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

-------