EPA/540/4-90/016
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Iowa
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
ii
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
%s the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
* line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
m 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
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites/ but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
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 committeoL 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 Larger-
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
T" 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.
STEP1
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.
vn
-------
tow does £$& learn?
^hazardous waste
|sites?
I
* ^i;^
SHI
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION .r
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire >
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou- ;
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA'
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
j. What happen:
** Jsait'
L
V
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 ielo-
eating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water. ,. .
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that '''
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
|1£ there isn't an
limminent
|how does
[should be
if
v^
M
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 if 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 land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site. ; .
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
%.<«%%
s£3
-------
j .. vxvs <
1 t-OHfeMV^^t
i;H0w do people fi
foul whether BP$T
fconsid&s a site
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.
^national Pfiprity &r ^j The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
^.Cleanup usttt^ -\l through the scoring process as the most serious problems
tfmtd money? , J among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
r ,?r ,0^,,,,,^,^^ j the U.S. In addition, a site wiU 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.
? ,/.,,*»,,
it i > li Vi.^lI'MR"? " s ^-(-js,^
ijrtukuti s>>j!** iNnUj.^; >"^4%^^»'-'/
lit in ttfst - ^
ft - ^
^ V, -, V . -.
3 --v '^X. > «
* - - s^-a
HM u_irv y,^
*L ^ > !; $ -S ^ i ^ \ ^ sv. v-iV.-vv x^
WJ j, * ^ 'jl'C'1^ ^S^^^ %^
r_« « If 'H*- ' J ttt,'-'"^ sXAv#
^w i , , v 15. ,m; i X--X. > .. X*.^
*^ ^ "" Lf * ' i * v. «
t ^ f ,%,v
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.
-------
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..
<>,/'
a
"*yv
*-. _,.>""
v:*:;w'
"X*,
^,.
, '?t,
,'<'*
\ -,-^fv,
,1,*.^'
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
.
v*^.
> <*
^How are cleanup
^alternatives
-identified an
-------
The results 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
I-,.,
tailored to * site;--dees
<.-" ,~ / . »?
t&e design ol fite
jfenedy »eed to be,, ~ ,
teiioted too? ;-/
Xlll
-------
SUPERFUND
Once tne design Is"
complete, how long
fc*.Jl J, 4s "W**14 * *x ^
does it take to ^
actually clean mpine
site and[ ho*y much ',
does it cost? " " ss
,\^»\
> . -^^X
if,
*
« >. >
i Once the cleanup ^T ^
action is complete, is "J
jthe site
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legaL enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
-
es'.-
fttf ttl& '
ClMtamlJSatkttl pay? ,,;,,
%
XV
-------
XVI
-------
The 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
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Threats ana Contaminants
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.
Site Facts
Additional informati9n 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 S
State of Iowa
Iowa lies between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and is bordered by Illinois and
Wisconsin on the east, Missouri to the south/Nebraska and South Dakota in the west,
and Minnesota to the north. Iowa covers 56,275 square miles and consists of water-
shed "from northwest to the southeast and especially rich soil in the north. The State
experienced a 2.7 percent decrease in population during the 1980s and currently has
2,834,000 residents, ranking 29th in U.S. populations. Principal state industries are
manufacturing, agriculture, and insurance. Iowa manufacturing produces tires, appli-
ances, fertilizers, auto accessories, electronic products, chemicals, office furniture, and
farm machinery.'"'
How Many Iowa Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
10
11
_0
21
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 04, 05 2 sites
Cong. District 03 3 sites
Cong. District 02 4 sites
Cong. District 01, 06 5 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
20--
16--
8 --
=H=
4--
GW Soil SW
Sed Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), creosotes
(organics), and radiation.
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics),
volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and radiation.
* Appear at 15% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
h 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 Iowa, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Iowa Superfund Office
EPA Region VII Superfund Office
EPA Region VII Superfund Community Relations
EPA Superfund Hotline
(515) 281-4968
(913) 757-2855
(913) 551-7003
(800) 424-9346
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
The 1VPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
* An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means-that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
* An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities ancf progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Iowa
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1 AIDEX CORPORATION
3 CHEMPLEX COMPANY
5 DES MOINES TCE
7 E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO, INC.
9 ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC.
11 FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT
13 FARMERS MUTUAL COOPERATIVE
15 IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
17 JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS LDFL)
19 LABOUNTY DUMP SITE
21 LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM
23 LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
25 MID-AMERICA TANNING
27 MIDWEST MFG/NORTH FARM
29 NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAND
31 PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO.
33 RED OAK CITY LANDFILL
35,.*' SHAW AVENUE DUMP
POTTAWATTAMIE Final 09/08/83
CLINTON Prop. 10/15/84
POLK Final 09/08/83
LEE Prop. 06/24/88
LINN Final 10/04/89
JEFFERSON Prop. 06/24/88
SIOUX Prop. 06/24/88
DES MOINES Prop. 07/14/89
WAPELLO Final 02/21/90
FLOYD Final 09/08/83
CLINTON Final 06/10/86
CERRO GORDO Prop. 06/24/88
WOODBURY Final 03/30/89
JASPER Final 06/10/86
CERRO GORDO Prop. 06/24/88
DUBUQUE Prop. 06/24/88
MONTGOMERY Final 03/13/89
FLOYD ' Filial 07/22/87
XXIV
-------
Page .Site Name
County
NPL Date
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
37 SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL LEE
39 VOGEL PAINT AND WAX COMPANY SIOUX
41 WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP FLOYD
Prop. 05/05/89
Final 06/10/86
Prop. 06/24/88
XXV
-------
-------
-------
-------
AIDEX CORPORATION
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD042581256
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Pottawattamie County
7 miles south of Council Bluffs
Site Description
The 15-acre Aidex Corporation site is a former pesticide formulation facility located
approximately 7 miles south of Council Bluffs. In 1976, a building used to formulate the
herbicide atrazine was destroyed by a fire. The surrounding soil was contaminated by
water used to extinguish the blaze. In 1980, Aidex filed for bankruptcy. Cleanup
operations were undertaken at the site in 1981. When cleanup began, approximately
3,400 drums containing pesticides were stored in open areas on the site. A concrete
pit in the destroyed building contained abo.ut 2 feet of contaminated water, and a large
underground storage tank also held contaminated materials. Soil, groundwater, and
surface water were contaminated by spillage of pesticides. Approximately 600 people
live within 3 miles of the rural site. An alluvial aquifer underlies the site and is
contaminated. Within a 2-mile radius of the site are 42 shallow domestic water wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with atrazine, a pesticide produced at
the site. The soil is contaminated with other pesticides including aldrin
and chlordane from wastes stored at the site and as a result of the 1976
fire. The potential exists for pesticides to migrate off the Aidex site in
either the soil or the groundwater. Flooding occurring in the area could
facilitate migration of contaminants into the Missouri River floodplain.
Direct contact with or ingestion of contaminated soil and groundwater
could pose a potential health threat.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases directed at cleanup of surface contamination and the soil and
groundwater at the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ATOEX CORPORATION
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In late 1981, the EPA constructed a security fence
around the site. Decontamination of the interior building surfaces is
planned to be completed in 1990.
Cleanup Surface: The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers supervised
cleanup work consisting of gathering and placing wastes in approved
containers, storing wastes that were spread throughout the yard, draining
and decontaminating a buried tank and waste pit, and constructing a drainage ditch
around the site to prevent excessive water from entering. This work was performed in
1983, and off-site disposal of the collected materials followed in a second phase.
Soil and Groundwater: Cleanup technologies selected to address
contamination by pesticides in the soil and grpuridwater include: (1)
excavating buried wastes that lie within the perimeter of the disposal
trench and transporting the wastes off site for disposal in a secure landfill;
(2) grading, when necessary, and seeding the remaining soils; (3) expanding the
monitoring well network by adding two wells to monitor mid-range and deep water
quality downgradient of the site; (4) vacuuming the buildings to remove loose dust from
all accessible interior surfaces and washing floors and walls; and (5) testing all
monitoring wells biannually for 30 years or until a determination is made that the site no
longer poses a threat to nearby drinking water supplies. The EPA and the Army Corps
of Engineers have removed 20,608 cubic yards of contaminated soil and buried wastes.
The wastes were transported off site, and the site was backfilled and graded. The
State followed by collecting quarterly groundwater samples from on- and off-site
monitoring wells beginning in 1987. The EPA collected additional samples from the
interior of the on-site buildings in 1987. : -
Site Facts: The Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA, brought a Federal civil
action, seeking monetary relief, against parties potentially responsible for wastes at the
site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of wastes to a secure landfill and security measures at the Aidex
Corporation site have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials
while the final cleanup actions are taking place; The ongoing groundwater monitoring
program will assess the long-term effectiveness of the site's remedy.
-------
CHEMPLEX COMPANY
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD045372836
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Clinton County
On the western edge of Clinton and Camanche
Alias:
Northern Petrochemical Co.
The Chemplex Company site on Highway SOW is an active polyethylene plastic
manufacturer. Known variously as Norchem, USI Chemical Company, and Enron, the
facility has made high- and low-density polyethylene from chemical stocks since 1968.
Process wastes include peroxides, mineral spirits, vinyl acetate, and various hazardous
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). For 10 years, unknown quantities of these
wastes were disposed of in an unlined landfill or} the site, now inactive and covered.
Wastewater containing some of the same contaminants was stored in a 2-acre lined
pond on the site. Hazardous substances escaped when workers ruptured the liner
while dredging pond sediment. The company replaced the liner and took steps to
prevent further releases. The two main areas of concern at the site are the former
landfill and the Debutanized Aromatic Concentrate (DAC) area. Soil and groundwater
under both areas are contaminated. There is an outflow pipe from the wastewater
treatment plant to the Mississippi River. Past fish kills in the Mississippi have been
attributed to releases from this pipe. Neighboring Rock Creek empties into the river.
Fish from both the creek and the river have been reported to be contaminated. The
City of Camanche, with a population of 3,500, lies about 1 1/2 miles east of the site.
The city pumps its drinking supplies from groundwater; an estimated 5,000 people
draw drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. Ten homes and a trailer park
lie within 1/2 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater in monitoring wells at Chemplex and soil contain volatile
organic compounds (VOCs}; notably benzene and tetrachloroethylene, and
PAHs from former process wastes. Off-site sediments contain
phenanthrene. If used untreated, the contaminated groundwater may
pose a health threat to people who accidentally consume it or come in
direct contact with it. Breathing contaminated vapors issuing from the
water may also harm health. Reports of contaminated fish and fish kills in
Rock Creek and the Mississippi indicate that surface water may be
contaminated, although data are lacking.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
CHEMPLEX COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in an initial action and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on groundwater cleanup and cleanup of the soil and the remainder of the site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1984, the new owner of the company installed a
system for recovering and treating contaminated groundwater prior to its
disposal.
Groundwater: The EPA selected a remedy for cleaning up groundwater at
this site in the fall of 1989, which includes: (1) restricting the use of
groundwater to prevent exposure of people to contaminants; (2) extracting
contaminated groundwater; (3) pre-treating the extracted groundwater by
an as yet to be determined technology and cleaning it further at the
existing on-site wastewater treatment plant; (4) discharging the treated groundwater to
the Mississippi River under an EPA-approved permit. The parties potentially
responsible for contamination at the site are collecting hydrogeological data. The EPA
is working on performance standards for the engineering design and cleanup effort,
both of which will be performed by the potentially responsible parties. The start of the
engineering design is scheduled for late 1990, and design completion is expected by
the end of 1991.
Soil and Other Cleanup: The parties potentially responsible for
contamination at the site have begun an intensive study of pollution
problems at several locations. These locations include the landfill area, the
DAC area, several solid waste management units, and a storage area. The ,
investigation will explore the nature and extent of contamination problems and will
recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is scheduled for completion in early
1992.
Site Facts: In September-1987, the EPA and the past and present owners/operators of
Chemplex signed an Administrative Order on Consent. The order calls for the company
to characterize the contaminants in the on-site landfill, sample Rock Creek, which is
downgradient of the site, and improve the existing groundwater recovery system. In
December 1989, the EPA entered into a Consent Order with the potentially responsible
parties to conduct studies related to soil contamination and cleanup, as well as for
conducting the cleanup. The EPA is proposing to drop Chemplex Co. from the
proposed NPL, because the site is an active treatment, storage, and disposal facility,
and is subject to cleanup under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Environmental Progress
After adding the Chemplex site to the NPL, the EPA determined that the site does not
currently pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment while further
studies into the final cleanup alternatives are taking place. A
-------
DES MOINES TOE
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980687933
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Polk County
Southwest of downtown Des Moines
Aliases:
Tuttle Street Landfill
Des Moines Vocational School
Dychem
Dico Company
^J-i .1 I I I I I lvy
Site Description
This site is an area or plume of contaminated groundwater that spreads southwest of
downtown Des Moines, in the floodplain of the Raccoon River. The surrounding area is
industrial and commercial, with some recreational parklands. The city public water
supply was discovered to be contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) in 1976. By
1978, the EPA had traced the problem to the City's groundwater extraction gallery, with
the Dico Company as the potential source of contamination. Dico disposed of oily
wastes from the degreasing of metal parts by dumping them into a drainage ditch on
company property and spreading them as a means of dust control. Early in 1979, the
company voluntarily stopped this activity. In 1984, the Des Moines Water Works
stopped using the groundwater gallery. The EPA recommended a return to
underground water usage, and ordered Dico to clean up the groundwater. During
cleanup activities, workers discovered that another plume of contaminated
groundwater was being drawn into the extraction system. An investigation was
initiated to address contamination stemming from north and west of the Dico property.
The public water system serves approximately 258,300 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene, TCE, and vinyl chloride from former
industrial waste disposal practices. The extraction system has eliminated
the threat of contaminated drinking water. Most of the area east of the
the Raccoon River has been filled to raise the land above flood level.
Contaminants may have been disposed in those areas along with fill
material.
Cleanup Approach -
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on
groundwater cleanup, source control, and cleanup of the "north plume."
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
DES MOINES TCE
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The remedy for cleanup of groundwater features: (1)
collecting contaminated groundwater with extraction wells, (2) isolating the
northernmost section of the public groundwater supply system; (3) treating
the groundwater by exposing it to air to evaporate 96% of the TCE; (4)
discharging the treated water to the Raccoon River; and (5) operating the extraction
wells until water collected from all monitoring wells reveals less than 5 micrograms per
liter of TCE for four consecutive months. Dico, under EPA monitoring, designed and
built the groundwater extraction and treatment system, which features seven
extraction wells and an air stripping system. Cleanup operations have been under way
since 1987. Pesticide-contaminated soil was discovered during construction of the air
stripping system. Temporary delays occurred while the soil was sampled and
stockpiled on site. Dico has prepared a plan for soil remediation.
Source Control: In 1989, Dico, Inc. began an intensive study of the
sources of the pollution on its property. This investigation will identify
sources as well as potential remedies. It is slated for completion in 1991.
Another potentially responsible party is conducting a study of its paved parking lot north
of Dico to determine whether it may be a source of contamination.
North Plume: In 1988, the EPA began investigating the new area of
contaminated groundwater that was being drawn into the treatment
system. The EPA installed additional monitoring wells north and west of
the Raccoon River near the Fleur Drive Bridge and north to about 25th and High Street.
The wells are being monitored to determine the extent of contamination and its
source(s) and to warn of any approaching danger to the public water supply. This
investigation is slated for completion in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA issued an Administrative Order requiring Dico to design,
build, and operate a groundwater extraction system. Dico signed an Administrative
Order on Consent with the EPA in August 1989 to conduct a study of how to control
the potential sources of contamination at their property.
Environmental Progress
Groundwater cleanup and monitoring activities at the Des Moines TCE site are currently
underway, reducing the potential for exposure to hazardous materials through drinking
water while further investigations are completed and additional cleanup actions are
selected.
-------
E.I. DUPONT
DE
COMPANY, BfC.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980685804
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lee County
31/2 miles southwest of West Point
Aliases:
Baier, James Farm
McCarl Farm
The E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. site, an industrial waste dump in a rural
area of Lee County, consists of two areas off County Road X-23 about 3 1/2 miles
southeast of West Point. In the early 1950s, DuPont sent wastes from its nearby Fort
Madison paint plant to the two disposal sites, which are about 1 mile apart and cover 4
acres. One is known as the Baier farm subsite and the other as the DuPont/McCarl
subsite. DuPont estimates that between 1949 and 1953, a contractor disposed of
48,000 to 72,000 drums of paint waste at the two subsites. These wastes were placed
in shallow trenches and burned, then the soil was graded flat. The properties drop off
to ravines on the northwest sides. The company estimates that from 4,500 to 7,000
tons of ash and unburned sludges may still exist on the areas. Approximately 1,200
people depend on private wells within 3 miles of the site as their sole source of
drinking water. Two creeks about 1 mile from the site are used for limited recreational
activities. Roughly 160 people live within a mile of the site; 1,250 live within 3 miles,
with the closest population being 500 feet from the site. There are 40 private wells
within a mile, and 330 private wells within 3 miles; the nearest is 10 feet from the site.
Water is used both for human and livestock consumption.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' action's.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with heavy metals including
cadmium and lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from former
disposal activities. Potential human health threats consist of ingesting
contaminated groundwater and direct contact with both groundwater and
soil. Contaminants could also accumulate in plants that are consumed by
cattle.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, INC.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1985, three groundwater monitoring wells were installed by
the EPA at the Baier subsite. Sampling in 1986 showed elevated
concentrations of metals. Downstream water samples showed similar
findings. When the McCarl subsite was studied in 1986, groundwater and soil samples
again revealed metals. In 1989, the EPA ordered DuPont to perform a study of
contamination at the site. As of early 1990, the party potentially responsible for
contamination at this site was preparing for an intensive study of groundwater and soil
pollution. This investigation, which will be monitored closely by the EPA, will determine
the nature and extent of contamination problems on both subsites and will recommend
the best strategies for final soil and water cleanup. It is slated for completion in late
1990.
Site Facts: On July 5, 1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Order-to DuPont, effective
August 24, 1989, requiring DuPont to undertake a study of site contamination and
cleanup options at the Baier subsite. The EPA has indicated its intention to seek
reimbursement for past costs incurred by the Agency.
\Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA determined that it did not currently pose an
immediate threat to public health or the environment while investigations into final
remedies are being completed.
-------
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005279039
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Linn County
Cedar Rapids
The 1-acre Electro-Coatings, Inc. site is a chromium-plating shop in Cedar Rapids that
has been operational since 1947. It lies at the northern edge of .Cedar Lake and on the
eastern edge of the Cedar River. In 1976, an unknown amount of chromic -acid leaked
from a deep pit into the groundwater. The owners then began a long series of
monitoring and cleanup actions in response to State investigations and requirements.
In 1982, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) found high levels of
hexavalent chromium in a neighboring company's well. The State required that Electro-
Coatings, Inc. determine the extent of contamination. Electro-Coatings monitored the
neighboring wells, installed on- and off-site monitoring wells, and conducted monthly
sampling. Cedar Rapids municipal wells serving nearly 10,000 people lie within 3 miles
of the site. The nearest people live 10 feet from the site, and the nearest well is 2,000
feet away. Approximately 12,130 residents live within 1 mile of the site; 109,177 are
within a 3-mile radius of the site. Groundwater underlying the Electro-Coatings site is
used for the public drinking water supply and for industrial processes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with hexavaient chromium, a heavy metal,
from wastewater spills. The chief threat to public health would be
drinking polluted groundwater. Analysts have not yet determined the total
area of groundwater pollution; however, groundwater resources supplying
municipal drinking wells have not shown signs of chromium
contamination. Nearby waterbodies, including lakes and streams, are
potentially threatened by site contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1977, after the wastewater spill, the owners installed
new monitoring wells to define the area of groundwater contamination
and undertook some cleanup actions at the site. In 1976, the leaking deep
pit tank was removed and 18,000 pounds of ferrous sulfate and 6,600
pounds of sulfuric acid were added to the area to chemically change the remaining
hexavalent chromium to the less hazardous form of the chemical. A new pit tank and
floor were installed. Other actions consisted of monitoring and sampling.
Entire Site: After discovering chromium in the neighboring well in 1982,
the State required the installation of five more monitoring wells to track
the extent and migration of the contaminant plume. An intensive study to
determine the full extent and nature of the contamination is currently
underway and planned to be completed late in 1990. The EPA will select the most
appropriate remedies for site cleanup.
Site Facts: In June 1977, the State issued an executive order requiring Electro-
Coatings to install monitoring wells to define the extent of the contaminated plume.
Public concern has been targeted on the contamination of Cedar Lake by Electro-
Coatings and other sources.
Environmental Progress
After the initial actions taken to remove a leaking tank and to break down the
hexavalent chromium to a less hazardous form at the Electro-Coatings site, the EPA
determined that the site does not currently pose an immediate threat to public health or
the environment while investigations into final remedies are being completed.
10
-------
FAIRFIELD COAL
GASIFICATION
PLANT
IOWA
EPA ID#IAD981124167
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Jefferson County
Fail-field
The Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant site occupies one city block between West
Burlington and West Washington Avenues in Fairfield. The plant produced a natural gas
substitute from coal from 1878 until 1950. Known variously throughout its history as
Interstate Power Co., Iowa Electric Co., and Fairfield Coal Gasification, the plant has
always been owned and operated by Iowa Electric Light and Power. Since 1950, the
utility has used the site as an operations facility. The main wastes from coal
gasification are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), found in the coal tar left over from the gasification process, and
cyanide salts left in the iron oxide waste produced when the gas is purified. Operators
sold some of the coal tar and buried some in an earthen pit on the site or dumped it in a
nearby ditch. Disposal methods for the iron-cyanide waste are unknown, but it may
also have been dumped on site. In 1985, the utility found that groundwater near the
site was contaminated. The utility began a monitoring program to assure that private
wells were unaffected. The EPA became involved in 1987 by conducting an expanded
site investigation at the site, installing and sampling on- and off-site monitoring wells,
and conducting surface and subsurface soil sampling. In 1989, Iowa Electric found that
the foundation for a gas holder was the apparent source of the pollution. This structure
formerly stored purified gas and now holds coal tar wastes. An estimated 1,000 people
live within 1 mile of the site; 9,000 live within 3 miles. The local drinking water supply
depends on both surface water and groundwater and serves 11,000 people. There are
23 wells within a 3-mile radius of the site; the closest is 1,900 feet away. Shallow and
deep groundwater wells are within 2 miles of the site. The closest well uses the
shallow aquifer. Cedar Creek is less than 3 miles downslope of the site and is used for
recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
In 1985, the utility detected PAHs including anthracene and pyrene from
the coal gasification processes in the groundwater near the site. On-site
groundwater contains VOCs such as benzene, toluene, and xylene.
Drinking contaminated groundwater could pose a risk to human health, -
but private wells are not contaminated. A critical habitat for the
endangered slender glass lizard lies within a mile of the site and could be
subject to contamination from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
r
FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
" Immediate Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the utility undertook an
emergency cleanup action featuring a groundwater extraction system.
Currently operational, it is designed to contain the contaminated area of
groundwater. The system will continue to operate throughout the site investigation
described below until the contamination levels set by the EPA and the State are
achieved.
Groundwater: Also under the EPA's guidance, the utility began an
intensive study of groundwater contamination at the site in 1989. Analysts
will incorporate data collected from the groundwater extraction system
into this investigation to determine the extent of the pollution problem and to
recornmend the best strategies for final cleanup. The draft study report has been
submitted to the EPA by the utility for comment.
Site Facts: In 1989, Iowa Electric entered into an Administrative Order on Consent
with the EPA to conduct additional investigations.
The groundwater extraction system currently in use at the Fairfield Coal site has
reduced the level of contamination while further investigations to identify a final remedy
are being conducted.
12
-------
FARMERS MUTUAL
COOPERATIVE
IOWA
EPAID# IAD022193577
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Sioux County
Hospers
The Farmers Mutual Cooperative is an agricultural supply and service business that has
operated at this 6-acre site since 1908. The cooperative lies along the eastern side of
the Floyd River and currently stores bulk grain, fertilizers, and pesticides. In 1984, the
Iowa Department of Environmental Quality found volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and grain fumigant in two municipal wells in Hospers. The Iowa Department of Natural
Resources prohibited use of these two wells in addition to a nearby third well. In 1985,
the coop found some of the same chemicals on its property and in the Floyd River
downstream of the site. The Hospers municipal wells serve approximately 1,900
people and are within a 3-mile radius of the site. There are 109 deep and shallow wells
and approximately 1,100 people within 3 miles of the coop. The closest residence is
approximately 100 feet away. Residents use the groundwater for drinking, irrigating
crops, and watering stock.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with VOCs, which have also
polluted water under the coop property and the closed public wells. A
sample taken from the Floyd River indicated the presence of carbon
tetrachloride and various pesticides. Human health could be harmed by
drinking contaminated groundwater; however, Hospers' current public
water supplies are not contaminated.
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
13
continued
-------
r
FARMERS MUTUAL COOPERATIVE
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the coop, under State monitoring, began an intensive
study of groundwater and soil pollution at and around the site. This
investigation is intended to pinpoint the nature and extent of pollution
problems and to recommend the best option for final cleanup. It is scheduled to be
completed in 1990. Afterward, the EPA will assess the alternatives and select the
most appropriate remedies for cleanup of the site.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State issued an Administrative Order requiring the coop to
conduct a study to determine the type and extent of the contamination and to identify
cleanup alternatives. Partial results were submitted to the State in 1987, and
negotiations culminated in a Consent Order, signed in 1987, providing for a
groundwater study and completion of the site study.
Environmetital Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Farmers Mutual Cooperative
site while further studies are being completed and long-term cleanup actions are taking
place.
14
-------
IOWA ARMY
AMMUNITION
PLANT
IOWA
EPA ID# IA7213820445
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Des Moines County
10 miles west of Burlington
The 19,127-acre Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) site's primary business since
1941 has been to load, assemble, and pack a variety of conventional ammunitions and
fusing systems. Wastes currently produced at IAAP consist of various explosive-laden
sludges, wastewater, and solids; lead-contaminated sludges; ashes from incineration
and open burning of explosives; and waste solvents from industrial and laboratory
operations. Past operations also generated waste pesticides, radioactive wastes
(which have been removed from the site), and incendiaries. The Army has identified a
number of potentially contaminated areas, including an abandoned 4-acre settling
lagoon, the Line 800 Pinkwater Lagoon, which received wastewater containing
explosives from 1943 to 1955. It now holds an estimated 37,000 cubic yards of
hazardous sludges. A second area under investigation involves an earthen and
concrete dam across Brush Creek, the former Line 1 impoundment, which was used
from 1948 to 1957. Wastewater flowed through a 3 1/2-acre sedimentation area where
explosives settled out. The liquids subsequently overflowed the dam into Brush Creek.
Approximately 100 people live within 3 miles of the site and obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the base. Surface water within 3 miles downstream of
the site is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Threats and Contaminants
The Army conducted tests from 1981 to 1984 and detected explosives
from former waste disposal practices in surface water and wells
downgradient of the lagoon and dam. In 1984, the U.S. Army detected
explosives and lead in creek sediments. People using Brush Creek for
recreational purposes may be at risk due to the contaminated sludge
lagoons. Individuals drinking from contaminated wells also may be at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
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 Army is planning to begin a study to investigate the type
and extent of contamination at the site in 1990, and will suggest alternative
technologies for cleanup,
Site Facts : A Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement between the Army and the
EPA was signed in 1988. The installation was subsequently proposed for the NPL, and
Interagency Agreement negotiations are being initiated. The IAAP site is participating in
the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Under this program, established in 1978, the
Department of Defense seeks to identify, investigate, and clean up contamination from
hazardous materials.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the IAAP site while further
studies leading to long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
16
-------
JOHN DEERE
(OTTUMWA W
LANDFILL)
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005291182
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Wapello County
Ottumwa
The John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill) site covers 3 acres of a 118-acre tract of land
and has been used for the manufacture of farm implements since 1946. From 1911
until 1973, the company disposed of approximately 3,000 tons of solvents, paint
sludges, acids, heavy metals, and cyanide in three unlined landfills. The site is 200 feet
from prime agricultural land. Approximately 700 people obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the site. The main water supply for Ottumwa (population
27,000) is the Des Moines River; the intake is 4,000 feet upstream from the John
Deere landfills. The river is also used for recreational activities. The city's secondary
water supply, which is used intermittently throughout the year, is Black Lake. It is 500
feet downgradient of the landfills.
Site Responsibility: jnjs sjte js being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Various heavy metals from site disposal activities have been detected in
the soil, surface water, and sediments. Also, methylene chloride, a
volatile organic compound (VOC), is found in the soil and sediments.
Potential risks may exist for individuals who accidentally ingest or touch
contaminated soil and surface water.
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
17
continued
-------
JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS LANDFILL)
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the John Deere Company began an
investigation in 1990 to determine the type and extent of contamination.
This investigation is planned to be completed in 1991. Alternative cleanup
technologies will be recommended, the EPA will select the most appropriate remedies,
and cleanup activities will begin soon thereafter.
Site Facts: In 1989, the John Deere Company entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent with the EPA to conduct an investigation to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the site and to identify alternative technologies for the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the John Deere Company site
while further studies and long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
-------
LABOUNTY DUMP SITE
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980631063
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Floyd County
Charles City
Site Description : . . ,
The Labounty Dump site covers 8 1/2 acres on the Cedar River floodplain. From 1953
to 1977, Salsbury Laboratories, a manufacturer of veterinary Pharmaceuticals, disposed
of over 6 million cubic feet of sludges containing various compounds and metals on the
site. This has resulted in the contamination of a shallow groundwater aqu/ferthat
connects to the Cedar River. Investigations by the EPA and the Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality in 1977 and 1978 revealed that major waste components were
being leached from the disposal site and transported by groundwater to the Cedar
River. The State of Iowa ordered the site closed in 1977. That same year, Salsbury
constructed a 24-well groundwater monitoring system and, in 1980, completed a clay
cap over the wastes. Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. The
nearest residence is 1 rOOO feet from the site. People in the area use groundwater in
the adjacent alluvium for water supplies. River water is also used for irrigation
purposes. "
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions. -.,.,...
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and arsenic leached into the
groundwater and surface water from the disposal site. Drinking of
contaminated surface water and groundwater or inhaling volatilized
^contaminants from the site may pose potential threats to individuals. The
Cedar River is potentially,threatened by runoffirom 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
19
continued
-------
LABOUNTY DUMP SITE
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
installed a groundwater monitoring system in 1 979 and a clay cap in 1 980.
The capping has effectively reduced the leaching of wastes located above
the water table. However, capping was not effective in reducing pollutant leaching
where wastes were placed below the water table. Therefore, under EPA monitoring,
the potentially responsible parties installed an upgradient groundwater diversion wall
between 1985 and 1986. The wall diverts groundwater around the fill material into the
Cedar River. Salsbury will continue to sample monitoring wells and the Cedar River.
The EPA will conduct a limited amount of field sampling and will then prepare the 5-
year review to determine if the site should be deleted from the NPL.
Site Facts: The State of Iowa issued an Administrative Order In 1977 that required the
owner, Salsbury Laboratories, to prevent runoff, cease operations, and submit a plan for
the removal of wastes. In 1985, the EPA and Salsbury entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent for the construction of the upgradient diversion wall and monitoring
system in the upper and lower Cedar Valley aquifers.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Labounty Dump site. The EPA and
the potentially responsible parties will continue to test the effectiveness of the
completed cleanup actions and will determine soon if the site should be deleted from
the NPL
20
-------
LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD000606038
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Clinton County
1 mile west of Camanche
Alias:
DuPont Company Landfill
The Lawrence Tpdtz Farm site is located in a predominantly agricultural area of Clinton
and covers slightly over 6 acres. Municipal solid waste and industrial solid and liquid
wastes were disposed at the site from 1958 to 1975. The E.I. DuPont de Nemours
Company, Inc.'s cellophane plant buried 4,300 tons of liquid waste at the site from
1972 to 1975. The wastes were reported to include strong acids and bases,
plasticizers, resins, alcohols, inorganic salts, paints and pigments. The site was closed
in 1975 and capped with approximately 2 feet of "red sugar" clay and topsoil overlay.
Studies by the State of Iowa indicate that a residential well 400 feet south of the site is
contaminated. The well of concern draws groundwater from the Mississippi River
surface aquifer. The groundwater is monitored quarterly, and site evaluation
documents are under review. One hundred people live within 1 mile of the site.
Within 1/4 mile of the site are 10 farmhouses with private wells for drinking water and
approximately 12 trailer homes. Murphy's Lake (formerly Willow Lake) and Badixen
Lake, located near the site, are used for recreational activities such as fishing and
swimming. Two chemical industrial plants are located within a mile of the landfill.
Evidence of deer, raccoon, and cattle has been seen on the site. The presence of wild
geese was observed on site and the surrounding lakes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater samples from on-site monitoring wells detected heavy
metals including arsenic, barium, and lead, sodium, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene and toluene from the former waste
disposal activities on the site. Sodium was the only contaminant detected
at levels above health guidelines in groundwater samples collected from
area residential wells. Analyses of soil samples collected in 1988
detected only arsenic at levels that may pose adverse health effects.
Children playing on the site may risk exposure by accidental ingestion or
by touching contaminated soil. Future contamination of surface water
(on-site ponds and nearby lakes) cannot be ruled out if a release from the
impoundment occurs, because the lakes are hydraulically connected1 to
the shallow sand and gravel aquifer.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination
installed an alternate water supply that included drilling a new well to supply
water to one area resident. This was completed in the summer of 1989.
Under the EPA's monitoring, the responsible parties are grading the site area
and installing a 2-foot soil cover over the impoundment. A slurry wall around the buried
liquid waste materials or another treatment option will be considered if monitoring
levels exceed established limits. Monitoring of the impoundment and municipal landfill
will continue, and installation of a groundwater pump and treat system will occur if the
need arises.
Site Facts: On September 17, 1984, the EPA negotiated a Consent Decree with the
parties responsible for the contamination to perform long-term cleanup of site
contaminants.
Environmental Progress
The installation of an alternate water source has reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated groundwater at the Lawrence Todtz Farm site while the final cleanup
activities are taking place. The EPA will continue to monitor the groundwater and, if
necessary, install additional treatment facilities to address contamination. ,
22
-------
LEHIGH PORTLAND
CEMENT CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005288634
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Cerro Gordo County
Northern section of Mason City
Site Description
The Lehigh Portland Cement Company owns and operates this Portland cement
processing facility on approximately 150 acres in the northern section of Mason City.
The facility has been in operation since 1937. The southern side of the site is bordered
by 25th Street, and a small residential area is located to the north of the site. The site
is composed of abandoned limestone quarries and mine tailing piles. Waste kiln dust, a
by-product in the manufacturing of cement, has been discarded in piles throughout the
facility, and a large quantity is also disposed of directly into two of the four abandoned
quarries on the property. The quarries are filled with water and have drained into
Calmus Creek directly south of the site. In 1984, the Iowa Department of Water, Air,
and Waste Management (WAWM) conducted a comprehensive study of Calmus Creek
and found contaminants that may have come from Blue Waters Pond, one of the
quarries on the Lehigh site. Another NPL site, the Northwestern States Portland
Cement Company, is situated immediately south of the site and is separated from it by
Calmus Creek. An estimated 31,000 people obtain drinking water from public and
private wells within 3 miles of the site. Wells are the sole source of drinking water in
the area. A small subdivision of about 300 residents is located a mile north of the site.
The Winnebago River, within 3 miles downstream of the site, is used for recreational
activities, especially sport fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater onsite is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic,
cadmium, and lead as well as acids and high pH (i.e., it is chemically
basic) caused by the former process waste disposal practices at the site.
However, no significant levels of contaminants were found in off-site
wells, and municipal and private drinking water wells are not polluted
(except for sodium in one residential well). Lead, sodium, sulfates, and
elevated pHs were detected in Arch Pond and Blue Waters Pond, both on
the Lehigh site. Calmus Creek is polluted, and people who use the creek
for recreation or who may eat fish from it could be at risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY
Threats and Contaminants Continued
The soil, sediments, and surface water of the quarry have high enough
levels of pH to be considered caustic; therefore, direct contact with these
media could be a health hazard. If the contaminant plume migrates from
Calmus Creek and into the Cedar Valley Aquifer, the private wells may
become contaminated and pose a health hazard to people who use them.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: After the Iowa Department of Natural Resources found that
surface water contamination in the creek was related to contaminants at the
site, a weir was placed in the southeastern corner to control water
elevations, (because one of the quarries overflows during heavy rainfall). Dikes were
also constructed to separate three of the quarries; an aboveground piping system was
installed, which pumps water from one of the quarries to another. Lehigh installed
three monitoring wells and sampled groundwater and surface water.
Entire Site: A site investigation is currently being conducted by Lehigh to
determine the type and extent of contamination at the site. Upon
completion of this study, the EPA will evaluate the alternatives and select
the most appropriate remedies for final site cleanups.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order requiring Lehigh to
conduct a hydrogeological investigation of the quarry. In 1989, the State issued an
Administrative Order requiring Lehigh to conduct a study to determine the type and
extent of contamination on the site.
Environmental Progress
The construction of dikes to isolate the contamination in the quarries and the piping
system that pumps water from one quarry to another have helped to reduce the _
potential for migration of contaminants or accidental exposure to contaminated
groundwater or surface water while the Lehigh Portland Cement site awaits further
cleanup activities.
24
-------
MID-AMERICA TANNING
IOWA
EPAID# IAD085824688 l
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Woodbury County
5 miles south of Sergeant Bluff
The Mid-America Tanning Company site, located south of Sergeant Bluff, covers
approximately 99 acres and has processed hides under several names since 1969. In
1979, Mid-American Tanning Company discharged an estimated 900 cubic yards of
tannery sludges containing chromium into 2 unlined trenches on the property. U.S.
Tanning acquired the operation in 1985. Wastes are now treated on site. Solids are
settled out in concrete-lined ponds, while liquids are chemically treated and then
discharged into Oxbow Lake. The site is in the Missouri River floodplain.
Approximately 85 people live within a mile of the site, and 850 people live within 3
miles.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/30/89
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells on site show the groundwater is contaminated with
heavy metals including arsenic, barium, chromium, lead and cadmium
from the former process waste disposal practices. The sediments and
surface water of Oxbow Lake contain elevated levels of heavy metals.
The groundwater, used by local residents as drinking water supply, may
be polluted with heavy metals; drinking such tainted water would be
hazardous to human health. About 100 feet north of the site is a wetland
used as a nesting site for bald eagles, an endangered species.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
MID-AMERICA TANNING
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is studying the nature and extent of contamination
at the site and the alternative technologies for cleanup. Design of the
chosen alternative is expected to begin in 1991, with cleanup activities
scheduled to begin in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The EPA is planning an initial action to address elevated levels of cadmium, arsenic,
barium, and lead in the groundwater by excavating and consolidating contamined
materials. These actions will contain the source of contamination and remove the
potential for direct contact with hazardous wastes on site.
26
-------
MIDWEST
MANUFACTU
NORTH FAR
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD069625655
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Jasper County
2 miles north of Kellogg
Aliases:
North Farm
Smith-Jones
The Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm site contains two subsites: the North Farm
subsite, which is an unlined disposal cell 2 miles from the facility; and the Midwest
Manufacturing subsite, which is the plant facility. The sites were combined because
they contain the same wastes and affect the same population. From 1973 to 1981,
under Smith-Jones ownership, the plant was engaged in electroplating special-order
stamped metal pieces, a process that involved using various heavy metals. The plant
currently manufactures high-speed flywheel ring gear and assemblies for automobiles.
Prior to a wastewater treatment plant being brought on-line in 1977, the electroplating
waste from the plant was discharged directly into the North Skunk River. From 1977 to
1978, the sludge produced by this process was disposed of in an unlined cell at North
Farm, 2 miles northeast of the plant. The unlined cell does not have a soil cap and
lacks a leachate collection system or other containment measures to prevent the
release of hazardous substances. A trench near the plant itself was also used to
dispose of the sludge produced by the treatment process. In 1982, the EPA collected
sludge samples from the disposal trench, and concentrations of metals were found to
be below the concentrations that would designate the sludge as hazardous.
Groundwater samples identified the potential for contaminant migration from the
disposal trench. During an EPA site visit in 1987, a man-made drainage ditch was
discovered to the west of the disposal trench at the plant. The sediments in this ditch
were covered with a black, oily substance that had a petroleum odor. Stressed
vegetation and an oily substance floating on top of the water were observed in a marsh
area located on the western end of the plant property. Approximately 700 people
depend on wells located within 3 miles of the site for their drinking water supply.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
IA
Midwest Plant city well #1 showed elevated levels of zinc from the
former waste disposal activities during sampling in 1982. Surface soils at
both subsites contain high concentrations of heavy metals. Adverse
health effects could result from ingesting vegetables grown on
contaminated soils or watered with contaminated groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
MIDWEST MANUFACTURING / NORTH FARM
Threats and Contaminants Continued -
Consuming contaminated groundwater may pose a health risk to area
residents. The site is located within a critical habitat of the Indiana bat,
which is on the endangered species list of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases directed at cleanup of the
Midwest subsite and the North Farm subsite.
Response Action Status
Midwest Manufacturing Plant Subsite: The EPA is currently studying
the nature and extent of contamination at the plant site. At the conclusion
of the study, scheduled to be completed in 1990, a final remedy selection
will be made.
North Farm Subsite: The remedy for the North Farm subsite has been
selected, but the design and cleanup phase is on hold pending completion
of the investigation into the cleanup technologies for the Midwest Plant
subsite. The selected remedy includes: 1) excavation of contaminated soil
within and around the disposal cell, treatment and disposal of the soil in a regulated
facility; and 2) backfilling and grading excavated areas with clean fill. The design phase
is expected to begin in 1991, after the remedy has been selected for the Midwest
Manufacturing Plant.
Site Facts: Smith-Jones Midwest Manufacturing and Merl Brown were issued special
Notice Letters in September 1987.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Midwest Manufacturing site to the NPL, the EPA performed a
preliminary assessment of site conditions and determined that there were no
immediate actions required to reduce the potential for exposure to contaminants while
the investigations into the final cleanup technologies for both subsites are taking place.
28
-------
STATES FOR
CEMENT CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980852461
Site Description -
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Cerro Gordo County
Mason City
The Northwestern States Portland Cement Company (NWSPCC) site covers 150 acres
of a 250-acre parcel of land in Mason City. The NWSPCC began limestone mining
operations in 1908. The company ceased the mining in 1950 and abandoned the quarry
west of the plant. In 1969, NWSPCC began to use the quarry for the disposal of waste
kiln dust containing hydroxides, potassium, chromium, and sulfates. An estimated 2
million tons of waste kiln dust were disposed of in the quarry. Over the years, the
water level has risen approximately 2 feet per year, filling in the quarry so that'it now
holds approximately 420 million gallons of water. Rainwater runoff drains from the
quarry into adjacent Calmus Creek, a tributary of the Winnebago River. The Iowa
Department of Natural Resources conducted an investigation in 1984 when a citizen
became concerned over the Winnebago River turning white. Calmus Creek was found
to have a higher than normal pH. The Mason City municipal wells are within 3 miles of
the site and serve approximately 30,000 people. About 300 people obtain their drinking
water from private wells within 1 1/2 miles of the site. The municipal wells are
connected to the deep Jordan aquifer. The private wells are served by the Cedar Valley
aquifer. Calmus Creek and the Winnebago River are used for recreational activities
including fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with sulfates, lead, sodium, and high
levels of pH from the former process waste disposal practices at the site.
Although the groundwater is contaminated, municipal and private drinking
water wells are not polluted. If the contaminant plume migrates from
Calmus Creek and into the Cedar Valley aquifer, the private wells may
become contaminated and pose a health hazard to people who use them.
Sediments and soils are contaminated with high levels of pH. Calmus
Creek is contaminated with sulfates, chromium, sodium, and high levels
of pH, and people who use the creek for recreation or eat fish from it may
be at risk. The high levels of pH found in soil, sediments, and surface
water of the quarry are considered caustic; therefore, coming in direct
contact with them would pose a health risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
29
continued
-------
NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in an initial action and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The State ordered NWSPCC to stop discharges into
Calmus Creek, and the company complied by installing a system that
^^ _ intercepts the flow and pumps the water back into the quarry. In 1987, the
company began treating the surface water before discharging it into the creek.
Entire Site: NWSPCC has pumped most of the water from the quarry.
NWSPCC also conducted an investigation, under State supervision, to
determine the extent of contamination at the site. The investigation was-
completed in 1990, and the results were evaluated to determine the best measure for
site cleanup. The proposed cleanup plan was released to the public for comment on
March 30,1990.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order to NWSPCC to stop
discharges into Calmus Creek. In addition, the order instructed the company, under
State supervision, to conduct a study to determine the effect of the quarry oh the
environment. In 1989, the State issued an Administrative Order to NWSPCC to
complete the study.
Environmental Progress
Pumping the water from the quarry and treating surface water prior to release to
Calmus Creek have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated water and
sediments at the Northwestern States site while the selection of a final site remedy is
taking place.
30
-------
PEOPLES N
GAS CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980852578
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dubuque County
EastDubuque
Alias:
Key City Coal Gasification Plant
Site Description
The Peoples Natural Gas Company site is located in Dubuque and covers approximately
5 acres. From 1890 until 1954, the Key City Gas Company owned and operated this gas
plant, where a natural gas substitute was produced from coal. In 1954, the North
Central Public Service Company took over operations until 1957, when Peoples Natural
Gas Company assumed operations. Peoples used the site as a storage and
maintenance area and did not manufacture gas. Peoples Natural Gas sold the site to
the city of Dubuque, which used it as the Dubuque Municipal Garage in the late 1970s.
Two waste products resulting from coal gasification are of primary concern: coal tar
sludges and spent iron oxide. Coal tar sludges were produced during the coal or coke
combustion and during the oil injection processes,^and spent iron oxide wastes were
produced during the gas purification process. Spent iron oxide wastes, removed from
the three gas cleaning boxes (purifiers), were dumped behind two gas holding tanks on
the site at least twice a year. Approximately 5,400 cubic yards of spent iron oxide
wastes were deposited in the northeastern section of the site. Coal tars were removed
from the gas in the wash box and condenser. These wastes were either sold or
disposed of in pits or holding tanks. Two coal tar waste storage tanks were used at the
Key City plant, one aboveground and one below. The aboveground tank has been
removed. Evidence of materials left in the underground tank, as well as migration of
waste out of the tank, is supported by a stucly done by the Iowa Department of
Transportation in 1983 while conducting a right-of-way survey for the proposed
extension of U.S. 61. An estimated 60,000 people obtain drinking water from municipal
wells within 3 miles of the site. Approximately 2,400 people live within 1 mile of the
site, and 21,000 people live within 3 miles/The Mississippi River is approximately 500
feet east of the site. Surface water downstream is used for industrial and recreational
activities. A wildlife and fish refuge is 2 miles downstream, and wetlands are within 1/2
mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
31
continued
-------
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY
Threats and Contaminants
Phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons {PAHs), and inorganic
chemicals from the gasification process wastes were detected by the
State in on-site wells. Soil samples collected at the site in 1983 also
contained phenols, PAHs, and inorganic chemicals. Accidental ingestion
or direct contact with contaminated soil or groundwater may pose
potential health threats to individuals. No private drinking water wells
have been identified in the area. The wetlands and wildlife and fish
refuge may be threatened by runoff from the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate response actions and a long-
term remedial phase focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Response Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the parties .
potentially responsible for the site contamination are scheduled in 1990 to
remove the contaminated coal tar sludges and soils containing
contaminants above human health standards within the construction corridor for U.S.
Highway 61. Contaminated soil will be incinerated off site at a federally approved
facility. The proposed action has been submitted to the public for comment. The
comment period closed April 30, 1990.
Soil and Groundwater: A complete study of the extent and type of
groundwater and soil contamination is being conducted by the parties
potentially responsible for the contamination. The study is scheduled for
completion in late 1990. The soil to be studied will include contaminated soils outside
the construction corridor for U.S. 61.
Site Facts: The EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent with Midwest Gas (of
Iowa Public Service, a successor corporation of Peoples Natural Gas), the Iowa
Department of Transportation, and the City of Dubuque in 1989. The order requires the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination to remove or treat any
contaminated soil. It also requires completion of an investigation to determine the
need for treatment of residual soil and for groundwater treatment.
Environmental Progress
Once the contaminated soil is removed from the Peoples Natural Gas site, the area will
be safer for the surrounding communities and the ecologically sensitive areas close to
the site while investigations and selection of the final remedy are completed.
32
-------
RED OAK
CITY LANDF
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980632509
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Montgomery County
11/2 miles northwest of Red Oak
Alias:
Union Carbide Disposal
Site Description
The 40-acre Red Oak City Landfill is an inactive landfill located within an old limestone
quarry in a rural setting. Of the 40 acres, 20 acres were used for disposal. The landfill is
bounded on the west by Parkwest Road and on the east by the East Nishnabotna River.
Quarrying activities at the site were conducted by strip mining from the late 1940s to
the early 1960s. A limestone rim was left in place between the quarry pit and the west
bank of the river to prevent flooding. Red Oak purchased the site property in the mid-
1950s and converted it into a municipal landfill. From 1962 until 1974, hazardous
substances were deposited in the landfill. The landfill lacks a leachate collection
system and other engineering structures such as a liner or an effective cover to contain
the disposed hazardous wastes. There is a thin layer of soil covering the landfill, and at
some points waste materials including 55-gallon drums are exposed to the surface.
The eastern portion of the landfill, adjacent to the East Nishnabotna River, is being
eroded as a result of river bank undercutting and surface water runoff. In 1981, Union
Carbide Corp. and Uniroyal, Inc. notified the EPA that wastes they had sent to the
landfill contained metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and alcohol. In 1984, the
EPA observed leachate seeping from the landfill into the river. Approximately 7,000
people depend on groundwater within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water.
The nearest residence uses a private well 1,800 feet away from the landfill. There are
250 people living within 1 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/13/89
Threats and Contaminants
VOCs including toluene and xylene and heavy metals including chromium,
lead, and barium from the landfilling practices have been detected in the
groundwater and the surface water. Toluene has been detected in the
sediments near the landfill. Wells located near the landfill may be
contaminated. Accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with the
contaminated groundwater, surface water, and sediments could be
hazardous to the health of people in the area. There is also prime
agricultural land adjacent to the site, which could be contaminated by
chemicals from the site. The landfill is situated in permeable soil, which
increases the chances of the groundwater being contaminated.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
33
continued
-------
RED OAK CITY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action. Status
Entire Site: The investigative work to determine the extent and nature of
the contamination on site was divided into two phases. The first phase of
, the investigation, undertaken by the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination, began in March 1990. The'results from the first phase of the
investigation will determine the scope of activities for the second phase of the field
investigation, which will determine alternative cleanup actions.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination signed a
Consent Decree in December 1989 with the EPA in which they agreed to study the
nature and extent of contamination at the site and to evaluate cleanup alternatives.
! Environmental Progress
After placing the Red Oak City Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA determined, after a
preliminary assessment of site conditions, that no immediate actions were required
while further investigations leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking
place.
34
-------
SHAW AVENUE DUMP
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630560
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Floyd County
Charles City
The Shaw Avenue Dump site, an 8-acre city dump', is located in southeastern Charles
City, approximately 500 feet east of the Cedar River. The City owns the site and
operated it as a municipal waste dump without a permit. Two areas in the northern half
of the site were used from 1949 to 1953 to dispose of 14,000 to 28,000 cubic feet of
arsenic-contaminated solid waste generated by Salsbury Laboratories in the production
of animal Pharmaceuticals. Sludge from the Charles City wastewater treatment plant,
which received liquid wastes discharged from Salsbury, was placed in the northern
waste cells and in an undefined area on the southern portion of the site. The northern
disposal area is no longer in use and has been covered with soil and vegetated.
Between the southern and northern areas, trenches were used for disposing of lime
sludges from the drinking water treatment plant. The City and the public used this area
for open burning of wastes. The site is within a large residential area. A high school is
located approximately 1,000 feet north of the impoundment Students use a
playground and a stadium within 500 feet of the northern waste disposal cells. One
residence, 1,500 feet southeast of the impoundment, uses a private well for domestic
purposes. The City of St. Charles municipal water supply system, within 2 miles uphill
of the site, serves 8,800 people. The Cedar River flows through Charles City and is
used for recreational fishing, swimming, and canoeing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with arsenic from the
disposal site. The Cedar River also is contaminated with arsenic.
Students playing on school grounds, City employees grading areas of the
site, construction workers on site, and trespassers may inhale
contaminated dust during future excavation. Direct contact with the
contaminated soil, groundwater, and surface water could result in irritation
of the skin and mucous membranes. The site is surrounded by a fence
with "no trespassing" signs and a locked gate.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
35
continued
-------
SHAW AVENUE DUMP
Cleanup Approach
The 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 began an investigation of the site and its cleanup
alternatives in mid-1987; however, a party potentially responsible for site
contamination took over the investigation in mid-1988. Completion of the
investigation and the selection of the cleanup alternatives are expected in late 1990.
Site Facts: In March 1987, the EPA sent letters notifying Salsbury Laboratories and
Charles City of their potential responsibility and requested information about their use
of the site. A Consent Order was completed on May 26, 1988. Under this order, the
potentially responsible parties will conduct an investigation to determine the type and
extent of contamination on the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Shaw Avenue Dump site to the NPL, the EPA determined that no
immediate actions were required while the investigations leading to a final selection of
a remedy are taking place.
36
-------
SHELLER-GLOBE
CORP. DlSPOS&fe
IV'fV '", ' 1
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630750
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lee County
4 miles northwest of Keokuk
Alias:
Grimes Property
Sheller-Globe Corp. operated an industrial landfill and solvent burning area from 1947 to
1970.. The 5-acre site was filled in and sold in 1980 to an individual who built a home
on the site and draws water from a 300-foot deep on-site well. The water from the
well contains.lead and zinc, possibly from the distribution lines. In the past, the Sheller-
Globe Corporation manufactured rubber products, including automobile weather
stripping at a facility located jn Keokuk. Liquids and sludges from the operation were
deposited directly into a ravine with; no system for diverting surface runoff. According
to the company, among these wastes were at least 1,000 drums of paint sludge,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), isopropyl alcohol, and resins containing
fluorocarbons. Solvents were routinely burned in the open. In 1987, the EPA found
heavy metal and VOC contamination in soil, groundwater, and surface water during
testing. The Agency also observed seepage and an oil sheen on an intermittent stream
near the northeastern edge of the site. More recently, the EPA also found 52 drums on
the surface, as well as scrap rubber and polyurethane foam. An estimated 1,125
people obtain their drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the heavily
wooded rural site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with heavy metals including
arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc, and VOCs from the former
disposal activities. The surface water is contaminated with heavy metals
including arsenic. Accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater,
surface water, or soil may cause a potential health threat. The Mississippi
River, approximately 3 miles downstream of the site, is used for
recreational boating and fishing and could be subject to pollution from the
site runoff.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
37
continued
-------
r
SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation of the site and the possible cleanup
alternatives is expected to begin in late 1990. It will be conducted by the
party potentially responsible for the site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of the Sheller-Globe Disposal site on the NPL, the EPA determined,
after an initial evaluation of the site conditions, that the site did not require any
immediate actions while intensive studies leading to the selection of a final cleanup
remedy are taking place.
38
-------
VOGEL PAINT AND
WAX COMPANY
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630487
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Sioux County
Maurice
Alias:
Vogel Disposal Site
Vogel Paint and Wax Company used a 2-acre disposal area within an 80-acre parcel of
land. A sand and gravel pit was used by the company for disposal of its paint and
varnish production wastes. From 1967 to 1979, the site received paint wastes
containing heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs}, and mineral spirits. Liquid
wastes were dumped into several trenches from 8 to 12 feet deep. The trenches were
left open for extended periods to,allow evaporation. Partially filled and full drums and
other debris were dumped on top of the liquid wastes. The trenches were eventually
covered with 1 to 2 feet of soil. The company has conducted numerous investigations
in conjunction with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to determine the extent
of the pollution. The site lies within a primarily agricultural area and was used for
mining sand and gravel. Maurice, with a population of 288, is located 2 miles northeast
of the site. Struble is 3 miles south of the site and has a population of 59. The
Southern Sioux County Rural Water System well field, located approximately 2 miles
downstream of the site, serves 3,200 people. Within 1,600 feet upstream of the
disposal site is an agricultural well and a residential well used for drinking water.
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: 06/10/86
L\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium,
chromium, lead, and mercury and VOCs such as benzene and xylene from
the former disposal activities. The soil and surface water are
contaminated with heavy metals. Any contaminated soil above the waste
trench area may be a potential health hazard if airborne dust is inhaled or
direct contact is made with the contaminants in the soil. Contaminated
surface water could affect plant and animal life in the intermittent
streams.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
39
continued
-------
VOGEL PAINT AND WAX COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in an initial action and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: As a preliminary action, a 2-foot thick clay cap was placed
over the disposal area and floating hydrocarbons are removed from the top
of the water table on a monthly basis. This action has reduced the floating
hydrocarbons from about 2 feet thick to only intermittent presence.
Entire Site: Under State supervision, the parties potentially responsible -
for the site contamination conducted an investigation to determine the
extent of contamination at the site. After evaluating the alternatives, the
i i EPA selected a remedy for cleanup of the site. Contaminated soils will be
excavated, and solid and liquid waste will be separated for off-site incineration,
recycling, or disposal. An estimated 3,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils will be
treated using a bioremediation process in a fully contained surface impoundment unit.
If additional testing shows bioremediation to be infeasible due to high metal levels, on-
site thermal treatment will be used instead. Treated soil will be stabilized if necessary
to prevent leaching of metals, placed back into the excavation area, and covered.
Groundwater will be pumped and air stripped with discharge to the nearby stream.
Losses of volatile organics to the atmosphere in both the soil and groundwater actions
will be controlled by carbon adsorption, if necessary. Health-based standards for
groundwater and leaching standards for soils have been established.
Site Facts: A State Consent Order has been signed and the Vogel Paint and Wax Co.
has taken responsibility for the costs incurred to date. The site is currently listed on the
State Abandoned or Uncontrolled Sites Registry (SAUSR). Substantial changes or
transfer of property on this registry is prohibited without written approval of the
Director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Environmental Progress
By placing a cap over the areas of greatest contamination and removing the floating
contaminants from standing water, the Vogel Paint and Wax site no longer poses an
immediate threat to the public or the environment. Further long-term cleanup actions
at the site are scheduled to begin soon.
40
-------
WHITE FARM
EQUIPMEN'
DUMP
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD065210734
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Floyd County
Along the northern boundary of Charles City
The White Farm Equipment Co. Dump site occupies approximately 20 acres along the
northern border of Charles City. The dump is located in an old sand and gravel pit that
is bordered by low-lying areas and farmland. Tractors and other farm equipment have
been manufactured near the dump since the early 1900s. White Farm Equipment
operated on land leased from H.E. Construction Co. until it filed for bankruptcy in 1980.
Allied Products Co. purchased the operation in late 1986. Starting in the 1920s, White
Farm's operations generated foundry sand, sludges, and dust from air pollution control
equipment. Since 1971, the plant has been intermittently disposing of foundry sands,
baghouse dust, and other industrial wastes at the site. Nearby residents have
complained of dust blowing off the dump. Charles City draws its drinking water from
an aquifer underlying the White Farm Equipment Dump site. There are about 10,000
people living within 3 miles of the site who use drinking water from public and private
wells within 3 miles of the site, and 2,300 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site.
The contamination from the site flows into the Cedar River, which is used for
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the former waste disposal
practices are contaminating the groundwater. Sediments, soils, and
surface water contain heavy metals. Health of individuals could be at risk
if the contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil or sediments are
accidentally ingested or touched. The pollutants may also be affecting the
Cedar River wetlands, disturbing the ecological balance.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
41
continued
-------
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: One of the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination is investigating the nature and extent of contamination. The
, ^ investigation is nearing completion and is expected to be released for
public review in 1990. The investigation included: (1) characterization of waste in the
landfill; (2) determination of contamination spread by rainwater runoff, (3) detection of
contamination spread by air; (4) detection of contamination spread by dissolved metal;
and (5) determination of groundwater movement and evaluation of possible
connections between the shallow aquifer and the drinking water aquifer. The results of
the investigation will determine various cleanup alternatives and will identify a preferred
cleanup action. The EPA then will evaluate the alternatives and select the most
appropriate remedies for site cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA and two parties potentially responsible for the
contamination signed an Administrative Order on Consent. In that order, one of the
parties agreed to take the responsibility of site investigation to determine the nature
and the extent of the contamination.
EnvtroiurieT&at Progress
After adding the site to the NPL, the EPA determined that no immediate actions were
required while investigations leading to a final remedy selection are taking place.
42
-------
,,f'
s**4*
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the
site fact sheets for the State of Iowa. 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. Therefore, these
terms may have other meanings when used in a different
context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
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, day, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
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.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH (greater than 7.0), which tend to be corro-
sive in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed with acids, they neutralize each other,
forming salts.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants naturally and break them down into nonhaz-
ardous components.
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.
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 Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in ponds and lagoons, to prevent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
G-2
-------
Downgradienfc A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft coal into gas for use as a fuel.
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.
Hydrogeolpgy: The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemis-
try and movement of water.
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.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
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.tj: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some otiier
percolating liquid.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
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.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
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.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
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.
G-4
-------
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.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging a trench around a contaminated
area and filling the trench with an impermeable material that prevents water from
passing through it. The groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped within the area
surrounded by the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity. M . ,, _
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled/ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
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.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surf ace or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-5
-------
------- |