PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.
TECHNICAL FINAL LETTER REPORT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO REGION X
MANUFACTURED-GAS PLANT SITES
Jack Wachter arid Majid Dosani
PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-03-3413
Work Assignment No. 0-19 K
PN 3741-19-K
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
26 Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
I 1499 CHESTER ROAD
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45246
(S13) 702-47OO
TELECOPIER (513) 782-4807
Prepared by
July 29, 1988
BRANCH OFFICES
CHESTER TOWERS
DALLAS, TEXAS
DENVER, COLORADO
COLUMBUS, OHIO
DURHAM. NORTH CAROI
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

-------
gtft o/f/
INTRODUCTION
Town gas plants, utilized throughout the United States in the late 1800s and
early 1900s to manufacture gas for illumination, cooking, and heating pur-
poses, are a growing concern to the utility industry and regulatory com-
munities. These manufactured gas plants (MGP), as well as gas storage hold-
ers, gas cleanup areas and waste and by-product disposal areas, are under-
going close examination because of the array of wastes that were generated
and/or disposed of at many of these sites. It is estimated that there are
between 1000 and 1500 MGP sites across the country. The wastes commonly
found at these sites can contain heavy metals, cyanides, phenolics, poly-
nuclear aromatics and volatile compounds. Some of these chemical constitu-
ents can be characterized as mobile, while others are persistent in the
environment.
Town gas plants had their roots in the 1700s with the discovery that coal
carbonization was a major means of producing coal gas, coal tar, light oils,
coke and ammonia liquor. These by-products were utilized as source materials
for the production of various materials used in diverse industries. Manufac-
tured gas was initially a major source of fuel for illumination in many
cities in England, Germany, and the United States. The uses of manufactured
gas expanded to include those which utilize natural gas today.
In addition to manufactured gas, the use of coal tars and light oils grew to
major importance in the chemical manufacturing industry. The tars and oils
were used as base materials for the formulation of a variety of products
while the refined chemicals from coal tar and light oil were the startinc
materials for synthetic organic chemicals of the day. Coke and tars were
used as heating materials in both the domestic (coke only) and industrial
sectors.
1

-------
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The EPA has requested technical assistance in identifying manufactured-gas
(town) plant sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) and in determining
what is being done to remediate these sites. This information will be pro-
vided to Regions V and X for their use.
The objectives of this task are:
0 To contact EPA Headquarters and Regional Superfund program person-
nel for an updated listing of the town gas sites on the NPL and to
determine the status of these sites to ascertain what measures are
being considered/planned for remediation.
° To examine state and industry programs for identifying, assessing,
and remediating manufactured-gas plant sites through contact with
state agencies and trade associations (GRI, EEI, EPRI).
° To provide a letter report by July 30, 1988.
2

-------
SUMMARY
The results of the telephone contacts with Regional EPA offices, state agen-
cies, and industry, indicate that the majority of manufactured gas plant
(MGP) sites in the country that have had remedial action were remediated by:
excavation and removal of contaminated material, containment of any contami-
nated material left, and capping. Where different means of mitigation were
planned by industry, bioremediation seemed to be the first choice. The main
reason given by those people using or planning bioremediation is cost.
Because many utility companies across the country own town gas sites much of
the study and investigation being done to remediate these sites is being
conducted by them.
Different mitigation technologies other than removal, contaminment, and
capping were planned or employed at other MGP sites but they were not as
commonly used. Bioremediation is planned for the Newport City Coal Gas site
in New Jersey (bench tests have been completed) and the Mason City Gas site,
Iowa (biological bench test experiments have not started yet). At the
Plattsburgh site in New York contamination is contained using slurry walls
and a polyvinyl (PVC) cap; the organic contamination in the ground water is
being bioremediated while the major contaminant in the ground water is being
treated by a chemical oxidation method. Besides the more conventional method
of removing contaminated soil offsite, the San Raphael MPG site in California
is employing carbon adsorption to treat the ground water. At the Faribault
town gas site in Minnesota the coal tars and coal tar contaminated soil was
mixed with coal fines and incinerated.
In some states town gas sites are not a high priority while in others they
are. In Florida, where the ground water is shallow in many places, the state
hopes to have a preliminary assessment performed on all 23 of its MGP sites
by 1989. Also, all 23 sites will be placed on the Federal Cerclis list by
1989 and it will be likely that several of the sites will be eventually
placed on the NPL.
The Gas Research Institute (GRI) has conducted extensive research for the
best remedial alternatives for gas manufacturing sites. Their research is
looking closely at: 1. biological treatment using fungus and bacteria 2.
thermal desorption; 3. tar processing; 4. groundwater treatment using a
biological reactor; 5. ultraviolet chemical oxidation; 6. soil washing using
surfactants; and 7. behavior of cyanide and tar in the environment. The GRI
is planning bench-scale demonstrations next year and by 1990 they hope to
perform large-scale field demonstrations. They have put emphasis on biolog-
ical treatment because they think it has great potential as a cost effective
method.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is also conducting research into
town gas sites. They are examining the mobilization of contaminants of MGP
sites as they move offsite. They are also constructing a portable field
3

-------
instrument for measuring semivolatiles; this instrument may be completed this
year. The only mitigation technology that EPRI is researching is agglomera-
tion. In this technology a coal slurry in water is mixed with the contami-
nated soil at a temperature slightly higher than the boiling point of water;
EPRI has found this method to be effective on most hydrocarbons. Pilot plant
testing using this technology is scheduled this year.
4

-------
COLLECTED INFORMATION - MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT SITES
Existing information on manufactured-gas (town) sites was initially collected
and reviewed. The names of the nine NPL coal tar contaminated sites were ob-
tained from Mr. Scott Parish of the U.S. EPA, Washington. The Remedial
Project Manager (RPM) for each site was then contacted in order to discuss
alternatives for site remediation. We were unable to reach the RPM for the
(Coppers Coke site. Of these eight sites, five were determined to be former
town gas manufacturing sites. Table 1 summarizes information on the types of
waste present, the status of the site feasibility study, and remedial alter-
natives proposed or implemented at these sites. Table 2 shows those three
sites identified by Mr. Parrish as having coal-tar contamination but which
were not town gas manufacturing sites. Table 2 summarizes information on the
former operations at these sites. Table 3 is a summary of the number of
former town gas sites (by state) that manufactured town gas from fossil fuels
and which existed in the U.S. from 1889 to 1950.
The 10 EPA Regions have been contacted and the information obtained is listed
below by Region. Following contact with the Federal EPA Regional office,
state agencies and industries in those states that would most likely to
contain MGP sites were contacted.
5

-------
TABU I. SUWURT OF GAS HANUFACTURIN6 SITES ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
Site
Location
EPA	Xenedlal
Region Project Manager
Office
Phone No.
Type of site and process used
Fine Street Canal Burlington, VT I
Paula Fltzslaonds Boston, HA
((17) 573-5784 GtS manufacturing sit*. The plant has
been dismantled. Wood chips were used
extensively it this site.
Oover Gas and
Light
Retlly Tar and
Chemical Corp.
Dover, OE
IndlanapolIs,
IN
III
Len Nash
Dion Novak
Phlldelphla, PA (215) 597-0978
Chicago, 1L
(312) 886-4737
Coal-fired gas manufacturing site that
operated fro* 1859-1948. All the build-
Ings and structures Have been demolished
and burled underground.
Site Is divided Into two parts -
(I)	coal-tar producing site closed la
1972;
(II)	pyridine aanufacturlng site Is still
active.
Types of waste
Feasibility
Study
Remedial Altemai
Proposed Inplei
Coal-Ur (mIa con-
taminant)
¦	Wood chips saturated
with coal gasifica-
tion byproduct
¦	Ferrocyanlde
¦	Organic waste
¦	Bentene
¦	Toluene
¦	Coal-tar
¦	No coal-tar was
found
¦	Pyridine and Its
derivatives were
found In ground-
water samples In
offslte wells
In 1980.
Not yet started
Rot yet started:
trying to Identi-
fy PRP
Recently com-
pleted Phase I
In which samples
fro* offslte
wells (comer-
clat and resi-
dential) were
collected; Phase
II, In which
ground and sur-
face water su-
plei will be
collected, will
begin this sua-
Hone	N<
None	Nc
Cabot/Hoppers
Brod Head Creek
Salnesvllle,
FL
Stroudsburg,
PA
IV
III
Nancy Harsh
Patricia Tan
Joe Koilosly
(State Project
Manager)
Atlanta, GA
Philadelphia, PA
(404) 347-2234 Cabot and Koppers are actually two sites.
Cabot was a gas manufacturing plant that
closed in 1960. Koppers is still active
and is running a chroalia-copper-arsenate
(CCA) process for preserving wood.
S97-3164 Coal-fired electric power generating plant.
783-7816 Building has been daaollshed.
IB?!
-	Copper, pentachlo-
rophenol, some
¦etaIs and volatile
organlcs have been
found to date
-	Coal-Ur
Kill begin In
the next couple
of months
In process, will
take about a
year
None
None
No
A slur
was bu
1983 a
porary
gency
cr.

-------
TABLE 2. SUWARY OF NONGAS MANUFACTURING SITES ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
EPA	Remedial
Site	Location Region Project Manager	Office	Phone No.	Type of site and process used
ird and McGuire	Holbrook, HA	I Mary Sanderson Boston, MA (617) 573-5738	Pesticide manufacturing site.
. Louis River	St. Louis	V Grace Plnzon Chicago, IL (312) 886-7088	Coal-fired facility for manufacturing
ite	County, MN	coke for a steel plant.
Re 111y Tar and	St. Louis	V Erin Moran Chicago, IL (312 ) 886-7238	Coal-tar distillation/wood treating
Chemical Corp.	Park, MN	site.

-------
TABLE 3. TOWN GAS SITES BY STATE (1880-1950)
EPA	Number
region	State/territory	of sites
1
Connecticut
25
1
Maine
16
1
Massachusetts
89
1
New Hampshire
17
1
Rhode Island
7
1
Vermont
12
2
New Jersey
74
2
New York
156
2
Puerto Rico
2
2
Virgin Islands
NR
3
Delaware
7
3
Dist. of Col.
2
3
Maryland
16
3
Pennsylvania
138
3
Virginia
18
3
West Virginia
9
4
Alabama
15
4
Florida
23
4
Georgia
19
4
Kentucky
21
4
Mississippi
10
4
North Carolina
28
4
South Carolina
11
4
Tennessee
15
5
Illinois
91
5
Indiana
60
5
Michigan
69
5
Minnesota
30
5
Ohio
90
5
Wisconsin
42
6
Arkansas
9
6
Louisiana
7
6
New Mexico
4
6
Oklahoma
5
6
Texas
32
(continued)
8

-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
EPA	Number
region	State/territory	of sites
7
Iowa
62
7
Kansas
23
7
Misssouri
35
7
Nebraska
22
8
Colorado
15
8
Montana
6
8
North Dakota
7
8
South Dakota
11
8
Utah
3
8
Wyoming
3
9
American Samoa
NR
9
Arizona
12
9
California
91
9
Guam
NR
9
Hawai i
2
9
Nevada
6
10
Alaska
NR
10
Idaho
3
10
Oregon
14
10
Washington
18
Totals
•
1502
Footnotes: 1. "NR" signifies that data were not
reported.
Source: Survey of Town Gas and By-Product Production
and Locations in the U.S. (1880-1050), Radian
Corporation technical report to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, EPA Contract No.
68-02-3137, 1975.
9

-------
REGION I
Contact
Subject/Action
Federal Region I
office
(Massachusetts)
Federal Region I
office
(Maine, Vermont)
Federal Region I
office
(New Hampshire)
Federal Region I
office
(Connecticut)
Federal Region I
office
(Rhode Island)
Federal Region I
office
(Massachusetts)
Tried to contact Rich Cavanero who handles Superfund
sites. Tried several times but he did not return any of
our calls.
Contacted David Webster. Only one MGP site in Maine and
Vermont that is on the NPL list - the Pine Street Canal
site in Vermont. The site currently has only a site
investigation being conducted. No remedial action
planned yet.
Contacted Daniel Coughlin who does the NPL listing in
New Hampshire. He did not know if any MGP sites in New
Hampshire. He suggested we call Don Smith of Region I;
we did and Don Smith said that only two MGP sites he knew
of in the state were not on the NPL list, but were under-
going only preliminary assessment. He mentioned that
Region I has only one site on the NPL list and prelimi-
nary work has been completed on six sites, but no remedi-
al action has been proposed or implemented.
Ms. Margaret Leshin, who covers Connecticut for Region
I, did not know of any MGP sites in Connecticut. The
only site in the region she knew of that was on the NPL
list was the Pine Street Canal site that was also men-
tioned by David Webster of Region I.
Tried several times to contact Richard Boynton who
handles the state of Rhode Island but he did not return
any of our calls.
Contacted Fred Civian. He said be is not sure if there
are any MGP sites on the NPL in Massachusetts. He
referred me to Karen Stromberg; she said the only MGP
site in the state that has undergone remedial action is
the Mendon Road site in Attleboro, Massachusetts. This
site is not on the NPL list but on the state hazardous
waste site list. For more information she referred me to
Susan Bershard. Ms. Bershard said that the Mendon Road
site was more of a emergency response clean up than a
remedial action. Some contaminated soil was removed from
the site by the state but some contaminated sludge still
remains. The Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) is
currently doing an assessment of the sludge and surround-
ing area. A report on the site was requested.
10

-------
Contacted Ted Live. He will send me a list of the 15
known MGP sites in Massachusetts and the six that have
gone through Site Investigation/Feasibility Study; these
six sites have a proposed remedial action. To collect
information on these six sites I contacted Erin
Battistelli. She will send me what information she can
find in the state files.
The Radian report on town gas sites (mentioned in
Table 3) estimates there are 89 sites in the state of
Massachusetts.
11

-------
REGION II
Contact
Federal Region II
office
(New York)
Federal Region II
office
(New Jersey)
State of New York
Niagara-Mohawk
Utilities Co.
New York State
Electric and Gas
Subject/Action
Contacted Mel Hauptman. He said no MGP sites on the NPL
at the present time. He does not know of any undergoing
feasibility studies either.
John Frisco, who handles the Superfund matters for New
Jersey, said he did not know of any MGP sites on the NPL.
Walter Demick, who handles site investigations, knew of
only one site on the NPL - the Niagara-Mohawk Saratoga
site. This site is currently undergoing a remedial in-
vestigation; no remedial design has been proposed. Mr.
Demick indicated that the Plattsburgh site has undergone
some remedial action. The Plattsburgh site is owned by
New York State Electric and Gas.
Contacted Peter Ouderkirk. He said all MGP sites in New
York state are in the remedial investigation stage now.
He also said the 25 MGP sites on the New York Cerclis
list have had no remedial action except the Saratoga
s i te.
Contacted Dan Steenberge. He does not know of any MGP
sites in New York that have had any remedial action
except the Plattsburgh site. He said the Saratoga site
is currently undergoing remedial investigation. He gave
me contacts at Niagara - Mohawk and New York State Elec-
tric and Gas.
Contacted Frank Shortino. No MGP sites owned by Niagara
- Mohawk have undergone remedial action. He said the
Saratoga site is undergoing Phase II - soil and ground
water sampling. He also said his firm is conducting
bioremediation research.
Dennis O'Day, civil engineer for the Plattsburgh site,
said he did not know of any MGP sites in New York state
that have undergone any remedial action other than the
Plattsburgh site. He said the contamination on the
Plattsburgh site is more contained than cleaned up. The
contaminants were contained using slurry walls and a
polyvinyl (PVC) cap. This was followed with bioremedia-
tion of the ground water for the organic contaminants and
chemical methods to remove iron from the ground water. A
report on the site remedial action was requested.
12

-------
State of New
Jersey
Bob Raisch, who handles preliminary assessments, said
there are no MGP sites on the NPL 11st. He said some
sites are being remediated by utilities before they make
it to the NPL list. For further information he referred
me to Nick Eisenhauer in Case Management. Nick reaffirm-
ed what Bob Raisch said and mentioned that there are four
sites undergoing remedial action in New Jersey. He gave
me the name of each site and the contractor in charge of
the remedial action.
Diversified
Environmental
Resources
(Bellaire
Estates or
Ridgewood Gas
Works site, N.J.
URS (Atlantic
Coal Gas site,
N.J.)
Melvin Simon &
Associates
(Newport City
Coal Gas site,
N.J.)
BCM (Tom's River
site, N.J.)
Contacted Ted Sailer of D.E.R. about the Ridgewood site.
He said remedial action will start this month. Their
plan is to excavate the contaminated soil and remove it
offsite. They are currently in Phase II - soil sampling.
Contacted Don Sennett of URS. He said the remedial
action being taken at the Atlantic Coal Gas site is to
remove the contaminated soil and take it to a New
Jersey ID 27 landfill. He also said ground water remedi-
ation has not been addressed yet. Approximately 6,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil has been removed al-
ready.
W
Fred Jforstell of Melvin Simon & Associates, one of the
developers of the property on which the Newport City Coal
Gas Hes, told me that they will be using in-situ
bioremediation as the remedial action for the Newport
City Coal Gas site. A hydraulic barrier (a type of
French drain) will contain the ground water on site and
an anaerobic biotreatment will be used to leach the coal
tars from the soils. He hopes that this will clean up
the ground water also. The hydraulic barrier is in place
but no pumping of the ground water has started yet.
Bench tests using this biotreatment system have been
completed.
Jeff Bradshaw of BCM told me that the remedial action
plans have been drawn up by BCM for the Tom's River site
but they have not been implemented yet. He said he wants
to keep all information confidential until he contacts
his client, a utility company who is cleaning up the
site. He hopes to have some information by July 22.
13

-------
REGION III
Contact	Subject/Action
Federal Region III Bill Hagel, who covers those states in Region III other
office (All	than Pennsylvania, did not know of any MGP sites in his
states except	area, but he did know of one in Pennsylvania - the Brod
Pennsylvania)	Head Creek site.
Connie Carr, who prepares the Region III Cerclis lists,
said there is only one site on the NPL list that he 1s
aware of-- the Dover Gas Light Company site in Dover,
Delaware, but he said only a Rl/FS is underway; no reme-
dial action is planned yet. He also said he know of no
MGP sites in Maryland undergoing remedial action.
Federal Region III
office
(Pennsylvania)
State of
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Power & Light
Walter Graham did not know of any MGP sites in Pennsyl-
vania on the NPL list other than the Brod Head Creek
site.
Joe Kozlowki of the Emergency Response Team said he only
knew of one MGP site in Pennsylvania that was undergoing
investigation - the Brod Head Creek site. He said in the
early 1980*s there was some emergency action done there:
1)	removal of some contaminated material to a landfill;
2)	construction of a slurry wall; and 3) recovery of
8,000 gallons of coal tar that was then burned.
Contacted Frank Fair who said he know of only one MGP
site that had remedial action and that was a Pennsylva-
nia, Power & Light (P,P,& L) site call the Columbia Gas
site. He said the remedial action involved removal of
contaminated material and then encapsulation with con-
crete. He suggested I call Joyce Miller (file clerk) to
get a report on the site. I hope to have the report by
July 22.
Contacted J.F. Villaume who confirmed what Joe Kozlowski
said about the Brod Head Creek site owned by P,P,& L.
Mr. Villaume said P,P,& L is currently conducting a
remedial investigation/feasibility study there. He said
two other sites owned by P,P,& L were cleaned up in
Pennsylvania but this information is not available be-
cause it is confidential. The only Information he could
divulge about the two sites is that the remedial action
was removal and containment.
State of	Contacted Dave Healy; he did not know of any MGP sites on
Maryland	the NPL. He said all the town gas sites in Maryland are
14

-------
State of
Delaware
Chesapeake Util-
ties, Dover,
Delaware
Geraghty & Miller
Annapolis,
Maryland
State of Virginia
in the preliminary assessment stage. He also remarked
that one MGP site (Salisbury Town Gas site) which was
never on the NPL list had a small amount of tar removed
from the site for disposal; he said the site is currently
undergoing a preliminary assessment.
Joe Hardman of the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control knew of no sites in
Delaware undergoing Superfund Remediation. He said most
of the sites are in the preliminary assessment/site
investigation stage.
Contacted Steve Thompson who said his firm is currently
doing an investigative action for the Salisbury Town Gas
Site (Salisbury Maryland). He also said there has been
no remedial action and that some soil was removed to a
hazardous waste landfill. He know of no MGP sites in
Maryland or Delaware that have had remedial action.
John Mildenberger of G&M told me that he only knew of one
MGP site that had any remedial action; the site was in
Maryland and a tar pond was excavated and the tar was
sent to a hazardous waste landfill. He considered this
action superficial. The site is now undergoing remedial
investigation; he said the site still has contamination
and it was never on the NPL list. He could not pass any
more information along to me because the utility (his
client) was reluctant to let information out. Also, the
state did not know about the clean up. Mr. Mildenberger
also said his firm is working on six or seven MGP sites
and they are all in the preliminary assessment stage.
Jim Adams of the state of Superfund Branch said Virginia
has 11 sites on CERCLIS. After performing preliminary
assessments on all sites, only Portsmouth and Suffolk
town gas sites were investigated because of shallow
ground water. Following the investigation, it was deter-
mined than no further action was required. The state has
not performed any remediation at any MGP sites to date.
15

-------
REGION IV
Contact
Region IV
State of
Alabama
State of
North Carolina
State of
Florida
Subject/Action
Contacted Richard Stonebraker who said he has never run
across any MGP sites in Region IV. He does not know of
any on the NPL lit in his Region.
Also contacted Nancy March of Region IV who said the
Cabot/Koppers site is an NPL site in Gainesville,
Florida. A RI/FS had been completed for the site.
According to Nancy March, Dike Erikson (IT project man-
ager for RI/FS), and John Ruddell (FL DER) the Cabot site
was not a former MGP site. Until 1960, Cabot made char-
coal from pine bark.
Joe Downey of the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management said the Southern Natural Gas Company,
Birmingham, Alabama, has the only town gas site in the
state that has been investigated. A preliminary assess-
ment indicates that no further action is required at the
site.
Lee Crosby of the state Superfund Division said the state
of North Carolina has not performed any assessments,
investigations, or remediation at any of the MGP sites
within the state.
Contacted Rick Wilcons who said Florida has a total of 23
sites which are in various stages of work and all will be
placed on CERCLIS by 1989. A site inpection has been
performed at most of these sites and eight preliminary
assessment have been performed to date. All sites will
have a preliminary assessment performed by 1989. The
state tries to persuade the responsible party to investi-
gate their own sites. Because of the states shallow
ground water is is likely that several of Florida's sites
will be eventually placed on the NPL. Pooles Roofing
site in Gainesville, Florida will be performing a sub-
surface investigation. Miami Beach and Miami will be
performing a Contamination Assessment Plan. Miami Beach
is the only site in the state that has performed any
rememdiation, which was a simple excavation and disposal
of contaminated material. St. Petersburg, Florida has
the most active site. The city has completed a site
investigation and is in the process of preparing a feasi-
bility study.
16

-------
City of St.
Petersburg
State of
Kentucky
State of
Georgia
State of
Tennessee
State of South
Carolina
Robert Holm said the city was in the process of building
a stadium when a former MGP site was discovered. After a
site investigation, a contamination assessment plan was
performed, the site was determined to be non-hazardous by
regulatory definition. The state is in the process of
performing a feasibility study to determine the best way
to remediate the site because if may be considered hazar-
dous at a later date by the Federal EPA. Encapsulation,
removal, and thermal treatment are alternatives consider-
ed. Ground water contamination also exists and will be
treated and removed later.
Carl Millanti said the state of Kentucky has investigated
two sites in Owensboro, Kentucky. The investigation
determined that no further action was required. No other
sites have been assessed, investigated, or remediated.
Contacted Bill Mundy of the Department of Natural
Resources. He said EPA Region IV performed an emergency
cleanup at a former MGP site in Rome, Georgia. The
project involved digging up contaminated soil and trans-
porting the soil to a hazardous waste landfill. In
addition, the state of Georgia performed a preliminary
assessment at eleven sites in the state. Five of these
sites have been selected for a site investigation. Other
than the project in Rome, Georgia, no other sites have
been remediated.
Bill Forrester of the Department of Health and Environ-
ment stated that the state of Tennessee has not assessed,
investigated, or remediated any MGP sites to date.
Bob Creswell of the state told me South Carolina has not
assessed, investigated, or remediated any MGP sites to
date.
17

-------
REGION V
Contact	Subject/Action
Federal Region V Contacted Richard Dikins and Greg Kulma. They both said
office	there are no town gas sites on the NPL list in Ohio,
Minnesota, Indiana, or Illinois. Another contact, Bill
Messenger, said one MGP site that recently made the NPL
list is the Central Illinois Public Service site in
Taylorvilie, Illinois. The site has undergone only a
preliminary assessment and site inspection. He also said
he did not know of any MGP sites on the NPL list in
Region V.
State of Michigan Contacted Dave Rymph of the state agency. He stated that
there are no sites on the NPL list now, but there have
been town sites that have had remedial action - Riverside
Park site in Detroit, Michigan, and a site in Jackson,
Michigan owned by Consumers Power utility. Dave Rymph
thinks there might be a third site currently being clean-
ed up in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He also said that the
state would prefer removal and disposal versus incinera-
tion.
Michigan	Steve Kurmas could only give me a small amount of infor-
Consol-	mation on the Riverside Park site in Detroit because his
idated Gas	firm and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Company	have legal negotiations going on at the present time.
He did say that the remedial action involved excavating
the contaminated soil (approximately 6,000 cubic yards)
removing it offsite to a RCRA facility. This was fol-
lowed by encapsulation with a PVC liner and topsoil was
placed on top of the liner. Mr. Kurmas said that other
MGP sites owned by his firm (the state estimates that
there are 14) had not reached the remedial design or
action stage.
Consumers	Bruce Rasher stated that Consumers Power has not perform-
Power Company	ed any remedial action on any of the MGP sites they own.
He said two sites were investigated and no clean up was
deemed necessary while two other sites were investigated
and the wastes were found to be not hazardous by their
consultant. He was very reluctant to disclose any infor-
mation on MGP sites.
18

-------
Upjohn Company Susan Knox said that the Upjohn Company is in the process
of performing remedial action on a MGP site on their
property in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The old MGP site was
purchased from Consumers Power by Upjohn and Upjohn and
the utility are currently in legal negotiations over the
site. Ms. Knox stated that the wastes are non-hazardous
(based on EP toxicity and characteristic testing) and
will be removed and sent to a Class II state-approved
landfill. She said the site is not on the Cerclis list;
she also said that the state determines whether the site
is listed or not.
State of Minnesota According to Bob Dollinger of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency only one MGP site has received any reme-
dial action and Minnesota. That was the Faribault site
owned by Northern States Power. He sent us the Record of
Decision for the Faribault site and it indicated that the
coal tars and coal tar contaminated soil were mixed with
coal fines and after the inert debris was removed by
screening, the material was incinerated. The only other
remedial action at the site was the capping of the oxide
box wastes and oxide box waste contaminated soil with
topsoil followed by revegetation. Mr. Dollinger said
this site is on the state priority list but not the HPl
1 ist.
The Radian report on town gas sites (mentioned in Table
3) estimates that there are 30 sites in the state.
State of Wisconsin Ray Tierney of the State Department of Natural Resources
said the state has performed 19 preliminary assessments
to date. Several sites have had some soil removed.
Lincoln Wood Products, Racine site, and one other site
have had major cleanups. The cleanup was performed by
excavating and disposing of the materia? at a hazardous
waste landfill.
The Radian report on town gas sites (mentioned in Table
3) estimates that there are 42 sites in the state.
State of Illinois Contacted Brian Martin of the state EPA who said the
state has identified seven utilities, each having several
MGP sites. There are a total of 91 sites, and it is
expected that the number will increase to 130 in the
future. The state encourages the responsible party to
investigate their own MGP sites. The 91 identified sites
are at various levels of initial site assessments. Site
investigations have been performed on ten of these sites.
One site, called the Old CIPS Gas Plant in Taylorville,
Illinois, has just recently been proposed on the NPL. A
partial cleanup has been performed at the Taylorville
site by excavating the material and hauling it to a
hazardous waste landfill.
19

-------
Central Illinois
Public Service
Company
Illinois Power
Illinois Power
Company
State of Ohio
Cincinnati Gas &
Electric Company
Don Richardson of CIPS reaffirmed what the Illinois EPA
said about the Taylorville, Illinois site which is owned
by CIPS. He also stated that almost 12,000 cubic yards
of contaminated soil has been removed to date and the
final remedial design will take at least two to six
months to be completed.
Tom Sweet of the Illinois Power Company said his company
has 24 gas sites which have been assessed. A subsurface
investigation is being performed at one of these sites.
It is suspected that some remediation will be performed
within the next year.
Ken Schultz of the Ohio EPA did not know of any MGP sites
in the state.
John Funke of CG&E did not know of any MGP sites that
were owned by his company or on his company's property.
20

-------
REGION VI
Contact	Subject/Action
Federal Region VI Tried several times to contact Carl Edlund but he did not
office	return any of the calls.
State of Texas Bob Chapman of the Water Resources Division was contacted
and he said the state has identified about 30 MGP sites
but only one was cleaned up by the owner; at this site
they dug up the contaminated soil and landfilled it. He
also stated that these MGP sites are in downtown areas
and have buildings on them and thus they cannot do very
much; most of the sites have contamination in the upper
30 to 40 feet.
21

-------
REGION VII
Contact
Federal Region VII
office
Federal Region VII
office
Subject/Action
Contacted Pete Culver. He said that his job is to
identify coal gas sites and then hand them over to RPM.
He gave the name and number of the RPM for the Mason City
coal gas site in Iowa.
Contacted Steve Auchterlonie, RPM for the Mason City gas
site. He gave some background information on the site.
Feasibility studies will be completed in the next couple
of months and one of the proposed technologies is biolo-
gical treatment. He gave us the name of Mike Johnson of
Hickok Associates, who is in charge of biological treat-
ment.
Hickok	Contacted Mike Johnson. He said they haven't yet started
Associates	experiments and hence don't have any data. They are
setting up a bench-scale experiment and are in the proc-
ess of preparing work plan and methodology for biological
treatment.
22

-------
REGION VIII
Contact	Subject/Action
Region VIII	Bill Giese said he did not have any information on
gas manufacturing sites nor did he think there were
in Region VIII.
23

-------
REGION IX
Contact
Federal Region IX
office
State of
California
Pacific Gas &
Electric Company
State of
California
Subject/Action
Contacted Phil Bobel who did not have any knowledge of
town gas manufacturing sites.
Lach McClenahen of the Department of Health Services
estimated that there are 30 to 50 town gas sites in
California but he did not know of any sites on the NPL
nor did he know of any in the remedial action stage. He
did add that most of the sites are only in the prelim-
inary assessment stage and these types of sites are low
on their list of priorities.
Vic Furtado of P,G & E told me that of the MGP sites that
his firm owns only one has gone through remedial action -
the San Raphael site. The contaminated soil was simply
removed and sent offsite to a RCRA facility. The area
was then enclosed with a slurry wall and the ground water
was pumped, treated by carbon absorption, and put into
the city sewer system. Mr. Furtado also mentioned that
his firm has seven other town gas sites in various stages
of investigation.
Contacted Stan Lau and David Lew who said Dames and Moore
has performed a site investigation on a site which was
formally property of Southern California Edison. The
site at one time was a MGP site. It was determined that
the site did not contain any hazardous waste, and that
the materials could be disposed at any approved landfill.
However, the excavated material may have to be disposed
of at a Class I landfill because of the odor that is
caused by the polynuclear aromatics contained in the
soil. The design for excavation calls for lining the
walls of the excavated hole with concrete, lining the
floor with a geotextile liner, and covering with a cement
slurry. The property is extremely valuable and is ex-
pected to be developed. The reason for excavation is
because the site will not support a structure.
24

-------
REGION X
Contact	Subject/Action
Federal Region X John Barich said the Tacoma Tar Pits (part of the
office	Commencement Bay near Shore Tide Flats Superfund site)
site has a planned remedial action of soil stabilization
and capping. The 35 acre site is contaminated with PNAs,
PCBs, heavy metals, auto fluff, and coal tars. The ROD
was signed in December of last year and the remedial
design negotiations are currently being held.
Lee Marshall of the Superfund Group did not know of any
other town gas sites in Washington on the NPL.
25

-------