&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/055
September 1991
PB92-963225
National
Priorities
List Sites:
TENNESSEE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-741A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Tennessee
U.S. Environmental Protection r^'icy
Region 5, Library (P!.-1?^
77 v'::3i Jaclaon Goul&vard, lina floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
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
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Tennessee 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 21
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 51
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 67
-------
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
Overview
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
STEP 3
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 MRS 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 Name*:
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Proponed: xuxn
Flnat aaana
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,
Environmental Progress
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.
15
-------
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
The State of
Tennessee
Bordered by eight states, Tennessee is located within EPA Region 4, which includes eight
southeastern states. The state covers 42,144 square miles and consists of rugged country in the
east, the Great Smoky Mountains, low ridges of the Appalachian Valley, the flat Cumberland
Plateau, and the Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain, which is laced with meandering streams. Tennessee
has experienced a 6% increase in population between 1980 and 1990, according to the 1990
Census, and currently has approximately 4,877,000 residents, ranking 17th in U.S. populations.
Principal state industries are trade, services, and the manufacturing of machinery, transportation
equipment, foods, refined petroleum, and apparel.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Tennessee?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
14
0
14
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 2, 3,5, 6 1 site
Congressional Districts 4, 8 2 sites
Congressional Districts 1,9 3 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Tennessee?
# of sites
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
type of sites
Disposal Facilities
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Lumber & Wood Treatment
Federal Facilities
Municipal & Industrial Facilities
Chemical & Allied Products
Electric Power Production & Distribution
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
15 +
124-
tt
^
o
6 4-
34-
1
GW Soil SW Sed
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), creosote (organics), and pesti-
cides.
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics), vola-
tile organic compounds (VOCs), pesti-
cides, creosote (organics), and radiation.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and pesti-
cides.
* Appear at 15% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
9
Sites
with 1
Studies
Underway
2
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
1
Site
with
Remedy
Design
1
Site
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above initial actions have been taken at 12 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April! 991
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
indicating die current stage of cleanup.
Progress
To Date
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
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
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
ft
0)
c
.0)
o
o
+-
(0
55
0)
(ft
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 4
April! 991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Tennessee, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and 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
Tennessee Superfund Office (615) 741 -6287
April 1991 22
-------
AMERICAN
CREOSOTE WORKS
(JACKSON PLAN!)
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Madison County
South of Jackson
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND007018799
Site Description
The 60-acre American Creosote Works (Jackson Plant) site was a wood-treatment plant that
began operations in the early 1930s and continued until late 1981, when the company filed for
bankruptcy. Originally, the site consisted of the treatment buildings, pressure cylinders, boiler
room tanks, oil storage tanks, tank cars, and railroad tracks. There also were four large
waste water lagoons, two sand filter units, and drip yards. Operators used creosote and
pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat and preserve wood. Workers discharged process wastewater
directly to Old River Run until 1973, when a levee was built around the facility to contain
surface water runoff and wastewater. From 1974 to 1975, the plant installed a wastewater
treatment system. The pits created during construction of the levee were used to store treated
process water and derivative sludges. Subsequently, flooding from the accumulation of rainfall
caused the lagoons to overflow into the main process area. Jackson has a population of 49,000.
A city well field lies approximately 1 1/2 miles east of the site, and several public and private
wells are located within a 3-mile radius. The closest homes are located within a mile of the site.
Homes with private wells are located upgradient from the site, a situation that lessens risk. The
south fork of the Deer River, less than 1/4 mile from the site, receives runoff from the site via
Central Creek and an unnamed tributary that follows the southern border of the site. Wetlands
lying along both sides of the river support a large variety of wildlife species.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Groundwater underlying the facility and on-site soils are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and heavy metals from the wood-treating processes. Sediments contain PAH
levels similar to those in soils and low levels of dieldrin, a pesticide. Cleanup
workers may incur a health risk if they accidentally ingest contaminated soil or
water.
23
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the water.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 30 million gallons of water from
the site, treated 500,000 gallons of contaminated water, and solidified more than
100,000 cubic yards of sludge from on-site lagoons and treatment areas. Workers
placed the solidified materials in an old lagoon and capped it with clay to await further cleanup.
In 1986, EPA emergency staff treated about 225,000 gallons of contaminated water from the
storage tanks using hydrated lime and polymers, and 28,000 gallons of oil were consolidated in
one secured tank. Workers built covers for the treatment system and open storage tanks. In
1988, the tank area and a large portion of the site was fenced. As of 1989, the EPA completed a
modification of the drainage system on the river side of the site, an effort being overseen by the
State of Tennessee.
Entire Site: The following cleanup actions were selected in 1989 and have been
completed: (1) the contaminated soils and sludge were removed from the process area
and incinerated off site; (2) all tank liquids were treated and disposed of; (3) a security'
fence was installed around most of the site; and (4) the process area was cleaned up. Some
construction debris still remains at the site. The State repaired the levee on the river side of the
site, and a drainage pipe to the river was installed. Further cleanup activities are underway and
are planned for completion in 1991. Treatability studies for tank sludges have been completed.
Treatability studies for the bioremediation of surface soils still need to be performed.
Water: Pending selection of the final remedy for cleaning up the water, the EPA
intends to monitor water levels behind the dikes and pump, treat as needed, and
discharge impounded water. Information is still being gathered to model the
groundwater flow, and the semi-confining clay layer under the site needs to be re-examined.
Although the necessary preliminary studies are still underway, the EPA plans to include removal
of structures from outside the process area and other incidental construction in the final remedy.
Site Facts: A Superfund State Contract was signed in May 1989. Meetings with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have been held concerning dike
construction and groundwater characterization. In 1989, the EPA signed an Interagency
Agreement with the USGS for a hydrogeological study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination to the hydrology of the site. In March 1990, the USGS began the field work for
this study, which is scheduled for completion in 1993.
Environmental Progress
The numerous immediate actions to treat and contain wastes and secure the site with a fence
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the American Creosote Works
(Jackson Plant) site. Final source control cleanup is nearly completed, and further investigations
leading to the selection of a final groundwater remedy are taking place.
April 1991 24 AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (JACKSON PLANT)
-------
AMNICOLA DUMP
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND980729172
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Hamilton County
In Chattanooga, along the east bank
of the Tennessee River
Site Description
The 18-acre inactive Amnicola Dump site, located in Chattanooga, was used for clay mining
operations in the 1930s, and several water-filled pits were left behind. These subsequently were
used for disposal of construction debris. The City operated the dump between 1964 and 1973,
incinerating waste wood on site and disposing of the ashes over 12 acres. The operation was
closed in 1973 due to concerns about unauthorized dumping and leachate seeping into the
Tennessee River. Streams of leachate containing low concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE)
leave the site seasonally and enter the Tennessee River; however, water quality downstream has
not been noticeably affected. The former site owner burned, stored, and handled creosote
railroad ties, activities that contributed to elevated contamination in the surface soil. The site lies
in an industrial area, and about 150,000 people live within a 2-mile radius of the site. No
residential areas are in the immediate vicinity, and the nearest population center is about 1/2 mile
away. The site is situated along the eastern bank of the Tennessee River, 1/2 mile upstream from
the city intake, although no site-related contaminants have been identified.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, debris, and soil on the site contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and heavy metals including chromium from the incineration of waste wood.
Sediments are polluted with phenols. People can be exposed to pollutants by coming
in direct contact with contaminated soil or leachate or inhaling contaminants that
evaporate into the air. The Tennessee River flows by the site and may be affected by
contamination from the site.
25
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: The EPA selected a final cleanup remedy for this site in 1989. It is
intended to reduce the risks associated with exposure to contaminated, on-site surface
soils and features: (1) excavating contaminated surface soil and debris and screening
out debris; (2) treating contaminated soil by solidifying it to keep chemicals from moving; (3)
restoring the ground surface to its original condition; (4) imposing restrictions on groundwater
use and land use; (5) quarterly groundwater monitoring for four years; and (6) conducting a
public health assessment five years after cleanup. The engineering design for the cleanup
activities commenced in 1989.
Site Facts: In 1991, the EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination
signed a Consent Decree for these parties to take over engineering design and cleanup activities
in mid-1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were needed at the Amnicola Dump site while cleanup activities are
being planned.
ApriM991 26 AMNICOLA DUMP
-------
ARLINGTON BLENDING
AND PACKAGII
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980468557
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Shelby County
Arlington
Site Description
From 1971 to 1978, the 1/2-acre Arlington Blending and Packaging site housed a pesticide
blending and packaging operation. When the site was abandoned for economic reasons,
operators left behind deteriorating bags of pesticides and 1,000 to 1,200 drums, many of which
were leaking. In the mid-1970s, the State took action against the company for its violations of
the Clean Water Act, demanding that it reduce pesticide contamination in tributaries leading to
the Loosahatchie River Canal. The 1976 report issued by the company in response satisfied
State concerns. In 1979, after sampling the site and an adjacent housing development, the State
recommended that the developer install a fence between the homes and the plant and apply 1 to 2
inches of clean topsoil in the backyards of the two homes closest to the plant. Between 1980 and
1983, the site owner removed some pesticide wastes from the site. Excavation of contaminated
soil was performed in 1990 after investigators discovered pesticides in the yard of a nearby
residence. There is a small residential area to the east of the site; the closest home is 50 feet
away. Approximately 2,700 people live within 3 miles of the site, drawing drinking water from
two water systems serving the communities of Arlington and Gallaway. An Arlington well is
within 1,200 feet of the site. The site is in the flood plain of the Loosahatchie River Canal. The
probable drainage route from the site leads to a nearby canal that is used for recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/07/87
Threats and Contaminants
In 1983, the EPA discovered high concentrations of various pesticides in on-site
soils and around the housing development. In 1985, the State detected pesticides in
a shallow monitoring well from the deteriorating bags left on the site. The three
water-bearing zones under the site are used as drinking water sources and have the
potential for contamination from pesticide residues at the site. The upper zone is
contaminated with chlordane and other pesticides. Although removal actions have
reduced the potential for exposure of people to contaminants, any remaining
groundwater contamination could threaten people who drink it.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 3,500 gallons of chemicals from
the drums, collected debris, and excavated 1,920 cubic yards of contaminated surface
soils both on and off the site. All materials were transported to EPA-approved
disposal facilities. In 1990, the EPA, while conducting an investigation, discovered a significant
concentration of pesticides in the backyard of a residence adjacent to the site. Immediate actions
included the excavation and backfilling of the affected property, which eliminated the health
risks posed to the residents.
Soil and Groundwater: The EPA has completed an intensive study of soil and
groundwater pollution at the site. The proposed remedy includes: excavation and
decontamination of contaminated soil, with placement of the treated soil in excavated
areas; dechlorination of liquids with off-site disposal; on-site activated carbon treatment of the
contaminated groundwater, with discharge of the treated groundwater into surface water; and on-
side solidification of soils containing arsenic and other trace metals. The design of the remedy is
scheduled to begin in 1991 after its final acceptance, which will occur upon completion of a
public review period.
Environmental Progress
The immediate soil and drum removal actions described above have reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Arlington Blending and Packaging site while cleanup
activities are being chosen and designed.
April 1991 28 ARLINGTON BLENDING AND PACKAGING SITE
-------
CARRIER AIR
CONDITIONIN
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND044062222
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Shelby County
Collierville
Carrier Air Conditioning Company, part of United Technologies, manufactures air conditioners on
approximately 145 acres of land. Three releases of trichloroethylene (TCE) to the environment have
been documented. Starting in 1972, Carrier operated an unlined, 200-cubic-foot lagoon for storage
of TCE-contaminated paint sludges, which leaked from 1972 to 1980. In 1978, a filter cover failed
on a vapor degreaser, spilling 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of TCE. A third release occurred in 1985
when, following a period of heavy rainfall, an unknown volume of TCE leaked from underground
pipes. The company was able to recover 542 gallons of TCE. As a result of this spill, wells were
installed at the facility to monitor the Memphis Sands Aquifer. The Carrier facility is located within
2,000 feet of Water Plant Well #2 of the City of Collierville. An estimated 12,800 people obtain
drinking water from wells in the aquifer within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/16/90
Threats and Contaminants
TCE was detected in several monitoring wells at the facility in 1986 from plant
operations. Low levels of TCE were found in both wells at Water Plant #2 of the City of
Collierville. Soil samples collected at the spill site by the State in 1986 contained TCE.
Direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soil may pose risks to people on the
site, as may drinking or accidentally eating contaminated materials.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
29
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1980, Carrier removed wastes and soil from the lagoon and
sent them to an EPA-rcgulated hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for site contamination began
a study of the nature and extent of site contamination, along with an assessment of
techniques for site cleanup. It is expected to be completed by late 1991, at which time
the EPA will assess the cleanup alternatives and make a final remedy selection.
Site Facts: The EPA and Carrier entered into an Administrative Order, requiring the
potentially responsible parties to conduct a study to determine the extent of the contamination
and to evaluate the technologies available for the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The removal of wastes and soil has reduced risks to the public health and the environment. After
adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
there are no immediate threats at the Carrier Air Conditioning Company while investigations are
taking place.
April 1991
30
CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY
-------
GALLAWAY P
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980728992
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Fayette County
2 miles northeast of Gallaway
Other Names:
Gallaway Dump
Site Description
The Gallaway Pits site is on a 10-acre parcel of land that was extensively mined for sand and gravel,
producing a landscape dotted with water-filled pits up to 50 feet deep. The site was used for
unlicensed dumping of municipal and industrial wastes. Disposal of hazardous materials at the site
occurred for an undetermined period of time, probably in the 1970s and 1980s. Wastes included
pesticides, glass jars containing solid waste, residential trash, demolition debris, and appliances.
Drums containing liquid waste were disposed of by emptying the drums into a small pond or by
placing the entire drum into the pond. The site is underlain by sand and gravel, which facilitates the
migration of the wastes on site and the possibility of contamination of the groundwater, surface
water, and the soil. Approximately 50 homes are located within 1/2 mile of the site; the closest
home is 1,600 feet away. These residents obtain drinking water from wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Pesticides including chlordane and toxaphene from the former waste disposal
activities could have contaminated the groundwater, soil, and surface water. Direct
contact with and ingestion of contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil posed
potential risks to individuals.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
31
ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA set up a water treatment system in 1983 to treat water
from the pits at the rate of 100 gallons per minute. Approximately 360,000 gallons of water
were treated, and 475 cubic yards (66 truckloads) of soil were removed and disposed of.
Entire Site: The EPA completed the following activities to clean up the site: excavation
of contaminated sediments from the water pits on site and dilution of contaminated water in
some water pits with the city water to meet water quality standards. The diluted water
subsequently was discharged to an unnamed tributary. In addition, the groundwater was monitored,
and a cap, designed and constructed to prevent the migration of contaminants, was installed. A fence
also was erected around the site. The EPA completed the site cleanup in 1987 and will continue
monitoring the site for 30 years. EPA has published a public notice announcing plans to delete the
site from the NPL.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Gallaway Pits site. The site now is safe to nearby
residents and the environment while the EPA continues to monitor the site and prepares plans to
delete it from the NPL.
April 1991
32
GALLAWAY PITS
-------
LEWISBURG
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND980729115
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Marshall County
1/2 mile north of Lewisburg
Site Description
The 20-acre Lewisburg Dump operated as a municipal dump for 20 to 25 years. The site
includes a 4-acre landfill and a 2-acre quarry pond. A State-sponsored geological survey found
the site unfit for use as a sanitary landfill, and it was closed in 1979. The dump accepted mostly
municipal waste and some industrial waste, such as inorganic chemicals and solvents. Waste
partially filled a former limestone quarry that contains a shallow lagoon fed by groundwater.
Runoff from the site enters an unnamed tributary to Big Rock Creek. The dump lies in a remote
area; approximately 30 people reside in the nearest homes to the site, which are about 1/2 mile
away. Private wells are located within 1/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, leachate, and surface water are contaminated with lead
from the site's dump activities. Sediments on site contain lead and cyanide, and
off-site sediments showed contamination from heavy metals including lead,
barium, manganese, zinc, copper, and aluminum, as well as various volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Direct contact with or accidentally ingesting
contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil may be harmful.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
33
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, under EPA orders, several parties potentially responsible for
site contamination began an intensive study of its pollution problems. The first phase
of this investigation explored the nature and extent of site contamination; the second
prescribed the best alternatives for final cleanup. The final draft of the study was reviewed by
the EPA and the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). The investigation indicated the groundwater is
contaminated at very low levels; however, monitoring and testing of the groundwater will be
continued during design of the cleanup actions. The selected remedy includes regrading the cap
and clearing the site of vegetation and garbage to prevent further infiltration. The design of the
selected remedy is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Order with several potentially responsible parties to
perform the study characterizing the contamination at the site. The parties recently agreed to pay
the full costs of the selected cleanup actions.
Environmental Progress
After extensive investigations at the Lewisburg Dump, the EPA and the USGS have determined
that no immediate threats exist while cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 34 LEWISBURG DUMP
-------
MALLORY
CAPACITO
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Wayne County
Waynesboro
Site Description
Electrical capacitors were manufactured on the 8 1/2-acre Mallory Capacitor site from 1969 to 1984.
The operators first used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as the dielectric fluid in the capacitors,
switching to a plastics chemical in 1978. The factory changed hands when Dart Industries purchased
it in 1979. Dart later sold the property in 1980 to Emhart Industries, Inc. As part of the sales
agreement with Emhart, certain PCB wastes, a buried tank, and contaminated soil were removed
from the site and sent to an approved PCB disposal facility. The plant continued to operate, but
voluntarily closed in 1984 when PCBs were discovered throughout the site. The EPA found that
PCBs entered the environment through spills, leaks, and intentional discharges. The plant is located
in a small community. Approximately 900 people get drinking water from wells and springs within
3 miles of the site. The site is in the flood plain of the Green River. Surface water within 3 miles of
the site is used for fishing and swimming.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
IT
PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in groundwater.
Off-site wells, soil, and downstream sediments are contaminated with low levels of
PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE).
Coming in direct contact with or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater
and soil pose a human health threat The presence of PCBs and VOCs poses a threat
to the environment, as they are toxic to aquatic wildlife.
35
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: Some cleanup was specified as part of the sales agreement when
the site was transferred to its current owner in 1979. Workers removed certain PCB
wastes, a buried tank, and contaminated soil from the site and sent them to an approved
PCB disposal facility. Before the start of the field work on the site study, a potentially responsible
party removed, and sent to an approved disposal facility, approximately 20,100 tons of PCB-
contaminated soil and 3,400 cubic yards of plant debris from 1988 to 1989.
Entire Site: In 1989, the potentially responsible parties installed several monitoring
wells off site to better define the extent of the contamination. Under EPA orders and
monitoring, the parties conducted an intensive investigation of the site's pollution
problems. The study focused on the extent of PCB and VOC contamination. The EPA is expected
to select a cleanup remedy in 1991.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties, working with the EPA under an Administrative
Order, completed a study of the nature and extent of the contamination and identified possible
cleanup solutions.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of contaminated soil and debris reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Mallory Capacitor Company site while investigations leading to
selection of the cleanup alternatives are taking place.
April 1991 36 MALLORY CAPACITOR COMPANY
-------
MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION
PLANT
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TN0210020582
EPA REGION 4
ONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Carroll and Gibson Counties
8 miles from the town of Milan
Site Description
The Milan Army Ammunition Plant site comprises 22,540 acres and is located in a rural area.
The plant currently produces munitions for the Army and is operated by Martin Marietta
Ordnance Systems, Inc. The "O"-Line, a conventional munition demilitarization facility at
Milan, has operated since 1942. The major mission of the "O"-Line is to remove TNT and other
explosives from munitions by injecting a high-pressure stream of hot water and steam into the
open cavity of the munitions. The resulting wastewater from these operations subsequently was
discharged into 11 unlined settling ponds. The "O"-Line Pond Area is on the NPL, and 10 other
areas are Solid Waste Management Units under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Approximately 9,000 people live in the town of Milan, located 5 miles from the
facility and 8 miles from the NPL site. The nearest off-site residence is located approximately a
mile from the facility. There are 1,400 employees of Martin Marietta, the current operator,
working at the site. Three water supply wells serve the residents of Milan. Some private wells
are located less than 3 miles from the area of known groundwater contamination. More than
13,000 people within 5 miles of the facility depend on groundwater as a source of drinking
water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 08/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
On- and off-site groundwater, surface water, and sediments are contaminated with
explosives and heavy metals including cadmium, mercury, and lead; volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) such as chloroform, benzene, and methylene
chloride, and nitrates and nitrites. Area residents may be subject to exposure to
contaminants when drinking or coming into direct contact with polluted
groundwater. Site-related contaminants have been detected in off-site surface
water used for the watering of livestock, irrigation, and recreational purposes.
Area residents could be exposed to contaminants in the surface water or by eating
fish, crops, and locally raised meat and dairy products that contain
bioaccumulated contaminants.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of the "O"-Line Ponds Area and of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Army had the unlined settling ponds dredged in 1971, and the
soils were placed near the side of the ponds. Areas of surface soils suspected to be
contaminated with the remnants of explosives were removed, and a multi-layer cover
was placed on top of the ponds and the dredged soils in 1984. Wells to monitor the migration of
site-related contaminants into the groundwater have been installed, and more wells will be
installed. Activities associated with post-closure, such as maintenance of the grounds and
fences, are underway. Regular sampling and analysis to monitor groundwater contamination of
existing wells continues.
-O*-Line Ponds Area: The Army is investigating contaminants at the "O"-Line
Ponds Area. The EPA reviewed the initial actions at the "O"-Line Ponds Area in 1987
to determine whether they are comparable to EPA guidelines for the investigation into
the most effective ways to clean up the site and to ensure that it complies with the National
Contingency Plan, the Federal regulations by which Superfund actions are conducted. An
investigation of cleanup remedies started in 1990 at the "O"-Line Ponds Area and 10 other
RCRA Solid Waste Management Units. A study of the feasibility of various cleanup alternatives
will be started in 1991.
Entire Site: A contract to perform an investigation into the best and most effective
ways to clean up the "O"-Line Ponds, the open burning grounds, and 10 other Solid
Waste Management Units was awarded in April 1989. The resulting cleanup activities
will be designed to meet EPA standards for removing the site from the NPL. The investigation is
expected to be completed by 1993.
Site Facts: Milan Army Ammunition Plant is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978
to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other
DoD facilities. The Army conducted a survey of area residents in 1988 to determine if they were
concerned about potential health risks posed by the site. The results indicated a high degree of
public interest and moderate concern for potential risks. The Milan Army Ammunition Plant has
established a committee to review technical aspects of the site cleanup. This group includes
private citizens from the community and local government.
Environmental Progress
The covering of the "O"-Line Ponds and excavation of contaminated soils have made the site
safer while further investigations continue, which will lead to selection of the final cleanup
remedies for the Milan Army Ammunition Plant site.
April 1991 38 MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
MURRAY-OH
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND980728836
O
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Lawrence County
Lawrenceburg
Other Names:
Murray Ohio Site #2
Site Description
The 27-acre Murray-Ohio industrial dump accepted paint and electroplating sludges from 1963
until 1982. Wastes are buried on about 6 acres, and there is another 1/4-acre disposal area
located 1,000 feet away from the site. Seeps containing heavy metal contamination have been
observed along drainageways. Groundwater under the site and a tributary of Shoal Creek are
thought to be contaminated with chromium. Shoal Creek is approximately a mile from the site.
The main site was capped, revegetated, and is periodically maintained. Approximately 2,600
people live within 3 miles of the site. The closest residence is about 1/3 mUe away. Public and
private water supply wells lie within a 3-mile radius.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil may contain contamination from heavy metals
including chromium, nickel, and zinc, as well as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Sediments and off-site surface water in a small tributary to Shoal Creek
may be contaminated with heavy metals and also manganese and iron. Human
health threats may arise from exposure to hazardous substances in contaminated
groundwater, sediment, soil, and surface water. Groundwater poses the most
significant health risk. Private wells within 1/3 mile of the site may be affected.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and water cleanup at the site.
39
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Murray-Ohio Manufacturing capped and vegetated the site in
1981.
Soil and Water: Murray-Ohio Manufacturing began an intensive study of soil and
water pollution at the site in 1990. This investigation is exploring the nature and
extent of contamination. The EPA expects a report on the study to be completed in
mid-1991. Following this, an evaluation of cleanup alternatives will be undertaken.
Site Facts: A Consent Order was agreed to in 1990, which requires Murray-Ohio
Manufacturing to complete the study of the contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate capping of the site reduced the potential for exposure at the Murray-Ohio Dump
and helped to minimize the migration of contaminants while further investigations leading to the
selection of cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991
40
MURRAY-OHIO DUMP
-------
MURRAY-OHIO
MANUFACTUI
CO. (HORSESHOE
BEND DUMP)
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND981014954
0
EPA REGION 4
;ONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Lawrence County
1 1/2 miles southwest of Lawrenceburg
Other Names:
Murray-Ohio Dump
Horseshoe Bend Dump
Site Description
Before 1956, a City of Lawrenceburg hydroelectric plant operated on the 12-acre Murray-Ohio
Manufacturing Co. (Horseshoe Bend Dump) site. Beginning around 1956, workers poured paint
sludge and other wastes into shallow pits at the site. They partially filled the pits after the liquid
part of the wastes had soaked in and then placed drummed waste into them. In 1963, a large fire
at the site produced toxic smoke and fumes that caused eye and lung irritation to residents near
the site. Fish were killed in nearby Shoal Creek because of the fire. Following this, the
operators apparently abandoned the dump. Since then, it has been used only for occasional
dumping of household trash. In recent years, a nearby landowner restricted the access to the site.
During a 1983 inspection, the Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management found partially
buried leaking drums at the site. Approximately 19,000 people obtain drinking water from wells
and springs within 3 miles of the site. The City of Lawrenceburg gets part of its water supply
from a large spring located a mile northeast of the site. Downstream from the dump, local
residents use Shoal Creek for fishing and recreation.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, municipal, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil may be contaminated with heavy metals including lead,
zinc, nickel, and cadmium; volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may be present in
groundwater and soil, as well. There is a possible risk to human health resulting
from exposure through accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soils. Geologic conditions make it easy for water to move under
the site. Springs, caves, and sinkholes are plentiful, and the groundwater is near
the land surface. These conditions help contaminants move through the
groundwater under the site.
41
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: Six thousand cubic yards of municipal waste and paint sludge
were sent to an incinerator in 1989.
Entire Site: A Consent Order was signed in 1990, which required the Murray-Ohio
Manufacturing Company and the City of Lawrenceburg, with EPA monitoring, to
study contamination at the site. This study is exploring the nature and extent of any
soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination. It is scheduled to be completed in 1991.
Following completion of the report on this study, alternatives for cleanup will be explored.
Site Facts: Notice letters were sent to two parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination, the City of Lawrenceburg and the Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company.
Murray-Ohio returned a positive response indicating that they wanted to conduct the study to
determine the nature and extent of contamination. Both Murray-Ohio and the City of
Lawrenceburg signed the Consent Order.
Environmental Progress
The removal of municipal wastes and paint sludges has reduced the potential for exposure at the
Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Co. (Horseshoe Bend Dump) site while further investigations are
taking place.
ApriM991 42 MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING CO.
(HORSESHOE BEND DUMP)
-------
NORTH HOL
DUMP
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND980558894
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Shelby County
North Memphis
Other Names:
Hollywood Dump
Memphis Public Works/Hollywood Dump
Site Description
The 70-acre North Hollywood Dump site was used as a municipal dump from the 1930s until the
City closed it in 1967. However, some dumping of non-chemical refuse probably continued until
1980. In the late 1940s, the Hayden Chemical Company used the dump to dispose of wastes
generated in the production of sodium hydrochloride. Hayden later was bought out by Velsicol
Chemical Corporation, which continued the practice of dumping at the site. At one time,
pesticide-contaminated sludge from a closed sewer line leading to the Velsicol plant was
removed and buried in a small area known as the "Endrin Pit." In 1980, the EPA found pesticide
products in surface soil, groundwater, and pond sediments on the dump. Because of high
community concern in the early 1980s, the State of Tennessee recommended this site as the
State's highest priority hazardous waste site. Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles
of the dump site. An elementary school is situated close to the dump.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water are contaminated with pesticides including
endrin and heavy metals including copper, lead, and arsenic. The soil is
contaminated with pesticides and heavy metals including lead. Accidentally
drinking or otherwise coming into contact with contaminated groundwater,
surface water, or soil could adversely affect the health of people. Also, people
may be exposed to contaminants that may have entered the food chain through
contaminated fish caught in ponds on or near the dump.
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.
43
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1980, the EPA took an emergency action to slow the
movement of contaminants from the site. Also, the EPA installed a chain-link fence
around the site and began a program to monitor the wastes on site. In 1981, a technical
assistance group made up of representatives from the State, the City of Memphis, Shelby
County, local industry, and the EPA, removed some of the chemical wastes from the surface.
Entire Site: In 1982, the EPA assumed the lead role from the State to complete
investigations into the extent and nature of contamination at the North Hollywood
Dump site. The potentially responsible parties took over in 1984. The study,
completed in 1990, recommends retrofitting the landfill so that it measures up to legal sanitation
standards. The selected remedy includes: placement of a 2-foot clay cap, grading, and
revegetation; drainage of an adjacent 70-acre pond known to hold contaminated sediments;
installing a 3-foot cover over the contaminated sediments; and the removal of fish found to be
contaminated, followed by re-stocking of the pond. Groundwater will be monitored to ensure
contamination levels remain low. In addition, the site will be fenced and restrictions on future
use of the site will be put in place. The engineering design of the selected remedy is scheduled
to begin in late 1991.
Site Facts: The State of Tennessee ordered the potentially responsible parties to investigate the
site under State monitoring, which was agreed to in 1984. In late 1988, the EPA replaced the
State in the monitoring role.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove chemical wastes have reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials while further investigations and cleanup activities continue at the North
Hollywood Dump site.
April 1991 44 NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP
-------
OAK RIDGE
RESERVATIQ
(USDOE)
TENNESSEE
EPA ID#TN 1890090003
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Anderson County
Oak Ridge
Other Names:
USDOE Oak Ridge
The Oak Ridge Reservation site, operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), covers
58,000 acres. The site consists of three major operating facilities: a research lab that includes
nuclear reactors, chemical and biological research programs, and production labs; a production
complex that formerly enriched uranium-235 by gaseous diffusion; and a plant that formerly
enriched uranium-235 by an electromagnetic process and now produces nuclear weapon
components, processes nuclear materials, and performs other functions that relate to energy and
the national defense. Site operations generate a variety of radioactive, non-radioactive, and
mixed (radioactive and non-radioactive) hazardous wastes, many of which in the past were
disposed of or stored on site. Leakage from inactive disposal and storage facilities, coupled with
spills and other accidental releases, has contaminated many areas in and around the site. The
DOE estimates that 773,000 pounds of elemental mercury were released in the 1950s and 1960s,
and 170,000 pounds of mercury are in the sediments and floodplain of a 15-mile stretch of East
Fork Poplar Creek, whose headwaters are near one of the site's production facilities.
Approximately 500 pounds of mercury annually leave this watershed. An estimated 43,200
people obtain water from intakes along a 118-mile stretch below this site on the Tennessee River.
Wetlands in the Blyth Ferry Water Fowl Management Area also are near the contaminated area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals, organics, and radionuclides have been detected in on-site
groundwater, surface water, and soil. Mercury and cesium-137 have been
detected in sediments of the Tennessee River near Chattanooga, approximately
118 miles downstream of the site. Mercury has been detected in the sediments at
East Fork Poplar Creek. Soils in and along the creek are contaminated with
mercury. People who drink contaminated groundwater may be at risk. East Fork
Poplar Creek flows through the City of Oak Ridge, exposing people to mercury-
contaminated soils in the easily accessible areas of the creek floodplains.
Wetlands may be threatened from site-related contaminants.
45
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 DOE removed soil at several locations along the East Fork Poplar
Creek where mercury levels were particularly high.
Entire Site: The DOE began a comprehensive study in 1989 to determine the type and
extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for the cleanup. Investigations thus far
have shown that several areas have been contaminated by a variety of sources. The
cleanup of the site will be performed under a number of phases to be determined when the study is
completed.
Site Facts: The DOE has removed contaminated soil and is conducting studies that require the
DOE to close some units on site, conduct post-closure monitoring, and evaluate over 500 solid waste
management units.
Environmental Progress
The soil cleanup performed at the Oak Ridge Reservation site has significantly reduced immediate
threats while further studies and investigations take place.
April 1991 46 OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE)
-------
VELSICOL
CHEMICAL CORP.
(HARDEMAN COUWIY)
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Hardeman County
Toone
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND980559033
Site Description
Velsicol Corporation purchased and used 242 acres of land as the Hardeman County landfill for
disposal of pesticides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), beginning in 1964. As of 1973,
when the site was closed, waste had been disposed of in three specific areas, covering a total of
approximately 27 acres. Approximately 130,000 drums of plant waste were disposed of in these
three areas in trenches and were covered with 3 feet of soil. In 1980, a low permeability cap was
installed over the surface of the three disposal areas, the surface was regraded to facilitate surface
water drainage, sediment ponds were backfilled, and topsoil and seed for revegetation were applied.
Currently, the site is fenced with barbed wire and has a locked gate. Approximately 60 people live
within a 1-mile radius of the site. Since 1979, private wells in the vicinity have not been used for
drinking water; alternate water supplies have been provided. There are public supply wells within a
3-mile radius of the site; however, monitoring data indicates that these wells are not contaminated.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water are contaminated with various VOCs and chloroform.
Capping, regrading, fencing, and security have virtually eliminated direct contact with the
contaminants on the site. However, there may be a health threat if the contaminated
groundwater in the area is used for drinking water.
47
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater and controlling the sources of contamination.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: As a result of chlorinated hydrocarbons detected in two residential
wells adjacent to the site in 1979, Velsicol provided an alternate water source to 26 homes
that were located within a 1-mile radius of the site. In 1980, capping, surface regrading,
backfilling, and revegetating were performed.
Groundwater: In 1989, Velsicol Chemical Company began a study of the type and
extent of groundwater contamination and an evaluation of alternative cleanup remedies.
The investigation was completed in 1991. The proposed plan for groundwater cleanup,
currently undergoing public review, includes extraction of groundwater and treatment using settling
tanks, air stripping, and carbon adsorption followed by the discharge of treated water to nearby
surface water. In addition, fencing of the property, restrictions on use of wells, and monitoring the
effectiveness of the remedy are included. Design of the cleanup activities will begin soon after the
remedies are selected.
Source Control: In 1991, the Velsicol Chemical Company will initiate studies into the
nature and extent of contamination sources at the site. These studies are expected to be
completed by 1993.
Site Facts: Under an Administrative Order on Consent, Velsicol agreed to complete the remedial
investigation and feasibility study, under EPA monitoring. Several citizens in the area around the
site have been involved in litigation with the Velsicol Chemical Company concerning pollution of
their wells. Concerns about groundwater contamination were very high about 10 years ago, when
water supply wells became contaminated but have lessened since alternate water supplies were
provided. According to recent information, the citizens' litigation has been settled.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to cap the surface of the site, secure access to the site, and provide an alternate
water supply to nearby residents have eliminated immediate threats at the Velsicol Chemical Corp.
(Hardeman County) site while further investigations leading to cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 48 VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP.
rm IMTVI
-------
WRIGLEY CH
PLANT
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980844781
EPA REGION 4
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Hickman County
Old Charcoal Road, Wrigley
Site Description
The Wrigley Charcoal Plant site covers approximately 200 acres in and around the town of Wrigley.
From the late 1800s to the early 1960s, a number of companies, including the Tennessee Products
Corporation, produced charcoal briquettes, iron products, and wood alcohol on the site. After
industrial and boot-legging activities ended, the Tennessee Farmers Co-op acquired the site and later
sold a portion of it to an individual. During a 1985 inspection, the Tennessee Division of Solid
Waste Management discovered pits containing a tar-like substance, waste piles, and old drums.
Leachate was entering the north fork of Mill Creek, which is adjacent to the site. In 1985, the State,
and, in 1986, the EPA detected toluene, benzenes, and phenols in the wastes and the leachate. The
Bon Aqua Utility District maintains a drinking water intake in Mill Creek 1 1/2 miles downstream of
the site. This intake serves an estimated 5,500 people. Approximately 300 people obtain drinking
water from wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The leachate and wastes on the site contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including toluene, benzene, and phenol. The north fork of Mill Creek is contaminated
with the same elements as those found in the leachate. Health threats include the
accidental ingestion of or direct contact with the wastes on site. Geologic conditions at
the site make it easy for contaminants to move into the shallow groundwater, which lies
about 25 feet below the site.
49
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: In 1988, the EPA stabilized the tar pits by building a 16-foot berm
to prevent erosion and seasonal flooding. A stream was rerouted to prevent leachate from
entering Mill Creek. In 1989, the EPA excavated and shipped six truckloads of tar to a
recycling facility. The recycling was incomplete, because large amounts of debris were still present
in the tar.
Entire Site: The EPA installed five new monitoring wells in a study to evaluate the
nature and extent of the contamination. The study is expected to be completed in 1991.
Additional studies may be conducted, if necessary. The results of the study will help the
EPA determine the engineering methods needed to clean up the site.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA sent out notice letters to the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination and asked them to participate in the site investigation. The public is concerned about
the quality of the north fork of Mill Creek and the groundwater.
Environmental Progress
Stabilizing the tar pits and removing some of the contaminated materials from the Wrigley Charcoal
Plant site have lessened any immediate threats to the community or the environment. Studies by the
EPA are assessing the site contamination to determine the best permanent remedy for the site.
April1991 50 WRIGLEY CHARCOAL PLANT
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
51
-------
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 arc used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
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 unconfmed 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.
53
-------
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
54
-------
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.
55
-------
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 ground water 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.
56
-------
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 (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
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
57
-------
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,
58
-------
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
59
-------
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.
60
-------
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 Act.
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.
61
-------
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.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
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 participates 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
62
-------
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
63
-------
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
64
-------
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.
65
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Tennesse
67
-------
nessee
c
**-
o
0
(U
0)
^
0)
(75
a.
2
^o
-n
Wayne County Public Library,
Contact the Region 4 Superfun
MALLORY CAPACITOR COMPANY
MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
3
S
en
P
60
1
.3
o
06
8
O
|
i^
Lawrenceberg Public Library, '.
\ MURRAY-OHIO DUMP
3
S
en
P
9 East Games Road, Lawrenceburg,
l^l
Lawrenceberg Public Library, '.
O
| MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING C
S
oo
en
P
i
a.
Library, 1850 Peabody Avenue, Mer
u
Memphis-Shelby County Publi
| NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP
0
en
00
t~
en
1
'06
?
H
<2
1
|
5
a
o
o
06
w
2;
w
u.
O
r "
| OAK RIDGE RESERVATIONAJ.S. DEP1
oo
T3
«
V
ic Library, 213 North Washington St
"n
Velsicol Hardeman County Pul
| VELSICOL CHEMICAL COMPANY
1
en
P
1
S
i
on
t
on
1
§
r**
3
o
a
.a
X
WRIGLEY CHARCOAL
69
U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60645
------- |