&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(5102 G)
SUPERFUND:
EPA/540/R-93/004
December 1992
PB93-963205
Progress at
National
Priority
List Sites
ARKANSAS
1992 UPDATE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-7056
December 1992
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Arkansas
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12)}
il West Jackson BoukAard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
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, VA 22161
(703) 486-4650
The complete set of the 49 State reports may be ordered as PB93-963250.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A Brief Overview of Superfund v
Streamlining Superfund: The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model ix
How Superfund Works x
THE VOLUME
How to Use the State Book xi
A SUMMARY OF THE STATE PROGRAM
.XV
THE NPL REPORT
Progress to Date xix
THE NPL FACT SHEETS i
THE GLOSSARY
Terms used in the NPL Book G-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SUPERFUND
During the second half of the Twentieth
Century, the environmental conse-
quences of more than 100 years of industrial-
ization in the United States became increas-
ingly clear. Authors such as Rachel Carson
wrote passionately about the often-hidden en-
vironmental effects of our modern society's
widespread use of chemicals and other haz-
ardous materials. Their audience was small at
first, but gradually their message spread.
Growing concern turned to action, as people
learned more about the environment and be-
gan to act on their knowledge
The 1970s saw environmental issues burst
onto the national scene and take hold in the
national consciousness. The first Earth Day
was observed in 1970, the year that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
founded. By the end of the 1970s, Love Canal
in New York and the Valley of the Drums in
Kentucky had entered the popular lexicon as
synonyms for pollution and environmental
degradation.
Superfund Is Established
The industrialization that gave Americans the
world's highest standard of living also created
problems that only a national program could
address. By 1980, the U.S. Congress had
passed numerous environmental laws, imple-
mented by the EPA, but many serious hazard-
ous waste problems were slipping through the
cracks.
Responding to growing concern about public
health and environmental threats from uncon-
trolled releases of hazardous materials, the
U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive En-
vironmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). Popularly known as
Superfund, CERCLA had one seemingly
simple job—to uncover and clean up hazard-
ous materials spills and contaminated sites.
A Big Job
Few in Congress, the EPA, the environmen-
tal community, or the general public knew in
1980 just how big the nation's hazardous ma-
terials problem is. Almost everyone thought
that Superfund would be a short-lived pro-
gram requiring relatively few resources to
clean up at most a few hundred sites. They
were quite mistaken.
As the EPA set to work finding sites and
gauging their potential to harm people and
the environment, the number of sites grew.
Each discovery seemed to lead to another,
and today almost 36,000 hazardous waste
sites have been investigated as potential haz-
ardous waste sites. They are catalogued in
the EPA's computerized database, CERCLIS
(for the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
-------
INTRODUCTION
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Informa-
tion System).
The damage to public health and the environ-
ment that each site in CERCLIS might cause
is evaluated; many sites have been referred to
State and local governments for cleanup. The
EPA lists the nation's most serious hazardous
waste sites on the National Priorities List, or
NPL. (These Superfund sites are eligible for
federally-funded cleanup, but whenever pos-
sible the EPA makes polluters pay for the
contamination they helped create.) The NPL
now numbers 1,275 sites, with 50 to 100
added each year. By the end of the century,
the NPL may reach as many as 2,100 sites.
Superfund faces some of the most complex
pollution problems ever encountered by an
environmental program. Improperly stored or
disposed chemicals and the soil they contami-
nate are one concern. More difficult to correct
are the wetlands and bays, and the groundwa-
ter, lakes, and rivers often used for drinking
water that are contaminated by chemicals
spreading through the soil or mixing with
storm water runoff. Toxic vapors contaminate
the air at some sites, threatening the health of
people living and working near by.
Superfund aims to control immediate public
health and environmental threats by tackling
the worst problems at the worst sites first.
Wherever possible, Superfund officials use
innovative treatment techniques—many de-
veloped or refined by the EPA—to correct
hazardous materials problems once and for
all. Many of the treatment techniques they use
did not exist when the program was created.
The EPA Administrator had challenged Su-
perfund to complete construction necessary
for cleanup work at 130 NPL sites by the end
of the 1992 federal fiscal year. By September
30, 1992, the end of fiscal year 1992, con-
struction had been completed at a total of 149
NPL sites. Superfund is well on its way of
meeting the Administrator's goal of complet-
ing construction at 200 NPL sites by the end
of fiscal year 1993, and 650 sites by the end
of fiscal year 2000.
Quick Cleanup at
Non-NPL Sites
Long-standing hazardous waste sites are not
Superfund's only concern. The EPA also re-
sponds to hazardous spills and other emergen-
cies, hauling away chemicals for proper treat-
ment or disposal. Superfund teams perform or
supervise responses at rail and motor vehicle
accidents, fires, and other emergencies in-
volving hazardous substances. They also
evacuate people living and working near by,
if necessary, and provide clean drinking water
to people whose own water is contaminated.
Removal crews also post warning signs and
take other precautions to keep people and ani-
mals away from hazardous substances.
Superfund employee prepares equipment for groundwater
treatment.
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Quick Cleanups, or Removals, are not limited
to emergencies. When cleanup crews at con-
taminated sites find hazardous substances that
immediately threaten people or the environ-
ment, they act right away to reduce the threat
or to remove the chemicals outright. As the
EPA implements the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM), more and more sites
will undergo quick cleanups, and many of
these will be cleaned up completely without
ever being included on the NPL. (See
"Streamlining Superfund: The Superfund Ac-
celerated Cleanup Model.")
Some of Superfund's most significant gains in
public health and environmental protection
have been won by the removal program. As of
March 31, 1992, the Emergency Response
Superfund employee removing drums from a Superfund site.
Program had logged more than 2,300 removal
completions since Superfund was established.
The Public's Role
Superfund is unique among federal programs
in its commitment to citizen participation. Al-
though the EPA is responsible for determin-
ing how dangerous a site is and how best to
clean it up, the Agency relies on citizen input
as it makes these decisions.
Community residents are often invaluable
sources of information about a hazardous
waste site, its current and previous owners,
and the activities that took place there. Such
information can be crucial to experts evaluat-
ing a site and its potential dangers.
Residents also comment on EPA cleanup
plans by stating their concerns and prefer-
ences at public meetings and other forums and
in formal, written comments to Agency pro-
posals. The EPA takes these comments and
concerns seriously, and has modified many
proposals in response to local concerns. For,
ultimately, it is the community and its citizens
that will live with the results of the EPA's de-
cisions and actions; it is only fair that citizens
participate in the process.
A Commitment to
Communication
The Superfund program is very serious about
public outreach and communication. Com-
munity relations coordinators are assigned to
each NPL site to help the public understand
the potential hazards present, as well as the
cleanup alternatives. Local information re-
positories, such as libraries or other public
buildings, have been established near each
NPL site to ensure that the public has an op-
portunity to review all relevant information
and the proposed cleanup plans.
The individual State volumes contain sum-
mary fact sheets on NPL sites in each State
and territory. Together, the fact sheets provide
a concise report on site conditions and the
progress made toward site cleanups as of
March 1992. The EPA revises these volumes
periodically to provide an up-to-date record of
program activities. A glossary of key terms
relating to hazardous waste management and
Superfund site cleanup is provided at the back
of this book.
VII
-------
INTRODUCTION
Superfund is, of course, a public program, and
as such it belongs to everyone of us. This vol-
ume, along with other State volumes, com-
prises the EPA's report on Superfund
progress to the program's owners for the year
1992.
VIII
-------
INTRODUCTION
STREAMLINING SUPERFUND: THE SUPERFUND
ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL
Historically, critics and supporters alike
have measured Superfund's progress
by the number of hazardous waste sites de-
leted from the NPL. Although easy enough to
tally, this approach is too narrow. It misses
the major gains Superfund makes by reducing
major risks at the nation's worst hazardous
sites long before all clean-up work is done
and the site deleted. It also ignores the Re-
moval Program's contributions to meeting
Superfund's twin mandates of maximizing
public health and environmental protection.
Renewing Superfund's commitment to rapid
protection from hazardous materials, the EPA
is streamlining the program. The Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model, or SACM, will
take Early Actions, such as removing hazard-
ous wastes or contaminated materials, while
experts study the site. SACM also will com-
bine similar site studies to reduce the time re-
quired to evaluate a site and its threats to
people and the environment. This way, imme-
diate public health and environmental threats
will be addressed while long-term cleanups
are being planned.
Emergencies such as train derailments and
motor vehicle accidents will continue to be
handled expeditiously. Teams of highly
trained technicians will swing into action
right away, coordinating the cleanup and re-
moval of hazardous substances to ensure pub-
lic safety as quickly as possible.
Breaking With Tradition
The traditional Superfund process begins with
a lengthy phase of study and site assessment,
but SACM will save time by combining sepa-
rate, yet similar, activities. Each EPA Region
will form a Decision Team of site managers,
risk assessors, community relations coordina-
tors, lawyers, and other experts to monitor the
studies and quickly determine whether a site
requires Early Action (taking less than five
years), Long-term Action, or both.
While the site studies continue, the Decision
Team will begin the short-term work required
to correct immediate public health or environ-
mental threats from the site. Besides remov-
ing hazardous materials, Early Actions in-
clude taking precautions to keep contaminants
from moving off the site and restricting access
to the site. Early Actions could eliminate most
human risk from these sites, and Superfund
will further focus its public participation and
public information activities on site assess-
ment and Early Action.
Long-Term Solutions
While Early Actions can correct many hazard-
ous waste problems—and provide the bulk of
public health and environmental protection—
some contamination will take longer to cor-
rect. Cleanups of mining sites, wetlands, estu-
aries, and projects involving incineration of
contaminants or restoration of groundwater
can take far longer than the three to five years
envisioned for Early Actions. Under SACM,
these sites will be handled much as they are
now.
Also under SACM, the EPA will continue its
pursuit of potentially responsible parties who
may have caused or contributed to site con-
tamination. Expedited enforcement and
procedures for negotiating potentially respon-
sible party settlements will secure their par-
ticipation. Superfund personnel will continue
to oversee clean-up work performed by poten-
tially responsible parties.
IX
-------
INTRODUCTION
HOW SUPERFUND WORKS
Each Superfund site presents a different
set of complex problems. The same haz-
ardous materials and chemicals often con-
taminate many sites, but the details of each
site are different. Almost always, soil is con-
taminated with one or more chemicals. Their
vapors may taint the air over and around the
site. Contaminants may travel through the soil
and reach underground aquifers which may be
used for drinking water, or they may spread
over the site to contaminate streams, ponds,
and wetlands. The contaminating chemicals
may interact with each other, presenting even
more complicated cleanup problems.
Superfund's cleanup process is arduous and
exacting. It requires the best efforts of hun-
dreds of experts in science and engineering,
public health, administration and manage-
ment, law, and many other fields.
The average NPL site takes from seven to ten
years to work its way through the system,
from discovery to the start of long-term
cleanup. Actual cleanup work can take years,
decades if contaminated groundwater must
be treated. Of course, imminent threats to
public health or the environment are cor-
rected right away.
The diagram to the right presents a simplified |
view of the cleanup process. The major steps
in the Superfund process are:
• Site discovery and investigation to iden-
tify contaminants and determine whether
emergency action is required;
• Emergency site work such as removing
contaminants for proper treatment or dis-
posal, and securing the site to keep people
and animals away, if warranted by condi-
tions at the site;
• Site evaluation to determine how people
living and working nearby, and the envi-
ronment, may be exposed to site contami-
nants;
• Detailed studies to determine whether con-
ditions are serious enough to add the site to
the National Priorities List of sites eligible
for federally funded cleanup under Super-
fund;
1 Selection, design, and implementation of a
cleanup plan, after a thorough review of
the most effective cleanup options, given
site conditions, contaminants present, and
their potential threat to public health or the
environment.
• Follow-up to ensure that the cleanup work
done at the site continues to be effective
over the long term.
The Superfund Process
From the earliest stages, EPA investigators
work hard to identify those responsible for the
contamination. As their responsibility is es-
tablished, the EPA negotiates with these "re-
sponsible parties" to pay for cleaning up the
problem they helped create. This "enforce-
ment first" policy saves Superfund Trust Fund
monies for use in cleanups where the respon-
sible parties cannot be identified, or where
they are unable to fund cleanup work.
-------
THE VOLUME
How to Use the State Book
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 discovered and related threats
to public and ecological health ("Threats and
Contaminants"). "Cleanup Approach" pres-
ents 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 environment. The
summaries also pinpoint other actions, such as
legal efforts to involve polluters responsible
for site contamination and community con-
cerns.
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-
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.
XI
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Provides the dates when the
site was Proposed, made Final,
and Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties taking responsibility
for cleanup actions at the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRESS
Summarizes the actions to
reduce the threats to nearby
residents and the surrounding
environment and the progress
towards cleaning up the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOO
Site Description
EPA REGION XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Names:
:xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx5Sn»ifcjjxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx x xxx xxxxxx
X XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX:
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX"^»Bi^X XXX XX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX x5te»^£XX XXXXXX XX XXXX XXX XXXXX XXX XXXXX XXX
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Proposed XX/XX/XX
Final XX/XX/XX
Threats and Contaminants
XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XX XXXXX
XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX
Cleanup Approach
XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX
Response Action Status
Site Facts:
Environmental Progress
Site Repository
: xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
SITE REPOSITORY
Lists the location of the primary site repository. The site
repository may include community relations plans, public
meeting announcements and minutes, fact sheets, press
releases, and other site-related documents.
XII
-------
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.
xiJi
-------
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 vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a drink-
ing 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 vicinity
of the site. (Examples include wet-
lands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Initial, Immediate, or Emergency
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.
XIV
-------
A SUMMARY OF THE STATE PROGRAM
xv
-------
Superfund
Activities in
Arkansas
The State of Arkansas is located within EPA Region 6,
which includes the five south central States. The State covers
52,078 square miles. According to the 1990 Census, Arkansas
experienced a 3 percent increase in population between 1980 and
1990, and is ranked thirty-third in U.S. population with approximately 2,351,000 residents.
The Remedial Action Trust Fund Act of 1985, amended in 1987, created the Hazardous
Substance Remedial Action Trust (HSRAT) to fund long-term cleanup activities as well as the 10
percent contribution from the State required by the Federal Superfund program. This statute grants the
State the authority to obtain information, access the site, and order site cleanup. Fees on those who
generate or receive hazardous waste, revenues received from penalties, and appropriations make up the
HSRAT Fund. Ten percent of the HSRAT revenues are deposited into the Environmental Education
Fund. The Emergency Response Fund Act, also passed in 1985, established a fund for responding to
emergencies at Superfund sites and provides the State the authority to make polluters conduct or pay
for cleanup activities. In practice, polluters are responsible for cleanup activities in direct proportion to
the amount of waste they contributed to the site. In those cases when the polluters are unable or
unwilling to pay for cleanup activities, the State may conduct cleanup activities itself and then recover
up to triple the cost of cleanup from polluters at a later time. A public hearing is held prior to adding a
site to or deleting a site from the State priority list and public meetings are held or fact sheets are
provided prior to completion of major cleanup milestones. Currently, 10 sites in the State of Arkansas
have been listed as final on the NPL; one has been deleted. Two new sites have been proposed for
listing in 1992.
The Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
implements the Superfund Program in the State of Arkansas
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
Arkansas include:
Salvage
Yards
Petroleum and
Refining
Operations
Electroplating
Operations ,
Fertilizer and
Pesticide
Manufacturers
Landfills
Wood
Production
and
Treatment
Facilities
Facts about the 13 NPL sites
in Arkansas:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at eight
sites.
Three sites endanger sensitive envi-
ronments.
Seven sites are located near residen-
tial areas.
XVII
March 1992
-------
ARKANSAS
Most Sites Have Multiple Contaminants and
Contaminated Media:
Media Contaminated at Sites
Air
Surface
Water
Sediments
Soil
Ground-
water
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Sites
Contaminants Found at Sites
Percentage of Sites
Heavy Metals
VOCs
Creosotes
PCBs
Dioxin
Pesticides/Herbicides
54%
46%
38%
31%
31%
31%
The Potentially Responsible
Party Pays...
In the State of Arkansas, potentially responsible
parties are paying for or conducting cleanup
activities at six sites.
For Further Information on NPL Sites and Hazardous
Waste Programs in the State of Arkansas Please Contact:
w EPA Region 6 Office of External
Affairs, Community Relations
^ National Response Center
* The Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology: Hazardous Waste
Division, Superfund Branch
* EPA Region 6 Hazardous Waste
Management Division
f EPA Superfund Hotline
For information concerning
community involvement
To report a hazardous
waste emergency
For information about the
State's responsibility in the
Superfund Program
For information about the
Regional Superfund Program
Federal Superfund Program
(214) 655-2200
(800) 424-8802
(501) 570-2872
(214) 655-6740
(800) 424-9068
March 1992
XVIII
-------
THE NPL REPORT
PROGRESS TO DATE
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status of ac-
tivities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund 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 ac-
complishments.
O An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency
cleanup, immediate action, or initial ac-
tion has been completed or currently is
underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to pro-
vide immediate relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize
a site to prevent further contamination.
^> A final arrow in the "Site Studies" cat-
egory indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is on-
going or planned.
^ A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has se-
lected the final cleanup strategy for the
site. At the few sites where the EPA has
determined that initial response actions
have eliminated site contamination, or
that any remaining contamination will
be naturally dispersed without further
cleanup activities, a "No Action" rem-
edy has been 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 specifica-
tions 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 cur-
rently are underway.
*=> A final arrow in the "Construction Com-
plete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have
been performed, and the EPA has deter-
mined 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 pro-
tect human health and the environment.
/ A check in the "Deleted" category indi-
cates 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.
XIX
-------
T3
0)
*
0)
Q
S
C°
§0
O
Q.D)
3 C
c'o
5?
ft
ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
If ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft
ft
CO
CO
CO
c
m
w*
m ^^
*m
M—
O
0)
53
c
tft
VI
0
+••
c7>
Q.
OS
Q.
3
c
CO
o
O
•o
CO
>
Progress Tov
March
LL. —
>»"D
"D jg
E^
a: co
in
m «
aj .^
.ts-o
Cfl 3
CO
»
— 2
sg.
C 0)
0)
cc.
S
re
O
Q.
Z
8
I
0)
CO
1992
ft ft
ft ft
ft
W 0>
oc
C^ cs
C5 O>
H
*a «>
c 13
E Q
Z
m O
S V5
8S
OQ 5'
ARKWOOD, INC.
CECIL LINDSEY SITE
ft ft
ft ft
ft
i- i-
R R
s s
•-3 '•3
TO TO
E E
z
z S
•^
33 '^ g 8
a!
Mli!|
^|s|i
5>,a
J^
^
s
^j
S
-SS
• S
"S,
S
p
o
S"
|
•S
"§
1
*~*
•s
)k^
•I
'^
1
1
o
S
d.
a1
K
J
SJ
O
-------
ARKWOOD, I
ARKANSAS
EPAID#ARD084930148
EPA REGION 6
Boone County
1/2 mile south of Omaha
Site Description
The 18-acre Arkwood, Inc. wood-treatment plant site consisted of a millwork shop, a treating
plant that used creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP), and a yard for storing pretreated
wood prior to sale. Operations began in the early 1960s. In 1973, the owner leased the facility
to Mass Merchandisers, Inc. (MMI), which operated it until 1984. The plant was dismantled
in 1986. During operation, the plant generated 6,000 to 7,000 pounds of waste each year.
Operations wastes were dumped into a sinkhole on site until 1970. The sinkhole since has
been sealed. Waste oils were placed in a ditch next to the railroad until 1974, when MMI
began using a chemical recovery system. Other wastes, including liquids used to wash the
treatment equipment, were stored in a tank and then spread over the storage yard to control
dust. The site was listed on the NPL when PCP and other organic chemicals were found in
area groundwater. Approximately 650 people within 3 miles of the site rely on private wells
for drinking water. The closest well is less than 1/4 mile from the site. The area surrounding
the site is predominantly agricultural.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/04/85
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
PCP was found in groundwater monitoring wells on site and in New Cricket
Spring, one of 13 area springs. Soil samples from disposal areas on site were shown
to contain PCP, mostly concentrated in the top 2 feet of soil. Creosotes and
hazardous by-products of PCP also were found in the soils. Rural residents, who
live less than a mile from the site, use groundwater as their sole source of drinking
water. Significant potential for contamination of the groundwater supplying
drinking wells exists, based on underground geology and water flow at the site.
Possible threats include drinking the contaminated groundwater or accidental
ingestion or contact with the contaminated soil and sediments.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In response to the immediate threat of contact with
hazardous materials, the parties potentially responsible for site contamination
installed a fence and warning signs in 1987.
Entire Site: In 1990, MMI, under EPA supervision, completed a site
investigation to determine the nature and extent of the contamination. In 1990,
the EPA chose on-site incineration of the contaminated soils as the remedy for
cleanup of the site. Engineering design activities began in late 1991 and are expected to be
completed in 1994.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA signed an Administrative Order requiring MMI to conduct
investigations to determine the type and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives
for remedial action.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the site and installing warning signs have limited access to the site, thereby reducing
the potential of exposure to hazardous substances at the Arkwood, Inc. site and making the
area safer while final cleanup activities are planned.
Site Repository
Omaha Public School, College Street, Omaha, AR 72662
March 1992 2 ARKWOOD, INC.
-------
CECIL LIND
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980496186
EPA REGION 6
Jackson County
31/2 miles northeast of Newport
Other Names:
City of Diaz Dump
Site Description
From the early 1970s to 1980, the 5-acre Cecil Lindsey site was used as a salvage operation,
collecting machinery, cars, and scrap metals. Some municipal and industrial wastes reportedly
were disposed of on the property, although the operators had no permit to accept them.
Drums that previously held pesticides and oils containing heavy metals were disposed of on
site. About 20 homes housing 50 residents are located within a mile of the site, the nearest
being 600 feet from the site. The nearest drinking water well is 1,200 feet away, but all
private drinking water wells are upgradient. The site is adjacent to the Village Creek wetlands
and forested bottomland in an agricultural area. Portions of the site, which lies within the
flood plain of Village Creek, are often flooded.
Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Deleted Date: 9/22/89
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were found in groundwater
underlying the site. Heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, and copper were
found in soil throughout the site and VOCs were found in the southern portion of
the site. Threats to drinking water were remote. Wells were not contaminated, nor
were they likely to be, since they are located upgradient of the site.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in a long-term remedial phase directed at soil cleanup and
groundwater monitoring.
Response Action Status
Soil Cleanup and Groundwater Monitoring: In 1987, the EPA placed
groundwater and access restrictions on the site, installed monitoring wells, removed
the drums, and performed 1-year site monitoring. No other remedy actions were
selected, since the EPA, in conjunction with the State, determined that the site was cleaned
to levels that are safe to people and the environment. Sampling results showed that
contamination levels in the groundwater have lowered. The EPA deleted the site from the
NPL in 1989.
Environmental Progress
With the actions described above, the EPA eliminated the potential for accidental contact
with any contaminated material on site. As a result of these actions, the EPA determined
that the site meets established ecological and health standards and deleted the site from the
NPL in 1989.
Site Repository
Information is no longer available.
March 1992 4 CECIL UNDSEY SITE
-------
FRIT INDUS!
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD059636456
EPA REGION 6
Lawrence County
miles northwest of Jonesboro
Site Description
Frit Industries is a 30-acre site housing an active fertilizer plant. Product materials
(micronutrients) and raw waste were stored in piles on the ground without a liner or cover.
Waste piles on site were unprotected from rain, wind, and surface water runoff; therefore,
materials have been dispersed across the site. In 1979, a fire consumed portions of a product
storage facility. The water used to extinguish the fire further contaminated the soil and
surface water. The nearest residence is 3 miles away. Although the community has a
municipal water system, there is an industrial park well approximately 1/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL Listing History
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZBJ
The groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with zinc sulfate,
cadmium, chromium, and lead. Runoff from the site is channeled into a nearby
creek by approximately 1 mile of drainage ditches. This creek flows into another
creek, which discharges into the White River 4 miles downstream of the site.
Nearby residents could become exposed to heavy metals in the soil and water of
Coon Creek and the drainage ditches, which have received 81,000 gallons of
contaminated water. Threats to people include accidental ingestion of
contaminated waters or soil, inhalation of dusts generated at the site, and direct
contact with contaminants from dusts, groundwater, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Since 1981, Frit Industries has been studying the site runoff, the
potential for groundwater contamination, and the buildup of heavy metals in the
sediments of drainage ditches and Coon Creek. In early 1985, Frit Industries
completed construction of an on-site surface water treatment plant. The company submits
regular reports to the State and to the EPA for comment and has proposed a cleanup plan
involving a plant for treating runoff. Any further cleanup actions will be taken under
authority of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) instead of Superfund. All
cleanup actions are expected to be completed in 1994.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order signed in 1982 required Frit to construct a surface
water runoff treatment plant and to continue the monitoring of runoff. In 1983, an additional
Administrative Order required Frit Industries to perform an investigation at the site and to
develop and implement a site-wide Cleanup Plan. This plan is being reviewed by the EPA to
ensure compliance under RCRA.
Environmental Progress
Frit Industries and the EPA currently are conducting site testing to determine whether the
water runoff treatment plant is effective and whether the site can be deleted from the NPL.
Meanwhile, the EPA has determined that the site does not pose a threat to human health or
the environment while awaiting completion of the site evaluation.
Site Repository
Lawrence County Library, 1315 West Main Street, Walnut Ridge, AR 72476
March 1992 6 FRIT INDUSTRIES
-------
GURLEY PIT
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD035662469
EPA REGION 6
Crittenden County
1 mile north of Edmondson
Site Description
Gurley Pit encompasses approximately 3 1/2 acres, which are divided into three levees, or
cells. In 1970, Gurley Refining Company leased the pit for disposal of secondary oil refinery
wastes. From 1970 until 1975, the pit was used for the disposal of oil sludges and filter
material. In 1975, the company closed the part of the refining operations that generated the
wastes disposed of at the site. Site discharges contaminated a nearby stream, Fifteen Mile
Bayou, damaging fish and wildlife. This is an agricultural area, with five residences within 1/2
mile. The nearest drinking well is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZGJ
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, lead, and zinc. Sludges and surface water are contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals including lead. The site is
within the 100-year flood plain of the Fifteen Mile Bayou, which discharges to the
Mississippi River. Overflows that have occurred during rain events have had an
adverse effect on fish and waterfowl. Also, people using the shallow aquifer as a
source of drinking water may be exposed to site contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on groundwater and cleanup of sources of contamination.
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: After a flood in 1979, the EPA performed emergency
cleanup of oil from the pit and installed drains and pumps to remove accumulated
stormwater. In 1984, the potentially responsible parties for the site contamination
built a fence and repaired the dikes.
Groundwater: Contamination from the pit has not migrated through the sub-
surface into the groundwater. Elevated levels of inorganic contaminants were
detected but were consistent with natural background levels. No site-related
contaminants were identified in the groundwater. Therefore, the EPA has decided that no
cleanup actions are required for groundwater. The groundwater will be monitored for at least
30 years to ensure that no migration of the contaminants occurs.
Source Control: In 1986, the EPA chose a remedy for cleanup of the site. The
surface water within the pits will be treated on site and the discharge will go into
the bayou. Oil containing PCBs from the water treatment process will be
incinerated off site. The sludge will be stabilized on site and placed in a federally approved
vault. The engineering designs for the cleanup were completed in early 1988, but, due to
litigation technicalities and design modifications, the design was not finalized until late 1991.
Construction of the cleanup remedies is expected to begin in late 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA completed an Enforcement Decision Document in 1986, which
addressed cleanup of the contamination sources at the site. In early 1990, the EPA issued a
Unilateral Order, under which the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
would clean up the source of contamination. There have been citizen complaints about odors
from the site.
Environmental Progress
The emergency cleanup of oil and the installation of drains and pumps to remove
contaminated surface water undertaken by the EPA and the potentially responsible parties at
the Gurley Pit have reduced the potential exposure to contaminants at the site. Further
emergency actions will be taken to address the threat of accidental contact with and off-site
migration of acids and heavy metals from the pits. The pits will be pumped down again, and
the fence will be repaired while final cleanup activities continue.
Site Repository
Edmondson City Hall, 502 Waterford Street, Edmondson, AR 72662
March 1992 8 GURLEY PIT
-------
INDUSTRIAL
CONTROL
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980496368
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Sebastian County
8 miles southeast of Fort Smith,
1 mile west of Jenny Und
The Industrial Waste Control (IWC) site is located on 8 acres and is a closed and covered
industrial landfill. The site is located in a strip mine that was abandoned and then used for
local dumping. The site was operated by IWC under permit from 1974 to 1978. Industries
used it to dispose of a wide variety of liquid and solid wastes. IWC built several ponds on the
site for liquid wastes, and as many as 9,000 drums of waste also may have been buried there.
In 1979, heavy rainfall flooded the waste ponds, contaminating nearby pastures and ponds.
Fish kills were reported, and local landowners filed for damages. As a result, the State closed
the site in 1978. The landfill areas were covered with soil and were graded, and the site is
partially covered with natural vegetation. The site is located in a rural area. Eighteen homes
lie within 1/2 mile, and the nearest residence and well are 200 feet away.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments and soil were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals including chromium,
nickel, and lead. Because the site was not being used, there was no immediate
health risk from human contact with contaminated soil or water. However, future
use of the site or future migration of contaminants was of concern. No
contaminants existed in usable water sources, although it was possible that buried
drums would disintegrate in the ground, releasing additional wastes that could have
percolated through the soil and threatened groundwater. The possibility of
groundwater contamination spreading through the interconnections between the
extensive underground mine workings to the north and the surface strip mine
under the site was a major concern.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in one long-term remedial phase focusing on source control and
groundwater protection.
Response Action Status
Source Control and Groundwater Protection: The remedies selected for the
IWC site included: removing about 3,000 liquid-filled drums for EPA-approved
disposal off site; excavating about 20,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, which
will be stabilized and redeposited in the excavations; building an underground barrier wall of
slurry to prevent contaminant movement; installing a french drain (in this case, a perforated
pipe at the bottom of a trench surrounded by sand and gravel filters) for collecting and
diverting groundwater around the site to avoid contamination; building ditches and berms to
prevent surface water from flowing onto the site; removing groundwater found during
excavation to an off-site hazardous waste facility or treating it on site, as appropriate;
covering the site with a multi-layered cap consisting of a synthetic liner, clay, sand, soil, and
plants; installing a fence and imposing land use restrictions; and monitoring groundwater and
assessing the site every five years for remedy effectiveness. These cleanup actions were
completed in 1990. The final inspection of the site was completed in 1991.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in 1989 with the Steering Committee for the
parties potentially responsible for site contamination to implement the selected cleanup
actions.
Environmental Progress
Removal of contaminated materials, installation of barriers to prevent water movement and
other cleanup actions have eliminated the threat to human health and the environment from
the Industrial Waste Control site. A Site Close Out Report was issued in 1992.
Site Repository
Fort Smith Public Library, 61 South Eight Street, Fort Smith, AR 72076
March 1992 10 INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL
-------
JACKSONVILL
MUNICIPAL LA
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980809941
EPA REGION 6
Pulaski County
Graham Road
east of Jacksonville
Other Names:
Graham Road Landfill
Site Description
The Jacksonville Municipal Landfill site consists of 80 acres bought by the City in 1960 and
operated as a municipal landfill until 1973. Forty of the 80 acres are contaminated. The
landfill had no permit and kept no records of the wastes it accepted. The site was closed
when the State turned down its permit application. The site came to the EPA's attention in
1983, when citizens complained that the landfill had been accepting hazardous wastes. A
former county employee maintains that wastes at first were burned, but odor complaints
prompted a change to dumping wastes into unlined trenches as deep as 25 feet. No cover was
applied over disposed hazardous wastes. Drums of industrial and chemical waste also were
accepted. The site is within 1/2 mile of the Rogers Road Landfill, which is also listed on the
NPL. The property floods during heavy rainfall. Groundwater in the area is as little as 5 feet
below the ground surface. About 10,000 people live nearby; they draw drinking water from
public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. The nearest private well is 1,320 feet from
the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Soil contamination appears to be restricted to the drum areas on the site; there is
no off-site contamination. Principal contaminants include TCDD (dioxin),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and herbicides. The landfill floods during heavy
rains, contaminating surface water with herbicides. The site was unrestricted, and
children were seen playing on it until 1985. The water table is shallow, and the site
is poorly drained. The potential exists for exposure through direct contact with
hazardous materials and soils on site. Contaminated water could leave the site
because no runoff controls exist.
11
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The City of Jacksonville installed a fence around the site in
1986.
Entire Site: The EPA completed an investigation of the site in 1990. During the
investigation, workers installed 20 groundwater monitoring wells, and these, as well
as residential wells, were sampled. This assessment indicated hazardous chemicals
are restricted to the site. The EPA selected a remedy for cleanup of the site, which entails
thermal treatment of wastes and ash disposal at the Vertac Chemical Corporation, capping of
residual wastes on site, long-term groundwater monitoring, and site maintenance. The
engineering design for the cleanup activities is scheduled to begin in 1993, with cleanup
scheduled to begin later that same year.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the site has reduced the potential of exposure to contaminants at the Jacksonville
J^andfill while the design of a final cleanup solution is being planned.
Site Repository
Jacksonville City Hall, 1 Industrial Drive, Jacksonville, AR 72076
March 1992 12 JACKSONVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
-------
MID-SOUTH
PRODUCTS
ARKANSAS
EPAID# ARD092916188
EPA REGION 6
Polk County
1/2 mile southwest of Mena
between Hwy. 71 and Hwy. 375
Other Names:
Mid-South Lumber Products
Site Description
The 57-acre Mid-South Wood Products site currently operates as a wood treatment plant.
Originally it was a post and pole factory in the late 1930s. Wood treating operations with
pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote were conducted between 1967 and 1977. The site
involves several areas, among these are the Old Plant area that was used to treat wood with
PCP and creosote and the Small Old Pond that received these chemicals as wastes. Both of
these areas have been covered with soil. The Old Pond area was used to store PCP and
creosote sludge and since has been graded and covered with soil. Materials from the Old
Pond were spread over the landfarm areas and mixed into the soil. The landfill area contains
waste wood products. Clear Lake receives runoff from all the other areas. In 1977, the
chromated copper arsenate process was introduced at the plant. It still is being used, and
surface drainage from the plant is put in sumps. Approximately 40 to 50 people live on 18
properties next to the site; 14 wells are located nearby. About 5,700 people are served by
drinking water wells within a mile of the site. Investigations of the plant began in 1976, when
several fish kills were reported downstream of the site. Valuable stream fisheries are located
near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, standing surface water, soil, and sediments were contaminated
with PCP, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals including
arsenic and chromium. The people served by drinking water wells risked exposure
to contaminated groundwater. These residents have now been connected to an
uncontaminated public water supply. The surface water contamination initially
affected valuable stream fisheries in the area of the site; however, cleanup
activities have addressed the contamination and the fisheries are no longer
threatened.
13
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Homes to the northwest of the site, the direction of groundwater
flow, have been connected to the Mena city water system.
Soil and Groundwater Treatment: Studies of site contamination and potential
remedies were completed in 1986. The selected remedies include: excavating,
consolidating, and stabilizing contaminated soils and placing them in the North
Landfarm area; covering the North Landfarm area with a clay cap to keep out water; locating
free oil, liquids, or sludges in the Old Pond area and stabilizing them in place; installing a
french drain system to channel water to the groundwater treatment system; and cleaning up
the groundwater treatment facility. The potentially responsible parties undertook both the
design work and the cleanup actions at the Mid-South Wood Products site. The soil cleanup
phase is completed, and the groundwater recovery and treatment system has been built and is
currently operating. Groundwater is pumped from recovery wells and treated with activated
carbon. Any resulting oils or sludges from the groundwater treatment are disposed of off site
and the cleaned water is discharged to East Fork Moon Creek. Groundwater too highly
contaminated with inorganics to discharge is recycled and used as process water in the wood
treatment plant. Groundwater monitoring measures the effectiveness of cleanup activities.
The parties potentially responsible for site contamination maintain the site, inspect it and
continue to clean the groundwater. The treatment of the groundwater is still ongoing. The
EPA will review remedy effectiveness every five years. The first five-year review is scheduled
to be conducted in 1993.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for contamination of the site signed a
Consent Decree to perform the cleanup remedy in 1987.
Environmental Progress
Providing a safe drinking water source and cleaning up the contaminated soil has reduced
contamination levels at the Mid-South Wood Products site. Construction of a groundwater
extraction and treatment system is complete and groundwater treatment is ongoing.
Site Repository
Polk County Library, 410 Eighth Street, Mena, AR 71953
March 1992 14 MID-SOUTH WOOD PRODUCTS
-------
MIDLAND
PRODUCTS
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980745665
EPA REGION 6
Yell County
1/2 mile east of Ola
on Hwy. 10
Other Names:
Old Midland Product* Company
Site Description
The Midland Products site is a 38-acre wood treating facility and sawmill that operated from
1969 to 1979 and now is bankrupt and abandoned. The site is contaminated from past
activities, especially in the 3-acre area where the wood treatment facilities and liquid waste
lagoons are located. The processes involved pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote. Most of
the contamination is in the soils and sediments in and around the lagoon area. Runoff paths
from the lagoon area feed into an intermittent stream that flows off site. Contaminated oil
was found in the shallow groundwater but has not moved off site. Approximately 190 people
live in this agricultural area. A home adjoins the southwest corner of the site; the nearest
drinking well is 400 feet west, and residents within a 3-mile radius depend on private wells.
The Petit Jean State Wildlife Management Area is 1 mile north of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, lagoon sediments, and soil are contaminated with PCP,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, and furans from wood treating
operations. People could be exposed to the contaminants through direct contact
with or accidental ingestion of contaminated materials. A nearby chicken farm and
other nearby commercial establishments may be threatened by the contaminated
site runoff.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at soil and
groundwater cleanup.
15
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Soil and Groundwater Cleanup: Studies of possible cleanup actions were
completed in 1987. The selected remedies at this site include: (1) collecting
contaminated lagoon liquids and stormwater runoff and treating the liquids using
carbon adsorption; (2) installing four groundwater recovery wells with oil removal systems,
pumping at an accelerated rate, and treating the groundwater by carbon adsorption;
(3) excavating the contaminated soils, sediments, and sludges from the lagoons and drainage-
ways and destroying these wastes using on-site incineration; and (4) placing the clean ash on
site and covering it with a vegetated soil cover. Engineering design of the selected remedies
was completed in 1990, and cleanup is underway. The State is taking the lead on site cleanup,
with assistance from the EPA.
Environmental Progress
After listing the site on the NPL and performing interim studies, the EPA determined that
the site does not require immediate actions to protect nearby residents or the environment.
The EPA concluded that the Midland Products site does not pose a threat while cleanup
activities are being completed.
Site Repository
Ola City Hall, East Fourche Avenue, Ola, AR 72853
March 1992
16
MIDLAND PRODUCTS
-------
MONROE AU
EQUIPMENT
(PARAGOULC
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD980864110
EPA REGION 6
Greene County
Paragould
Site Description
The Monroe Auto Equipment Co. (Paragould Pit), site covers 4 acres of a former sand and
gravel borrow pit that includes a 1 acre disposal area in Paragould. In 1973, the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control gave the company temporary approval to dispose of
electroplating sludges in the pit. Approximately 15,400 cubic yards of sludge containing iron,
nickel, chromium, zinc, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) used as degreasers was
buried between 1973 and 1978. Testing conducted in 1987 and 1988 of on-site monitoring
wells and a private drinking water well 300 feet downgradient of the pit, detected VOC
contamination. The testing also showed that the monitoring wells are contaminated with
metals. The property is no longer inhabited nor is the well in use. The site is surrounded by a
6-foot chain link fence with barbed wire and a locked access gate. The area around the site is
rural and lightly populated with private residences to the south, north, and northeast.
Approximately 1000 people obtain drinking water from private wells within three miles of the
site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/25/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and metals such as arsenic, nickel, and
lead. Soils contain VOCs and the metals chromium and lead. People who come
into direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or soil
may be at risk.
17
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, an initial study was conducted and identified groundwater
contamination on site and well contamination 300 feet off site. There is, however,
no threat of contact with the contaminated water. A study to determine the nature
and extent of groundwater contamination began in 1991. The study will identify cleanup
options for final remedy selection for the site. The investigation is planned for completion in
early 1994.
Site Facts: In March 1991, the EPA sent a Special Notice letter to the potentially
responsible parties. In June 1991, an Administrative Order on Consent was signed requiring
Monroe Auto Equipment to perform the site investigation.
Environmental Progress
The EPA conducted initial investigations and has determined that the site does not pose an
immediate threat to area residents. The EPA has determined that no further actions are
required while an investigation is underway at the Monroe Auto Equipment Co. site to
identify final cleanup remedies.
Site Repository
Northeast Arkansas Regional Library, Green County Library, 120 North 12th Street,
Paragould, AR 72450
March 1992 18 MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT CO.
(PARAGOULD PIT)
-------
POPILE, IN
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD00805250
EPA REGION 6
Union County
El Dorado
Site Description
The Popile, Inc. is a 40-acre site on the east side of Southfield Road 1/4 of a mile before the
intersection of U.S. Highway 82. The property is bordered by the CRI&P Railroad on the
east and Bayou de Loutre, a perennial creek, on the north. A woodland area is south,
upgradient to the site, and wetlands are 1 mile downstream, extending about 14 stream miles.
The Bayou de Loutre, a commonly used fishing area, and a downstream boat ramp receive
drainage from the site. In 1947, El Dorado Creosote Co., the parent company of Popile, Inc.,
began treating wood at the 40-acre property using pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote. El
Dorado Pole & Piling Company purchased the property in 1956 and began using three
surface impoundments as part of the wastewater treatment process in 1976. The wood
treatment operations ceased in July 1982. In September 1982, Popile bought approximately 7
1/2 acres of the property including the surface impoundments and a large area known as the
Salt Flat. In 1984, Popile closed the three impoundments. The El Dorado Aquifer, located
between 700 and 1,000 feet below the surface, services an estimated 26,300 people. The City
of El Dorado obtains its drinking water from this source from public and private wells located
within 4 miles of the site. The nearest well is within a mile of the site. The shallow
groundwater, located between 0 and 200 feet below the surface, is primarily used for
commercial livestock watering.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal action.
NPL Listing History
Proposed Date: 02/07/92
Threats and Contaminants
On-site soil and sediments collected off-site, where site drainage enters Bayou de
Loutre, are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), various
creosotes including PCPs, and other chemicals associated with the wood-treatment
process.
19
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two phases: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: From September 1990 to May 1991, the EPA removed
waste material from these four areas and buried it just south of the
impoundment. During this time, the EPA also addressed the leaking contaminants
from the closed impoundments, the wood-treatment facility, a nearby impoundment that
collects surface water drainage from the treatment area, and the Salt Flat.
Entire Site: The EPA conducted an initial analysis in October of 1989, which
identified contaminants in the on-site soil. The site was chosen to be addressed as
a pilot project to demonstrate ways to accelerate the final cleanup process. The
investigation began in 1991 to determine the nature and extent of the contaminated soil on
site. The investigation as well as the selection of alternative cleanup options and the design
phase of the chosen remedies are all expected to be completed by early 1993.
Environmental Progress
The removal of waste materials and the measures taken to address the leaking contaminants
have reduced potential human health and safety risks while further investigations into final
cleanup remedies are underway.
Site Repository
Not established.
March 1992 20 POPILE, INC.
-------
ROGERS RO
MUNICIPAL U
ARKANSAS
EPA ID#ARD981055809
EPA REGION 6
Pulaski County
ers Road, east of Jacksonville
Site Description
The Rogers Road Landfill is a 10-acre site that was purchased by the City of Jacksonville in
1953 and operated as a municipal landfill until 1974. The landfill accepted industrial and
chemical waste in addition to municipal waste. The landfill closed when the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology turned down an application for a permit. The
site is located 1/2 mile to the west of the Jacksonville Municipal Landfill, which also has been
listed on the NPL. The area around the site is heavily wooded and the site itself is overgrown
with vegetation. In 1985, the EPA inspected the site and found about 30 deteriorating drums,
which gave off a strong chemical odor. Contaminated soils were found around the drums and
lagoons, as well as the runoff paths. The landfill has no liner, and drainage is poor, allowing
water to collect. The groundwater is shallow, at a depth of 5 feet. Wastes were deposited as
deep as 20 feet. An estimated 10,000 people draw drinking water from public and private
wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, municipal, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
On-site soil and the waste sludge from drums are contaminated with herbicides,
dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and trichloroethene. The potential exists
for contamination of an aquifer used as a drinking water supply. People are at risk
through direct contact or accidental ingestion of contaminated soils on site.
21
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action to limit site access and a long-
term remedial phase centered on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA initially inspected the site in 1985. In early 1986,
the City of Jacksonville fenced the site to prevent public access.
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA chose a remedy to clean up the contamination at
the site, which includes thermal treatment and ash disposal at the Vertac
. -——~. Chemical Corporation, capping of residual waste on site, long-term groundwater
monitoring, and site maintenance. Engineering designs of the remedy are scheduled to begin
in late 1992.
Site Facts: An inquiry from a concerned citizen led the EPA to inspect this landfill in 1985.
Environmental Progress
Installation of a fence surrounding the site has reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Rogers Road Landfill site, making it safer while final cleanup
activities are designed and implemented.
Site Repository
Jacksonville City Hall, 1 Industrial Drive, Jacksonville, AR 72076
March 1992
22
ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
-------
VERTAC, IN
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD000023440
EPA REGION 6
Pulaski County
Western edge of Jacksonville,
15 miles northeast of Little Rock
Site Description
Since 1948, pesticides were manufactured at the 92-acre Vertac, Inc. site. The company
ceased operations in 1986. The abandoned manufacturing facility includes many tanks,
buildings, and contaminated soil and groundwater. Two landfill areas on site were
contaminated by past owners using them for disposal of wastes. Dioxin-contaminated
wastewater from this facility contaminated three discharge areas, including the Rocky Branch
Creek, the Old Waste Water Treatment Plant, and the West Waste Water Treatment Plant.
The wastewater collection lines and treatment plants and off-site soils and sediments of rocky
Branch Creek all contain measurable levels of dioxin. Inadequate waste disposal methods and
production controls also resulted in soil and surface water contamination by insecticides,
herbicides, and chlorinated phenols. The site's surface is drained by Rocky Branch Creek, to
Bayou Meto, and to the Arkansas River. Contamination has been documented by the U.S.
Department of Interior in Bayou Meto, which passes through the Arkansas Bayou Meto
Wildlife Management Area, including contaminants such as dioxin, pesticides, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The nearest residences are to the south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site and off-site soil and on-site groundwater are contaminated with
insecticides, herbicides, chlorinated phenols, and dioxin from past disposal activities
at the site. Possible health hazards include accidental ingestion of or direct contact
with the contaminants.
23
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in six stages: immediate actions and five long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the landfill area, off-site areas cleanup, groundwater and soil
cleanup, disposal of barrels of waste, and cleanup of the storage tanks and buildings.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, under the terms of an Administrative Order from
the EPA, the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination installed a
fence around Rocky Branch, which is located near the site. The EPA re-barreled
(overpacked) the drummed wastes on site to prevent further leakage and, in 1988, again
under EPA orders, the responsible parties removed soil from contaminated residential areas.
The overpacking of corroded drums is still in process and is scheduled to be completed in
1993. To date, 28,500 drums have been overpacked.
Landfill Area: Site studies began here in 1983, when the EPA, the State, and the
Department of Justice asked the potentially responsible parties to investigate site
contaminants and undertake cleanup. The remedies selected included construction
of a slurry wall and french drain system to prevent contaminants from moving off the landfill
areas, repair of existing clay caps over covered areas of the landfill, and closure of a cooling
water pond. The potentially responsible parties performed both the engineering design and
completed the cleanup between 1984 and 1986.
Off-Site Areas: In 1990, the EPA completed a study of the nature and extent of
contamination in off-site areas. A remedy was selected that entails demolition of
the old treatment plant, the west treatment plant, and the aeration basin and
dikes, and covering the area with 12 inches of clean soil. The remedy also includes
incineration of flood plain soils and Rocky Branch Creek sediments.
Groundwater and Soil: The former owner is investigating the nature and extent
of groundwater and surface soil contamination at the site. Completion of the
investigation is expected in 1993.
Barrels of Waste: The State of Arkansas evaluated various methods of disposal
of the 30,000 barrels of waste and contracted for the waste to be incinerated on
site. The EPA is providing support services for the project including air monitoring,
ash disposal, and delivery of the drums to the incinerator. The incineration process presently
is ongoing and is expected to be completed in late 1993.
Storage Tanks and Buildings: The former owner is conducting this portion of
the on-site study, which includes the aboveground storage tanks and their contents,
the buildings, and contaminated debris left on site. The study has been completed,
and the EPA is currently evaluating alternative cleanup remedies. The final remedy is
scheduled to be selected in late 1992.
March 1992 24 VERTAC, INC.
-------
Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA, the State of Arkansas, and the Department of Justice
negotiated a Consent Decree with Vertac, Inc., requiring the company to conduct a site
investigation and to perform cleanup activities. In 1989, the EPA and Hercules, Inc., one of
the former owners, signed an Administrative Order, under which Hercules would perform an
on-site study to determine the nature and extent of site contamination. In 1988, Hercules
removed contaminated soil from residential areas under an Administrative Order.
Environmental Progress
The numerous cleanup actions performed to date have reduced the further spread of
contaminants and the threat of exposure to dioxin wastes from the tanks and drums on site.
The Vertac, Inc. site is safer while further studies aimed at identifying further cleanup actions
and current cleanup actions are continuing.
Site Repository
Jacksonville City Hall, 1 Industrial Drive, Jacksonville, AR 72076
VERTAC, INC.
25
March 1992
-------
WEST ME
LANDFILL
ARKANSAS
EPA ID# ARD9804967
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Crittenden County
West Memphis
Other Names:
South 8th Street Landfill
West Memphis Landfill is 30-acre fresh water wetland located in a mixed industrial,
agricultural, and residential area along the bank of the Mississippi River. The site served as
an uncontrolled dump from the mid-1950s until it closed in 1979. It remains unsecured and
illicit dumping continues. South 8th Street, the only access road from town to the Mississippi
River, runs through West Memphis Landfill. Seven waste pits and two waste ponds are
located on-site. The pits reportedly received oil and grease sludge, sewage sludge,
construction debris, chemical paint wastes, and general household wastes. No records were
kept of the amount or type of the disposed wastes. In 1981, 89 drums containing volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) were removed from the banks of the Mississippi River. Some of
these drums had leaked. The site lies within the one year floodplain of the Mississippi River.
From 1950 to 1959 the Mississippi flooded; EPA reports show that floods in 1983, 1984, 1985,
1990, and 1991 brought hazardous substances from the surface of one or more sources at the
site into direct contact with the waters of the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River is used
for commercial fishing. The Ensley Bar, a recognized habitat for an endangered species, is
approximately 4 miles downstream from the site. Five municipal wells within 4 miles of the
site, including a Wellhead Protection Area designated under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
provide drinking water to an estimated 28,000 people. The wells draw from the Wilcox
Aquifer approximately 1,300 feet below the surface. Groundwater is used for preparing soft
drinks. An estimated 30,400 people live within 4 miles of the property.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL Listing History
Proposed Date: 02/01/92
Threats and Contaminants
On-site pits are contaminated with VOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and heavy metals.
On-site ambient air was found to contain VOCs. Possible threats include inhaling
the contaminated air or ingesting contaminated fish caught in the Mississippi River.
26
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1981, 89 drums were removed from the banks of the
Mississippi River. A fence is scheduled to be constructed in the summer of 1992
to secure the site from continued public access. A site inspection is also scheduled
to determine whether the large oily waste pit needs to be addressed prior to the selection of
final cleanup remedies.
Entire Site: EPA conducted sampling of the waste pits in October of 1988. The
results of this study indicated that on-site sources were carrying contamination to
the Mississippi River during floods. A more detailed investigation is scheduled to
begin in mid-1992 to determine the nature and extent of contamination at the entire site. The
study will identify alternative cleanup options for the site. The investigation is scheduled to be
completed in 1994.
Environmental Progress
The construction of a fence to limit public access to the site and the removal of the drums
containing hazardous substances from the banks of the Mississippi River have reduced the
potential human health and safety risks while further investigations into final cleanup
remedies are being planned.
Site Repository
Not established.
WEST MEMPHIS LANDFILL
27
March 1992
-------
GLOSSARY
Terms Used in the NPL Book
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. A table of common
toxic chemicals found at NPL sites, their sources, and their potential threats is located
on page G-15
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical manu-
facturing. Acids in high concentration can be
very corrosive and react with many inorganic
and organic substances. These reactions possi-
bly may create toxic compounds 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). This type of Order is not signed by the
PRPs and does not require approval by a judge.
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown
of contaminants in soil or water by exposing
them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis-
ease Registry (ATSDR): The Federal
agency within the U.S. Public Health Service
charged with carrying out the health-related
responsibilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air
through the contaminated material in a pressur-
ized 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.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs): Federal, State, or
local laws which apply to Superfund activities at
NPL sites. Both emergency and long-term
actions must comply with these laws or provide
sound reasons for allowing a waiver. ARARs
must be identified for each site relative to the
characteristics of the site, the substances found
at the site, or the cleanup alternatives being
considered for the site.
G-1
-------
GLOSSARY
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 percent or
more of the drinking water of an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling into
the earth until water is reached, which, due to
internal pressure, flows up like a fountain.
Asbestos: A mineral fiber that can pollute air
or water and is known to cause cancer or
asbestosis when inhaled.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring process
by which a compound is reduced in concentra-
tion over time through adsorption, degradation,
dilution, 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
removing 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, forming salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used
to prevent the migration of contaminants.
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 contaminated
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 else-
where.
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 ground-
water 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 organic
G-2
-------
GLOSSARY
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 Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitoring,
and analysis of a site to determine the extent and
nature of toxic releases. Characterization
provides the basis for acquiring the necessary
technical information to develop, screen, ana-
lyze, and select appropriate cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the poten-
tial 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 inter-
changeably 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. Also, 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 communication
with the public. The goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related actions,
assuring public input into decision-making
processes related to affected communities, and
making certain that the Agency is aware of, and
responsive to, public concerns. Specific com-
munity relations activities are required in
relation to Superfund cleanup actions [see
Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 19X0 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 together.
Confined Aquifer: An aquifer in which
groundwater is confined under pressure that is
significantly greater than atmospheric pressure.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
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, or the costs incurred by the govern-
ment that the parties will reimburse, and the
roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. If a settlement between the EPA and a
potentially responsible party includes cleanup
actions, it must be in the form of a Consent
Decree. A Consent 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 structure,
typically in a pond or a lagoon, to prevent the
migration of contaminants into the environment.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or substance
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 radioac-
tive materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract
between 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 pre-
serving operations and produced by distilla-
tion of tar, including polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Con-
taminating 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 embank-
ment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a chemi-
cal is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Deletion: A site is eligible for deletion from
the NPL when Superfund response actions at the
site are complete. A site is deleted from the
NPL when a notice is published in the Federal
Register.
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.
G-4
-------
GLOSSARY
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Dioxin: An organic chemical by-product of
pesticide manufacture which is known to be one
of the most toxic man-made chemicals.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materials.
Disposal may be accomplished through the use
of approved secure landfills, surface impound-
ments, land fanning, deep well injection, or
incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradi-
ent of a contaminated groundwater source are
prone to receiving pollutants.
Ecological Assessment: A study of the
impact of man-made or natural activity on living
creatures and their environment
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 facili-
ties.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil and
water.
Endangerment Assessment: A study
conducted 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; 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 Recov-
ery].
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. In this
volume, the feasibility study is referred to as a
site study [see also Remedial Investigation].
G-5
-------
GLOSSARY
Filtration: A treatment process for remov-
ing 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.
General Notice Letter: [See Notice Letter].
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter, made
by a potentially responsible party, consisting of
a written proposal demonstrating a potentially
responsible party's qualifications and willing-
ness to perform a site study or cleanup.
Groundwater: 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. Hazardous waste
possesses at least one of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxic-
ity), or appears on special EPA lists.
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high
atomic weights, such as arsenic, lead, mercury,
and cadmium. Heavy metals are very hazardous
even at low concentrations and tend to accumu-
late in the food chain.
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to
control or destroy plants, weeds, or grasses.
G-6
-------
GLOSSARY
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site contain-
ing exceptionally high levels of contamination.
Hydrocarbons: Chemical compounds that
consist entirely of hydrogen and carbon.
Hydrology: The properties, distribution, and
circulation of water.
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 controlled
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 precipita-
tion (rain or snow) or from application of
wastewater 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 sub-
stances of mineral origin, not of basic carbon
structure.
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,
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 or incor-
porate 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 chemi-
cal landfills are disposal sites for hazardous
waste. They are designed to minimize the
chance of release of hazardous substances into
the environment [see Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act].
Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by
which soluble chemical components are dis-
solved and carried through soil by water or
some other percolating liquid.
G-7
-------
GLOSSARY
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through
or drains from waste, carrying soluble compo-
nents from the waste.
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
complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into several of these phases.
Long-term Response Action: An action
which requires a continuous period of on-site
activity before cleanup goals are achieved.
These actions typically include the extraction
and treatment of groundwater and monitoring
actions.
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, con-
taminants, 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 controlling
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 which
groundwater flows and the types and amounts of
contaminates present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The
EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites identified
for possible long-term cleanup under Super-
fund. The EPA is required to update the NPL
at least once a year.
Natural Attenuation: [See Attenuation].
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Water is the most
commonly known neutral, however, naphtha-
lene, pyrene, and trichlorobenzene also 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 potentially respon-
sible parties, although the EPA may undertake
certain investigatory and planning activities.
G-8
-------
GLOSSARY
The 60-day period may be extended if the EPA
receives a good faith offer from the PRPs
within that period. [See also Good Faith Offer].
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, hydrogen, 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 may be 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.
Pesticide: A substance or mixture of sub-
stances intended to prevent, destroy, or repel any
pest. If misused, pesticides can accumulate in
the foodchain and contaminate the environment.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery operations
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 poison-
ous.
Physical Chemical Separation: The
treatment process of adding a chemical to a
substance 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 determine
its ability to clean up specific contaminants.
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 movement
of the groundwater is influenced by such factors
as local groundwater flow patterns, the character
of the aquifer in which groundwater is con-
tained, 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.
G-9
-------
GLOSSARY
Poly cyclic 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 creosotes 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 caulking
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. PCS use and
sale was banned in 1979 with the passage of the
Toxic Substances Control Act
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive organic
compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride. PVC
is used to make pipes, records, raincoats, and
floor tiles. Health risks from high concentra-
tions 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 associated with a Superfund site who
may be liable for the cost of remedying the
release of hazardous substances. This may
include owners or operators of the site or trans-
porters who disposed of materials at the site.
PRPs may admit liability, or liability may be
determined by a court of law. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in the site cleanup without
admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid portions
can be disposed of safely; the removal of
particles from airborne emissions. Electro-
chemical 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 information
about a known or suspected waste site or release
to determine if a threat or potential threat exists.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and the
removal of contaminants, using one of several
treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to their
unstable atomic structure. Some are man-made,
and others are naturally occurring in the envi-
ronment. 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. Radiation also occurs naturally through
the breakdown of granite.
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.
G-10
-------
GLOSSARY
Record of Decision (ROD): A public
document 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 con-
struction 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 contamina-
tion at a Superfund site, establish the criteria
for cleaning up the site, identify the prelimi-
nary alternatives for cleanup actions, and
support the technical and cost analyses of the
alternatives. The remedial investigation is
usually done with the feasibility study. In this
volume, the remedial investigation is referred
to as a site study [see also Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at the 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 without
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 re-
maining in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or the particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubber.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA): A Federal law that established
a regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons the
store waste.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contaminants
from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution control 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.
G-11
-------
GLOSSARY
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 the 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 neces-
sary for choosing and designing cleanup mea-
sures 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 subsurface
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 smelters
are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment
process that uses vacuum wells to remove
hazardous gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to remove
undesirable materials. There are two ap-
proaches: dissolving or suspending them in the
wash solution for later treatment by conven-
tional methods, and concentrating them into a
smaller volume of soil through simple particle
size separation techniques [see Solvent Extrac-
tion].
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
hazardous constituents. Mobility is reduced
through the binding of hazardous constituents
into a solid mass with low permeability and
resistance to leaching.
G-12
-------
GLOSSARY
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
attracting substances. It is used in many
pollution control systems.
Special Notice Letter: [See Notice Let-
ter].
Still bottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air Strip-
ping].
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 re-
leases of hazardous substances that may endan-
ger public health, welfare, or the environment
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, including
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 Wetlands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil, etc.,
to determine whether and how well the method
will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contaminated
areas and, therefore, are not prone to contamina-
tion 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.
G-13
-------
GLOSSARY
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 poten-
tially toxic chemicals are used as solvents,
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 pollut-
ants 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.
G-14
-------
GLOSSARY
Some Common Contaminants at NPL Sites
Contaminant
Category
Example
Chemical Types
Sources
Potential Health
Threats*
Heavy Mefetfs
Volatile Organic
Compounds
(VOCs)
Herbicides
pQlydtforioated
Creosotes
Radiation
(RadionuclScfes}
Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium,
Cadmium, Cobalt, Copper,
Chromium, Lead, Manga-
nese, Mercury, Nickel,
Silver, Selenium, Zinc
Trichloroethylene (TCE),
Perchloroethylene (PCE),
Acetone, Benzene,
Ketone, Methyl chloride,
Toluene, Vinyl Chloride,
Dichlorethylene
Chlordane, DDT 4-4, DDE,
Heptachlor, Aldrin, Endrin,
Atrazine, Dieldrin, Toxa-
phene
Polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs), Polynuclear
aromatics (PNAs),
Phenolic Tars, Pentachlo-
rophenol (PCP)
Radium-226, Radon,
Uranium-235, Uranium-
238
Electroplating, batteries,
paint pigments, photogra-
phy, smelting, thermom-
eters, fluorescent lights,
solvent recovery
Solvents and degreasers,
gasoline octane enhanc-
ers, oils and paints, dry
cleaning fluids, chemical
manufacturing.
Agricultural applications,
pesticide and herbicide
production
Electric transformers and
capacitors, insulators and
coolants, adhesives,
caulking compounds,
carbonless copy paper,
hydraulic fluids.
Wood preserving, fossil
fuel combustion
Mine tailings, radium
products, natural decay of
granites
Tumors, cancers, and kidney,
brain, neurological, bone and
liver damage
Cancers, kidney and liver
damage, impairment of the
nervous system resulting in
sleepiness and headaches,
leukemia
Various effects ranging from
nausea to nervous disorders.
Dioxin is a common by-product
of the manufacture of pesti-
cides and is both highly toxic
and a suspected carcinogen.
Cancer and liver damage.
Cancers and skin ulcerations
with prolonged exposure
Cancer
Sources:
Toxic Chemicals—What They Are, How They Affect You (EPA, Region 5)
Glossary of Environmental Terms (EPA, 1988)
'The potential tor risk due to these contaminants is linked to a number of factors; for example, the length and level of exposure
and environmental and health factors such as age
G-15
* U.S. G.P.O.:1993-341-835:81044
------- |