&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(5102 G)
SUPERFUND:
EPA/540/R-93/039
December 1992
PB93-963241
Progress at
National
Priority
List Sites
TENNESSEE
1992 UPDATE
-------
Publication #9200.5-7416
December 1992
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Tennessee
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management v
Washington, DC 20460 &w^"«*?* *
Region 5. l»W «£j™,. 12m Floor
77 West Jackson v Q
Chicago, IL t>uo
-------
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
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.
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.
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;
• 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
EPA REGION XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Threats and Contaminants
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
Site Repository
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.
xiii
-------
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
-------
(f. Major OtM
• NPLSttM
Superfund
Activities
in Tennessee
The State of Tennessee is located within EPA Region 4, which includes the eight south-
eastern States. The State covers 42,144 square miles. According to the 1990 Census, Tennes-
see experienced a 6 percent increase in population between 1980 and 1990, and is ranked
seventeenth in U.S. population with approximately 4,877,000 residents.
The Tennessee Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983, most recently amended in
1991, establishes the Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Fund and authorizes the State to take
or compel polluters to take cleanup actions. The statute states that all polluters are liable for
damages posed by the hazards regardless of fault. In the event that the State's cost are not
recovered, the statute authorizes the State to place liens on property as a means of payment. In
practice, the State may issue orders for information, access, and cleanup response; assess civil
penalties; and impose punitive damages of up to 150 percent of the State's costs. In addition to
the 10 percent contribution required from the State by the Federal Superfund program, State
funding also is available for emergency response, removal and long-term cleanup actions,
studies and designs, and operation and maintenance activities. To keep the community in-
volved, a public meeting is required to allow participation in the remedy selection process.
Hearings also are required prior to adding or deleting a site from the State priority list. Cur-
rently, 14 sites in the State of Tennessee have been listed as final on the NPL. One new site was
proposed for listing in 1992.
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
implements the Superfund Program in the State of Tennessee
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
Tennessee include:
Wood
Production
and Treatment
Operations
Pesticide
Manufacturers
Electronics and
Electrical ,
Equipment
Manufacturers
Manufacturing
Facilities
Mining
Operations
Landfills
Federal Facilities
Facts about the 15 NPL sites
in Tennessee:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at 12
sites.
Five sites endanger sensitive environ-
ments.
Eleven sites are located near residen-
tial areas.
XVII
March 1992
-------
TENNESSEE
Most Sites Have Multiple Contaminants and
Contaminated Media:
Media Contaminated at Sites
Air
Surface
Water
Ground
water
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Sites
Contaminants Found at Sites
Percentage of Sites
VOCs
Heavy Metals
Creosotes
Pesticides/Herbicides
PCBs
Plastics
Radiation
73%
60%
27%
27%
13%
7%
7%
The Potentially Responsible
Party Pays...
In the State of Tennessee, potentially respon-
sible parties are paying for or conducting
cleanup activities at eight sites.
For Further Information on NPL Sites and Hazardous
Waste Programs in the State of Tennessee Please Contact:
EPA Region 4 Public Affairs
Office
National Response Center
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation:
Division of Superfund
EPA Region 4 Waste Management
Division
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
For information about the
Federal Superfund Program
(404) 347-3004
(800) 424-8802
(615)532-0900
(404) 347-5065
(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 (£>) 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.
^> 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.
O 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.
O 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.
O A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and cur-
rently are underway.
O 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
-------
•o
0)
0)
a
Sa
O w
3 Q.
0>
CD
(0
0)
c
c
1^
^^
o
Q)
S
C/)
^•k
Q)
+^
BC
/A
V)
*2
R^^
CO
Q.
Z
«J
Q.
C
03
0)
O
T3
^
Progress Tow
§5
o
Q. O)
3 C
>= 0
W O)
06
•n" c
« .2>
m ®
^•o
1 -3
E «
0) 01
cc to
10
OT 3
CO
0)
(A
11
c in
— at
tc
£
ra
Q
Q.
Z
C
3
O
O
0)
n
o>
•**
in
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft
\O PO
go go
R R
8 8
C^ C3
c c
E E
^7-
MADISON
HAMILTOr
CO
1
PJ
AMERICAN CREOSO1
AMNICOLA DUMP
ft
ft
ft
ft
r^
^
^
B
1
M-
SHELBY
O
O
2
tj
<
cu
O
| ARLINGTON BLENDE
ft
*
ft
ft ft
ft ft
O co
^ ^s.
C R
S 8
CT w
u- a.
SHELBY
FAYETTE
o
U
z
g
o
c
CARRIER AIR CONDF
GALLAWAY PITS
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft ft
ft
CO ON
R R R
S 2 S
•s
•3 ^ S
c c R-
tin UH £
J
MARSHAL
WAYNE
SHELBY
?"
z
i
P
oi pq
LEWISBURG DUMP
MALLORY CAPACITC
MEMPHIS DEFENSE E
ft ft
ft ft
I"-* CO
go go
£N R
S 8
^3 ^
c c
UH UL,
Z
o
LO
OQ pj
CARROLL/G
LAWRENC
^ ^
MILAN ARMY AMMO
MURRAY-OHIO DUM1
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
O PO
g^ go
o oo
So o\
G^ ^^
1 1
U- UH
W
LAWRENC
SHELBY
O
U
o
1 g.
|i§
_> l"l ^
MURRAY-OHIO MAN!
(HORSESHOE BENI
NORTH HOLLYWOOE
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ON CO
po oo
{N| ^^
~ s
•a 13
c c
U, P-
7- ^
ANDERSOl
HARDEMA
_
UJ
g
D .
Z &
O O
p u
OAK RIDGE RESERV/
VELSICOL CHEMICAI
/
/
Z
ft
ft
ft
o\
PO
o
1
u-
U
S
H
&
i
WRIGLEY CHARCOAl
/±
/\^
/ ^L
/ X
' ^%.^ ^1
Q^
la
ol-i^-
E*£|
e O
oU
U
& W)
S C
^ _ff *•* .«
„ «> £ So
*^ .tS *r; « BC
uo
•oc
g X gj _M
«5 '5 ! J£
OS ™
-«B
i>->
tA A
c/1 ^ fe
c/5 it 2 T3
C/9.B
k
\
. — J^
«2
53
1
"5,
§
S"
1
•S
-1
(3
|
~
•s:
2
£i
^
s
.&
eflects actual ,
^
§
§•
3
G
1
March 1992
XX
-------
AMERICAN
CREOSOTE
WORKS, INC.
(JACKSON PLANT)
TENNESSEE
EPA ID#TND007018799
Site Description
REGION 4
Madison County
South of Jackson
The 60-acre American Creosote Works (Jackson Plant) site was a wood-treatment plant that
began operations in the early 1930s and continued until late 1981, when the company filed
for bankruptcy. Originally, the site consisted of the treatment buildings, pressure cylinders,
boiler room tanks, oil storage tanks, tank cars, and railroad tracks. There also were four large
wastewater lagoons, two sand filter units, and drip yards. Operators used creosote and
pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat and preserve wood. Workers discharged process wastewater
directly to Old River Run until 1973, when a levee was built around the facility to contain
surface water runoff and wastewater. From 1974 to 1975, the plant installed a wastewater
treatment system. The pits created during construction of the levee were used to store
treated process water and derivative sludges. Subsequently, flooding from the accumulation of
rainfall caused the lagoons to overflow into the main process area. Jackson has a population
of more than 60,000. A city well field lies approximately 1 1/2 miles east of the site, and
several public and private wells are located within a 3-mile radius. The closest homes are
located within a mile of the site. Homes with private wells are located upgradient from the
site, a situation that lessens risk. The south fork of the Deer River, less than 1/4 mile from
the site, receives runoff from the site via Central Creek and an unnamed tributary that
follows the southern border of the site. Wetlands lying along both sides of the river support a
large variety of wildlife species.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/84
Final Date: 06/01/86
March 1992
-------
Threats and Contaminants
ZEJ
Groundwater underlying the facility and on-site soils are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy
metals from the wood-treating processes. Sediments contain PAH levels similar to
those in soils. Cleanup workers may incur a health risk if they accidentally ingest
contaminated soil or water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the water.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 30 million gallons of water from
the site, treated 500,000 gallons of contaminated water, and solidified more than
100,000 cubic yards of sludge from on-site lagoons and treatment areas. Workers
placed the solidified materials in an old lagoon and capped it with clay to await further
cleanup. In 1986, EPA emergency staff treated about 225,000 gallons of contaminated water
from the storage tanks using hydrated lime and polymers, and 28,000 gallons of oil were
consolidated in one secured tank. Workers built covers for the treatment system and open
storage tanks. In 1988, the tank area and a large portion of the site was fenced. As of 1989,
the EPA completed a modification of the drainage system on the river side of the site, an
effort being overseen by the State of Tennessee.
Entire Site: The following cleanup actions were selected in 1989 and have been
completed: (1) the contaminated soils and sludge were removed from the process
area and incinerated off site; (2) all tank liquids were treated and disposed of;
(3) a security fence was installed around the entire site; and (4) the process area was cleaned
up. Some construction debris still remains at the site. The State repaired the levee on the
river side of the site, and a sump pump and a large drainage pipe to the river were installed.
Further cleanup activities were completed in 1991. Treatability studies for the bioremediation
of surface soils are planned. Final cleanup activities are scheduled for completion in mid-
1992.
March 1992 2 AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (JACKSON PLANT)
-------
Water: Pending selection of the final remedy for cleaning up the water, the EPA
intends to sample and monitor surface water behind the levee and discharge
impounded water. Information is still being gathered to model the groundwater
flow, and the semi-confining clay layer under the site is being examined. Although studies are
still underway, the EPA plans to include removal of structures from outside the process area
and other incidental construction in the final remedy.
Site Facts: A Superfund State Contract was signed in May 1989. Meetings with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) were held concerning dike
construction and groundwater characterization. In 1989, the EPA signed an Interagency
Agreement with the USGS for a hydrogeological study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination of the groundwater at the site. In March 1990, the USGS began the field work
for this study, which is scheduled for completion in 1993.
Environmental Progress
The numerous immediate actions to treat and contain wastes and a security fence at the site
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the American Creosote
Works (Jackson Plant) site. Final source control cleanup is nearly completed, and further
investigations leading to the selection of a final groundwater remedy are taking place.
Site Repository
Jackson-Madison County Library, 433 Lafayette Street, East, Jackson, TN 38301
AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS (JACKSON PLANT) 3
March 1992
-------
AMNICOLA D
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND980729172
EPA REGION 4
Hamilton County
In Chattanooga, along the east bank
of the Tennessee River
Site Description
The 18-acre inactive Amnicola Dump site, located in Chattanooga, was used for clay mining
operations in the 1930s, and several water-filled pits were left behind. These subsequently
were used for disposal of construction debris. The City operated the dump between 1964 and
1973, incinerating waste wood on site and disposing of the ashes over 12 acres. The operation
was closed in 1973 due to concerns about unauthorized dumping and leachate seeping into
the Tennessee River. Streams of leachate containing low concentrations of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) leave the site seasonally and enter the Tennessee River; however, water
quality downstream has not been noticeably affected. The former site owner burned, stored,
and handled creosote railroad ties, activities that contributed to elevated creosote
contamination in the surface soil. The site lies in an industrial area, and about 150,000 people
live within a 2-mile radius of the site. No residential areas are in the immediate vicinity, and
the nearest population center is about 1/2 mile away. The site is situated along the eastern
bank of the Tennessee River, 1/2 mile upstream from the city water intake, although no site-
related contaminants have been found in the water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, debris, and soil on the site contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and heavy metals including chromium from the incineration of waste
wood. Sediments are polluted with phenols. People can be exposed to pollutants by
coming in direct contact with contaminated soil or leachate or inhaling
contaminants that evaporate into the air. The Tennessee River flows by the site
and may be affected by contamination from the site.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected a final cleanup remedy for this site in 1989. It is
intended to reduce the risks associated with exposure to contaminated, on-site
surface soils and features: (1) excavating contaminated surface soil and debris and
screening out debris; (2) treating contaminated soil by solidifying it to keep chemicals from
moving; (3) restoring the ground surface to its original condition; (4) imposing restrictions on
groundwater use and land use; (5) quarterly groundwater monitoring for four years; and
(6) conducting a public health assessment five years after cleanup. The engineering design for
the cleanup activities began in 1989 and are scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1991, the EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination
signed a Consent Decree for these parties to take over engineering design and cleanup
activities.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Amnicola Dump site while cleanup
activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Chattanooga Hamilton County Bicentennial Library, Local History Dept., 1001 Broad St.,
Chattanooga, TN 37402
AMNICOLA DUMP 5 March 1992
-------
BLENDING
AND PACKAGIN
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980468557
Site Description —
From 1971 to 1978, the more than 2 acre Arlington Blending and Packaging site housed a
pesticide blending and packaging operation, engaged in the mixing and packaging of various
pesticides, herbicides, and other chemical formulas. During normal business operations, spills
and leaks of chemicals handled at the site occurred. These chemicals soaked into site soils
and building flooring and migrated off site through surface runoff and drain ditches. In the
mid-1970s, the State took action against the company for its violations of the Clean Water
Act, demanding that it reduce pesticide contamination in tributaries leading to the
Loosahatchie River Canal. A 1976 report was issued by the company to satisfy State
concerns. In 1979, after sampling the site and an adjacent housing development, the State
recommended that the developer install a fence between the homes and the plant and apply
1 to 2 inches of clean topsoil in the backyards of the two homes closest to the plant. Between
1980 and 1983, the site owner removed some pesticide wastes from the site. The site is
bordered by the Tennessee Department of Transportation facility to the west and a small
residential area to the east of the site. The closest home is 50 feet away. Approximately 2,700
people live within 3 miles of the site, drawing drinking water from two water systems serving
the communities of Arlington and Gallaway. An Arlington City well is within 1,200 feet of the
site. The site is in the flood plain of the Loosahatchie River Canal, which is approximately
3,000 feet due north of the site. The probable drainage route from the site leads to a nearby
canal that is used for recreation.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through NPL LISTING HIST°RY
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/07/87
In 1983, the EPA discovered high concentrations of various pesticides in on-site
soils and around the housing development. In 1985, the State detected pesticides in
a shallow monitoring well from the deteriorating bags left on the site. The three
water-bearing zones under the site are used as drinking water sources and have
the potential for contamination from pesticide residues at the site. The upper zone
is contaminated with chlordane and other pesticides. Although removal actions
have reduced the potential for exposure of people to contaminants, any remaining
groundwater contamination could threaten those who drink it.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 3,500 gallons of chemicals from
the drums, collected debris, and excavated 1,920 cubic yards of contaminated
surface soils both on and off the site. All materials were transported to EPA-
approved disposal facilities. In 1990, the EPA, while conducting an investigation, discovered a
significant concentration of pesticides in the backyard of a residence adjacent to the site.
Immediate actions included the excavation and backfilling of the affected property, which
eliminated the health risks posed to the residents.
Soil and Groundwater: In mid-1991, the EPA completed an intensive study of
soil and groundwater pollution at the site. The selected remedy includes:
excavation and decontamination of contaminated soil through on-site ex-situ
thermal desorption; placement of the treated soil in excavated areas; dechlorination of liquids
with off-site disposal; activated carbon treatment of the contaminated groundwater, with
discharge of the treated effluent into surface water; and on-side solidification of soils
containing arsenic and other trace metals. The design of the remedy began in 1992 and is
expected to be completed in late 1993.
Environmental Progress
The immediate soil and drum removal actions described above have reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Arlington Blending and Packaging site while cleanup
activities are being designed.
Site Repository
Arlington Public Library, 11968 Walker Street, Arlington, TN 38002
ARLINGTON BLENDING AND PACKAGING 7 March 1992
-------
CARRIER
CONDITIO
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND044062222
Site Description —
PA REGION 4
Shelby County
Collierville
Carrier Air Conditioning Company, part of United Technologies, manufactures air
conditioners on approximately 145 acres of land. Three releases of trichloroethylene (TCE) to
the environment have been documented. Starting in 1972, Carrier operated an unlined, 200-
cubic-foot lagoon for storage of TCE-contaminated paint sludges, which leaked from 1972 to
1980. In 1978, a filter cover failed on a vapor degreaser, spilling 2,000 to 5,000 gallons of
TCE. A third release occurred in 1985 when, following a period of heavy rainfall, an
unknown volume of TCE leaked from underground pipes. The company was able to recover
542 gallons of TCE. As a result of this spill, wells were installed at the facility to monitor the
Memphis Sands Aquifer. The Carrier facility is located within 2,000 feet of Water Plant Well
#1 of the City of Collierville. An estimated 12,800 people obtain drinking water from wells in
the aquifer within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentialty responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/16/90
Threats and Contaminants
TCE was detected in several monitoring wells at the facility in 1986 from plant
operations. Low levels of TCE were found in both wells at Water Plant #2 of the
City of Collierville. Soil samples collected at the spill site by the State in 1986
contained TCE. Direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soil may pose
risks to people on the site, as may drinking or accidentally eating contaminated
materials.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1980, Carrier removed wastes and soil from the lagoon
and sent them to an EPA-regulated hazardous waste facility. In 1990, Carrier
and the Town of Collierville designed and installed an air stripping system at the
Well Field #2 treatment plant to remove TCE from raw water and allow the town to fully
use Well Field #2.
Entire Site: In 1989, the parties potentially responsible for site contamination
began a study of the nature and extent of site contamination, along with an
assessment of techniques for site cleanup. A treatability study is underway at the
former lagoon to demonstrate that soil vapor extraction is effective in cleaning up both soil
and groundwater at the source of TCE. Studies are expected to be completed by summer
1992 at which time a final remedy will be selected.
Site Facts: The EPA and Carrier entered into an Administrative Order, requiring the
potentially responsible parties to conduct a study to determine the extent of the
contamination and to evaluate the technologies available for the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The removal of wastes and soil as well as the installation of an air stripping system, have
reduced risks to the public health and the environment at the Carrier Air Conditioning
Company while investigations are taking place.
Site Repository
Memphis Shilby County Public Library, 91 Walnut Street, Collierville, TN 38017
CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING COMPANY 9 March 1992
-------
GALLAWA
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980728992
Site Description
EPA REGION 4
Fayette County
2 miles northeast of Gallaway
Other Names:
Gallaway Dump
The Gallaway Pits site is on a 10-acre parcel of land that was extensively mined for sand and
gravel, producing a landscape dotted with water-filled pits up to 50 feet deep. The site was
used for unlicensed dumping of municipal and industrial wastes. Disposal of hazardous
materials at the site occurred for an undetermined period of time, probably in the 1970s and
1980s. Wastes included pesticides, glass jars containing solid waste, residential trash,
demolition debris, and appliances. Drums containing liquid waste were disposed of by
emptying the drums into a small pond or by placing the entire drum into the pond. The site is
underlain by sand and gravel, which facilitates the migration of the wastes on site and the
possibility of contamination of the groundwater, surface water, and the soil. Approximately 50
homes are located within 1/2 mile of the site; the closest home is 1,600 feet away. These
residents obtain drinking water from wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Soil, groundwater, and surface water were contaminated with pesticides including
chlordane and toxaphene from the former waste disposal activities. Direct contact
with and ingestion of contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil posed
potential risks to individuals.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
10
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA set up a water treatment system in 1983 to treat
water from the pits at the rate of 100 gallons per minute. Approximately 360,000
gallons of water were treated, and 475 cubic yards (66 truckloads) of soil were
removed and disposed of.
Entire Site: The EPA completed the following activities to clean up the site:
excavation of contaminated sediments from the water pits on site and dilution of
contaminated water in some water pits with the city water to meet water quality
standards. The diluted water subsequently was discharged to an unnamed tributary. In
addition, the groundwater was monitored, and a cap, designed and constructed to prevent the
migration of contaminants, was installed. A fence also was erected around the site. The EPA
completed the site cleanup in 1987 and will continue monitoring the site for 30 years.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Gallaway Pits site. The site now is safe to
nearby residents and the environment while the EPA continues to monitor the site and
prepares plans to delete it from the NPL.
Site Repository
Gallaway City Hall, 607 Watson Drive, Gallaway, TN 38036
GALLAWAY PITS
11
March 1992
-------
LEWISBURG
TENNESSEE
EPAID#TND980729115
PA REGION 4
Marshall County
1/2 mile north of Lewisburg
Site Description
The 20-acre Lewisburg Dump operated as a municipal dump for 20 to 25 years. The site
includes a 4-acre landfill and a 2-acre quarry pond. A State-sponsored geological survey found
the site unfit for use as a sanitary landfill, and it was closed in 1979. The dump accepted
mostly municipal waste and some industrial waste, such as inorganic chemicals and solvents.
Waste partially filled a former limestone quarry that contains a shallow lagoon fed by
groundwater. Runoff from the site enters an unnamed tributary to Big Rock Creek. The
dump lies in a remote area; approximately 30 people reside in the nearest homes to the site,
which are about 1/2 mile away. Private wells are located within 1/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
The soil, leachate, and surface water are contaminated with plastics, heavy metals
including copper and volatile organic compounds from the site's dump activities.
Pond sediments on site are similarly contaminated, but at much lower levels. One
on-site well was contaminated with low levels of plastics. Direct contact with or
accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil may be
harmful.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
12
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, under EPA orders, several parties potentially responsible
for site contamination began an intensive study of its pollution problems. The first
phase of this investigation explored the nature and extent of site contamination;
the second prescribed the best alternatives for final cleanup. The final draft of the study was
reviewed by the EPA and the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). The investigation indicated the
groundwater is contaminated at very low levels; however, monitoring and testing of the
groundwater will be continued during design of the cleanup actions. The selected remedy
includes regrading the cap and clearing the site of vegetation and garbage to prevent further
infiltration. The design of the selected remedy began in 1991 and is scheduled for completion
in late 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Order with several potentially responsible parties to
perform the study characterizing the contamination at the site. The parties recently agreed to
pay the full costs of the selected cleanup actions.
Environmental Progress
After extensive investigations at the Lewisburg Dump, the EPA and the USGS have
determined that no immediate threats exist while cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Marshall County Memorial Library, 310 Farmington Pike, Lewisburg, TN 37091
LEWISBURG DUMP
13
March 1992
-------
MALLORY C
COMPANY
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND075453688
PA REGION 4
Wayne County
Waynesboro
Site Description
Electrical capacitors were manufactured on the 8 1/2-acre Mallory Capacitor site from 1969
to 1984. The operators first used polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as the dielectric fluid in
the capacitors, switching to a plastics chemical in 1978. The factory changed hands when Dart
Industries purchased it in 1979. Dart later sold the property in 1980 to Emhart Industries,
Inc. As part of the sales agreement with Emhart, certain PCB wastes, a buried tank, and
contaminated soil were removed from the site and sent to an approved PCB disposal facility.
The plant continued to operate, but voluntarily closed in 1984 when PCBs were discovered
throughout the site. The EPA found that PCBs entered the environment through spills, leaks,
and intentional discharges. The plant is located in a small community. Approximately 900
people get drinking water from wells and springs within 3 miles of the site. The site is in the
flood plain of the Green River. Surface water within 3 miles of the site is used for fishing and
swimming.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in groundwater.
Off-site wells are contaminated with PCBs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as trichloroethylene (TCE) and dichloroethylene. Coming in contact with or
accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater could pose a human health
threat. The presence of PCBs and VOCs poses a threat to the environment, as
they are toxic to aquatic wildlife.
14
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Before the start of the field work on the site study, the
potentially responsible party removed, and sent to an approved disposal facility,
approximately 20,100 tons of PCB-contaminated soil and 3,400 cubic yards of
plant debris from 1988 to 1989.
Entire Site: In 1989, the potentially responsible party installed several monitoring
wells on and off site to better define the extent of the contamination. Under EPA
orders and monitoring, the potentially responsible party conducted an intensive
investigation of the site's contamination. The study focused on the extent of PCB and VOC
contamination. In 1991, the EPA selected a remedy which involves on and off site hydraulic
containment of the contaminated groundwater plume with extraction and treatment. Possible
lexicological effects to Cold Water Creek also will be assessed. The party potentially
responsible site contamination began engineering designs for the remedy in early 1992.
Cleanup is expected to begin in mid-1993.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties, working with the EPA under an
Administrative Order, completed a study of the nature and extent of the contamination and
identified possible cleanup solutions.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of contaminated soil and debris reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Mallory Capacitor Company site while design of the cleanup
activities is taking place.
Site Repository
Wayne County Public Library, U.S. Highway 64, East Waynesboro, TN 38485
MALLORY CAPACITOR COMPANY 15 March 1992
-------
MEMPHIS DBF
DEPOT
TENNESSEE
EPA ID#TN4210020570
Site Description —
PA REGION 4
Shelby County
Memphis
The Memphis Defense Depot site comprises 642 acres in a mixed residential/commercial/
industrial area of south-central Memphis. The site consists of two adjacent sections: Dunn
Field, an open storage and burial area of about 60 acres, and the main installation. The
Depot, which is a major field installation of the Defense Logistics Agency, has been in
operation since 1942. Its primary function is to provide material support, including clothing,
food, medical supplies, electronic equipment, petroleum products, and industrial chemicals, to
all U.S. military services, as well as some civilian agencies. To fulfill this function, the Depot
has conducted numerous operations dealing with hazardous substances. A total of 75 waste
disposal areas have been identified, primarily at the Dunn Field area. According to the
Department of Defense (DOD), among the wastes disposed of are oil, grease, paint thinners,
methyl bromide, and pesticides. In addition, stored materials have reportedly spilled and
leaked at the main installation, as well as at Dunn Field, contaminating the soil with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organics, and
pesticides. An estimated 154,300 people obtain their drinking water from public and private
wells within 4 miles of the site. The nearest well, which is within 1/2 mile of hazardous
substances at the Depot, also provides water for commercial food production. These wells
draw from deep groundwater, which is not currently contaminated. Until 1986, when the
DOD found pesticides and PCBs in lake sediments and fish tissues, Lake Danielson was used
for recreational fishing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL Listing History
Proposed Date: 02/07/92
Shallow groundwater is contaminated with the heavy metals arsenic, lead,
chromium, and nickel, and the VOCs tetrachloroethane and tricloroethene. Soil is
contaminated with various VOCs, metals, PCBs, organics such as polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pesticides. The lake sediments are
contaminated with the heavy metals cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc.
16
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in one long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The DOD is planning a full investigation of the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. This study, scheduled to begin in mid-1993, will help to
determine alternatives for cleanup at the site.
Site Facts: The Memphis Defense Depot is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program established by the DOD in 1978 to identify, investigate,
and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DOD facilities.
Environmental Progress
Initial investigations indicate the Memphis Defense Depot site does not pose an immediate
threat to the health and safety of the nearby population while activities are being planned for
permanent cleanup of the site.
Site Repository
Not established.
MEMPHIS DEFENSE DEPOT
17
March 1992
-------
MILAN ARMY ££tffi^5^^5E™ dRGEbGIOGN ,4
J-7e5ill<^riVpCi.~>3^ and Gibson Counties
AM M U NITIO p££&^ 8 miies from tne town °f Miian
PLANT
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TN0210020582
Site Description
The Milan Army Ammunition Plant site comprises 22,540 acres and is located in a rural area.
The plant currently produces munitions for the Army and is operated by Martin Marietta
Ordnance Systems, Inc. The "O"-Line, a conventional munitions demilitarization facility at
Milan, has operated since 1942. The major mission of the "O"-Line is to remove TNT and
other explosives from munitions by injecting a high-pressure stream of hot water and steam
into the open cavity of the munitions. The resulting wastewater from these operations
subsequently was discharged into 11 unlined settling ponds. The "O"-Line Pond Area is on the
NPL, and 10 other areas are Solid Waste Management Units under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Approximately 9,000 people live in the town of
Milan, located 5 miles from the facility and 8 miles from the NPL site. The nearest off-site
residence is located approximately a mile from the facility. There are 1,400 employees of
Martin Marietta, the current operator, working at the site. Three water supply wells serve the
residents of Milan. Some private wells are located less than 3 miles from the area of known
groundwater contamination. More than 13,000 people within 5 miles of the facility depend on
groundwater as a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
Final Date: 08/21/87
On- and off-site groundwater, surface water, and sediments are contaminated with
explosives and heavy metals including cadmium, mercury, and lead; volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) such as chloroform, benzene, and methylene chloride; and
nitrates and nitrites. Area residents may be subject to exposure to contaminants
when drinking or coming into direct contact with polluted groundwater. Site-
related contaminants have been detected in off-site surface water used for the
watering of livestock, irrigation, and recreational purposes. Area residents could be
exposed to contaminants in the surface water or by eating fish, crops, and locally
raised meat and dairy products that contain bioaccumulated contaminants.
18 March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of the "O"-Line Ponds Area and of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The Army had the unlined settling ponds dredged in 1971, and
the soils were placed near the side of the ponds. Areas of surface soils suspected
to be contaminated with the remnants of explosives were removed, and a multi-
layer cover was placed on top of the ponds and the dredged soils in 1984. Wells to monitor
the migration of site-related contaminants into the groundwater have been installed, and
more wells will be installed. Activities associated with post-closure, such as maintenance of
the grounds and fences, are underway. Regular sampling and analysis to monitor groundwater
contamination of existing wells continues.
"O"-Line Ponds Area: The Army is investigating contaminants at the "O"-Line
Ponds Area. The EPA reviewed the initial actions at the "O"-Line Ponds Area in
1987 to determine whether they are comparable to EPA guidelines for the
investigation into the most effective ways to clean up the site and to ensure that it complies
with the National Contingency Plan, the Federal regulations by which Superfund actions are
conducted. An investigation of cleanup remedies started in 1990 at the "O"-Line Ponds Area
and 10 other RCRA Solid Waste Management Units. A study of the feasibility of various
cleanup alternatives for the "O"-Line Ponds soil was started in 1991. Development of a
proposed plan for cleanup of the groundwater contaminants related to the "O"-Line Pond
also began in 1992.
Entire Site: Following the completion of an interim investigation of the entire
facility in 1991, further investigation of the ditches in the northern area and
affected groundwater, believed to be related to traces of explosive compounds
found in the city of Milan and private wells, were begun in 1992. Investigations into other
areas are planned in 1992.
Site Facts: Milan Army Ammunition Plant is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DOD) in
1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military
and other DOD facilities. The Army conducted a survey of area residents in 1988 to
determine if they were concerned about potential health risks posed by the site. The results
indicated a high degree of public interest and moderate concern for potential risks. The
Milan Army Ammunition Plant has established a committee to review technical aspects of the
site cleanup. This group includes private citizens from the community and local government.
Several public meetings have been held to keep the community informed of the status of the
site.
MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT 19 March 1992
-------
Environmental Progress
The covering of the "O"-Line Ponds and excavation of contaminated soils have made the site
safer while further investigations continue, which will lead to selection of the final cleanup
remedies for the Milan Army Ammunition Plant site.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 4 Superfund Community Relations Office.
March 1992
20
MILAN ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
MURRAY-OH
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980728836
EPA REGION 4
Lawrence County
Lawrenceburg
Other Names:
Murray Ohio Site #2
Site Description
The 27-acre Murray-Ohio industrial dump accepted paint and electroplating sludges from
1963 until 1982. Wastes are buried on about 6 acres, and there is another 1/4-acre disposal
area located 1,000 feet away from the site. Seeps containing heavy metal contamination have
been observed along drainageways. Groundwater under the site and a tributary of Shoal
Creek are thought to be contaminated with chromium. Shoal Creek is approximately a mile
from the site. The main site was capped, revegetated, and is periodically maintained.
Approximately 2,600 people live within 3 miles of the site. The closest residence is about 1/3
mile away. Public and private water supply wells lie within a 3-mile radius.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil are believed to contain contamination from heavy
metals including chromium, nickel, and zinc, as well as volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Sediments and off-site surface water in a small tributary to Shoal Creek
are thought to may be contaminated with heavy metals and also manganese and
iron. Human health threats may arise from exposure to hazardous substances in
contaminated groundwater, sediment, soil, and surface water. Groundwater poses
the most significant health risk. Private wells within 1/3 mile of the site may be
affected.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and water cleanup at the site.
21
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Murray-Ohio Manufacturing capped and vegetated the site
in 1981.
Soil and Water: Under EPA supervision, Murray-Ohio Manufacturing began an
intensive study of soil and water pollution at the site in 1990. This investigation is
exploring the nature and extent of contamination. Following this investigation, an
evaluation of cleanup alternatives will be undertaken.
Site Facts: A Consent Order was agreed to in 1990, which requires Murray-Ohio
Manufacturing to complete the study of the contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The immediate capping of the site reduced the potential for exposure at the Murray-Ohio
Dump and helped to minimize the migration of contaminants while further investigations
leading to the selection of cleanup activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Lawrenceburg Public Library, 519 East Games Road, Lawrenceburg, TN 38464
March 1992
22
MURRAY-OHIO DUMP
-------
MURRAY-OHI
MANUFACTU
CO. (HORSESHOE
BEND DUMP)
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND981014954
A REGION 4
Lawrence County
miles southwest of Lawrenceburg
Other Names:
Murray-Ohio Dump
Horseshoe Bend Dump
Site Description
Before 1956, a City of Lawrenceburg hydroelectric plant operated on the 12-acre Murray-
Ohio Manufacturing Co. (Horseshoe Bend Dump) site. Beginning around 1956, workers
poured paint sludge and other wastes into shallow pits at the site. They partially filled the pits
after the liquid part of the wastes had soaked in and then placed drummed waste into them.
In 1963, a large fire at the site produced toxic smoke and fumes that caused eye and lung
irritation to residents near the site. Fish were killed in nearby Shoal Creek because of the
fire. Following this, the operators apparently abandoned the dump. Since then, it has been
used only for occasional dumping of household trash. In recent years, a nearby landowner
restricted the access to the site. During a 1983 inspection, the Tennessee Division of Solid
Waste Management found partially buried leaking drums at the site. Approximately 19,000
people obtain drinking water from wells and springs within 3 miles of the site. The City of
Lawrenceburg gets part of its water supply from a large spring located a mile northeast of the
site. Downstream from the dump, local residents use Shoal Creek for fishing and recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, municipal, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
m
The groundwater and soil may be contaminated with heavy metals including lead,
zinc, nickel, and cadmium; volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may be present in
groundwater and soil, as well. There is a possible risk to human health resulting
from exposure through accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soils. Geologic conditions make it easy for water to move under
the site. Springs, caves, and sinkholes are plentiful, and the groundwater is near
the land surface. These conditions help contaminants move through the
groundwater under the site.
23
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: Six thousand cubic yards of municipal waste and paint sludge
were sent to an incinerator in 1989.
Entire Site: A Consent Order was signed in 1990, which required the Murray-
Ohio Manufacturing Company and the City of Lawrenceburg, with EPA
monitoring, to study contamination at the site. This study is exploring the nature
and extent of any soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination. It is scheduled to be
completed in 1992. Following completion of the report on this study, alternatives for cleanup
will be explored.
Site Facts: Notice letters were sent to two parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination, the City of Lawrenceburg and the Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Company.
Murray-Ohio returned a positive response indicating that they wanted to conduct the study to
determine the nature and extent of contamination. Both Murray-Ohio and the City of
Lawrenceburg signed the Consent Order.
Environmental Progress
The removal of municipal wastes and paint sludges has reduced the potential for exposure at
the Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Co. (Horseshoe Bend Dump) site while further
investigations are taking place.
Site Repository
Lawrenceburg Public Library, 519 East Games Road, Lawernceburg, TN 38464
March 1992 24 MURRAY-OHIO MANUFACTURING CO.
(HORSESHOE BEND DUMP)
-------
NORTH HO
DUMP
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980558894
PA REGION 4
Shelby County
North Memphis
Other Names:
Hollywood Dump
Memphis Public Works/
Hollywood Dump
Site Description
The 70-acre North Hollywood Dump site was used as a municipal dump from the 1930s until
the City closed it in 1967. However, some dumping of non-chemical refuse probably
continued until 1980. In the late 1940s, the Hayden Chemical Company used the dump to
dispose of wastes generated in the production of sodium hydrochloride. Hayden later was
bought out by Velsicol Chemical Corporation, which continued the practice of dumping at the
site. At one time, pesticide-contaminated sludge from a closed sewer line leading to the
Velsicol plant was removed and buried in a small area known as the "Endrin Pit." In 1980, the
EPA found pesticide products in surface soil, groundwater, and pond sediments on the dump.
Because of high community concern in the early 1980s, the State of Tennessee recommended
this site as the State's highest priority hazardous waste site. Approximately 10,000 people live
within 3 miles of the dump site. An elementary school is situated close to the dump.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water ponds are contaminated with pesticides
including endrin and heavy metals including copper, lead, and arsenic. The soil is
contaminated with pesticides and heavy metals including lead. Accidentally drinking
or otherwise coming into contact with contaminated groundwater, surface water, or
soil could adversely affect the health of people. Also, people may be exposed to
contaminants that may have entered the food chain through contaminated fish
caught in ponds on or near the dump.
25
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1980, the EPA took an emergency action to slow the
movement of contaminants from the site. Also, the EPA installed a chain-link
fence around the site and began a program to monitor the wastes on site. In
1981, a technical assistance group made up of representatives from the State, the City of
Memphis, Shelby County, local industry, and the EPA, removed some of the chemical wastes
from the surface.
Entire Site: In 1982, the EPA assumed the lead role from the State to complete
investigations into the extent and nature of contamination at the North
Hollywood Dump site. The potentially responsible parties took over in 1984. The
study, completed in 1990, recommends retrofitting the landfill so that it measures up to legal
sanitation standards. The selected remedy includes: placement of a 2-foot clay cap, grading,
and revegetation; drainage of an adjacent 70-acre pond known to hold contaminated
sediments; installing a 3-foot cover over the contaminated sediments; and the removal of fish
found to be contaminated, followed by re-stocking of the pond. Groundwater will be
monitored to ensure contamination levels remain low. In addition, the site will be fenced and
restrictions on future use of the site will be put in place. The engineering design of the
selected remedy began in December 1991. Cleanup activities are expected to begin in late
1993.
Site Facts: The State of Tennessee ordered the potentially responsible parties to investigate
the site under State monitoring, which was agreed to in 1984. In late 1988, the EPA replaced
the State in the monitoring role. In early 1991, two potentially responsible parties entered
into a consent order with EPA to perform design and cleanup activities at the site.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove chemical wastes have reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials while further investigations and cleanup activities continue at the
North Hollywood Dump site.
Site Repository
Memphis-Shelby County Public Library, 1850 Peabody Avenue, Memphis, TN 38104
March 1992 26 NORTH HOLLYWOOD DUMP
-------
OAK RIDGE? REGION 4
V-WIX rilL^Vai Anderson County
Other Names:
USDOE Oak Ridge
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TN1890090003
Site Description
The Oak Ridge Reservation site, operated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), covers
58,000 acres and includes 650 known or suspected areas of contamination, as well as two off-
site, surface water study areas (Clinch/Tennessee River and East Fork Poplar Creek). The
site consists of three major facilities: a research lab that includes nuclear reactors, chemical
and biological research programs, and production labs; a production complex that formerly
enriched uranium-235 by gaseous diffusion; and a plant that formerly enriched uranium-235
by an electromagnetic process and now produces nuclear weapon components, processes
nuclear materials, and performs other functions that relate to energy and the national
defense. Site operations generate a variety of radioactive, non-radioactive, and mixed
(radioactive and non-radioactive) hazardous wastes, many of which in the past were disposed
of or stored on site. Leakage from inactive disposal and storage facilities, coupled with spills
and other accidental releases, has contaminated many areas in and around the site. The DOE
estimates that 773,000 pounds of elemental mercury were released in the 1950s and 1960s,
and 170,000 pounds of mercury are in the sediments and floodplain of a 15-mile stretch of
East Fork Poplar Creek, whose headwaters are near one of the site's production facilities.
Approximately 500 pounds of mercury annually leave this watershed. An estimated 43,200
people obtain water from intakes along a 118-mile stretch below this site on the Tennessee
River. Wetlands in the Blyth Ferry Water Fowl Management Area also are near the
contaminated area.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions. Final Date: 11/21/89
27 March 1992
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals, organics, and radionuclides have been detected in on-site
groundwater, surface water, and soil. Cesium-137 has been detected in sediments
of the Tennessee River near Chattanooga, approximately 118 miles downstream of
the site. Mercury has been detected in the sediments at East Fork Poplar Creek.
Soils in the flood plain along the creek are contaminated with mercury. East Fork
Poplar Creek flows through the City of Oak Ridge. People are potentially exposed
to mercury-contaminated soils in the easily accessible areas of the creek
floodplains. Fish and wildlife in and around the site may be threatened by site-
related contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in seven stages: initial actions and six long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the UNC Landfill, Mercury Tank Remediation, the Drum Storage
Yard, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Waste Area Grouping 11, the entire site, and the
remaining areas.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The DOE removed soil at several locations along the East Fork
Poplar Creek where mercury levels were particularly high. The DOE also closed
and capped some of the worst areas under the Resource Conservation and
UNC Landfill: The UNC Landfill is a one-acre low-level radioactive landfill,
located at the Y-12 plant on the Oak Ridge Reservation. The selected remedies
include construction of a multi-layer closure cover and long-term monitoring. The
design of the cleanup was begun in mid-1991 and actual cleanup activities are scheduled to
begin in 1992.
Mercury Tank Remediation: An interim cleanup action is being taken to
eliminate the continued release of mercury to the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek
from sedimentation tanks. This is the first of several anticipated actions to clean
up mercury contamination in the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek drainage basin. The
selected remedy entails removal of the contaminated sediments that have accumulated in
three tanks. Depending on its waste classification, the sediment will be dewatered and placed
in containers for storage in an approved mixed-waste storage unit or shipped to a commercial,
off-site Federally-approved facility for disposal.
March 1992 28 OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE)
-------
The Drum Storage Yard: The drum storage yard is located at the K-25 Plant in
the northwest section of the Oak Ridge Reservation. The drum storage yard
temporarily stored treated sludges generated during the closure of two Federally-
regulated impoundments in the late 1980s. In 1990, the EPA and the State of Tennessee
ordered the DOE to remove 77,000 leaking drums. This activity is being carried out as an
interim cleanup action. The remedy includes decanting of liquids from drums of solidified
sludges, thermal dewatering and repackaging of raw sludges, and placement of all drums in
indoor storage units. Design of the remedy began in late 1991 and is expected to be
completed in late 1992.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Waste Area Grouping 11 (ORNL -
WAG 11): The DOE began a study of the rad-contaminated surface debris at
ORNL - WAG 11 to determine the nature and extent of contamination and has
planned an interim cleanup action in 1993 to remove the debris.
Entire Site: The DOE has identified and combined several contaminated areas of
the site and has begun a comprehensive study to determine the nature and extent
of contamination and to identify alternatives for the cleanup. Investigations thus
far have shown that several areas have been contaminated by a variety of sources including
the Clinch River Study Area, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Waste Area Grouping 10,
SW31 Spring at the K-23 Plant, the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek drainage basin, and the
East Fork Poplar Creek-Sewerline Beltway. The cleanup of these areas will be performed in
a series of source control actions followed by permanent cleanup actions.
Remaining Areas: The DOE will begin a study to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the remaining Oak Ridge Reservation areas, including
the Abandoned Nitric Acid Pipeline. These investigations are expected to begin in
mid-1992.
Site Facts: The DOE has removed contaminated soil and is conducting studies that require
the DOE to close some units on site, conduct post-closure monitoring, and evaluate over 500
solid waste management units.
Environmental Progress
The soil cleanup performed at the Oak Ridge Reservation site has significantly reduced
immediate threats while further studies and investigations take place.
Site Repository
Oak Ridge Public Library, 1401 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE) 29 March 1992
-------
VELSICOL
CHEMICAI
(HARDEM
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980559033
Site Description
REGION 4
ardeman County
Toone
UNTY)
Velsicol Corporation purchased and used 242 acres of land as the Hardeman County landfill
for disposal of pesticides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), beginning in 1964. As of
1973, when the site was closed, waste had been disposed of in three specific areas, covering a
total of approximately 27 acres. Approximately 130,000 drums of plant waste were disposed of
in these three areas in trenches and were covered with 3 feet of soil. In 1980, a low
permeability cap was installed over the surface of the three disposal areas, the surface was
regraded to facilitate surface water drainage, sediment ponds were backfilled, and topsoil and
seed for revegetation were applied. Currently, the site is fenced with barbed wire and has a
locked gate. Approximately 60 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. Since 1979,
private wells in the vicinity have not been used for drinking water; alternate water supplies
have been provided. There are public supply wells within a 3-mile radius of the site; however,
monitoring data indicates that these wells are not contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with various VOCs and chloroform. Capping,
regrading, fencing, and security have virtually eliminated direct contact with the
contaminants on the site. However, there may be a health threat if the
contaminated groundwater in the area is used for drinking water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the groundwater and controlling the sources of contamination.
30
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: As a result of chlorinated hydrocarbons detected in two
residential wells adjacent to the site in 1979, an alternate water source was
provided to 26 homes that were located within a 1-mile radius of the site. In 1980,
capping, surface regrading, backfilling, and revegetating were performed.
Groundwater: In 1989, Velsicol Chemical Company began a study of the type
and extent of groundwater contamination and an evaluation of alternative
cleanup remedies. The investigation was completed in 1991. The plan for
groundwater cleanup includes extraction of groundwater and treatment using settling tanks,
air stripping, and carbon adsorption followed by the discharge of treated water to nearby
surface water. In addition, fencing of the property, restrictions on use of wells, and
monitoring the effectiveness of the remedy are included. Design of the cleanup activities
began in December 1991.
Source Control: In 1991, the Velsicol Chemical Company initiated studies into
the nature and extent of contamination sources at the site. These studies are
expected to be completed by 1993.
Site Facts: Under an Administrative Order on Consent, Velsicol agreed to complete the
remedial investigation and feasibility study, under EPA monitoring. Several citizens in the
area around the site were involved in litigation with the Velsicol Chemical Company
concerning pollution of their wells. Concerns about groundwater contamination were very
high about 10 years ago, when water supply wells became contaminated but have lessened
since alternate water supplies were provided. Velsicol is presently performing design and
cleanup activities under a Unilateral Administrative Order.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to cap the surface of the site, secure access to the site, and provide an
alternate water supply to nearby residents have eliminated immediate threats at the Velsicol
Chemical Corp. (Hardeman County) site while further investigations leading to cleanup
activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Velsicol Hardeman County Public Library, 213 North Washington Street, Belivaar, TN 38008
VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP. (HARDEMAN COUNTY) 31 March 1992
-------
WRIGLEY C
PLANT
TENNESSEE
EPA ID# TND980844781
EPA REGION 4
Hickman County
Old Charcoal Road, Wrigley
Site Description
The Wrigley Charcoal Plant site covers approximately 200 acres in and around the town of
Wrigley. From the late 1800s to the early 1960s, a number of companies, including the
Tennessee Products Corporation, produced charcoal briquettes, iron products, and wood
alcohol on the site. After industrial and boot-legging activities ended, the Tennessee Farmers
Co-op acquired the site and later sold a portion of it to an individual. During a 1985
inspection, the Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management discovered pits containing a
tar-like substance, waste piles, and old drums. Leachate was entering the north fork of Mill
Creek, which is adjacent to the site. In 1985, the State, and, in 1986, the EPA detected
toluene, benzenes, and phenols in the wastes and the leachate. The Bon Aqua Utility District
maintains a drinking water intake in Mill Creek 1/2 miles downstream of the site. This intake
serves an estimated 5,500 people. Approximately 300 people obtain drinking water from wells
within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The leachate and wastes on the primary site and storage basin contain volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene, benzene, and phenol and PAHs.
The North Fork of Mill Creek is contaminated with low levels of the same
elements as those found in the leachate. Health threats include the accidental
ingestion of or direct contact with the wastes on site. Geologic conditions at the
site make it easy for contaminants to move into the shallow groundwater, which
lies about 5 feet below the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions, an interim action and two long-
term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the coal-tar wastes and metals hot-spots and
cleanup of the groundwater.
32
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, the EPA stabilized the tar pits by building a 16-
foot berm to prevent erosion and seasonal flooding. A stream was rerouted to
prevent leachate from entering Mill Creek. In 1989, the EPA excavated and
shipped six truckloads of tar to a recycling facility. The recycling was incomplete, because
large amounts of debris were still present in the tar.
Interim Action: In 1991, the EPA completed studies of the nature and extent of
contamination from exposed coal tars, asbestos containing material, and metallic
wastes at the Burn Pit. An interim remedy was selected in late 1991 which
includes: posting access restrictions at the Storage Basin where coal-tar sludges were found,
and reconstructing the spillway path. Design activities are expected to begin in late 1992.
Coal Tar Wastes and Metals Hot-Spots: The EPA is planning to begin a
study of the nature and extent of contamination at the Storage Basin coal-tar
wastes, Primary Site tarpits, and Primary Site coal-tar and metals hot-spots.
When this study is completed, scheduled for late 1993, a remedy will be selected for cleanup
of this part of the site.
Groundwater: In early 1989, the EPA began an investigation into the extent
and nature of an on-site groundwater contamination. Once this investigation is
completed, scheduled for 1992, a remedy will be selected for cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA sent out notice letters to the parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination and asked them to participate in the site investigation. The public is
concerned about the quality of the north fork of Mill Creek and the groundwater.
Environmental Progress
Stabilizing the tar pits and removing some of the contaminated materials from the Wrigley
Charcoal Plant site have lessened any immediate threats to the community or the
environment. Studies by the EPA are assessing the site contamination to determine the best
permanent remedy for the site. In addition, completion of an interim remedy will reduce the
most substantial threats to human health and the environment while long-term site cleanup
options are being evaluated.
Site Repository
Hickman County Public Library, 120 West Swann Street, Centerville, TN 37033
WRIGLEY CHARCOAL PLANT 33 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 riving
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 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come 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 iagoon, 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
fanning, 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 (particulate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that results
from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water
vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many other
chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which is
used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
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 (MRS): 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 197X
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
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of 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. PCB 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.
v
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].
Stillbottom: 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.
Waste water: 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
Example \
Chemical Types
Sources
Potential Health
avy Metefs
Hwtoietdes
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 for 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.
*U.S. G.P.u.:1993-341-835:81020
G-15
------- |