EPA/540/4-90/004
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Arizona and Nevada
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.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:
State Overviews xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxv
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
tr* 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
groundwater (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-
111
-------
tively 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
notontheNPL. 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
or 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.
-------
-------
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
hazardous 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.
vu
-------
Sbout potential
SSSWSMS^ *
&ar
(SgSSSSfi"
tes?
pf there isn't
mmment
how does EFA x -
ine what, it
cleanup actions N ;
should be taken? "»
STEP 1: SITE 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 Supgrfund 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 ai 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.
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 it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
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 harmed the knd, 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.
-sK
>
,vC\
'.
-------
g~t ''iiis.iiiliiiiis'ijisri.iitiiiif'iiiiiiiiiiNgi.iiiiii:111'':.!;' .' *.
SUPERFOND
Kj^twaM, n, v i. -vi, vi. "»WAV. -vss
*vv^ ^ v v ^K % ^t. ^ ^ s s s v
^Banup'asliig^ ^ s
;Sji£erfu»d money?"
" ^t-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 HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or 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.
x
-------
\
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-
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
-------
- s s -V1 ^vv-jti^SV^Sv^
S\ V.SV&> \ S Cvi.S'&V^V. '"" W. S «.. ^ ^ 5\O.vXs SS
tv ^ ^.. -^ ^%^v^^Ax-N$S-Ns.->. ^
-siV^ ^*- "> V*^«U&W " - ,
«i^V»^iS'«Vv!i>>^iJ< *^.«1
^X%«^«\jS.v%.-\i- -- ^4^
^^ * -^ ^^ - % s
»«»%,?*%, ,-**' -s--
oes the pablkliave \
cleantip decii
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 clean 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.
Xll
-------
The restilts of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
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 or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
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
;to_1?e _" ^
tMored to a site, does
the
-------
J
INFL?
L^;; -
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
gulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
re
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".
It'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 ifs not
until public comments Sire 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 NFL, 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.
\
-------
TAX
-------
he Site Fact Sheets
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
litial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at
site are planned
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.
xvii
-------
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
Count/ Name
SITE NAME
STATE
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
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.
XVlll
-------
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.
J
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by 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 Arizona
The State of Arizona is located in the southwestern United States, bordered by Califor-
nia and Nevada to the west, Mexico to the south and sharing a common border with
Utah, Colorado and New Mexico to the northeast. Arizona covers 114,000 square
miles consisting of the Colorado plateau, including the Grand Canyon, the Mexican
Highlands, and the Sonoran Desert. The State experienced a 28.4 percent increase in
population during the 1980s and currently has approximately 3,489,000 residents,
ranking 25th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include manufacturing,
tourism, mining and agriculture. Arizona manufactures electronics, printing and publish-
ing, foods, primary and fabricated metals, aircraft and missiles, and apparel.
How Many Arizona Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
6
8
JL
12
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
Cong. District 03
Cong. District 04
3 sites
4 sites
3 sites
2 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
12-r
Soil GW SW Air
Contamination Area
Soil, Solid and Liquid Wastes:
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals
(inorganics).
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Surface Water: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and radiation.
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and asbestos.
*Appear at 25% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
'Selected
^ Remedy
" Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Arizona, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Arizona Superfund Office
EPA Region IX Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IX Superfund Public
Relations Office
(602)257-2215
(415)744-1519
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(415)744-1764
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
XXII
-------
NPL Sites
State of Nev
The State of Nevada is bordered on the north by Oregon and Idaho, Utah and Arizona to
the east, and California on the west and southwest. The State covers 110,561 square
miles consisting mostly of the Mojave Desert in the southwest and the Rocky Moun-
tains in the northeast. Nevada experienced a 31.7 percent increase in population during
the 1980s and currently has approximately 1,054,000 residents, ranking 41st in U.S.
populations. Principal State industries include gaming, tourism, mining, manufacturing,
government, agriculture, warehousing and trucking. Nevada manufactured goods
include gaming devices, electronics/chemicals, and stone-clay-glass products.
How Many Nevada Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
1
0
_Q
1
Cong. District 01
1 site
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
3-r
GW SW Soil Air
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(mercury and inorganics).
Surface Water: Heavy metals
(mercury and inorganics).
Soil: Heavy metals (mercury and
inorganics).
Air: Heavy metals (mercury and
inorganics).
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy ^^^ Remedy
Selected ^^^ Design
Cleanup ^^^ Construction
Ongoing ^^ Complete
No initial actions have been taken at the one site.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Nevada, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Nevada Superfund Office
EPA Region IX Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region IX Superfund Public
Relations Office
(702) 885-4670
(415)744-1519
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(415)744-1764
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview xxiv
-------
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 H-) 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 admilaistrative
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.
xxv
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Arizona-
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site ' Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
IMPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
APACHE POWDER COMPANY
HASSAYAMPA LANDFILL
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA
LITCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
MESA AREA GROUND WATER CONTAM.
MOTOROLA INC (52ND STREET PLANT)
MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE HOMES
NINETEENTH AVENUE LANDFILL
TUCSON INTL AIRPORT AREA
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
YUMA MARINE CORPS AIR STATION
COCHISE
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
GILA
MARICOPA
PIMA
MARICOPA
YUMA
Prop
Final
Final
Final
Prop
Prop
Final
Delete
Final
Final
Final
Final
06/10/86 4- 4-
07/22/87 4-
09/01/83 4-4-4-
09/01/83 4- 4- 4- 4-
07/14/89 4- 4-
06/10/86 4- 4-
10/04/89 4-4-4-4-
04/18/88 4-4-4-4-4-4-
09/01/83 4-4-4-
09/01/83 4-4-4-4-
11/21/89 4- 4-
02/22/90 4-
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Nevada-
25 CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE
LYON
Prop 10/04/89
XXVI
-------
-------
-------
APACHE POWDEIR
COMPANY
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD008399263
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Cochise County
St. David
The 945-acre Apache Powder Company site has manufactured explosives and fertilizers
since 1922. Prior to 1971, all wastewater was disposed of by flushing it into dry
washes; the water then soaked into the ground or flowed into the San Pedro River.
Since 1971, the company has been storing the wastewater in holding ponds. The
water in these holding ponds contains high levels of nitrates, and the ponds may have
leaked nitrates into the groundwater. In 1980, the EPA found high levels of heavy
metals in one of the ponds. Ten shallow wells downgradientfrom the facility were
found to contain nitrates. Approximately 1,100 people depend on wells for drinking
water within 3 miles of the site. The nearest residence is less than 1/4 mile from the
facility. Alfalfa is grown commercially within the vicinity of the site and is used as feed
for cattle. Elevated levels of nitrates have been detected in the San Pedro River, which
borders the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
L\
Groundwater and surface water contain nitrates, nitrites, and strontium.
Soil and holding pond sludge contain nitrates, nitrites, lead, chromium,
zinc, and strontium. People who ingest contaminated groundwater,
surface water, soil, or sludges may be at risk. Wildlife in or around the
San Pedro River may be harmed by contaminants leaking into the river.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
APACHE POWDER COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages:, immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1987, as a result of earlier water quality testing
by the EPA, Apache Powder Company began providing bottled water to
area residents whose well water was found to be contaminated.
Entire site: In 1989 the EPA began an investigation to determine the type
and extent of contamination at the site. Once the investigation is
completed in 1992, measures will be recommended for site cleanup. This
investigation will include a study of the surface water pattern and sources,
the location and hydrology of groundwater aquifiers, and background levels of various
chemicals and metals.
Site Facts: In 1989, Apache Powder Company refused to enter into a Consent
Agreement requiring Apache to conduct an investigation of site contamination and the
potential for public health and environmental threats.
Environmental Progress
The immediate action described above has provided a safe drinking supply to affected
residents and eliminated the potential of exposure to contaminated drinking water.
This initial action will continue to protect residents near the Apache Powder Company
site until planned cleanup activities are completed.
-------
HASSAYAMPA
LANDFILL
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980735666
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Maricopa County
40 miles west of Phoenix
The 77-acre Hassayampa Landfill site has been used as a municipal landfill since 1961
and accepted approximately 3,000,000 gallons and 4,000 tons of hazardous waste. The
hazardous wastes were deposited in unlined trenches from 1979 to 1980. In 1981, the
Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) installed three monitoring wells on site,
one in which volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected. Approximately
350 people draw drinking water from private wells and 2,800 acres of farmland are
irrigated by wells within 3 miles of the site. The distance to the nearest residence from
the site is 1 mile. Hassayampa River, an intermittent stream, is 3/4 miles east of the
landfill.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/22/87
7_\
Threats and Contaminants
Ambient air contains very low levels of VOCs. Groundwater sampling
results have also identified various VOCs. Soils beneath the waste pits
contain VOCs, heavy metals, pesticides, and lime wastes. Potential
health risks may exist for individuals who ingest the contaminated
groundwater or inhale volatilized contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
HASSAYAMPA LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for
the contamination initiated an investigation in 1988 to determine the type
and extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative
technologies for the cleanup. The investigation is scheduled for:
completion in 1991. The EPA is conducting a risk assessment, scheduled for
completion in 1990, to determine the level of risk to area residents and the surrounding
environment.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA sent Special Notice Letters informing 108 individuals and
companies of their potential responsibility for wastes associated with the site..
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined the Hassayampa Landfill site does not pose an immediate threat to public
health or the environment. The EPA will review the results of the ongoing risk
assessment to determine if interim cleanup actions are necessary to reduce the
potential for exposure to hazardous waste sources at the site while further studies are
taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
-------
INDIAN BEND
AREA
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980695969
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Maricopa County
Parts of Scottsdale, Tempe, and Phoenix, and the
Salt River Indian Reservation
The Indian Bend Wash Area site is over six square miles in length and covers twelve
square miles, in 1981, the cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix discovered volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in. seven municipal supply wells. These contaminants appear to
have originated from several industrial facilities that operated in the northern portion of
the Indian Bend Wash Area (IBW); two of these facilities, Motorola and Beckman, are
located upgradient from five municipal water wells. Six of seven contaminated wells
were removed from service shortly after discovery; the seventh was equipped with a
treatment service to remove VOCs, then returned to full service. Some facilities at the
southern portion of the Indian Wash Bend area (SIBW) have discharged heavy metals,
cyanides, and acids into the ground. Landfills at this area have received a variety of
hazardous materials, including vinyl chloride and foundary slag . Approximately 70
percent of the city of Scottsdale's municipal water needs are supplied by groundwater.
Approximately 130,000 people live in Scottsdale.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZE
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, boron, methane, chloroform,
lead, and zinc. Soil is contaminated with VOCs, cyanides, acids, and
heavy metals including chromium and lead. Surface water also contains
VOCs. People could be exposed to chemicals from the site if they
accidentally ingested or touched contaminated groundwater, soil, or
surface water. Groundwater at the site is used to irrigate various crops
and feed livestock. Contaminants could bioaccumulate in agricultural
products that use contaminated groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in six long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of:
the Northern Indian Bend Wash area, the Scottsdale area, the Southern Indian Bend
Wash area, the Beckman Industries area, the Motorola area, and the Siemens area.
Response Action Status
Northern Indian Bend Wash: The EPA is addressing the NIBW as a
separate area of study from SIBW, because the contaminants may come
from a different source. An investigation into the extent and type of
contamination was begun in 1984. The investigation is scheduled to be
completed in 1990 and will include recommendations on the best alternatives for
cleaning up the site.
Scottsdale Area: In 1988 the EPA selected a clean up alternative which
included: 1) containment of contaminants by extracting groundwater from
the middle and lower parts of the aquifier by pumping five city of
Scottsdale wells; and 2) air stripping to clean the-contaminated
groundwater. The remedy includes granular activated carbon to extract the
contaminants from the stream of air. The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination are scheduled to complete the design of the cleanup activities by 1990
and finish the work in 1993.
Southern Indian Bend Wash: The EPA began a study of the nature and
extent of contamination at SIBW in 1988 and plans to complete it in 1991.
The report will include alternative recommendations for final cleanup of
the site.
Beckman Industries Area: The EPA began an investigation into the
nature and extent of contamination at this area in 1984 and it is scheduled
to be completed in 1990.
Motorola Area: The parties potentially responsible began an investigation
into the nature and extent of contamination at the area in 1984 and expect
to complete the investigation in 1990.
Siemens Area: The parties potentially responsible began a study of the
nature and extent of contamination at this area in 1989 and expects to
complete it in 1990.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Indian Bend Wash site
while further studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
-------
LITCHFIELD
AIRPORT ARE
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980695902
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Maricopa County
Goodyear
Aliases:
Litchfield Airport Industrial Area
Phoenix-Litchfield Airport Area
Phoenix Goodyear Airport Area
The Litchfield Airport Area is a 40 square mile site which covers part of the present
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport. In 1981, the Arizona Department of Health Services
discovered contaminated groundwater near the Airport. The State also found
contaminated groundwater at Unidynamics, a facility located north of the site. Soils
were found to contain trichloroethylene (TCE) at both areas. The EPA sampled 89 wells
in the area. Although 43 of these wells were found to contain TCE at levels that
exceed federal health standards, no water containing contaminants above these levels
has been used in the municipal supply system since 1981. Since 1983, the EPA has
been working to study the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The EPA is
conducting a joint study with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona
Department of Water Resources, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), the
U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and Unidynamics Phoenix, Inc. (Unidynamics).
The combined population of Avondale and Goodyear is approximately 30,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
chromium. The EPA concluded that, although TCE and other chemicals
contaminate the groundwater in the vicinity of the site, the risk to people
is minimal because the contaminated groundwater is currently not being
used for drinking water. Although the cities of Goodyear and Avondale
use groundwater for their drinking water supplies, their drinking water
currently meets all State and Federal standards.
March 1990
N.PL HAZARDOUS WASTE S.ITE.S
7
continued
-------
LITCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases that focus on cleanup of
contamination that affects the entire site, cleanup of the Airport Treatment Plant/
Section 16, cleanup of the Unidynamics area, and cleanup of the southern portion of
the site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected two methods to address
contamination at the site: pumping and treating contaminated
groundwater through air stripping; and, by extracting soil vapors by
vacuum using carbon treatment to control emissions. The EPA is
scheduled to begin the design of these components in 1991 and complete
the design in 1992, when actual work to cleanup the site will also begin.
Airport Treatment Plant/Section 16: In 1987, the EPA selected a
cleanup strategy to control the movement and level of contaminants in
the shallow groundwater directly below the site. Water from the shallow
groundwater will be pumped from beneath a portion of the site where the
highest levels of contaminants have been detected. The extracted water will be
treated through air stripping and returned to the shallow groundwater system.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber began to pump and treat the shallow groundwater under the
site in 1989.
Unidynamics: In 1989, the EPA selected a cleanup remedy that includes
a soil vapor extraction system to be used for the soil contamination.
Unidynamics is scheduled to design the selected remedy and begin
cleanup of the contamination at this area in 1992.
Southern Portion: In 1989, the EPA completed an analysis of various
alternatives to address contamination at this area which includes a soil
vapor extraction system for soil contamination and a pump and treat
system for contamination in the deep groundwater.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA, the DOD, and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
finalized an agreement whereby Goodyear Tire will carry out cleanup activities for part
of the shallow groundwater contaminated under the southern section of the site.
Environmental Progress
A water treatment facility has been constructed and is currently in operation at the site
to reduce contamination of the shallow groundwater. Remedies have been selected at
the remaining portions of the site that, once under way, will address other
contaminated groundwater resources and contaminated soils.
-------
LUKE AIR FORC
BASE
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZ0570024133
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Maricopa County
Glendale
Construction of the 4,198-acre Luke Air Force Base (LAFB) site began in 1941 with
the primary mission of providing advanced flight training to fighter pilots. Accidental
discharges and waste disposal practices at LAFB have resulted in soil and groundwater
contamination. Approximately 26 sites are subject to further investigation: two fire
training areas; a waste oil and fuels underground storage tank area; a series of waste oil
disposal trenches; the surface drainage canals receiving oily wastes; a sewage
treatment plant effluent canal; the site of an abandoned Defense Reutilization and
Marking Office; a radiological disposal area; nine land disposal sites; an old incinerator
site; a former outside transformer storage site; two leaking underground storage tank
sites; an abandoned surface impoundment, an ammunition storage area; and the base
production wells. Contaminants on site include organic solvents and paint strippers,
waste oil spills, petroleum spills, metal plating wastes, hydraulic fluids, and radiological
wastes. There are approximately 4,900 military personnel and dependents living on
base. Civilian and other military personnel who commute to the base daily from off
base areas brings the total daily base population to approximately 8,000. The cities of
Goodyear, Youngtown, and Phoenix depend on water from the Phoenix groundwater
basin that underlies the site, for public water supplies.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) resulting from diverse processes that take place on the site.
Potential human health hazards include accidental ingestion or direct
contact with contaminated materials.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site and soil contamination.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Completed initial cleanup actions include closing a former
waste oil and contaminated fuel storage site, removing the tanks and
capping the area with concrete, and installing monitoring wells.
Soil Contamination: An investigation into the soil contamination around
the North Fire Training Area, South Fire Training Area, Facility 993 and an
abandoned surface impoundment began in 1990. At the conclusion of the
investigation, alternative recommendations will be made for cleanup of the
site.
Entire Site: A base wide investigation into the extent and type of
contamination also began in 1990. At the conclusion of the investigation,
alternative recommendations will be made for cleanup of the remaining
contamination areas identified at the site.
Site Facts: The Luke Air Force Base site is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP), a federally funded Department of Defense mechanism to identify,
investigate, and control hazardous waste on military installations. A Federal Facilities
Agreement to conduct the site cleanup plan is scheduled for execution in 1990.
Environmental Progress
The closing of the waste oil and fuel storage site, removing tasks, capping the area and
installing monitoring wells have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the Luke Air Force Base site making the site safer while further studies and
cleanup activities are being planned.
10
-------
MESA AREA
GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATIO
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980886287
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Maricopa County
Mesa
The Mesa Ground Water Contamination site is located on an industrial area where
.semiconductors have been manufactured since 1966. In 1983, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) were detected in water from a supply well at a manufacturing site.
At the time, this well was operated by Motorola, Inc. for the City of Mesa, and was
used only for the production of deionized water. -Several monitoring wells were
installed in 1983 and a plume of VOCs was discovered to extend to one mile southeast
of the facility. The contamination was found in the shallow aquifer. The City of Mesa
and Salt River Project pumps water from the deep aquifer, which is separated by 350
feet from the shallow aquifer. Approximately 126,000 people live within 3 miles of the
site. The closest wells to the site are owned by the Salt River Project and pump into
the Tempe Canal. The canal is a source of irrigation water and water for the South
Tempe Municipal Water Treatment Plant.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Contaminants in the groundwater underlying the site included VOCs and
freon. The soil was also shown to be contaminated with VOCs. A health
threat may exist if area residents accidentally ingest or come into direct
contact with contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
n
continued
-------
MESA AREA GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Motorola initiated a groundwater reclamation
program in 1984, under which the reclaimed groundwater was pumped to
cooling towers for use in place of water from a deep supply well. In 1986,
a soil gas extraction system was installed along an abandoned solvent line.
The extraction'system was continuously operated until 1987. Vapors containing VOCs
extracted from the soils were collected by vacuum pumping and passed through a
carbon filter before emission into the atmosphere.
Entire Site: An investigation into the extent and type of contamination is
scheduled for completion in 1990. At that time, recommendations for the
cleanup alternatives, and final selection of a cleanup strategy ifor
contamination areas will be made.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions to decontaminate soils and the groundwater reclaimation activities have
greatly reduced the potential for exposure to contamination at the Mesa Groundwater
Contamination site while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being
planned.
12
-------
MOTOROLA, I
(52NDSTREE
PLANT)
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD009004177
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Maricopa County
Phoenix
Alias:
Motorola, Inc. Discrete Semiconductor
The 90-acre Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street Plant) site manufactures semiconductor and
related components using solvents in the production process. In 1983, Motorola tested
some underground storage tanks for leaks. Results showed that one tank containing
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was leaking. Further investigations determined the
groundwater and soil was contaminated. Motorola detected contamination in
monitoring wells at least 1 mile from the facility. Although the site lies in an area with
drinking water provided by municipal water service, 28 private wells have been
identified around the site. Water for irrigation is provided by the Salt River Project.
Approximately 500 'residents live within 1 mile of this NPL site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site, soil, and soil gas contain various VOCs
from solvent use at the site. People who accidentally ingest or come into
direct contact with contaminated groundwater and soil may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial actions and two long-term
remedial phases that both focus on cleanup of the contaminated groundwater plume.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
MOTOROLA, INC. (52ND STREET PLANT)
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Motorola has taken several interim actions to monitor and
develop treatment remedies for contaminated groundwater. In 1983 and
1984, Motorola installed 22 on-site and-6 off-site monitoring wells. In
1986, additional monitoring wells were installed. The company also
initiated an on-site groundwater treatment program that included treatability testing,
design and installation of a pilot treatment plant; treatment of groundwater; and use of
the effluent In the plant's air fiime scrubbers.
Groundwater Plume (First Action): In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy
to clean a portion of the site by recovering the soil gas and groundwater
and treating them in an on-site facility. Soil gas from the main source
areas will be extracted and alluvial groundwater will be pumped. In
addition, off-site groundwater also will be pumped. Both the soil gas and
the contaminated groundwater will be treated by carbon adsorption at the facility. The
treated groundwater will then be used in the manufacturing processes, replacing
potable water supplied by the City of Phoenix. Motorola, under State monitoring, is
designing the technical specifications for the cleanup. Once the design phase is
finished in 1990, the cleanup will begin.
Groundwater Plume (Second Action): Motorola, under State
monitoring, is conducting an investigation of the remaining portion of the
contaminant plume. Once this investigation is completed in 1992,
measures will be recommended for site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no other immediate actions, besides the initial treatment of
groundwater by Motorola, were required at the Motorola, Inc. site while further studies
are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
14
-------
MOUNTAIN VIEW
MOBILE HOMES
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980735724
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Gila County
2 miles from Globe
Alias:
Globe Site
The 17-acre Mountain View Mobile Homes site was developed in 1973 on the site of
the former Metate Asbestos Corporation chrysotile asbestos mill. In 1979, asbestos
contamination of the site was discovered by local health officials inspecting the waste
disposal system. Small piles of asbestos mill tailings were found against the
abandoned mill structures and the adjacent railroad tracks. Before 1973, three mills in
the area processed chrysotile asbestos ore from nearby mines. Because they failed to
meet new EPA standards for their emission, two of the mills were ordered closed by
the County in 1973. Before closing, however, the owner of one of the mill sites
obtained a permit to rezone the property into a residential subdivision. Asbestos mill
tailings were used as primary landfill material before the site was partially covered with
top soil. Before it shut down, this mill continued operations for several weeks as
residents moved into the subdivision. The mill buildings and asbestos-laden equipment
remained standing in the middle of the mobile homes. The third mill, with its large pile
of asbestos mill tailings, continued to operate a few hundred yards from thelnobile
homes. Approximately 100 to 130 people lived in the mobile home park. The Town of
Globe has a population of 8,000, and the adjacent town of Miami has 3,000 residents.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal and State actions.
Threats and Contaminants
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Delete Date: 04/18/88
The air and soils on the site were shown to be contaminated with-
asbestos. Prior to site cleanup, area residents who touched or
accidentally ingested the asbestos-containing soil may have been at risk.
In addition, breathing asbestos fibers posed a potential for adverse health
effects.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial
phase that focused on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
N P L HAZARDOUS W A S T E SIT E S
15
continued
-------
MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE HOMES
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1980, the State provided temporary housing for the
residents while the site was being decontaminated. The old mill buildings
^i^»i^. were demolished, and top soil was used to cover the contaminated soil.
Wind, water, and human activity soon eroded the soil covering which exposed the
asbestos tailings again.
Entire Site: In 1983, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by
permanently relocating the mobile home residents; cleaning the site and
demolishing and burying on site all the homes and sewage treatment
plant; closing the site by covering it with either clay or a synthetic material,
placing clean soil on top of the site; fencing the area; and periodically inspecting and
maintaining the site. Permanent relocation of all residents was completed in 1985 and
ownership of the purchased property was transferred to the State. Following relocation
of the residents, the site was cleaned. The homes and other structures were crushed
and buried on site in two natural depressions. Drainage culverts and enclosed pipes
were installed to reduce the potential for erosion of the cover soils. A filter fabric was
placed over the entire site to act as a physical barrier to upward movement of asbestos
fibers and to prevent erosion. Clean soil was placed over the filter fabric and
compacted and crushed rock was added to complete the cover. The site was fenced
to protect the integrity of the cover. The State has agreed to maintain of the site for a
minimum of 20 years. The EPA and the State have determined that the site is
protective of human health and the environment and that no further cleanup is required.
The site was deleted from the NPL in 1988.
Site Facts: The Metate Asbestos mill was ordered closed by the Gila County Air
Quality Control District in 1973.
Environmental Progress
The numerous cleanup and relocation activities described above have eliminated the
potential of exposure to asbestos-laden materials at the Mountain View Mobile Homes
site. Area residents have been relocated and cleanup actions have successfully
controlled site contamination. The EPA and the State have determined that the site is
now safe for nearby residents and the environment and have deleted the site from the
NPL
A
16
-------
NINETEENTH
AVENUE LANDFILL
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980496780
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Maricopa County
Phoenix
Alias:
Salt River Landfills
Site Description
The 213-acre Nineteenth Avenue Landfill site operated as a sanitary landfill between
1957 and 1979. One 200-acre portion of the site, Cell A, is located on the northern
bank of the Salt River. A 13-acre portion of the landfill. Cell A-1, is located on the south
bank of the Salt River. In the past, sand and gravel companies excavated material along
a 7-mile stretch of the Salt River. The. City of Phoenix took over several of these pits for
use as waste disposal sites. The Nineteenth Avenue Landfill accepted municipal,
radioactive, hospital, and industrial wastes. Portions of the landfill are within the 100-
year floodplain of the Salt River. Early in 1979, the river flooded, raising the water table
and filling several pits. The high water also breached several dikes, opening landfill
cells and causing refuse to wash into the river. Water also infiltrated directly into the
cells, increasing the potential for leachate movement. Leachate is being generated
from the site and is contaminating the groundwater. In addition, saturation of the
waste has generated excess amounts of methane gas. The landfill was closed by the
State in 1979. The population within 6 miles is approximately 6,000 people. The
nearest residence is 1/3 mile from the site. The area's primary drinking water is
provided by the City of Phoenix water distribution system. The municipal system
draws water from surface water sources over 30 miles away. The nearest drinking
water supply well is over 3 miles away. An industrial well and an agricultural well are
located 200 feet and 800 feet from the site, respectively.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs); heavy metals
including arsenic, barium, mercury, and nickel; and beta radiation. Refuse
in the landfill contains VOCs and pesticides. Soil contains VOCs,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. The generation and
migration of methane gas is a potential hazard. Methane may collect and
reach explosive levels in enclosed buildings or other structures adjacent
to the site. Soil, groundwater, and refuse are contaminated; however, the
possibility of human exposure to these contaminants is unlikely since
there are no residential areas within 1/4 mile of the site, and groundwater
is not used for drinking water. Area residences and site workers who
accidentally touch or ingest the contaminated groundwater, soil, or refuse
may suffer adverse health effects.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
NINETEENTH AVENUE LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages; immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Ix* Immediate Actions: Earthen berms were constructed on the site to limit
access. The site was covered with sand, gravel, and stones. In 1981, the
city installed a system to collect methane gas and has also installed
monitoring wells to sample the groundwater.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the landfill
by: (1) installing a gas collection and treatment system; (2) covering the
landfill with clay or a synthetic material to prevent water from coming into
contact with the buried materials; and (3) preventing erosion of the landfill
by the construction of bank protection levees between the river,and the
landfill. In 1990, The City of Phoenix is scheduled to begin designing the technical
specifications to clean up the site. Once the design phase is completed in 1991,
cleanup activities will begin.
VANM-J\
Environmental Progress
Methane control devices installed at the site have eliminated any potential for
acccumulation and explosion at the site. The construction of berms and covering of the
site and installation of monitoring wells, have greatly reduced the potential for exposure
to contaminated materials while planned cleanup,remedies are being designed and
constructed at the Nineteenth Avenue Landfill site.
A
18
-------
TUCSON
INTERNATIO
AIRPORT AREA
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980737530
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Plma County
Tucson
Aliases:
Hughes Aircraft Company
USAF Plant 44
Site Description
The 24-square-mile Tucson International Airport Area (TIAA) site includes the Tucson
International Airport, portions of the San Xavier Indian Reservation, residential areas of
the Cities of Tucson and South Tucson, and the Air Force Plant #44/Hughes Aircraft
Company facility. At least 20 facilities have operated in the TIAA area since 1942
including aircraft and electronics facilities, which discharged waste liquids directly into
the soil; fire.drill training areas, where wastes from training operations were left in
unlined pits; and unlined landfills, which received various wastes from several sources.
The first indications of groundwater contamination at TIAA appeared in the early 1950s,
when elevated levels of chromium were detected in a municipal supply well adjacent to
the U.S. Air Force Plant #44. The U.S. Air Force Plant #44, which has been operated
under contract by the Hughes Aircraft Company (MAC) since 1951, is believed a major
contributor to groundwater contamination. The facility used trichloroethylene (ICE) as a
metal degreaserand chromium in electroplating. Wastewater and spent solvents were
discharged into unlined ditches or disposed of in waste pits and ponds. Surface water
flowed off MAC property and* onto the San Xavier Reservation. Beginning in 1976, lined
wastewater holding ponds were constructed to receive wastewater discharges. The
State also closed a well at the plant because of high levels of chromium. A second
source of contamination at the TIAA site is believed to be the Tucson Airport Hangar
Area, which was occupied by various defense contractors from 1942 to 1958. During
this period, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were used and disposed of on site and
in the airport landfill. Other more recent occupants of the hangar also may have
contributed to the groundwater contamination. Sources of contamination at the
northern and eastern edges of the airport are believed to be the Arizona Air National
Guard, the Burr-Brown Corporation, and West-Cap Arizona. The localized groundwater
contamination due to these facilities is situated east of the main contaminant plume.
The City of Tucson is dependent on groundwater for its water supply. Before the
discovery of groundwater contamination, wells within the site boundaries provided
water for over 47,000 people. The Santa Cruz River borders the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
TUSCON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site and soil contain VOCs and chromium.
People who touch or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater and
soil may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of groundwater and soils.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the City of Tucson began closing all
municipal wells that exceeded the State levels and notified private well
users of potential risks. Since 1987, the Air Force has been extracting and
treating groundwater in the southern portion of the site. By 1987, 35 lined
wastewater holding ponds have been constructed to receive process waste water.
Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to treat the
groundwater in the northern portion of the site by pumping and treating
the contaminated groundwater using packed column aeration, followed by
discharging the treated water to the municipal water distribution system
and treating the emissions from the treatment process using granular
activated carbon. The parties potentially responsible for site contamination, under EPA
monitoring, are designing the technical specifications for the groundwater pump and
treat system. Once the design phase is completed in 1991, the cleanup activities will
begin.
Soils: In 1990, the potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring,
began an investigation to determine the type and extent of soil
contamination north and west of the Air Force Plant. This investigation is
expected to be completed in 1991, when measures will be recommended
for soil cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA issued an Administrative Order to the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination requiring them to clean up the groundwater and soil.
Environmental Progress
Contaminated drinking supplies have been removed from service and initial actions
have been taken to control further contamination at the site and commence treating
contaminated groundwater. Additional cleanup remedies are currently being designed
or planned that will address remaining contamination areas and restore the site to
safety levels. A
20
-------
WILLIAMS AIR
FORCE BASE
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZ7570028582
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Maricopa County
Chandler
The 4,127-acre Williams Air Force Base (WAFB) site was commissioned as a flight
training school in 1941. Contaminants from base activities include organic solvents and
paint strippers, petroleum spills, metal plating wastes, hydraulic fluids, pesticides, and
radiological wastes. Discharges and disposal at WAFB have resulted in soil and
groundwater contamination. Ten sites have been identified as contaminated areas
including two fire training areas, a fuel storage area, two surface storm drainage areas-
a hazardous material storage area, a landfill, a pesticide burial pit, a radiological disposal
area, and several underground storage tanks. Approximately 3,000 military personnel
are stationed at WAFB as well as 860 civilian employees. Many of the military
personnel live off base in one of the surrounding towns. The total population living on
base, including dependents, is approximately 2,700. On an average workday, the
population of the base rises to over 5,000.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds {VOCs}, nitrates, and
heavy metals including lead, cadmium, nickel, and chromium. Soils also
contain various VOCs from past disposal practices. The contaminated
groundwater and soil could be potential health hazards through accidental
ingestion or touching.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the Liquid Fuels Storage
Area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The Southwest Drainage System was cleaned in 1988 by
installing a soil cement and concrete cap on the ditch. A number of
monitoring wells were installed and the hydrogeology of the area was
investigated. In 1990, a small pesticide drum burial site was excavated,
and radiological materials were removed from another burial site and disposed of. The
removal of approximately 20 underground storage tanks and free product removal also
is planned for 1990.
Entire Site: The Air Force has developed a work plan and began an
investigation at the site in 1990 to determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at all impacted areas of the base. The results of the
investigation are expected in 1993 and will be used to evaluate different
cleanup methods.
Liquid Storage Area: in 1990, an investigation into the type and extent of
contamination was initiated at the waste liquids storage area. At the
conclusion of the investigation, alternative recommendations for cleanup
of the area will be presented and evaluated to select a final cleanup strategy.
Site Facts: This site is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), a
federally funded Department of Defense program used to identify, investigate, and
control hazardous wastes at military installations.
Environmental Progress
Cleaning the Southwest Drainage System, installing monitoring wells and removing
pesticide drums and radiological materials have greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to contaminated materials at the Williams Air Force Base site while studies
and cleanup activities are taking place.
22
-------
YUMA MARINE
CORPS AIR
STATION
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZ0971590062
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Yuma County
2 miles from Yuma
Site Description
Since the mid-1950s, large volumes of waste fuels and solvents from refueling and
servicing of airplanes have been disposed of directly onto the ground or into unlined
pits at the 3,000-acre Yuma Marine Corps Air Station site. In addition, combustible
materials such as fuel oil and organic solvents have been deposited on the ground and
burned during fire training exercises. The Navy has identified volatile organic
compounds (VQCs) in soil at the site. Approximately 5,700 people live on site and
usually obtain their drinking water from the Colorado River through an irrigation canal
However, during maintenance work on the canal that lasts for one month each year
drinking water comes from an on-station well. An additional 3,300 base employees'use
water from this well. The city of Yuma is 2 miles from the site with a summer
population of 60,000 and a winter population of 180,000. The city uses grpundwater
for drinking water purposes. Groundwater also supplies agricultural and industrial
users.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/22/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils on the site contain various VOCs and other
contaminants including residues from tear gas, ammunition, napalm
paints and photographic processing chemicals. The contaminated soil
could pose a health hazard to individuals if it is accidentally touched or
ingested. The Colorado River which runs close to the site, could become
polluted from the site contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
YUMA MARINE CORPS AIR STATION
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Marine Corps is conducting a site investigation to
evaluate the nature and extent of the contamination. The results of the
study will be used to evaluate different cleanup alternatives and to select
the most preferred methods that will protect human health and provide a
long term solution to site contamination.
Site Facts: Yuma Marine Corps Air Station is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP). This specially funded program was established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its past
hazardous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from
those sites.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Yuma Marine Corps Air
Station site while further studies and cleanup activities are being planned.
24
-------
CARSON RIVER
MERCURY SITE
NEVADA
EPA ID# NVD980813646
Site Description
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lyon and Churchill Counties
The Carson River Mercury site consists of a 50-mile stretch of the Carson River,
beginning between Carson City and Dayton, and extending downstream through the
Lahontan Reservoir, which has been contaminated by mercury used in the
amalgamation of gold and silver. In the late 1800s, large amounts of mercury were
used during the milling of the Comstock Lode near Virginia City. Ore mined from the
lode was transported to mill sites where it was crushed and mixed with mercury to
amalgamate the precious metals, Of the original 75 sites, 12 sites along the Carson
River in the Brunswick Canyon area were frequently used due to the availability of
water power. Mercury mine tailings^ resulting from the mill site operations, have been
found 5 miles up Brunswick Canyon, 3 miles up Six Mile Canyon, and within the Carson
Plains. Areas near the Comstock Lode where extensive mining occurred, such as Gold
Canyon, may also be major sources of mercury-contaminated mine tailing piles. Annual
rains transport mercury from the tailings piles in the canyons to the Carson River,
where the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has documented
extensive mercury contamination. The NDEP sampled the water and sediments from
the Carson River and found elevated levels of mercury attributed to the tailings piles in
various areas of the Carson River. Approximately 1,400 people obtain drinking water
from wells within 3 miles from the site, the nearest within 2,000 feet of the site
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/04/89
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils at site areas are
contaminated with mercury. Possible health threats include direct contact
or accidentally ingesting the contaminants. Additionally, runoff from
contaminated site areas may facilitate the spread of contamination to
other unaffected environments.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
25
-------
CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is planning to conduct an investigation into the
nature and extent of contamination at the site. Alternative technologies
will be selected for site cleanup activities, will be evaluated and scheduled
to begin soon after this study is completed.
Environmental Progress
At the time that this summary was written, this site just obtained NPL status and it was
too early to discuss environmental progress. The EPA will be performing a study to
assess the need for any intermediate action's required to make the site safer while
waiting for cleanup actions to begin. Results of this assessment will be described in
our next edition.
26
-------
T' /ns glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
, fact sheets for the States of Arizona and Nevada. 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 arid 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.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
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.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity of contaminated air sources.
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
G-l
-------
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.
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.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorption].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of holes in a landfill where waste is
dumped, compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Culvert: A pipe under a road, railroad track, path, or through an embankment used for
drainage.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells dozvngradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party that consists of a written proposal demonstrat-
ing a potentially responsible party's qualifications and willingness to perform a site
study or cleanup.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemis-
try and movement of water.
G-2
-------
"V
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
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.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: 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.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Mine (or Mill) Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left from ore milling operations. Tail-
ings often contain high concentrations of lead and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundwater flow
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, and the den-
sity of contaminants.
Polychlorinated 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
G-3
-------
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
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.
TricHoroethylene (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],
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
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.
G-4
------- |