United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
v>EPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
VIRGINIA
1991
EPA/540/8-91/059
September 1991
PB92-963217
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-745A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Virginia
U S.
Region 5, Library i -
77 West Jackson Be-
Chicago, IL 60604-.;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Virginia 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 65
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 81
-------
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 die 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-
-------
SVPERFVND.
oologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site Is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
PnpooeA: nftxftx
Flnfe
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,
Environmental Progress
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing specifications and
drawings for the selected cleanup
technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
selected cleanup remedies for the
contaminated site, or part of the site,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The Commonwealth
of Virginia
The Commonwealth of Virginia is located within EPA Region 3, which includes five mid-
atlantic states and the District of Columbia. The state covers 39,704 square miles, consisting of
mountain and valley regions in the west, the Blue Ridge mountains, rolling piedmont plateau,
tidewater or coastal plain, and the eastern shore peninsula. Virginia experienced a 16% increase
in population between 1980 and 1990, according to the 1990 Census, and currently has approxi-
mately 6,187,000 residents, ranking 12th in U.S. populations. Principal state industries include
services, trade, government, manufacturing, tourism and agriculture. Virginia manufacturing
produces textiles, transportation equipment, electric and electronic equipment, food processing,
and chemical products.
How Many NPL Sites Are in Virginia?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
20
_1
21
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 1, 6
Congressional Districts 3,5
Congressional District 4
Congressional District 7
Congressional District 9
2 sites
3 sites
4 sites
6 sites
1 site
What Type of Sites Are on
the NPL in Virginia?
# of sites
5
3
3
2
4
type of sites
Lumber & Wood Treatment
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Chemical & Allied Products
Electroplating
Other manufacturers (Textiles, Metal & Allied
Products, Rubber & Plastics, Electric Power
Production & Distribution)
Other (Federal Facility, Mining, Recycler,
Tire Fire)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
20--
16--
$12
+*
"in
4 --
Soil GW SW Sad Solid & Air
Liquid
Wastes
Contamination Area
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Heavy metals (inorganics), creosote
(organics), and volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs).
Groundwater: Heavy metals (inor-
ganics), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and creosotes (organics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and creo-
sotes (organics).
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
* Appear at 20% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
11
Sites
with I
Studies
Planned/
Underway
1
Site
with
Remedy
Selected
4
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
4
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
1
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 16 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phase 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
-------
«
Q
O)
o
4)
+
CO
**
CO
0)
.
II
§1
o
o
>»
ftft ft
ft ftft ftft ft
ftft ftft ftft ft
ilftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
llftftftft ftftft ft ftft ftftftftftft
>r>
58
0)
+
55
QL
Q.
3
C
(0
_0>
o
I
8
O
O)
o
§
« * O
ApriM991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 3
21
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Virginia, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 3
Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 3 Superfund Community Relations Office (215) 597-9905
EPA Region 3 Superfund Office (215) 597-8132
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Virginia Superfund Office (804) 225-2667
April 1991 22
-------
ABEX
CORPORATION
VIRGINIA
EPAID#VAD980551683
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
City of Portsmouth
Portsmouth
Site Description
The Abex Corporation site covers 2 acres in Portsmouth. The company operated a brass and bronze
foundry from 1928 to 1978. Abex produced parts such as brake shoes and ball bearings for railroad
cars. The EPA estimates that lead was released to the air at a rate of 10 pounds per day from a
1-acre process area and that 3,500 cubic yards of lead-laden furnace sands were dumped into an
adjoining 1-acre area. In 1984, the EPA identified elevated levels of lead in the fill area and in
residential lots next to the fill area. Abex has found significant soil contamination around both the
landfill and the old process areas. Approximately 10,000 people live or work within a mile of the
site: A number of those residents live either on or immediately adjacent to the lead-contaminated
soils. The site also is adjacent to an elementary school.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The air has been contaminated with heavy metals including lead, copper, and tin. Soils
exhibit high pH levels and are contaminated with lead. Human health threats include
direct contact with soil, surface water, and air. No groundwater is used as a drinking
water source within 3 miles of the site. In 1986, the EPA sampled home surfaces that
demonstrated the presence of contaminated air.
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.
23
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, Abex graded the site and surrounded it with fencing
topped with barbed wire. The Company also covered much of the old landfill with
asphalt, excavated some areas adjacent to the landfill, filled them in and revegetated.
Due to results of samples collected from the recently excavated areas, the need for another
removal action is currently being assessed. The site is secured against direct contact with
contaminated areas while cleanup actions are pending.
Entire Site: Abex initiated site investigations in 1989 to determine the extent of the
contamination and to recommend cleanup technologies. Scheduled field work has
been completed; EPA and the State are considering the next course of action.
Investigations are expected to be completed in 1992. Once completed, the EPA and the State
will evaluate the study findings and select final cleanup remedies to address contamination at the
Abex Corp. site.
Site Facts: On August 11,1986, EPA and Abex signed a Removal Consent Agreement and
Order, which required Abex to reduce human exposure to lead to the levels that do not constitute
an imminent threat to health.
Environmental Progress
While the investigations leading to a permanent solution for the site contamination are being
conducted, the Abex Corporation site has been securely fenced and most exposed sources of
contamination have been excavated or covered to eliminate the direct exposure to hazardous
materials or air at the site.
April 1991 24 ABEX CORPORATION
-------
ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATES/
SCOVILL CORP1'''^^^^^^^^ Westmoreland County
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
sstmoreland Coui
^ _^ Near Montross
VIRGINIA \ \^/^^ ^
EPA ID# VAD042916361
Site Description
The Arrowhead Associates/Scovill Corp. site is located on 25 acres in a rural area near Montross.
The Scovill Corp. electroplated cosmetic cases from 1966 to 1972, when Arrowhead, Inc. of
Delaware acquired the business and its assets. Arrowhead continued the electroplating operations
until 1979. During 1979 to 1981, Arrowhead also filled the cases with cosmetics. From 1981 to the
present, several other firms have assembled and filled cosmetic cases on the site, and from 1975 to
the present, wiring harnesses for automobiles have been manufactured on the site. Plating wastes
were treated in a surface impoundment system and discharged to Scates Branch under a permit
issued through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). After the plating
operations ended in 1979, process equipment and materials were abandoned at the site. An
estimated 1,100 people obtain drinking water from shallow private wells within 3 miles of the site.
A coastal wetland is about 1 mile from the site, and local surface water is used for recreational
activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16/88
Final Date: 06/15/89
Threats and Contaminants
Many drums of cyanide-containing wastes, heavy metals, and other plating wastes and
raw materials including solvents such as benzene and trichloroethylene (TCE) from the
former electroplating operations remain on the soil at the site. Five sludge beds contain
elevated levels of copper, zinc, cyanide, and other hazardous substances. The Virginia
State Water Control Board detected cyanide, copper, and zinc in the discharge from the
settling pond to Scates Branch. Elevated levels of cyanide and other hazardous
substances were detected in a settling pond on site. People currently working at the
manufacturing facility were not restricted from entering the abandoned electroplating
process hazardous waste area; therefore, the potential risk for coming into direct contact
with hazardous materials exists. Accidental ingestion of contaminated water and soil also
is a threat.
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: To date, the Scovill Corp. has removed 300 drums containing
benzene, paints, lacquers, thinners, metal plating wastes, and cyanide, in addition to
approximately 395 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the drum disposal area.
Contaminated surface water and soils were removed from six lagoons on site. All wastes and waste
residuals have also been removed from inside the building. Final closure of the six lagoons was
completed in 1990.
Entire Site: The Virginia Department of Waste Management and the EPA have
approved a work plan developed by Scovill to investigate potential contamination of
groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils at the site. The study also will evaluate
the possible remedies to clean up any contamination identified. In 1989, Scovill began conducting
an investigation to determine the contaminants affecting the groundwater. The results of this
investigation and a study to determine the alternative technologies for cleanup are expected to be
completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, Scovill Corp. signed a Consent Order with the EPA, requiring Scovill to
develop and undertake a cleanup plan. In 1989, Scovill and the Virginia Department of Waste
Management signed a Consent Order and Agreement, requiring Scovill to conduct an investigation
to determine the extent of contamination and the alternative technologies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of the contaminated drums, soils, and surface water, as well as sludges and
contaminated soils from the six lagoons at the Arrowhead site, has reduced the potential for exposure
to hazardous materials while it awaits further cleanup activities and the selection of a permanent
cleanup alternative.
April 1991 26 " ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATES/SCOVILL CORP.
-------
ATLANTIC WOOD
INDUSTRIES, I
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD990710410
Site Description
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Portsmouth
7 miles from Chesapeake Bay
on South Branch
of the Elizabeth River
Other Names:
Atlantic Creosote
The 47 1/2-acrc Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. site houses an active wood-treating facility that has
been in operation since 1926. Contaminants from the wood preservatives used by the facility are
present in the soil and water. Sediments and 20,000 cubic feet of landfilled wood chips are
contaminated with creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) as well. According to the State, wastes on
site have entered the groundwater and are infiltrating a city storm sewer that discharges into an
intertidal drainage ditch, which is part of the South Branch of the Elizabeth River. In 1982,350,000
gallons of contaminated water in leaking aboveground storage tanks were removed. The site is on
the Elizabeth River, about 7 miles from the Chesapeake Bay. Approximately 14,000 people work
within a 1/2-mile radius of the site. The water supply for a 3-mile radius area is provided by public
utilities. Groundwater within the 3-mile radius is not used as a water source.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/01/86
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Benzene, toluene, xylenes, and naphthalenes have been measured in the air. Creosote,
PCP, and other contaminants from former wood-treating processes have been detected in
the groundwater and soils. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are in on and off-
site sediments. Off-site sediments also contain phenol and PCP. PCP, arsenic, and
chromium have been detected in surface water near the site. Direct contact with and
accidental ingestion of soil on site could harm people. Coming into direct contact with
materials that have moved off site or inhaling dust from the site also pose threats to
health. Oyster beds are located within 3 miles downstream. Studies by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science have shown that oysters within this reach have accumulated
significant levels of creosotes.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the on-site soils, sediments, and non-aqueous product and groundwater and
Elizabeth River sediments.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination agreed to
remove the creosote-contaminated drainage ditch. Currently, the parties are designing
the technical specifications for the ditch cleanup, which is planned for completion in
1993. Removal of the ditch will end the migration of creosote into the Elizabeth River.
On-Site Soils, Sediments, and Non-Aqueous Product: A study to determine the
nature and extent of contamination of on-site soils, sediments, and non-aqueous product
is underway. The investigation also will address techniques for site cleanup and is
planned for completion in late 1991. Once the study is completed, the EPA will evaluate and select
the most timely and effective remedies for permanent cleanup of the site.
Groundwater and Elizabeth River Sediments: An additional investigation is
being planned to address the extent of contamination of groundwater and of the Elizabeth
River adjacent to the site. This investigation is expected to begin in 1991 and will
include groundwater studies and sampling and analysis of Elizabeth River sediments.
Site Facts: A Consent Order to conduct a removal on site and to initiate site studies was signed by
the potentially responsible parties in 1987. The EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration have entered into an Interagency Agreement to conduct an Ecological Risk
Assessment of the Elizabeth River.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required to protect the public or the environment while further
investigations and cleanup activities are taking place at the Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. site.
April 1991 28 ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES. INC.
-------
AX/TFY FIRFRQ INP EPA REGION 3
/-vv it/v riDi-ru?, iruw. >£> CONGRESSIONALDIST.o?
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD070358684
Site Description
A rayon manufacturing plant has operated at this 440-acre site since 1940 under various owners,
including American Viscose from 1940 to 1963, FMC Corporation from 1963 to 1976, and its
present owner Avtex Fibers, Inc. The plant also produced polyester and polypropylene for short
periods. Rayon manufacturing wastes and by-products, as well as fly ash and boiler room solids,
were placed in 23 land-disposal impoundments on site. In 1983, land disposal of the liquid waste
material was discontinued, and treatment at the on-site wastewater treatment plant was initiated.
State studies have detected groundwater contamination under and across the river from the site. In
1982, the State found carbon disulfide in wells in a residential area near the site. Avtex purchased
the properties having contaminated wells in 1983 and 1984. A groundwater pumping system to keep
contaminated groundwater from moving was installed by Avtex in 1984. The plant held a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge its effluent into the
Shenandoah River. From 1987 to 1988, a significant number of violations of the NPDES permit
occurred. In 1989, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination in the Shenandoah River was
linked to the Avtex plant, and the plant's NPDES permit was revoked. Shutdown of the Avtex
Fibers plant followed this action. Approximately 1,300 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site
and depend on groundwater as a drinking water supply. The site is situated within the 100-year
flood plain of the Shenandoah River.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
IT
The groundwater is contaminated with carbon disulfide, phenol, sodium, and heavy
metals including lead, arsenic, and cadmium from wastes deposited in the viscose
disposal basins. The soil is contaminated with carbon disulfide, phenol, arsenic, lead, and
PCBs. The Shenandoah River contains PCBs from the plant. People's health may be
threatened by ingesting or coming in direct contact with contaminated water or soil and
inhaling dust from the site.
29 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on groundwater cleanup; buildings, soils, and drums cleanup; and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, Avtex supplied bottled drinking water for four families
and assisted one family in building a cistern. After the plant shutdown in 1989, the EPA
conducted site stabilization activities.
Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the groundwater, which
includes pumping and treating the groundwater and surface water; dewatering viscose
basins; monitoring the groundwater, and placing deed restrictions prohibiting the use of
groundwater on the properties affected by contamination. Avtex pumped and treated the
groundwater under the direction of the State. FMC Corporation currently is performing the
treatment design for the selected remedy and is scheduled to finish in 1992.
Buildings, Soils, and Drums: Based on findings at other areas of the site, a cleanup
remedy was selected that includes identification, transportation, and off-site disposal of
2,879 drums of waste; excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 5,000 cubic yards
of PCB-contaminated soils; dismantling of the acid reclamation facility located within the plant
structure and decontamination, recycling, and/or the sale of some of the plant equipment; and
security measures as needed. Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil began in 1991. All
specified cleanup work is expected to be completed in 1992.
Entire Site: The EPA is performing a study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup of the plant, the remaining disposal
areas, and the south fork of the Shenandoah River. The cleanup may be divided into
several phases as the study progresses.
Site Facts: Avtex entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA in 1986 to
perform site studies. The Order was awarded in 1988 to include the FMC Corporation. The EPA
issued an Administrative Order to FMC Corporation and Avtex Fibers on June 30, 1989, requiring
implementation of groundwater cleanup actions. In February 1990, Avtex Fibers filed for
bankruptcy, and the EPA filed a Superfund lien against the property.
Environmental Progress
Providing bottled water to affected residents has eliminated immediate threats at the Avtex Fibers
site while the EPA continues investigations and site cleanup activities.
April 1991 30 AVTEX FIBERS, INC.
-------
Buckingham County
Virginia Route 640 near
I A IV mdl I ^ M ^ "^ r-^v^jKrs* n the Town of Buckingham
VIRGINIA ^^ V^V^Xr? / * 1 \^ ^'^ Other Names:
Love's Container Service Landfill
EPA ID# VAD089027973 Love'. Hazardous Waste She
Site Description
The Buckingham County Landfill encompasses approximately 8 acres, including a 1-acre hazardous
waste site and a 7-acre solid waste landfill. The site is situated on 175 acres of wooded land. Love's
Container Service operated as an unlicensed landfill from 1962 until February 1972. In November
1972, the Virginia State Board of Health (VSBH) issued a permit to the facility to dispose of
municipal waste. In 1977, the permit was modified to allow the disposal of chemical wastes that a
local furniture-making industry generated. In 1979, the solid waste landfill operation was closed and
covered to the satisfaction of the VSBH; however, the facility received Interim Status as a hazardous
waste disposal facility. Subsequently, the facility accepted approximately 1,250 drums of used
organic solvents and flammable liquids and solids. These wastes were poured into a clay-lined
evaporation trench. After the liquids were poured into the trench, the empty barrels were buried in a
separate trench. The solid residue remaining after the liquids had evaporated was then dug out and
emptied into hazardous waste trenches. Buckingham County purchased the site and retained its
hazardous waste disposal permit in 1982; however, the site was never operated by the County. In
1983, the County closed the hazardous waste portion of the site in accordance with State regulations,
but not within EPA requirements. An estimated 1,100 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the
site as a source of drinking water. Approximately 40 people live within 1/2 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The EPA sampled the site in September 1983 and found that on-site groundwater and
some off-site residential wells were contaminated with chromium and beryllium from
former disposal practices. Soils were contaminated with heavy metals and solvents.
Potential risks exist if individuals ingest or make direct contact with contaminated
groundwater or contaminated soil.
31 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination began an
investigation in 1991 to determine the extent of contamination. An engineering design
will be developed, and cleanup activities to reduce the levels of contaminants in the soil
and groundwater to acceptable standards will begin.
Site Facts: On November 8,1985, the EPA terminated the landfill's interim approval for
hazardous waste management and closed the non-hazardous waste disposal portion of the landfill,
which had remained open after the partial landfill closure in 1983.
Environmental Progress
After listing this site on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations at the Buckingham
County Landfill and determined that there were no immediate threats to nearby residents or the
environment. Once the investigations into cleanup technologies are completed, they will be
reviewed by the EPA, and the permanent cleanup of the site will begin.
April1991 32 BUCKINGHAM COUNTY LANDFILL
-------
C & R BATTERY
COMPANY, I
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD049957913
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Chesterfield County
Richmond
650 feet from the James River
Site Description
The 4 1/2-acre C & R Battery Company site is located in a rural and industrial area. Between 1969
and 1985, the company recovered lead and lead oxide from old automobile and truck batteries. In
1982, the company detected high levels of lead in an on-site monitoring well, in soils, and in
drainage ditches leading to the James River. The population within a mile of the site is
approximately 300. An estimated 1,200 people draw drinking water from private wells that tap the
contaminated aquifer within 3 miles of the site. The nearest well is about 1,250 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring of the air at several work stations during battery breaking operations
indicated lead contamination levels well above the standard. The company detected high
levels of lead in an on-site monitoring well and in soils to a depth of 15 feet. Surface
water was found to be contaminated with heavy metals and acids. Ingesting or coming in
direct contact with contaminated soil, surface water, or groundwater may pose health
risks to people. Inhalation of contaminated particles in the air also may pose a health risk
to individuals. Prior to 1986, during routine health screenings, some company employees
were found to have elevated levels of lead in their blood. Portions of the James River 3
miles downstream are designated wetlands and are used for recreational purposes. The
river shows no sign of contamination from the site.
33
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 took emergency action at the site in 1986. Soils and
pools of acid on the site were treated with lime to reduce acidity. Some contaminated soils
were excavated and stored pending final disposal. Drainage controls were installed, and
the site was graded, capped, and fenced. Direct access to contaminated areas of the site was
restricted by fencing.
Entire Site: The EPA completed an investigation into contamination at the site in early
1990. Based on the results of this investigation, the EPA selected a cleanup remedy that
includes on-site stabilization or solidification of lead-contaminated soils and sediments;
disposal of the solidified product in a nearby landfill; capping an on-site pond area; and covering the
area outside the pond with clean soil before revegetating the area. The design of these technologies
currently is underway and is expected to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: The Commonwealth of Virginia took numerous enforcement actions at the site
between 1979 and 1984. Actions resulted in a court order requiring a cleanup plan, construction of a
treatment plant, and reclamation of the site. During site inspections in 1983, the Virginia
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noted numerous violations of current
OSHA standards. In 1985, Chesterfield County forbade the C & R Battery Company from further
operation due to OSHA violations.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions performed by the EPA, including the removal of acids and contaminated
soils and capping and fencing the site, greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the C & R Battery Company site while further investigations and cleanup activities are
taking place.
April 1991 34 C & R BATTERY COMPANY. INC.
-------
CHISMAN CR
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980712913
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
York County
Suburban York County
fP Other Names:
LJ Chisman Creek Disposal
Site Description
The 27-acre Chisman Creek site consists of four fly ash pits in a watershed of the Chisman Creek
Coastal Basin. These pits originally were sand and gravel borrow areas, but were filled with fly ash
from the Yorktown Power Generating Station between 1957 and 1980. In 1980, and in subsequent
studies, evidence of trace metals was found in groundwater near the pits. In 1980, off-site shallow
residential wells became contaminated with vanadium and no longer could be used. These homes
later were connected to public water supplies. Several homes remain on private wells in the area.
Approximately 500 to 1,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Vanadium, nickel, selenium, and sulfate have been found in groundwater near the four fly
ash pits. Surface water in Chisman Creek has been shown to be contaminated with
vanadium, nickel, and sulfate. Drinking contaminated groundwater poses a risk to the
public; however, potential risks have been reduced because residences with contaminated
wells were connected to the public water supply. The subsurface fly ash and pond
sediment materials should not pose a public health threat in their present covered
location. However, should these materials be disturbed and contaminate surface areas,
they could pose a threat to the public and increase the potential for direct contact with
contaminated soil. Nearby estuaries are potentially threatened by site contamination.
35
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on groundwater and soil cleanup and cleanup of in the pond areas and surface water.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Virginia Power Co., the party potentially responsible for site
contamination, connected public water lines to affected residences, placed covers over pits,
and conducted groundwater diversion in selected areas, under EPA monitoring.
Groundwater and Soils: Cleanup work included: (1) installing temporary erosion and
sedimentation control facilities; (2) relocating the creek adjacent to one of the pits; (3)
^==^ installing horizontal groundwater drains to collect groundwater and dewater one of the
pits; (4) installing discharge pipes and a tie-in to a discharge; (5) constructing flow and water quality
monitoring stations and outlet channels; (6) capping the fly ash pits using a low permeability cap and
soil cover; (7) revegetating the disturbed areas; and (8) installing an on-site treatment system to treat
collected groundwater from the pit area to remove nickel and vanadium. All cleanup actions were
completed as planned.
Pond Areas and Surface Water: Surface drainage modifications have been made to
divert runoff. This includes water quality monitoring and sediment monitoring of ponds,
tributaries, and estuaries. A treatment plant has been constructed and treatment of the
groundwater is underway. The treatment facility will be in operation until groundwater standards
are met. All cleanup actions have been completed; groundwater treatment and monitoring of
surrounding areas will continue for some time.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed with Virginia Power Co. to conduct site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
All construction of cleanup actions has been completed as planned at the Chisman Creek site,
making the surroundings safe again for nearby residents and the environment while treatment of the
groundwater continues to reduce contamination levels at the site.
April! 991 36 CHISMAN CREEK
-------
PULPFPFR WOOD EPA REGION 3
\svsi-ri-r i_n VVVSVSLS CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
PRESERVERS, IN
X/IRPINIA
EPA ID# VAD059165282
Site Description
Culpeper Wood Preservers, Inc. is an active wood treatment facility that uses a chromated copper
arsenate (CCA) waterborne treating process on a 20-acre site. The two-part wood treatment process
begins by pressure-treating dimensional lumber in a enclosed processing plant. The wood then is
moved to a dripping pad and left to dry for 3 days. Early on in the plant's history, the dripping pad
was uncovered, and CCA-contaminated drippings were allowed to drop directly to the ground. In
early 1981, approximately 100,000 gallons of CCA-contaminated wastewater escaped from an
unlined, on-site waste impoundment, contaminating neighboring surface waters. The drip pad
presently is covered, and the surrounding area is paved. An estimated 8,750 people live within a
3-mile radius of the site. Approximately 1,750 persons draw drinking water from private wells
within that distance; the remaining population uses the Culpeper municipal system, which draws
water upgradient of the contaminated area. Over 40 residences that are located within 2,000 feet of
the site rely on groundwater for their drinking water supplies.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with arsenic and chromium from the wood-treatment
processes, according to analyses conducted by the Virginia State Water Control Board
(SWCB). Contaminated soil was removed from the site in 1983; however, some
remaining soil contamination might still be present Wastewater containing CCA has
contaminated neighboring surface waters. Potential risks exist for individuals who drink
contaminated groundwater or surface water. The SWCB determined in 1986 that
homeowner wells were not contaminated. An unnamed tributary that lies 750 yards
northeast of the site and extends approximately 3 miles before entering Jonas Run
potentially could be contaminated. Contaminated groundwater or surface water also may
affect recreation and fishing.
37 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In response to enforcement actions in 1981, the site owner
removed a quantity of contaminated soil, constructed new drip pads to ensure return of
drips and runoff to appropriately contained treatment facilities, built a roof over the drip
pads, and reconstructed the waste impoundment. In addition, 20-foot trenches were dug
downgradient from the impoundments to catch leachate, and barrier walls were constructed to
prevent further migration of contaminants.
Entire Site: A study to determine the extent of contamination and to identify alternative
technologies for the cleanup is expected to begin in 1991. The work plan for the site study
is under review. The study is expected to be completed in 1992. Once the investigations
are completed, the EPA will select a final cleanup remedy for the site, with design of the selected
remedy and final cleanup actions slated to start soon thereafter.
Site Facts: One of the potentially responsible parties signed a Consent Agreement and Consent
Order, requiring certain cleanup actions and a surface water and groundwater monitoring plan. In
April 1985, the EPA issued a Notice Letter informing another potentially responsible party of its
responsibility for operations at the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions performed at the Culpeper Wood Preservers, Inc. site have reduced the
potential for contact with hazardous materials and have limited further contamination at the site.
These actions have stabilized conditions at the site while final site investigations are being planned
and cleanup remedies are being sought.
April 1991 38 CULPEPER WOOD PRESERVERS, INC.
-------
SUPPLY CENT /VTXV Chesterfield County
DEFENSE GENE 03
2 miles south of Richmond
VIRGINIA ^^^SVV^S^ f? OtherNames:
CDA in* w A-ao-71 corral A T^T^V/if^^A P/ Richmond Defense General Supply
EPA I D# VA3971520751 /* ^T>C^r\^il^^ (/ U-s- D«fen" G«n«»«' Supply Center
Site Description
The Defense General Supply Center manages and furnishes general military supplies to the
Armed Forces and several Federal civilian agencies. The 1/2-square-mile site includes a
hazardous waste landfill, a fire training pit, an acid neutralization pit, and storage areas where
hazardous substances were spilled. Beginning in 1942, the site was used as a storage and
recovery area for chemicals and as a reclamation area for drums. The pits were used for training
and for the disposal of chemical waste from the mid-1960s to the late 1970s. In 1983, the pits
were filled in with soil and covered with sparse vegetation. Groundwater on and off the site has
been shown to be contaminated from past waste disposal practices and hazardous waste spills.
Groundwater and surface water flow from the site toward Kingsland Geek, a tributary of the
James River. There are 119 permanent residences on the site. About 3,500 people live within a
mile of the area in a residential and suburban setting. Residential areas downgradient of the site
rely on private wells and the municipal water system for drinking water. Kingsland Creek is
used for recreational fishing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through NPL USTING HISTORY
Federal actions.
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as
chloroform, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and chromium from
former chemical wastes disposal practices. Sediments are contaminated with
pesticides. The soil contains VOCs and pesticides, and the surface water on site is
contaminated with metals and pesticides. People who accidentally ingest or come
in direct contact with contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments
may be at risk. In addition, recreational use of contaminated streams and water
may pose a threat.
39 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases concentrating on cleanup of the acid
neutralization pit, open storage area, other source areas, and the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Acid Neutralization Pit: A study currently is underway that focuses on cleanup of the
soil and removal of the old treatment tank concrete structure. The study is expected to be
completed in 1992, at which time the EPA will select the final remedy for cleanup.
Open Storage Area: A focused study began in 1990 and is scheduled for completion in
1992. The study will concentrate on identifying the nature and extent of contamination at
the open storage area. Upon completion of the investigation, the EPA will determine the
remedy to be used for final cleanup.
Other Source Areas: An investigation began in 1990 to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at other source areas, including landfill 50 and the National Guard
area. The study is expected to be completed in 1993.
Groundwater Plumes: An investigation is scheduled to begin in 1992 and will focus
on three groundwater plumes identified at the site as well as additional wells and deeper
aquifer sampling. The study is scheduled for completion in 1994.
Site Facts: The Defense General Supply Center 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. A Federal Facility Agreement was negotiated in 1990 and is scheduled to go into effect in
1991, governing site cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The Defense General Supply Center site does not pose an immediate threat to human health or the
environment. As individual units at the site are identified and studied, cleanup actions will be
separated out and conducted in an accelerated manner, under the Federal Facility Agreement that
was negotiated for the site.
April 1991 40 DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER
-------
DIXIE CAVERNS
COUNTY
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980552I
Site Description
REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Roanoke County
This 27-acre site, known as the Dixie Caverns County Landfill, is located on a 62-acre property and
was operated as an unlicensed landfill from approximately 1965 to 1976. The landfill officially was
closed in 1976, although it was never capped. The landfill had been used for disposal of municipal
refuse, scrap metal, sludge, fly ash (emission control dust) from an electric arc furnace, and other
unidentified industrial wastes. An intermittent stream on the site flowed through a large drum pile
and fly ash pile and then emptied into the Roanoke River approximately 2 miles southeast of the
landfill. The river is the main water supply source for the City of Salem. The nearest water intake is
located in Glenvaar, 4 1/2 miles downstream of the landfill. Within 3 miles of the site, an estimated
1,990 people reside in 525 dwellings which are served by private water supply wells. The closest
residence is located approximately 1/2 mile south of the site. The Dixie Caverns, a local tourist
attraction, is located a mile downstream of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
County actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site sludge pit soil was found to be contaminated primarily with aromatic and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from former disposal practices. Organic
chemical contamination also was found in the soils in the drum disposal area. Runoff
water from the fly ash pile has contaminated the drainage area with metals.
Contamination also has been found in stream sediments immediately downstream of the
fly ash pile. Conditions at the site threaten groundwater and surface water. People who
accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated soil or sediments may be
at risk.
41
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: The EPA conducted a site inspection in 1983 and observed four
potential sources of hazardous waste contamination: a drum disposal area, a sludge pit, a
fly ash pile, and uncontrolled leachate from the site entering local streams. The County of
Roanoke has cleaned two areas of the site. Drums and contaminated soils have been removed from
the drum debris area and sludge and contaminated soils have been removed from the sludge pit. The
County of Roanoke is also complying with an order from the Virginia State Water Control Board to
eliminate leachate discharge from the site to the nearby intermittent stream.
Entire Site: The EPA currently is investigating the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site. The study will define the contaminants and will recommend
alternatives for the final cleanup. Field work is finished, and the investigation is planned
to be completed in 1992. Plans for cleanup of the fly ash pile area of the site are being reviewed to
assess compliance with Land Disposal Restrictions since this material is a waste listed under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Site Facts: The EPA brought about an agreement with the County of Roanoke to conduct removal
actions at the site. The County agreed to clean up the sludge pit, drum disposal area, and the fly ash
pile.
Environmental Progress
The County of Roanoke cleaned up two areas of the site, and contaminated soil was removed from
the drum debris area and the sludge pit. These immediate actions have reduced the potential of
exposure to hazardous materials while the cleanup alternatives for the ash pile and remainder of the
site are being planned.
April 1991 42 DIXIE CAVERNS COUNTY LANDFILL
-------
FIRST PIEDMO
QUARRY (ROM
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980554984
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Pittsylvania County
Near Beaver Park
Other Names:
Compton Farm
Site Description
The 4-acre First Piedmont Rock Quarry, part of a 182-acre farm, was leased by First Piedmont
Corporation in 1970. Between 1970 and 1972, First Piedmont disposed of 65,000 cubic yards of
waste material into the quarry, including 15,000 gallons of liquid waste generated by Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company. The Virginia State Health Department ordered the site closed after a
fire, possibly caused by spontaneous combustion of waste materials buried in the quarry. First
Piedmont Corporation subsequently capped the site with 2 feet of local soil. The site is adjacent
to a residential development of approximately 260 people. Approximately 380 people live
within 1 mile of the site and an estimated 1,800 people are within 2 miles of the site.
Contaminants in soils on site have the potential of migrating into surface water which drains the
area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/01/85
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Early sampling has shown elevated levels of heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, lead, and zinc from former disposal practices in the soils on the site.
Elevated levels of lead and zinc have been found in surface water. Iron and
manganese were detected at low levels in two of the residential wells, all of which
are located upgradient of the site. An initial investigation showed no immediate
threats to residents. Potential risks to individuals exist through direct contact with
or accidental ingestion of contaminated leachate, surface water, or soils. Nearby
Lawless and Fall Creeks could potentially be affected by site contamination.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the extent of contamination and to identify
alternative cleanup technologies was started in late 1987 by the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination. Based upon the results of this investigation, a
cleanup remedy was selected which includes capping a landfill on the site; collection and treatment
of leachate from the quarry; excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils; and treatment, if
necessary, and disposal of soils and sediments from the Northern Drainage Area, the Waste Pile, and
the Carbon Black Pile. Design of these remedies is expected to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: In December 1987, First Piedmont Corp., Corning Glass Works, and Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Company signed a Consent Order to conduct an investigation into the extent of the
contamination and to identify alternative technologies available for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding the First Piedmont Rock Quarry (Route 719) site to the NPL, the EPA performed
preliminary investigations and determined that no immediate threats to nearby residents or the
environment presently exist.
April 1991 44 FIRST PIEDMONT ROCK QUARRY (ROUTE 719)
-------
GREENWOOD
CHEMICAL CO
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD003125374
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Albemarle County
Newton
Site Description
The 15-acre Greenwood Chemical Co. site operated as a chemical manufacturing plant for 40
years. The now inactive facility manufactured specialty chemicals for the industrial, pesticide,
and pharmaceutical trades. The facility ceased operation in 1985 after a toluene explosion and
fire killed four workers. Waste disposal within the 10-acre site has included 7 waste treatment
lagoons, approximately 500 buried drums, 100 drums on the surface, and an unknown quantity
of contaminated soil. Drums were broken, leaking, and uncapped; soils were stained and
vegetation was stressed. There are approximately 1,600 people living within 3 miles of the site.
The site is surrounded by homes, farms, and community buildings. Private wells within 3 miles
of the site are the sole source of drinking water for an estimated 1,600 people. The nearest well
is within 600 feet of one of the site's lagoons. The site threatens an unnamed tributary to
Stockton Creek, about 3,200 feet downslope from one of the lagoons and along the pathway of
surface water migration. The tributary discharges into Stockton Creek, which is one mile
downstream.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Specific contaminants detected in on-site groundwater include volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including toluene and chloroform from former plant
operations. On-site lagoon sludge contains VOCs including toluene and benzene,
as well as cyanide. Potential health threats include accidental ingestion or direct
contact with contaminated groundwater and sludges.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of soils and groundwater. Additional phases will be added as the clean up
process continues
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Emergency actions performed by the EPA included: excavation
and disposal of an estimated 500 previously buried drums; removal and disposal of an
estimated 100 surface drums; drainage and treatment of liquids from three lagoons;
removal and stabilization of sludges and underlying soils from three lagoons; and removal and
disposal of all shock-sensitive, explosive, highly flammable, or highly toxic materials.
Soil: Based upon the site investigations, the EPA selected a remedy to address
contaminated soils and chemicals in buildings at the site. The remedy selected involves
off-site incineration, stabilization/solidification, and/or disposal. The technical
specifications for the cleanup are expected to be completed by 1992.
Groundwater: Upon completion of a study of the site in 1990, the EPA decided to treat
through precipitation and UV/oxidation contaminated groundwater and lagoon water. An
engineering design is scheduled to begin in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The numerous emergency actions performed by the EPA eliminated immediate threats to nearby
residents and the surroundings. After the design activities at Greenwood Chemical Co. site are
completed, the EPA selected remedies will commence.
April 1991 46 GREENWOOD CHEMICAL CO.
-------
H & H INC.,
BURN PIT
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980539878
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Hanover County
1/2 mile south of Farrington
Other Names:
H&H,lnc.
Site Description
The 1-acre H & H Inc., Burn Pit site was used by Haskell Chemical Company for disposal of
solvents containing printing inks and paint manufacturing wastes between 1960 and 1976. These
materials were transported in drums from the Haskell factory in Richmond to the site and were
emptied into a shallow unlined pit and burned. EPA sampling in 1984 indicated that
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were being discharged off site through surface drainage.
Approximately 600 people live within a mile of the site. The nearest residence is 1/2 mile away,
and the nearest well is about 1,000 feet from the site. About 2,400 people draw drinking water
from private wells within 3 miles of the site. Surface waters within 3 miles downstream of the
site are used for fishing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with pesticides and low levels of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene, as well as heavy
metals including chromium, barium, and beryllium from former site activities.
Soil is contaminated with PCBs, metals, and phthalates. Leachate is contaminated
with VOCs including phthalates, vinyl chloride, toluene, and xylenes. Sediments
are contaminated with PCBs and metals. Although the source of contamination
has been removed, there is a potential that a contaminant plume may still affect
private wells. The contaminated aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for
residents in the area. People who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact
with contaminated groundwater, soil, leachate, or sediments may be at risk. The
site runoff drains into an area designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
a freshwater wetland within 3,000 feet of the pit.
47
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
immediate Actions: In response to a State order, H & H, Inc. and the Haskell
Chemical Company removed contaminated soil, installed monitoring wells, and took
measures to control erosion and sedimentation in 1982.
Entire Site: The EPA currently is studying the nature and extent of groundwater,
soil, and other contamination at the site. As a result of this study, the EPA will
recommend alternatives for cleanup. The study is planned to be completed in 1992.
Once the study has been completed, the EPA will select a final cleanup method for the site.
Environmental Progress
Immediate actions performed at the site, including the removal of contaminated soil, installation
of monitoring wells, and erosion control, have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminants at the H & H Inc., Burn Pit site while further investigations are being completed.
April 1991 48 H & H INC., BURN PIT
-------
L. A. CLARKE & SO
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD007972482
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Spotsylvania County
Fredericksburg
1/4 mile north of Massaponax Creek
Other Names:
Clarke, LA. & Son
Site Description
L.A. Clarke & Son, a railroad tie and wood treatment plant, is located southeast of Fredericksburg.
Wood preserving operations began at the site in 1937 and continued through 1988, with one inactive
period lasting approximately 1 year from 1979 to 1980. The facility no longer is in operation.
During the past 50 years, creosote contamination that resulted from facility operation spills, waste
streams entering the drainage ditches, and on-site disposal has affected the soil, groundwater, surface
water, and sediments. Historical aerial photography indicates that from at least 1953 through 1975,
wastewater was disposed into two concrete-lined pits. Also, an area north of the process facility
received wastes. Overflow from the concrete pits was stored in an earthen pit. Excess water also
was discharged to drainage ditches and was sprayed on the ground around the storage yard to control
dust. Four additional wastewater pits, that date back to 1937, were filled in by 1979. In 1975, L.A.
Clarke & Son, Inc. was issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
for outfalls from two on-site drainage ditches; these permits still are in effect. Sixty-three homes are
located within a 4,000-foot radius of the site, and 1,500 people live within a mile of the site. The
population within 3 miles of the site is 4,500. The shallow contaminated aquifer underlying the site
only has limited use at the present time as a source of drinking water, but has the potential for wider
use in the future, due to increased development in the area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
m
The shallow aquifer underlying the site is contaminated with creosote derivatives from
former site activities. Sediments, soils, and surface water are contaminated with creosote
compounds and by-products including polynuclear aromatics (PNAs) and benzene.
Potential health risks exist if people inhale contaminated vapors or dust or accidentally
ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated soil, sediments, or surface water.
Exposure to contaminants also could occur from wading or swimming in Massaponax
Creek, West Vaco Pond, or Ruffins Pond. Fish and waterfowl may be contaminated and
could pose health risks to individuals who ingest them.
49
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases designed to clean up the soil and the
groundwater and sediment.
Response Action Status
Soil: The EPA completed an investigation into the extent of the site contamination in
1988. Based on this study, cleanup plans for this phase will include in-place soil flushing
and on-site landf arming (soil biodegradation) of contaminated soils and sediments. An
estimated 118,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil will require treatment. Excavation, dredging,
and on-site consolidation of contaminated sediment, subsurface soil, and buried pit materials also
will be addressed in this phase of the site cleanup. In 1990, the Richmond, Fredericksburg, and
Potomac (RF & P) Railroad finished designing some of the technologies to be used in the cleanup.
Cleanup work was completed on site controls in 1990 and the demolition of the wood treating
facility is expected to be completed in 1991.
Groundwater and Sediment: In 1990, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination began a study to determine the extent of groundwater and sediment
contamination and to identify alternative technologies for cleaning up the site. This
investigation is planned to be completed in early 1992. Future plans include monitoring of
groundwater.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed with RF & P Railroad to conduct the first phase of the
cleanup work. The Decree became effective in 1989.
Environmental Progress
After placing the L.A. Clarke & Sons site on the NPL and fencing the site, the EPA performed a
thorough investigation of site conditions and determined that the site presently does not pose an
immediate threat to the public or the environment while the investigation to select the final remedy is
taking place.
April 1991 50 L A. CLARKE & SON
-------
MATTHEWS ELECT
PLATING
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980712970
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Roanoke County
2 miles west of Salem
Site Description
From 1972 to 1977, the 1 3/4-acrc Matthews Electric Plating site housed a facility that plated
automobile bumpers with a process using chromium and nickel. Beginning in 1975, surface and
groundwater contamination associated with the electroplating operation were noted by area
residents. Liquid waste from the operation had been discharged directly onto the ground and
drained to a sinkhole beneath the property. The Virginia State Water Control Board (VSWCB)
began residential monitoring in 30 wells. Subsequent investigations were performed by the
VSWCB and the EPA to determine the extent of the contamination. In 1976, the VSWCB issued
an Emergency Order that prohibited the further discharge of electroplating waste from the plant.
The facility went out of business in 1977 and was used as a small-scale pig farming operation.
The population within 3 miles of the site is approximately 3,000. One on-site well and ten local
residential wells were contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through Federal
and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deleted Date: 12/27/88
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater was contaminated with chromium residues from the former
electroplating operations. Soil was contaminated with chromium, nickel, and
cadmium. People who accidentally ingested or came in direct contact with
contaminated groundwater or soil were at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on contamination at the entire site.
51
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1979, the owner of the property removed waste materials,
constructed diversion ditches, and covered parts of the area with clay. In 1988, the
EPA removed approximately 1,500 gallons of waste solution and sludges.
Entire Site: The EPA's remedy included construction of an extension of the
municipal water supply from the water treatment plant in Salem. The EPA constructed
the water line, and 28 homes were connected in 1986. In 1987, the EPA conducted
sampling, and results showed no further action was needed. This site was deleted from the NPL
in December 1988.
Site Facts: Potential human health and environmental hazards first were identified when
concerned residents notified the VSWCB of discolored drinking water in November 1975.
Environmental Progress
By removing waste materials, constructing diversion ditches, covering the site with clay, and
extending a municipal water supply to affected residences, the contamination at the Matthews
Electric Plating site has been eliminated. Following subsequent site evaluations, the EPA, in
conjunction with the Commonwealth of Virginia, determined that the site no longer posed a
threat to human health or the environment and deleted the site from the NPL in 1988.
April 1991
52
MATTHEWS ELECTRIC PLATING
-------
RENTOKIL, INC. (VIRGINIA CONGRESSIONAL DIST ra
WOOD PRESERVING J&&. tS±y
DIVISION) ~/v*V&> ,«-«-«*
1 >( 2/VA /V^vA^S /X OtherNames:
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD071040752,
Site Description
The 10-acre Rentokil, Inc. site was a wood preserving plant and ceased operations in 1990. Virginia
Properties, Inc. owns 5 acres and leases the adjacent 5 acres from an affiliate of the RF&P Railroad.
The original plant was built by the Virginia Wood Preserving Company in 1956. Since 1982, the
operation used only the chromated copper arsenate (CCA) process to treat wood. In previous years,
pentachlorophenol (PCP), creosote, chromated zinc arsenate, xylene, ammonium phosphates, and
sulfates also were used. Preserving processes also required the plant to use mineral spirits and fuel
oil. Operators disposed of chemical wastes in an unlined lagoon until 1974. In 1976 or 1977,
workers buried 1,100 to 1,400 pounds of CCA at the site. They also improperly installed several
wells, later abandoned, which may have spread groundwater contamination. The area is mixed light
industrial and residential, on the outskirts of Richmond. The population within a 1-mile radius of the
site is about 1,500. When the site was placed on the NPL, approximately 350 people used drinking
water from wells drilled into the aquifers of concern. Runoff from the site enters nearby wetlands,
and an unnamed stream that flows into North Run. Occasionally, stormwater flows off site into the
municipal storm sewer and the stream. North Run is used for swimming and is located within 1 1/2
miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 03/31/89
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with PCP, creosote, copper,
chromium, arsenic, and dioxin from former wood preserving operations. Potential risks
exist if individuals accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil. Contaminated surface water may have an effect on
nearby livestock or crops if it is used for watering or irrigation. Site runoff entering
nearby wetlands may adversely affect them.
53 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 1987, public water lines were extended to residents living next
to the site, at Rentokil's expense. Later that year, the owner removed some contaminated
organic sludge from an on-site, unlined surface impoundment and had the sludge
incinerated.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination began an
intensive study of the site in 1987. This investigation is exploring the nature and extent of
water and soil pollution and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. A
second phase of field work began in 1991. Once the investigations are completed, the EPA will
evaluate the findings, will recommend actions, and will select a final remedy to clean up the
contamination at the site, scheduled for mid-1992.
Site Facts: In 1987, Rentokil and the EPA signed a Consent Order to conduct a study to determine
the nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
By extending public water lines and removing and incinerating contaminated sludges, immediate
threats at the Rentokil site have been eliminated while further investigations are taking place and
cleanup activities are being planned.
ApriM991 54 RENTOKIL, INC. (VIRGINIA
WOOD PRESERVING DIVISION)
-------
BUIIMFUART TIRltV EPA REGION 3
KHIIMtHAKI MKEX CONGRESSIONAL DIST. o?
CIDC ni IIV/ID / ")y?vOv Frederick County
rInt UUIVIr s\ o /(^VsS* 6mileswestofWinchester
VIRGINIA ^HX Oth.rN.me.:
EPA ID# VAD980831796
Site Description
The Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump site is located on Mt. Pleasant It originally served as a storage area
for 5 to 7 million tires, until they caught fire in October 1983. The smoke plume rose several
thousand feet and spread a 50-mile long trail across four states. An EPA emergency team controlled
the fire within a few days, but the fire continued to smolder for 6 months. Hot oil from the burning,
melting tires quickly entered nearby Massey Run. The migrating oil and firefighting residues also
have contaminated the site and local waters. The site is located in an agricultural area.
Approximately 75 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site, and two people live on the site itself.
Residences use private wells for drinking water. The site drains into Massey Run, which flows
4,000 feet downstream of the site to Hogue Creek, a trout stream that flows into the Potomac River.
A municipal water supply intake is 22 miles downstream of the site. There are two ponds on site, the
larger of which is unlined. The smaller 50,000-gallon lined pond collects runoff from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with slightly elevated levels of heavy metals
including arsenic, cadmium, and lead, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including toluene and xylene. Sediments have been contaminated with oils and residues
from the tire fire, in addition to heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, and nickel.
The soil is contaminated with metals and low levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) from tire burning. Massey Run and other surface waters are contaminated with
various heavy metals and VOCs. Test results revealed these surface waters to be acutely
and chronically toxic. Human exposure to contaminants may occur by inhaling, coming
in direct contact with, or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, surface water,
sediments, and soils. Eating trout with bioaccumulated contaminants from Hogue Creek
is a health threat.
55 April!991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on surface water cleanup and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: EPA emergency workers extinguished the tire fire and removed
more than 800,000 gallons of oily wastes released by the burning tires. A lined catch
basin was installed to trap the oil and to provide water for firefighting, and a monitoring
program was initiated to identify contaminant levels on and off site. The oily wastes were recycled
into fuel oil and then sold. Under orders from the EPA, the owner was required to build dikes and
ditches for drainage control and to collect and pump this water to minimize migration of wastes from
the site. The owner also has undertaken extensive excavation and regrading activities and has
restricted access to the site. These emergency activities have successfully controlled the immediate
threats to the public and the environment.
Surface Water: The final remedies selected for site cleanup in 1988 include: (1)
instituting soil erosion controls; (2) raising the existing dam on the unlined pond by 13
feet; (3) collecting and treating surface water runoff with gravity settling; (4) collecting
shallow groundwater oily seeps; and (5) separating water from oil and transporting it to a wastewater
treatment plant. The EPA completed the engineering designs for the selected remedies in 1989.
Construction of the wastewater treatment plant was completed in 1990, and operation began in early
1991. Cleanup work on all specified remedies is underway and is expected to be completed in 1992.
Entire Site: The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are conducting an intensive
study to investigate the potential adverse impacts to groundwater and surface water and to
select the actions needed to clean and restore the existing collection ponds and other off-
site areas affected by the tire fire. This study, which will recommend the best strategies for final
cleanup, is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: The site owner agreed, under the terms of a 1984 Administrative Order, to install
surface runoff controls and to perform other activities to control contaminant migration. In 1989, the
EPA entered into an Administrative Consent Order with the site owners, which prevents them from
altering site conditions and provides for site access and use of clean barrow material from the site to
build the dam.
Environmental Progress
The numerous emergency actions performed by the EPA and the potentially responsible parties have
reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials and for the further migration of
contaminants while final investigations and cleanup activities are taking place at the Rhinehart Tire
Fire site.
April 1991 56 RHINEHART TIRE FIRE DUMP
-------
*>AI TVILL F WASTE EPA REGION 3
*?jm_ I VII-L.I- VWJ*AWT ft- CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Smyth County
Next to North Fork of the
VIRGINIA
Olln Corp
Waste Disposal Pond #5
Olin Corp. Saltville Waste Disposal Pond #6
Site Description
The Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds site consists of two large ponds, 45 and 80 acres in size, and
an empty lot next to the North Fork of the Holston River (NFHR). The empty lot once held a
mercury cell chlor-alkali battery plant operated from 1951 to 1954 by Olin Mathieson Alkali
Works and from 1954 to 1972 by Olin Chemicals Corporation, the current site owner. The waste
disposal practices at the plant resulted in as many as 100 pounds of mercury being lost daily to
nearby soil and rivers adjacent to the site. Workers placed mercury-contaminated wastewater
and process waste from soda ash manufacture into the two large ponds, known as ponds #5 and
#6. Mercury escaping from the site contaminated 80 miles of the NFHR. Approximately 1,140
people live within a mile of the site. The nearest residences are located 1,300 feet from the site.
The community's drinking water is obtained from uncontaminated surface springs. Since 1970,
people have been advised not to eat fish from the contaminated stretch of the river, although
catch-and-release game fishing is permitted. Because the Holston River flows through both
Virginia and Tennessee, a task force of EPA, Virginia, Tennessee, and Tennessee Valley
Authority staff was organized to study the mercury contamination problem.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a NPL LISTING HISTORY
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Mercury from the plant's waste disposal ponds has contaminated soils and surface
water. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of soil or surface water or
eating contaminated fish from the Holston River pose a health risk. The NFHR is
a habitat for two endangered species remaining in the river: the fine-rayed mussel
and the spotfin chub. Six other endangered species have been eliminated from the
river.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial
phases focusing on source control, groundwater cleanup, and biomonitoring.
57 April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1982, Olin Corp. dredged 1,000 feet of the river to remove
mercury-contaminated sediments and built a diversion ditch along the western edge of
waste pond #5.
Source Control: An investigation of the site called for surface water diversions,
construction of a treatment plant for pond #5 outfall, and future investigations. The
cleanup activities selected for this site have been organized into two phases to facilitate
the work. Phase 1 addresses cleaning up the source of contamination and assessing its effects;
Phase 2 focuses in more detail on groundwater and surface water contamination. The selected
remedy features: (1) building a diversion ditch around the eastern side of pond #5; (2) building a
facility that will treat pond #5's outfall to within the State levels for mercury; (3) conducting a
bioassessment of the NFHR to determine the extent of site effects on resident fauna and flora;
and (4) developing a groundwater monitoring system. The owner began the engineering design
for this remedy in 1988. Cleanup activities are scheduled to start in 1991. Remedial design of
these technologies currently is underway. Phase 1 design work is scheduled to be completed in
1991, Phase 2, in 1992.
Groundwater Cleanup: A study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup is underway. The owner will
conduct an intensive study of the site that will assess groundwater contamination and
the biological impact of contaminated groundwater discharge into the adjacent river systems.
This investigation, started in 1988, will identify the best cleanup strategies and is scheduled to be
completed in 1993.
Biomonitoring: A study to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to
identify alternatives for cleanup has begun. An extensive investigation will be
conducted to determine the past, current, and future effects of the site on the North
Fork of the Holston River. The study will focus on sediment and several species of biota.
Selected cleanup strategies will be based on the extent of the effects. Completion of the study is
expected in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1982, the Olin Corp. and the State signed a Special Order under which the owner
was to dredge 1,000 feet of the river to remove contaminated sediments and to construct a
diversion ditch along the edge of the western portion of waste pond #5. The order also required
monitoring of the outfall, fish, and sediments until 1988. Under the terms of a 1988 Consent
Decree, Olin Corp. will implement the remedy and conduct a site investigation that will assess
groundwater contamination at the site and the effects on biological resources in the NFHR.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions of dredging contaminants from the sediment of the North Fork of the
Holston River and building the diversion ditch to prevent mercury-contaminated outfall from
entering the river have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds site while it awaits planned cleanup activities and further studies.
April1991 58 SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL PONDS
-------
SAUNDERS
SUPPLY CO.
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD003117389
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Suffolk County
Chuckatuck
Site Description
The 7 1/3-acre Saunders Supply Co. site is an active wood-treating operation. Between 1964 and
1984, workers used a mixture of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and fuel oil as a wood preservative.
In 1974, they added a chromated copper arsenate process, which is still in use. Part of the spent
PCP/oil mixture was disposed of by burning it in an unlined pit or in a conical burner on site,
which resulted in the generation of dioxin compounds. EPA tests in 1984 detected elevated
levels of chromium in Godwin's Mill Pond Reservoir, a source of drinking water for more than
30,000 people in Suffolk. The Suffolk water treatment plant, however, reported that levels in
treated drinking water were well within safety limits. The tests also found PCP, chromium, and
arsenic in the Columbia aquifer, which supplies private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Approximately 1,300 people live within 3 miles of the site, and about 700 people are served by
municipal water systems within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with arsenic, chromium, and PCP from wood-
treating process wastes. The soil is contaminated with arsenic, chromium, copper,
PCP, and dioxins. Workers or trespassers may be at risk from inhalation of
contaminated dust and particles or through direct contact with contaminated soil.
The groundwater flow is reported to be toward the reservoir, a primary drinking
water source. A nearby freshwater wetland may be threatened by site
contamination.
59
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the Saunders Supply Co. excavated some
contaminated silt from the conical bum pit and transported it to a State-permitted
landfill. The owner also installed a recovery well and pumped contaminated
groundwater out of the well, recycling it back into the wood treatment system.
Entire Site: In mid-1991, the EPA completed an intensive study of contamination on
the site to identify the best cleanup strategies for the situation. The EPA is expected to
make a selection of the final cleanup method in late 1991.
Environmental Progress
By excavating contaminated silt, installing a recovery well, and pumping contaminated groundwater
out of the well, the potentially responsible parties at the Saunders Supply Co. site have reduced the
potential for exposure to contaminated resources while the EPA selects the final remedy for site
cleanup.
April 1991 60 SAUNOERS SUPPLY CO.
-------
SUFFOLK CITY
LANDFILL
VIRGINIA
EPA ID# VAD980917983
EPA REGION 3
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Suffolk County
On Route 604 within the City of Suffolk
9
Site Description
The 67-acrc Suffolk City Landfill is owned and managed by the City. The landfill, now closed,
operated from 1967 to 1984. The City covered, graded, and replanted the landfill in 1988. The
unlined landfill accepted primarily municipal solid wastes. On-site disposal of highly toxic
pesticides is the primary concern. Dixie Guano Company disposed of 27 tons of chemicals in a
portion of the landfill in 1970. The area is rural and agricultural. Approximately 2,500 people
obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. Surface runoff from the site
discharges into two unnamed tributaries to the Great Dismal Swamp, a major freshwater
wetland.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/16788
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and liquids in retention basins are contaminated with
various pesticides from former disposal practices. Potential health hazards
include accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soil. The site is not fenced, making it possible for people and
animals to come into direct contact with hazardous substances. The potential
exists for the Great Dismal Swamp to be contaminated from the site runoff.
61
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: As part of the Administrative Order on Consent, the City of Suffolk
installed a leachate collection and treatment system. It is expected to begin operation in
1991.
Entire Site: Under orders from the State, the City of Suffolk agreed to conduct an
intensive study of soil and groundwater contamination at the site, to determine its nature
and extent, and to recommend strategies for its cleanup. The study is scheduled for
completion in 1992. Once the investigations are completed, the EPA will evaluate the
recommendations and will select a final cleanup technology.
Site Facts: The City of Suffolk signed an Administrative Order of Consent with the State,
requiring the City to perform studies and cleanup actions at the site.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a leachate collection and treatment system and ongoing investigations ensure that
there currently are no immediate threats to nearby residents or the surroundings at the Suffolk City
Landfill site while final studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991
62
SUFFOLK CITY LANDFILL
-------
Uc TITANIUM A /\ EPA REGION 3
.0. MIMIMIUIVI/A /VX CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
VIRGINIA L \ A/IAV^ Nelson County
VIKUIIMIA ^ VsjKV^ Near the town of Piney River
EPA ID# VAD980705404
. \^?t^H«^^/r
Other Names:
Piney River Disposal Site
Site Description
The 50-acre U.S. Titanium site covers the northeastern portion of a parcel formerly occupied by
an American Cyanamid Co. plant. Between 1931 and 1971, the company mined and refined
titanium ore and manufactured titanium dioxide for paint pigments. A titanium processing plant,
settling ponds, tailing ponds, lagoons, and a waste disposal area are located on site. Ferrous
sulfate, a by-product of titanium dioxide manufacture, and heavy metals are the primary
contaminants at the site. The site has been divided into seven separate contamination areas that
require cleanup. Ferrous sulfate is highly acidic, and storm runoff from the site's waste piles
contributed to six major fish kills in the Piney and Tye Rivers from 1977 to 1981. More than
200,000 fish died during these events. Although recent work has greatly improved conditions at
the site, acidic runoff still threatens the Piney River. The closest residence is 1/4 mile from the
site. Piney River, the town in which the site is located, has a population of approximately 100,
and approximately 200 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Local residents use
groundwater for their drinking water supply.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is highly acidic as a result of former plant operation.
Aluminum, iron, copper, nickel, zinc, and cadmium from site soils have
contaminated the groundwater. These contaminants are found in both on-site
seeps and off-site surface water. Ingestion or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater poses only a slight threat, since no well contamination has been
detected, and municipal wells are located upstream from the site. The acidity of
the water and waste seeps could be harmful, as well as increase the solubility of
metals, which could enter water. This stream has not supported a viable
recreational fishery due mainly to the impact from titanium operation over the last
40 years. The fishery has improved since plant operations were stopped in 1971,
but is still affected by discharges from the site.
63 April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: American Cyanamid agreed in 1986 to begin an intensive study of site
conditions and contamination. This work resulted in selection of final remedies for the
site and the signing of the EPA final decision in 1989. Seven areas have been
pinpointed for treatment. A passive system will collect and treat iron-bearing acidic
groundwater. French drains and trenches will bear the water to an oxidation and settling pond, a
constructed wetland, and a limestone treatment bed. The ferrous sulfate in Area 1 will be
dissolved and treated. Drainage controls and re vegetation will be implemented in Areas 2, 3,4,
and 5. Area 6 requires no action. Acidified soil in Area 7 will be neutralized with lime. Other
features include monitoring, road maintenance, and deed and access restrictions. These
strategies are deemed completely effective for reducing acidic and iron discharges to acceptable
standards. The engineering design for these remedies started in 1990 and cleanup activities are
scheduled to begin in 1993. Completion of all cleanup activities is scheduled for 1995.
Site Facts: American Cyanamid signed a Consent Agreement in April 1986, agreeing to
conduct an investigation at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that there currently are no immediate threats to nearby residents or the environment. The
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the U.S. Titanium site is low while further
investigations and cleanup activities are undertaken.
April 1991 64 U.S. TITANIUM
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
65
-------
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.
67
-------
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
68
-------
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.
69
-------
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.
70
-------
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
71
-------
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,
72
-------
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
73
-------
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.
74
-------
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 particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
75
-------
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
76
-------
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
77
-------
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
78
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
79
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Virginia
81
-------
.2
'E
CO
M
"o
0>
(Q
C/)
0)
.c
en
0)
c7)
a.
Z
£
(0
.2
o
*7fi
nformation Repoi
^
>me sites have more than one repository
i file at these repositories. The quantity
site and may include some or all of the
ng activities at sites, documents relating
i pertaining to site activities.
on related to site activities. S(
tertaining to the site will be or
nd cleanup progress for each
ic meetings, fact sheets detaili
ters, and any other documents
; public can obtain additional informati
below. All public access information p
ries depends on the extent of activity a
for public meetings, minutes from publ
:ations of other public information ceni
je -o Q % 5
-; « « e ~l
-§.!«£
1 1 5 8 1
8|l § 8
rl-fil
epositories are established for all NPI
cation, however, the primary site rep
id nature of the documentation fount
illowing: community relations plans,
> the selection of cleanup remedies, p
a; s a £ a
Repository
eet, Portsmouth, VA 23704
She
Portsmouth Public Library, 601 Court Str
e
e
w
IX
otf
8
s
Iding, Peachgrove Lane, Montross, VA 22520
land County, Social Services Bui
Asst. County Admininistrator, Westmore]
H
ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATES/SCOVD
eet, Portsmouth, VA 23704
Portsmouth Public Library, 601 Court Str
ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES
o
vD
6
E Washington Highway, Yorktov
York County Public Library, 8500 Georgi
CfflSMAN CREEK
Not Established
CULPEPPER WOOD PRESERVERS
Not Established
OA
m
DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENT!
a
3
CO
1
00
3
a
Q
t
Ov
oo
1
ffl
Roanoke County Public Library, Glenvar
j
E
8
CO
>
U
Q
S
CO
U
u"
I
Pittsylvania County Public Library, 24 M
FIRST PIEDMONT ROCK QUARRY
o
§
JE
East Market Street, Charlottesvi
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, 201
>H
GREENWOOD CHEMICAL COMPAN
o
o
o
a
1
g
o
m"
u
3
O
(A
'S
a
1
§
so
c
u_
1
Otf
m
a"
a
(S
C-l
irthouse Road, Spolsylvania, VA
County Administrator's Office, 9104 Cou
L.A. CLARKE & SON
Deleted from the NPL
MATTHEWS ELECTRIC PLATING
01
>
T-f
rth Laburnum Avenue, Richmonc
Henrico County Public Library, 1001 Noi
RENTOKIL, INC.
eet, Winchester, VA 22601
Handley Library, 100 West Piccadilly Str
RHINEHART TIRE FIRE DUMP
R
n Main Street, Saltville, VA 243
Saltville Town Hall, Town Hall Square 01
SALTVILLE WASTE DISPOSAL
a
rr
r-1
1
co
i
b
CO
I
00
Suffolk Public Library, 443 West Washin
SAUNDERS SUPPLY COMPANY
5
1
CO
u
o
to
CO
c
a
00
Suffolk Public Library, 443 West Washin
SUFFOLK CITY LANDFILL
O)
tfl
00
5
o
CO
oC
(N
Nelson County Memorial Library, Route
U.S. TITANIUM
U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893-60443
83
-------
------- |