EPA/540/4-90/003
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Alaska
UNITE'B STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S."Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview ..iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume.........'...'.., xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview , . xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT .....xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets .,. 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets ,.., G-l
-------
IT
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
s the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
ground water (a source of >
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
m
-------
INTRODUCTION
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a.permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
pr environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe.
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about ;
both environmental progress
across the country and the \
cleanup accomplishments :',
closer to home. The public .
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation - in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview -
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery/threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
-How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
T""""""""t he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
. establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP 1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists*
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
ha2ardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
VII
-------
? does EM'leaj
v. . - i4£ i/y i.ui.^iuip,*^
ijassatcioas w^ste^r
|S*s?" "^ "^
SVX.V,
fttat &a|>p£tt£ if x" ~% *%
.ere 1$ ki liariittS^
i^-
STEP 3L: SpE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION ;
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
ittent danger;
>'"* V!" v "^ *? s «*\
'- >'1i"* >. V!"s X v "^
does EFA
wKat, If - :;T
s ^ - "
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents, may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of. their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now ifs time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
«^w.£,t.. Xf ^
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmedthe land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
'
v:
w»\
X %.
«\<
,<- -!
S- 0
-.
H>
,-\\v> ,
}'
A
S .
^
a
IX
-------
^jj*-i-";:j" ^ ^ ^ \* v* ^v. .
855V»^ 4sss?^x-0. *Xx" ., < X-W,V
*v- - -^ \X^^, ^^.<:
~v ~. , s l -%N%.s 5
^ X NX^ J^ \ -, . ^^ ^
^~ v s ^ s^ X_;X <" \ & < ^ v. s^\Xj
JJ?BStS.'xl^xw*0^-" <.,«, ^ ^ ^ % s ^
sl^^V ^"S
&», -x i s ^*
KSSSswiSSfV^ s , .«" Xs -.-;,^ ss, , f
fcr" V ., H ^ "vi. j^^ %
^..^s^, \ -. s %
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The MRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release of a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
.? -.<*
*~ ".V>" ^i»
,,v.:m,
>
';
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu- j.gg gj^pg fo cieatttm? ""
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to --,- *
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
XI
-------
StJPERFUND
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or,,under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis Of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
Cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to dean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
V -. s « V
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup) choice, are"1
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the ,
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource of area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitiye
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the,'
s% <-"** ,«
-' ?*"? -- - " ->? -, x x
--^"% > - --"t^;.--. ,,? -"""" "^ --
T ^ """^r -.. r s rt:,^^
^ *S^,>' ' .. : "X-.^v%5>. "-"
ftXt w*y* .
^ W <«-. __ % .£ ^^ , ^ %
-" '-"' ''"' \"'""">> 5 ^^'
«<; ^ «vs ' ' ^, $ ««« % 1"xstT ' «y
"" "" %%^ ,. . vXw.
tafo*e t
-the deslgri of the '';
'
xiii
-------
SUPERFUND
i\v --
omplete,
" Jsw-Wi*-^ s\»s*' s
it tak
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to, ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And if s not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
\*. "<
V *
<\v.-,v,v
"". C
AK^
V
-------
TAX
-------
1 he Site Fact Sheets
-"x^" *. presented in this book
^ are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
XVll
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Sue Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
xviii
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
rjt
Site Facts
Additional informafon on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Alaska
The northernmost State of Alaska is bordered by Canada to the east, the Bering Sea to
the west, the Pacific Ocean to the south, and the Arctic Ocean to the north. The State
covers 586,412 square miles, consisting mostly of the Pacific and Arctic mountain
systems with a central plateau and an Arctic slope region. Alaska experienced a 30.5
percent increase in population during the 1980s, and currently has approximately
524,000 residents, ranking 49th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include
oil, gas, tourism, and commercial fishing. Alaska-manufactured goods include fish
products, lumber and pulp, and furs.
How Many Alaska Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
4
2
_Q
6
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01
6 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
6--
5--
(0 4 - -
'55
s :
*
2 --
1 --
GW Soil Seds
Contamination. Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
creosotes (organics), pesticides,
asbestos, and acids.
Sediments: Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process*?
Site ^^^ Remedy ^^^ Remedy
Studies ^^^" Selected ^^r Design
Cleanup ^^^ Construction
Ongoing ^"^" Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 5 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Alaska, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Alaska Superfund Office
EPA Region X Superfund Office
EPA Region X Public Relations Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Public Information Office
(907) 465-2666
(206)399-1987
(206)442-1283
(800) 424-9346
(202) 477-7751
"Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
A
XXII
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*) which
indicates the.current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
»- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
»- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
«* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Alaska
Page Site Name
County
NPL Date
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1
3
5
7
9
11
ALASKA BATTERY ENTERPRISES
ARCTIC SURPLUS
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE
FORTWAINWRIGHT
STANDARD STEEL & METALS SALVAGE
FAIRBANKS N. S.
FAIRBANKS N. S.
FAIRBANKS N. S.
ANCHORAGE
FAIRBANKS N. S
ANCHORAGE
Final
Prop.
Final
Prop.
Prop.
Prop.
03/31/89 *" *"
10/26/89 *-
11/21/89 "^ *
07/14/89 *- *"
07/14/89 *
07/14/89 *- "K
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
ALAS
ENTE
ALASKA
EPA It>#'AKD004964215
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Fairbanks North Star County
1 1/2 miles south of Fairbanks
Alias:
Alaskan Battery Enterprises
Site Description
Alaska Battery Enterprises.manufactured batteries on a 1-acre site approximately.
1 1/2 miles south of Fairbanks. Used batteries were accepted for recycling, and battery
parts and acid were stored in a fenced unpaved yard and inside a building on the site.
Operations began in 1961 with the filling in of marshland with battery casings. Wash
water, spills, and domestic wastewater generated inside the building were discharged
to an on-site septic tank and drain field. Prior to 1988, used batteries were broken open
on site,-the acid was reused, and the lead was shipped out of state. In 1986, the
Alaska Department of Transportation, whose right-of-way completely surrounds the
site, found lead"and acid in soil on and off the site. The City of Fairbanks has a
population of approximately 22,600. There are 12 schools within 3 miles of the site, as
well as the Alaskaland Theme Park. Wetlands covering more than 5 acres are located
within 1/2 mile northeast of the facility.
Site Responsibility: Tne site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with lead, nitrate, and sulfate. The soil
contains lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and acid. A potential
hazard exists if individuals accidentally ingest or come into direct contact
with contaminated soil and groundwater. The groundwater is shallow and
the soil is permeable, conditions which facilitate the movement of
contaminants into the groundwater. Contamination from the site could
also adversely affect the freshwater wetland.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
i
continued
-------
ALASKA BATTERY ENTERPRISES
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site. ,
Response Action Status
immediate Action: In 1988, the EPA excavated contaminated soil and
stockpiled it in a lined trench on site. Test pits were dug to the shallow
water table and water samples were collected for analysis. A total of 39
gondola rail cars were loaded with 2,900 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil and
disposed of in a federally approved facility. Areas of high lead content were capped
with a liner and a foot of topsoil. The EPA removed the remaining 800 cubic yards of
soil in 1989.
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA began a detailed investigation to determine
the nature and the extent of the contamination. The results of the study
will result in determining the final cleanup method. The investigation is
scheduled for completion in 1992.
Environmental Progress
Excavating contaminated soil and capping parts of the Alaska Battery Enterprises site
have reduced the threat to human health and the environment while the investigation is
taking place and final cleanup actions are being planned.
-------
ARCTIC S
ALASKA
EPA ID# AKD98098815S
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Fairbanks North Star County
Fairbanks
Alias:
McPeak Salvage
The Arctic Surplus site occupies 22 acres in southeast Fairbanks. Salvage operations at
the site were conducted from 1946 to 1976 by a number of parties, including the
Department of Defense (DOD). On site are a variety of buildings, storage trailers, and
discarded military equipment. Approximately 3,500 to 4,000 drums containing
unknown quantities of various oils, fuels, and chemicals are on site. Other wastes
include unknown quantities of asbestos, batteries, and battery acid that were drained
onto the ground during battery recycling activities and ash piles from incineration of
transformer casings. In 1988, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
conducted a site inspection and detected elevated levels of metals on site.
Groundwater beneath the site is shallow and also contains elevated levels of metals.
An unnamed alluvial aquifer, which underlies the Tanana-Chena floodplain, is the
primary source of drinking water for the residents in and around Fort Wainwright,
located 1 1/2 miles northwest of the site. Fort Wainwright operates four groundwater
wells which supply potable water to approximately 12,000 residents. The 1.,000
residents within a 3-mile radius of the site are not serviced by the Fort Wainwright
wells and are dependent on private domestic wells or bottled water.
Site Responsibility: jne sjte js 5ejng addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater contains heavy metals including zinc and lead. On-
site soil is contaminated with heavy metals, po\ychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), asbestos, and
pesticides. People ingesting or coming into direct contact with
contaminated groundwater and soil may suffer adverse health effects.
The Tanana and the Chena Rivers flow approximately 1 mile away from
the site and could become polluted by the contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
ARCTIC SURPLUS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in emergency actions.
Response Action Status
I***
Emergency Actions: In 1989, the EPA emergency staff assessed the site
and found approximately 1,700 drums containing liquids and sludges,
some flammable or corrosive. The EPA overpacked leaking drums.
stabilized loose asbestos, and erected a chain link fence. The DOD is expected to
initiate additional activities in mid-1990 and is scheduled to complete them in 1991.
Site Facts: Under an EPA Consent Order, the DOD assumed responsibility for
emergency actions. '
Environmental Progress
Overpacking leaking drums, stabilizing loose asbestos, and installing a fence have
significantly reduced the threat to human health and the environment posed by the
Arctic Surplus site while the DOD continues emergency cleanup at the site.
vx
-------
EIELSON|
FORCE B
ALASKA
EPA ID# AK1570028646
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Fairbanks North Star County
Fairbanks North Star Borough
The Eielson Air Force Base site covers 19,780 acres in Fairbanks North Star Borough,
24 miles southeast of Fairbanks. Since its establishment in 1944, its primary mission is
providing tactical support to the Alaskan Air Command. The site contains closed and
active unlined landfills extending into the groundwater, shallow trenches where
weathered tank sludge was buried, a drum storage area, and other disposal or spill
areas. Sampling has indicated numerous contaminants in the groundwater and soil.
Several monitoring wells have been converted into static recovery wells to remove
floating petroleum products from area groundwater, but only small quantities have been
recovered. Approximately 6,000 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles
of hazardous substances on the base. Surface water 3 miles downgradient of the base
is used for fishing. The base is in the floodplain of the Tanana River.
Site Responsibility: .jhe site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and State
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such
as benzene, xylene, and toluene. Soil is contaminated with heavy metals
including lead, arsenic, chromium, and zinc. Ingesting or coming into
direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soil may pose a potential
health threat. If contaminants leach into the nearby Tanana River, wildlife
in and around the river may be harmed.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: an interim cleanup action and three long-
term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the landfills, trenches, and remaining
areas.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: The Air Force is expected to install a petroleum product
recovery system complete with an oil/water separator and carbon filtration
in 1990. This system is designed to remove floating fuel from the
groundwater. Other plans for 1990 include the removal of numerous tanks and drums
containing various hazardous wastes.
Landfills: In 1990, the Air Force began investigating the type and extent
of contamination in the landfills. Once completed, measures for final
cleanup will be recommended. ,
Trenches: In 1990, the Air Force began investigating the trenches where
weathered tank sludge was buried. The investigation is exploring the
nature and extent of contamination and will recommend the alternative
strategies for cleanup.
L Remaining Areas: In 1991, the Air Force is scheduled to investigate the
remaining areas of the base to determine the type and extent of
contamination. The investigation will conclude with recommendations for
final site cleanup.
Site Facts: Eielson Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, which was established in 1978. Under this program, the Department of
Defense (DOD) seeks to identify, investigate, and clean up contamination from
hazardous materials on military bases or other DOD sites.
Environmental Progress
At the time this summary was written, the Eielson Air Force Base site had just obtained
National Priorities List status, and it is too early to discuss environmental progress.
However, the installation of a petroleum product recovery system and removing tanks
and drums, scheduled for 1990, will reduce the threats to human health and the
environment while investigations are taking place.
-------
ELMEN
FORCE
ALASKA
EPA ID# AK8570028649
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Anchorage County
Immediately north of Anchorage
Alias:
USAF-ElmendorfAFB
V
Site Description
The Elmendorf Air Force Base site covers approximately 13,100 acres near Anchorage.
The air base is host to the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing. The site contains closed and
active landfills, drum storage areas, waste disposal areas, and spill areas. The Air Force
has identified 52 areas of possible site contamination. Initially, the focus was on five
areas including landfills D-5 (now closed) and D-7 (still active) which received a variety
of hazardous wastes, including lead acid batteries and waste solvents. The'landfills,-
which are not lined or bermed, are in sandy and gravelly soils. Shop wastes, including
solvents and paint thinners, were disposed of in an unlined trench designated as site D-
17. Site IS-1 is where fuel in Building 42-400 spilled into floor drains that feed into
gravel-bottom dry wells. The last of the five areas included in the initial investigation is
site SP5, where approximately 60,000 gallons of aviation fuel.JP-4 spilled, of which only
33,000 gallons were recovered. Approximately 121,000 individuals reside within 3
miles of the base. Drinking water for these residents is obtained from surface supplies
located 12 to 30 miles north of the base. Emergency backup water supply wells for
Elmendorf are located within 3 miles of the identified contamination.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains lead,and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such
as trichloroethylenedCEl and tetrachloroethylene. People who touch or
drink contaminated groundwater may be at risk. ,- .
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: an interim action and four long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleaning up the landfills, the unlined trench and'shop
wastes, the dry wells and floor drain spills, and multiple fuel spills.
Response Action Status
Ix"
Interim Actions: In 1990, the Air Force is expected to clean up an
abandoned asphalt drum staging area, remove an 8,000-gallon
underground storage tank, remove abandoned 28,000-to-50,000-gallon
JP-4 tanks, and reslope and cover an old sanitary landfill. The Air Force also plans to
install and operate a groundwater treatment system at the J-4 spill site.
Landfills and Unlined Trench and Shop Wastes: The Air Force is
investigating the type and extent of contamination at the landfills and shop
wastes in the unlined trench. Once the investigation is completed in late
1991, effective measures to clean up the landfills and the trench will be recommended.
Dry Wells and Floor Drain Spills: The Air Force is investigating the
extent of the contamination as a result of the fuel in Building 42-400 which
re spilled onto floor drains that feed into gravel-bottom dry wells. The
investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992. At that time, the alternative
strategies for cleanup will be recommended.
Multiple Fuel Spills: The Air Force is expected to begin an investigation
of the multiple fuel spills area in late 1990.
Site Facts: Elmendorf Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, which was established in 1978. Under this program, the Department of
Defense (DOD) seeks to identify, investigate, and clean up contamination from
hazardous materials on military bases or other DOD sites. An Interagency Agreement
between the facility and the State is expected to be signed in the summer of 1990.
l ,.; juiiifi ty;;:,.., fti,,;11" .: v'ljffl1 "if p' ," ., ' ^ >*
\ Environmental fr^gir&s^
At the time this summary was written, the Elmendorf Air Force Base site had just
obtained National Priorities List status, and it is too early to discuss environmental
progress. However, the actions planned for 1990 of cleaning up the drum staging area,
removing tanks, and resloping and covering an old landfill will reduce the threats posed
to human health and the environment while investigations continue at the site.
-------
ALASKA
EPA ID# AK6210022426
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Fairbanks North Star County
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Alias:
U.S. Army - Fort Walnwright
Fort Wainwright, near Fairbanks, was established in 1947 with the primary mission of
training soldiers and testing equipment in arctic conditions. Industrial operations
primarily involved maintenance of aircraft and vehicles. Fort Wainwright is made up of
several areas including a 4,473-acre cantonment area, which includes a 74-acre sanitary
landfill. The landfill has received waste oil, waste fuel, spent solvents,
perchloroethylene-contaminated dry cleaning filters, asbestos, paint residues, and fuel
tank sludge since the mid-1950s. The landfill is not lined or bermedand is built up
higher than the surrounding land. A second contaminated area is the 45-acre North
Post Oxbow and Family Housing Area, located 3,500 feet from the landfill. The Army
used this area for storage of petroleum products, solvents, and other chemicals, and for
the disposal of power plant ash and slag containing chromium and mercury. About
11,000 people, including the entire population of Fort Wainwright, obtain drinking water
from wells within 3 miles of the site. The Chena River, which is used for sport fishing,
is less than 3 miles downstream of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with lead, chromium, and
tetrahydrofuran. Soil contains chromium. Potential health threats to
people include ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOD-S WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
FORTWAINWRIGHT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a lohg-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site. ,: ' " ;
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The U. S. Army is expected to begin a study'in 1990 that will
determine the nature and extent of groundwater and soil contamination at
the site. The study will define the'contaminants of concern and
recommend alternatives for the final groundwater and soil cleanup. The study is
scheduled for completion in .1992. ,
Site Facts: Fort Wainwright is participating in the Installation Restoration Program,
which was established in 1978. Under this program, the Department of Defense (DOD)
seeks to identify, investigate, and clean up contamination from hazardous wastes on
military or other DOD facilities. ' , . " ' "
Environmental Progress
At the time this summary was written, the Fort Wainwright site had just obtained
National Priorities List status, and it is too early to discuss environmental progress. The
Army will be performing a study to assess the need for any intermediate actions to
make the site safer while waiting for cleanup actions to begin. Results of this
assessment will be described in our next edition.
A.
10
-------
STAND
MET.
YARD (U
ALASKA
EPA ID# AKE&80978787
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Anchorage County
Anchorage
Alias:
US-DOT-Standard Steel
The Standard Steel & Metal Salvage Yard (USDOT) site covers approximately 6 acres in
a heavily industrialized, area of Anchorage, The Federal Railroad Administration, part of
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), acquired the land in the 1920s. Since
1972, the land has been leased to several different reeyclers whose activities included
reclamation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-contaminated electrical transformers,
salvaging of assorted batteries, and processing of various types of equipment and
drums from nearby military bases. In 1982, the land was leased to Standard Steel &
Metals. The site contains transformers, bulk tanks, an incinerator, a metal crusher, .
drums and containers, and other items associated with salvage operations. In 1985,
the EPA detected low levels of RGBs in the sediment of nearby Ship Creek. In 1987,
the EPA detected contaminants in on-site groundwater. Over 121,000 people obtain
drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. Ship Creek is used for sport fishing
and is a salmon migratory stream.
site Responsibility:
sjte js being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
IA
Threats and Contaminants
Chlorinated dioxin and furan have been detected in the ash near the on-
site incinerator. Soils contain PCBs, solvents, and lead. On-site
groundwater is contaminated with lead, PCBs, and tetrachloroethylene.
Sediments in Ship Creek are contaminated with PCBs. People may be
exposed to pollutants through accidental ingestion or direct contact with
contaminated groundwater, soil, sediments, or ash. Contaminants that
have bioaccumulatecj'm fish and other wildlife may also pose a health
threat to people.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
STANDARD STEEL & METALS SALVAGE YARD (USDOT)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status !
Immediate Actions: In 1986, the EPA removed surface wastes including
an estimated 8,500 batteries, 175 transformers, 1,100 drums, 3 'bulk
storage tanks, assorted containers, and metal debris and transported the
materials to federally regulated disposal facilities. In 1988, the EPA sealed the surface
soil in the most highly contaminated areas, removed the remaining containers of
hazardous materials, and strengthened the security fence.
Entire Site: In 1991, an investigation into the type and extent of
contamination at the site is expected to begin. The investigation will result
in recommendations for the final cleanup of the site. : ,
Environmental Progress
The EPA's immediate actions of removing batteries, transformers, drums, tanks, debris,
sealing highly contaminated surface soil, and strengthening the security fence have
significantly reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants while investigations
leading to final site cleanup are being planned. ', ' ' -
A
12
-------
; his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the
site fact sheets for the State of Alaska. The terms
and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as
described in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program. Thus, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Alluvial: An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
G-l
-------
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Consent Order, [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Downgradienfc A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, canying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching'[v.tj: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid. :
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or leakage of contaminating materials. Leak-
ing drums may be contained within oversized barrels as an interim measure prior to
removal and final disposal.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
G-2
-------
Polychlofinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bipaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-3
-------
------- |