United States
               Environmental Protection
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
September 1991
5EPA     National
               List Sites:
                                                    Printed on Recycled Paper

                                    Publication #9200.5-711 A
                                    September 1991
                   U.S. Environmental"
                   Region 5, Library (-" "
                   77 West Jackco- -
                   Chicago, 1L 60GL-. .,•
       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, VA22161
                    (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

Super fund:
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 Georgia	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	51

Appendix B:  Repositories of
Site Information	67


        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 emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
 action.  If there is, they act as quickly as
 possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
 threat. These short-term emergency actions
 range from building a fence around the 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 & 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 NamM:
Site Responsibility: <
   NPL Listing History


Threats 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.

                                                             NPL SITES
                                                 The  State of
The State of Georgia covers 58,910 square miles on the eastern seaboard and is located within
EPA Region 4, which includes the eight most southeastern states. The State topography consists
of the Atlantic coastal plains and flatlands which give way to the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge
Mountains in the central and northwest sections of the state. Currently ranked 11th in U.S.
populations, Georgia experienced a 19% increase in population between 1980 and 1990 and
currently has approximately 6,478,000 residents, according to the 1990 Census. Manufacturing
is one of the principal industries, with electronic and electrical machinery, apparel, textiles,
transportation equipment, food, and paper as the principal manufactured goods. Other principal
industries include forestry, agriculture, and chemicals.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Georgia?
                     Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 1, 8,9,10     1 sites
Congressional Districts 3,6         3 sites
Congressional District 2            4 sites
                     What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
                           in the State of Georgia?
                  # of sites

                     type of sites

               Municipal & Industrial Landfills
               Chemicals & Allie Products
               Federal Facilities
               Metals & Allied Products
               Rubber & Plastic
                                                  April! 991

      How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
  8 --
  4 --
  2 -
       Soil   GW   Seds   SW

            Contamination Area
                                Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics), vola-
                                tile organic compounds (VOCs), and
                                Groundwater: Volatile organic
                                compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
                                (inorganics), and pesticides.
                                Surface Water and Sediments:
                                Heavy metals (inorganics) and pesti-
                                'Appear at 20% 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 7 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! 991

• MM
5   li ftft  ftft    ftftftftftftft
    II ft  ft
             ftft   ft   ftft
       5 *
          Si R ci $ ci «£
          00 S ^ ?I ~ 5
          o ••* o *•* >"* <—*
                « _ « t^ _i
                g g g g g
       £ £ £ £ if
             1 11 .1
             u. u. u. u.
       3 3
       S £
  u) ™
^ S §
                        S5 o

            ?S S
April 1991

                of Site
April 1991

                Who Do I Call with Questions?

                The following pages describe each NPL site in Georgia, providing specific
                information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
                tal progress.  Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 4
                Office in Atlanta, Georgia or one of the other offices listed below:

                  EPA Region 4 Superfund Community Relations Office   (404) 347-3454
                  EPA Region 4 Superfund Office                      (404) 347-5065
                  EPA Superfund Hotline                             (800) 424-9346
                  EPA Headquarters Public Information Center           (202) 260-2080
                  Georgia Superfund Office                           (404) 656-4713
April 1991                                 22

EPA ID# GAD095840674
Site Description
                                       EPA REGION 4
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
                                            Polk County
                                    Southwest section of Cedartown
The Cedartown Industries, Inc. site covers 7 acres in the southwestern section of Cedartown.
Originally, the site was the location of a foundry and machine shop. From 1978 to 1980, Cedartown
Industries operated a secondary lead smelter with lead from discarded automobile batteries that were
stored on the site.  In 1980, the company sold the property to H & W Transfer Co., which parks and
repairs its vehicles on a portion of the site.  Remaining on site when Cedartown Industries ceased
operations were an uncovered pile containing 5,000 cubic yards of slag and flue dust from the
smelting operations and a 32,000-gallon lined surface impoundment. The Newala Limestone
Formation underlies the site. It feeds a large spring that is the sole source of water for Cedartown's
water system. This spring and a well that supplies the Polk County water system, both within 3
miles of the site, provide drinking water to an estimated 25,700 people. The site is adjacent to Cedar
Creek, which is used for fishing and other recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
         The sediments in the impoundment and the soil around the slag pile are contaminated
         with lead from former site operations. People on the site could be exposed to lead by
         touching or accidentally ingesting contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach 	

The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
                                                      April 1991

Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: Removal of the contaminated slag pile is being done under an
         Administrative Order.

         Entire Site: A study by the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
         began in 1990. This study, to be completed in 1992, will determine the extent of
         contamination and will identify alternative technologies for the cleanup.

Site Facts: Negotiations have been completed, and the Consent Order has been signed with five
potentially responsible parties to study the extent of the contamination and to identify alternative
technologies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Cedartown Industries site to the NPL, the EPA determined that the site currently
does not pose an immediate threat to the public or the environment while further studies leading to
the selection of the best alternatives for permanent cleanup are taking place.
April1991                                     24                   CEDARTOWN INDUSTRIES, INC.

EPA ID# GAD980495402
Site Description
                                       EPA REGION 4
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
                                            Polk County
The Cedartown Municipal Landfill covers approximately 130 acres just outside of Cedartown. The
area is an abandoned iron ore mine that was used as a municipal landfill by the City of Cedartown
from the early 1960s until late in 1980. The City owns the land and had a permit from the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division to operate it as a sanitary landfill, accepting industrial wastes
from local industries. According to the City, the landfill was covered with soil after it was closed in
1981. The City periodically stockpiles construction rubble and soil on the site and uses it for fill
material for other areas. Cedartown Spring, 8,500 feet from the site, serves as a water supply source
for approximately 8,600 Cedartown residents.  The Knox and Newala Geologic Formations, both
within 3 miles of the site, provide drinking water to the 25,000 residents of Polk County.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
         On-site groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
         including benzene and toluene from former waste disposal activities. Site contamination
         poses a risk to those individuals who accidentally ingest or make direct contact with the
         contaminated groundwater or soils.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
                                                     April 1991

Response Action Status
         Entire Site:  The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination began a study
         in 1990 to determine the extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative
         technologies for the cleanup. Upon completion of the study in 1992, the EPA will
evaluate the findings and select the final cleanup strategy for contamination.

Site Facts: Negotiations have been completed, and a Consent Order was signed on March 30,
1990 with 15 parties potentially responsible for the contamination of the site to conduct a study on
the nature and extent of contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Cedartown Municipal Landfill site to the NPL, the EPA conducted preliminary
investigations and determined that the site currently does not pose an immediate threat to the
surrounding community or the environment while studies leading to the selection of the best
alternatives for permanent cleanup are taking place.
April 1991

EPA ID# GAD990741092
Site Description  	
                                       EPA REGION 4
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
                                           Polk County
The Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill site is less than 1 acre in size and is located at the
intersection of West Avenue and 10th Street in Cedartown. Between 1972 and 1977, the company
buried drummed and bulk waste in five 6-foot-deep trenches at the landfill. According to the
company, the waste included fungicides, amides, oil, and oil sludges, esters, alcohols, and metallic
salts. The trenches are unlined, are in an area of permeable soils, and are in the flood plain of Cedar
Creek, which is a major tributary of the Coosa River. Area groundwater underlying the site is
shallow. An estimated 25,000 people draw drinking water from public wells within 3 miles of the
site. The Cedartown Spring is a sole source of water supply for the City of Cedartown, while Cave
Springs well serves Polk County. Cedar Creek has been used for fishing and possibly for swimming.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
 Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
         On-site groundwater and surface and subsurface soils are contaminated with heavy
         metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, and zinc from wastes deposited on the
         site. Potential health threats include direct contact with or accidental ingestion of
         contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soils, as well as inhalation of contaminated
         dust and particulates on the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the groundwater and soil.
                                                    April 1991

Response Action Status
         Initial Actions:  In 1990, the EPA recovered and removed 680 contaminated drums and
         400 gallons of bulk liquid waste from the site. Trenches also were dug and 1,500 cubic
         yards of waste-contaminated soil were treated on site and discharged.

         Groundwater and Soil: The party potentially responsible for the site contamination,
         Henkel Corporation, is planning to conduct an investigation into the nature and extent of
         the groundwater and soil contamination at the site in 1991. The investigation will define
the nature and extent of the contamination and will recommend alternatives for final groundwater
and soil cleanup.  The investigation is planned to be completed in 1993.  The Henkel Corporation
presently is conducting a limited investigation to identify areas where the study should focus and to
discover the sources of contamination.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated drums and liquid waste and the treatment of contaminated soil have
reduced the threat of exposure to pollutants by the surrounding community and the environment
while studies into a permanent cleanup solution are being conducted by the Henkel Corporation.
April 1991

EPA ID# GAD990855074
Site Description
                                     EPA REGION 4
                                 CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                       Dougherty County
The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company (Albany Plant) has manufactured tires in this 330-acre site
in Albany since 1968. Until 1980, drums of waste cement were stored on the ground in an area
covering less than an acre. Wastes were buried in a pit on another area of the site during fire-
training exercises. Groundwater in this area was found to be contaminated. The facility received
interim approval from the EPA for the management of hazardous wastes; however, the final permit
application was withdrawn. Approximately 400 people obtain drinking water from private wells
within 3 miles of the site. Wells drawing on the contaminated groundwater also are used for
irrigating 1,000 acres of cropland.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date:  10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
         benzene and toluene from former waste disposal practices. Heavy metals including zinc
         also have been found in the groundwater underlying the site.  Direct contact with or
         ingestion of the contaminated groundwater on the site could threaten the health of
         residents using the resource. Use of contaminated water to irrigate crops also could
         expose people to chemicals.
                                                   April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
Response Action Status
         Entire Site: In 1992, the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination are
         scheduled to complete a study to determine the type and extent of contamination and to
         evaluate the cleanup alternatives.  Once these studies are completed, the EPA will evaluate
the findings of the site investigators and will select a final cleanup strategy to address ground water
contamination and any additional areas of contamination identified.

Site Facts:  On March 28, 1990, the EPA sent a Special Notice letter requesting that the potentially
responsible parties conduct the investigation into contamination at the site.
 Environmental Progress
 After adding the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (Albany Plant) site to the NPL and performing a
 preliminary investigation, the EPA determined that the site does not present an immediate threat to
 the neighboring community or the environment while studies are taking place.
April 1991                                     30                 FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO.
EPA ID# GAD980556906
Site Description
                                        EPA REGION 4
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                           Glynn County

                                           Other Names:
                                            009 Landfill
The Hercules 009 Landfill site covers 7 acres on a 16 1/2-acre parcel of land. The company
manufactured the insecticide toxaphene and disposed of approximately 19,300 tons of solid wastes
from its Brunswick plant on this now inactive site. The landfill began operations in 1976 with a
State permit, which was revoked in 1980 because of well contamination.  Hercules fenced the
landfill, covered the area with clean soil, contoured it to prevent runoff, and planted vegetation on it.
The closest residence is 200 yards from the site. There are private wells within 1/4 mile of the site.
Residential wells in the area generally tap the shallow aquifer underlying the site. The landfill is in a
marshland and is 1 mile away from coastal wetlands.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
 Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
         The shallow and deep groundwater, sediments in a drainage ditch, and soil are
         contaminated with toxaphene.  People who come in direct contact with or accidentally
         ingest contaminated groundwater, sediments, or soil may be at risk.  However, the levels
         of toxaphene found in private wells are below the EPA limit for this chemical in drinking
                                                      April! 991

Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site
and provision of a drinking water supply.

Response Action Status	
         Entire Site:  Hercules is studying the type and extent of contamination at the site. Once
         the study is finished in 1992, the EPA will review the investigation findings and select
         final cleanup remedies for groundwater, sediment and soil contamination at the site.

         Drinking  Water Supply: Groundwater flow from the site is in the direction of several
         homes with private wells. The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are
         development plans for installing water supply lines connecting local residences to the
municipal water supply system. An interim decision regarding this action is expected in 1991.

Site Facts: Hercules and the EPA agreed, under a Consent Order in 1988, that the company would
conduct a detailed study of the extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
Earlier actions, before the site was listed on the NPL, reduced risks of direct contact and of
migration of contaminants.  Since several private wells are threatened by groundwater contamination
from the site, plans are underway to connect local residences to the municipal water supply in mid-
1991. This action will protect residents near the Hercules 009 Landfill site while studies leading to
cleanup actions are taking place.
April 1991                                     32                        HERCULES 009 LANDFILL

Site Description
                                    EPA REGION 4
                                CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
                                       Clarke County
The 1-acre Luminous Processes site is a defunct manufacturing plant. The company was operational
from 1952 to 1978 and used radioactive isotopes to paint watch and clock dials. The site was
abandoned by the owners in 1980. Radioactive contamination was left behind in the soil and the
building on the site.  The site originally was licensed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through Federal
and State actions.
                                                      NPL LISTING HISTORY
                                                      Deleted Date:  12/30/82
Threats and Contaminants
        The soil was contaminated with radium-226 and tritium from former manufacturing
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase that focused on cleanup of the entire

Response Action Status
         Entire Site:  Site cleanup began in mid-1982.  State workers excavated approximately
         18,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil, shipped more than 2,400 drums, and disposed of
         nearly 500 millicuries of radium-226.  They backfilled the excavated areas, seeded them
with grass, and closed access to the public. The next step was removing contaminated structures
from inside the building and cleaning up polluted areas outdoors that had not been previously
identified. The site also was fenced, and warning signs were posted. The entire cleanup, including
site restoration, was completed in five months.

Site Facts: In April 1982, the EPA and the State  entered into a Cooperative Agreement for cleanup
actions to be conducted in three phases.  All cleanup actions at the site were completed prior to the
initiation of the first final NPL list.
Environmental Progress
As a result of the cleanup activities described above, and based on subsequent sampling to ensure
that all radiation sources and contaminated materials had been removed, the EPA and the State
deleted the site from the NPL. The Luminous Processes site has been restored to a safe condition
and no longer poses a threat to the neighboring community or the surrounding environment.
April 1991

GEORGIA              ^—
EPA ID#GA7170023694
Site Description
       Dougherty County
   5 miles southeast of Albany

        Other Names:
   USMC Logistics Base 555
The Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) site is divided into three areas: MCLB (the facility), the
Boyette Housing Area, and the Branch Clinic. Work in support of the base mission includes
maintenance, repairs and rebuilding of ground combat and combat support equipment, fuel storage,
and motor transport. Maintenance activities at MCLB over the years generated a variety of materials
that were disposed of on the facility. These materials include construction debris; miscellaneous
industrial wastes including waste fuel, oil paints, thinners, and solvents; and municipal wastewater
treatment plant sludge. Current disposal practices are monitored regularly for conformance with
local, State, and Federal regulations. Fourteen potential sources of contamination have been
identified within the area of the site.  The base is surrounded by agricultural, residential, and
commercial lands. Four aquifers underlie MCLB and the Albany area. From  shallow to deep, these
aquifers are: the Ocala, Tallahatta, Clayton, and the Providence. The 4,200 military personnel and
dependents living on the base obtain drinking water from three multi-aquifer artesian wells tapping
the three upper aquifers.
Site Responsibility:   This site is being addressed through
                      Federal actions.
   Proposed Date: 07/14/89
    Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
         In 1986, the Marine Corps found the pesticides DDE and DDT and polychlorinated
         biphenyls (PCBs) in sediments from the bottom of a drainage ditch that formerly had
         received hazardous substances.  A study completed in 1987 indicated high levels of
         arsenic, chromium, lead, methylene chloride, and trichlorethylene (TCE) in shallow soils.
         A 1989 sampling showed TCE and trace amounts of metals in monitoring wells near the
         sludge drying beds of the industrial waste treatment plant.  There currently are no data
         that indicate immediate threats to the environment or human health; however, a risk
         assessment will be an initial step in the study to determine the nature and extent of
                   April 1991

Cleanup Approach  	________

The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: The Marine Corps cleaned up the sludge drying beds in accordance with
         a permit issued under Federal regulation.  Workers removed contaminated materials from
         the beds and transported them to an EPA-approved disposal facility. The beds then were
covered with a 12-inch concrete cap in 1988. Part of the site closure plan requires six test wells to
be installed to pump groundwater to the surface, followed by treating it to remove contaminants.
Three test wells have been installed to date, and additional wells will be installed based on the results
from current treatment.

         Entire Site:  Twelve potential sources of contamination have been grouped based on
         geographical proximity, similarity of contamination source, and other factors.  Studies into
         the nature and extent of contamination in the Landfill Disposal Areas,  Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ordnance Disposal Area, Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant, and
PCB Disposal Area are planned to begin in  1992. Appropriate cleanup remedies will be selected
upon completion of these studies.

Site Facts:  A Federal  Facilities Agreement for remedial action has been negotiated between the
Navy/MCLB, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and the EPA.  The Base is
participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially funded program established by the
Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of
hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
By removing the contaminated sludge from the drying beds, capping the beds, and installing
monitoring wells, the Navy/Marine Corps has significantly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the Marine Corps Logistics Base while further studies into potential health
risks and cleanup strategies for the site are taking place.
April 1991                                     36                  MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE

Site Description  	
                                        EPA REGION 4
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                            lift County
The now-defunct Marzone, Inc. pesticide plant was established in 1950 at this roughly 1 1/2-acre site
in Tifton, at the junction of Golden Road and the Georgia Southern and Florida Railroad line.  The
facility operated until 1982, when a new owner began using its warehouse as a distribution center.
Chevron Chemical Co. started blending dry powders at the site in the 1950s and constructed a
building for formulating liquids some time during 1963 through 1964. This owner also added a
drum storage facility, three 10,000-gallon solvent tanks, one 12,000-gallon toxaphene (insecticide)
tank, and a wastewater pond.  The site has changed ownership five times since 1970; four of these
owners were agricultural chemical companies. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division's
records show numerous environmental problems at the site starting in 1973.  In May 1984, the EPA
and the State inspected the site and found that pesticides were present in the soils and groundwater.
Within 3 miles of the site are 28 private wells tapping the shallow, contaminated aquifer. These
wells are the sole source of drinking water for the residents in the area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater and soils have been contaminated with pesticides including toxaphene,
         lindane, and endrin from the site disposal areas.  Discoloration of the soil and numerous
         dead birds on the site indicated the spread of contamination. Imminent threats to public
         health that existed at the site from direct contact with and inhalation of pesticide residues
         found in the groundwater and soils have since been removed. Gum Creek, located 250
         yards south of the site, receives the bulk of the drainage from the site and could
         potentially be polluted.
                                                      April! 991

Cleanup Approach	

The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
         Emergency Actions:  In 1984, EPA emergency workers conducted an extensive
         cleanup to eliminate the immediate threats at the site. The actions performed were: (1)
         removal and disposal of stored wastes; (2) decontamination of buildings and equipment;
(3) excavation of contaminated surface soils; (4) draining water and accumulated sediments in a
truck-loading area near the railroad tracks; and (5) transport of 1,700 tons of waste materials to an
EPA-regulated disposal facility. Chevron Chemical Co., responding to a 1985 agreement with the
EPA, agreed to help clean up the site.  The company subsequently excavated the wastewater lagoon,
a drainage ditch, and a railroad ditch; filled them in; and transported the contaminated soil to an
EPA-approved disposal facility. Other owners also undertook cleanup actions in the early 1980s,
before the site came to the EPA's attention. In 1984, Kova Fertilizer removed 49 drums of pesticide
wastes. These initial actions have stabilized conditions at the site while the EPA pursues alternatives
for final site cleanup.

         Groundwater:  Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for
         groundwater contamination at the site initiated investigations in 1990 into the nature and
         extent of the contamination. These investigations are planned to be completed in 1993, at
which time a cleanup remedy will be selected. At the same time, the potentially responsible parties
are studying the need for any temporary remedies to control groundwater contamination while a final
remedy is selected.

Site Facts: Under a Consent Agreement with the EPA signed in April 1985, Chevron agreed to
conduct initial cleanup actions to stabilize the site.  Notice letters were sent on March 10, 1989 to the
potentially responsible parties.  The public is concerned about possible contamination of private
water wells.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove wastes and excavate soils and sediments from the Marzone/
Chevron site have greatly reduced the immediate threats to the surrounding community and the
environment until final cleanup actions can be performed.
April 1991                                     38           MARZONE INC./CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO.

EPA !D# GAD980838619

Site Description   —
                                         EPA REGION 4
                                     CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
                                             Walker County
                                        In Lafayette, along the east
                                         side of S. Marble Top Rd.
The privately owned Mathis Brothers Landfill (South Marble Top Road) operated on this 20-acre
parcel in Lafayette, 1  1/2 miles north-northwest of Kensington.  Only 5 acres of the hilltop property
were used for waste disposal.  The landfill operated from 1974 to 1980 and had a permit from the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division to accept non-hazardous wastes. Operators buried
approximately 3,000 tons of hazardous wastes in unlined trenches while the landfill was in business.
Records from one generator, Velsicol Chemical Corp., indicated that their wastes contained arsenic,
organic chemicals, and herbicides. The landfill was abandoned  some time after 1980.  The landfill is
unprotected from the elements, and rusted, leaking drums lie on the site surface. Most of the land
use within a mile of the site is pasture and forest.  The Kensington Water and Sewer Authority
provides drinking water to approximately 4,300 people from wells 1 1/2 miles south of the site, and
a private well lies 1,900 feet away. An estimated 75 people live within a 1-mile radius. Three
homes are located within 1,000 feet of the site, and 25 are within 1/2 mile. Surface water within 3
miles downstream of the wastes is used for fishing and irrigation. The soil under the wastes is
permeable, a condition that facilitates movement of contaminants into groundwater, 40 feet below
the soil surface.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
 Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
         On-site contaminants found in the soil include various residues from herbicide production
         and latex waste from carpet manufacture. To date, private wells have shown no evidence
         of contamination; however, as a result of the soil characteristics, the potential exists for
         the groundwater serving these wells to become polluted. Although preliminary sampling
         results have not revealed contamination in area water bodies, local residents have
         reported fish kills.
                                                       April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.

Response Action Status	
         Entire Site:  A potentially responsible party is conducting an intensive study of pollution
         problems.  This investigation, conducted under EPA monitoring, will explore the nature
         and extent of contamination and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is
slated for completion in early 1992.

Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent with a potentially
responsible party to accept financial responsibility for conducting the study of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the site to the NPL, the EPA determined that the Mathis Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road) does not pose an immediate threat to local residents or the environment while
studies are being conducted leading to selection of the cleanup technologies for a permanent remedy
at the site.
ApriM991                                     40                    MATHIS BROTHERS LANDFILL
                                                                     l ITU fcjlAnni r~ T/-\n n^Ai-*.»

EPA ID# GADO01700699
Site Description
                                       EPA REGION 4
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
                                         Richmond County
                                    In Augusta on Marvin Griffin Road
Two small landfills are the areas of concern at the 75-acre Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant) site on
Marvin Griffin Road in Augusta. The landfills, each about 6 feet deep, received hazardous waste
containing about 5% arsenic trisulfide. Workers disposed of phosphoric acid sludge containing
approximately 725 pounds of arsenic in the first landfill from 1966 to 1971, when the landfill was
closed. The second landfill, active from 1972 to 1974, received plastic drums of sludge containing
over 800 pounds of arsenic. The second landfill was closed in 1977. In 1979, the company began
collecting data from two monitoring wells, one downgradient from each site, and detected arsenic
contamination in the groundwater.  The Tuscaloosa Aquifer, underlying the site, supplies most of the
drinking  water used by area residents.  Most residents near the site use private wells.  The Town of
Gracewood, 2 1/2 miles from the site, uses the aquifer to supply the water for its population of 1,500.
The closest home is a mile from the site. Butler Creek lies 1,180 feet southeast of the site, and
Phinizy Swamp is 4,570 feet northeast of the landfills.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
 Final Date: 09/01/84
Threats and Contaminants
         Groundwater is contaminated with arsenic from former disposal practices at the landfills
         on the site. Potential threats include ingestion of contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
                                                     April 1991

Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: Approximately 830 pounds of arsenic wastes from the landfills were
         excavated, deposited in steel-lined drums, and disposed of off site at a permitted waste
         management site. In 1983, Monsanto excavated the landfills, and the remaining waste
material was removed off site to a permitted waste disposal site. The landfills subsequently were
sampled, backfilled with clay, and replanted.

         Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the potentially responsible parties completed an
         intensive study of site contamination in 1990. The study identified the nature and extent
         of the groundwater contamination. The cleanup remedy selected by the EPA in 1990 calls
for quarterly groundwater monitoring and possible pumping and treatment of groundwater, with
discharge to a wastewater treatment plant, depending on compliance with groundwater protection

Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on Consent on
April 24,1989, to perform the study of site contamination. The Order was modified March 28,
1990, to include design of cleanup activities and quarterly monitoring.
Environmental Progress
The actions taken to remove the arsenic wastes and to cover the landfills have reduced the potential
for exposure to contaminated materials at the Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant) site while
investigations into the cleanup alternatives are being conducted.
April 1991                                     42              MONSANTO CORP. (AUGUSTA PLANT)

EPA ID# GAD980496954
Site Description
                                          EPA REGION 4
                                     CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
                                             Peach County
The Powersville Site is a landfill that covers 15 acres in the community of Powersville. Beginning
in the 1940s, the site was used as a borrow pit to provide sand and fill for local construction projects.
In 1969, Peach County began using the pit and the surrounding area as a sanitary landfill for
municipal and industrial waste.  The County built a separate waste disposal area at the landfill for
pesticides and other hazardous materials in 1973, under a request by the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division. The landfill was closed in 1979, after State officials concluded that it was no
longer an acceptable site for waste disposal. Residents became concerned about the unusual taste of
their well water and, in 1983, groundwater from an adjacent church well was found to be
contaminated. The landfill is situated in the recharge zone of three aquifers, one of which is a major
source for local water supplies.  Approximately 40 to 50 residences, housing an estimated 150
people, are within a mile of the site. The area primarily is agricultural, with general crop fanning,
cattle and dairy farms, and orchards.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
 Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
          The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as vinyl
          chloride; heavy metals including copper, zinc, and lead; and pesticides such as dieldrin
          and lindane from the former waste disposal activities. Soil in the waste fill area is
          contaminated with heavy metals and pesticides such as alpha chlordane from the
          pesticide disposal activities. The site has numerous erosion channels and gullies. If
          erosion continues, contaminants may be transported to other areas and may pose a health
          hazard to those who come in direct contact with the contaminated soil.  Because the
          groundwater contains contaminants, people using well water may be at risk. In addition,
          cattle or crops may  accumulate contaminants if farmers use well water for irrigation or
          watering livestock.
                                                        April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
Response Action Status
         Entire Site:  In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site, which includes: (1)
         covering the hazardous waste and municipal fill areas with a synthetic material or clay to
         prevent rainwater from coming into contact with buried contaminants; (2) grading the area
so water drains away from the cover into natural drainage channels; (3) closing the landfill according
to Federal procedures; (4) installing additional monitoring wells to determine whether the
contamination is moving from the covered areas; and (5) extending the municipal water supply to
residences affected by contaminated well water. In addition, the site deed will include provisions to
ensure that the cleanup is not affected by future construction and that water wells are not drilled near
the site. The site will be inspected to ensure that erosion or settling is not occurring.  The parties
potentially responsible for the contamination designed a plan to cover the landfill and extend the
municipal water supply.  The design phase was completed in early 1991, with cleanup expected to be
completed by 1992.

Site Facts: In 1988, a Consent Decree was lodged in the U.S. District Court, calling for cleanup of
the site, including placing a soil cover on the site and providing alternate water supplies for
residential and industrial needs.
Environmental Progress
After placing the Powersville Site on the NPL, the EPA conducted a preliminary evaluation and
determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the community or the environment
while the final cleanup activities are taking place.
ApriM991                                     44                             POWERSVILLE SITE

EPA ID#GA1570024330

Site Description  	
                                        EPA REGION 4
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
                                          Houston County
                                    East of the City of Warner Robins
Robins Air Force Base covers 8,855 acres and is situated east of the City of Warner Robins in the
Coastal Plain of Georgia. The area includes a 1,200-acre wetland. Two distinct areas make up this
NPL site: Landfill #4 and an adjacent sludge lagoon. Landfill #4 operated from 1965 to 1978, and
the lagoon operated from about 1962 to 1978. General refuse, garbage, and industrial wastes were
disposed of in the landfill. The lagoon received wastes from two industrial waste treatment plants
and other waste chemicals.  The water supplies for the base and the City of Warner Robins come
from the Coastal Plain Aquifer. More than 10,000 people could be affected, because contaminants
have been detected in the groundwater near the site and in the surface water on site. However, the
general groundwater flow is to the east, away from the City of Warner Robins and the base wells.
The site is adjacent to a mixed hardwood swamp along the western border of the Ocmulgee River
flood plains.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
 Final Date: 07/07/87
Threats and Contaminants
         Heavy metals including cadmium, lead, and cyanide and volatile organic compounds
         (VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzene from the former waste disposal
         practices have been detected in the groundwater. The leachate from the site also contains
         heavy metals and VOCs, along with the pesticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls
         (PCBs).  Pesticides such as chlordane, DDT, and dieldrin have been detected in the
         sediments from a drainage ditch. Heavy metals and VOCs have been detected in the soil,
         and TCE and phenols have been detected in the surface water on site. People could be
         exposed to the contaminants by coming into direct contact with contaminated surface and
         groundwater. People also may be exposed to toxic chemicals by eating plants and
         animals that contain bioaccumulated contaminants from the wastes on site. The spread of
         hazardous materials from the site could pose a threat to the adjacent wetland.
                                                     April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases directed at stabilization and source
control and assessment of the wetlands and of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
         Stabilization and Source Control:  The Air Force is conducting studies to determine
         how the sludge lagoon area will be stabilized and to identify improvements necessary to
         control contamination from the landfill.  The study is expected to be completed in early
1991, at which time, several alternatives for cleanup will be identified.  The EPA will  then select the
most appropriate cleanup alternative.

         Wetlands: The Air Force is conducting a study of the wetlands area to determine the
         nature and extent of contamination from site activities. The study is planned to be
         completed in 1993.

         Groundwater: The Air Force will begin studying groundwater contamination at the site
         in 1991. Upon completion of the study in 1992, the best cleanup alternative will be

Site Facts:  Robins Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a
specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify,
investigate and control the  migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Under this program the Air Force completed a records  search and a preliminary survey.  A Federal
Facility Agreement between the Air Force, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, and the
EPA was completed and executed on September 25,1989. An agreement between the Air Force and
the State to recover costs for the investigation was completed at the same time. The agreement
contains schedules for conducting the current study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
An initial investigation by the Air Force has determined that there is no potential for exposure to
hazardous materials while the Robins Air Force Base site undergoes investigations leading to the
selection of alternatives for final cleanup.
    1991                                    46                       ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE
                                                                              ~-     ^H.
                                                                            I ir\/~c- i

                                                 EPA REGION 4
                                             CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                                   Dougherty County
                                                 In the suburbs of Albany
Site Description
The T. H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. prepared and packaged pesticides on this 7-acre site in
Albany. The site is in an agricultural area of the State. The company purchased the facility in 1966
from a previous operator.  The company's  operations continued until 1976. The facility served as a
warehouse/distribution center until 1982, when it was closed. During the 1970s, and possibly in the
late 1960s, the company operated under the name Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co. and took the
present name in 1981. An estimated 3,300 Lee County residents within 3 miles of the site obtain
drinking water from private wells, drilled into an aquifer, that have been affected by activities at the
site. However, the direction of groundwater flow is not toward Lee County.
Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                    Federal, State, and potentially
                    responsible parties' actions.
                                                 NPL USTING HISTORY
                                                Proposed Date: 06/24/88
                                                 Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with pesticides including toxaphene, Undone,
DDT, and methyl parathion from former pesticide production and disposal activities at
the site. The health of people who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with the
contaminated groundwater or soil could be adversely affected. Kinchafoonee Creek is
less than 1 mile northeast of the site and joins Muchalee Creek and the Flin River, which
are dammed to form Lake Worth. Lake Worth is used for recreational activities and to
generate electricity.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the groundwater.
                                                               April 1991

Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: In 1984, the T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. transported contaminated
         soils, debris, and building rubble from the site to an approved hazardous waste facility.
         The Georgia Environmental Protection Division oversaw the action.

         Entire Site: An investigation began in 1990 to determine the type and extent of the
         contamination at the site and to identify measures for cleaning up the site. This
         investigation, conducted by the potentially responsible parties under EPA monitoring, is
expected to be completed in 1992.

         Groundwater: An investigation into the nature and extent of the non-aqueous phase
         liquid (NAPL) contamination of the groundwater also is expected to be completed in 1992,
         after which a cleanup remedy will be selected.

Site Facts: The EPA sent out special notices on March 29,1990 to the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination. The EPA invited them to participate and assume
responsibility for the site investigation process. An Administrative Order on Consent between the
EPA and T. H. Agriculture & Nutrition was signed in July 1990.
Environmental Progress
By removing contaminated materials from the T. H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co. (Albany Plant) site,
the immediate threat of exposure to hazardous substances has been reduced, while investigations into
alternatives for a permanent cleanup are taking place.
April 1991                                     48              T. H. AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION CO.

EPA ID# GAD003269578
Site Description  	
        Peach County
          Fort Valley
The Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc. site covers 18 acres near the center of Fort Valley. The
company began operation in 1910 as a lime-sulfur plant and has evolved into a full-line pesticide
plant manufacturing pesticides in liquid, dust, and granular forms for the agricultural, lawn, and
garden markets. The methods of handling these products over the years have resulted in extensive
contamination at the site.  State records indicate numerous instances of untreated industrial waste
being discharged into surface waters. During a routine inspection in 1979, the EPA discovered that
the facility was discharging unauthorized wastewater from the production of pesticides into Bay
Creek. Records indicate that the majority of the wastewaters were discharged into a storm sewer on
the site.  The waste would flow into an open ditch located south of the plant and then into Big Indian
Creek. Three of the five Fort Valley municipal water supply wells are within 1,000 feet of the
facility.  This system is the sole source of water in the area. Late in 1986, the EPA found arsenic and
lead in two of the wells. The contamination did not, however, exceed Federal drinking water
standards. An estimated 10,000 people obtain drinking water from municipal wells within 3 miles of
the site.
Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                     Federal and potentially responsible
                     parties' actions.
   Proposed Date: 06/24/88
    Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
         Contaminants in the groundwater and soil consist of heavy metals including lead and
         arsenic and pesticides including chlordane, DDT, lindane, and toxaphene from former
         process wastes. The surface water of the site was contaminated with arsenic, lindane, and
         toxaphene during a storm. The municipal wells near the site potentially are contaminated
         and may pose a possible health threat through the consumption of groundwater.
                  April! 991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages:  initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.

Response Action Status	
         Initial Actions:  From 1986 to 1987, a former owner capped an area of contamination,
         removed 3,700 yards of contaminated soils, and destroyed and removed major
         contaminated structures to an off-site disposal facility.

         Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties are conducting a study of the type and
         extent of groundwater contamination and will evaluate the cleanup alternatives. This
         evaluation is expected to be completed in 1992, at which time the EPA will select the
appropriate remedies for final site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to remove contaminated soils and to prevent further site contamination by capping
the disposal areas have reduced the immediate threats to area residents and the surrounding
environment.  The EPA has determined that no additional actions are required to protect public
health while studies leading to selection of the final site remedy are conducted.
ApriM991                                    50              WOOLFOLK CHEMICAL WORKS, 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 are 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 Bisulfide: 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 fanning, 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

Emulsifiers:  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 (particulate) 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 Weils: 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-

Polyvinyl 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
stricdy controlled.

        APPENDIX B
       NPL Sites
       in Georgia.

 0)  -S

n additio
public access in
s on the extent of
neetings, minutes
ther public infor

                         a  a
   U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60630