                           in the State of Arkansas?
                  # of sites

                     type of sites

               Municipal & Industrial Landfills
               Lumber & Wood Products
               Chemicals & Allied Products
               Petroleum Refining & Related Industries
               Salvage Yard
               Disposal Facili ty
                                                  April 1991

       How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
  8 --

  2 --
       Soil   GW  SW   Sed  Solid

            Contamination Area
                                Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy metals
                                (inorganics), volatile organic compounds
                                (VOCs), dioxin, and creosote (organics).

                                Groundwater: Heavy metals (inor-
                                ganics) and creosote (organics).

                                Surface Water and Sediments:
                                Heavy metals (inorganics) and creosote
                                                 *Appear at 25% or more sites
             Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
     with   I
 In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 6 sites as interim
 cleanup measures.
 'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
 April 1991

                                                     THE NPL REPORT
      The following Progress Report lists all
      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 Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
     indicating the current stage of cleanup.
                    To  Date
Large and complex sites often are 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 differ-
ent 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
•  An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway.  Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
•  A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
•  A final 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 are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
•  A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
»  A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
•  A final 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 currently
may  be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
•  A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
                                April 1991



                of Site
April 1991

                Who Do I Call with Questions?

                The following pages describe each NPL site in Arkansas, providing specific
                information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
                tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 6
                Office in Dallas, Texas or one of the other offices listed below:

                  EPA Region 6 Superfund Community Relations Office  (214) 655-2240
                  EPA Region 6 Superfund Office                      (214) 655-6664
                  EPA Superfund Hotline                             (800) 424-9346
                  EPA Headquarters Public Information Center           (202) 260-2080
                  Arkansas Superfund Office                           (501) 562-6533
April 1991                                 22

                                        EPA REGION 6
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
                                           Boone County
                                        1/2 mile south of Omaha
Site Description
The 18-acre Aikwood, Inc. wood-treatment plant site consisted of a millwork shop, a treating
plant that used creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP), and a yard for storing pretreated wood
prior to sale. Operations began in the early 1960s.  In 1973, the owner leased the facility to Mass
Merchandisers, Inc. (MMI), which operated it until 1984. The plant was dismantled in 1986.
During operation, the plant generated 6,000 to 7,000 pounds of waste each year. Operations
wastes were dumped into a sinkhole on site until 1970. The sinkhole since has been sealed.
Waste oils were placed in a ditch next to the railroad until 1974, when MMI began using a
chemical recovery system. Other wastes, including liquids  used to wash the treatment
equipment, were stored in a tank and then spread over the storage yard to control dust. The site
was listed on the NPL when PCP and other organic chemicals were found in local wells.
Approximately 650 people within 3 miles of the  site rely on private wells for drinking water.
The closest well is less than 1/4 mile from the site.  The area surrounding the site is
predominantly agricultural.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 09/04/85
  Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
          PCP was found in groundwater monitoring wells on site and in New Cricket
          Spring, one of 13 area springs. Sediments on site are heavily contaminated with
          PCP, but stream sediments off site showed much lower levels of contamination.
          Soil samples from disposal areas on site were shown to contain PCP, mostly
          concentrated in the top 2 feet of soil.  Creosotes and hazardous by-products of
          PCP also were found in the soils.  Rural residents, who live less than a mile from
          the site, use groundwater as their sole source of drinking water. Significant
          potential for contamination of the groundwater supplying drinking wells exists,
          based on underground geology and water flow at the site. Possible threats include
          drinking the contaminated groundwater or accidental ingestion or contact with the
          contaminated soil and sediments.
                                                        April 1991

Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
         Immediate Action: In response to the immediate threat of contact with hazardous
         materials, the parties potentially responsible for site contamination installed a fence
         and warning signs in 1987.

         Entire Site: In 1990, MMI, under EPA supervision, completed a site investigation to
         determine the nature and extent of the contamination. In 1990, the EPA chose on-site
         incineration of the contaminated soils as the remedy for cleanup of the site.
Engineering design activities are expected to begin soon.

Site Facts:  In 1986, the EPA signed an Administrative Order requiring MMI to conduct
investigations to determine the type and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for
remedial action.
Environmental Progress  -^
Fencing the site and installing warning signs have limited access to the site, thereby reducing the
potential of exposure to hazardous substances at the Arkwood, Inc. site and making the area safer
while it awaits further cleanup activities.
April 1991                                    24                               ARKWOOD, INC.

EPA ID# ARD980496186
                                       EPA REGION 6
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                         Jackson County
                                   3 1/2 miles northeast of Newport

                                          Other Names:
                                        City of Diaz Dump
Site Description
From the early 1970s to 1980, the 5-acre Cecil Lindsey site was used as a salvage operation
collecting machinery, cars, and scrap metals. Some municipal and industrial wastes reportedly
also were disposed of on the property, although the operators had no permit to accept them.
Drums that previously held pesticides and oils containing heavy metals were disposed of on site.
About 20 homes housing 50 residents are located within a mile of the site, the nearest being 600
feet from the site. The nearest drinking water well is 1,200 feet away, but all private drinking
water wells are upgradient. The site is adjacent to the Village Creek wetlands and forested
bottomland in an agricultural area. Portions of the site, which lies within the flood plain of
Village Creek, are often flooded.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through Federal
Proposed Date:  12/30/82
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Deleted Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
         Heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were found in
         groundwater underlying the site. Heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, and
         copper were found in soil throughout the site and VOCs were found in the
         southern portion of the site. Threats to drinking water are remote.  Wells
         currently are not contaminated, nor are they likely to be, since they are upgradient
         of the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at soil cleanup and
groundwater monitoring.
                                                       April 1991

Response Action Status
         Soil Cleanup and Groundwater Monitoring: In 1987, the EPA placed
         groundwater and access restrictions on the site, installed monitoring wells, removed
         the drums, and performed 1-year site monitoring. Other than these actions, a "no-
action" remedy was selected, since the EPA, in conjunction with the State, has determined that
the site has been cleaned to levels that are safe to people and the environment. No further
actions are necessary. Sampling results showed that contamination levels in the groundwater
have lessened. The EPA deleted the site from the NPL in 1989.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has eliminated the potential for accidental
contact with any contaminated material on site. As a result of these actions, the EPA has
determined that the site meets established ecological and health standards and deleted the site
from the NPL in 1989. Although there is no present danger to the drinking water, nearby homes
will continue to be protected through the use of monitoring wells around the Cecil Lindsey site.
April 1991

EPA ID# ARD059636456
       Lawrence County
 22 miles northwest of Jonesboro
Site Description
Frit Industries is a 30-acre site housing an active fertilizer plant  Product materials
(micronutrients) and raw waste were stored in piles on the ground without a liner or cover.
Waste piles on site were unprotected from rain, wind, and surface water runoff; therefore,
materials have been dispersed across the site. In 1979, a fire consumed portions of a product
storage facility. The water used to extinguish the fire further contaminated the soil and surface
water. The nearest residence is 3 miles away. Although the community has a municipal waster
system, there is an industrial park well approximately 1/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:   This site is being addressed through a
                      combination of Federal, State, and
                      potentially responsible parties' actions.
     Proposed Date:  10/23/81
      Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with zinc sulfate,
         cadmium, chromium, and lead. Runoff from the site is channeled into a nearby
         creek by approximately 1 mile of drainage ditches. This creek flows into another
         creek, which discharges into the White River 4 miles downstream of the site.
         Nearby residents could become exposed to heavy metals in the soil and water of
         Coon Creek and the drainage ditches, which have received 81,000 gallons of
         contaminated water.  Threats to people include accidental ingestion of
         contaminated waters or soil, inhalation of dusts generated at the site, and direct
         contact with contaminants from dusts, groundwater, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
                     April 1991

Response Action Status
         Entire Site: Since 1981, Frit Industries has been studying the site runoff, the
         potential for groundwater contamination, and the buildup of heavy metals in the
         sediments of drainage ditches and Coon Creek. In early 1985, Frit Industries
completed construction of an on-site surface water treatment plant The company submits
regular reports to the State and to the FJPA for comment and has proposed a cleanup plan
involving a plant for treating runoff. Any further cleanup actions will be taken under authority
of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) instead of Superfund.

Site Facts:  An Administrative Order signed in 1982 required Frit to construct a surface water
runoff treatment plant and to continue the monitoring of runoff. In 1983, an additional
Administrative Order required Frit Industries  to perform an investigation  at the site and to
conduct any necessary cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
Frit Industries and the EPA currently are conducting site testing to determine whether the water
runoff treatment plant is effective and whether the site can be deleted from the NPL. Meanwhile,
the EPA has determined that the site does not pose a threat to human health or the environment
while awaiting completion of the site evaluation.
 April 1991

EPA ID# ARD035662469
Site Description
                                                   EPA REGION 6
                                               CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                                     Crittenden County
                                                  1 mile north of Edmondson
Gurley Pit encompasses approximately 3 1/2 acres, which are divided into three levees, or cells.
In 1970, Gurley Refining Company leased the pit for disposal of secondary oil refinery wastes.
From 1970 until 1975, the pit was used for the disposal of oil sludges and filter material.  In
1975, the company closed the part of the refining operations that generated the wastes disposed
of at the site.  Site discharges contaminated a nearby stream, Fifteen Mile Bayou, damaging fish
and wildlife.  This is an agricultural area, with five residences within 1/2 mile. The nearest
drinking well is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the site.
Site Responsibility:
            This site is being addressed through
            Federal and potentially responsible
            parties' actions.
Proposed Date:  12/30/82
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, lead, and zinc. Sludges and surface water are contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals including lead. The site is
within the 100-year flood plain of the Fifteen Mile Bayou, which discharges to the
Mississippi River. Overflows that have occurred during rain events have had an
adverse effect on fish and waterfowl. Also, people using the shallow aquifer as a
source of drinking water may be exposed to site contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on groundwater and cleanup of sources of contamination.
                                                                    April 1991

Response Action Status
         Emergency Actions: After a flood in 1979, the EPA performed emergency cleanup
         of oil from the pit and installed drains and pumps to remove accumulated stormwater.
         In 1984, the potentially responsible parties for the site contamination built a fence and
repaired the dikes.
         Ground water:  Contamination from the pit has not migrated through the sub-surface
         into the groundwater. Elevated levels of inorganic contaminants were detected but
         were consistent with natural background levels. No site-related contaminants were
identified in the groundwater. Therefore, the EPA has decided that no cleanup actions are
required for groundwater. The groundwater will be monitored for at least 30 years to ensure that
no migration of the contaminants occurs.

         Source Control: In 1986, the EPA chose a remedy for cleanup of the site. The
         surface water within the pits will be treated on site and the discharge will go into the
         bayou. Oil containing PCBs from the water treatment process will be incinerated off
site.  The sludge will be stabilized on site and placed in a federally approved vault. The
engineering designs for the cleanup were completed in early 1988, but currently are undergoing

Site Facts: The EPA completed an Enforcement Decision Document in 1986, which addressed
cleanup of the contamination sources at the site. In early 1990, the EPA issued a Unilateral
Order, under which the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination would clean up
the source of contamination. There have been citizen complaints about odors from the site.
Environmental Progress
The emergency cleanup of oil and the installation of drains and pumps to remove contaminated
surface water undertaken by the EPA and the potentially responsible parties at the Gurley Pit
have reduced the potential exposure to contaminants at the site. Further emergency actions will
be taken to address the threat of accidental contact with and off-site migration of acids and heavy
metals from the pits. The pits will be pumped down again, and the fence will be repaired while
final cleanup activities continue.
 April! 991                                    30                                  GURLEY PIT

EPA ID# ARD980496368
Site Description
       Sebastian County
  8 miles southeast of Fort Smith,
    1 mile west of Jenny Lind
The Industrial Waste Control (IWC) site is located on 8 acres and is a closed and covered industrial
landfill.  The site is located in a strip mine that was abandoned and then used for local dumping. The
site was operated under permit by IWC from 1974 to 1978. Industries used it to dispose of a wide
variety of liquid and solid wastes. IWC built several ponds on the site for liquid wastes, and as
many as 9,000 drums of waste also may have been buried there.  In 1979, heavy rainfall flooded the
waste ponds, contaminating nearby pastures and ponds. Fish kills were reported, and local
landowners filed for damages. As a result, the State closed the site in 1978. The landfill areas were
covered with soil and were graded, and the site is partially covered with natural vegetation. The site
is located in a rural area. Eighteen homes lie within 1/2 mile, and the nearest residence and well are
200 feet away.
Site Responsibility:   This site is being addressed through
                      Federal actions.
   Proposed Date: 12/30/82
    Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
         Sediments and soil were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
         polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals including chromium, nickel,
         and lead.  Because the site was not being used, there was no immediate health risk from
         human contact with polluted soil or water. However, future use of the site or future
         migration of contaminants was of concern. No contaminants existed in usable water
         sources, although it was possible that buried drums would disintegrate in the ground,
         releasing additional wastes that could have percolated through the soil and threatened
         groundwater. A major concern was the possibility of groundwater contamination
         spreading through the interconnections between the extensive underground mine
         workings to the north and the surface strip mine under the site.
                  April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in one long-term remedial phase focusing on source control and
groundwater protection.
Response Action Status
         Source Control and Groundwater Protection: The remedies selected for the IWC
         site included: (1) removing about 3,000 liquid-filled drums for EPA-approved disposal off
         site; (2) excavating about 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, which will be stabilized
and redeposited in the excavations; (3) building an underground barrier wall of slurry to prevent
contaminant movement; (4) installing a french drain (in this case, a perforated pipe at the bottom of a
trench surrounded by sand and gravel filters) for collecting and diverting groundwater around the
site to avoid contamination; (5) building ditches and berms to prevent surface water from flowing
onto the site; (6) removing groundwater found during excavation to an off-site hazardous waste
facility or treating it on site, as appropriate; (7) covering the site with a multi-layered cap consisting
of a synthetic liner, clay, sand, soil, and plants; (8) installing a fence and imposing land use
restrictions; and (9) monitoring groundwater and assessing the site every five years for remedy
effectiveness. Site studies were completed in 1987, and a study of cleanup alternatives was
completed in 1988. The engineering design of the selected cleanup actions was completed in 1989.
Cleanup actions were completed in 1990. The final inspection of the site is scheduled for 1991.

Site Facts: A Consent Decree was  signed in 1989 with the Steering Committee for the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination to implement the selected cleanup actions.
Environmental Progress
Removal of contaminated materials, installation of barriers to prevent water movement and other
cleanup actions have eliminated the threat to human health and the environment from the Industrial
Waste Control site. A final inspection of the site is slated for 1991 to evaluate the effectiveness of
the completed cleanup actions.
April 1991                                     32                    INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL

EPA ID# ARD980809941
        Pulaski County
        Graham Road
      east of Jacksonville

        Other Names:
     Graham Road Landfill
Site Description
The Jacksonville Municipal Landfill site consists of 80 acres bought by the City in 1960 and
operated as a municipal landfill until 1973.  Forty of the 80 acres are contaminated. The landfill had
no permit and kept no records of the wastes it accepted. The site was closed when the State turned
down its permit application.  The site came to the EPA's attention in 1983, when citizens
complained that the landfill had been accepting hazardous wastes. A former county employee
maintains that wastes at first were burned, but odor complaints prompted a change to dumping
wastes into unlined trenches as deep as 25 feet. No cover was applied over disposed hazardous
wastes. Drums of industrial  and chemical waste also were accepted. The site floods during heavy
rainfall.  Groundwater in the area is as little as 5 feet below the ground surface. About 10,000
people live nearby; they draw drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the the
site.  The nearest private well is 1,320 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:   This site is being addressed through
                      Federal and municipal actions.
    Proposed Date: 01/22/87
     Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
          Soil contamination appears to be restricted to the drum areas on the site; there is no off-
          site contamination.  Principal contaminants include TCDD (dioxin), polychlorinated
          biphenyls (PCBs), and herbicides. The landfill floods during heavy rains, contaminating
          surface water with herbicides. The site was unrestricted, and children were seen playing
          on it until 1985. The water table is shallow, and the site is poorly drained. The potential
          exists for exposure through direct contact with hazardous materials and soils on site.
          Contaminated water could leave the site because no runoff controls exist

Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
the entire site.
Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: The City of Jacksonville installed a fence around the site in 1986.
         Entire Site: The EPA completed an investigation of the site in 1990. During the
         investigation, workers installed 20 groundwater monitoring wells, and these, as well as
         residential wells, were sampled.  This assessment indicated hazardous chemicals are
restricted to the site. In 1990, the EPA selected a remedy for cleanup of the site, which entails
thermal treatment of wastes and ash disposal at the Vertac Chemical Corporation, capping of
residual wastes on site, long-term groundwater monitoring, and site maintenance.  The engineering
design for the cleanup activities is scheduled to begin in 1991, with cleanup to begin in 1992.

Site Facts: The site is within 1/2 mile of the Rogers Road Landfill, which is also listed on the
Environmental Progress
Fencing the site has reduced the potential of exposure to contaminants at the Jacksonville Landfill
while the design of a permanent cleanup solution is being planned.
April 1991                                     34              JACKSONVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL

Site Description
                                      EPA REGION 6
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
                                           Polk County
                                     1/2 mile southwest of Mena
                                   between Hwy. 71 and Hwy. 375

                                         Other Names:
                                    Mid-South Lumber Products
The 57-acre Mid-South Wood Products site operates as a wood treatment plant. Originally it
was a post and pole factory in the late 1930s.  Wood treating operations with pentachlorophenol
(PCP) and creosote were conducted between 1967 and 1977. The site involves several areas,
among these are the Old Plant site that was used to treat wood with PCP and creosote and the
Small Old Pond that received these chemicals as wastes. Both of these areas have been covered
with soil. The Old Pond area was used to store PCP and creosote sludge and since has been
graded and covered with soil. Materials from the Old Pond were spread over the landfann areas
and mixed into the soil. The landfill area contains waste wood products. Clear Lake receives
runoff from all the other areas. In 1977, the chromated copper arsenate process was introduced
at the plant. It still is being used, and surface drainage from the plant is put in sumps.
Approximately 40 to 50 people live on 18 properties next to the site; 14 wells are located nearby.
About 5,700 people are served by drinking water wells within a mile of the site. Investigations
of the plant began in  1976, when several fish kills were reported downstream of the site.
Valuable stream fisheries are located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater, standing surface water, soil, and sediments are contaminated
         with PCP, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals including
         arsenic and chromium. The people served by drinking water wells risk exposure
         by drinking contaminated groundwater. The surface water contamination may
         affect valuable stream fisheries in the area of the site.

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
         initial Actions:  Homes to the northwest of the site, the direction of groundwater
         flow, have been connected to the Mena city water system.
         Soil and Groundwater Treatment:  Studies of site contamination and possible
         remedies were completed in 1986. The selected remedies include:  excavating,
         consolidating, and stabilizing contaminated soils and placing them in the North
Landfarm area; covering the North Landfarm area with a clay cap to keep out water; site grading
studies to locate free oil, liquids, or sludges in the Old Pond area and stabilizing them in place;
installation of a french drain system to channel water to the treatment system; and cleanup of the
treatment facility.  The potentially responsible parties have undertaken both the design work and
the cleanup actions at the Mid-South Wood Products site. The soil cleanup phase is completed,
and the groundwater recovery and treatment system is built. Groundwater is pumped from
recovery wells and treated with activated carbon. Any resulting oils or sludges will be disposed
of off site and the cleaned water are discharged to East Fork Moon Creek. Groundwater highly
contaminated with inorganics is used as process water in the wood treatment plant. Groundwater
monitoring measures the effectiveness of cleanup activities. The parties potentially responsible
for site contamination maintain the site, inspect it and continue to clean the groundwater. The
EPA will review remedy effectiveness every five years.

Site Facts:  The parties potentially responsible for contamination of the site signed a Consent
Decree to perform the cleanup remedy in 1987.
Environmental Progress
The provision of a safe drinking water source, cleanup of contaminated soil, and extraction and
treatment of groundwater continue to reduce contamination levels at the Mid-South Wood
Products site.
 April 1991                                     36                   MID-SOUTH WOOD PRODUCTS

EPA ID# ARD980745665
                                        EPA REGION 6
                                    CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                             Yell County
                                          1/2 mile east of Ola
                                             on Hwy. 10
                                            Other Names:
                                     Old Midland Products Company
Site Description
The Midland Products site is a 38-acre wood treating facility and sawmill that operated from 1969 to
1979 and now is bankrupt and abandoned. The site is contaminated from past activities, especially
in the 3-acre area where the wood treatment facilities and liquid waste lagoons are located.  The
processes involved pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote. Most of the contamination is in the soils
and sediments in and around the lagoon area.  Runoff paths from the lagoon area feed into an
intermittent stream that flows off site.  Contaminated oil was found in the shallow groundwater but
has not moved off site. Approximately 190 people live in this agricultural area.  A home adjoins the
southwest corner of the site; the nearest drinking well is 400 feet west, and residents within a 3-mile
radius depend on private wells. The Petit Jean State Wildlife Management Area is 1 mile north of
the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
 Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater, lagoon sediments, and soil are contaminated with PCP, polycyclic
         aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, and furans from wood treating operations.
         People could be exposed to the contaminants through direct contact with or accidental
         ingestion of contaminated materials. A nearby chicken farm and other nearby
         commercial establishments may be threatened by the contaminated site runoff.

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at soil and groundwater
Response Action Status
         Soil and Groundwater Cleanup: Studies of possible cleanup actions were completed
         in 1987. The selected remedies at this site include: (1) collecting contaminated lagoon
         liquids and stonnwater runoff and treating the liquids using carbon adsorption; (2)
installing four groundwater recovery wells with oil removal systems, pumping at an accelerated rate,
and treating the groundwater by carbon adsorption; (3) excavating the contaminated soils, sediments,
and sludges from the lagoons and drainage-ways and destroying these wastes using on-site
incineration; and (4) placing the clean ash on site and covering it with a vegetated soil cover.
Engineering design of the selected remedies was completed in 1990, and cleanup is underway.  The
State is taking the lead on site cleanup, with assistance from the EPA.
Environmental Progress
After listing the site on the NPL and performing interim studies, the EPA determined that the site
does not require immediate actions to protect nearby residents or the environment The EPA
concluded that the Midland Products site does not pose a threat while cleanup activities are being
Apn| 1991                                    38                          MIDLAND PRODUCTS

                                      EPA REGION  6
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                         Greene County
Site Description
The Monroe Auto Equipment Co. (Paragould Pit), site covers 4 acres of a former sand and gravel
borrow pit that includes a 1 acre disposal area in Paragould. In 1973, the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control gave the company temporary approval to dispose of electroplating sludges in the
pit. Approximately 15,400 cubic yards of sludge containing iron, nickel, chromium, zinc, and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) used as degreasers was buried between 1973 and 1978. Testing
conducted in 1987 and 1988 of on-site monitoring wells and a private drinking water well 300 feet
downgradient of the pit, detected VOC contamination. The testing also showed that the monitoring
wells are contaminated with metals. The property is no longer inhabited nor is the well in use. The
site are surrounded by a 6-foot chain link fence with barbed wire and a locked access gate. The area
around the site is rural and lightly populated with private residences to the south, north, and
northeast. Approximately 1000 people obtain drinking water from private wells within three miles
of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Proposed Date: 10/25/89
 Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
         Groundwater is contaminated VOCs and metals such as arsenic, nickel, and lead.  Soils
         contain VOCs and the metals chromium and lead. People who come into direct contact
         with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
                                                    April 1991

Response Action Status
         Entire Site: In 1989, an initial study was conducted and identified groundwater
         contamination on site and well contamination 300 feet off site. There is, however, no
         threat of contact with the contaminated water.  A study to determine the nature and exent
of groundwater contamination is planned to start in 1991. The study will identify alternative cleanup
options for final remedy selection for the site.  The investigation is planned for completion in 1993.

Site Facts:  In March 1991, the EPA sent a Special Notice letter to the potentially responsible
Environmental Progress
The EPA conducted initial investigations and has determined that there is no potential threat of
contact with contaminated water and that the site does not poses a threat to area residents. The EPA
has determined that no further actions are required while an investigation is planned at the Monroe
Auto Equipment Co. site to identify final cleanup remedies.
April 1991
            (PARAGOULD PIT)

EPA ID#ARD981055809
Site Description
        Pulaski County
 Rogers Road, east of Jacksonville
The Rogers Road Landfill is a 10-acre site that was purchased by the City of Jacksonville in
1953 and operated as a municipal landfill until 1974. The landfill accepted industrial and
chemical waste in addition to municipal waste. The landfill closed when the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology turned down an application for a permit. The site
is located 1/2 mile to the west of the Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, which also has been listed
on the NPL. The area around the site is heavily wooded and the site itself is overgrown with
vegetation. In 1985, the EPA inspected the site and found about 30 deteriorating drums, which
gave off a strong chemical odor. Contaminated soils were found around the drums and lagoons,
as well as the runoff paths. The landfill has no liner, and drainage is poor, allowing water to
collect. The groundwater is shallow, at a depth of 5 feet. Wastes were deposited as deep as 20
feet. An estimated 10,000 people draw drinking water from public and private wells within 3
miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                     Federal, municipal, and potentially
                     responsible parties' actions.
     Proposed Date: 01/22/87
       Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
         On-site soil and the waste sludge from drums are contaminated with herbicides,
         dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and trichloroethene. The potential
         exists for contamination of an aquifer used as a drinking water supply. People are
         at risk through direct contact or accidental ingestion of contaminated soils on site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action to limit site access and a long-
term remedial phase centered on cleanup of the entire site.
                     April 1991

Response Action Status
         Immediate Action:  The EPA initially inspected the site in 1985. In early 1986, the
         City of Jacksonville fenced the site to prevent public access.

         Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA chose a remedy to clean up the contamination at the
         site, which includes thermal treatment and ash disposal at the Vertac Chemical
         Corporation, capping of residual waste on site, long-term groundwater monitoring,
and site maintenance.  Engineering designs will begin in 1991, and cleanup activities are
scheduled for 1992.

Site Facts: An inquiry from a concerned citizen led the EPA to inspect this landfill in 1985.
Environmental Progress
Installation of a fence surrounding the site has reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances at the Rogers Road Landfill site, making it safer while cleanup activities are designed
and implemented.
April 1991

EPA ID# ARD000023440
                                        EPA REGION 6
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                           Pulaski County
                                      Western edge of Jacksonville,
                                     15 miles northeast of Little Rock
Site Description
Since 1948, pesticides were manufactured at the 92-acre Vertac, Inc. site. The company ceased
operations in 1986. Dioxin-contaminated wastewater from this facility contaminated three
discharge areas, including the Rocky Branch Creek, the Old Waste Water Treatment Plant, and
the West Waste Water Treatment Plant. The waste water collection lines and treatment plants
and off site soils and sediments of rocky Branch Creek all contain measurable levels of dioxin.
Inadequate waste disposal methods and production controls also resulted in soil and surface
water contamination by insecticides, herbicides, and chlorinated phenols. The former landfill
areas contain several thousand cubic yards of waste, and approximately 30,000 drums of
herbicide production waste remain on site. The site's surface is drained by Rocky Branch Creek,
to Bayou Meto, and to the Arkansas River. Contamination has been documented in Bayou Meto,
which passes through the Arkansas Bayou Meto Wildlife Management Area. There,
contaminants such as dioxin, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were noted by the
U.S. Department of Interior. The nearest residences are to the south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
          The soil and surface water are contaminated with insecticides, herbicides, chlorinated
          phenols, and dioxin from past disposal activities at the site. Possible health hazards
          include accidental ingestion of or direct contact with the contaminants. In addition,
          surrounding waters and wetlands are threatened by runoff from the contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in six stages: immediate actions and five long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the landfill area, off-site areas cleanup, groundwater and soil cleanup,
disposal of barrels of waste, and cleanup of the storage tanks and buildings.

Response Action Status	
         Immediate Actions: In 1986, under the terms of an Administrative Order from the EPA,
         the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination installed a fence around Rocky
         Branch, which is located near the site. The EPA re-barreled the drummed wastes on site to
prevent further leakage, and in  1988, again under EPA orders, the responsible parties removed soil
from contaminated residential areas.

         Landfill Area: Site studies began here in 1983, when the EPA, the State, and the
         Department of Justice asked the potentially responsible parties to investigate site
         contaminants and undertake cleanup. The remedies selected included construction of a
slurry wall and french drain system to prevent contaminants from moving off the landfill areas, repair
of existing clay caps over covered areas of the landfill, and closure of a cooling water pond. The
potentially responsible parties performed both the engineering design and completion of the cleanup
between 1984 and 1986.

         Off-Site Areas:  In  1990, the EPA completed a study of the nature and extent of
         contamination in off-site areas. A remedy was selected that entails demolition of the old
         treatment plant, the west treatment plant, and the aeration basin and dikes, and covering the
area with 12 inches of clean soil.  The remedy also includes incineration of on-site soils and Rocky
Branch Creek sediments.  Engineering designs of the selected remedy are scheduled to begin in 1992.

         Groundwater and Soil:  The former owner has begun to investigate the nature and extent
         of groundwater and surface soil contamination at the site. Completion of the investigation is
         expected in 1992.

         Barrels of Waste:  The State of Arkansas evaluated various methods of disposal of the
         30,000 barrels of waste and contracted for the  waste to be incinerated on site.  The EPA is
         providing support services for the project including air monitoring, ash disposal, and
delivery of the drums to the incinerator. The incineration process presently is ongoing and is expected
to be completed in late 1991.

         Storage Tanks and Buildings:  The former owner is conducting this portion of the on-
         site study, which includes the aboveground storage tanks and their contents, the buildings,
         and contaminated debris left on site. The study was completed in early 1991, and the EPA is
evaluating alternative cleanup remedies.

Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA, the State of Arkansas, and the Department of Justice negotiated a
Consent Decree with Vertac, Inc., requiring the company to conduct a site investigation and to perform
cleanup activities. In 1989, the EPA and Hercules, Inc.,  one of the former owners, signed an
Administrative Order, under which Hercules would perform an on-site study to determine the nature
and extent of site contamination.  In 1988, Hercules removed contaminated soil from residential areas
under an Administrative Order.
Environmental Progress
The numerous cleanup actions performed have reduced the further spread of contaminants and the
threat of exposure to dioxin wastes in the tanks and drums on site. The Vertac, Inc. site is safer
while studies aimed at identifying final cleanup actions and current cleanup actions are continuing.

April 1991                                     44                                 VERTAC, INC.

        APPENDIX A
     Terms Used
          in the
     Fact Sheets

      This glossary defines terms used
      throughout the NPL Volumes. The
      terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
          Terms  Used
              in  the NPL
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that arc used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.

Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination.  Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a

Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).

Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.

Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel.  The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.

Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.

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
purposes.  The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater.  A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.

Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-

Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.

Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.

Baghouse Dust:  Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.

Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions.  When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.

Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-

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 contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.

Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.

Bioremediation:  A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-

Bog:  A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on  moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.

Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-

Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use

Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.

Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants  are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks  containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.

Carbon Disulfide:  A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment

Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-

Cell: In  solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.

CERCLA:  [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response,  Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].

Characterization:  The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the

extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.

Chemical Fixation:  The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.

Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic.  This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.

Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.

Closure:  The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.

Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.

Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public.  Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].

Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.

Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-

Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment

Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].

Containment:  The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the

Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental

Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment

Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.

Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].

Cover:  Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material.  It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.

Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by  distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs], Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.

Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an

Decommission:  To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation:  The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.

Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.

De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.

Dewater:  To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.

Dike:  A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.

Disposal:  Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.

Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations.  Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.

Effluent:  Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall.  Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.

Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas  of commercial or industrial

Emuisifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.

Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.

Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements.  Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].

Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.

Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons.  These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and

Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].

Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain

Flood Plain:  An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods.  Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.

Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.

Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.

French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.

Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.

Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.

Good Faith Offer:  A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications

and willingness to perform a site study or

Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation.  In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.

Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.

Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.

Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.

Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.

Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.

Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other

Incineration:  A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.

Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.

Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment

Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.

Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin,  not of basic carbon struc-

Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.

Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water

Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between  the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,

setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities.  States often are parties to
interagency agreements.

Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities,  that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a  permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.

Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure.  Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of  wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent  nuclear fuel.

Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into  the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.

Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in  layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].

Leachate [n]:  The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste.  Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]:  The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.

Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill.  Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.

Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.

Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].

Migration:  The movement of oil,  gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.

Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].

Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations.  Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.

Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.

Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.

Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in

which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present

National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.

Neutrals:  Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of

Nitroaromatics:  Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a

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 the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.

On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective

Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds:  Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.

Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.

Overpacking:  Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.

Pentachlorophenol (PCP):  A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.

Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.

Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.

Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues.  These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils.  Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made.  These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.

Phenols:  Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly

Physical Chemical Separation:  The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.

Pilot Testing:  A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-

Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the

Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment 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 density of contaminants
[see Migration].

Pollution:  Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental

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 creo-
sotes 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 immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues.  PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control ACL

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-

Poly vinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.

Potable Water:  Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund 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. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.

Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals.  Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.

Preliminary Assessment:  The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.

Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.

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, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.

RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].

Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.

Record of Decision (ROD):  A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and  consideration of
public comments and community concerns.

Recovery Wells: Wells  used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.

Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.

Remedial Action (RA):  The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design:  A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-

Remedial Investigation:  An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].

Remedial Project Manager (RPM):  The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.

Remedy Selection:  The selection of 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 con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].

Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].

Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place,  e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to  dis-
posal.  The law requires safe and secure

procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

Retention Pond:  A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store

Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative  to nearby uplands.

Runoff:  The discharge of water over land
into surface water.  It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.

Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.

Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs

Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.

Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.

Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.

Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.

Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site.  It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment.  The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.

Slag: The fused refuse or dross  separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.

Sludge:  Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.

Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench  around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it.  The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.

Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.

Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the  small spaces between par-
ticles of soil.  Such gases can move through

or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.

Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.

Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches:  dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].

Stabilization:  The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.

Solidification/Stabilization:  A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.

Solvent:  A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.

Solvent Extraction:  A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and  sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.

Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.

Stripping:  A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air

Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.

Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste

Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.

Swamp:  A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-

Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.

Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.

Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less 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
Volatile Organic Compounds].

Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].

Upgradient:  An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted

Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.

Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].

Vitrification:  The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride.  These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, 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.

Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from

Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.

Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.

Water Table: The upper surface of the

Weir:  A barrier to divert water or other

Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated 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.

Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.

        APPENDIX B
       NPL Sites
      in Arkansas


s p
 ta.  « O. t
 rt  sa « 3
•3  i-j-
 ^ _