&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(5102G)
SUPERFUND:
EPA/540/R-93/040
December 1992
PB93-963242
Progress at
National
Priority
List Sites
TEXAS
1992 UPDATE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-7426
December 1992
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Texas
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, 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 197()s, 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.
VIM
-------
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- j
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
EPA REGION XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts: „
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
-------
* Mapr CHi*s
• NPLSllw
Superfund
Activities in Texas
The State of Texas is located within EPA
Region 6, which includes the five south central States.
The State covers 262,017 square miles. According to
the 1990 Census, Texas experienced a 19 percent
increase in population between 1980 and 1990, and is
ranked third in U.S. population with approximately
16,987,000 residents.
The Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, most recently
amended in 1989, grants the State authority to implement and
enforce the Superfund program at the State level. After officially
notifying the public of its intent to propose a site for listing, the State gives the responsible polluters
90 days to agree to conduct site investigations. If the polluters do not cooperate, the investigations are
financed by the Hazardous Waste Disposal Fee Fund, created by the 1989 amendment. Once the
investigations are completed, the State proposes cleanup remedies and solicits public comment. The
responsible polluters are given 60 days to agree to perform the selected cleanup activities and 60 days
to negotiate the terms of the agreement with the State. If the polluters are unable or unwilling to
participate, the State may either issue an order compelling the polluters to cooperate or recover the
cost of cleanup from the polluters after conducting cleanup activities itself. The Hazardous Waste
Disposal Fee Fund finances site cleanup activities as well as the 10 percent contribution from the State
required by the Federal Superfund program. The State also has a Spill Response Fund, which can be
used to conduct removal and emergency response actions and to address threatened or actual dis-
charges to surface waters or groundwater. Currently, 28 sites in the State of Texas have been listed as
final on the NPL; one has been deleted. One new site has been proposed for listing in 1992.
The Texas Water Commission
implements the Superfund Program in the State of Texas
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
Texas include:
Other
Storage and
Disposal
Facilities
Federal
Facilities
and
Munitions
Operations
Wood
Production
and
Treatment
Facilities
Chemical
and Metal
Production
Facilities
Waste
Processing
and Recycling
Facilities
Facts about the 30 NPL sites
in Texas:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at 26
sites.
Five sites endanger sensitive environ-
ments.
Twenty-five sites are located near
residential areas.
XVII
March 1992
-------
TEXAS
Most Sites Have Multiple Contaminants and
Contaminated Media:
Media Contaminated at Sites
Contaminants Found at Sites
Air
Surface
Water
Sediments
Soil
Ground-
water
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Sites
The Potentially Responsible
Party Pays...
In the State of Texas, potentially responsible
parties are paying for or conducting cleanup
activities at 16 sites.
Percentage of Sites
Heavy Metals
VOCs
Petrochemicals/Explosives
Creosotes
PCBs
Dioxin
Pesticides/Herbicides
Acids
Radiation
Other*
Plastics
70%
67%
30%
27%
17%
7%
7%
7%
7%
3%
2%
'Other contaminants include chlorinated
solvent residues and metallic catalysts.
For Further Information on NPL Sites and Hazardous
Waste Programs in the State of Texas Please Contact:
EPA Region 6 Office of External
Affairs, Community Relations
National Response Center
The Texas Water Commission:
Pollution Cleanup Division
EPA Region 6 Hazardous 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
(214) 655-2200
(800) 424-8802
(512)908-2458
(214) 655-6740
(800) 424-9068
March 1992
XVIII
-------
THE NPL REPORT
PROGRESS TO DATE
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status of ac-
tivities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup
process are arrayed across the top of the chart,
and each site's progress through these steps is
represented by an arrow C&) indicating the
current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative ac-
complishments.
O An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency
cleanup, immediate action, or initial ac-
tion has been completed or currently is
underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to pro-
vide immediate relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize
a site to prevent further contamination.
^> A final arrow in the "Site Studies" cat-
egory indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is on-
going or planned.
O 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.
final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently
are designing the technical specifica-
tions for the selected cleanup remedies
and technologies.
^> A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and cur-
rently are underway.
^> A final arrow in the "Construction Com-
plete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have
been performed, and the EPA has deter-
mined that no additional construction
actions are required at the site. Some
sites in this category currently may be
undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure
that the cleanup actions continue to pro-
tect human health and the environment.
/ A check in the "Deleted" category indi-
cates that the site cleanup has met all
human health and environmental goals
and that the EPA has deleted the site
from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
XIX
-------
•o
0)
s
.1 at
If
°
0
0 0
0
a. o)
3 C
c '5
S o>
o5
m O)
000 0000 000
00000000 000
0000 00
(0
CO
X
ft
TJ «
IS
o> "3
OC (A
CO
<».«
.« T3
(0 P
(0
00000000 000
000000000 000 000000000 0000
TO
C/)
R R
S S
000 000
O Os O O
QO go go
O '~H ^D
m ^
S 8 S
O z
5J
CO
CO
Q.
.S .
O
(0
0)
O)
o
"S .
Q
13
UH Pi
CO
-------
2
o
»
1
(C
S
CO
Q
0.
Z
3
i
(0
«5
ft
ft
ft
ft
at
o
i
1
tu
HARRISON
8
1
ft
ft
1
1
1
UH
Z
GALVESTO
| TEX-TIN CORPORATION
ft
ft
ft
ft
jg
o
^
.5
PU
BOWIE
8
o
&
>
\ TEXARKANA WOOD PRESER
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
m
OG
?=>
i
1
U.
ORANGE
\ TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO.
/v
/^
/ x.
/ ^k
/ -~( J -^ ^^
/ Q ^W
ft / X
ft
ft
ft
g|
^
s
1
u.
b
m
MONTGOM
UNITED CREOSOTING CO.
0 a,
-lilt
U
be
tfi 3*9
2|| |'|
uo
•o""3
"ill'?
ptf
0 S 1 s 1
c/3 ^ q> ^
S»>
m -2 * "3 ^
53 ? -5 'S
c/i a
_*
5
•s
I
o
y
S"
^
i-
•5
"§
s
^
1
:s
1
-S
— ,
1
§-
i
o
1
XXI
March 1992
-------
AIR FORCE PLA
(GENERAL DYN
TEXAS
EPA ID# TX7572024605
EPA REGION 6
Tarrant County
6 miles west of Fort Worth
Site Description
This 700-acre Air Force site has been used for the production and testing of military aircraft
and associated equipment since 1941. The plant produces approximately 6,000 tons of spent
process chemicals each year. Twenty-one hot spots responsible for the chemical
contamination have been found around the site, including landfills, chrome pits, fire
department training areas, and fuel saturation areas. The site is bordered by Carswell Air
Force Base, recreational Lake Worth, and the community of White Settlement. The base and
the town both draw drinking water from seven nearby municipal wells; the closest are 850 and
1,500 feet from the site. Approximately 13,400 people live in White Settlement.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is polluted with halogenated and aromatic organic chemicals,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including vinyl chloride, and heavy metals
including chromium, lead, and arsenic. VOCs, chromium, and alpha and beta
radiation have been found in the soil. Surface water is contaminated with VOCs
and chromium. Aquifers supplying the drinking water wells are contaminated by
VOCs. Contamination generally is restricted to the site, although pollution of the
upper aquifer has a potential impact on surrounding wells. Possible paths of
exposure include ingestion of contaminated drinking water, direct contact with or
drinking contaminated groundwater, and possible health threats due to emission of
radionuclides.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1982, the Air Force and the potentially responsible
parties notified the EPA that hazardous substances were found in the stormwater
outfall that drains into an adjacent creek. In 1983, the Air Force removed about
21,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with heavy metals from closed waste pits and disposed
of it in an EPA-approved facility. Polluted water from a stormwater outfall continues to be
collected, stored, and disposed of in an EPA-approved facility.
Entire Site: The Air Force is continuing to conduct investigations to determine
the extent and nature of contamination to groundwater and surface waters and to
select remedies for permanent cleanup of the site. The investigation is planned for
completion in 1995.
Site Facts: The Air Force Plant #4 site is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DOD) in
1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military
and other DOD facilities. An Interagency Agreement between the EPA, the Air Force, and
the Texas Water Commission was signed in August 1990, addressing cleanup of the entire
site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil by the Air Force has reduced the possibility of exposure to
hazardous materials at this site, making the Air Force Plant #4 (General Dynamics) site
safer while it awaits further cleanup actions.
Site Repository
Fort Worth Public Library, Central Branch, 300 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 76102
AIR FORCE PLANT #4
March 1992 2 t (GENERAL DYNAMICS)
-------
BAILEY WAST
DISPOSAL
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980864649
EPA REGION 6
Orange County
3 miles southwest of Bridge City
Other Names:
Gulf States Utility
Bailey's Sabine Lake Bridge
Site Description
The Bailey Waste Disposal site is a closed industrial waste facility. The site is part of a
saltwater marshland near the confluence of the Neches River and Sabine Lake and lies within
the 100-year flood plain. Although the size of the site is officially 280 acres, waste has been
documented on only 10 acres. Two rectangular ponds were constructed during the 1950s,
when Bailey's was a fish camp; one of them subsequently was used for waste disposal in the
1950s and while the fish camp was still in operation. Four separate areas of contamination
have been identified near this pond: a waste channel containing at least 44,000 cubic yards of
industrial waste and debris; an area containing 32,000 cubic yards of municipal and industrial
waste; a drum disposal area, where corroded drums hold about 880 cubic yards of industrial
waste; and a series of waste pits holding 1,900 cubic yards of tar-like wastes. The site was
closed in 1971. About 7,600 people within 3 miles of the site use wells for drinking water, the
nearest residence being within 2 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
ZGJ
Groundwater pollutants include organic chemicals such as chloroform, and
benzene, as well as heavy metals including lead and arsenic. Volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs), aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, organics including
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals have been found in
sediments. Contaminants in the soil include VOCs and heavy metals such as
copper, lead, and arsenic. Heavy metals including arsenic and selenium have been
found in the surface water. Potential risks include contact with or accidental
ingestion of soils and inhaling dust from the site. Continued restriction of access to
the site should lessen these risks. Area drinking water wells are located in deeper
aquifers where contamination has not been found. The site is located in the flood
plain of the Neches River and is subject to periodic flooding. Fish, shellfish, and
livestock grazing the marsh also are at risk; tissues of aquatic creatures have been
found to be contaminated. People also may be at risk by eating contaminated fish
and crabs.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties fenced the site and
posted EPA warning signs. Because the site is relatively inaccessible, the fencing is
sufficient to control access.
Entire Site: A site study was conducted by the Texas Water Commission to
identify the extent of contamination and to suggest options for cleanup. The
selected remedy was to remove affected sediments from the marsh and drainage
channel, as well as wastes from the drum disposal area and one of the waste pits, and
relocate all materials to the waste channel. This channel and the area to the east of one of
the ponds then will be stabilized by solidifying contaminants to prevent their movement off
the site. The cleanup design was completed in early 1992 and site cleanup began during the
summer of 1992.
Site Facts: In April 1990, the EPA and the potentially responsible parties signed a Consent
Decree for design and implementation of site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the area and posting warning signs have limited access to the site, thereby reducing
the potential of exposure to hazardous substances at the Bailey Waste Disposal while planned
cleanup activities are underway.
Site Repository
City of Orange Public Library, 220 North Fifth Street, West Orange, TX 77630
March 1992
BAILEY WASTE DISPOSAL
-------
BIO-ECOLOGY
SYSTEMS, INC.
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980340889
EPA REGION 6
Dallas County
Grand Prairie
Other Names:
Bloecology
Site Description
The Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc. site consists of approximately 11 acres in an industrial area. It
was licensed as a solid waste management facility by the State of Texas in 1972. Operators
burned or treated industrial wastes with chemical or biological processes before landfilling
them. About 40,000 cubic yards of wastes and contaminated soils exist at Bio-Ecology. It is
surrounded by private property and is bordered by the tributaries of Old Mountain Creek.
The site lies within the flood plain of the creek and is 1 mile northeast of Mountain Creek
Lake. The site was operated until 1978, when, after numerous permit violations and court
orders to improve operations, the site owners went bankrupt. The site contains tanks with
mixed oils, solvents, and ketones and buried chromium, cyanide, and heavy metal sludges.
Approximately 12,500 people live within 3 miles of the site. The City of Grand Prairie draws
its domestic drinking water from wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. There is a residential
area about 1/2 mile from the site and a school about 2 miles to the northwest.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Shallow groundwater is contaminated with low concentrations of lead, nickel, and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethane. High concentrations
of lead and chromium have been found in soils both on and off site. VOCs also
have been identified in soils. Surface water runoff from the area, which has been
flooded at least twice, flows directly into Old Mountain Creek; however, specific
pollutants were not identified. Slight groundwater contamination has been detected
to a depth of 50 feet. Area residents could be exposed to contaminants by coming
in direct contact with on- and off-site contaminated soils, sediments, and standing
surface water; drinking contaminated surface water or groundwater; or inhaling
evaporated and airborne chemicals.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
for cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Workers removed 15 storage tanks and surface
contamination in 1985. The area was fenced and signs were posted to restrict
access.
Entire Site: Investigators recommended that the site be reconstructed as a safe
landfill for its own contaminants. The remedies selected included raising the level
of the site above the flood plain, building an on-site disposal cell with a synthetic
liner and a collection system for seeping liquids, constructing an environmentally safe cover
and liner and liquid collection and removal system, stabilizing the waste and placing it in the
on-site cell, fencing and posting the site, and installing a groundwater monitoring system. All
activities selected for site cleanup are planned to be completed in 1994. Groundwater
monitoring will be continued to determine when the groundwater resources reach approved
cleanup levels.
Environmental Progress
The immediate removal of contaminated tanks, the construction of a fence, the security
measures, and subsequent long-term cleanup measures have achieved the surface and surface
water cleanup goals for this site. Monitoring activities will be continued to ensure the
effectiveness of the site cleanup until final deletion of the Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc. site from
the NPL.
Site Repository
Texas Water Commission, 1700 Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78704
March 1992
BIO-ECOLOGY SYSTEMS. INC.
-------
BRIO
REFINING, INC.
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980625453
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
2 miles north of Friendswood
Other Names:
JOC Oil Aromatics, Inc.
Lowe Chemical Company
Site Description
The Brio Refining, Inc. site occupies about 58 acres: 49 acres north of Dixie Farm Road
were used for storage, and the 9 acres south of the road were used for processing activities.
Operations began at the site in 1957, and until 1969, the major work done there was
regeneration of copper catalysts and recovery of petrochemicals from styrene tars and vinyl
chloride still bottoms. About 23 unlined pits were dug during this time and used to store both
raw and process materials. Recycle and recovery operations continued until 1978 when the
plant was converted to a crude oil topping unit for jet fuel production. Throughout the 1970s,
the pits were closed by mixing the stored material with soil and clay and covering the
resulting waste with soil, and by 1980, all pits were closed. Studies have shown that 500,000 to
700,000 cubic yards of soil on site are contaminated and that high levels of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) exist in groundwater under the site. The adjacent area is heavily
populated, with approximately 5,700 people living near the site. Residences, businesses, a
hospital, and a school are located within 1/2 mile of the site. A municipal drinking water well
is located within 1/2 mile of the site, but draws water from an uncontaminated aquifer. Cattle
grazing and oil and gas exploration activities also occur nearby.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
ZGJ
Plastics and VOCs have been found in the groundwater.The soil is contaminated
with heavy metals, VOCs, styrene tars, chlorinated solvent residues, metallic
catalysts, and fuel oil residues. Surface water in Mud Gully near Pit B and runoff
from Pit Q have been shown to be contaminated with VOCs and petrochemicals.
Workers or others on site may be exposed by inhaling airborne contaminants or by
coming in contact with contaminated soil. If contaminants seep into the deeper
aquifer, which is not imminent, drinking water could become contaminated.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
concentrating on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A fence was installed at the site in 1985.
Entire Site: Remedies selected for the Brio Refining, Inc. site include: excavating
affected materials and soils; incinerating these materials; consolidating and
disposing surface debris and rubble; widening bottle-necked Mud Gully as it passes
the Brio site; decommissioning the wastewater treatment system; removing the contents of all
storage tanks for proper disposal and dismantling the structures; dismantling the process
facility; recovering and treating shallow groundwater; grading, planting, tending, and
landscaping the site; installing a stormwater drainage system; monitoring air, surface water,
and groundwater; and restricting use of the land. Design of the cleanup remedy began in
1989 and is expected to be completed in 1993. A portion of the cleanup began in 1989, which
includes dismantling the process facility as well as associated vessels and tanks. Site cleanup is
planned for completion in 1997.
Site Facts: In 1982, Brio Refining, Inc. filed for bankruptcy. Some of the parties potentially
responsible for the wastes organized into the Brio Task Force and discussed cleanup remedies
with the EPA. In 1985, a Consent Decree was signed by the Task Force to accept financial
responsibility for cleanup. Task force members involved with this and the Dixie Oil Processors
site have negotiated with the EPA on selection of the cleanup remedy and cleanup
responsibility. A Consent Decree for design of cleanup activities was designed in April 1991.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a fence and the dismantling of the process equipment have reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous wastes at the Brio Refining, Inc. site, making it safer
while it awaits further cleanup activities.
Site Repository
San Jacinto Junior College, South Campus, 13735, Beamer Road, Houston, TX 77089
March 1992 8 BRIO REFINING, INC.
-------
CRYSTAL CHEM
COMPANY
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD990707010
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
ogerdale Road in Houston
Site Description
The Crystal Chemical Company began producing arsenic-based pesticides at this 5-acre site in
1968. During plant operations, containers of raw and finished materials were stored on the
ground, where they spilled and leaked into the soil. Arsenic contamination spread outside the
process areas in 1976, when rain caused three waste ponds to overflow. Prompted by the
State, the company built a dike around the plant and undertook other cleanup actions. The
company declared bankruptcy in 1981. The site lies within a residential and light industrial
area that is within a 100-year flood plain. Approximately 20,000 people live within a 1-mile
radius of the abandoned plant. Twenty water wells also are situated within 1 mile. The
nearest drinking water well is 300 feet away; the nearest residence is 1/2 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
LZ1AJ
The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with arsenic. Possible
hazards include coming in direct contact with, inhaling, or ingesting contaminated
soils, dusts, or surface water. Groups likely to be exposed include on-site workers,
children playing near the area, or maintenance workers cleaning up and dredging
the site.
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: Between 1981 and 1982, the EPA dewatered the site,
filled in the contaminated ponds, temporarily capped most of the plant site with 6
inches of clay, and added topsoil and seed. Hurricane damage to the site resulted
in a restart of the work. Restart actions included repairing the fence, removing contaminated
liquids from two buildings, capping the building floor, and installing gravel berms. Four
hundred cubic yards of soils and about 2 million gallons of contaminated water were removed.
Repairs to the clay cap and fence were made in 1983 and 1988. Additional contaminated soils
and deteriorated drums were removed, and the erosion control ditch was repaired in 1991.
Entire Site: A cleanup remedy for the site was selected in 1990. The cleanup
remedy includes consolidating of all off-site soils, bringing them on site for
treatment of highly contaminated soils via in-situ vitrification, and pumping and
treating the groundwater with chemical precipitation, filtration, and ion exchange. In addition,
the EPA will study the deep aquifer under the site. Following completion of the soil
treatment, the entire site will be capped. However, due to the unavailability of the technology
selected for cleaning up contaminated soil, the EPA will issue an amendment to the selected
remedy to address the arsenic-contaminated soils in late 1992. The design of the cleanup
began in 1992. Actual site cleanup is anticipated in 1995.
Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA filed with the bankruptcy court to recover Federal funds
expended at the site. The potentially responsible parties agreed, through a Consent Decree
signed in 1987, to do a supplemental feasibility study. In 1992, a Consent Decree was entered
regarding settlement with potentially responsible parties for costs incurred by the United
States. The design for the groundwater remedy is being conducted by one of the potentially
responsible parties through an Administrative Order on Consent.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions to remove or cap contaminated soils and liquid wastes, as well as
repair and upkeep activities, have reduced the actual exposure potential and slowed the
migration of contaminated groundwater at the Crystal Chemical Company site, making it
safer while cleanup activities are being designed.
Site Repository
Jungman Public Library, 5830 Westheimer Road, Houston, TX 77057
March 1992 10 CRYSTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
CRYSTAL CITY
AIRPORT
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980864763
EPA REGION 6
Zavala County
Northeast Crystal City
Other Names:
Frank's Cropdusting Services
Site Description
The 120-acre Crystal City Airport site has served as a municipal airport since 1949 and is
owned by the city. Several aerial pesticide applicator businesses were based at the airport
until 1982; all are now out of business. City officials were concerned about the possible health
threat posed by spilled agricultural chemicals and contacted the Texas Water Commission.
The Commission took soil samples in 1983; analysis disclosed high pesticide levels. The airport
has been closed to the public since 1987, when cleanup investigations and activities began.
The approximate population of Crystal City is 8,000. The nearest home and drinking water
well are 300 feet away from the site. A municipal water supply well and two schools are
within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and State
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil was contaminated with various pesticides and heavy metals including
arsenic. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of the soil were the primary
contamination exposure pathways for area residents. The site is now fenced,
making contact with contaminants unlikely.
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.
11
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1982, the EPA repaired a dike and pumped most of the
discharged sludges back into an on-site pit. In 1983, the EPA consolidated 40
cubic yards of waste and 50 to 70 drums in two on-site disposal cells. In 1984, the
EPA disposed of 19 drums off site and secured the site with a fence. In 1988, the EPA
repaired the fence and posted signs.
Entire Site: The selected remedy for the site focused on control of sources of
contamination. Workers consolidated the contaminated soil, drums, and other
materials on site and covered the materials with an EPA-approved cap consisting
of several layers. This cap is designed to protect against potential migration of contaminants
by rainfall and erosion. Liquids used in the decontamination process were removed and
injected into a deep well off site. The State fenced the area and will monitor the site for 30
years, reviewing the remedy's effectiveness every 5 years. The engineering design has assured
that the site can continue to be used as an airport. In 1988, the decontamination of the
building walls and the reconstruction of floors after the excavation were completed. State-led
cleanup activities started in 1988 and were completed in late 1991.
Environmental Progress
The emergency repairs and completion of the actions called for in the cleanup remedy have
eliminated the threat to nearby residents and the environment. The State of Texas will
continue to monitor the Crystal City Airport site for 30 years, with a review of the remedy's
effectiveness every 5 years. The airport has been deemed safe to use.
Site Repository
Crystal City Public Library, 101 East Dimmit Road, Crystal City, TX 78839
March 1992
12
CRYSTAL CITY AIRPORT
-------
DIXIE OIL
PROCESSORS,
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD089793046
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
20 miles southeast of
Houston near Friendswood
Site Description
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc. (DOP) is situated on 27 acres and borders Dixie Farm Road. The
site has had several owners and operators since 1969. In 1978, DOP, the most recent owner,
began oil recovery operations on the parcel south of Dixie Farm Road, converting liquid
organic wastes such as phenolic tars and glycol cutter stock to creosotes, fuel oil extenders,
and other petroleum products. Additional wastes and contaminated soils remain on site; DOP
stores wastes on site before disposing of, or recycling them. Former owners operated olefin
washing and copper recovery processes on the parcel north of Dixie Farm Road. Buried in at
least six closed lagoons are accumulated copper sediment and, allegedly, 500 barrels of a tarry
copper catalyst. The leaking lagoons have affected shallow groundwater quality to a limited
degree. In 1984, DOP found lead, benzene, toluene, and copper in on-site wells. About 140
people obtain drinking water from shallow public and private wells within 3 miles of the site.
The nearest residence is adjacent to the site, and the nearest drinking well is within 1/2 mile
of the site. A subdivision is north of the site, a children's ball field borders it to the
southwest, and the Brio Refining Superfund site is east of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals including copper and lead. Spills from the copper
recovery operation in the past have entered nearby Mud Gully and Clear Creek.
Possible threats include accidental ingestion and direct contact with contaminated
soil, inhalation of contaminated dust, and accidental ingestion of shallow
groundwater on the site.
13
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1984, DOP disposed of more than 6,000 cubic yards of
soils contaminated with phenolic tars in an approved hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: The following remedies were selected for the DOP site: (1) fencing
and implementing deed restrictions to prevent site access; (2) excavating and
removing of contaminated off-site soils; (3) consolidating and disposing of debris
and rubble; (4) widening a flood control ditch; (5) removing and disposing of tank contents
and drums; (6) decommissioning, disposing, and recycling tanks; and (7) dismantling and
disposing of all process equipment. The site then will be landscaped by regrading and
plantings. Site monitoring, after cleanup is completed, will include air sampling, and sampling
and monitoring of Mud Gully sediments and groundwater to determine the effectiveness of
the listed remedies. Site cleanup activities began in early 1992 and are expected to be
completed in early 1993.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties signed an amended Administrative Order in
1986, agreeing to conduct a study to determine the extent and nature of contamination at the
site and have agreed to finance all cleanup activities. In July of 1991, a Unilateral
Administrative Order was issued by the EPA to the potentially responsible parties requiring
them to conduct the design and cleanup of the selected remedy.
Environmental Progress
The emergency removal of contaminated soils undertaken by DOP in 1984 and the ongoing
cleanup activities have reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances, making the
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc. site safer to nearby residents and the environment. Cleanup
activities are expected to be completed early in 1993.
Site Repository
San Jacinto Junior College, South Campus, 13735 Beamer Road, Houston, TX 77089
March 1992
14
DIXIE OIL PROCESSORS, INC.
-------
FRENCH, LTD.
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980514
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
2 miles southwest of Crosby and
1 mile east of the San Jacinto River
Site Description
The 22 1/2-acre French, Ltd. site contains a 12-acre waste pit that, from 1966 to 1972,
received 100,000 barrels of industrial waste each year and then was abandoned. Industrial
wastes, heavy metals, phenols, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and acids were disposed of
in a 7-acre lagoon. The company declared bankruptcy in 1973. The site is located on the
100-year flood plain of the San Jacinto River and has been flooded on several occasions,
washing contaminated water and sludges off site. PCB-contaminated leachate migrated into a
nearby wetlands area and tributary to the river. The soil is permeable sand, and drainage
ditches discharge to the river. The area is rural, with the nearest residence being 500 feet
from the main pit. The nearest drinking well is 1,500 feet away, and the nearest town,
Crosby, is 2 miles away from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenols, heavy
metals, and PCBs. The groundwater, sludges, surface water, and soil are
contaminated with similar substances, in addition to oil, grease, acids, and solvents.
The surface water and the shallow groundwater are used by nearby residents,
thereby posing potential risks. Air near the site may be hazardous to breathe as a
result of vapors and airborne contaminants close to the site.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the floodwall and lagoon, and cleanup of groundwater.
15
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA consolidated waste from the area and
constructed a dike around the lagoon in 1980. In 1982, the EPA repaired the
dike, which had been breached during a flood, and contaminated sludges
discharged during the flood were pumped back into the pit. The floating portion of the
sludges was removed and disposed of in an approved landfill in 1983 by the EPA, and the
area was capped. In 1985, the potentially responsible parties fenced the area, and in 1989,
they removed contaminated sediments from the ditch.
Floodwall and Lagoon: The remedy selected for the floodwall and lagoon
involves biological treatment of the sludges and contaminated soils in the on-site
lagoon, with aeration of the lagoon waste to enhance degradation. The potentially
responsible parties are stabilizing residues and disposing of them on the site. Surface water
from the lagoon will be treated to meet the State's surface water quality standards for the
San Jacinto River. Residues generated from the treatment process will be stabilized to
prevent leaching and will then be used to backfill the lagoon. The remaining lagoon volume
will be backfilled with clean soil. The surface will then be graded to promote drainage away
from the site. The potentially responsible parties began the design for cleanup remedies in
late 1988. Construction of flood protection dikes was initiated immediately to prevent further
flooding of the site. Construction of the remaining remedies and treatment of sludges started
in mid-1989 and are expected to be completed in late 1996.
Groundwater: Concurrent with cleanup of the lagoon, the potentially
responsible parties have begun recovering and treating contaminated groundwater.
Groundwater recovery and treatment will continue until monitoring shows that
contamination has been reduced to the appropriate level. Monitoring of the upper and lower
aquifers will continue for a period of 30 years. Construction of the groundwater treatment
system began in mid-1989 and is slated to be completed in 1998.
Site Facts: In 1982, the EPA signed a Cooperative Agreement with the State to perform a
site investigation. The EPA and a task group of potentially responsible parties have signed a
Consent Decree outlining the responsibilities for correcting contamination.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated sludges and sediments, capping, and the installation of a fence
around the site have significantly reduced threats to nearby residents and the public while
long-term cleanup activities continue to reduce contamination at the French, Ltd. site.
Site Repository
Crosby Public Library, 135 Hare Road, Crosby, TX 77532
March 1992 16 FRENCH, LTD.
-------
GENEVA INDl
FUHRMANN
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980748"
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
ouston, 2 miles east of Hobby Airport
Site Description
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy is a 13-acre abandoned petrochemical manufacturing
and reprocessing plant that was used for petroleum exploration prior to 1967. From 1967 to
1984, the facility produced polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) under two owners. The current
owner salvaged equipment from the site until 1985. High levels of PCBs are concentrated in
the soil. This area of Houston, adjacent to the city of South Houston, is heavily populated,
and light industry is located nearby. Approximately 35,000 people live within 1 mile of the
site, and the nearest residence is 50 feet away. The nearest drinking water well is about 1/4
mile to the southwest of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, surface water, and sludges are contaminated with
petrochemical compounds, PCBs, and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). The soil,
site ponds, shallow and intermediate groundwater, and waste piles on site are
contaminated. People who come into contact with the soil or accidentally ingest
contaminated surface or groundwater are at risk.
17
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on source control and groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: To control the source of contamination, the EPA installed
a partial security fence, stabilized a deteriorated chlorine tank car, and drilled and
sampled an old oil well. Abandoned on-site wells were plugged. Six leaking tanks
were emptied of PCB-contaminated liquids and sludge and were dismantled. The EPA
removed highly contaminated off-site soils, while highly contaminated on-site soils were
capped. The EPA closed three lagoons and removed the drummed waste on the surface.
Source Control: The Texas Water Commission (TWC), under a Cooperative
Agreement with the EPA, removed and disposed of surface structures in the off-
site hazardous landfill, excavated PCB-contaminated soils and buried drums on
site, and then disposed of them at an EPA-approved facility. A multi-layer surface cap was
installed over the site and a slurry wall, tied into the clay below the site to prevent
contaminants from moving off site, also was constructed.
Groundwater Treatment: Trichloroethylene (TCE)-contaminated groundwater is
being pumped and treated by carbon adsorption, with the treated water being
discharged into the adjacent flood control channel. Construction of the
groundwater treatment facility is expected to be completed by 1993.
Site Facts: All cleanup activities have been conducted by the State under a Cooperative
Agreement between the TWC and the EPA.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup actions performed by the EPA and the TWC have eliminated the potential for
exposure to surface contamination while long-term groundwater cleanup activities continue to
reduce contamination at the Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann Energy site.
Site Repository
M.D. Anderson Library, University of Houston, Main Campus, 4800 Calhoun Boulevard,
Houston, TX 77204
March 1992 18 GENEVA INDUSTRIES/FUHRMANN ENERGY
-------
HARRIS
(FARLEY STRE
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD98074558;
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
Southeast Houston
Site Description
The Harris (Farley Street) site in Houston is an abandoned landfill that was leased in 1958 to
act as a disposal facility for chemical wastes. One thousand tons of tars and sludges were
disposed of by local chemical industries. Black, tarry wastes were dumped into two open pits
and accumulated wastes periodically were burned, leaving a charred residue. The property
was sold in 1975, and the new owner subsequently gave the land to his daughter, who then
constructed a house on top of the abandoned disposal area. The buried waste was discovered
during the construction of a swimming pool in 1981. In 1982, the house was destroyed by fire.
A well is located on the site. The nearest residence is located within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deleted Date: 04/18/88
Threats and Contaminants
The soil was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). While the soil at the site was contaminated, no
contamination of the groundwater was found. There are no known human
exposure risks at this site. The wastes that were present on site were contained
within high plasticity clays, and the migration of contamination was minimal.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in one long-term remedial phase which focused on cleanup of the
entire site.
19
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: From 1986 to 1988, the potentially responsible party, Dow Chemical,
excavated non-contaminated soils from the trenches and stockpiled them,
excavated contaminated wastes and disposed of them in a federally approved
landfill, and sampled the excavated area. Because the action completely removed the
contamination source, no groundwater monitoring was conducted afterwards, and no
operation or institutional controls were found to be necessary. The property has been turned
over to a disposal company and will become part of a Class IV landfill (a non-hazardous
materials landfill), which now borders the site on two sides. A sandpit that lies to the south of
the site also is scheduled to become a landfill, once the sand has been removed. The Harris
(Farley Street) site was deleted from the NPL in 1988. The EPA, in conjunction with the
State, determined that the site is fully protective of public health and the environment.
Site Facts: In 1985, an EPA Enforcement Decision Document instructed Dow Chemical to
remove all hazardous substances and dispose of them in an off-site, privately owned landfill
that meets Federal requirements.
Environmental Progress
With the complete removal of all contaminants, final cleanup goals have been achieved at the
Harris (Farley Street) site. The EPA has determined that the site no longer poses threats
from chemical contamination and deleted the site from the NPL in 1988.
Site Repository
Information is no longer available.
March 1992
20
HARRIS (FARLEY STREET)
-------
HIGHLANDS A
TEXAS
EPA ID#TXD980514996
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
15 miles east of Houston,
1 mile from Highlands
Site Description
In the 1950s, sulfuric acid sludges from an unknown chemical process (possibly refinery
operations) were dumped into the Highlands Acid Pit, which is a 6-acre peninsula in the San
Jacinto River. The nearest resident lives about 1/2 mile from the site. Twelve water wells also
exist within a 1-mile radius of the site. The land use in the area primarily is residential and
recreational. The San Jacinto River is used for boating and swimming activities, as well as for
commercial and recreational fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and surface water were contaminated with heavy metals, sulfate and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as toluene and benzene. The upper sand
aquifer was heavily contaminated, but no private or public wells currently withdraw
water from it. Some residual contamination of groundwater is thought to exist, but
appears to be diminishing naturally over time. Use of the river for swimming or
fishing may have posed a threat by direct contact or by accidental ingestion of
water. Workers or others on site could have been exposed to chemicals by
inhaling, ingesting, or coming in direct contact with contaminated materials.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on source control.
21
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A fence was constructed around the pit by EPA emergency
response personnel to prevent further illegal dumping and to protect monitoring
wells from vandalism. The fences were vandalized and repaired in 1985. Warning
signs were installed around the perimeter of the fence.
Source Control: The remedy selected for control of the source of
contamination was: extensive excavation and disposal off site of highly
contaminated soil; backfilling, grading, seeding, and fencing of the site; and
installation of monitoring wells. Approximately 33,000 tons of excavated materials were
disposed of at a hazardous waste disposal site. This cleanup was completed in early 1992. The
State also conducted evaluations to determine if the site needs corrective groundwater
measures. The Texas Water Commission will continue to monitor groundwater. Some residual
contamination is thought to remain at and below the ground surface beyond the excavation
zone, and these residues will be a continuing but diminishing source of contamination to the
groundwater. Periodic sampling will be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of the cleanup.
Groundwater: Monitoring of the groundwater has indicated that no further
action is needed. Because the source control cleanup has been completed, no
health threats are anticipated. Monitoring of the groundwater will continue to
ensure that no further health threats exist at the Highlands Acid Pit.
Environmental Progress
The construction of a fence to limit access to the site lessened the actual exposure potential
while surface contamination cleanup goals were fully achieved. Monitoring of the
groundwater will continue to ensure that no further health threats exist at the Highlands Acid
Pit site. The site is scheduled for deletion in late 1994.
Site Repository
Houston Central Library, Government Documents Area, 500 McKinney Street,
Houston, TX 77002
March 1992 22 HIGHLANDS ACID PIT
-------
KOPPERS CO., I
(TEXARKANA P
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980623904
EPA REGION 6
Bowie County
.West Third Street in Texarkana
Site Description
The Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana Plant) site, 1 mile west of the downtown area, was a
62-acre wood treatment facility between 1910 and 1961 that was run by a succession of
owners. Koppers Company closed the facility and sold the land in 1961, and all the old
facilities were demolished in 1962. Carver Terrace built 78 homes on 34 acres of the site in
1964, and the remaining 28 acres became a sand and gravel mining operation between the
late 1970s and 1984. The entire site is within a 100-year flood plain.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
IT
The air, groundwater, and soil are contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP),
arsenic, zinc, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and creosote. Potential
exposure risks include direct contact with and accidental ingestion of contaminated
soils and inhalation of contaminated dust.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on soil treatment, buyout and relocation activities, and groundwater treatment.
23
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1985, the Koppers Company placed clean dirt and sod in the
yards of some residences to prevent exposure to the contaminated soils while the
site was being studied. About 24 homes were treated in this way, and the
southern portion of the site was fenced.
Soil Treatment: Soil treatment entails excavating contaminated soils from yards
in the Carver Terrace subdivision and moving them to the Kennedy Sand and
Gravel Company property, where they will be treated by mechanical soil washing.
The yards will be backfilled with clean soil from off site, and re-sodding and landscaping will
be done where necessary. The wash solution will be treated in the groundwater treatment
system and the decontaminated soil will be disposed of on the Kennedy property. The remedy
also calls for the demolition of contaminated homes. Once discussions of the selected remedy
are completed, engineering design activities will begin.
Buyout and Relocation: In early 1992, the EPA selected a remedy to assist in
the buyout and relocation of the Carver Terrace subdivision. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is assisting in this effort, scheduled to be completed in mid-
1993.
Groundwater Treatment: To clean the groundwater under the Kennedy
property, workers will pump groundwater up to a treatment unit constructed on
the site, pass it through an oil and water separator and a carbon filter, and pump
the treated water back into the aquifer. An amendment to the cleanup plan is under
consideration. It would provide for a buyout of affected properties. Once discussions on the
selected remedy are completed, engineering design activities will be initiated.
Site Facts: In May 1992, the EPA issued Special Notice Letters to the parties potentially
responsible for the contamination to discuss the design and implementation of the selected
remedies.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions including the installation of a fence and the placement of barriers in some
yards to prevent exposure to contaminated soil have reduced the immediate threats to
affected residents, making the Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana) site safer to residents while the
design of final cleanup actions proceeds.
Site Repository
Texarkana City Hall, 320 Texas Boulevard, Texarkana, TX 75501
KOPPERS CO., INC.
March 1992 24 CTEXARKANA PLANT)
-------
LONE STAR ARM
AMMUNITION
TEXAS
EPA ID# 1X7213821831
EPA REGION 6
Bowie County
12 miles west of Texarkana
Site Description
The Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant has operated as a munitions plant since 1942. During
World War II, explosives were disposed of by detonation above- and below-ground in an area
covering about 19 acres. Heavy metals have been detected in monitoring wells south of the
disposal site along the border of the facility. The groundwater is shallow and drains to East
Fork Elliot Creek, which is 800 feet away from the Old Demolition Grounds. The creek
drains into Wright Patman Lake, a major recreational area. This rural area has a school and
a trailer park near the site boundary. Approximately 76 people live within 2 miles of the site
and depend on several municipal and private wells for their water. Approximately 1,200
people use private drinking wells within 3 miles of the site. The nearest town, Hooks, has a
population of 2,500.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including lead, chromium, and
mercury. On-site soil is contaminated with explosives and heavy metals. Off-site
surface water is reported to contain low levels of heavy metal contamination. The
potential environmental risks are the spread of contaminated groundwater,
contaminated surface water, and contaminated soil to off-site locations. There is
little public health concern due to restricted access to the site.
25
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A fence has been constructed to protect people from direct
contact with site contaminants.
Source Control: The EPA currently is conducting an investigation into the
nature and extent of the heavy metal and explosive contamination at the site. The
investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will recommend
alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is planned to be completed in 1993.
Groundwater: The EPA began an additional investigation into the groundwater
contamination in 1990. The investigation will define the nature and extent of
groundwater contamination and is expected to be completed in 1994.
Site Facts: The Lone Star 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, the EPA, and the Texas Water Commission
entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement in 1990. The agreement addresses cleanup of the
Old Demolition Grounds.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant site to the NPL, the EPA assessed site
conditions and determined that no other immediate actions currently are necessary to protect
public health and the environment. Fencing of the site has reduced the potential for
exposure, making the site safer while it awaits further cleanup action by the Army.
Site Repository
Not established.
March 1992 26 LONE STAR ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
LONGHORN ARMY
AMMUNITION
PLANT
TEXAS
EPA ID#TX6213820529
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Harrison County
Karnack
The Longhorn Ammunition Plant site is situated on approximately 8,500 acres in Karnack. Its
mission is to load, assemble, and pack solid propellant rocket motors and pyrotechnic and
illuminating ammunition. The plant produced TNT (trinitrotoluene) flake and acid for
ammunition production during World War II. Flake production ceased, and the current
mission commenced in 1945. Wastes have been disposed of in ponds and landfills.
Contamination has been confirmed in several areas: the active burning ground/rocket motor
washout pond area, the TNT production area, the flashing area, and the old landfill. Eleven
additional areas have been identified as possibly being contaminated or having the potential
for off-site migration. Fifty groundwater monitoring wells have been installed to determine
the extent of contamination. An estimated 1,900 military personnel and area residents reside
within 3 miles of the site. A creek used for recreation potentially has been polluted.
Freshwater wetlands are located nearby.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
[ZGJ
Surface water, groundwater, and soil at areas of the site have been shown to be
contaminated with heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), munitions-
related wastes, petroleum, oil, and lubricants. These materials predominantly were
deposited at site areas during World War II operations at the base. Public water
supply wells are located near the site, and no alternate water supply is available in
the event that the wells become contaminated. The creek used for recreational
purposes may be receiving wastes from the site, and freshwater wetlands located
nearby may be threatened.
27
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, the Army constructed a cap over the rocket motor
wash-out pond area to limit the further migration of contamination.
Entire Site: In late 1991, the Army began a comprehensive investigation into the
contamination at several areas on the site including the groundwater, the landfills,
and the TNT production area. Initial studies have confirmed two sources for VOC
groundwater contamination beneath the active burning ground and have identified a third
potential source. The studies have concluded that the contaminant plume has not moved
significantly in 30 years, or migrated off the post. The investigation will further define water
and soil contamination and will identify the appropriate cleanup activities for different areas
of the site.
Site Facts: The Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense
(DOD) in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants
at military or other DOD facilities.
Environmental Progress
With the construction of a cap to limit contaminants from migrating off the post and the
installation of a fence, the Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant site currently does not present
an immediate threat to the public or the environment. Once the Army has completed its
studies and has determined the cleanup alternatives, the final remedies will be selected, and
the cleanup activities will begin.
Site Repository
Not established.
March 1992 28 LONGHORN ARMY
AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
MOTCO, INC.
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980629851
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Galveston County
Near the junction of Hwy. 3 and
the Gulf Freeway
The Motco, Inc. site occupies 11 acres of land near La Marque. Since 1958, a number of
waste recycling and storage operations have been conducted at the site. At various times
during its history, wastes have been disposed of in a number of storage tanks and in seven
unlined waste pits or lagoons. The on-site lagoons cover a total of about 41/2 acres and
contain between 11 and 15 million gallons of wastes. The wastes include tars and oils, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In 1974, the Motco Corporation acquired ownership of the
property and established an operation to remove and market styrene tars left behind from a
previous owner and reclaimed the site for use as a commercial property. The business failed
and Motco abandoned the site in 1974. Two years later, the State canceled the site's permit
and ordered Motco to secure the site and submit plans to close the site because of repeated
releases of contaminants into the environment and a failure to comply with permit
requirements. Soon thereafter, Motco declared bankruptcy. Approximately 3,000 people live
within a 1-mile radius of the site. The site is bounded by an abandoned trailer park and the
Houston Lighting and Power transmission line right-of-way. Two residential communities are
located on the opposite side of the Gulf Freeway from the site, the Omega Bay Subdivision
and the Bayou Vista Subdivision. Two commercial establishments are located about 1/8 mile
southeast of the site. Nearby residents do not obtain their drinking water from the
groundwater.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Sediments are contaminated with heavy metals including lead, copper,
chromium, and silver. The sludge is contaminated with styrene tars, VOCs, heavy
metals, and PCBs. People who trespass on the site may be at risk through direct
contact or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, soil, sediments, or
sludges.
29
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on controlling the sources of contamination and limiting the migration of
groundwater contaminants.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Between 1980 and 1985, the EPA conducted various
emergency actions at the site including removing tanks, excavating and removing
contaminated soil, erecting a fence, and drawing the pond level down to prevent
the overflow of contaminants.
Source Control: The remedies selected by the EPA to control the source of the
contamination at the site include incinerating approximately 12 million gallons of
contaminated liquid from the waste pits and the sludge, tar, and soil. The
potentially responsible parties have installed two incinerators and are in the process of
destroying the contaminated material. Approximately 20 percent of the waste has been
incinerated to date. Cleanup activities are expected to be completed in 1996.
Groundwater Migration Control: The EPA has selected cleanup remedies to
treat the migration of contaminants off site. These remedies and technologies
include removing contaminated groundwater by pumping and on-site treatment;
recovering and incinerating oily wastes from the groundwater; and controlling the migration
of contaminated groundwater by installing a system of wells that would extract contaminants,
treat the water, and reinject it. The potentially responsible parties are preparing the technical
specifications and design for the cleanup. The cleanup activities are slated to begin in late
1993.
Site Facts: The EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to the parties potentially
responsible for contamination at the site. Under the terms of the agreement, those parties
conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of the contamination and
recommended cleanup options. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Administrative Order in
1990 to seven potentially responsible parties requiring them to conduct the engineering design
of the groundwater migration control remedy.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated tanks and soil described above and the installation of the fence
limiting access to the site have reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous materials at
the Motco, Inc. site, making the site safer while cleanup activities continue.
March 1992 30 MOTCO, INC.
-------
Site Repository
College of the Mainland Library, 1200 Amburn Road, Texas City, TX 77591
MOTCO, INC.
31
March 1992
-------
NORTH CAVAL
STREET
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873343
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
Houston
Site Description
The North Cavalcade Street site occupies 23 acres in northeastern Houston and was a wood
preserving operation from 1946 to 1964. This site is associated with the South Cavalcade
Street site, which also is listed on the NPL. The operation first used creosoting techniques
and added pentachlorophenol (PCP) treatment in 1955. Operations ceased in 1961, and the
property was sold in 1964, subdivided, and resold. Two large warehouses currently occupy
about 30 percent of the site. The wood preserving facility left two waste ponds behind, one
containing process wastes and the other creosote and used industrial lubricants. As of 1988,
the plume of contamination in a shallow aquifer covered 4 acres. Areas surrounding the site
are mixed residential, commercial, and industrial properties. About 4,500 people live within a
1-mile radius; the nearest residence is 200 feet to the west. Although there is no private well
usage within a 2-mile radius of the site, a city well exists about a mile away from the site. The
city well is screened at deeper than 600 feet, and it is unlikely that it will be affected by the
site. One of the drainage ditches that moves stormwater off site flows into Hunting Bayou,
classified by Texas water quality standards as a limited aquatic habitat.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Shallow groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with petrochemicals and
wood-treating metals, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and components of creosote. Sediments also are
polluted with VOCs, PAHs, and components of creosote. Direct contact with and
accidental ingestion of contaminated soils from the site pose a long-term threat to
area workers or any future residents.
32
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases consisting of cleanup of the
groundwater and soil.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The remedy selected for cleaning up the groundwater includes
extraction of 5 1/2 million gallons of contaminated groundwater and treatment by
oil/water separation and carbon adsorption. The cleaned water is being reinjected
into the aquifer or released into Hunting Bayou, whichever better serves the water balance in
the area. All contaminated liquids separated out of the water are being taken off site and
incinerated. During the design phase, pilot tests were conducted to optimize the remedy.
Water percolation tests and biological treatment studies also were performed. The State of
Texas has assumed responsibility for the site cleanup and currently is conducting cleanup of
groundwater. Cleanup activities are expected to be completed in mid-1993.
Soil: The remedy selected for cleaning up the soil will consist of biological
treatment of 22,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil, in place. The optimum
method will be determined after pilot testing. Design of soil cleanup technologies
began in 1991 and is scheduled for completion in late 1992. A value engineering study of the
design is planned to ensure that it is as effective as possible.
Environmental Progress
The EPA assessed conditions at the North Cavalcade Street site and determined that the site
currently poses no immediate threat to public health or the environment while it awaits
planned cleanup activities.
Site Repository
Houston Central Library, Government Documents Area, 500 McKinney Street,
Houston, TX 77002
NORTH CAVALCADE STREET 33 March 1992
-------
ODESSA
CHROMIUM #1
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980867279
EPA REGION 6
Ector County
Odessa
Site Description
The Odessa Chromium #1 site consists of a series of chromium-contaminated wells within
300 acres of residential, commercial, and industrial properties near 44th Street and Brazos
Avenue, just outside the northwestern city limits. This site is associated with Odessa
Chromium #2, also listed on the NPL. Several chrome plating operations existed at the
Brazos location between 1972 and 1977. Operators at the now-abandoned Brazos property
dumped plating wastewaters and heavy metal contaminants directly onto the ground and
allowed storage tanks and drums to overflow frequently. The estimated areal extent of the
groundwater contamination is more than 20 acres. Nearly every nearby residence or
establishment is served by one or more water wells tapping the Trinity Aquifer, the only
source of potable groundwater. The EPA has identified that an abandoned well on the site
provided a potential pathway to the aquifer. This source area is within a 10-acre industrial
area. The nearest residence and drinking water well are on the site. About 3,500 people live
outside the city limits within a mile of the site. About 200 water wells are within 1/2 mile of
the site, and a municipal water well lies within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The major groundwater pollutant is chromium from wastewater dumping. Based on
a risk assessment, the contaminant levels in the soil do not present either a direct
contact or inhalation risk. People were threatened by exposure to contaminated
drinking water before the city water system was extended. Groundwater
contamination was documented in 16 of 200 existing wells sampled. Five of 14
monitoring wells contained detectable levels of chromium.
34
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on an alternate
drinking water source and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Water Supply: The State negotiated agreements with the City and local
consumers to extend the city water system and to construct a water distribution
system to the affected area. All affected residents have been provided with an
alternate drinking supply while the long-term remedy is underway.
Groundwater Cleanup: The long-term remedy focuses on groundwater cleanup.
The State is taking the lead. Contaminated water is being pumped from the Trinity
Aquifer and treated electrochemically to meet cleanup standards. The cleaned
water then is being reinjected into the aquifer. After the pump and treat process has been
completed the site will be monitored for at least 30 years. Injection and recovery wells have
been drilled in conjunction with the groundwater cleanup. In addition, the facility at Brazos
Avenue has been demolished and disposed of. The Texas Water Commission completed
designing the treatment processes. Cleanup of the site is underway and is scheduled for
completion in late 1995.
Site Facts: Under a Cooperative Agreement with the EPA, the State conducted studies to
determine the type and extent of contamination and cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply eliminated the potential for exposure to
contaminants at the Odessa Chromium #1 site while final groundwater cleanup activities
proceed.
Site Repository
Ector County Library, 321 West Fifth Street, Odessa, TX 79761
ODESSA CHROMIUM #1 35 March 1992
-------
ODESSA
CHROMIUM #2
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980697114
EPA REGION 6
Ector County
Andrews Hwy.
Other Names:
Andrews Highway
Site Description
The 200-acre Odessa Chromium #2 site, located in a mixed residential, commercial, and
industrial area, consists of a series of chromium-contaminated wells. This site is associated
with Odessa Chromium #1, also listed on the NPL. Two properties are suspected of
originating the contamination. One, at 5329 Andrews Highway, housed both a chromium-
containing cooling water additive facility and a radiator shop between 1950 and the early
1970s. A leaking subsurface tank was the likely cause of contamination at this site. The other
suspect property is Wooley Tool and Manufacturing, which used chromates in its cooling
water system from 1950 until 1976. A faulty backflushing in this system is suspected as a
source of chromium contamination. Until about 1970, the plant also disposed of chromate-
contaminated wastewater in an unlined pit. Nearly every residence or commercial facility in
the surrounding area is served by one or more water wells tapping the Trinity Aquifer, which
offers the only source of potable groundwater. About 3,500 people live within a mile of the
site. Residences and drinking water wells are located on the site. There are approximately 400
private wells within 1/2 mile, and 32 municipal wells are located within a 3-mile radius.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State,
potentially responsible parties' and
municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with chromium. The soil is contaminated with
heavy metals including chromium, zinc, copper, nickel, and lead. Contaminant
levels in the soil do not pose a health threat, based on a risk assessment conducted
at the site. Ingestion of contaminated drinking water is a possible health threat.
More than 40 acres of the Trinity Aquifer, the only source of potable water in the
area, are contaminated with hexavalent chromium. Fourteen of 318 wells sampled
show a chromium level at or above the drinking water standard. Four of eight
monitoring wells within an upper perched aquifer and three of 12 monitoring wells
within the Trinity Aquifer also contain elevated chromium levels. The affected
wells lie outside the city water supply service area.
36
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on provision of an
alternate drinking water supply, cleanup of the south plume, and cleanup of the north plume.
Response Action Status
Water Supply: State authorities negotiated with local residents to extend the
municipal water supply to affected areas and to build a water distribution system.
Residents have been supplied with an alternate water source while the long-term
remedy is being pursued.
South Plume: Workers will pump chromium-contaminated groundwater from the
Trinity Aquifer and a perched water-bearing zone, treat it electrochemically to
meet cleanup standards, reinject the cleaned water back into the aquifer, and
monitor the site for at least 30 years. The Texas Water Commission began the engineering
design of the cleanup technology in 1988. Cleanup activities at the south plume began in
early 1990 and are slated to be completed in early 1993.
North Plume:The potentially responsible parties began design of two
groundwater treatment systems in late 1991. The first treatment system is the
same as the electrochemical method used for the south plume. The second is an
ion exchange treatment system. Negotiations are continuing as to which groundwater
treatment system will be used. Construction of the chosen system is expected to begin in late
1993.
Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Decree with the potentially responsible parties in
June 1990 to conduct design and cleanup activities for the north plume at the site.
Environmental Progress
The residents around the Odessa Chromium #2 site are now provided with safe drinking
water, eliminating possible health threats while groundwater cleanup activities continue to
reduce contamination at the site.
Site Repository
Ector County Library, 321 West Fifth Street, Odessa, TX 79761
ODESSA CHROMIUM #2 37 March 1992
-------
PANTEX PLANT
(USDOE)
TEXAS
EPA ID#TX4890110527
EPA REGION 6
Carson County
17 miles Northeast of Amarillo
Site Description
The Pantex Plant site, located in a primarily agricultural area, consists of the 9,100-acre
Pantex Plant, a 1,077-acre portion of Pantex Lake, and approximately 3,170 acres of land
leased from the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) to the Texas Technological
University. The Pantex Plant is owned by USDOE and operated under contract by Mason
and Hangar-Siles Mason Co. At its origin in 1942, the plant was used as an Army Ordnance
facility. Operations were switched to nuclear weapons production in 1950. Nuclear
ammunition was fabricated, assembled, tested, and then disassembled. Wastes resulting from
this process were disposed of in 141 waste management units. Other past and present disposal
practices, including burning of chemical wastes in unlined pits, burial of wastes in unlined
landfills, and discharging of plant waste waters into on-site surface waters, also led to site
contamination. As many as 150 potential sources of contamination were identified at the site,
15 of which have already undergone initial evaluations. On-site playas have received surface
water run-off resulting from plant operations. Some of these playas are used as surface
impoundments, while others are considered fresh water wetlands. Surface water from Playa 4
is used by the Texas Tech Agricultural Research Station to irrigate crops and water livestock.
The Ogallala Aquifer lies at a depth of 390 to 420 feet beneath the site. While the thickness
of on-site soil varies from 25 to 100 feet, a zone of low permeability exists at a depth of 350
feet. Contamination has been detected in this zone. The Ogallala Aquifer serves as a drinking
water source for the municipality. An estimated 160,000 people of Amarillo draw their
drinking water from a blended water system; a well field within 4 miles of the site serves 36
percent of these users. Twenty domestic wells have been identified within 1 mile of the site.
Pumping of groundwater by the city has caused the flow of groundwater beneath the site to
change its direction toward the municipal well field.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL Listing History
Proposed Date: 01'[29/91
38
March 1992
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Site investigators determined that waste waters containing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including trichloroethylene (TCE) and dichloroethane, and
heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, and mercury, were discharged to unlined
ditches and surface impoundments on site. Soil is contaminated with VOCs,
explosives, and uranium. Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and heavy
metals.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed by one long-term remedial phase focusing on the cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA and USDOE are planning a number of investigations into
the nature and extent of contamination at the burning ground landfill, surface
impoundments, firing sites, and the old sewage treatment plant.
Site Facts: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Assessment and Response Program,
USDOE has begun characterizing and cleaning up the most severe environmental problems
and has developed an Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 5-Year Plan.
Environmental Progress
The EPA and USDOE have assessed conditions at the Pantex Plant (USDOE) and
determined that the site posed no immediate threat to public health or the environment while
further studies are underway.
Site Repository
Not established.
PANTEX PLANT (USDOE)
39
March 1992
-------
PESSES CHEMICB
COMPANY
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980699656
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Tarrant County
South Main Street in Fort Worth
The abandoned Pesses Chemical Company metals recycling facility is located on
approximately 4 acres of commercial property. The facility opened in 1978 to recover
cadmium and nickel from batteries and sludges. This process, for which the operators had no
permits, produced high-level cadmium emissions. Even after permits were obtained, cadmium
levels were measured well above permit limits. The company declared bankruptcy in 1981,
and the facility closed. Operators left two thousand 55-gallon drums of process material
behind in an unprotected storage area. Most drums were opened, deteriorating, or leaking.
Operators had also dumped and spilled recycling residues onto the ground. When a grass fire
started in 1983, a responding firefighter was overcome by noxious cadmium fumes. Although
the owner initially agreed to remove the drums, this action was never completed, and the
EPA took over responsibility for the site and removed the drums in 1983. Approximately
19,500 people work or live within a mile of the site. The nearest residence is 1/2 mile
northeast of the site, and the nearest drinking water well is about 1 mile to the south. A drug
rehabilitation center with outdoor facilities adjoins the site to the northeast. A hospital and
five schools are within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil was contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium, lead, copper, and
nickel. Sludges were contaminated with cadmium and nickel. The surface water
was contaminated with various heavy metals. The most serious potential threat was
contamination of surrounding areas from airborne dust and surface water runoff.
The risk of grass fires also existed prior to site cleanup.
40
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: The EPA removed 3,400 cubic yards of contaminated
topsoil, drums, wastes, and debris from the site in 1983. Also, workers installed a
2- to 6-inch cap of clean fill material over the southern fenced portion of the site
and seeded it with grass. In 1988, the potentially responsible parties built a fence around the
northern portion of the site. In 1990, the fence was repaired after it had been vandalized.
Entire Site: Workers excavated contaminated off-site soil and wastes and
combined their cleanup with that of on-site soils. These combined soils have been
treated in place by means of a stabilization technique suitable for shallow soils.
The fenced portion of the site around the south warehouse and office building was capped
with concrete; a cap also was placed on the south field. Workers cleaned the metal
warehouse and miscellaneous equipment. The decontaminated metal equipment was sent off
site to be melted down and reused. The liquid and solid wastes created during this
decontamination process were treated separately. Solids were stabilized with the soils.
Contaminated water was treated and discharged into the sewer system. All cleanup actions
were completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
Through the emergency actions to restrict site access, and the comprehensive actions taken to
cleanup the soil, sludges, equipment and surface water, the potential threats posed by the
Pesses Chemical Company have been eliminated. All cleanup actions were completed in 1992.
Site Repository
Fort Worth Central Library, 300 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX 67102
PESSES CHEMICAL COMPANY
41
March 1992
-------
PETRO-CHEMIC
SYSTEMS, INC.
(TURTLE BA
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873350
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Liberty County
7 miles north of Interstate 10
Other Names:
Turtle Bayou
Before 1970, Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou) disposed of waste oils and other
petrochemical sludges at this 296-acre site. Operators stored waste oils in three unlined pits
on about 500 acres of land north of Frontier Park Road. Other waste disposal areas were
located along the southern side of the road. The locations and types of waste materials still
are not fully known. Workers also spread waste oils on the site's roads to control dust. Waste
disposal and road oiling apparently were discontinued in 1970, and the oil pits were covered.
The facility's waste disposal permit was revoked in 1974. The land was developed and
subdivided into residential properties. There are 21 residences and one small business within 1
mile of the site. Four families currently live on site and the nearest drinking well is 1,900 feet
away. There are rice farms immediately north of the site and heavily wooded, undeveloped
land to the south. Numerous shallow wells supply drinking water to the area. Turtle Bayou
flows through the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
xylenes, as well as lead, waste oils, and petrochemical sludges. Nearby residents
may risk exposure through direct contact with contaminated soil. Groundwater
from the shallow aquifer is contaminated with VOCs. Numerous wells, drawing
from the deeper aquifer, are the current source of drinking water in the rural area.
One residential well sampled in 1984 showed the presence of some VOCs, but this
was not detected when the well was resampled later that year. Residential wells
are sampled frequently, and to date, no wells show the presence of VOCs. People
using the unpaved road could be exposed to contaminants through accidental
ingestion, direct contact, and inhalation.
42
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of Frontier Park Road, source control, and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The EPA installed a fence in 1986. Two families were relocated
away from the site by the EPA during cleanup. Both families have returned to
their homes.
Frontier Park Road: The road site was excavated, backfilled, and rebuilt in
asphalt. The contaminated materials now are in a double-lined on-site facility
awaiting final disposal. EPA workers improved drainage in the area and
reconstructed the Turtle Bayou crossing. Work was approved as completed in 1988.
Source Control: After the Texas Water Commission conducted studies of
contaminated areas both on and off the site, the EPA selected a cleanup remedy
for the site in late 1991. The remedy selected includes the construction of a soil
vapor extraction system to remove VOCs from affected soils; a vapor collection and transport
system; catalytic thermal destruction of contaminants in the soil; the construction of a
synthetic cap over affected soils; the construction of a slurry wall to prevent contaminants
from migrating off the site; the installation of structures to control and treat surface water
runoff; and regrading of the site upon completion of site cleanup. Design of the cleanup
remedy is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1992.
Groundwater: The Texas Water Commission completed site studies and the
EPA selected a cleanup remedy in late 1991. The remedy includes injection of air
at the base of the shallow groundwater to remove VOCs; installation of a vapor
collection and transport system; catalytic thermal destruction of VOCs from the groundwater;
and the ongoing monitoring of groundwater. The engineering design of cleanup actions is
expected to begin in late 1992.
Site Facts: On March 6, 1991, the EPA and Atlantic Richfield Company signed an
Administrative Order on Consent to conduct additional site studies.
Environmental Progress
With the cleanup actions described above, the EPA has greatly reduced the potential for
accidental contact or exposure to contaminated soil and dust along Frontier Park Road while
cleanup actions are being designed. The two families temporarily relocated during the cleanup
have returned to their homes, and Turtle Bayou again flows freely across the area.
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC. (TURTLE BAYOU) 43 March 1992
-------
Site Repository
Liberty Municipal Library, 1710 Sam Houston Avenue, Liberty, TX 77575
March 1992
44
PETRO-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
CTURTLE BAYOU)
-------
SHERIDAN DISP
SERVICES
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD062132147
EPA REGION 6
Waller County
9 miles northwest of Hempstead
Site Description
Approximately 110 acres of the 695-acre Sheridan Disposal Services site operated as a
commercial and industrial waste disposal facility from 1958 through 1984. A 15-acre sludge
lagoon, a 40-acre evaporation landfarm, nine storage tanks, and incineration plots were used
for waste disposal. A pond levee around the lagoon was constructed, encompassing 17 acres.
The State ordered the lagoon closed in 1976, and revoked Sheridan Disposal Services' waste
disposal permit in 1984 because the firm lacked technical and financial resources to
adequately close the site. The site is in alluvial deposits about 250 feet from the Brazos
River, within the 100-year flood plain. Elevated levels of heavy metals were found in river
sediments downstream of the site. The Town of Brown College, with approximately 60
people, is about 1 1/2 miles north of the site. The owner and a caretaker live southeast of the
site. Land immediately surrounding the site is agricultural, including pasture and range lands.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including benzene and toluene. The soil and sludge are contaminated with VOCs,
including benzene and toluene, as well as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The
upper aquifer, which is connected to the Brazos River, is contaminated and
believed to be connected to the lower Evangeline Aquifer. The Brazos River, the
shallow alluvial aquifer, and Evangeline Aquifer are used for drinking water
supplies. Direct contact with contaminated soil is unlikely, since access to the site is
limited. In 1978, water overflow from the site killed fish in Clark Lake, but off-site
sampling of the Brazos River and Clark Lake from 1984 to 1986 detected no
contamination. Marshlands lie 3,000 feet to the east of the site.
45
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on soil and sludge cleanup and groundwater treatment.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, approximately 11 million gallons of pond water were
transferred to the evaporation system for on-site treatment; the pond and
evaporation system dikes were repaired, strengthened, and raised; and about
6,000 gallons of floating oil were removed and placed in on-site tanks. In 1986, a fence was
installed on the top perimeter. Periodic maintenance of the levee system also has occurred to
prevent flooding of former disposal areas and possible contamination of the Brazos River. In
1987, parties potentially responsible for the site contamination lowered the level of the
stormwater in the pond.
Soil and Sludges: In order to control the source of contamination, the
potentially responsible parties will, under monitoring by the EPA, use
bioremediation to reduce PCB levels in soil and sludges. Treated sludges will then
be stabilized. Treated sludges that still have elevated PCB levels will be disposed of in a
federally approved landfill in the pond area. The cleanup is scheduled to begin in early 1994
and is planned for completion in 1997.
Groundwater Treatment: The EPA selected natural attenuation as the remedy
for groundwater contamination. This remedy relies on natural processes such as
sorption and biodegradation to alleviate contamination. Sorption is the tendency
of natural materials, such as clay, to bind or to reduce the mobility of contaminants.
Biodegradation is a process by which microorganisms break down contaminants in
groundwater. Because groundwater moves so slowly, it is expected to take a minimum of 30
years for the contamination to be eliminated. The remedy provides for: monitoring of surface
water to ensure that protective levels are maintained in the Brazos River, which would be the
first point of potential exposure to contaminated groundwater; monitoring of groundwater to
track movement of the contaminant plume; and prevention of future use of groundwater as a
source of drinking water for nearby residents through deed restrictions and other precautions.
The remedy also established contaminant concentration limits specifically for this site,
including enforceable water quality measurements that are designed to ensure that no
contamination is found in the Brazos River. Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin once
the treatment for soil and sludges is complete, currently slated for 1997.
Site Facts: In 1987, 58 potentially responsible parties entered into an Administrative Order
with the EPA to conduct an investigation on the feasibility of various methods of cleanup.
The Order was amended to include eight additional potentially responsible parties. Under a
Unilateral Order issued by the EPA in 1987, eight potentially responsible parties lowered the
water level in the pond. A group of potentially responsible parties has formed the Sheridan
Site Committee.
March 1992 46 SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
-------
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to secure the site and to treat or contain liquid wastes and contaminated
pond waters have greatly reduced exposure risks at the Sheridan Disposal Services site. The
site is safe while it awaits planned cleanup activities.
Site Repository
Waller County Library, 2331 llth Street, Hempstead, TX 77445
SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES
47
March 1992
-------
SIKES DISPO
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980513956
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
2 miles southwest of Crosby
Site Description
The 185-acre Sikes Disposal Pits site has been used as a dump for petrochemical wastes.
Between the early 1960s and 1967, the site operated as a waste depository, and petrochemical
wastes and numerous drums were deposited in the old sand pits. Indiscriminate dumping of
wastes is found throughout the site. The site is in the flood plain of the San Jacinto River. It
has been flooded six times since 1969, and the waste overflowed the pit boundaries,
contaminating the surrounding area. There are two shallow water-bearing zones, and the
Chicot and Evangeline aquifers are found below several hundred feet of clay. A residential
development lies 1,000 feet to the south. The area immediately surrounding the site is
wooded and largely undeveloped, with numerous active and abandoned sand pits and low-
lying swampy areas. Sport fishermen and water sports enthusiasts use the surrounding river
and bayou.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, sludge, and soil are contaminated with heavy
metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including toluene and xylene, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including creosote, phenolic compounds,
and halides. The frequent flooding of the area threatens the San Jacinto River and
the Jackson Bayou, both of which are used for recreation. Although the
groundwater contamination in the shallow aquifer is heavy, no residential wells
currently are affected. Neither surface water nor groundwater contamination has
migrated beyond the site boundaries.
48
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1983, approximately 40 cubic yards of phenolic tars and sand
were removed by the EPA and landfilled at an off-site hazardous waste disposal
site. The EPA backfilled the pit and covered it with clean sand. The EPA fenced
the site in 1988 and repaired fences that were damaged by floods in 1989.
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA selected the cleanup remedies for contaminated
soil and water, including on-site incineration of the sludge and soil, using the
residue ash to backfill the excavated areas. The contaminated surface water on
site will be treated as necessary to meet discharge criteria, and then it will be discharged to
the San Jacinto River. Natural attenuation over 30 years is expected to reduce residual
contamination to acceptable levels. The cleanup design was completed in 1989. Construction
of the incinerator was completed in early 1992 and the destruction of waste is underway.
Cleanup activities are scheduled to be completed in 1995.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated tars and sand and fencing of the site have greatly reduced the
exposure potential at the Sikes Disposal Pits site. The area is safe while cleanup activities are
being completed.
Site Repository
Crosby Public Library, 135 Hare Road, Crosby, TX 77532
SIKES DISPOSAL PITS
49
March 1992
-------
SOL LYNN/
INDUSTRIAL
TRANSFOR
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980873327
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
Houston
South Loop 610 West
Other Names:
Industrial Transformer Site
Industrial Transformers (Sol Lynn)
The Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers site is a 2-acre facility where an abandoned transformer
reclamation and a chemical supply company conducted operations. From 1965 to 1975, the
Industrial Transformer Company operated an electrical transformer cleaning and recycling
facility, which contaminated the soil and groundwater. The owner later leased the property to
Sila-King, a chemical supply company that bought used drums for resale. Trichloroethylene
(TCE) was released during this operation. The area around the site is a mix of residential,
commercial, and light industrial facilities. Approximately 2,100 residents live within a 1-mile
radius of the site. Four City of Houston drinking water wells and four private drinking water
wells, which serve more than 10,000 people, are located within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in on- and off-site wells is highly contaminated with TCE.
Sediment samples from a drainage ditch and soils are contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and TCE. It is unknown how deep the TCE
contamination penetrated surrounding wells. The drainage pathways and site soils
make contact with PCBs a possible threat. The site supports substantial animal and
plant life, which also are threatened by the contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on source control and groundwater treatment.
so
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination
installed a fence around the site in 1989 to limit direct access to hazardous
chemicals.
Source Control: The EPA-selected cleanup action for source control at this site
includes excavation of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil
and treatment using alkali metal polyethylene glycolate (APEG) complex
dechlorination with on-site disposal of treated hazardous residues; verification of the
effectiveness of the dechlorination process through additional studies; and pre-treatment of
liquid by-products, if necessary. The potentially responsible parties began cleanup operations
at the site in mid-1991. The EPA has removed about 230 drums of contaminated waste to an
off-site landfill. A chemical dechlorination unit was installed on the site. However, soil
treatment was discontinued due to the unfavorable operation of the unit. Alternative
methods of cleanup currently are being evaluated for the remainder of the soil.
Groundwater: As part of an agreement with the EPA, the State will clean up the
groundwater contamination. The remedy entails pumping the groundwater and
treating it by using an air stripping process to evaporate the TCE from the water.
Clean groundwater either will be discharged to a water treatment facility or reinjected into
the groundwater-bearing zone. The Texas Water Commission completed the design for the
groundwater treatment facility in late 1991. Cleanup actions began in late 1991 and
construction of extraction wells and the treatment system is scheduled to begin late in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1981, strong odors originating from the site prompted investigation, which
found approximately 75 punctured TCE drums scattered about the property. A Consent
Decree signed in 1989 made Gulf States Utilities Company responsible for the first phases of
the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Fencing the site and removing approximately 230 drums containing contaminated waste to an
off-site landfill have reduced the possibility of contact with contaminants at the Sol Lynn/
Industrial Transformers site while further cleanup activities are being completed.
Site Repository
Houston Central Library, Government Documents Area, 500 McKinney Street,
Houston, TX 77002
SOL LYNN/INDUSTRIAL TRANSFORMERS 51 March 1992
-------
SOUTH
CAVALCADE
STREET
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD980810386
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Harris County
2 miles southwest of intersection
of Loop 610 North and U.S. Hwy. 59
Other Names:
Koppers Co., Inc.
The 66-acre South Cavalcade Street site, located in northeastern Houston, was used as a
wood preserving and coal tar distillation facility from 1910 to 1962. Subsequently, the site was
subdivided and parts of the site were sold. This site is associated with the North Cavalcade
Street site, which is also listed on the NPL. Currently, much of the site is owned or operated
by three commercial trucking companies. In 1983, the Houston Metropolitan Transit
Authority investigated the site for potential mass transit use and found evidence of buried
creosote from previous site activities. The EPA's analysis of historical aerial photographs
indicates there are at least three waste pits on the site that have been filled in or paved over.
Beginning in 1985, the EPA sampled all environmental media and found two discrete areas of
contamination at the site corresponding to the former locations of the wood treating
operations and coal tar plant in the southern portion of the site and a pond previously
existing in the northern part of the site. The site is surrounded by residential, commercial,
and industrial properties. About 4,500 people reside within a 1-mile radius of the site, and the
nearest residence is 200 feet to the west. The nearest water well is 500 feet away, although
no private wells are used for drinking water within a 2-mile radius. A city well exists about a
mile from the site, but draws water from a 600-foot depth and will not likely be affected by
the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
High levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals were found in the shallow zone of the
groundwater. VOCs were found in the sediments. PAHs, VOCs, heavy metals, and
components of creosote were detected in the soil. VOCs and heavy metals were
detected in on- and off-site surface water. Off-site surface water and sediments
pose a minimal risk. On site, workers and trespassers might come in direct contact
with or accidentally ingest contaminants in soils, sediments, and surface water. On-
site activities may stir up contaminated dusts.
52
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Based on the site investigation, the remedies for cleanup selected by
the EPA include: excavating and on-site washing of 19,500 yards of soil and
replacing the soil; treating and flushing 10,500 yards of soil in the excavation's
wash water; pumping and treating of 50 million gallons of groundwater using physical
chemical separation, pressure filtration, and carbon adsorption, with reinjection into the
aquifer or, if necessary, discharging to the on-site drainage ditch that flows into Hunting
Bayou; incinerating or recycling all hazardous liquids separated out from the groundwater;
and groundwater monitoring. The potentially responsible parties began design of the
technologies to be used for the cleanup in 1990. Site cleanup is expected to start in 1994.
Site Facts: In 1985, Koppers Company signed an Administrative Order agreeing to perform
the investigation to determine the extent of contamination on the site and to identify
alternatives for cleanup. The EPA reached an agreement with the potentially responsible
parties for the development of the engineering design and cleanup. The resulting Consent
Decree was signed in June 1990.
Environmental Progress
After conducting site investigations at the South Cavalcade Street site, the EPA determined
that no immediate actions currently are needed to make the site safe while awaiting further
design of cleanup activities.
Site Repository
Houston Central Library, Government Documents Area, 500 McKenney Street,
Houston, TX 77002
SOUTH CAVALCADE STREET 53 March 1992
-------
STEWCO, INC.
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD0055337281
EPA REGION 6
Harrison County
1/2 mile south of the intersection
of Hwy. 9 and Interstate 20
Site Description
The 2 1/2-acre Stewco, Inc. site, located in a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial
zone, consists of two non-adjacent locations. The first location is a 1/2-acre plot that includes
a maintenance shop with fueling facilities, a truck-tank washing facility, and two backfilled
and capped evaporation ponds that received wastewater from the tank washing operation.
The previous owner contracted with the oil and gas industry to haul glue, resin, gasoline,
diesel fuel, jet fuel, and creosote. The tank trucks were steam-cleaned between loads with an
alkaline solution and the wash water was routed to a pond to evaporate. The ponds were
unlined and in poor condition, allowing materials to contaminate the soil and groundwater.
The second location consists of a pond that received excess wastewater conveyed by truck
from the evaporation ponds at the first location. The ponds were to be skimmed to lessen the
oil layer on the surface, but according to the EPA, no record exists of this activity. Thus,
when the ponds overflowed, the surface layer of oil moved with the overflow onto
surrounding drainage areas. The site overlies the Cypress Aquifer. Land close to the site is
used for limited grazing of livestock. Approximately 3,300 people live within 3 miles of the
site; 50 residences are within 1/2 mile of the first location, and 30 residences are within 1/2
mile of the second location. Approximately 3,100 people living within a 3-mile radius use
groundwater wells for drinking water. The nearest well is 1,850 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater in the first location is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including toluene and xylene. The soil at the first location was
contaminated with petrochemicals including fluorene and chrysene as well as
VOCs including benzene. Since the removal of contaminated liquids and sludges
from the first location, contamination threats to the public are remote. However,
groundwater contamination has been identified that is not attributable to the site.
Therefore, the Texas Water Commission is investigating a facility adjacent to the
Stewco, Inc. site, which may be responsible for the groundwater contamination.
The groundwater and sediments at the second location were contaminated with
VOCs including benzene and anthracene and petrochemical compounds from
wash-down operations. The second location has been fenced to restrict access.
54
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed through immediate actions; further investigations showed that no
other cleanup actions are required.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA removed contaminated liquids from both
evaporation ponds at the first location in 1984. The liquids were then treated and
discharged. Pond sludges were removed and disposed of off site, and the ponds
were backfilled with clean soil and capped with clay. The EPA did not deem necessary an
emergency removal of any materials from the pond at the second location. A fence was
constructed at the second location to restrict access.
Entire Site: Although it was likely that the majority of the sources of
contamination at the site were removed in 1984, the EPA determined an
additional study would be appropriate. In 1988, the EPA concluded investigations
of potential off-site and active facilities that appeared to be contributing to groundwater
contamination at the site. The additional study confirmed that residual contamination of soils,
sediments, and groundwater at the site posed no threat to public health and that no long-
term monitoring was necessary. The EPA and the State have determined that remaining
groundwater contamination is not attributable to this site and no further actions are required
at the Stewco site. The Texas Water Commission currently is investigating a facility adjacent
to the site, which may be responsible for the groundwater contamination; however, the EPA
is proceeding with the process of deleting the Stewco, Inc. site from the NPL.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated waters and sludges from the ponds has eliminated threats to
the public at the Stewco, Inc. site. Although further investigations are being done to identify
off-site sources of the remaining groundwater contamination, surface contamination from the
site has been fully addressed and final site cleanup goals for these sources of contamination
have been achieved.
Site Repository
Waskom City Hall, 304 Texas Avenue, Waskom, TX 75692
STEWCO, INC. 55 March 1992
-------
TEX-TIN
CORPORATION
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD062113329
EPA REGION 6
Galveston County
Texas City at the intersection of
Highway 146 and FM 519
Other Names:
Gulf Chemical Metallurgical
Site Description
The 175-acre Tex-Tin Corporation site is an active copper smelting metals recovery and an
inactive tin smelting and ferrous chloride production plant. The site was developed as a
smelting operation by the U.S. Government during World War II and was later sold to
private investors. The site consists of five wastewater treatment ponds, gypsum slurry ponds, a
pond containing about 19 million gallons of highly acidic ferric chloride waste, an area of iron
sludge contaminated with herbicides, tin and copper slag piles, about 20,000 drums of spent
catalyst, and a licensed landfill containing low-level radioactive waste. Monitoring wells near
the acidic ferric chloride pond are contaminated with heavy metals. An estimated 21,700
people live within 4 miles of the site. Surface water within 3 miles downstream of the site is
an important source of shellfish and is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
ZGJ
Releases of metals to the air have been observed. The groundwater is
contaminated with heavy metals including copper, tin, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
and lead. Sludges found on the site contain pesticides and residues. Public health
threats include ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated groundwater or
sludge and inhalation of tin from the air. A coastal wetland is within 2 miles of the
site and could be threatened by the site contaminants.
56
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on contaminants at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1991, the potentially responsible parties installed a fence
around the site to prohibit access to the contaminated materials.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties agreed to conduct an investigation
into the nature and extent of the contamination at the site. The investigation,
which began in 1990, will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives
for the final cleanup. After completion of the investigation, the cleanup activities will begin
and any contamination will be reduced to acceptable levels. The investigation is planned to be
completed in late 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA and the Texas Water Commission have been investigating the site
since it was identified in a 1978 survey of waste disposal sites. In 1990, the potentially
responsible parties signed an Administrative Order to conduct an investigation into the type
and extent of contamination at the site. This mining site was proposed to the NPL because it
is a non-coal site with mining-related operations that occurred after August 3, 1977, the
enactment date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Thus, the
site is neither regulated by SMCRA nor eligible for funds from the SMCRA Abandoned
Mine Land Reclamation Program.
Environmental Progress
By installing a fence, the potentially responsible parties at the Tex-Tin site have restricted
access to the contaminated materials, making the site safer while investigations are being
completed and cleanup activities planned.
Site Repository
Moore Memorial Library, 1701 Ninth Avenue North, Texas City, TX 77590
TEX-TIN CORPORATION
57
March 1992
-------
TEXARKANA WOOD
PRESERVING CO.
TEXAS
EPAID#TXD008056152
Site Description
EPA REGION 6
Bowie County
Texarkana
The 25-acre Texarkana Wood Preserving Company site is an abandoned wood-treating facility
that operated under various owners from 1909 to 1984. When the site was placed on the
NPL in 1985, approximately 793,000 gallons of hazardous waste were stored in pressure
vessels, steel tanks, retention ponds, surge tanks, and three evaporation ponds. All units were
heavily contaminated with creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) used in the treatment
process, as well as several by-products. Approximately 200 people live in a largely rural area
within a 3-mile radius of the site. The nearest residence is 500 feet to the west of the site,
and the nearest drinking well is 2,400 feet away. Groundwater is only 4 to 8 feet below the
soil surface; however, most area drinking water comes from Lake Wright Patman, which is
not threatened by contaminants.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of State and Federal
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/29/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
An estimated 16 million gallons of groundwater and 67,000 cubic yards of soil and
sludge are contaminated with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), PCP,
and dioxins from wood-treatment processes. Direct contact and inhalation of
airborne site wastes are the major threats to health. Contamination periodically is
spread off site by runoff, threatening nearby residents and the environment.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on soil and shallow groundwater cleanup and cleanup of the deep
groundwater.
58
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1986, the EPA began an emergency pump-down of the
creosote and PCP ponds and process area. Workers pumped the liquids to the
evaporation ponds. In 1987, the EPA fenced and secured the site and posted
warning signs. Emergency workers returned to the site later that year, after a car accident
destroyed a section of the fence. They made repairs and put up new warning signs, as the old
ones had been removed. In 1988, EPA emergency response workers observed that the main
process containment area was at the point of overflowing and acted swiftly to stop the threat.
The crew transferred contaminated rainwater from the containment to the evaporation
lagoons, which had adequate space and posed no danger of overflow. In the fall of 1989,
another pump-down occurred. Berms also were constructed to alleviate the overflow problem.
Soil and Shallow Groundwater: The State conducted an investigation into the
nature and extent of the soil and shallow groundwater contamination at the site.
In 1990, the EPA selected the cleanup approach including excavation of
contaminated soils, treatment of soils using an on-site thermal destruction process, and
replacement of treated soils, followed by covering the treated soil with topsoil and vegetation.
This will be followed up by pumping, treating, and reinjecting the groundwater in the shallow
aquifer. Engineering design activities began in 1991. Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin
in 1993.
Deep Groundwater: The State began an investigation of the nature and extent
of deep groundwater contamination in 1991. A cleanup remedy will be selected
upon completion of this study, scheduled for late in 1992.
Site Facts: The plant had received three citations from the State for unauthorized
discharges of process wastewater into the Days Creek drainage system.
Environmental Progress
The actions performed by the EPA's emergency response workers to control and remove
contamination at the site have protected nearby residents and the environment from
hazardous substances. The EPA also will be removing lagoon wastes to prevent the spread of
contaminants. These actions have made and will make the Texarkana Wood Preserving site
much safer, while the State begins the cleanup design, and further groundwater investigations
are underway.
Site Repository
Texarkana City Hall, 320 Texas Boulevard, Texarkana, TX 75501
TEXARKANA WOOD PRESERVING CO. 59 March 1992
-------
TRIANGLE
CHEMICAL CO.
TEXAS
EPA ID#TXD055143705
EPA REGION 6
Orange County
mile south of Orange County Airport
Site Description
The 2 1/3-acre Triangle Chemical Co. site contains a brick office building, three metal process
and warehouse buildings, and 26 storage tanks in good condition. From the early 1970s to
1981, the facility was used for the production of antifreeze, windshield washer solvent,
industrial cleaning compounds, hand cleaners, and brake fluids. In 1981, when a temporary
injunction was issued, the company went bankrupt and abandoned the site, leaving 950
unlabeled drums. There were volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on site, and the surface soil
was contaminated with spilled hazardous materials. This is a moderately populated residential
area, with 15 residences and 50 mobile homes within 1/4 mile of site. The nearest drinking
water wells are located more than 3 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZGJ
The air, groundwater, soil, surface water, and liquids in the abandoned tanks were
contaminated with VOCs and various acids. Groundwater in the aquifer under the
site flows to the northeast and discharges into Coon Bayou. Some evidence
suggested that fish kills in the Bayou were caused by contaminants at the site. The
concentrations of contaminants in the air and surface waters were low and were
unlikely to pose a threat to the nearby population. However, the site was unfenced
for a period, allowing nearby residents to potentially come into direct contact with
hazardous materials. The goals for cleaning up surface contamination have been
reached.
60
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the EPA installed a fence to stop public access to the
site. Drums were removed, and contaminated soils were bulked and solidified and
then landfilled along with equipment. In 1985, the EPA fixed the fence, which had
been destroyed by vandals. A drainage canal was dug. About 1,000 gallons of organic
solvents, 170 cubic yards of contaminated solids, and one drum of triethylamine were
removed.
Entire Site: Liquids in the storage tanks and drums were incinerated off site or
were injected into a deep well. The storage tank sludges were landfilled off site.
All on-site structures were decontaminated. Contaminated soils were plowed and
aerated to release contaminants. These actions were completed in 1987. The Texas Water
Commission (TWC) has completed a supplemental investigation of the groundwater at the
site, including a groundwater modeling study. The study indicates that contaminants in the
shallow groundwater will naturally decline to acceptable levels prior to reaching Coon Bayou.
Additional groundwater sampling is being conducted by the TWC as part of site operation
and maintenance activities to monitor contaminant reductions in the uppermost aquifer.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions to secure the site and remove contaminated materials, as well as the
completed actions to decontaminate and treat remaining contamination areas, have
eliminated the exposure threat to residents and nearby Coon Bayou. Final goals have been
achieved for the cleanup of surface contamination. The TWC is continuing to monitor
groundwater at the site to ensure when water quality reaches acceptable levels.
Site Repository
City of Orange Public Library, 220 North Fifth Street, West Orange, TX 77630
TRIANGLE CHEMICAL CO. 61 March 1992
-------
UNITED
CREOSOTING CO
TEXAS
EPA ID# TXD980745574
EPA REGION 6
Montgomery County
Conroe
Site Description
The 100-acre United Creosoting Co. site, north of Houston, was once a wood preserving
facility. From 1946 to 1972, lumber was pressure-treated with creosote and pentachlorophenol
(PCP). Operators disposed of the wastes from the treatment process in two surface lagoons
on site, which are now covered. Prior to salvage operations in 1972, the site contained a coal-
tar distillation still, a processing building, tanks and pressure cylinders, two waste ponds, and
several lumber storage areas. Only an office building, garage, and the remnants of the waste
ponds were left behind. Redevelopment of the abandoned property began in 1977, and the
site now contains a residential subdivision and two commercial properties. In 1980, the
County used soils from the site to improve local roads in a nearby subdivision. Citizens living
along one of these streets complained of headaches, burns, and respiratory problems. Upon
discovering PCP contamination in the soils, the County removed them from the roadway and
disposed of them by landfarming. Approximately 13,000 people live within a 2-mile radius of
the site. The nearest drinking well is about 2 miles southeast and is screened 160 feet below
the surface.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Soils are contaminated with PCP, creosotes, and dioxin. Groundwater sampling has
shown low levels of PCPs and creosote compounds from contact with soils. The
major health threat is direct exposure to heavily contaminated soils, although they
are very deep; groundwater contamination is low and currently is not considered to
be a threat to nearby residents or the environment.
62
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on demolition of surrounding houses, cleanup of the area, and cleanup of the
industrial area
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1983, under EPA supervision, the potentially responsible
parties covered a highly contaminated area with a synthetic membrane and 6
inches of compacted clay. They also built drainage structures to divert water away
from the subdivision and fenced the area.
Demolition of Surrounding Houses: The EPA's selected remedy for the site
includes demolition of the six houses directly above and next to the former pond
area, then compensating and relocating the residents of the houses. Title transfers
are completed for all properties, and residents have been relocated in preparation for
demolition activities. Demolition of the six houses and removal of debris were completed in
1990. The pond area was fenced to restrict access in 1991.
Residential Area: The yards of several residences neighboring the site contain
contaminated soils. The selected remedy for these residences includes excavating
the contaminated soils, temporarily storing excavated materials on the industrial
portion of the site, using an on-site critical fluid extraction system to clean the soils, and
regrading and landscaping the yards. The treatment mechanism is similar to that of solvent
extraction and will clean soil to meet existing health standards. Cleanup is underway and is
scheduled to be completed in late 1992.
Industrial Area: The same critical fluid extraction system chosen for the
residential area will be applied to contaminated soils at the industrial area of the
site. Contaminated soils will be excavated and treated on site along with the
excavated soils from the residences. The EPA and the State conducted a focused site study
that refined soil volume estimates. Design of the cleanup currently is being conducted.
Actual cleanup is expected to begin in late 1993.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties, under an Administrative Order from the
EPA, constructed a clay cap and drainage diversion berms to remedy the runoff problem.
Residents are concerned over health effects from the site. Although no acute health threats
exist, residents are asking that the entire subdivision be purchased and that the residents be
relocated.
UNITED CREOSOTING CO. 63 March 1992
-------
Environmental Progress
By fencing, capping, and draining the contaminated area, the EPA has reduced the possibility
of nearby residents' exposure to contaminants. In addition, the relocation of residents of the
homes adjacent to the former waste pond and the demolition of surrounding houses have
eliminated any possible exposure at the United Creosoting Co. site, making the area safe
while final cleanup activities are being performed.
Site Repository
Montgomery County Library, 400 North San Jacinto, Conroe, TX 77301
March 1992
64
UNITED CREOSOTING CO.
-------
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 Supetfund 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-]5
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical manu-
facturing. Acids in high concentration can be
very corrosive and react with many inorganic
and organic substances. These reactions possi-
bly may create toxic compounds or release
heavy metal contaminants that remain in the
environment long after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A
legal and enforceable agreement between the
EPA and the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally, the
EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for site
studies). This type of Order is not signed by the
PRPs and does not require approval by a judge.
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown
of contaminants in soil or water by exposing
them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis-
ease Registry (ATSDR): The Federal
agency within the U.S. Public Health Service
charged with carrying out the health-related
responsibilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air
through the contaminated material in a pressur-
ized vessel. The contaminants are evaporated
into the air stream. The air may be further
treated before it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity of
contaminated air sources.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs): Federal, State, or
local laws which apply to Superfund activities at
NPL sites. Both emergency and long-term
actions must comply with these laws or provide
sound reasons for allowing a waiver. ARARs
must be identified for each site relative to the
characteristics of the site, the substances found
at the site, or the cleanup alternatives being
considered for the site.
G-1
-------
GLOSSARY
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand,
or gravel capable of storing water within cracks
and pore spaces, or between grains. When
water contained within an aquifer is of sufficient
quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used
for drinking or other purposes. The water
contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
A "sole source aquifer" supplies 50 percent or
more of the drinking water of an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling into
the earth until water is reached, which, due to
internal pressure, flows up like a fountain.
Asbestos: A mineral fiber that can pollute air
or water and is known to cause cancer or
asbestosis when inhaled.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring process
by which a compound is reduced in concentra-
tion over time through adsorption, degradation,
dilution, or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
BaghOUSe Dust: Dust accumulated in
removing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive in
chemical reactions. When bases are mixed with
acids, they neutralize each other, forming salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used
to prevent the migration of contaminants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as they
breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated
water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria
or other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide and
water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily on
moisture from the air for their water source, are
usually acidic, and are rich in plant residue [see
Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use else-
where.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from ground-
water and surface water by forcing water
through tanks containing activated carbon, a
specially treated material that attracts and holds
or retains contaminants.
Carbon DiSUlfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and organic
G-2
-------
GLOSSARY
properties, which increase cleaning efficiency.
However, these properties also cause chemical
reactions that increase the hazard to human
health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of
holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitoring,
and analysis of a site to determine the extent and
nature of toxic releases. Characterization
provides the basis for acquiring the necessary
technical information to develop, screen, ana-
lyze, and select appropriate cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the poten-
tial for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic-
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly toxic
and water-soluble, making it a relatively mobile
contaminant in the environment
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a release
or threat of release of a hazardous substance.
The term "cleanup" sometimes is used inter-
changeably with the terms remedial action,
removal action, response action, or corrective
action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops
accepting wastes and is shut down under Federal
guidelines that ensure the protection of the
public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period is
provided when the EPA proposes to add sites to
the NPL. Also, there is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed to
clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communication
with the public. The goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related actions,
assuring public input into decision-making
processes related to affected communities, and
making certain that the Agency is aware of, and
responsive to, public concerns. Specific com-
munity relations activities are required in
relation to Superfund cleanup actions [see
Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 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 lagoon, to prevent the
migration of contaminants into the environment.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or substance
whose quantity, location, or nature produces
undesirable health or environmental effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting
out an organized, planned, and coordinated
course of action to be followed in case of a
fire, explosion, or other accident that releases
toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioac-
tive materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract
between the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site cleanup
responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood pre-
serving operations and produced by distilla-
tion of tar, including polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Con-
taminating sediments, soils, and surface
water, creosotes may cause skin ulcerations
and cancer through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an embank-
ment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a chemi-
cal is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Deletion: A site is eligible for deletion from
the NPL when Superfund response actions at the
site are complete. A site is deleted from the
NPL when a notice is published in the Federal
Register.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed small
amounts of hazardous waste to a site. This
process allows the EPA to settle with small, or
de minimis contributors, as a single group rather
than as individuals, saving time, money, and
effort.
De water: To remove water from wastes, soils,
or chemicals.
G-4
-------
GLOSSARY
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Dioxin: An organic chemical by-product of
pesticide manufacture which is known to be one
of the most toxic man-made chemicals.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materials.
Disposal may be accomplished through the use
of approved secure landfills, surface impound-
ments, land fanning, deep well injection, or
incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradi-
ent of a contaminated groundwater source are
prone to receiving pollutants.
Ecological Assessment: A study of the
impact of man-made or natural activity on living
creatures and their environment
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and
surface areas of commercial or industrial facili-
ties.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil and
water.
Endangerment Assessment: A study
conducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to direct
the potentially responsible parties to clean up a
site or pay for the cleanup. An endangerment
assessment supplements an investigation of the
site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; or to obtain
penalties or criminal sanctions for violations.
Enforcement procedures may vary, depending
on the specific requirements of different
environmental laws and related regulatory
requirements. Under CERCLA, for example,
the EPA will seek to require potentially
responsible parties to clean up a Superfund
site or pay for the cleanup [see Cost Recov-
ery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway. In this
volume, the feasibility study is referred to as a
site study [see also Remedial Investigation].
G-5
-------
GLOSSARY
Filtration: A treatment process for remov-
ing solid (participate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that results
from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water
vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many other
chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which is
used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
General Notice Letter: [See Notice Letter].
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter, made
by a potentially responsible party, consisting of
a written proposal demonstrating a potentially
responsible party's qualifications and willing-
ness to perform a site study or cleanup.
Groundwater: Water that fills pores in soils
or openings in rocks to the point of saturation.
In aquifers, groundwater occurs in sufficient
quantities for use as drinking and irrigation
water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. Hazardous waste
possesses at least one of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxic-
ity), or appears on special EPA lists.
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high
atomic weights, such as arsenic, lead, mercury,
and cadmium. Heavy metals are very hazardous
even at low concentrations and tend to accumu-
late in the food chain.
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to
control or destroy plants, weeds, or grasses.
G-6
-------
GLOSSARY
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site contain-
ing exceptionally high levels of contamination.
Hydrocarbons: Chemical compounds that
consist entirely of hydrogen and carbon.
Hydrology: The properties, distribution, and
circulation of water.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by controlled
burning at high temperatures, e.g., burning
sludge to reduce the remaining residues to a
non-burnable ash that can be disposed of safely
on land, in some waters, or in underground
locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or
other liquid down through soil from precipita-
tion (rain or snow) or from application of
wastewater to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical sub-
stances of mineral origin, not of basic carbon
structure.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water supply
is drawn, such as from a river or water body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of the
agencies for performing and overseeing the
activities. States often are parties to interagency
agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land or incor-
porate waste into the surface soil, such as
fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to the
smallest practical volume, and covered with soil
at the end of each operating day. Secure chemi-
cal landfills are disposal sites for hazardous
waste. They are designed to minimize the
chance of release of hazardous substances into
the environment [see Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act].
Leach, Leaching [v.tj: 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 (PGP): 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 (ground water): Ground water
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 ground water cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and the
removal of contaminants, using one of several
treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to their
unstable atomic structure. Some are man-made,
and others are naturally occurring in the envi-
ronment. Radon, the gaseous form of radium,
decays to form alpha particle radiation, which
cannot be absorbed through skin. However, it
can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to
affect unprotected tissues directly and thus cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through
the breakdown of granite.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the earth
to reach an aquifer.
G-10
-------
GLOSSARY
Record of Decision (ROD): A public
document that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual con-
struction or implementation phase of a
Superfund site cleanup following the remedial
design [see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth
study designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contamina-
tion at a Superfund site, establish the criteria
for cleaning up the site, identify the prelimi-
nary alternatives for cleanup actions, and
support the technical and cost analyses of the
alternatives. The remedial investigation is
usually done with the feasibility study. In this
volume, the remedial investigation is referred
to as a site study [see also Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at the site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed without
further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant re-
maining in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or the particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubber.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA): A Federal law that established
a regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons the
store waste.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contaminants
from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution control device
that uses a spray of water or reactant or a dry
process to trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
G-11
-------
GLOSSARY
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid, usually leachate, form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in
the ground used for the storage of liquids,
usually in the form of leachate, from waste
disposal areas. The liquid gradually leaves
the pit by moving through the surrounding
soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is neces-
sary for choosing and designing cleanup mea-
sures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by the
site. It follows, and is more extensive than, a
preliminary assessment. The purpose is to
gather information necessary to score the site,
using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow
of contaminated groundwater or subsurface
liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging
a trench around a contaminated area and filling
the trench with an impermeable material that
prevents water from passing through it. The
groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped
within the area surrounded by the slurry wall
can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelters
are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment
process that uses vacuum wells to remove
hazardous gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to remove
undesirable materials. There are two ap-
proaches: dissolving or suspending them in the
wash solution for later treatment by conven-
tional methods, and concentrating them into a
smaller volume of soil through simple particle
size separation techniques [see Solvent Extrac-
tion].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical
or physical reduction of the mobility of
hazardous constituents. Mobility is reduced
through the binding of hazardous constituents
into a solid mass with low permeability and
resistance to leaching.
G-12
-------
GLOSSARY
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or
attracting substances. It is used in many
pollution control systems.
Special Notice Letter: [See Notice Let-
ter].
Still bottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air Strip-
ping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority to
respond directly to releases or threatened re-
leases of hazardous substances that may endan-
ger public health, welfare, or the environment
The "Superfund" is a trust fund that finances
cleanup actions at hazardous waste sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, including
liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetlands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil, etc.,
to determine whether and how well the method
will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contaminated
areas and, therefore, are not prone to contamina-
tion by the movement of polluted groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the soil
draws VOC-contaminated air from the soil
pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn down
from the surface of the soil.
G-13
-------
GLOSSARY
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth, to
prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind the
waste in a glassy, solid material more durable
than granite or marble and resistant to leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols, acetone,
trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These poten-
tially toxic chemicals are used as solvents,
degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because
of their volatile nature, they readily evaporate
into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility,
environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil
and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that
uses a series of tanks, screens, filters, and
other treatment processes to remove pollut-
ants from water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for
the protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
G-14
-------
GLOSSARY
Some Common Contaminants at NPL Sites
Contaminant
Category
Example
Chemical Types
Sources!
Potential Health
threats*
Iteavy MMals
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Creosotes
Radiatfon
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.
HJ.S. G.P.O.:1993-341-932:82642
G-15
------- |