United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/032
September 1991
PB92-963227
oEPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
KENTUCKY
1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-718A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Kentucky
U.S. Environmental Prpt^t'on P^c}
Region 5, Library -pl "' :
77 West Jacl'.son < : .2i;> r:.-;
Chicago, IL 60£C .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Superfund:
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 Kentucky 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 57
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 73
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
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
Intensified
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
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
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.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
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 EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
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
environment.
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
program.
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
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
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
-------
INTRODUCTION
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.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
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.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
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.
-------
SUPERFUND
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
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
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
-------
SUPERFUND.
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.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
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
danger?
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.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
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
questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
• 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-
-------
SUPERFUND
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.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
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
parties.
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
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
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
problem.
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
made.
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
-------
SUPERFUND
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,
too?
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
NPL?
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
10
-------
SUPERFUND
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
environment.
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 HRS
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
pay?
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.
11
-------
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.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. 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
Book
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
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
Description
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other NamM:
®
Site Responsibility: •
NPL Listing History
PropoMd:
Flmt
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress z^
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.
14
-------
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.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding 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-
tion.
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 VOLUME
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
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site 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
technologies.
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
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
Commonwealth
of Kentucky
The Commonwealth of Kentucky is located within EPA Region 4, which includes eight
southeastern states. The state covers 40,410 square miles and consists of the Appalachian
Mountains in the eastern portion of the state, knobbed hills to the north, bluegrass in the central
region, wooded hillsides, and the Western Coal Field. Kentucky experienced a 0.7% increase in
population between 1980 and 1990 and currently has approximately 3,685,000 residents, ranking
23rd in U.S. populations according to the 1990 Census. Manufacturing, coal mining,
construction, and agriculture comprise the principal state industries. Food products, electronic/
electrical equipment, apparel, primary metals, chemicals and related products, and non-electrical
machinery are Kentucky's primary manufactured goods.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in Kentucky?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
17
Q
17
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1 5 sites
Congressional District 2 6 sites
Congressional District 3,4,7 2 sites
What Type of Sites are on the NPL
in Kentucky?
# of sites
9
3
2
1
1
1
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Storage Facilities
Rubber & Plastics
Recycler
Disposal Facility
Textile Mill Products
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
15-
12--
£9
*
, o * ~
3 --
GW Soil SW Sed Air
Contamination Area
Liquid
Waste
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
Soil and Liquid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), creosote (organics),
and radiation.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), creosotes
(organics), and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Air: Radiation and gases.
* Appear at 20% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?*
8
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
1
Site
with
Remedy
Selected
3
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
2
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 15 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
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
(O) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
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
accomplishments.
• 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
Progress
To Date
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
underway.
• 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.
19
April 1991
-------
1
o
0)
(0
4)
C
O
o
o
o •
'
o
o
M- -«I
« oo
f ! ft ft a
fl^ •••
ft
ftftft ftft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft ft
ftft ft ft
J| ftftftftftftftft ft ftftftftftftftft
ftftftftftftft
ftftftftftftftft
en
0)
+-
c/5
a.
CO
a
3
C
(0
_fl)
O
•o
<5
I
(/>
£
O)
o
CO
D
OF
(A
u. u.
1
i a o
"I
JEF
RICH
« n
Mi
j 3 5;
a a £
ES at ot
GRAVES
B $
O CO — O -H
§ s i i i
1 1 1111111'
ii.
u, u.
ii.
iiiillii
QxSu-UOCQffl
a,
i u
i bh
S Sg 8 I
§Ssn*
il
RIVER
tu
2
£3
a
u
z
§
u,
>
S 1 s 2
0
s " %.
C- ft! O
O X
CO
u
3
§
S
s i
3 <
Q co
& i
2 o.
« 2
SF
&
£
V >O f* O —" f*>
4 oi «S CN CO f>
£
1
2
April 1991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 4
21
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Kentucky, 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
Kentucky Superfund Office (502) 564-6716
April 1991 22
-------
A.L TAYLOR (VALL
OF DRUMS)
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD98050096
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bullitt County
12 miles south of Louisville
Othw Names:
Valley of Drum*
Site Description
The A.L. Taylor site is located on 13 acres and first was identified as a waste disposal site by the
Kentucky Department of National Resources and Environmental Protection (KDNREP) in 1967.
The owner excavated pits on site and emptied the contents of waste drums into the pits before
recycling the drums. Soils from nearby hills were eventually used to cover the pits. Thousands
of drums also were stored on the surface. The owner never applied for the required State permits
throughout the history of site operations from 1967 to 1977. The KDNREP first documented
releases of hazardous substances in 1975. They pursued legal actions against the owner until his
death in 1977. The EPA inspected the site in 1981 and discovered deteriorating and leaking
drums that were discharging pollutants into a nearby creek. Approximately 100 people live in a
residential area located within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soil were polluted with heavy metals and
organics including ketones, phthalates, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
from spills and deteriorating waste drums. Accidental ingestion of and direct
contact with the contaminated groundwater, soil, and surface water presented
possible health threats. Approximately 4,000 drums containing hazardous wastes
were leaking into a nearby tributary of the Ohio River.
23
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on site stabilization and monitoring.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: As early as 1979, the EPA responded to releases of oil and
hazardous substances at the site. The KDNREP contacted six potentially responsible
parties in 1980, who voluntarily identified and removed approximately 30% of the
wastes remaining on site. In 1981, the EPA conducted a cleanup action to upgrade the existing
treatment system and to remove the remaining 4,200 drums of surface waste off site. The EPA
also installed interceptor trenches to halt runoff into a nearby creek.
Site Stabilization and Monitoring: The EPA completed the following methods
to clean up the site: (1) removed contaminated pond water; (2) secured pond
sediments, sludge and materials from low-lying areas beneath the cap; (3) installed a
final cover to contain the waste materials; (4) constructed a surface water drainage diversion to
reroute surface water, and (5) conducted tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the clay cap to
reduce runoff of surface contaminants. After the cleanup work was completed in 1987,
groundwater monitoring data showed that contaminant levels were reduced by 100 to 1,000
times from the original levels. The required 30 years of operation and maintenance began in
1989.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the A.L. Taylor (Valley of Drums) site. Qeanup
activities at this site have reduced contamination to safety levels, and the operation and
maintenance phase will continue to ensure that nearby residents are protected. The EPA has
begun the process of deleting this site from the NPL.
April 1991 24 A.L. TAYLOR (VALLEY OF DRUMS)
-------
AIRCO
KENTUCKY
EPAID#KYD041981010
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Marshall County
1/2 mile northeast
of Calvert City
Site Description
The 2 3/4-acre Airco site is an industrial landfill that lies near the southern bank of the Tennessee
River. From the mid-1950s until 1971, it is estimated that the landfill accepted 18,000 tons of
caustics, acids, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), zinc, mercuric acetate, and mercuric
chloride. From 1971 to 1980, an industrial lessee dumped 14,000 tons of metal-contaminated
coal ash at the landfill, as well as polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs), ferric hydroxide sludge, and
construction wastes. The landfill was unregulated until 1968, when it received a permit under
Kentucky's new solid waste management program. The landfill was capped and closed in 1981.
Another Superfund site, B.F. Goodrich (Calvert City), borders the Airco property on the east.
Because of their proximity and a common history of use, these two sites were studied together
and will undergo a combined cleanup. This site is located in a highly industrialized area.
Approximately 3,600 people live in nearby Calvert City, and the closest residents live about a
mile south of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, and soil are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and VOCs including benzene and
toluene from the former waste disposal practices. Direct contact with or accidentally
ingesting the contaminated surface soils, groundwater, and drainage sediments poses
a risk to human health.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: When Air Products, Inc., the industrial lessee, discontinued use of
the site in 1980, it closed the landfill in accordance with a State-approved plan. In
1981, Air Products constructed a clay cap over the landfill, a measure designed to keep
rainwater and runoff from spreading site contaminants.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the following remedies for the Airco site, in
conjunction with cleanup at the adjacent B.F. Goodrich site. The remedies for
groundwater are: (1) extract and treat contaminated groundwater, and (2) discharge
treated water to the Tennessee River using a permitted outfall. The selected remedies for soil are:
(1) impose deed restrictions to prevent residential development on the site; (2) excavate
contaminated surface soils around portions of the landfill and place them in the former burn pit
area on the Goodrich site; and (3) build an organic vapor recovery system and impermeable cap
over the burn pit. The selected remedies for the landfill include: (1) rebuild the dikes around the
landfill for flood prevention; (2) improve the existing clay landfill cap by adding more clay and
re-contouring the surface; and (3) install a system for extracting leachate from the waste. The
parties potentially responsible for the contamination at the Airco and Goodrich sites began
designing the remedy in 1989, but have since put design activities on hold while differences
between the EPA and the State are resolved.
Site Facts: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination at the Airco
Carbide and Goodrich sites began designing the remedy, but the State intervened, and the activity
has been temporarily suspended. The State wants soil and sediment cleanup to background levels
to occur in the areas surrounding the landfill. Other issures include landfill cap design and
groundwater cleanup levels.
Environmental Progress
The closure activities described above have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the Airco site while design activities are being completed.
April 1991 26 AIRCO
-------
B.F. GOODRICH
KENTUCKY
EPAID#KYD006370167
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Marshall County
Calvert City
The B.F. Goodrich site is a 2-acre industrial landfill near the southern bank of the Tennessee
River. The B.F. Goodrich Company disposed of wastes on the site from 1969 to 1972 and
engineered a former creek channel for landfilling. Workers disposed of 54,000 tons of
construction waste and plant trash, buried 370 cubic yards of salt-brine sludge, and burned over 2
million gallons of liquid chlorinated organics in several burn pits at the site. From 1973 to 1980,
the only waste disposed of at the site was excavation dirt. In 1980, an inspection by the
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection disclosed a leaching
problem along the river side of the landfill. The landfill was closed under a State-approved
closure plan in 1980. Another NPL site, Airco Carbide, Inc., borders the Goodrich property on
the east. Because of their proximity and a common history of use, these two sites were studied
together and will undergo a combined cleanup. The site is located in a highly industrialized area.
Approximately 3,600 people live in nearby Calvert City, and the closest residents are about a
mile south of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene from the former waste
disposal activities. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated
groundwater, surface soils, or sediments poses a health risk.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase directed
at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1980, the landfill was sealed with a clay cap to prevent rainwater
and runoff from spreading contaminants. The area was planted with vegetation to
prevent erosion.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the remedy for the site, which will be cleaned
up in conjunction with the adjacent Airco site. The remedy for groundwater includes:
(1) extract and treat contaminated groundwater; and (2) discharge treated water to the
Tennessee River via a permitted outfall. The remedy for soil includes: (1) excavate
contaminated surface soils around portions of the landfill; (2) place them in the former burn pit
area; and (3) build an organic vapor recovery system and cap over the burn pit. The selected
remedy for the landfill includes: (1) rebuild the dikes around the landfill for flood prevention;
(2) improve the existing clay landfill cap by adding more clay and recontouring the surface; (3)
install a system for extracting leachate from below the waste; and (4) impose deed restrictions to
prevent residential development on the site. The parties potentially responsible for the
contamination at the Airco and Goodrich sites began designing the remedy in 1989, but have
since put design activities on hold while differences between the EPA and the State are resolved.
Site Facts: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination at the Airco
Carbide and Goodrich sites began designing the remedy, but the State intervened, and the
activity has been temporarily suspended. The State wants soil and sediment cleanup to occur to
background levels in the areas surrounding the landfills. Disagreements also have arisen over
the landfill cap design and groundwater cleanup levels.
Environmental Progress
Sealing the landfill with a cap and stopping further dumping activities at the site have reduced
the potential for exposure to contaminants until the planned cleanup activities occur at the B.F.
Goodrich site.
April 1991 28 B.F. GOODRICH
-------
BR ANTLEY X£P$&>^ EPA REGION 4
DHMIM I LC T . CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
LANDFILL
Highway 85
( \ "X>O \ /""""V-rX^/l: f 's * "'x**&if!*L ^»^\ ^L~^
KENTUCKY
EPA ID * KYD980501019 ^""^ of """"^
Site Description
The Brantley Landfill site was used as a coal strip mining pit in the late 1960s. In 1978, Doug
Brandey and Sons, Inc. received an industrial landfill permit for the disposal of salt cake fines, a
by-product from Barmet Aluminum Corporation's aluminum recycling operation. Before the
landfill was closed in 1980,250,000 tons of salt cake fines were disposed. Salt cake fines are
dust-like materials containing various contaminants that react with water to form gases,
including ammonia, methane, hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide, and hydrogen sulfide. The waste
was deposited in pond water in the pit and also is believed to have been deposited below the
water table. A layer of soil placed over the landfill area during closure has partially eroded, and
some waste materials are exposed. In 1986, the EPA's Environmental Services Division (ESD)
conducted air monitoring in the vicinity of the Brantley Landfill. Ammonia was found in most
samples downwind from the disposal area. Moreover, the Kentucky Division of Air Pollution
Control has received numerous complaints from residents of ammonia odor. In 1987, ESD
collected soil, water, and sediment samples at and around the landfill, which showed that the site
was contaminated. Land use within a 1-mile radius of the site is primarily agricultural and
residential. Approximately 200 people live within 1/4 mile of the site. There are six private
wells within a 1-mile radius of the site; the closest is approximately 500 feet to the north of the
landfill and belongs to the current site owner.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions. Final Date: 02/21/9°
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Soil beneath the landfill cap is contaminated with heavy metals including
chromium, copper, titanium, vanadium, aluminum, magnesium, and sodium from
former waste disposal practices. The salt cake fines contain various heavy metals
and react with water to form several gases, including ammonia. Dust and gas
emissions have been reported at the site, but the site since has been closed and
covered. Placement of wastes below the water table could have caused
groundwater contamination, which could affect drinking water sources. The site
has been fenced to restrict access.
29 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination fenced the entire site to restrict site access and to minimize exposure to
potential contamination.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination began a
study of the type and extent of site contamination in 1990. The investigation also will
recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. After completion of the study, slated
for 1991, the EPA will select the cleanup strategy and will begin cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions described above have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the Brantley Landfill site while further studies leading to the selection of final
cleanup remedies are being conducted.
ApriM991
30
BRANTLEY LANDFILL
-------
CALDWELL LACE
LEATHER CO., I
KENTUCKY
EPAID#KYD045738291
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Logan County
1/2 mile northwest
of Auburn
The 40-acre Caldwell Lace Leather Co., Inc. site consists of three tannery waste areas. From
1972 to 1982, wastes such as chrome and vegetable tanning sludge from the leather-tanning
process were buried in trenches or placed in unlined lagoons in a 5 1/2-acre area of the property.
In 1982, the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KNREPC)
granted a permit to Caldwell to mix waste sludges into the soil on a 29-acre landfarm. This
method of disposal continued until 1985. The KNREPC granted a conditional permit in 1983
for a third disposal area, a 5-acre landfill, which accepted only solid wastes from tannery
operations. Leather-tanning operations occurred at the facility until 1985, when it was sold to
North Park, Inc. In 1983, the KNREPC detected chromium in a private well 1,200 feet from the
landfill area. This well has been taken out of service. Approximately 600 people obtain drinking
water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. The closest surface water intake for a public
water system is 2 miles southeast of the site. The majority of the residences around the site now
are connected to the public water supply.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
A private well 1,200 feet from the landfill area is contaminated with lead and
hexavalent chromium, the most toxic form of chromium. Contaminants,
primarily chromium, also have been found in the soil on the site. This
contamination occurred from the site landfills and disposal areas. The site
presents a potential risk to public health because of the possibility of exposure to
chromium and lead from drinking the groundwater.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The site has been regraded and capped to prevent exposure to the
contaminated materials. A fence surrounding the site prevents access by people and
animals.
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA began a study to determine the type and extent of the
contamination at the site. An initial sampling program for the study began in 1990.
The study, which is expected to be completed in 1992, will recommend alternatives for
site cleanup. As part of the plan to close the site properly, Caldwell and North Park, Inc. have
been monitoring surface water and groundwater to track the extent of the contamination.
Site Facts: In 1984, Caldwell entered into an Agreed Order with the State to correct past
violations and to prevent further violations of State law. In 1985, the State approved a plan to
close the old landfill.
Environmental Progress
Capping the site and restricting access with a security fence have reduced the potential for
exposure and contaminant migration. Monitoring activities, currently underway, will ensure that
the contamination plume does not extend into public and private drinking supplies while
investigations continue at the Caldwell Lace Leather Co., Inc. site.
April!991 32 CALDWELL LACE LEATHER CO., INC.
-------
DISTLER BRICKYAR CQsr,02
KENTUCKY
EPAID#KYD980602155
Site Description
The 3-acre Distler Brickyard site is located on a 70-acre abandoned brick manufacturing plant
property that operated from the late 1800s until the mid-1970s. In 1976, the property was leased
by Kentucky Liquid Recycling, Inc., which began transporting waste to the brickyard property.
Waste disposal continued at the site until 1979, when the Kentucky Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet ordered disposal operations to cease. A brick complex,
associated buildings, and an open field covered with grasses and shrubs are located on the site.
There were approximately 2,300 drums on the site, 1,550 of which contained various liquids,
sludges, and solids. Spillage from the deteriorated drums killed grass, trees, and birds on the
site. A contaminated groundwater plume is located beneath the site and could threaten the city
drinking water wells and the Ohio River. Approximately 3,000 people live within a 4-mile
radius of the site and 70,000 people depend on wells within a 3-mile radius of the site for
drinking water. The site is partially fenced, and a railroad track runs through the site. Sparks
from the railroad caused a fire in 1980. Runoff from the site flows to an unnamed tributary of
Bee Branch, which flows through the site. Portions of the site are in the 50- and 100-year flood
plains of the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through NPL USTING
Federal and State actions.
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in groundwater and on-site soils include various
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including lead from waste
disposal activities. Potential health threats include direct contact with or accidental
ingestion of contaminated soils and groundwater.
33 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: As an initial action, the EPA and the State inspected the site and
sampled 28 drums. In 1979, some drum wastes were removed and, in 1982, the EPA
removed over 2,000 drums from the site. Patches of contaminated soil also were removed,
and some contaminated materials were incinerated.
Soil and Groundwater: Cleanup technologies selected to address soil and groundwater
contamination include: (1) excavating and disposing of contaminated soils; (2) backfilling
with clean natural granular soils; (3) reshaping surface contours to manage water
infiltration and runoff and planting grass to cover the site; (4) extracting and treating contaminated
groundwater and reinjecting groundwater into the aquifer, and (5) maintaining vegetation and
repairing any erosion for a period of 1 year. The EPA has begun installation of the temporary
groundwater treatment system and is planning to install a permanent groundwater treatment system.
Additional geophysical and water flow data will be collected and analyzed to help with the design
for the long-term cleanup action. Cleanup activities are scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The initial drum removal and incineration actions described above have removed the sources of
contamination and reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Distler Brickyard
site while long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 34 DISTLER BRICKYARD
-------
DISTLER FARM
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980601975
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Jefferson County
1 mile northwest of West Point
The 3-acre Distler Farm site was discovered in 1977, when the EPA launched a search for sites
previously used to store industrial wastes. In 1978, flood waters scattered drums of industrial waste
stored at the site along the flood plain of Stump Gap Creek. In an emergency cleanup action, the
EPA recovered and repacked more than 800 drums containing chemicals characteristic of the paint
and varnish industry and then moved them to higher ground. Later, the State sent the drums to an
approved disposal facility. During the cleanup effort, four drum burial sites were discovered.
Approximately 3,000 people reside within 4 miles of the site. The site is bordered by cultivated
farmland and is located 1,000 feet from the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including toluene and benzene, as well as heavy metals, from former drum storage
practices. Possible health threats included drinking the contaminated groundwater or
coming in direct contact with the contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
35
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1978, the EPA monitored the recovery and on-site storage of
the drums containing chemicals from paints and varnishes. The State later disposed of the
drums at a federally approved facility. The EPA conducted various studies from 1979
through 1984, confirming evidence of soil and groundwater contamination. Investigations were
temporarily suspended in 1984 as workers removed waste-containing drums and contaminated soil
from the site.
Groundwater and Soil: The final site cleanup actions began in 1988. Cleanup
activities included: (1) excavation and removal of all contaminated soils and off-site
disposal in a hazardous waste landfill; (2) backfilling with natural granular soils; (3)
extraction of contaminated groundwater and temporary accumulation and on-site storage; (4)
transportation of contaminated groundwater to an off-site commercial facility for treatment; and (5)
maintenance of vegetation, erosion repair, and groundwater monitoring for a 1-year period.
Contaminated soil with concentrations above acceptable levels have been excavated and removed to
a hazardous waste landfill. After the soil was removed, the waste pits were backfilled, and the entire
area was graded, cultivated, and covered with grass to control erosion. The groundwater treatment
system has been installed. Construction of the entire system and site restoration were completed in
1989. Long-term operations and maintenance are scheduled to begin in 1991 and could last up to 30
years.
Environmental Progress
Cleanup activities have been completed at the Distler Farm site. The site is now safe for nearby
residents and the environment while operation and maintenance activities are continuing to ensure
that residual contaminants remain within safety levels.
April 1991 36 DISTLER FARM
-------
FHRT HARTFORD PAfflKyl^H EPA REGION 4
I-UK I HAK I hUKUW D(ST
Site Description
STONE QU , mile
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980844625
The Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry is a massive underground limestone formation that
originally was mined for railway ballasts and road bases. In 1981, Barmet Aluminum
Corporation contracted with the Fort Hartford Coal Company to store salt cake fines, a by-
product of Barmet's aluminum recycling operation, at the site. Salt cake fines are a fine, dust-
like material containing various contaminants that react with water to form several gases,
including ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and hydrogen sulfide. As of 1989, over 1 million tons
of salt cake fines were in place at the site. Storage operations have been continuing, and
approximately 500 tons of waste are being transported to the site each day. However, these
activities are expected to cease in 1991. The mine is in a rural area; approximately 15 people
live within 1/2 mile of the site, and the nearest residence is 1,500 feet away. Approximately
1,400 people live within 4 miles of the site. The portion of the site's 120 acres not affected by
mining operations is forested, as is most of the surrounding land. Portions of the property have
been logged, and several of the logging roads remain above the mine. A few pieces of land
beyond the Rough River and Caney Creek, both of which border on the site, are used for
agriculture. Many residents near the site rely on groundwater for their drinking water supplies.
Approximately 25 private wells are within 1 1/2 miles of the property, and about 700 people
obtain drinking water from wells and springs within 3 miles of the site. The Rough River, about
30 miles downstream of the site, is the water source for the Town of Hartford and also is used for
fishing and other recreation.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
The EPA detected ammonia from the storage of salt cake fines in the air around
the storage areas during a 1986 inspection. Wastes were deposited below the
water table, threatening the groundwater. Ammonia and lead have been detected
in low levels in private wells near the site, posing a potential risk from ingestion.
The subsurface gases found in the mine include ammonia, methane, hydrogen,
and hydrogen sulfide. High levels of ammonia have been detected in an
unnamed stream that originates in the waste area. Runoff from the quarry flows
into the Rough River. Workers at the site may be at risk if they accidentally
ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated surface water or groundwater
or inhale ammonia vapors in ambient air from the site. There also is the
potential for explosion if ammonia, methane, hydrogen, or hydrogen sulfide
gases accumulate within enclosed areas.
37 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: One of the parties potentially responsible for the contamination, Barmet
Aluminum Corporation, began a study in 1989 to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the site, and to identify alternative technologies for the cleanup. The
site investigation is expected to be completed in 1993. Barmet also is conducting Expedited
Response Actions to identify areas where water is entering the mine and to isolate the wastes in
the mine from water, which will eliminate the formation of gases. Once the studies are
completed in 1993, the EPA will select final cleanup remedies.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry site. Initial
studies to address gas formation within the mines will identify methods to stabilize conditions at
the site while further investigations and long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 38 FORT HARTFORD COAL CO. STONE QUARRY
-------
GENERAL TIRE & R
COMPANY (M
LANDFILL)
KENTUCKY
EPA ID#KYD006371074
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Graves County
3 miles north of Mayfield
Oth«f Names:
Mayfield Landfill
The General Tire & Rubber Company (Mayfield Landfill) site is a 58-acre landfill located to the
northeast of the company's tire manufacturing plant. The company began disposing of wastes in
the landfill in 1970, shortly after the State approved the operation. Between 1970 and 1979,
when operations ceased, an estimated 200 tons of hazardous waste were deposited in trenches on
the site. Wastes were deposited below the water table, creating the potential for movement of
contaminants through the groundwater. In 1981, to comply with a State request, General Tire
began a groundwater monitoring program. In 1984, the site was covered and revegetated.
Approximately 5,000 people obtain drinking water from six municipal wells within 3 miles of
the site. The eastern edge of the landfill roughly follows Mayfield Creek, approximately 100
yards from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
ZE
Groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils are contaminated with heavy
metals including cadmium and lead, as well as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including toluene from the former waste disposal practices. People who
accidentally come in direct contact with or ingest contaminated groundwater,
surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk.
39
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The General Tire & Rubber Company is studying the type and extent of
the contamination at the site. Once the study is completed, expected in 1992, the EPA
will review the recommended alternatives for the cleanup and will select a final
strategy to address site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the General Tire & Rubber Co. (Mayfield Landfill) site to the NPL, the EPA
determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment
while investigations into the final cleanup strategies are taking place.
April 1991
40
GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY
(MAYFIELD LANDFILL)
-------
fiRFFN RIVFR rm EPA REGION 4
ViriU't"111 riivi-ri smfer^V CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
DISPOSAL, INC.
KENTUCKY
Site Description
Davies County
Near Maceo
EPA ID# KYD980501076 i«y o—y ito-SH.
The Green River Disposal site is a 14-acre landfill and surface disposal area. From 1978 to
1984, wastes from various industries, along with sanitary municipal wastes, were buried at the
facility. In 1985, an investigation by the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
found that on-site private wells were contaminated. Two of the nearly 1,000 drums discovered
on the site were found to contain heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and cyanide.
Wastes at the site are not adequately covered and runoff is not controlled, which may lead to
surface water contamination. The facility has a history of leachate outbreaks, underground fires,
and has been known to accept unauthorized wastes. The site held a State permit from 1975 until
1988, but became inactive in 1984. Approximately 500 people obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the site. Blackford Creek, which is used for irrigation and
recreational activities, is 3 miles downstream of the landfill.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater from on-site private wells is contaminated with heavy metals including
arsenic and barium from the former waste disposal activities. Leachate from the
landfill is contaminated with benzene and heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury,
lead, and chromium. People who come in direct contact with or drink contaminated
groundwater may be at risk. Blackford Creek could become contaminated, because
runoff from the site presently is not controlled.
41 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1990, samples were taken of site soils, surface water, leachate,
and residential wells. Test results prompted installation of a leachate collection system
and a fence around the site. Removal of contaminated materials is expected to be
completed in 1991.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties are studying the type and extent of
contamination at the site. Samples will be taken from the landfill waste, leachate,
groundwater, surface water, soil, and air to characterize the site and to evaluate
potential risks. The study is expected to be completed in 1992. Alternatives for the cleanup will
be recommended at the conclusion of the investigation.
Site Facts: In 1983, the State ordered Green River Disposal to bring the facility into
compliance with existing laws. In 1986, the company filed for bankruptcy. The EPA prepared
an Administrative Order on Consent for the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination to conduct a study to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to
identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions of sampling the contaminated materials, installing a leachate collection system,
and constructing a fence have reduced potential risks of exposure and contaminant migration
while further investigations and long-term cleanup activities take place at the Green River
Disposal, Inc. site.
April 1991 42 GREEN RIVER DISPOSAL INC.
-------
HOWE VALLEY LAN
KENTUCKY
EPAID#KYD980501191
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Hardin County
4 miles southwest of Howe Valley
The Howe Valley Landfill site consists of 11 acres and includes a sinkhole. Approximately 2 1/2
acres of the site had been cleared for the landfilling of wastes. The site was an industrial waste
landfill, which was operated by Kentucky Industrial Services, Inc. from 1967 through 1976 when
a State permit expired. During that time, drums of sludges and bulk wastes associated with
various manufacturing and insulation operations were disposed of on site. Waste insulation
material and drums were exposed on the surface of the landfill. In 1979, groundwater samples
collected by the Kentucky Division of Water Quality indicated that the site might be
contaminating the local groundwater. There are approximately 25 people, living within a 1-mile
radius of the site, who depend on private wells for drinking water. Approximately 35,000 people
use Pirtle Spring, 2 miles from the site, as a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Dace: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site groundwater is contaminated with various heavy metals and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from former landfilling practices. Nearby residents
may be exposed to site-related contaminants while ingesting or using
groundwater. On-site surface soil is contaminated with the same contaminants, as
well as plastics. Because access to the site is unrestricted, potential threats to
local residents include direct contact with the contaminants.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for site contamination
removed bulk wastes, 9,150 full or partially full drums, excavated approximately 1,600
empty drums, and removed about 6,000 smaller containers. These initial actions
eliminated the immediate threats to the public and removed much of the site's contamination.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination completed
studies determining the extent of contamination in 1990. The EPA selected a cleanup
remedy, which includes excavation and off-site disposal of soil contaminated with
metals, and replacement with clean soil; further aeration of on-site soil contaminated with VOCs;
and continued monitoring of groundwater for the next five years. The parties potentially
responsible for contamination at the site are scheduled to begin designing the selected remedy in
1991.
Site Facts: In 1988, an Administrative Order was signed by the EPA. This document directs
the potentially responsible parties' investigation of site contamination and their
recommendations for methods to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal and disposal of bulk waste and drums described above have eliminated the surface
contamination sources and have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at
the Howe Valley Landfill site while design of the remedy and long-term cleanup activities are
being completed.
April 1991 44 HOWE VALLEY LANDFILL
-------
LEE'S LANE
LANDFILL
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980557052
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Jefferson County
4 1/2 miles southwest of Louisville
Site Description
Lee's Lane Landfill is a 112-acre landfill and junkyard that lies in the flood plain along the Ohio
River. This operation received over 2 million cubic yards of domestic, commercial, and
industrial wastes between the 1940s and 1975. Approximately 212,000 tons of these were
various chemical wastes. Sand and gravel quarrying occurred on the site before and during the
property's use as a landfill. Portions of the landfill flood almost every year. In 1975, residents
living next to the site reported flash fires around their water heaters. After explosive levels of
methane gas were detected, seven nearby homes were evacuated and purchased by local
authorities. The State closed the landfill that same year. County, State, and Federal agencies
documented the presence of methane and other toxic gases in the area east of the site. The
majority of the 1,100 residents of a subdivision located adjacent to the landfill are connected to a
public water supply system, which draws from an underlying aquifer. In 1980, State personnel
discovered 400 exposed drums of hazardous materials, some highly flammable, on the Ohio
River bank next to the landfill. They identified more than 50 chemicals including phenolic
resins, benzene, and a variety of heavy metals. Site access is unrestricted; local residents hunt,
fish, exercise pets, and dump trash on the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air was polluted with methane gas vented from the landfill. Groundwater,
soil, and surface water were contaminated with benzene, heavy metals including
lead and arsenic, and inorganic chemicals. Groundwater flow is toward the Ohio
River and away from neighborhood wells.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1980, after methane was discovered in homes, the
Kentucky Department of Hazardous Materials and Waste Materials (KDHMWM)
installed a gas venting system at the landfill. In 1981, the site owners pumped liquid
wastes from the exposed drums found near the Ohio River. They shipped hazardous wastes to an
approved disposal facility, removed the drums and other wastes from the river bank, and buried
them on the site. In 1987 and 1988, EPA emergency staff performed cleanup activities at the
landfill, including site security and migration control. Workers also regraded and reseeded the
backfill that floods had washed out.
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1986, which included: (1)
providing for a gas collection system; (2) installing alternate water supplies; (3)
removing exposed drums; (4) capping of soils in "hot spots" in an area of exposed
trash, and disposing of exposed waste at an approved landfill; (5) taking steps to prevent erosion
and possible failure of the Ohio River embankment; (6) establishing standards for groundwater at
the site; (7) imposing institutional controls; and (8) monitoring groundwater, gas, and air. The
EPA finished cleaning up this site in 1987 and now is conducting operation and maintenance
activities, scheduled to last for 30 years, which include quarterly sampling of monitoring wells
and inspections of the site and components of the gas collection system.
Environmental Progress
Cleanup activities have been completed at the Lee's Lane Landfill site. The site is now safe for
nearby residents and the environment while operation and maintenance activities are continuing
to ensure that residual contaminants remain within safety levels. The EPA has begun the process
of deleting this site from the NPL.
ApriM991 46 LEE'S LANE LANDFILL
-------
MAXEY
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD980729107
Site Description
The 279-acre Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal site is a disposal facility for low-level radioactive
wastes. From 1963 to 1977, the State licensed private operators to dispose of low-level
radioactive wastes, and an estimated 5 to 8 million cubic feet were accepted. Most was solid
waste; however, other types of waste also were accepted, some of them highly radioactive.
Approximately 533,000 pounds of source material (consisting of uranium and thorium or ores
containing them), 2 1/2 megacuries of by-product materials, and 950 pounds of special nuclear
material (plutonium or enriched uranium) were buried in an area known as the Restricted Area.
Workers capped each trench with a layer of soil after it was filled, but the dirt eventually
collapsed into the trenches. Water collected in the trenches, leaching radionuclides into the
environment. The Restricted Area is situated entirely on the flats and encompasses the disposal
trenches, "hot wells" (sealed concrete pipes containing plutonium and uranium), waste storage
buildings, and an evaporator facility. The area surrounding the site is rural and agricultural.
Approximately 300 people live within a 5-mile radius of the disposal facility, and the closest
home is within 1/4 mile. About 120 wells and 25 springs are situated within 5 miles. However,
nearby residents receive water from a municipal water system. The site is located on a spur of
Maxey Flats, a ridge 300 feet above surrounding stream valleys. The plateau of the spur drops
steeply on three sides, and rainwater runoff is channeled to nearby Rock Lick Creek, which feeds
the Licking River.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
"XV
The groundwater, soil, surface water, and leachate are contaminated with various
radioactive materials, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), petrochemicals, and
heavy metals from the former waste disposal activities. There is no evidence of
human exposure to the site contaminants. However, local residents should reduce
the use of stream water for agricultural irrigation, as this water exceeds EPA
standards for both tritium and radium.
47 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the radioactive contamination at the site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Solidification of 286,000 gallons of tank leachate was
completed in 1989, which was necessary to prevent a potential release of radioactive
water off site, due to the poor structural integrity of the holding tanks. The EPA plans
to dispose of the solidified leachate blocks in an underground on-site trench in 1991.
Radioactive Contamination: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination began an intensive study of the contamination
problems. This investigation is exploring the nature and extent of radioactive
contamination and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is slated for
completion in 1991, at which time the EPA will select a final cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: Negotiations with the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
concluded with an agreement, signed in 1987, to perform an investigation of the site. The local
community has an active interest in the cleanup of this site, and a technical assistance grant has
been awarded to a community group to follow site progress.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above to solidify leachate have reduced the potential for
exposure to radioactive wastes at the Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal site while investigations and
long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 48 MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR DISPOSAL
-------
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD985066380
Site Description
The 40-acre Newport Dump site was originally purchased by the City of Newport in the late
1940s and was used for disposal of residential and commercial wastes until its closure in 1979.
Trenching and area filling were the most common methods used to dispose of wastes at the site.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky started to require permits for landfills in 1968. The City
received a permit in 1969 to operate the site as a municipal sanitary landfill. During its
operation, the City was cited on numerous occasions for operational violations at the landfill and
for handling hazardous waste without a permit. Ownership of the site changed in 1979 from the
City of Newport to the Northern Kentucky Port Authority (NKPA). Approximately 1,200 people
reside within a 1-mile radius of the site. The Licking River, which flows into the Ohio River, is
used for recreational activities. Use of groundwater in the vicinity of the site is minimal, but
approximately 250 feet downstream of the site, the Kenion County water district maintains a raw
water intake from the Licking River for the Taylor Mill Water Treatment Plant. The water
district serves residents of Kenion and Boone Counties with a combined population of
approximately 75,000 people.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/23/83
Threats and Contaminants
Contaminants in groundwater and surface water included heavy metals, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from former
waste disposal activities. Soils on site were contaminated with heavy metals,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), solvents, and PCBs from leachate and
runoff. Site closure activities completed to date have prevented the public from
coming in contact with landfill contaminants, although access to the site is not
restricted.
49 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In efforts to comply with a 1980 Agreed Order, the NKPA
installed a leachate collection system, regraded portions of the site, constructed a clay
cap over the waste, and covered the area with vegetation. In response to another
Agreed Order, the NKPA completed a permanent vegetative cover of the site and began
designing a groundwater monitoring system. Operation and maintenance of the leachate
collection system continues.
Entire Site: The EPA implemented a monitoring program of surface water,
groundwater, and soil; restored and extended the leachate collection system; and
restored, regraded, and revegetated the existing clay cover. The site currently is
undergoing operation and maintenance activities, and the contamination concentrations are
below the standards set for the site. The EPA has initiated the process of deleting this site from
the NPL and will turn the operation and maintenance responsibilities over to the State. A five-
year review of the effectiveness of the remedy is planned to occur in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1978, the City of Newport and the Kentucky Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection (DNREP) entered into an Agreed Order to bring about closure of
the site as a landfill. When ownership transferred from the City to the NKPA in 1979, the NKPA
was required to prepare the final closure plan for the site. In 1980, the NKPA and the DNREP
reached an Agreed Order requiring proper closure of the site. A third Agreed Order superseding
the previous orders was entered into by the NKPA and the DNREP in 1984.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Newport Dump site. The area is now safe to
nearby residents and the environment while the EPA completes the final processes to delete the
site from the NPL and to transfer operation and maintenance responsibilities to the State.
April 1991 50 NEWPORT DUMP
-------
RED PENN SANITATIOJ
COMPANY LANI
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD981469794
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Oldham County
1 1/2 miles southeast of Pewee Valley
The Red Penn Sanitation Company Landfill site covers approximately 150 acres. From 1954 to
1986, 85 acres of the site were used for waste disposal and the remaining 66 acres were used as a
borrow area. The site was licensed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky as a 40-acre sanitary
landfill in 1968 and operated until 1986, when the permit expired. The landfill was first licensed
by the Oldham County Health Department in 1959. From 1967 to 1974,2,000 to 3,000 drums of
"drawing solution" from a manufacturing facility were disposed of in the permitted area of the
landfill. The electromagnetic wire manufacturing process used by the manufacturer generated
wastes containing phenol, acids, xylene, and xylenol. An estimated 7,800 drums of paint waste
and sludge from a truck plant were disposed of at Red Penn in a 5-year period beginning in 1968.
In 1986, the Kentucky Division of Waste Management was notified by one of the owners of Red
Penn Sanitation Company that suspected hazardous wastes, including drums, had been found at
the site. Approximately 850 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site.
A public water intake is located about 250 feet downstream in Floyd's Fork, a major stream
bordering the landfill. This intake provides water for 250 people at the Peewee Valley Women's
Reformatory. Creeks that border the site currently are used for fishing, swimming, and livestock
watering.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with low levels of the pesticides aldrin and
chlordane. Soil is contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and chromium, and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as toluene and xylene from the drums found
on the site. A drainage ditch on the site is contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and selenium. Trespassers and future cleanup workers, if not
adequately protected, may be exposed to contaminants in the waste and surface soils
through inhalation or accidental ingestion. People swimming, wading, or fishing in
the creeks might be exposed to contaminants through direct contact. People who eat
fish taken from the creeks, or consume milk or meat products from nearby livestock,
crops, or garden produce possibly are exposed to contaminants.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Approximately 220 tons of drums and soil were removed from
two areas on the property in 1986 during an immediate action financed by the owners
of the landfill.
Entire Site: A study is being conducted at the site to determine the extent and types
of any contamination present and to identify alternative actions for cleanup. The study
is scheduled to be completed in 1992, at which time the EPA will select cleanup
activities, expected to begin soon thereafter.
Environmental Progress
The immediate drum removal action described above has greatly reduced surface contamination
and limited the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the Red Penn Sanitation
Company Landfill site while further investigations leading to the selection of a final remedy are
taking place.
April 1991 52 RED PENN SANITATION COMPANY LANDFILL
-------
SMITH'S FARM
KENTUCKY
EPAID#KYD097267413
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bullitt County
1 1/2 miles southwest of Shepherdsville
Site Description
The Smith's Farm site is a 560-acre area that includes a 37 1/2-acre landfill and over 30 acres
where unlicensed dumping occurred over a 30-year period. This area contains 100,000 to
200,000 drums, many of which are buried or partly buried. Several leachate streams at the site
drain into an unnamed tributary and then into Bluelick Creek. Approximately 500 people live
within a 1-mile radius of the site. The nearest residence is 1/4 mile away, and a trailer park is
downstream from the site. Area residents obtain drinking water from private wells and cisterns.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
-- -^ •*,
^ ^ ^
^x
'/
•v
V
Sediments and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
plastics, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, lead, and nickel. Leachate on site is contaminated with VOCs,
phenols, creosote compounds, and heavy metals. Drinking or otherwise coming
into contact with contaminated surface water may present health hazards.
Groundwater on site also may be contaminated. Bioaccumulation of
contaminants and consumption of locally raised vegetables that are irrigated with
potentially contaminated groundwater also may present a health threat.
53
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the drum disposal site and cleanup of the landfill and deeper groundwater.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, the EPA constructed access roads to make it possible to
retrieve drums and then staged and transported 2,000 drums off site. Certain non-
flammable hazardous materials were loaded into trucks and shipped for off-site disposal.
PCB-laden liquid was analyzed and properly disposed of. The EPA also transported empty drums
from the site. In 1988, the EPA sampled nearby water wells and provided a temporary water supply
to nearby residences. The EPA also installed fencing, gates, and warning signs at the main site
entrance.
Drum Disposal Site: In 1989, the EPA selected incineration of wastes, soils, and
sediments for cleanup of the drum disposal site. However, the design investigation in
1990 indicated that the volume of soil to be treated was much less than previously
determined. The EPA is presently in the process of modifying the 1989 remedy to substitute
biotreatment and/or chemical treatment for incineration. The parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination are expected to complete the design of the modified remedy by 1991.
Groundwater in the drum disposal area will continue to be monitored, with 5-year reviews.
Landfill and Deeper Groundwater: A study conducted by the potentially responsible
parties currently is underway to determine the type and extent of contamination at the
permitted landfill, in the deeper groundwater, and in additional suspected areas along the
largest stream on site. The study will evaluate the alternative technologies for cleanup and is
scheduled to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: The landfill's permit application was denied by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in
1988. One potentially responsible party signed a Consent Order in 1989 to conduct a study of the
contamination at the permitted landfill and in the deeper groundwater. A Unilateral Administrative
Order was issued by the EPA March 15,1990, governing design and cleanup actions by the
potentially responsible parties.
Environmental Progress
The immediate drum removal actions and the provision of a safe water supply to affected residents
have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances while further investigations
and long-term cleanup activities take place at the Smith's Farm site.
April 1991 54 SMITH'S FARM
-------
TRI-CITY cm EPA REGION 4
I III Vsl I I £f$MX^CV CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
DISPOSAL CO. .^^^^^ SSSSL
KENTUCKY
EPA ID# KYD981028350
Site Description
The Tri-City Disposal Company operated a 57-acre industrial landfill at this site. From 1964 to
1968, wastes from Louisville-area industries were accepted. In 1968, State officials reported that
highly volatile liquid wastes resembling paint thinners were disposed of on site. A 1968 aerial
photograph suggests that several hundred drums were on the surface and several others were
buried. During the landfill's operation, no State or Federal permit was required. A number of
small farms now are located over the old disposal area. In 1987, the Kentucky Division of Waste
Management (KDWM) detected organic contaminants in groundwater and soil samples taken
from the site. Approximately 1,600 people obtain drinking water from springs and wells within
3 miles of the site. Brushy Fork of Knob Creek is 2,200 feet downslope of the site and is used
for livestock watering and recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through NPL USTING HISTORY
Federal actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
A spring near the site contains tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination from
former waste disposal activities. One sediment sample from a small feeder spring/
creek of an intermittent stream was contaminated with lead. Additional sampling
is necessary to determine the full extent of any contamination. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and creosotes have been found in site soils, but additional
sampling is necessary to determine the full extent of any contamination. Volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) were found in groundwater and spring samples, but
only one spring is contaminated. Drinking or any other exposure to contaminated
water would threaten the health of people who come into contact with it.
However, the water from the springs is no longer used as a drinking water source.
The EPA has supplied two families with an alternate water supply.
55 April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: The EPA provided an alternate water source to three area
families and transported all excavated drums and contaminated soil off site in 1988.
Entire Site: The EPA currently is examining the nature and extent of the contamination
remaining at the site to determine and select a final cleanup strategy. The ongoing
investigation is expected to be completed in 1991, and cleanup activities are scheduled to
commence the following year.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions described above have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the Tri-City Disposal Co. site while further studies and long-term cleanup activities
are conducted.
April 1991 56 TRI-CITY DISPOSAL CO.
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
57
-------
GLOSSARY
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
Book
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
judge.
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-
tain.
59
-------
GLOSSARY.
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-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink 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-
nents.
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-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
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
60
-------
GLOSSARY
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-
gether.
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
period.
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
environment.
61
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
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
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
62
-------
GLOSSARY
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
wildlife.
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
contaminants.
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
63
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
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-
nation.
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
barrier.
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
plant.
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-
ture.
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
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
64
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
65
-------
GLOSSARY.
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
neutrals.
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
nitroaromatic.
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
actions.
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
poisonous.
66
-------
GLOSSARY
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-
nants.
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
ground.
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
effects.
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-
genic.
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.
67
-------
GLOSSARY
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.
Radionuciides: 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
altemative(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-
gies.
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
68
-------
GLOSSARY
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
waste.
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
contaminants.
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
-------
GLOSSARY.
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
Stripping].
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
sites.
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-
lands].
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
70
-------
GLOSSARY
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
groundwater.
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
leaching.
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
water.
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
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
71
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Kentucky
73
-------
0)
3s 3
•.a-a-8
C/3
iiif
.2 a
O 8 £>*
+- 33 a*
.S
*U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60631
75
------- |