United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Publication 9320.7-071 September 1995 Descriptions of 8 Final Sites Added to the National Priorities List in September 1995 Office of Emergency and Remedial Responsi Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (5204G) Intermittent Bulletin Volume 2, Number 3 This document consists of descriptions of the 8 final sites added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1995. The size of the site is generally indicated, based on information available at the time the site was scored using the Hazard Ranking System or nominated using ATSDR Health Advisory Criteria. The size may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination Sites are arranged alphabetically by site name. CLEANING UP UNDER SUPERFUND The Superfund program is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), enacted on December 11, 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), enacted on October 17, 1986. In October 1990, SARA was extended to September 30,1994. An appropriation by Congress for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized Superfund to continue to operate. The Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund set up by CERCLA as amended pays the costs not assumed by responsible parties for cleaning up hazardous waste sites or emergencies that threaten public health, welfare, or the environment; Superfund also pays for overseeing responsible parties conducting cleanup. Two types of responses may be taken when a hazardous substance is released (or threatens to be released) into the environment: • Removal actions - emergency-type responses to imminent threats. SARA limits these actions to 1 year and/or $2 million, with a waiver possible if the actions are consistent with remedial responses. Removal actions can be undertaken by the private parties responsible for the releases or by the Federal government using the Superfund. • Remedial responses — actions intended to provide permanent solutions at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Remedial responses are generally longer-term and more expensive than removals. A Superfund-financed remedial response can be taken only if a site is on the NPL. EPA published the first NPL in September 1983. The list must be updated at least annually. EPA's goals for the Superfund program are to: • Ensure that polluters pay to clean up the problems they created; and • Work first on the worst problems at the worst sites, by making sites safe, making sites clean, and bringing new technology to bear on the problem. ------- REMEDIAL RESPONSES The money for conducting a remedial response at a hazardous waste site (and a removal action, as well) can come from several sources: • The individuals or companies responsible for the problems can clean up voluntarily with EPA or State supervision, or they can be forced to clean up by Federal or State legal action. • A State or local government can choose to assume the responsibility to clean up without Federal dollars. • Superfund can pay for the cleanup, then seek to recover the costs from the responsible party or parties. A remedial response, as defined by the National Contingency Plan (the Federal regulation by which Superfund is implemented), is an orderly process that generally involves the following steps: • Take any measures needed to stabilize conditions, which might involve, for example, fencing the site or removing above-ground drums or bulk tanks. • Undertake initial planning activities to scope out a strategy for collecting information and analyzing alternative cleanup approaches. • Conduct a remedial investigation to characterize the type and extent of contamination at the site and to assess the risks posed' by that contamination. • Conduct a feasibility study to analyze various cleanup alternatives. The feasibility study is often conducted concurrently with the remedial investigation as one project. Typically, the two together take from 18 to 24 months to complete and cost approximately $1.3 million. • Select the cleanup alternative that: — Protects human health and the environment; - Complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate; - Uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technology to the maximum extent practicable; - Considers views of the State and public; and - Is "cost effective" - that is, affords results proportional to the costs of the remedy. • Design the remedy. Typically, the design phase takes 6 to 12 months to complete and costs approximately $1.5 million. • Implement the remedy, which might involve, for example, constructing facilities to treat ground water or removing contaminants to a safe disposal area away from the site. EPA expects the implementation (remedial action) phase to average but at about $25 million (plus any costs to operate and maintain the action) per site, and some remedial actions may take several years to complete. The State government can participate in a remedial response under Superfund in one of two ways: • The State can take the lead role under a cooperative agreement, which is much like a grant hi mat Federal dollars are transferred to the State. The State then develops a workplan, schedule, and budget, contracts for any services it needs, and is responsible for making sure that all the conditions in the cooperative agreement are met. In contrast to a grant, EPA continues to be substantially involved and monitors the State's progress throughout the project. • EPA can take the lead under a Superfund State Contract, with die State's role outlined. EPA, generally using contractor support, manages work early in the planning process. In the later design and implementation phases, contractors do the work under the supervision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under both arrangements, the State must share in the cost of the implementation phase of cleanup. CERCLA requires that EPA select the remedy. 2 ------- National Priorities List Final Rule #15 Site Summaries Table of Contents Page She Name and Location 4 Ace Services, Colby, Kansas 5 Horseshoe Road, Sayreville, New Jersey 6...; Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Maryland 7 RSRCorp., Dallas, Texas 8 Tennessee Products, Chattanooga, Tennessee 9 Tutu Wellfield, Tutu, Virgin Islands 10 West Site/Hows Comers, Plymouth, Maine 11 Willow Grove Naval Air and Air Reserve Station, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania ------- &EPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 \ September 1995 ACE SERVICES Colby, Kansas Conditions at Proposal (February 13, 1995): The -Ace Services site is a former chrome plating facility where chrome plating was applied to farm implement parts. The Ace Services facility operated from 1969 to 1989 and was permanently closed in March 1990. The Ace Services site is located on approximately 2.4 acres in the eastern part of the City of Colby, a northwestern Kansas agricultural community with a total population of 6,525 including college students and nearby rural residents. Structural features currently at the Ace Services site include the operations buildings and a former lagoon area. Residences and commercial property surround the site which lies approximately 200 feet west of an unnamed intermittent tributary to Prairie Dog Creek. Prairie Dog Creek is an intermittent stream approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the site. Ground water from the Ogallala Aquifer represents the sole source of municipal and private drinking water in and around Colby. Hie Colby municipal well public water supply well no. 8, located 0.2 miles east of the Ace Services site, was closed in 1980 on orders from Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) due to chromium in the ground water at concentrations above the Federal maximum contaminant level drinking water standard for chromium. An estimated 6,180 people are currently served by seven Colby municipal system supply wells. All of the wells are located within a 4-mile radius of the site, and each well draws from the Ogallala Aquifer. The depths of the municipal wells range from 202 to 281 feet below ground surface. From 1969 to 1975, chrome plating wastewater generated during operations at the Ace Services facility was discharged directly to the ground surface immediately west of the unnamed tributary to Prairie Dog Creek. A citizen's complaint regarding the Ace Services facility was filed with KDHE in March 1971. Analytical data from samples of the discharged wastewater collected by KDHE and EPA in 1971 and 1972 indicated the presence of chromium. In 1974 and 1975, concrete retention vats were installed at the Ace Services facility, and an evaporation lagoon was constructed immediately adjacent to the facility to receive discharged wastewater. However, the evaporation lagoon was not lined, and chromium-contaminated wastewater was allowed to contaminate the soil and infiltrate into the ground. Also on site are chrome plating solutions, bulk hazardous wastes, and caustic acidic processing materials contained in vats and drums that were previously stored inside the Ace Services facility. KDHE has recommended that a remedial investigation and feasibility study be undertaken to determine what action should be taken to remediate the contaminated ground water in the vicinity of the site. KDHE has also recommended that contaminated soils in the lagoon area should be properly remediated to remove a continuing source of contamination. In 1981, Ace Services excavated approximately 2,200 cubic yards of chromium contaminated soil and sludge from the Ace Services lagoon area and disposed of it at the Thomas County landfill, a municipal solid waste sanitary landfill. In March 1992, KDHE removed the bulk hazardous liquid and solid wastes stored inside the Ace Services facility. Ace Services installed a recovery well at the site in 1980, to be used to extract contaminated ground water from the Ogallala Aquifer. This recovery system never became fully operational.. KDHE installed three monitoring wells at the site in 1990. EPA completed a removal action in July 1994, which consisted of removing residual contamination (mainly dusts) from the building interior, excavation of a concrete trough and the underlying soil, installation of additional building support columns near the trough, demolition of the wastewater treatment building, excavation of underlying soil, and excavation and stabilization/treatment of lagoon soil. All waste was shipped offsite for disposal, except for approximately 3,000 gallons of wastewater, which was treated onsite and discharged to a publicly-owned treatment works. Status (September 1995): EPA is currently considering various alternatives for the site. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was scored. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- v>EPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 ; September 1995 HORSESHOE ROAD Sayreville, New Jersey Conditions at Proposal (May 10, 1993): The Horseshoe Road site covers approximately 9 acres on Horseshoe Road near the Raritan River in northern Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The area around the site is densely populated and includes large residential, business, commercial, and industrial areas. Approximately 47 houses are located to the southeast within 0.5 miles of the site. The site consists of four areas that are considered one NPL site because: (1) they are part of the same operation; (2) in general, they have the same potentially responsible parties; (3) contamination is threatening the same ground water, surface water, and air; and (4) they are no more than about 1,000 feet apart. The history of the site is complex, involving numerous real estate transactions. At least 18 entities were involved in the four areas during 1965-81, according to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE). The four areas are described below. Horseshoe Road Drum Dump (Marsh Area Drums), where approximately 70 drums, many corroded and some labeled cyanide, were discovered during a fire hi 1981. Using CERCLA emergency funds, EPA relocated the drums onto the Atlantic Development Corp. area of the site. The dump is in a wetland. Atlantic Development Corp. Area, where several companies manufactured, processed, and blended various chemicals. During 197S-82, NJDEPE took numerous legal actions against the companies. In mid-1980, NJDEPE removed over 1,000 drums from the area after the companies failed to do so. NJDEPE analyses of soil samples in 1985 detected volatile organic compounds (including toluene), semivolatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. EPA soil analyses in 1989 detected similar hazardous substances, plus pesticides and PCBs. In an April 1991 onsite inspection, EPA found 400 S-gallon containers holding solids and semisolids of various colors. Most containers were open, and many were crushed as a result of a fire in 1983. Sayreville Pesticide Dump, an abandoned property now in the custody of the State. In the April 1991 inspection, EPA found at least 160 corroded or crushed drums, many containing a white powder. NJDEPE's 198S analyses detected benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene hi soil, and EPA's 1989 analyses detected 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, copper, and mercury. Surface water and sediments in a small stream originating near the Sayreville Pesticide Dump contain heavy metals (copper, lead, and mercury), phenol, bis (2-chloroethyl) ether, methoxychlor, lindane, chloroform, and 1,2-dichloroethane, according to EPA's 1989 analyses. Hard clams are harvested from Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, coastal tidal waters within IS miles downstream of the site. Wetlands on and off the site are also threatened. An estimated 14,000 people obtain drinking water from public wells within 4 miles of the site. Atlantic Resources Corp., where precious metals, and perhaps solvents, were recycled during 1972-85 by Atlantic Resources Corp. and International Resources Corp. Twice during the winter of 1986-87, mercury spilled onto the ground. In March 1987, EPA used CERCLA emergency funds to remove 70 pounds of mercury and contaminated soil to a hazardous waste facility regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA also removed 30 5-gallon containers of sodium cyanide, which was used in the metal recycling process. Status (September 1995): Since the site's proposal hi May 1993, removal actions have been completed at three areas adjoining the Atlantic Resources Area, namely the Atlantic Development Area, the Horseshoe Road Dump area, and the Sayreville Pesticide area. These removal actions involved soil sampling, fencing, and the stabilization and removal of contaminated surface material, storage tank contents, and drums. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was scored. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- xvEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 September 1995 INDIAN HEAD NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER / Indian Head, Maryland Conditions at Proposal (February 13,1995): The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC), formerly known as the Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, is located in southern Maryland on the Indian Head Peninsula. It is bounded on the south by Mattawoman Creek, on the West and north by the Potomac River, and on the east by the town of Indian Head. NSWC, which occupies approximately 3,400 acres, was established in 1890 as the Naval Proving Ground, with the mission of conducting proof and acceptance testing of munitions. The facility's mission was expanded to include the manufacturing and testing of explosives and propellants; it later was known as the Naval Powder Factory (1932 to 1949) and the Naval Propellent Plant (1958 to 1965). In 1966, the facility was designated as the Naval Ordnance Station. Over its 100-year history of operations, the facility has manufactured a variety of munitions chemicals, including smokeless powder, ammonium picrate, nitroglycerine, nitrocellulose, and nitroguanidine, as well as sulfuric and nitric acids used in the manufacturing of chemicals. Manufacturing, testing, loading, and assembly operations at the site have generated a variety of explosive, reactive, and hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes generated from facility operations were routinely dumped into pits and landfills on the facility or burned in open burning grounds. Industrial wastewaters were routinely .discharged to septic systems and to open ditches and storm sewers that empty directly into surrounding bodies of water. Over a period of 11 years, in 6 separate investigations, more than 100 contaminated source areas have been identified at the NSWC. Only 30 of those areas have been investigated in sufficient detail to be evaluated for CERCLA eligibility. The 30 sources generally fall into 6 categories: (1) releases of mercury from the testing of nitroglycerine and the production of oxidizers; (2) releases of silver from x-ray processes and from the production of acetal formal (a component of propellants); (3) solvent spill and disposal areas; (4) open burning grounds used for the disposal of explosives and solvents; (5) land, disposal units and storage units that received hazardous wastes; and (6) discharges of industrial process wastewaters containing hazardous constituents. Only eight sources, those associated with the release of mercury, have been evaluated under the HRS. The eight sources are located in two clusters, approximately 5,700 feet apart, hi the Explosive Process building, the Biazzi Plant, and six laboratory buildings. One of the sources involved the production of hydrazide nitroformate (an oxidizer used in propellants). Over a period of 8 years, waste mercuric nitrate, dissolved in nitric acid, was poured into an unlined 6-by-4-foot bed of limestone chips located along the west bank of a drainage ditch behind the laboratory. The other seven sources consist of mercury releases attributed to more than 80 years of routine spilling of liquid mercury during nitrate-ester analysis of explosives manufactured at the facility. During the analyses, mercury commonly was spilled on the floor and into floor drams; nitrometer bulbs occasionally exploded; mercury vessels often were broken; during the rinsing step, mercury was washed out of the vessels and into sink drains. Releases to surface water have been documented at all seven of the laboratories that conducted nitrate-ester analysis. Sink and floor drains that routinely received spills elemental mercury are connected to septic systems, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers that discharge to open ditches leading to nearby Mattawoman Creek. Mattawoman Creek converges with the Potomac River. Mattawoman Creek and the Potomac River both provide habitats for several endangered marine and wetland species, including the bald eagle. Both Mattawoman and the Potomac are used for commercial fishing, harvesting of shellfish, and recreation. Numerous private wells in the area draw from shallow ground water, which may be contaminated from site activities. Status (September 1995): The Navy has developed a Site Management Plan for the ongoing Installation Restoration Program. RI/FSs will be initiated at 12 sources and 30 other sources will be screened to determine' if further investigation is necessary. Removal actions have been completed at two sources and begun at a third. All of these accelerated actions involve the removal of contaminated soils to prevent the further spread of pollutants. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was scored. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 September 1995 RSRCORP. Dallas, Texas Conditions at Proposal (May 10, 1993): The RSR Corp. site is on the west side of Dallas in Dallas County, Texas. The site consists of areas of contaminated soil located south of the Trinity River, between Norwich and Hampton Roads, and north of the Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks. RSR's secondary lead smelter, located at 1111 West Mockingbird Street at the corner of Westmoreland Road and Singleton Boulevard, emitted lead into the atmosphere. Before RSR acquired the facility in 1971, the smelter had operated continuously since 1936 as Southern Lead, Southern Smelter, or Murph Metals. The smelter processed lead slag and scrap from battery manufacturing. Operations stopped in 1984. Because the wind blows predominately from the south, the lead emitted by the smelter was carried north and deposited hi a mixed residential-commercial area that includes 170 homes, parks, schools, churches, playgrounds, day care centers, recreational facilities, and businesses. About 70 people work at a school on the site. EPA conducted tests in 1992, and found battery casing chips contaminating areas approximately 1.5 miles west and 3 miles southwest of the smelter. In addition, areas near the smelter are contaminated from battery casing chips and slag that have been used as fill for residences, driveways, and gardens. In 1968, the City of Dallas began a series of legal actions against RSR Corp., including fines, lawsuits, and compliance agreements for violations of air emission standards. In 1982, monitors placed by the City and the Texas Air Control Board found that air lead levels near the smelter exceeded EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard. In 1983, the State, City, and EPA ordered RSR to conduct soil cleanup and control stack and fugitive emissions from the smelter. EPA ordered these actions under an administrative order on consent (AOC) issued under CERCLA Section 106. In the same year, the Dallas Housing Authority processed a Comprehensive Improvement and Assistance Plan application for its West Dallas housing projects located to the northeast of the corner of Westmoreland and Singleton. The City ordered RSR to stop lead smelting operations in 1984. In 1986, EPA confirmed completion of all soil .cleanup and other activities under its 1983 order in the neighborhoods within 0.5 miles of the smelter. In July 1991, the Texas Water Commission (TWC) notified EPA that hazardous wastes had been found in the West Dallas area as a result of a citizen's complaint. EPA sampling confirmed elevated levels of lead and began working with residents to remove the contaminated soils and replace them with clean soil. Status (September 1995): From 1991 to June 1994, EPA conducted removals at 420 residential and high risk areas (schools, church playgrounds, parks, etc.). In August 1993, EPA signed an AOC with the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA) to conduct a remedial investigation (RI), demolition, and removal at the public housing complex. In October and November of 1993, EPA collected blood samples from 558 children in the complex. In November 1994, EPA completed the remedial investigations and human health risk assessments for the residential areas around the RSR smelter. In March 1995, DHA completed the demolition of 167 buildings and removal of approximately 24,000 yd3 of contaminated soil from the public housing area. In May 1995, EPA completed the remedial investigations and human health risk assessments for the smelter facility. The RI and feasibility study (FS) for the former RSR processing area and disposal sites are near completion. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was scored. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] Superfund hazardous waste site listed under trie Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- &EPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 September 1995 TENNESSEE PRODUCTS Chattanooga, Tennessee Conditions at Proposal (January 18, 1994): The Tennessee Products site is an aggregation of Southern Coke Corporation (Southern Coke), Chattanooga Creek Tar Deposit site and Hamill Road Dump No. 2. The site is located in a heavily populated, low-income, urban, and industrial area in the Chattanooga Creek basin in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. The site consists of the former Tennessee Products coke plant and its associated uncontrolled coal-tar dumping grounds in Chattanooga Creek and its floodplain. Uncontrolled dumping of coal-tar wastes has contaminated the facility, ground water resources underlying die facility, and surface water resources downstream of the facility including wetlands and fisheries. The former Tennessee Products coke plant (a.k.a Southern Coke) is located at 4800 Central Avenue, south of Hamill/Hooker Road and approximately 1 mile west of Chattanooga creek. The coal-tar wastes are located along an approximate 2.5 mile section of the creek extending from just upstream of Hamill Road bridge to the creek's confluence with Dobbs Branch. The coal-tar deposits are the result of dumping coal-tar wastes directly into the creek and onto the floodplain within the immediate vicinity of the creek channel. The largest coal-tar deposits have been found in the creek bed and along its banks within a 1-mile segment of the creek between Hamill Road and 38th Street. Analyses for porymiclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as visual inspection of sediment cores confirm that coal-tar has heavily contaminated this segment of the creek plus an additional l.S miles of the creek downstream from this segment. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a Public Health Advisory for the Tennessee Products Site on August 20, 1993 based on the chemical and physical hazard presented by the coal-tar deposits at the site. The Advisory recommends the following actions: 1) dissociate residents from the coal-tar deposits; 2) continue site characterization to address the potential for migration of contaminants; 3) consider the Tennessee Products Site'for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL); and 4) as appropriate, consider other coal-tar contaminated sites along the creek for inclusion on the NPL. Studies have been conducted on Chattanooga Creek on several occasions by EPA and other agencies since 1973. Several of these studies indicate that coal-tar constituents have contaminated the creek and its sediments. The latest of these studies, conducted in 1992 by EPA, has revealed the extent of the coal-tar dumping along the creek. This new information, in combination with historical file information, supports the aggregation of the above mentioned sites. Status (September 1995): Since the site was proposed, ATSDR has worked with the State, schools, and community to conduct an extensive health assessment. EPA has also begun working to involve the community in the site investigation and remedial planning. The RI/FS and ecological risk assessment for the site are also on- going. Investigations have identified further coal tar deposits in the creek. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and one of the PRPs have entered into a voluntary agreement to demolish buildings and repair the fence at the old Coke Plant site, hi cooperation with EPA, the Corps of Engineers (the Corps) has completed a focused feasibility study on the contaminated sediments hi Chattanooga Creek to identify and estimate the costs associated with various treatment alternatives. EPA and the Corps of Engineers are developing treatability studies for innovative technologies and is also developing proposals and estimates on early remediation/removal actions for heavily contaminated areas and associated cost estimates. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the ATSDR Health Advisory was issued. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- vvEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 September 1995 TUTU WELLFIELD Tutu, Virgin Islands Conditions at Proposal (February 7, 1992): The Tutu Wellfield site involves a plume of contaminated ground water covering approximately 108 acres in Tutu in a mountainous semi-rural area of eastern central St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. In July 1987, a strong petroleum odor was detected in the Tillet Well, a public supply well in the area. At the request of the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR), EPA sampled over 100 wells in the area. Volatile organic compounds such as benzene, toluene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene (TCE), and tetrachloroethene (PCE) were detected in several public supply, institutional, commercial, and private wells. Water from several commercial wells in this area was hauled to other parts of the island. The Tillet Well, 3 private wells, and 13 commercial wells subsequently closed down, and alternative sources of water, including trucking water to the area, were made available. In July and September 1987, VIDPNR issued administrative orders on consent to Tutu Texaco Service Station and Tutu Esso Car Care Center to investigate the release of petroleum from their underground storage tanks. EPA identified six more potentially responsible parties (PRPs): two vehicle maintenance repair stations (Ramsay Motor Co., and Antille Autos), two Territorial government agencies (Virgin Islands Housing Authority and Department of Education, formerly the Laga Building), a dry cleaner (O'Henry Cleaners), and a silk screening operation (Jim Tillet, Inc./Tillet Gardens). Potential sources of hazardous substances at these locations include petroleum and waste oil underground storage tanks, drum storage areas, contaminated catch basins, oil separators, floor drains, a sump holding tank, a leaching pit, above-ground tanks, and an evaporation pit. Wastes that may have been disposed of include solvent-based auto flushes, treatments, degreasers, cleaners, and lubricants; antifreeze; kerosene; hydraulic fluid; waste oils; spent PCE waste and filters; dry cleaning fluids such as 2-butoxyethanol, hexylene glycol, and dye stripper; ammonium hydroxide; and mineral spirits. In September 1987, EPA used CERCLA emergency removal funds to decontaminate five residential cisterns, provide alternative water supplies, and monitor local wells. Since 1987, EPA has detected many of the same chemicals found in drinking water wells in the soils on the properties of several of the PRPs. Semivolatiles such as phenols and polyaromatic hydrocarbons were also detected at a few of these properties, as was cadmium and PCBs. An estimated 1,600 people formerly obtained drinking water from public and private wells within 4 miles of the site. In March 1990, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order to O'Henry Cleaners, Esso Standard Oil Co., and Texaco Caribbean, Inc., to take over EPA's removal action. In September 1990, the three companies began the monitoring program. Tutu is located in the Upper Turpentine Run Basin. An intermittent stream leading to Turpentine Run is within a few hundred feet to the southwest. Turpentine Run flows southward approximately 2.8 miles to Mangrove Lagoon, which is hydraulically connected to the Caribbean Sea. The Atlantic Ocean lies approximately 1 mile to the north. Status (September 1995): An escrow account was set up in 1993 to provide trucked-in water to the affected residents until their wells are potable again. In June 1993, EPA identified an additional PRP: a vehicle maintenance station (Western Auto). In March 1995, approximately 700 cubic feet of PCE-contaminated soil was excavated from the O'Henry Cleaners property. A proposed plan for ground water and soil remediation was published on July 23, 1995. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was scored. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See FR 5600, February 11, 1991 or subsequent FR notices.] Soperfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- &EPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 September 1995 WEST SITE/HOWS CORNERS Plymouth, Maine Conditions at Proposal (February 13,1995): The West Site/Hows Comers site encompasses 2 acres of a 17-acre wooded lot on Campbell Road in Plymouth, Penobscot County, Maine (near Hows Corners). The site consists of a partially grassy clearing, approximately ISO by 200 feet, with occasional bedrock outcroppings that trend north-south. The site is situated on a moderate geographic high in an area that is otherwise of low relief. The site is currently inactive and there are no buildings or other structures. The Town of Plymouth assumed title to the West Site/Hows Comers property in 1992 as a result of delinquent taxes. The former owner-operator, George R. West, Jr., operated the site as a waste oil storage and transfer facility from 1965 to 1980 in affiliation with the Portland/Bangor Waste Oil Company (PBWO). Waste oil, delivered by PBWO tank trucks, was stored onsite in approximately eight 1,000 to 20,000 gallon storage tanks. PBWO collected, transported, and deposited on the West Site/Hows Comers site unknown quantities of waste oil from military bases, auto dealerships, municipalities, local garages, bulk transportation companies, industries, and utility companies. Oil was stored in tanks and separated by density, the light oils rising to the top and the heavier oils and sludges settling to the bottom. The company then decanted the lighter oil, which was sold for fuel; the heavier oils were sold for dust control on din roads. PBWO company records indicate that the waste stored on the site was predominantly composed of used motor oils and industrial lubricating oil; however, because of the varied types of facilities contributing waste, the exact constituents of the oils are unknown. In 1980, PBWO ceased operations at the site. Subsequently PBWO cut up the tanks onsite and sold them to a scrap metal dealer. No waste oil activities are known to have taken place after the tanks were removed. The only waste source on the site in 1988, when EPA performed a site inspection, was contaminated soil because the aboveground storage tanks were removed in 1980. In 1990-1991, EPA removed 847.37 tons of contaminated soil from the center of the site, approximately 100 feet by SO feet, and disposed of it at a licensed TSCA facility. The soil was primarily contaminated with PCBs and chlorinated organic compounds. The source of the PCBs on the site is unknown; however, it is assumed that they were deposited on the site as a constituent of the waste oil. PBWO clients included electric utilities and Department of Defense installations that used transformers containing dielectric oils, which are possible sources of PCBs. Thirteen residential well water supplies serving 43 people have been contaminated with chlorinated compounds above a health-based benchmark. Contaminants attributable to releases from the West Site/Hows Corners site include tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethene. These contaminants have been detected in private supply wells near the site and in monitoring wells on the site. In addition, ground water samples collected from onsite monitoring wells contain elevated concentrations of other volatile compounds and PCBs. The site is surrounded by a chain link fence that was partially installed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP) hi 1988 and completed by EPA in 1990. Status (September 1995): Since proposal hi February 1995, EPA has worked with MEDEP to build upon the database of potential responsible parties begun by the State. ATSDR has conducted an initial site visit in support of the health assessment for the site. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was scored. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- &EPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST NPL OERR Hazardous Site Evaluation Division Washington. DC 20460 ; September 1995 WILLOW GROVE NAVAL AIR AND AIR RESERVE STATION Willow Grove, Pennsylvania Conditions at Proposal (August 23, 1994): Willow Grove Naval Air Station (WGNAS) occupies an airfield established in 1919, approximately 25 miles north of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The adjacent facility, Willow Grove Air Reserve Station (WGARS), was known as Willow Grove Air Reserve Facility before October 1992. The two facilities perform similar operations, jointly use onsite waste disposal facilities, and have nearby sources. There are no barriers between the facilities that prevent migration of contaminants, and the same people are affected by the contaminants. Therefore, WGNAS and WGARS are regarded as one site. Aircraft operations at Willow Grove began during the 1920s, when the facility was named Pitcairn Airfield. The US Navy acquired the airfield in 1942 and jet training began there in 1949. WGNAS and WGARS expanded and, by 1986, encompassed 1,015 acres. Of that area, 162 acres are owned by the Air Force Reserve and operated as WGARS. Most of WGARS was acquired from private owners; the remainder was acquired from the Navy. WGNAS and WGARS provide materials, facilities, services, and training in direct support of all units assigned to them. Activities that generate, store, or dispose of hazardous waste at the facilities can be grouped into four categories: aircraft maintenance, base civil engineering, fuel operation, and personnel training. There are four landfills on WGNAS and WGARS property, several hazardous waste storage areas, a wastewater retention basin, a wastewater treatment plant, and numerous other structures, including aircraft hangars, training facilities, maintenance shops, office buildings, fuel tanks, and barracks. Three sources of potential contamination have been evaluated at the site: Privet Road Landfill, Source IN; the Fire Training Area, Source 5N; and the Washrack Area, Source 1 A. Analysis of ground water samples collected from wells located near these sources detected eight compounds at high levels of contamination. Those compounds are trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1- dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethene. Analysis of ground water samples obtained from a drinking water well at WGNAS showed levels of PCE above health-based benchmarks. Approximately 821 employees at the 2 facilities are served by a contaminated well. Status (September 1995): EPA is currently considering various alternatives for the site. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was scored. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] Superfund hazardous waste sits listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended ------- |