United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/056
September 1991
PB92-963212
v>EPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
TEXAS
1 9 U T
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-742A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Texas
U S. Environmental Protects r>" V
Region 5, Library (Pl-W
77 West Jackson Ecu'.cVE; J, i2ui 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
Superfund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Texas 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 83
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 99
-------
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
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called ^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 MRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
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
""Sttetescriptlon
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Nun**:
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Proposed?
Flr»t
Fhreats 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
Texas
Texas is the second largest state in the Nation, covering 262,017 square miles within EPA
Region 6, which includes five states in the south central United States. The state topography is
made up of varied regions, including the Gulf Coast Plain in the south and southeast, the North
Central Plains, the Great Plains extending over the Panhandle, and the southern extension of the
Rockies known as the Trans-Pecos. Texas experienced a 19% increase in population between
1980 and 1990, according to the 1990 Census, and currently has approximately 16,987,000
residents, ranking 3rd in U.S. populations. Principal state industries include trade, services, and
manufacturing. Texas manufacturers produce a variety of agricultural and livestock products,
machinery, transportation equipment, refined petroleum, and apparel.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Texas?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
28
_L
29
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 4, 7, 10, 22, 1 site
23, 24, 25
Congressional Districts 12, 18, 19 2 sites
Congressional Districts 1, 2, 8, 9 4 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Texas?
# of sites
7
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
type of sites
Disposal Facilities
Chemical & Allied Products
Lumber & Wood
Federal Facilities
Recyclers
Metal & Allied Products
Petroleum Refining & Related Industries
Other (electroplating, tank washing facility)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
25--
20--
,_ i
0) 15-
,10--
5 --
Soil GW SW Air Solid
& Liquid
Wastes
Contamination Area
Soil, Solid and Liquid Wastes:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), creosote
(organics), and polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs), and plastics.
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and creosote (organics).
Surface Water and Sediment-
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), creosote
(organics), and polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs), and petrochemicals.
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and creosotes (organics).
*Appear at 15% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process?t
4
Sites
with ^
Studies
Underway
3
Sites
^ with
Remedy
Selected
7
Sites
^ with
Remedy
Design
14
Sites
^- with
Cleanup
Ongoing
\
Sites
^ with
Construction
Complete .
Deleted
Site
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 24 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
ft
0 0000 0
If 000 000000 00000000
^
£ 11 00000000000 00000000
**r ocw
o
o> «!
<0 £
Jg If flflMfiUftftfl flftftflft
0000
CO
co
oo
0)
c/5
CL
c
(Q
J£
o
o
(0
I
(A
tt;22«
>n
ON -H
vo
April 1991
20
-------
ftft
ftftft
ftftft ftftft
slftftftftftftft
IH ftftftftft
i
J
i
2
i
m
£
.s
u.
HARRIS
V)
|
2
CO
1
_J
^
SOL LYNN/DMDUSTRI
ON
.1
U.
HARRIS
c
1
c^
SOUTH CAVALCADE
_
.S
u.
HARRISON
STEWCO.INC.
ro
CQ
U.
Z
GALVESTO
Z
O
TEX-TIN CORPOR ATI
VI
r-
"3
u.
BOWIE
8
o
5
>
2
1
CL
TEXARKANAWOOD
^
t
.5
u.
ORANGE
J
TRIANGLECHEMICA
ON
.Q
U,
>
ai
UJ
I
8
ctf
U
z
oo
21
Apr/11991
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 6
23
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Texas, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 6
Office in Dallas, Texas or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 6 Superfund Community Relations Office (214) 655-2240
EPA Region 6 Superfund Office (214) 655-6664
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Texas Superfund Office (512) 463-7785
April! 991 24
-------
AIR FORCE PLANT
(GENERAL DYNAM
TEXAS
EPA ID# TX7572024605
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Tarrant County
6 miles west of Fort Worth
This 700-acre Air Force site has been used for the production and testing of military aircraft and
associated equipment since 1941. The plant produces approximately 6,000 tons of spent process
chemicals each year. Twenty-one hot spots responsible for the chemical contamination are
found around the site, including landfills, chrome pits, fire department training areas, and fuel
saturation areas. The site is bordered by Carswell AFB, recreational Lake Worth, and the
community of White Settlement. The base and the town both draw drinking water from seven
nearby municipal wells; the closest are 850 and 1,500 feet from the site. Approximately 13,400
people live in White Settlement.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 05/23/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is polluted with halogenated and aromatic organic chemicals,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including vinyl chloride, and heavy metals
including chromium, lead, and arsenic. VOCs, chromium, and alpha and beta
radiation have been found in the soil. Surface water is contaminated with VOCs
and chromium. Aquifers supplying the drinking water wells are contaminated by
VOCs. Contamination generally is restricted to the site, although pollution of the
upper aquifer has a potential impact on surrounding wells. Possible paths of
exposure include ingestion of contaminated drinking water, direct contact with or
drinking contaminated groundwater, and possible health threats due to emission
ofradionuclides.
25
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 1982, the Air Force and the potentially responsible parties
notified the EPA that hazardous substances were found in the stormwater outfall that
drains into an adjacent creek. In 1983, the Air Force removed about 21,000 cubic
yards of soil contaminated with heavy metals from closed waste pits and disposed of it in an
EPA-approved facility. Polluted water from a stormwater outfall continues to be collected,
stored, and disposed of in an EPA-approved facility.
Entire Site: The Air Force is continuing to conduct investigations to determine the
extent and nature of contamination to groundwater and surface waters and to select
remedies for permanent cleanup of the site. The investigation is planned for
completion in 1992.
Site Facts: Air Force Plant #4 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. An Interagency Agreement between the EPA, the Air Force, and the Texas Water
Commission was signed in August 1990, addressing cleanup of the entire site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil by the Air Force has reduced the possibility of exposure to
hazardous materials at this site, making the Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics) site safer
while it awaits further cleanup actions.
April 1991 26 AIR FORCE PLANT #4
(GENERAL DYNAMICS)
-------
BAILEY WASTE D
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980864649
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Orange County
3 miles southwest of Bridge City
Other Nam**:
Gulf Street Utilities
Bailey's Sabine Lake Bridge
The Bailey Waste Disposal site is a closed industrial waste facility and is part of a saltwater
marshland near the confluence of the Neches River and Sabine Lake. It lies within the 100-year
flood plain. Although the size of the site is officially 280 acres, waste has been documented on
only 10 acres. Two rectangular ponds were constructed during the 1950s, when Bailey's was a
fish camp; one of them subsequently was used for waste disposal in the 1950s and while the fish
camp was still in operation. Four separate areas of contamination have been identified near this
pond: a waste channel containing at least 44,000 cubic yards of industrial waste and debris; an
area containing 32,000 cubic yards of municipal and industrial waste; a drum disposal area,
where corroded drums hold about 880 cubic yards of industrial waste; and a series of waste pits
holding 1,900 cubic yards of tar-like wastes. The site was closed in 1971. About 7,600 people
within 3 miles of the site use wells for drinking water, the nearest residence being within 2 miles
of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater pollutants include organic chemicals such as chloroform, and
benzene, as well as heavy metals including lead and arsenic. Volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs), aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, organics including
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals have been found in
sediments. Contaminants in the soil include VOCs and heavy metals such as
copper, lead, and arsenic. Heavy metals including arsenic and selenium have
been found in the surface water. Potential risks are direct contact with or
accidental ingestion of soils and inhaling dust from the site. Continued restriction
of access to the site should lessen these risks. Area drinking water wells are
located in deeper aquifers where contamination has not been found. The site is
located in the flood plain of the Neches River and is subject to periodic flooding.
Fish, shellfish, and livestock grazing the marsh also are at risk; tissues of aquatic
creatures have been found to be contaminated. People also may be at risk by
eating contaminated fish and crabs.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties fenced the site and posted
EPA warning signs. Because the site is relatively inaccessible, the fencing is sufficient
to control access.
Entire Site: A site study was conducted by the Texas Water Commission to identify
the extent of contamination and to suggest options for cleanup. The selected remedy
was to remove affected sediments from the marsh and drainage channel, as well as
wastes from the drum disposal area and one of the waste pits, and relocate all materials to the
waste channel. This channel and the area to the east of one of the ponds then will be stabilized
by solidifying contaminants to prevent their movement off the site. An engineering study is
underway to develop the cleanup design. The results of the study are expected to be available in
1992.
Site Facts: In April 1990, the EPA and the potentially responsible parties signed a Consent
Decree for design and implementation of site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the area and posting warning signs have limited access to the site, thereby reducing the
potential of exposure to hazardous substances at the Bailey Waste Disposal while it awaits
planned cleanup activities.
April! 991 28 BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
-------
BIO-ECOLOGY
SYSTEMS, IN
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980340889
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 24
Dallas County
Grand Prairie
Other Names:
Bioecology
Site Description
The Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc. site consists of approximately 11 acres in an industrial area. It
was licensed as a solid waste management facility by the State of Texas in 1972. Operators
burned or treated industrial wastes with chemical or biological processes before landfilling them.
About 40,000 cubic yards of wastes and contaminated soils exist at Bio-Ecology. It is
surrounded by private property and is bordered by the tributaries of Old Mountain Geek. The
site lies within the flood plain of the creek and is 1 mile northeast of Mountain Creek Lake. The
site was operated until 1978, when, after numerous permit violations and court orders to improve
operations, the site owners went bankrupt. The site contains tanks with mixed oils, solvents, and
ketones and buried chromium, cyanide, and heavy metal sludges. Approximately 12,500 people
live within 3 miles of the site. The City of Grand Prairie draws its domestic drinking water from
wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. There is a residential area about 1/2 mile from the site
and a school about 2 miles to the northwest.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Shallow groundwater is contaminated with low concentrations of lead, nickel, and
trichloroethane and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). High concentrations of
lead and chromium have been found in soils both on and off site. VOCs have also
been identified in soils. Surface water runoff from the area, which has been
flooded at least twice, flows directly into Old Mountain Creek. However, specific
pollutants were not identified. Slight groundwater contamination has been
detected to a depth of 50 feet Area residents could be exposed to contaminants
through direct contact with on- and off-site contaminated soils, sediments, and
standing surface water; drinking contaminated surface water or groundwater; or
inhalation of evaporated and airborne chemicals.
29
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase for
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Workers removed 15 storage tanks and surface contamination
in 1985. The area was fenced and signs were posted to restrict access.
Entire Site: Investigators recommended that the site be reconstructed as a safe
landfill for its own contaminants. The remedies selected included raising the level of
the site above the flood plain, building an on-site disposal cell with a synthetic liner
and a collection system for seeping liquids, constructing an environmentally safe cover and liner
and liquid collection and removal system, stabilizing the waste and placing it in the on-site cell,
fencing and posting the site, and installing a groundwater monitoring system. All activities
selected for site cleanup are planned to be completed by 1992. Groundwater monitoring will be
continued to determine when the groundwater resources reach approved cleanup levels.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of contaminated tanks, the construction of a fence, the security
measures, and subsequent long-term cleanup measures have achieved the surface and surface
water cleanup goals for this site. Monitoring activities will be continued to ensure the
effectiveness of the site cleanup until final deletion of the Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc. site from
the NPL.
April 1991 30 BIO-ECOLOGY SYSTEMS. INC.
-------
BRIO
REFINING, INC.
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980625453
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Harris County
2 miles north of Friendswood
Other Names:
JOC Oil Aromatic*, Inc.
Lowe Chemical Company
The Brio Refining, Inc. site occupies about 58 acres: 49 acres north of Dixie Farm Road were used
for storage, and the 9 acres south of the road were used for processing activities. Operations began
at the site in 1957, and until 1969, the major work done there was regeneration of copper catalysts
and recovery of petrochemicals from styrene tars and vinyl chloride still bottoms. About 23 unlined
pits were dug during this time and used to store both raw and process materials. Recycle and
recovery operations continued until 1978 when the plant was converted to a crude oil topping unit
for jet fuel production. Throughout the 1970s, the pits were closed by mixing the stored material
with soil and clay and covering the resulting waste with soil, and by 1980, all pits were closed.
Studies have shown that 500,000 to 700,000 cubic yards of soil on site are contaminated and that
high levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exist in groundwater under the site. The area is
heavily populated, with approximately 5,700 people living near the site. Residences, businesses, a
hospital, and a school are located within 1/2 mile of the site. A municipal drinking water well is
located within 1/2 mile of the site, but draws water from an uncontaminated aquifer. Cattle grazing
and oil and gas exploration activities also occur nearby.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Plastics and VOCs have been found in the groundwater; copper exists to depths below
18 feet The soil is contaminated with heavy metals, VOCs, styrene tars, chlorinated
solvent residues, metallic catalysts, and fuel oil residues. Surface water in Mud Gully
near Pit B and runoff from Pit Q have been shown to be contaminated with VOCs and
petrochemicals. Workers or others on site may be exposed by inhaling airborne
contaminants or by direct contact with contaminated soil. If contaminants seep into the
deeper aquifer, which is not imminent, drinking well water could become a problem.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
concentrating on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A fence was installed at the site in 1985.
Entire Site: Remedies selected for the Brio Refining, Inc. site include: (1) excavating
affected materials and soils; (2) incineration of these materials; (3) consolidating and
disposing of surface debris and rubble; (4) measures to widen bottle-necked Mud Gully as
it passes the Brio site; (5) decommissioning the wastewater treatment system; (6) removing the
contents of all storage tanks for proper disposal and dismantling the structures; (7) dismantling the
process facility; (8) recovering and treating shallow groundwater, (9) grading, planting, tending, and
landscaping the site; (10) installing a stormwater drainage system; (11) monitoring air, surface
water, and groundwater, and (12) restricting use of the land. Design of the cleanup remedy began in
1989 and is expected to be completed in 1992. A portion of the cleanup began in 1989, which
includes dismantling the process facility as well as associated vessels and tanks. Site cleanup is
planned for completion in 1997.
Site Facts: In 1982, Brio Refining, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. Some of the parties potentially
responsible for the wastes organized into the Brio Task Force and discussed cleanup remedies with
the EPA. In 1985, a Consent Decree was signed by the Task Force to accept financial responsibility
for cleanup. Task force members involved with this and the Dixie Oil Processors site have
negotiated with the EPA on selection of the cleanup remedy and cleanup responsibility. A Consent
Decree for design of cleanup activities was designed in April 1991.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a fence has reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous wastes at the Brio
Refining, Inc. site, making it safer while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
April 1991 32 BRIO REFINING. INC.
-------
CRYSTAL CHE
COMPANY
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD990707010
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Harris County
Rogerdale Road in Houston
The Crystal Chemical Company began producing arsenic-based pesticides at this 5-acre site in 1968.
During plant operations, containers of raw and finished materials were stored on the ground, where
they spilled and leaked into the soil. Arsenic contamination spread outside the process areas in
1976, when rain caused three waste ponds to overflow. Prompted by the State, the company built a
dike around the plant and undertook other cleanup actions. The company declared bankruptcy in
1981. The site lies within a residential and light industrial area that is within a 100-year flood plain.
Approximately 20,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the abandoned plant. Twenty water
wells also are situated within 1 mile. The nearest drinking water well is 300 feet away; the nearest
residence is 1/2 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with arsenic. Possible hazards
include direct contact, inhaling, or ingesting contaminated soils, dusts, or surface water.
Groups likely to be exposed include on-site workers, children playing near the area, or
maintenance workers cleaning up and dredging the site.
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.
33
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Between 1981 and 1982, the EPA dewatered the site, filled in
the contaminated ponds, temporarily capped most of the plant site with 6 inches of
clay, and added topsoil and seed. Hurricane damage to the site resulted in a restart of
the work. Restart actions included repairing the fence, removal of contaminated liquids from
two buildings, capping of the building floor, and installing gravel berms. Four hundred cubic
yards of soils and about 2 million gallons of contaminated water were removed. Repairs to the
clay cap and fence were made in 1983 and 1988. Presently, additional contaminated soils and
deteriorated drums are being removed, and the erosion control ditch is being repaired.
Entire Site: A cleanup remedy for the site was selected in 1990. The cleanup of the
site will include consolidation of all off-site soils, bringing them on site for treatment
of highly contaminated soils via in-situ vitrification, and pumping and treatment of the
groundwater with chemical precipitation, filtration and ion exchange. In addition, the EPA will
study the deep aquifer under the site. Following completion of the soil treatment, the entire site
will be capped. The design of the cleanup is scheduled to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA filed with the bankruptcy court to recover Federal funds
expended at the site. The potentially responsible parties agreed, through a Consent Decree
signed in 1987, to do a supplemental feasibility study.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove or cap contaminated soils and liquid wastes, as well as repair
and upkeep activities, have reduced the actual exposure potential and slowed the migration of
contaminated groundwater at the Crystal Chemical site, making it safer while cleanup activities
are planned.
April 1991 34 CRYSTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
CRYSTAL CITY
AIRPORT
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980864763
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 23
Zavala County
Northeast Crystal City
Other Names:
Frank's Cropdusting Services
Site Description
The 120-acre Crystal City Airport site has served as a municipal airport since 1949 and is owned by
the city. Several aerial pesticide applicator businesses were based at the airport until 1982; all are
now out of business. City officials were concerned about the possible health threat posed by spilled
agricultural chemicals and contacted the Texas Water Commission. The Commission took soil
samples in 1983; analysis disclosed high pesticide levels. The airport has been closed to the public
since 1987, when cleanup investigations and activities began. The approximate population of
Crystal City is 8,000. The nearest home and drinking water well are 300 feet away from the site. A
municipal water supply well and two schools are within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and State
actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/05/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with various pesticides and heavy metals including arsenic.
Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of the soil are the primary contamination
exposure pathways for area residents.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
35
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1982, the EPA repaired a dike and pumped most of the
discharged sludges back into an on-site pit. In 1983, the EPA consolidated 40 cubic
yards of waste and 50 to 70 drums in two on-site disposal cells. In 1984, the EPA
disposed of 19 drums off site and secured the site with a fence. In 1988, the EPA repaired the fence
and posted signs.
Entire Site: The selected remedy for the site focused on control of sources of
contamination. Workers consolidated the contaminated soil, drums, and other materials
on site and covered the materials with an EPA-approved cap consisting of several layers.
This cap is designed to protect against potential migration of contaminants by rainfall and erosion.
Liquids used in the decontamination process were removed and injected into a deep well off site.
The State fenced the area and will monitor the site for 30 years, reviewing the remedy's
effectiveness every 5 years. The engineering design has assured that the site can continue to be used
as an airport. Completed in 1988, the design includes plans for decontaminating building walls and
reconstructing floors after excavation. State-led cleanup activities started in 1988 and will be
completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The emergency repairs and the disposal of contaminated drums have reduced the immediate threat to
nearby residents and the environment while the effectiveness of the final cleanup actions is
monitored at the Crystal City Airport.
April 1991 36 CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT
-------
DIXIE OIL PROCE
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD089793046
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Harris County
20 miles southeast of
Houston near Friendswood
Site Description
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc. (POP) is situated on 27 acres and borders Dixie Farm Road. The site
has had several owners and operators since 1969. In 1978, DOP, the most recent owner, began
oil recovery operations on the parcel south of Dixie Farm Road, converting liquid organic wastes
such as phenolic tars and glycol cutter stock to creosotes, fuel oil extenders, and other petroleum
products. Additional wastes and contaminated soils remain on site; DOP stores wastes on site
before disposing of or recycling them. Former owners operated olefin washing and copper
recovery processes on the parcel north of Dixie Farm Road. Buried there in at least six closed
lagoons are accumulated copper sediment and, allegedly, 500 barrels of a tarry copper catalyst.
The leaking lagoons have affected shallow groundwater quality to a limited degree. In 1984,
DOP found lead, benzene, toluene, and copper in on-site wells. About 140 people obtain
drinking water from shallow public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. The nearest
residence is adjacent to the site, and the nearest drinking well is within 1/2 mile of the site. A
subdivision was recently developed north of the site, and a children's ball field borders it to the
southwest.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals including copper and lead. Spills from the copper
recovery operation have entered nearby Mud Gully and Clear Creek. Possible
threats include accidental ingestion and direct contact with contaminated soil,
inhalation of contaminated dust, and accidental ingestion of shallow groundwater
on the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
37
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1984, OOP disposed of more than 6,000 cubic yards of
soils contaminated with phenolic tars in an approved hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: The following remedies were selected for the DOP site: (1) fencing and
deed restrictions to prevent site access; (2) excavation and removal of contaminated
off-site soils; (3) consolidation and disposal of debris and rubble; (4) widening of a
flood control ditch; (5) operation of the existing wastewater treatment system during cleanup,
then dismantling and removing it; (6) removal and disposal of tank contents and drums; (7)
decommissioning, disposing, and recycling of tanks; and (8) dismantling and disposing of all
process equipment The site then will be landscaped by regrading and plantings. Site
monitoring after cleanup is completed will include air sampling and control of air emissions from
treatment processes, if necessary, and sampling and monitoring of Mud Gully sediments and
groundwater to determine the effectiveness of the listed remedies. Design work began in 1989
and is scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties signed an amended Administrative Order in
1986, agreeing to conduct a study to determine the extent and nature of contamination at the site
and have agreed to finance all cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The emergency removal of contaminated soils undertaken by DOP in 1984 has greatly reduced
the potential of exposure to hazardous substances, making the Dixie Oil site safer while it awaits
further planned cleanup activities.
April 1991 38 DIXIE OIL PROCESSING, INC.
-------
FRENCH, LTD
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980514814
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Harris County
2 miles southwest of Crosby and
1 mile east of the San Jacinto River
The 22 1/2-acrc French, Ltd. site contains a 15-acre waste pit that, from 1966 to 1972, received
100,000 barrels of industrial waste each year and then was abandoned. Industrial wastes, heavy
metals, phenols, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and acids were disposed of in a 7-acre
lagoon. The company declared bankruptcy in 1973. The site is located in the 100-year flood
plain of the San Jacinto River and has been flooded on several occasions, washing contaminated
water and sludges off site. PCB-contaminated leachate migrated into a nearby wetlands area and
tributary to the river. The soil is permeable sand, and drainage ditches discharge to the river.
The area is rural, with the nearest residence being 500 feet from the main pit. The nearest
drinking well is 1,500 feet away, and the nearest town, Crosby, is 2 miles away from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenols, heavy
metals, and PCBs. The groundwater, sludges, surface water, and soil are
contaminated with similar substances, in addition to oil, grease, acids, and
solvents. The surface water and the shallow groundwater are used by nearby
residents, thereby posing potential risks. Air near the site may be hazardous to
breathe as a result of vapors and airborne contaminants close to the site.
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.
39
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA consolidated waste from the area and constructed a
dike around the lagoon in 1980. In 1982, the EPA repaired the dike, which had been
breached during a flood, and contaminated sludges discharged during the flood were
pumped back into the pit. The floating portion of the sludges was removed and disposed of in an
approved landfill in 1983 by the EPA, and the area was capped. In 1985, the potentially
responsible parties fenced the area, and in 1989, they removed contaminated sediments from the
ditch.
Entire Site: The selected remedy for the site is biological treatment of the sludges
and contaminated soils in the on-site lagoon, with aeration of the lagoon waste to
enhance degradation. The potentially responsible parties will stabilize residues and
dispose of them on site. They will recover and treat contaminated groundwater once the
biological treatment process begins. Groundwater recovery and treatment will continue until
monitoring shows a significant reduction in the concentration of VOCs. Surface water from the
lagoon will be treated to meet the State's surface water quality standards for the San Jacinto
River. Residues generated from the treatment process will be stabilized to prevent leaching and
will then be used to backfill the lagoon. The remaining lagoon volume will be backfilled with
clean soil. The surface will then be graded to promote drainage away from the site. The final
component of the remedy involves monitoring of the upper and lower aquifers for a period of 30
years. The potentially responsible parties began the design for cleanup remedies in 1989. The
design and construction of flood protection dikes were begun immediately to prevent further
flooding of the site. Construction of the remedies and treatment of sludges and groundwater
started in 1989. Sludge treatment is expected to be completed in 1995, while the groundwater
cleanup will last until 1997.
Site Facts: In 1982, the EPA signed a Cooperative Agreement with the State to perform a site
investigation. The EPA and a task group of potentially responsible parties have signed a Consent
Decree outlining the responsibilities for correcting contamination.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated sludges and sediments, capping, and the installation of a fence
around the site have significantly reduced threats to nearby residents and the public while long-
term cleanup activities continue to reduce contamination at the French, Ltd. site.
April 1991 40 FRENCH, LTD.
-------
GENEVA INDU
FUHRMANNE
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980748453
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Harris County
Houston, 2 miles east of Hobby Airport
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy is a 13-acre abandoned petrochemical manufacturing and
reprocessing plant that was used for petroleum exploration prior to 1967. From 1967 to 1984, the
facility produced polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under two owners. The current owner salvaged
equipment from the site until 1985. High levels of PCBs are concentrated in the soil. This area of
Houston, adjacent to the city of South Houston, is heavily populated, and light industry is located
nearby. Approximately 35,000 people live within 1 mile of the site, and the nearest residence is 50
feet away. The nearest drinking water well is about 1/4 mile to the southwest of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
7V
The groundwater, soil, surface water, and sludges are contaminated with petrochemical
compounds, PCBs, and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). The soil, site ponds, shallow
and intermediate groundwater, and waste piles on site are contaminated. People who
come into contact with the soil or accidentally ingest contaminated surface or
groundwater are at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and groundwater treatment.
41
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: To control the source of contamination, the EPA installed a partial
security fence, stabilized a deteriorated chlorine tank car, and drilled and sampled an old
oil well. Abandoned on-site wells were plugged. Six leaking tanks were emptied of PCB-
contaminated liquids and sludge and were dismantled. The EPA removed highly contaminated off-
site soils, while highly contaminated on-site soils were capped. The EPA closed three lagoons and
removed the drummed waste on the surface.
Source Control: The Texas Water Commission (TWC), under a Cooperative
Agreement with the EPA, removed and disposed of surface structures in the off-site
hazardous landfill, excavated PCB-contaminated soils and buried drums on site, and then
disposed of them at an EPA-approved facility. A multi-layer surface cap was installed over the site
and a slurry wall, tied into the clay below the site to prevent contaminants from moving off site, also
was constructed.
Groundwater Treatment: Trichloroethylene (TCE)-contaminated groundwater is
being pumped and treated by carbon adsorption, with the treated water being discharged
into the adjacent flood control channel. Groundwater treatment is expected to be
i i_ * r\f\'*i
completed by 1993.
Site Facts: All cleanup activities have been conducted by the State under a Cooperative
Agreement between the Texas Water Commission and the EPA.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup actions performed by the EPA and the Texas Water Commission eliminated the
potential for exposure to surface contamination while long-term groundwater cleanup activities
continue to reduce contamination at the Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy site.
April 1991 42 GENEVA INDUSTRIES/FUHRMANN ENERGY
-------
HARRIS
(FARLEY STREET)
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980745582
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 22
Harris County
Southeast Houston
Site Description
The Harris (Farley Street) site in Houston is an abandoned landfill that was leased in 1958 to act
as a disposal facility for chemical wastes. One thousand tons of tars and sludges were disposed
of by local chemical industries. Black, tarry wastes were dumped into two open pits.
Accumulated wastes periodically were burned, leaving a charred residue. The property was sold
in 1975, and the new owner subsequently gave the land to his daughter, who then constructed a
house on top of the abandoned disposal area. The buried waste was discovered during the
construction of a swimming pool in 1981. In 1982, the house was destroyed by fire. A well is
located on the site. The nearest residence is located within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deleted Date: 04/18/88
Threats and Contaminants
The soil was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). While the soil at the site was
contaminated, no contamination of the groundwater was found. There are no
known human exposure risks at this site. The wastes that were present on site
were contained within high plasticity clays, and the migration of contamination
was minimal.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in one long-term remedial phase, which focused on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: From 1986 to 1988, the potentially responsible party, Dow Chemical,
excavated non-contaminated soils from the trenches and stockpiled them, excavated
contaminated wastes and disposed of them in a federally approved landfill, and
sampled the excavated area. Because the action completely removed the contamination source,
no groundwater monitoring was conducted afterwards, and no operation or institutional controls
were found to be necessary. The property has been turned over to a disposal company and will
become part of a Class IV landfill (a non-hazardous materials landfill), which now borders the
site on two sides. A sandpit that lies to the south of the site also is scheduled to become a
landfill, once the sand has been removed. The Harris (Farley Street) site was deleted from the
NPL in 1988. The EPA, in conjunction with the State, determined that the site is fully protective
of human health and the environment
Site Facts: In 1985, an EPA Enforcement Decision Document instructed Dow Chemical to
remove all hazardous substances and dispose of them in an off-site, privately owned landfill that
meets Federal requirements.
Environmental Progress
With the complete removal of all contaminants, final cleanup goals have been achieved at the
Harris (Farley Street) site. The EPA has determined that the site no longer poses threats from
chemical contamination and deleted the site from the NPL in 1988.
April 1991 44 HARRIS (FARLEY STREET)
-------
HIGHLANDS AC
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD9805H996
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Harris County
15 miles east of Houston,
1 mile from Highlands
Site Description
In the 1950s, sulfuric acid sludges from an unknown chemical process (possibly refinery
operations) were dumped into the Highlands Acid Pit, which is a 6-acre peninsula in the San
Jacinto River. The nearest resident lives about 1/2 mile from the site. Twelve water wells also
exist within a 1-mile radius of the site. The land use in the area primarily is residential and
recreational. The San Jacinto River is used for boating and swimming activities, as well as for
commercial and recreational fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and surface water contaminants include heavy metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including toluene and benzene, and sulfate. The upper sand
aquifer has been heavily contaminated, but no private or public wells currently
withdraw water from it. Use of the river for swimming or fishing may have posed a
threat by direct contact or by accidental ingestion of water. Workers or others on site
could have been exposed to chemicals by inhaling, ingesting, or direct contact with
contaminated materials.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and groundwater monitoring.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A fence was constructed around the pit by EPA emergency response
personnel to prevent further illegal dumping and to protect monitoring wells from
vandalism. The fences were vandalized and repaired in 1985. Warning signs were
installed around the perimeter of the fence.
Source Control: The remedy selected for control of the source of contamination was:
extensive excavation and disposal off site of highly contaminated soil; backfilling,
grading, seeding, and fencing of the site; and installing monitoring wells. Approximately
33,000 tons of excavated materials were disposed of at a hazardous waste disposal site. The State
also conducted evaluations to determine if the site needs corrective groundwater measures. The
Texas Water Commission will continue to monitor groundwater. Some residual contamination
probably remains at and below the ground surface beyond the excavation limit, and these residues
will be a continuing but diminishing source of contamination to the groundwater. The cleanup is
scheduled for completion in 1992. Periodic sampling will be conducted to confirm the effectiveness
of the cleanup.
Groundwater. Monitoring actions of the groundwater have indicated no further action
is needed. No health threats are anticipated, since the source control is completed.
Monitoring of the groundwater will continue to ensure that no further health threats exist at
the Highlands Acid Pit.
Environmental Progress
The Construction of a fence to limit access to the site lessened the actual exposure potential while
surface contamination cleanup goals were fully achieved. Monitoring of the groundwater will
continue to ensure that no further health threats exist at the Highlands Acid Pit site.
April 1991 46 HIGHLANDS ACID PIT
-------
KOPPERS CO.,
(TEXARKA
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980623904
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bowie County
West Third Street in Texarkana
The Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana Plant) site, 1 mile west of the downtown area, was a 62-acre wood
treatment facility between 1910 and 1961 that was run by a succession of owners. Koppers
Company closed the facility and sold the land in 1961, and all the old facilities were demolished in
1962. Carver Terrace built 78 homes on 34 acres of the site in 1964, and the remaining 28 acres
became a sand and gravel mining operation between the late 1970s and 1984. The entire site is
within a 100-year flood plain.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The air, groundwater, and soil are contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP), arsenic,
zinc, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and creosote. Potential exposure risks
include direct contact with and accidental ingestion of contaminated soils and inhalation
of contaminated dust
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
soil and groundwater treatment
47
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1985, the Koppers Company placed clean dirt and sod in the yards of
some residences to prevent exposure to the contaminated soils while the site was being
studied. About 24 homes were treated in this way, and the southern portion of the site was
fenced.
Soil and Groundwater Treatment: Soil washing and groundwater pumping and
treatment are the remedies selected for the Koppers site. Soil treatment entails excavating
contaminated soils from yards in the Carver Terrace subdivision and moving them to the
Kennedy Sand and Gravel Company property, where they will be treated by mechanical soil
washing. The yards will be backfilled with clean soil from off site, and re-sodding and landscaping
will be done where necessary. The wash solution will be treated in the groundwater treatment
system and the decontaminated soil will be disposed of on the Kennedy property. To clean the
groundwater under the Kennedy property, workers will pump groundwater up to a treatment unit
constructed on the site, pass it through an oil and water separator and a carbon filter, and pump the
treated water back into the aquifer. An amendment to the cleanup plan is under consideration. It
would provide for a buyout of affected properties. If implemented, it will be conducted in a separate
cleanup stage. Once discussions on the selected remedy are completed, engineering design
activities will be initiated. The design and implementation of the soil and groundwater cleanup
activities may be placed in separate stages, also.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions including the installation of a fence and the placement of barriers in some yards to
prevent exposure contaminated soil have reduced the immediate threats to affected residents, making
the Koppers Company site safer to residents while the design of final cleanup actions proceeds.
April 1991 48 KOPPERS CO.. INC.
H (TEXARKANA PLANT)
-------
LONE STAR A
AMMUNITI
TEXAS
EPAID#TX7213821831
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bowie County
12 miles west of Texarkana
The Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant has operated as a munitions plant since 1942. During World
War n, explosives were disposed of by detonation above- and below-ground in an area covering
about 19 acres. Heavy metals have been detected in monitoring wells south of the disposal site
along the border of the facility. The groundwater is shallow and drains to East Fork Elliot Creek,
which is 800 feet away from the Old Demolition Grounds. The creek drains into Wright Patman
Lake, a major recreational area. This rural area has a school and a trailer park near the site
boundary. Approximately 76 people live within 2 miles of the site and depend on several municipal
and private wells for their water. Approximately 1,200 people use private drinking wells within 3
miles of the site. The nearest town is Hooks with a population of 2,500.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including lead, chromium, and
mercury. On-site soil is contaminated with explosives and heavy metals. Off-site surface
water is reported to contain low levels of contamination. The potential environmental
risks are the spread of contaminated groundwater, contaminated surface water, and
contaminated soil to off-site locations. There is little public health concern due to
restricted access to the site.
49
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A fence has been constructed to protect people from direct contact with
site contaminants.
Source Control: The EPA currently is conducting an investigation into the nature and
extent of the heavy metal and explosive contamination at the site. The investigation will
define the contaminants of concern and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup.
The investigation is planned to be completed in 1993.
Groundwater: The EPA began an additional investigation into the groundwater
contamination in 1990. The investigation will define the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination and is expected to be completed by 1993.
Site Facts: The Lone Star Army 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, the EPA, and the Texas Water Commission entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement
in 1990. The agreement addresses cleanup of the Old Demolition Grounds.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant site to the NPL, the EPA assessed site
conditions and determined that no other immediate actions currently are necessary to protect public
health and the environment. Fencing of the site has reduced the potential for exposure, making the
site safer while it awaits further cleanup action by the Army.
April 1991 50 LONE STAR ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
LONGHORN A
AMMUNITION
PLANT
TEXAS
EPAID#TX6213820529
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Harrison County
Karnack
The Longhorn Ammunition Plant site is situated on approximately 8,500 acres in Karnack. Its
mission is to load, assemble, and pack solid propellant rocket motors and pyrotechnic and
illuminating ammunition. The plant produced TNT flake and acid for ammunition production during
WWII. Flake production ceased, and the current mission commenced in 1945. Wastes have been
disposed of in ponds and landfills. Contamination has been confirmed in several areas: the active
burning ground/rocket motor washout pond area, the TNT (trinitrotoluene) production area, the
flashing area, and the old landfill. Eleven additional areas have been identified as possibly being
contaminated or having the potential for off-site migration. Fifty groundwater monitoring wells
have been installed to determine the extent of contamination. An estimated 1,900 military personnel
and area residents reside within 3 miles of the site. A creek used for recreation potentially has been
polluted. Freshwater wetlands are located nearby.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Surface water, groundwater, and soil at areas of the site have been shown to be
contaminated with heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), munitions-related
wastes, petroleum, oil, and lubricants. These materials predominantly were deposited at
site areas during WWII operations at the base. Public water supply wells are located near
the site, and no alternate water supply is available in the event that the wells become
contaminated. The creek used for recreational purposes may be receiving wastes from
the site, and freshwater wetlands located nearby may be threatened.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, the Army constructed a cap over the rocket motor wash-out
pond area to limit the further migration of contamination.
Entire Site: The Army expects to commence a comprehensive investigation into the
contamination at several areas on the site in 1991. Initial studies have confirmed two
sources for VOC groundwater contamination beneath the active burning ground and have
identified a third potential source. The studies have concluded that the contaminant plume has not
moved significantly in 30 years, nor migrated off the post. The additional investigation planned for
1991 will further define water and soil contamination and will identify the appropriate cleanup
activities.
Site Facts: The Longhorn 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 or other DoD
facilities.
Environmental Progress
With the construction of a cap to limit contaminants from migrating off the post and the installation
of a fence, the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant site currently does not present an immediate
threat to the public or the environment. Once the Army has completed its studies and has
determined the cleanup alternatives, the final remedies will be selected, and the cleanup activities
will begin.
April 1991 52 LONGHORN ARMY
AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
MOTCO, INC.
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980629851
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Galveston County
Near the junction of Hwy. 3 and
the Gulf Freeway
Site Description
The Motco, Inc. site occupies 11 acres of land near La Marque. Since 1958, a number of waste
recycling and storage operations have been conducted at the site. At various times during its
history, wastes have been disposed of in a number of storage tanks and in seven unlined waste
pits or lagoons. The on-site lagoons cover a total of about 4 1/2 acres and contain between 11
and 15 million gallons of wastes. The wastes include tars and oils, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). In 1974, the Motco Corporation acquired ownership of the property and
established an operation to remove and market styrene tars left behind from a previous owner
and reclaimed the site for use as a commercial property. The business failed and Motco
abandoned the site in 1974. Two years later, the State cancelled the site's permit and ordered
Motco to secure the site and submit plans to close the site because of repeated releases of
contaminants into the environment and a failure to comply with permit requirements. Soon
thereafter, Motco declared bankruptcy. Approximately 3,000 people live within a 1-mile radius
of the site. The site is bounded by an abandoned trailer park and the Houston Lighting and
Power transmission line right-of-way. Two residential communities are located on the opposite
side of the Gulf Freeway from the site, the Omega Bay Subdivision and the Bayou Vista
Subdivision. Two commercial establishments are located about 1/8 mile southeast of the site.
Nearby residents do not obtain their drinking water from the groundwater.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
panics' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Sediments are contaminated with heavy metals including lead, copper, chromium,
and silver. The sludge is contaminated with styrene tars, VOCs, heavy metals, and
PCBs. People who trespass on the site may be at risk through direct contact or
accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, soil, sediments, or sludges.
53
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on controlling sources of contamination and limiting migration of contaminants.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Between 1980 and 1985, the EPA conducted various emergency
actions at the site including removing tanks, excavating and removing contaminated soil,
erecting a fence, and drawing the pond level down to prevent the overflow of
contaminants.
Source Control: The remedies selected by the EPA to control the source of the
contamination at the site include incinerating approximately 12 million gallons of
contaminated liquid from the waste pits and the sludge, tar, and soil. The potentially
responsible parties have installed the incinerators and are currently performing trial burns of waste.
Cleanup activites are expected to be completed by 1993.
Migration Control: The EPA has selected cleanup remedies to treat the migration of
contaminants off site. These remedies and technologies include removing contaminated
groundwater by pumping and on-site treatment; recovering and incinerating oily wastes
from the groundwater, and controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater by installing a
system of wells that would extract contaminants, treat the water, and reinject it. The potentially
responsible parties are preparing the technical specifications and design for the cleanup. The
cleanup activities will start once the design phase is completed in 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to the parties potentially
responsible for contamination at the site. Under the terms of the agreement, those parties conducted
an investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination and recommended cleanup options.
The EPA also issued a Unilateral Adminsistrative Order in 1990 to seven potentially responsible
parties requiring them to conduct the engineering design of the migration control remedies.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated tanks and soil described above and the installation of the fence
limiting access to the site have reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous materials at the
Motco, Inc. site, making the site safer while it awaits further cleanup activities.
April 1991 54 MOTCO, INC.
-------
NORTH CAVALC
STREET
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873343
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Harris County
Houston
The North Cavalcade Street site occupies 23 acres in northeastern Houston and was a wood
preserving operation from 1946 to 1964. This site is associated with the South Cavalcade Street
site, which also is listed on the NPL. The operation first used creosoting techniques and added
pentachlorophenol (PCP) treatment in 1955. Operations ceased in 1961, and the property was
sold in 1964, subdivided, and resold. Two large warehouses currently occupy about 30% of the
site. The wood preserving facility left two waste ponds behind, one containing process wastes
and the other creosote and used industrial lubricants. As of 1988, the plume of contamination in
a shallow aquifer covered 4 acres. Areas surrounding the site are mixed residential, commercial,
and industrial properties. About 4,500 people live within a 1-mile radius; the nearest residence is
200 feet to the west. Although there is no private well usage within a 2-mile radius of the site, a
city well exists about a mile away from the site. The city well is screened at deeper than 600
feet, and it is unlikely that it will be affected by the site. One of the drainage ditches that moves
stormwater off site flows into Hunting Bayou, classified by Texas water quality standards as a
limited aquatic habitat.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Shallow ground water and on-site soils are contaminated with petrochemicals and
wood-treating metals, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and components of creosote. Sediments also are
polluted with VOCs, PAHs, and components of creosote. Direct contact with and
accidental ingestion of contaminated soils from the site pose a long-term threat to
area workers or any future residents.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases consisting of cleanup of the
groundwater and of the soil.
55
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The remedy selected for cleaning up the groundwater includes extraction
of 5.6 million gallons of contaminated groundwater and treatment by oil/water separation
and carbon adsorption. The cleaned water will be reinjected into the aquifer or released
into Hunting Bayou, whichever better serves the water balance in the area. All contaminated liquids
separated out of the water will be taken off site and incinerated. The State of Texas has assumed
responsibility for the site cleanup and currently is designing the cleanup of the groundwater.
Cleanup is expected to begin upon completion of the engineering design in late 1991. During the
design phase, pilot tests are being conducted to optimize the remedy. Water percolation tests and
biological treatment studies also are being performed.
Soil: The remedy selected for cleaning up the soil will consist of biological treatment of
22,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil, in place. The optimum method will be
determined after pilot testing. Design of soil cleanup technologies began in 1991 and is
scheduled for completion in 1992. A value engineering study of the design is planned to ensure that
it is as effective as possible.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed conditions at the North Cavalcade Street site and determined that the site
currently poses no immediate threat to human health or the environment while it awaits planned
cleanup activities.
April! 991
56
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET
-------
ODESSA CHROMIU
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980867279
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 19
Ector County
Odessa
The Odessa Chromium #1 site consists of a series of chromium-contaminated wells within 300
acres of residential, commercial, and industrial properties near 44th Street and Brazos Avenue,
just outside the northwestern city limits. This site is associated with Odessa Chromium #2, also
listed on the NPL. Several chrome plating operations existed at the Brazos location between
1972 and 1977. Operators at the now-abandoned Brazos property dumped plating wastewaters
and heavy metal contaminants directly onto the ground and allowed storage tanks and drums to
overflow frequently. The estimated areal extent of the groundwater contamination is more than
20 acres. Nearly every nearby residence or establishment is served by one or more water wells
tapping the Trinity Aquifer, the only source of potable groundwater. The EPA has identified that
an abandoned well on the site provided a potential pathway to the aquifer. This source area is
within a 10-acre industrial area. The nearest residence and drinking water well are on the site.
About 3,500 people live outside the city limits within a mile of the site. About 200 water wells
are within 1/2 mile of the site, and a municipal water well lies within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
municipal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06710/86
Threats and Contaminants
The major groundwater pollutant is chromium from wastewater dumping. Based on a
risk assessment, the contaminant levels in the soil do not present either a direct
contact or inhalation risk. People were threatened by exposure to contaminated
drinking water before the city water system was extended. Groundwater
contamination was documented in 16 of 200 existing wells sampled. Five of 14
monitoring wells contained detectable levels of chromium.
57
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on an alternate drinking water
source and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Water Supply: The State negotiated agreements with the City and local consumers
to extend the city water system and to construct a water distribution system to the
affected area. All affected residents have been provided with an alternate drinking
supply while the long-term remedy is underway.
Groundwater Cleanup: The long-term remedy focuses on groundwater cleanup.
The State is taking the lead. Contaminated water will be pumped from the Trinity
Aquifer and treated electrochemically to meet cleanup standards. The cleaned water
will be reinjected into the aquifer, and the site will be monitored for at least 30 years. The
facility at Brazos Avenue is slated for demolition and disposal. The Texas Water Commission
completed designing the treatment processes. Cleanup of the site is underway and is scheduled
for completion in 1993.
Site Facts: Under a Cooperative Agreement with the EPA, the State conducted studies to
determine the type and extent of contamination and cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply eliminated the potential of exposure to contaminants
at the Odessa Chromium #1 site while final groundwater cleanup activities proceed.
April 1991 58 ODESSA CHROMIUM #1
-------
ODESSA CHROM
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980697114
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 19
Ector County
Andrews Hwy.
Other NMHM:
Andrews Highway
The 200-acre Odessa Chromium #2 site, located in a mixed residential, commercial, and
industrial area, consists of a series of chromium-contaminated wells. This site is associated with
Odessa Chromium #1, also listed on the NPL. Two properties are suspected of originating the
contamination. One, at 5329 Andrews Highway, housed both a chromium-containing cooling
water additive facility and a radiator shop between 1950 and the early 1970s. A leaking
subsurface tank was the likely cause of contamination at this site. The other suspect property is
Wooley Tool and Manufacturing, which used chromates in its cooling water system from 1950
until 1976. A faulty backflushing in this system is suspected as a source of chromium
contamination. Until about 1970, the plant also disposed of chromate-contaminated waste water
in an unlined pit Nearly every residence or commercial facility in the surrounding area is served
by one or more water wells tapping the Trinity Aquifer, which offers the only source of potable
groundwater. About 3,500 people live within a mile of the site. Residences and drinking water
wells are located on the site. There are approximately 400 private wells within 1/2 mile, and 32
municipal wells are located within a 3-mile radius.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
municipal actions.
NPL UST1NG HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with chromium. The soil is contaminated with
heavy metals including chromium, zinc, copper, nickel, and lead. Contaminant
levels in the soil do not pose a health threat, based on a risk assessment conducted
at the site. Ingestion of contaminated drinking water is a possible health threat.
More than 40 acres of the Trinity Aquifer, the only source of potable water in the
area, are contaminated with hexavalent chromium. Fourteen of 318 wells
sampled show a chromium level at or above the drinking water standard. Four of
8 monitoring wells within an upper perched aquifer and 3 of 12 monitoring wells
within the Trinity Aquifer also contain elevated chromium levels. The affected
wells lie outside the city water supply service area.
59
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on provision of an
alternate drinking water supply and groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
Water Supply: State authorities negotiated with local residents to extend the
municipal water supply to affected areas and to build a water distribution system.
Residents have been supplied with an alternate water source while the long-term
remedy is being pursued.
Groundwater Treatment: Workers will pump chromium-contaminated
groundwater from the Trinity Aquifer and a perched water-bearing zone, treat it
electrochemically to meet cleanup standards, reinject the cleaned water back into the
aquifer, and monitor the site for at least 30 years. The Texas Water Commission began the
engineering design of the cleanup technology in 1988. Cleanup will be separated into separate
phases for the south and north plumes. Design and cleanup activities for the south plume are
underway; north plume work is scheduled to begin in late 1991.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Decree with the potentially responsible parties in June
1990 to conduct design and cleanup activities for the north plume at the site.
Environmental Progress
The residents around the Odessa Chromium #2 site are now provided with safe drinking water,
eliminating possible health threats while the site awaits final groundwater cleanup activities.
ApriM991 60 ODESSA CHROMIUM #2
-------
PESSES CHEMIC
COMPANY
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980699656
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 12
Tarrant County
South Main Street in Fort Worth
Site Description
The abandoned Pesses Chemical Company metals recycling facility is located on approximately
4 acres of commercial property. The facility opened in 1978 to recover cadmium and nickel
from batteries and sludges. This process, for which the operators had no permits, produced high-
level cadmium emissions. Even after permits were obtained, cadmium levels were measured
well above permit limits. The company declared bankruptcy in 1981, and the facility closed.
Operators left two thousand 55-gallon drums of process material behind in an unprotected
storage area. Most drums were opened, deteriorating, or leaking. Operators had also dumped
and spilled recycling residues onto the ground. When a grass fire started in 1983, a responding
firefighter was overcome by noxious cadmium fumes. Although the owner initially agreed to
remove the drums, this action was never completed, and the EPA took over responsibility for the
site. Approximately 19,500 people work or live within a mile of the site. The nearest residence
is 1/2 mile northeast of the site, and the nearest drinking water well is about 1 mile to the south.
A drug rehabilitation center with outdoor facilities adjoins the site to the northeast A hospital
and five schools are within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06710/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium, lead, copper, and
nickel. Sludges are contaminated with cadmium and nickel. The surface water is
contaminated with various heavy metals. The most serious potential threat is
contamination of surrounding areas from airborne dust and surface water runoff. The
risk of grass fires also exists. Children often cross unsecured portions of the site, to
reach a playground and housing development, which are nearby.
61
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: The EPA removed 3,400 cubic yards of contaminated topsoil,
drums, wastes, and debris from the site in 1983. Also, workers installed a 2- to 6-inch cap
of clean fill material over the southern fenced portion of the site and seeded it with grass.
In 1988, the potentially responsible parties built a fence around the northern portion of the site. In
1990, the fence was repaired after it had been vandalized.
Entire Site: Workers have begun excavating contaminated soil and wastes from off site
and combining their cleanup with that of on-site soils. These combined soils will be
treated in place by means of a stabilization technique suitable for shallow soils. The
fenced portion of the site around the south warehouse and office building will receive a concrete cap;
a cap also will be placed on the south field. Workers will clean the metal warehouse and
miscellaneous equipment. The liquid and solid wastes created during this decontamination process
will be treated separately. Solids will be stabilized with the soils. Contaminated water will be
treated and discharged into the sewer system. Equipment that cannot be cleaned well enough and
water that cannot meet pollution limits will require off-site disposal. The Texas Water Commission
designed the cleanup remedies and is conducting all cleanup actions. The cleanup is scheduled to be
completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
Through the emergency actions to restrict site access, the EPA and the potentially responsible parties
have greatly reduced the potential for accidental contact with hazardous materials. The soil cap
installed as part of the emergency action also has minimized potential threats due to airborne dust or
surface water runoff. These activities have made the Pesses Chemical Company site safer while the
State Water Commission proceeds with the final cleanup.
April 1991 62 PESSESS CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
PETRO-CHEMICAra
SYSTEMS, INC.
(TURTLE BAY
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873350
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Liberty County
7 miles north of Interstate 10
Other Names:
Turtle Bayou
Before 1970, Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. disposed of waste oils and other petrochemical
sludges at this 296-acre site. Operators stored waste oils in three unlined pits on about 5 acres of
land north of Frontier Park Road. Other waste disposal areas were located along the southern
side of the road. The locations and types of waste materials still are not fully known. Workers
also spread waste oils on the site's roads to control dust. Waste disposal and road oiling
apparently were discontinued in 1970, and the oil pits were covered. The facility's waste
disposal permit was revoked in 1974. The land was developed and subdivided into residential
properties. The nearest residence is on the site, and the nearest drinking well is 1,900 feet away.
As many as 11 families have lived in the subdivision. Numerous shallow wells supply drinking
water to the area. Turtle Bayou flows through the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
xylenes as well as lead, waste oils, and petrochemical sludges. Nearby residents
may risk exposure through direct contact with contaminated soil. Numerous
shallow wells are the current source of drinking water in the rural area.
Residential wells sampled in 1984 showed the presence of some VOCs, but these
were not detected when the wells were resampled later that year. People using the
unpaved road could be exposed to contaminants through accidental ingestion,
direct contact, and inhalation.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on Frontier Park Road and cleaning up the remaining site areas.
63
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA installed a fence in 1986. Two families were relocated away
from the site by the EPA during cleanup. Both families have returned to their homes.
Frontier Park Road: The road site was excavated, backfilled, and rebuilt in asphalt
The contaminated materials now are in a double-lined on-site facility awaiting final
disposal. EPA workers improved drainage in the area and reconstructed the Turtle Bayou
crossing. Work was approved as completed in 1988.
Entire Site: The Texas Water Commission has begun a study of other contaminated
areas both on and off the site, including areas where wastes have been deposited, where
contaminants have migrated, or where potential human exposure pathways exist. The
report is scheduled for completion in 1991, at which time a cleanup remedy will be selected.
Site Facts: On March 6, 1991 the EPA and Atlantic Richfield Company signed an Administrative
Order on Consent to conduct additional site studies.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has greatly reduced the potential for accidental
contact or exposure to contaminated soil and dust along Frontier Park Road while site studies are
being completed. The two families temporarily relocated during the cleanup have returned to their
homes, and Turtle Bayou again flows freely across the area.
ApriM991
64
RETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
(TURTLE BAYOU)
-------
SHERIDAN DISPOS
SERVICES
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD062132147
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Waller County
9 miles northwest of Hempstead
Approximately 110 acres of the 695-acre Sheridan Disposal Services site operated as a
commercial and industrial waste disposal facility from 1958 through 1984. A 15-acre sludge
lagoon, a 40-acre evaporation landfarm, 9 storage tanks, and incineration plots were used for
waste disposal. A pond levee around the lagoon was constructed, encompassing 17 acres. The
State ordered the lagoon closed in 1976, and revoked Sheridan Disposal Services' waste disposal
permit in 1984 because the firm lacked technical and financial resources to adequately close the
site. The site is in alluvial deposits about 250 feet from the Brazos River, within the 100-year
flood plain. Elevated levels of heavy metals were found in river sediments downstream of the
site. The Town of Brown College, with approximately 60 people, is about 1 1/2 miles north of
the site. The owner and a caretaker live southeast of the site. Land immediately surrounding the
site is agricultural, including pasture and range lands.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene and toluene. The soil and sludge are contaminated with VOCs, including
benzene and toluene, as well as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The upper
aquifer, which is connected to the Brazos River, is contaminated and is probably
connected to the lower Evangeline Aquifer. The Brazos River, the shallow alluvial
aquifer, and Evangeline Aquifer are used for drinking water supplies. Direct contact
with contaminated soil is unlikely, since access to the site is limited. In 1978, water
overflow from the site killed fish in Clark Lake, but off-site sampling of the Brazos
River and Clark Lake from 1984 to 1986 detected no contamination. Marshlands lie
3,000 feet to the east of the site.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on soil and sludge cleanup and groundwater treatment
65
ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, approximately 11 million gallons of pond water were
transferred to the evaporation system for on-site treatment; the pond and evaporation
system dikes were repaired, strengthened, and raised; and about 6,000 gallons of floating
oil were removed and placed in on-site tanks. In 1986, a fence was installed on the top perimeter.
Periodic maintenance of the levee system also has occurred to prevent flooding of former disposal
areas and possible contamination of the Brazos River. In 1987, parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination lowered the level of the stormwater in the pond.
Soil and Sludges: In order to control the source of contamination, the potentially
responsible parties will, under monitoring by the EPA, use bioremediation to reduce PCB
levels in soil and sludges. Treated sludges will then be stablized. Residues of the
treatment having greater levels of PCB contamination will be returned to a federally approved
landfill in the pond area. The cleanup is scheduled to begin in 1991 and is planned for completion in
1993.
Groundwater Treatment: The EPA selected natural attenuation as the remedy for
groundwater contamination. This remedy relies on natural processes such as sorption and
biodegradation to alleviate contamination. Sorption is the tendency of natural materials,
such as clay, to bind or to reduce the mobility of contaminants. Biodegradation is a process by
which microorganisms break down contaminants in groundwater. Because groundwater moves so
slowly, it is expected to take a minimum of 30 years for the contamination to be eliminated. The
remedy provides for monitoring of surface water to ensure that protective levels are maintained in
the Brazos River, which would be the first point of potential exposure to contaminated groundwater,
monitoring of groundwater to track movement of the contaminant plume; and prevention of future
use of groundwater as a source of drinking water for nearby residents through deed restrictions and
other precautions. The remedy also established contaminant concentration limits specifically for this
site, including enforceable water quality measurements that are designed to ensure that no
contamination is found in the Brazos River. Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin once the
design phase is completed.
Site Facts: In 1987,58 potentially responsible parties entered into an Administrative Order with
the EPA to conduct an investigation on the feasibility of various methods of cleanup. The Order was
amended to include eight additional potentially responsible parties. Under a Unilateral Order issued
by the EPA in 1987, eight potentially responsible parties lowered the water level in the pond. A
group of potentially responsible parties has formed the Sheridan Site Committee.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to secure the site and to treat or contain liquid wastes and contaminated pond
waters have greatly reduced exposure risks at the Sheridan Disposal Services site. The site is
safe while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
April 1991 66 SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
-------
SIKES DISPOS
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980513956
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Harris County
2 miles southwest of Crosby
The 185-acre Sikes Disposal Pits site has been used as a dump for petrochemical wastes. Between
the early 1960s and 1967, the site operated as a waste depository, and petrochemical wastes and
numerous drums were deposited in the old sand pits. Indiscriminate dumping of wastes is found
throughout the site. The site is in the flood plain of the San Jacinto River. It has been flooded six
times since 1969, and the waste overflowed the pit boundaries, contaminating the surrounding area.
There are two shallow water-bearing zones, and the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers are found below
several hundred feet of clay. A residential development lies 1,000 feet to the south. The area
immediately surrounding the site is wooded and largely undeveloped, with numerous active and
abandoned sand pits and low-lying swampy areas. Sport fishermen and water sports enthusiasts use
the surrounding river and bayou.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, sludge, and soil are contaminated with heavy
metals,volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene and xylene, and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including creosote, phenolic compounds, and halides.
The frequent flooding of the area threatens the San Jacinto River and the Jackson Bayou,
both of which are used for recreation. Although the groundwater contamination in the
shallow aquifer is heavy, no residential wells currently are affected. Neither surface
water nor groundwater contamination has migrated beyond the site boundaries.
67
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1983, approximately 40 cubic yards of phenolic tars and sand were
removed by the EPA and landfilled at an off-site hazardous waste disposal site. The EPA
backfilled the pit and covered it with clean sand. The EPA fenced the site in 1988 and
repaired fences that were damaged by floods in 1989.
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA selected the cleanup remedies for contaminated soil and
water, including on-site incineration of the sludge and soil, using the residue ash to
backfill the excavated areas. The contaminated surface water on site will be treated as
necessary to meet discharge criteria, and then it will be discharged to the San Jacinto River. Natural
attenuation over 30 years is expected to reduce contamination to acceptable levels. During and after
site cleanup, the State will monitor both the upper and lower aquifers, and they will not be used as
drinking water sources. The cleanup design was completed in 1989. Construction of the remedies
is expected to be completed in 1995.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated tars and sand and fencing of the site have greatly reduced the exposure
potential at the Sikes Disposal Pits site. The area is safe while cleanup activities are being
completed.
April 1991 68 SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
-------
SOL
CONGERP*KND,!, 25
TEXAS
PPA
EPA
Other Name.:
Industrial Transformer Sit*
Industrial Transformers (Sol Lynn)
Site Description
The Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers site is a 2-acre facility where an abandoned transformer
reclamation and a chemical supply company conducted operations. From 1965 to 1975, the
Industrial Transformer Company operated an electrical transformer cleaning and recycling facility,
which contaminated the soil and groundwater. The owner later leased the property to Sila-King, a
chemical supply company that bought used drums to resell. Trichloroethylene (TCE) was released
during this operation. The area around the site is a mix of residential, commercial, and light
industrial facilities. Approximately 2,100 residents live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Four City
of Houston water wells and four private water wells, which serve more than 10,000 people, are
within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in on- and off-site wells is highly contaminated with TCE. Sediment
samples from a drainage ditch and soils are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and TCE. It is unknown how deep the TCE contamination has traveled in
surrounding wells. The drainage pathways and site soils make human contact with PCBs
a possible threat. The site supports substantial animal and plant life, which are also
threatened by the contaminants.
69
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination installed
a fence around the site in 1989 to limit direct access to hazardous chemicals.
Source Control: The EPA-selected cleanup action for source control at this site includes
excavation of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil and treatment
using alkali metal polyethylene glycolate (APEG) complex dechlorination with on-site
disposal of treated hazardous residues; verifying the effectiveness of the dechlorination process
through additional studies; and pre-treatment of liquid by-products, if necessary. The potentially
responsible parties will undertake this phase of cleanup and currently are performing the engineering
design. Work is expected to start in 1992 and continue through 1993.
Groundwater: As part of an agreement with the EPA, the State will clean up the
groundwater contamination. The remedy entails pumping the groundwater and treating it
by using an air stripping process to evaporate the TCE from the water. Cleaned
groundwater either will be discharged to a water treatment facility or reinjected into the water-
bearing zone. The Texas Water Commission currently is preparing sampling plans for additional
investigations of the aquifers at the site. Completion of the engineering design for groundwater
treatment is expected by 1992, at which time construction of extraction wells and the treatment
system will begin.
Site Facts: In 1981, strong odors originating from the site prompted investigation, which found
approximately 75 punctured TCE drums scattered about the property. A Consent Decree signed in
1989 made Gulf States Utilities Company responsible for the first phases of the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
By fencing this site, the potentially responsible parties have eliminated the possibility of contact with
contaminants at the Sol Lynn site, while further design and cleanup activities are being completed.
April! 991 70 SOL LYNN/INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS
-------
SOUTH
CAVALCADE
STREET
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980810386
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Harris County
2 miles southwest of intersection
of Loop 610 North and U.S. Hwy. 59
Other Names:
Koppers Co., Inc.
The 66-acre South Cavalcade Street site, located in northeastern Houston, was used as a wood
preserving and coal tar distillation facility from 1910 to 1962. Subsequently, the site was subdivided
and parts of the site were sold. This site is associated with the North Cavalcade Street site, which is
also listed on the NPL. Currently, much of the site is owned or operated by three commercial
trucking companies. In 1983, the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority investigated the site for
potential mass transit use and found evidence of buried creosote from previous site activities. The
EPA's analysis of historical aerial photographs indicates there are at least three waste pits on the site
that have been filled in or paved over. Beginning in 1985, the EPA sampled all environmental
media and found two discrete areas of contamination at the site corresponding to the former
locations of the wood treating operations and coal tar plant in the southern portion of the site and a
pond previously existing in the northern part of the site. The site is surrounded by residential,
commercial, and industrial properties. About 4,500 people reside within a 1-mile radius of the site,
and the nearest residence is 200 feet to the west. The nearest water well is 500 feet away, although
no private wells are used for drinking water within a 2-mile radius. A city well exists about a mile
from the site, but draws water from a 600-foot depth and will not likely be affected by the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
High levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and heavy metals were found in the shallow zone of the groundwater. VOCs
were found in the sediments. PAHs, VOCs, heavy metals, and components of creosote
were detected in the soil. VOCs and heavy metals were detected in on- and off-site
surface water. Off site, surface water and sediments pose a minimal risk. On site,
workers and trespassers might come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest
contaminants in soils, sediments, and surface water. On-site activities may stir up
contaminated dusts.
71
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of contamination at
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Based on the site investigation, the remedies for cleanup selected by the
EPA include the following: (1) excavating and on-site washing of 19,500 yards of soil and
replacing the soil; (2) treatment and flushing of 10,500 yards of soil in the excavation's
wash water, (3) pumping and treatment of 50 million gallons of groundwater using physical
chemical separation, pressure filtration, and carbon adsorption, with reinjection into the aquifer or, if
necessary, discharging to the on-site drainage ditch that flows into Hunting Bayou; (4) off-site
incineration or recycling of all hazardous liquids separated out from the groundwater, and (5)
groundwater monitoring. The potentially responsible parties began design of the technologies to be
used for the cleanup in 1990. Site cleanup is expected to start in 1994.
Site Facts: In 1985, Koppers Company signed an Administrative Order agreeing to perform the
investigation to determine the extent of contamination on the site and to identify alternatives for
cleanup. The EPA reached an agreement with the potentially responsible parties for the
development of the engineering design and cleanup. The resulting Consent Decree was signed in
June 1990.
Environmental Progress
After conducting site investigations at the South Cavalcade Street site, the EPA determined that no
immediate actions currently are needed to make the site safe while awaiting further design and
implementation of cleanup activities.
April 1991 72 SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET
-------
STEWCO, INC.
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD00732814^
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Harrison County
1/2 mile south of the intersection
of Hwy. 9 and Interstate 20
The 2 1/2-acrc Stewco, Inc. site, located in a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial zone,
consists of two non-adjacent locations. The first location is a 1/2-acre plot that includes a
maintenance shop with fueling facilities, a truck-tank washing facility, and two backfilled and
capped evaporation ponds that received wastewater from the tank washing operation. The previous
owner contracted with the oil and gas industry to haul glue, resin, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and
creosote. The tank trucks were steam-cleaned between loads with an alkaline solution and the wash
water was routed to a pond to evaporate. The ponds were unlined and in poor condition, allowing
materials to contaminate the soil and groundwater. The second location consists of a pond that
received excess wastewater conveyed by truck from the evaporation ponds at the first location. The
ponds were to be skimmed to lessen the oil layer on the surface, but according to the EPA, no record
exists of this activity. Thus, when the ponds overflowed, the surface layer of oil moved with the
overflow onto surrounding drainage areas. The site overlies the Cypress Aquifer. Land close to the
site is used for limited grazing of livestock. Approximately 3,300 people live within 3 miles of the
site; 50 residences are within 1/2 mile of the first location, and 30 residences are within 1/2 mile of
the second location. Approximately 3,100 people living within a 3-mile radius use groundwater
wells for drinking water. The nearest well is 1,850 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in the first location is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including toluene and xylene. The soil at the first location is contaminated with
petrochemicals including fluorene and chrysene as well as VOCs including benzene.
Since the removal of contaminated liquids and sludges from the first location,
contamination threats to the public are remote. However, groundwater contamination has
been identified that is not attributed to the site. The groundwater and sediments at the
second location are contaminated with VOCs including benzene and anthracene and
petrochemical compounds from wash-down operations.
73
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach _
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA removed contaminated liquids from both evaporation
ponds at the first location in 1984. The liquids were then treated and discharged. Pond
sludges were removed and disposed of off site, and the ponds were backfilled with clean
soil and capped with clay. The EPA did not deem necessary an emergency removal of any materials
from the pond at the second location. A fence was constructed at the second location to restrict
access.
Entire Site: Although it was likely that the majority of the sources of contamination at
the site were removed in 1984, the EPA determined an additional study would be
appropriate. In 1988, the EPA concluded investigations of potential off-site and active
facilities that appeared to be contributing to groundwater contamination at the site. The additional
study confirmed that residual contamination of soils, sediments, and groundwater at the site posed no
threat to public health and that no long-term monitoring was necessary. The EPA and the State have
determined that remaining groundwater contamination is not attributed to this site and no further
actions are required at the Stewco site. The EPA and the State will follow up with additional
investigations to determine the source of contamination. If within two years the existing monitoring
wells at the Stewco site are determined to be of no further use to the off-site source investigation,
they will be closed.
Site Facts: The Texas Water Commission is investigating a facility adjacent to the Stewco site,
which may be responsible for the groundwater contamination.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated waters and sludges from the ponds has eliminated threats to the public
at the Stewco, Inc. site. Although further investigations are being done to identify off-site sources of
the remaining groundwater contamination, surface contamination from the site has been fully
addressed and final site cleanup goals for these sources of contamination have been achieved.
April 1991 74 STEWCO, INC.
-------
TEX-TIN
CORPORATION
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD062113329
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Galveston County
Texas City at the intersection of
Highway 146 and FM 519
Other Names:
Gulf Chemical Metallurgical
The 175-acre Tex-Tin Corporation site is an active copper smelting metals recovery and an inactive
tin smelting and ferrous chloride production plant. The site was developed as a smelting operation
by the U.S. Government during World War n and was later sold to private investors. The site
consists of five wastewater treatment ponds, gypsum slurry ponds, a pond containing about 19
million gallons of highly acidic ferric chloride waste, an area of iron sludge contaminated with
herbicides, tin and copper slag piles, about 20,000 drums of spent catalyst, and a licensed landfill
containing low-level radioactive waste. Monitoring wells near the acidic ferric chloride pond are
contaminated with heavy metals. An estimated 21,700 people live within 4 miles of the site.
Surface water within 3 miles downstream of the site is an important source of shellfish and is used
for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Releases of metals to the air have been observed. The groundwater is contaminated with
heavy metals including copper, tin, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead. Sludges
found on the site contain pesticides and residues. Human health threats include ingestion
of or direct contact with contaminated groundwater or sludge and inhalation of tin from
the air. A coastal wetland is within 2 miles of the site and could be threatened by the site
contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on contaminants at the entire site.
75
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties installed a fence around the
site to prohibit access to the contaminated materials.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties agreed to conduct an investigation into
the nature and extent of the contamination at the site. The investigation, which began in
1990, will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup.
After completion of the investigation, the cleanup activities will begin and any contamination will be
reduced to acceptable levels. The investigation is planned to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: The EPA and the Texas Water Commission have been investigating the site since it
was identified in a 1978 survey of waste disposal sites. In 1990, the potentially responsible parties
signed an Administrative Order to conduct an investigation into the type and extent of contamination
at the site. This mining site was proposed for the NPL because it is a non-coal site with mining-
related operations that occurred after August 3,1977, the enactment date of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Thus, the site is neither regulated by SMCRA nor eligible
for funds from the SMCRA Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program.
Environmental Progress
By installing a fence, the potentially responsible parties at the Tex-Tin site have restricted access to
the contaminated materials, making the site safer while investigations are being completed and
cleanup activities planned.
April 1991 76 TEX-TIN CORPORATION
-------
TEXARKANA WOO
PRESERVING CO.
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD008056152
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bowie County
Texarkana
Site Description
The 25-acre Texarkana Wood Preserving Company site is an abandoned wood-treating facility that
operated under various owners from 1909 to 1984. When the site was placed on the NPL in 1985,
approximately 793,000 gallons of hazardous waste were stored in pressure vessels, steel tanks,
retention ponds, surge tanks, and three evaporation ponds. All units were heavily contaminated with
creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) used in the treatment process, as well as several by-products.
Approximately 200 people live in a largely rural area within a 3-mile radius of the site. The nearest
residence is 500 feet to the west of the site, and the nearest drinking well is 2,400 feet away.
Groundwater is only 4 to 8 feet below the soil surface; however, most area drinking water comes
from Lake Wright Patman, which is not threatened by contaminants.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of State and Federal
actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/29/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
An estimated 16 million gallons of groundwater and 67,000 cubic yards of soil and
sludge are contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), PCP, and
dioxins from wood-treatment processes. Direct contact and inhalation of airborne site
wastes are the major threats to health. Contamination periodically is spread off site by
runoff, threatening nearby residents and the environment.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on soil and shallow groundwater cleanup and cleanup of the deep groundwater.
77
ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1986, the EPA began an emergency pump-down of the
creosote and PCP ponds and process area. Workers pumped the liquids to the evaporation
ponds. In 1987, the EPA fenced and secured the site and posted warning signs.
Emergency workers returned to the site later that year, after a car accident destroyed a section of the
fence. They made repairs and put up new warning signs, as the old ones had been removed. In
1988, EPA emergency response workers observed that the main process containment area was at the
point of overflowing and acted swiftly to stop the threat. The crew transferred contaminated
rainwater from the containment to the evaporation lagoons, which had adequate space and posed no
danger of overflow. In the fall of 1989, another pump-down occurred. Berms also were constructed
to alleviate the overflow problem.
Soil and Shallow Groundwater. The State conducted an investigation into the nature
and extent of the soil and shallow groundwater contamination at the site. In 1990, the EPA
selected the cleanup approach including excavation of contaminated soils, treatment of
soils using an on-site thermal destruction process, and replacement of treated soils, followed by
covering the treated soil with topsoil and vegetation. This will be followed up by pumping, treating,
and reinjecting the groundwater in the shallow aquifer. Engineering design activities began in 1991.
Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin in 1992.
Deep Groundwater: The State began an investigation of the nature and extent of deep
groundwater contamination in 1991. A cleanup remedy will be selected upon completion
of this study.
Site Facts: The plant had received three citations from the State for unauthorized discharges of
process wastewater into the Days Creek drainage system.
Environmental Progress
The actions performed by the EPA's emergency response workers to control and remove
contamination at the site have protected nearby residents and the environment from hazardous
substances. The EPA also will be removing lagoon wastes to prevent the spread of contaminants.
These actions have made and will make the Texarkana Wood Preserving site much safer while the
State begins the cleanup design and further groundwater investigations are underway.
April 1991 78 TEXARKANA WOOD PRESERVING CO.
-------
TRIANGLE
CHEMICAL CO.
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD055143705
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Orange County
1/2 mile south of Orange County Airport
The 2 1/3-acre Triangle Chemical Co. site contains a brick office building, three metal process and
warehouse buildings, and 26 storage tanks in good condition. From the early 1970s to 1981, the
facility was used for the production of antifreeze, windshield washer solvent, industrial cleaning
compounds, hand cleaners, and brake fluids. In 1981, when a temporary injunction was issued, the
company went bankrupt and abandoned the site, leaving 950 unlabeled drums. There were volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) on site, and the surface soil was contaminated with spilled hazardous
materials. This is a moderately populated residential area, with 15 residences and 50 mobile homes
within 1/4 mile of site. The nearest drinking water wells are located more than 3 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air, groundwater, soil, surface water, and liquids in the abandoned tanks were
contaminated with VOCs and various acids. In 1985, the groundwater was only slightly
contaminated, but contamination has increased slightly since then. Groundwater in the
aquifer under the site flows to the northeast and discharges into Coon Bayou. Some
evidence suggests that fish kills in the Bayou were caused by contaminants at the site.
The concentrations of contaminants in the air and surface waters were low and are
unlikely to pose a threat to the nearby population. However, the site was unfenced for a
period, allowing nearby residents to come into direct contact with hazardous materials.
79
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the EPA installed a fence to stop public access to the site.
Drums were removed, and contaminated soils were bulked and solidified and then
landfilled along with equipment. In 1985, the EPA fixed the fence, which had been
destroyed by vandals. A drainage canal was dug. About 1,000 gallons of organic solvents, 170
cubic yards of contaminated solids, and one drum of triethylamine were removed.
Entire Site: Liquids in the storage tanks and drums were incinerated off site or were
injected into a deep well. The storage tank sludges were landfilled off site. All on-site
structures were decontaminated. Contaminated soils were plowed and aerated to release
contaminants. These actions were completed in 1987. The Texas Water Commission (TWC) has
completed a supplemental investigation of the groundwater at the site, including a groundwater
modeling study. The study indicates that contaminants in the shallow groundwater will naturally
decline to acceptable levels prior to reaching Coon Bayou. Additional groundwater sampling will be
conducted by the TWC as part of site operation and maintenance activities to monitor contaminant
reductions in the uppermost aquifer.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to secure the site and to remove contaminated materials, as well as the completed
actions to decontaminate and treat remaining contamination areas have eliminated the exposure
threat to residents and nearby Coon Bayou. Final goals have been achieved for the cleanup of
surface contamination. The TWC is continuing to monitor groundwater at the site to determine
when water quality reaches acceptable levels.
ApriM991 80 TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO.
-------
UNITED
CREOSOTI
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980745574
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Montgomery County
Conroe
The 100-acre United Creosoting Co. site, north of Houston, was once a wood preserving facility.
From 1946 to 1972, lumber was pressure-treated with creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP).
Operators disposed of the wastes from the treatment process in two surface lagoons on site, which
are now covered. Prior to salvage operations in 1972, the site contained a coal-tar distillation still, a
processing building, tanks and pressure cylinders, two waste ponds, and several lumber storage
areas. Only an office building, garage, and the remnants of the waste ponds were left behind.
Redevelopment of the abandoned property began in 1977, and the site now contains a residential
subdivision and two commercial properties. In 1980, the County used soils from the site to improve
local roads in a nearby subdivision. Citizens living along one of these streets complained of
headaches, burns, and respiratory problems. Upon discovering PCP contamination in the soils, the
County removed them from the roadway and disposed of them by landfarming. Approximately
13,000 people live within a 2-mile radius of the site. The nearest drinking well is about 2 miles
southeast and is screened 160 feet below the surface.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Soils are contaminated with PCP, creosotes, and dioxin. Groundwater sampling has
shown low levels of PCPs and creosote compounds from contact with soils. The major
health threat is direct exposure to contaminated soils; groundwater contamination is low
and currently is not considered to be a threat to nearby residents or the environment.
81
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on demolition of surrounding houses and on cleaning up contaminants at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1983, under EPA supervision, the potentially responsible parties
covered a highly contaminated area with a synthetic membrane and 6 inches of compacted
clay. They also built drainage structures to divert water away from the subdivision and
fenced the area.
Demolition of Surrounding Houses: The EPA's selected remedy for the site
includes demolition of the six houses directly above and next to the former pond area, then
compensating and relocating the residents of the houses. Title transfers are completed for
all properties, and residents have been relocated in preparation for demolition activities. Demolition
of the six houses and removal of debris was completed in 1990. The pond area will be fenced to
restrict access until the permanent remedy can be developed.
Entire Site: The selected remedy for contamination at the entire site is on-site critical
fluid extraction of soil and reburial of clean soils on site. The mechanism is similar to that
of solvent extraction and will clean soil to meet existing health standards. The EPA and
the State conducted a focused site study that refined soil volume estimates. Design of the cleanup
began in 1990 and is planned to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties, under an Administrative Order from the EPA,
constructed a clay cap and drainage diversion berms to remedy the runoff problem. Residents are
concerned over health effects from the site. Although no acute health threats exist, residents are
asking that the entire subdivision be purchased and that the residents be relocated.
Environmental Progress
By fencing, capping, and draining the contaminated area, the EPA has reduced the possibility of
nearby residents' exposure to contaminants. In addition, the relocation of residents of the homes
adjacent to the former waste pond and the demolition of surrounding houses has eliminated any
possible exposure at the United Creosoting Co. site, making the area safe while final cleanup
activities are performed.
April! 991 82 UNITED CREOSOTING CO.
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
83
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
85
-------
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
86
-------
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.
87
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
88
-------
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
89
-------
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,
90
-------
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
91
-------
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.
92
-------
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.
Poly vinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of panicles 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.
93
-------
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 particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
94
-------
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
95
-------
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
96
-------
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 odier
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.
97
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Texas
99
-------
101
-------
«/>
(0
(A
£
Q.
(A
.S
O
*j
'35
o
a
0)
oc
c
,0
*!
(Q
I
c s
U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60646
102
-------
U.S. Environmental Protect
Re-'icv ;. h:;;ary 'Oi '
77 V'--. ;!.-/;', :
Chic; ;,; .' J ";C., , .;. '
------- |