September 1990
       Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
            Office of Program Management
              Washington, B.C. 20460

If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:

            National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
            U.S. Department of Commerce
            5285 Port Royal Road
            Springfield, VA 22161
            (703) 487-4600

A Brief Overview	.	iii

How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites	, vii

How To:
Using the State Volume	xvii

A State Overview	xxi


NPL: Site Fact Sheets	,	 1

Terms Used in the Fact Sheets	G-l


       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
 After Discovery, the Problem

 Few realized the size of the
 problem until EPA began the
 process of site discovery and
 site evaluation.  Not hun-
 dreds, but thousands of
 potential hazardous waste
 sites existed, and they pre-
 sented the Nation with some
 of the most complex pollution
 problems it had ever faced.

 In the 10 years since the
 Superfund program began,
 hazardous waste has surfaced
 as a major environmental
 concern in every part of the
 United States. It wasn't just
 the land that was contami-
 nated by past disposal prac-
 tices. Chemicals in the soil
 were spreading into the
 groundwater (a source of
 drinking water for many) and
 into streams, lakes, bays, and
 wetlands. Toxic vapors
 contaminated the air at some
 sites, while at others improp-
 erly disposed or stored
 wastes threatened the health
 of the surrounding commu-
 nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites

EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National. Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites  per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.

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-

ttvely 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.

The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.

The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.

Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored  emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.

The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
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 has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies — like
those designed to clean up
groundwater — must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.

EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.

Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done.  Every

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

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

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

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.

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

The National Overview
volume — Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large —
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-,
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.

This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the  most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries  will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.

To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this  State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
— How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites? —
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites.  A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.


rtffS he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
«*J^ waste sites nave Provided EPA with the challenge to
,^-r^ 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-

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.

       Discover site
      and determine
       whether an
   STEP 2

Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
 threat to public
   health or

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.

       *     VA»
tUU *  i  v *»•' teS&
 "» tt
 f t    lui

How (toes If A leaM
                            STEP 1:  SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY

                            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.
 h! f
^VTtat Jh#f>petlS if  1    ^  As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
                            determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
                            diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
                            to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
                            emergency actions range from building a fence around the
                            contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
                            cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
                            bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
                            supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
                            safe disposal.

                            However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
                            threat or emergency warrants them — for example, if leaking
                            barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
                            ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
                            there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
                            is taken.
                  ,   ^
uaaminent daneer,  **" s^
* t t   <  «M   xS>
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.
                     - S-
• <\x^
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
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
                     fire -

                    X \ V- i
                       • ^ <\*

                        V ••

                       s  •*
                     < X
                      "•%••,•* •?
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.
llllllll HIIM III
       *[ !fl 1IIIN
                         H  Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
                       v   ^  scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
                   Y      i  List (NPL). Thafs why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
                     s  ^  but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
                       i ^  tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
                       N^  from the national hazardous waste trust fund — the Super-
                      .j, t^  fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
                    ^^sv|  actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
cleanup asistg
       '     monejrlf
III II   * 1    I      A «V s   %
BOW do people ffcad    ^  The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
Cttit W&et&fc* B£&        "  on the N^ bv Ailing their Regional EPA office at the number
Considers a S^ ft  ^   ^  listed in this book

                            The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
                            through the scoring process as the most serious problems
                            among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
                            the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
                            Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
                            health advisory recommending that people be moved away
                            from the site.  Updated at least once a year, it's only after
                            public comments are considered that these proposed worst
                            sites are officially added to the NPL.

                            Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
                            cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
                            the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
                            sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
                            ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
                            own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
                            not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
                            money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
                            needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
                            or not a site is on the NPL.
                    -\ \
      t  1 t
            f »r


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

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

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

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.
to ffejPiflPXy whM are
                       v VA^


          * •"•&- v^l^,^
     -   -^  -4x^!
     ••    ***.v ,$,»?,. •-, 1-^;v>»5^^i
     \  , t , * „«     ^\ X^^»S
         s ,!*&t;^   ?>i :%fvi
            H. SS^W,^ S    Vv.-. ^ --V
            ^« ^  . S^» ^ ^?
ilJ___«lL ^\ 5 "t tWWB»VS «vl*Sl^ " "
                            Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
                            cleanup is needecfc,  It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
                            score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
                            require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
                            scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
                            assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
                            tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
                            that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
                            ronmental risks.
                            EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
                            identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
                            extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
                            tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility

                            Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
                            each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
                            tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
                            cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
                            ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
                            and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
                            compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
                            effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
                            nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and

                            To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
                            permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
                            principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
                            the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
                            leaking barrels) are often considered effective.  Often special
                            pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
                            feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
                            Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
                            study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
                            pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Does the public tiavife.^ *  Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
                  "*   ' '" "'*  opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
                            concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
       "  »\ '»«y,CllK5\ \;^i
fT   "".'^j^" «*\*Nf^f^V^i^^
7	^  ^^"""^IN
         decision?5" ""^
          ,  s-^X^
 i a,  ^ ,  i —•

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
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
  II eveiy dtaratip
             cte jto fre  * * * ;
             fe stfe, does  ;
x jcsmedj tteed to b& *
      fced too? *»''  - ~,

il  rf u  gg w>  4 1- I1-
       the design is;^ \" % j
 pSmpIete, how long1 \^
f&oes it te&e to  **'  ^f|
 ictwaHy etean tip $
 siiiiiiiiif in
H !hn 'H ftlh? S^1* Jf^ '""11*
IflKHp I "llff 'I TJ   '

f«>  i »  i,^
(in"it1  'i "i,' tad - ST**
fll 1J]  AN i uftpa hh1].].].]*^!^ ^«
           *  ^
         it,f,1! *^K4««l% - """*< v,""
             ts.  ^ .   .^   ^.
                    •.'>   W
              f *"• " '  "  s* 5
     i       v "-sC.*1    \'4^  ?\ I
 u,i  i<       " JS   -"* ^V" •*"'  *i
 iitiiiBiwt'ffl i i  tiisilisif' >^-  ii^f's"-   J
 S    S  i " W- << "^ v > <,! (  *v v. i - v ^ •;
 111 I  III    k. tStXat rfffi-^jfi -•• s  < ^^
Dncefitiecleantip  ts%  *
            "- V ^    „&*•»«•> SMVWr%*
             3\>  " ^\>\ -^^
             P   ^ M * ^^->N>
              1,S    S ^ jijg V* *>*£
   j raw M M M  j s pxiWW><* M l -a s v -A, v^ •* ^
  gmiiili        H>VV % v?-"-,  " ^^ o- ^ s%s>.::
         >  *s     s, -,    ^
                             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
                        No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
                        matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
                        may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
                        long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
                        it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
                        tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
                        groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
                        treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
                        remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
                        mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup  goals
                        specified in the ROD.  Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
                        tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
                        struction completed".

                        It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and  monitoring
                        requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
                        propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And if s not
                        until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
                        can actually be deleted from the NPL.  Deletions that have
                        occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
                        gory in the progress report found later in this book.

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.
                                                           ..  *<««*.»    ..  NX,-  "  iliv4*s
                                                                 x %      ' ^S^    ^  » '
                                                                 -•xx«   % -.-.'"^^x,  , •.


       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
       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
         Initial Actions
         have been taken or
        are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
                                       Site Studies at the
                                       site are planned or
          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
         Cleanup Complete
         shows that all
         cleanup goals have
         been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.

      Site Responsibility

Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
                         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.
                                                           EPA REGION

                                                        CONGRESSIONAL DIST
                                                             County Name
                        EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
                      Site Description
   NPL Listing
Site Responsibility:
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
          Threats and Contaminants
                      Cleanup Approach
                        Response Action Status

                           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 informa^n 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.

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.

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

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.

      NPL Sites
      State of Kani
Kansas is located in the western north central United States, bordered by the Missouri
River to the east, Colorado to the west, Nebraska to the north, and Oklahoma to the
south.  The State covers 82,277 square miles consisting of the hilly Osage  Plains in the
east, prairie and hills in the central region, and high plains in the western region of the
State.  Kansas experienced a 5.6 percent increase in populatin through the  1980s and
currently has approximately 2,495,000 residents, ranking 32nd in U.S. populations.
Principal State industries are machinery, agriculture, mining, and aerospace. Kansas
produces processed foods, aircraft, petroleum products, and farm machinery.
How Many Kansas Sites
Are on the NPL?
                                Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 03
Cong. District 02
Cong. District 04
Cong. District 05
1 site
2 sites
4 sites
4 sites
      How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?


CQ  8 --


   4 --

   2 --
      GW  Soil Solid & SW &  Air
               Liquid Seds

           Contamination Area
                                            Groundwater: Volatile organic
                                            compounds (VOCs) and heavy
                                            metals (inorganics).
                                            Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
                                            Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
                                            heavy metals (inorganics), creosote
                                            (organics), and pesticides.
                                            Surface Water and Sediments:
                                            Heavy metals (inorganics) and
                                            volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
                                            Air: Radiation
                                            * Appear at 25% or more sites
State Overview

            Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process*?
 Remedy ,
" Design
   Initial actions have been taken at 4 sites as interim cleanup measures.
                         Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Kansas, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
            Kansas Superfund Office
            EPA Region VII Superfund Office
            EPA Public Information Office
            EPA Superfund Hotline
            EPA Region VII Superfund Public
                 Relations Office
                                (913) 551-7052
                                (202) 477-7751
                                (800) 424-9346
                                (913) 551-7003
State Overview

The JVPL 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
*• 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
*• An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
   have been started  at the site and are currently underway.
*• A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
   site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
   construction actions are required at the site.  Some sites in this category may currently
   be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
   maintenance or monitoring to  ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
   protect human health and the  environment.

The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and'progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.	


Stress lowaiu w/ieauup a.t
Site Name
c otui.c UJL xxauaau
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
09/08/83 •*• •*- •*"
06/10/86 •*- •*" •*•
09/08/83 +• + +• + +-
09/08/83 "^ •*-
07/14/89 «^
03/31/89 "*•
09/08/83 •*- «^
07/22/87 "K ,^-
03/29/89 "*•
06/10/86 "^ •*•
02/21/90 •*•




   EPA ID# KSD980500789
                                            REGION 7

                                    CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                            Cowley County
                                     In southwest Arkansas City, 31/2
                                    miles north of the Oklahoma State Line

                                           Millikin Refinery
Site Description
   The Arkansas City Dump is a 200-acre site in southwest Arkansas City. Municipal
   wastes were disposed of at the site after an explosion and fire in 1927 destroyed the_oil
   refinery once located there. From 1916 until the mid-1920s, the refinery treated
   partially refined crude oil with sulfuric acid to separate out asphalt and paraffins.  This
   process created an acid sludge as a waste product. Operators disposed of about 1 1/2
   million cubic feet of sludge in the north waste area. Later, municipal and domestic solid
   wastes were disposed of at the site,  mostly near the adjacent Arkansas River.
   Between 500,000 and 1 million gallons of residual oil product from the refinery
   operation are present in the subsurface soils.  Such wastes tend to be acidic and
   contain potentially toxic concentrations of polycyclic aromatics hydrocarbons (PAHs).
   Much of the organic contamination is related to the release of petroleum products and
   cannot be addressed under the Superfund program because of a clause in the law that
   excludes cleanup of petroleum products. Fortunately, the organic contaminants  do not
   present a current threat to human health or the environment. The remainder of the
   wastes at the site consist of domestic and municipal solid wastes.  These wastes also
   do not appear to present a current threat to human health or the environment. The site
   lies within the  100-year flpodplain of the Arkansas River and is separated from the river
   by a levee. The surrounding land includes commercial  and residential areas.
   Approximately 6,500 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site.  About 60 homes lie
   next to the eastern boundary, a city park lies to the southwest, and several businesses
   employ 100 to 150 people on the site.  Groundwater upgradientfrom the site is used
   for drinking by Arkansas City and by private residences. Private wells downgradient
   from the site are used primarily for irrigation. The City's main water supply comes from
   wells across the river from the site and is not at risk of contamination by the site. All
   residents downgradient from the dump have access to the city's water supply.
   Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.

Proposed Date: 10/23/81

  Final Date: 09/08/83
   March 1990

                                                            ARKANSAS CITY DUMP
                Threats and Contaminants
              The air from a borehole on the site contains sulfur dioxide.  Groundwater
              under the site is contaminated with PAHs, heavy metals, and ammonia.
              Soil contains PAHs associated with petroleum products. The undisturbed
              sludge may present a direct contact hazard; it contains sulf uric acid that
              may cause chemical burns or eye irritation.  Contaminants have not been
              detected in the Arkansas River.- Wells located downslope and east of the
              site show low levels of PAHs. These wells are used primarily for
Cleanup Approach
  The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on source
  control and cleanup of the groundwater and sediments.
  Response Action Status
            Source Control: The EPA selected a remedy for the north waste area,
            seeking first to neutralize the acidic sludge that posed the greatest threat to
            public health.  The remedy features: (1) neutralizing acid sludges in place by
            mixing with high pH materials; and (2) covering the north waste area with
   soil after treatment is complete.  The EPA is designing the technical specifications for
   the remedy; they are expected to be completed by late 1990.

            Groundwater and Sediments: By 1989, the EPA had assessed the
            remaining portions of the site, namely, the oil-contaminated sediments and
            groundwater, and determined that no further cleanup action was required
            for these areas.
   Environmental Progress
   The technical specifications for the source control remedy for the Arkansas City Dump
   site are currently being designed by the EPA.  The EPA has determined that the site
   does not pose an immediate threat to the public or the environment while awaiting the
   planned cleanup activities.


   EPA ID# KSD980686174
                                          REGION 7
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
                                          Sedgwick County

                                      4900 W. 21st St., Wichita
Site Description
   The Big River Sand Company site is a 123-acre sand and gravel mining operation that
   lies 1/2 mile west of the Arkansas River and next to the Wichita Valley Center
   Floodway. The western half of the site has been, and continues to be, extensively
   mined. The eastern half belongs to the former owner of the entire 123 acres.  During
   the 1970s, roughly 2,000 drums of paint-related waste were disposed of on the site,
   next to a 5-acre sand quarry lake. In 1978, Big River Sand Company bought 80 acres of
   the site and,  in 1982, under the sales agreement and a court order, the previous owner
   started moving the drums to his side of the property. Nearly 200 drums had been
   transferred before the Kansas Department of Health and Environment stopped the
   action. The facility was not licensed to store or dispose of the waste, and on-site
   workers had  no protective equipment. The State's intervention in 1982 showed that
   drums were damaged, corroded, and leaking.  Waste solvents and paint sludges from
   several drums contained metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which were
   flammable.  In 1984, the State and the property owner completed a surface cleanup.
   All paint wastes were taken off site, as were about 2,000 barrels and four large solvent
   storage tanks. State analysts found solvents and heavy metals.in  nearby residential
   wells in 1982 and 1984.  Approximately 25 homes lie within 1/4 mile west of the
   property.  Two offices and three homes are located on its southern edge.  An
   estimated 1,000 people draw drinking water from wells within a 3-mile radius of the
   site.  Groundwater is also used for crop irrigation and industrial processes.
  Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State and potentially
responsible parties' actions.

Proposed Date: 10/15/84

  Final Date: 06/10/86
                  Threats and Contaminants
               On-site groundwater and private wells contain low levels of metals such
               as lead and selenium from the former drum storage practices. Surface
               soils contained metals and organic contaminants.  This site presents no
               significant threat to human health or the environment since cleanup
               actions and natural processes have reduced contaminant levels; however,
               people using private wells in the area should be advised that the natural
               levels of iron, manganese, and selenium in their wells are higher than
               standards recommend.
   March 1990


                                                         BIG RIVER SAND COMPANY
Cleanup Approach	—	
  The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focused on cleanup of
  the entire site.
  Response Action Status

             Entire Site: After an intensive study of the soil and groundwater
             contamination at this site, the EPA selected a remedy of "No Further
   	   Action" in 1988. The EPA and the State agree that the site does not pose a
   significant threat to public health or the environment, and that undertaking additional
   cleanup steps would not be appropriate.  The EPA started the process of deleting this
   site from the NPL in August of 1988.

   Site Facts: The State ordered a potentially responsible party to conduct cleanup of
   surface contamination in September 1982.
  {Environmental Progress
   After intensive investigations, the EPA and the State determined that the Big River
   Sand site does not pose a threat to the community or the environment, and the
   process to delete the site from the NPL is currently under way.

   EPA ID# KSD98074186&
                                           REGION 7
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                           Cherokee County

                                         Tar Creek Area Site
                                       Tri-State Mining District
                                      Tar Creek-Cherokee County
Site Description
   The Cherokee County Kansas site is a mining area covering about 110 square miles in
   Cherokee County.  It is part of a larger area sometimes called the Tri-State Mining
   District, which encompasses Cherokee County, Jasper County in Missouri, and Ottawa
   County in Oklahoma. One hundred years of widespread lead and zinc mining created
   piles of mine tailings, covering 4,000 acres in southeastern Cherokee County alone.
   The mine tailings contain lead, zinc, and cadmium, and these same metals have
   leached into the shallow groundwater.  Runoff from the waste  piles also moves
   contaminants into nearby streams. The EPA has divided this site into six subsites that
   correspond to six general mining locations. Cleanup work is further along at the Galena
   subsite, in the east-central portion of the entire site, than  at the other subsites. This 25-
   square-mile area has large tracts of mine and mill wastes, water-filled craters where the
   ground has collapsed, open mine shafts, and pits. Wastes have affected the quality of
   the shallow groundwater,  a primary drinking source  for the residents of the area,  and
   the surface water.  Several heavy metals were found in water samples from private
   wells.  Surrounding lands are used  for residences, business, light industry, farming, and
   grazing. Of the 22,320 people living in Cherokee County,  3,600 of them reside in
   Galena. Galena's city water does not contain contaminants. Another 1,100 residents
   live outside the town and depend on groundwater from the contaminated aquifer for
   drinking supplies.
  Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 12/30/82

  Final Date: 09/08/83
                  Threats and Contaminants
               Radon gas from the mining operations has been detected in the air
               around the Galena subsite. Private wells in Galena contain lead,
               cadmium, selenium, zinc, and chromium.  Acidic waters in mine shafts
               throughout the site contain significant concentrations of lead, zinc, and
               cadmium, as do the tailings piles and the surface water in the mine pits
               and streams across the site. Risks to human, health include accidentally
               ingesting soil or mine wastes while playing in contaminated areas;
               inhaling contaminated household dust; stirring up and inhaling metal-laden
   March 1990

                                                        CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
  dusts while motorbiking on the tailings piles; touching contaminated soils, wastes, or
  surface waters; or consuming contaminated surface waters, foodstuffs, or
  groundwater. Acid mine drainage containing dissolved heavy metals contributes to the
  transport of heavy metals into the Spring River, Short Creek, and Shoal Creek, and
  analysts have found contamination in fish from local surface waters. Polluted mine
  water also surfaces in Oklahoma's Tar Creek.
Cleanup Approach
  The site is being addressed in six stages:  immediate actions and five long-term
  remedial phases directed at an alternate water supply; cleanup of the Spring River,
  Treece, and Baxter Springs subsites; and cleanup of the groundwater and surface
  Response Action Status
            * Immediate Actions: The EPA installed water treatment units on eight-
              contaminated wells in Galena in 1986.  In 1987, they undertook a county-
              wide well inventory and water supply monitoring program for public and
              private sources of water.  This study showed that two more homes
  needed the treatment units. These units were installed, and along with the other units,
  continue to be maintained by the EPA. An alternate source of drinking water will be
  provided for two residences with wells contaminated by cadmium.  Bottled water is
  being supplied to these residences until the alternate public water supply is operational.

              Alternate Water Supply: The EPA selected an approach for supplying an
              alternate source of water to Galena in 1987. It features: (1) collecting
              clean groundwater through existing wells owned by the city; (2)
              distributing that water through a pipeline network to the houses,
  businesses, and farms within the subsite, but outside the municipal water system;  (3)
  rehabilitating two wells needed for the project; and (4) drilling a new well if the existing
  ones cannot be fixed. The remedy includes the construction and equipment necessary
  to establish an alternate water supply  to the area. Based on public comments, the  EPA
  decided to amend the cleanup actions to include construction of deep aquifer wells to
  collect water. These wells will be maintained and operated independent of the City of
  Galena.  System construction began in summer 1989, when the EPA began building
  two elevated water storage tanks.  Drilling began on the first of two wells in late 1989.
  Water line construction cannot begin until all 418 water line easements have been
  acquired; to date, 326 easements have been acquired.  Easement acquisition activities
  are expected to be completed in 1990, with water line construction activities now
  scheduled to commence in September 1990.

                                                       CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS
            Spring River Subsite:  The Spring River runs through all the other
            subsites, and will be handled appropriately, pursuant to each respective
            subsite cleanup plan.                        .
            Treece Subsite: The EPA initiated investigative activities at the Treece
            subsite in 1988. The parties potentially responsible for contamination of
            this area took over the study in early 1990. This investigation is exploring
            the nature and extent of soil and water pollution at the subsite, and will
recommend the best strategies for final cleanup.  It is slated for completion in 1992.
            Baxter Springs Subsite: The EPA initiated an investigation at the Baxter
            Springs subsite in 1987. The parties potentially responsible for
      _      contamination of this area took over the study in early 1990. This study is
exploring" the nature and extent of soil and water pollution at the subsite, and will
recommend the best strategies for final cleanup.
            Galena Groundwater and Surface Water:  In 1989, the EPA, with the
            agreement of the State, selected a remedy for cleaning up the
            groundwater and surface water in the Galena subsite. It includes:  (1)
            removing and selectively placing mine waste below the ground surface;
            (2) diverting surface streams to avoid the contaminants; (3) recontouring
the land surface to control runoff and erosion; and (4) investigating deep aquifer wells.
The engineering design for this remedy is expected to be completed in 1991.
Environ mental Progress
 The EPA and the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination at the
 Cherokee County site have been actively involved in providing water treatment
 systems and a temporary alternate water supply to affected residents, reducing the
 potential for exposure to contaminants while further studies and cleanup actions are

   EPA ID#
                            w~    "  A-J
                                          REGION 7

                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
                                          Johnson County
                                 Southern bluffs of the Kansas River Valley

                                        Doepke-Hofflday Site
Site Description
   Between 1963 and 1970, the 80-acre Doepke Disposal Service site operated as a
   private industrial and commercial landfill and accepted unknown quantities of wastes
   such as paint sludges, solvents, pesticides, metal sludges, and fiberglass resins.
   Liquids seeping from the site flow through a culvert under Holliday Drive into the
   Kansas River. In the early 1960s, wastes were generally burned prior to burial. When
   open burning became  unacceptable, pond storage of liquids was required. In,1966,
   with County approval,  374  drums of various pesticides and solvents were placed with
   fire debris in a trench;  its exact location is unknown.  When the State closed the site in
   1970, the site was covered and terraced.  Approximately 150 people live within 1 mile
   of the site, and 25,000 live within 3 miles. Residents of Johnson County get drinking
   water from 21 wells in the Kansas River alluvial aquifer and from a river intake about 3/4
   mile downstream of the site; 200,000 people are served by these systems. About 30
   wells lie within 3 miles; the nearest is 1/2 mile away.  Contaminants are not migrating
   off site in large enough concentrations to affect water quality in the Kansas River.
   Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible

Proposed Date: 12/30/82

  Final Date: 09/08/83
                  Threats and Contaminants
               The groundwater, soil, and leachate are contaminated with a variety of
               volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls
               (RGBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals from
               former waste disposal activities. Subsurface soils and wastes contain
               significant concentrations of contaminants and could threaten people
               working or trespassing on the site.  On-site contaminated groundwater is
               not being used, so exposure to contaminants is unlikely.
   March 1990


                                                       DOKPKE DISPOSAL (HOJXIDAYJ
Cleanup Approach
  This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
  of the entire site.
  Response Action Status

             Entire Site:  The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1989 featuring: (1)
             removal and  off-site treatment of contaminated liquids currently ponded
             underground in the area of the former surface impoundments: (2)
             construction  of an impermeable multi-layer cap over the majority of the
             waste disposal area; (3) collection and, if necessary, off-site treatment
  of significant groundwater seepage; (4) extended groundwater monitoring to evaluate
  the effectiveness of the remedy; and (5) deed and access  restrictions.  The EPA is
  negotiating with the potentially responsible parties for performance of the remedy.  The
  cleanup activities are scheduled to begin in 1991,

  Site Facts: In 1987, Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc.  entered into a Consent Agreement
  with the EPA to study site contamination,and develop cleanup options.
  Environmental Progress
   Following the listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA completed a site assessment and
   determined that the Doepke Disposal site poses no immediate threat to public health or
   the environment while further studies and cleanup actions are being taken.

   FORT Rlfl|Y
                                               REGION 7
                                        CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                                Geary County
                                              Near Junction City
Site Description
   The Fort Riley site is a 152-square-mile Army base. Fort Riley, established in 1853, has
   been a major fort since the Civil War. Its operations are diverse and involve seven
   landfills, numerous motor pools, burn and firefighting pit areas, hospitals, pesticide and
   mixing areas, dry cleaners,  and shops. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides,
   waste motor oils, chlorinated solvents, and mercury were deposited in landfills above
   and below the water table and were spilled or dumped on the ground near buildings.
   The most serious problems are  the sanitary landfill at Camp Funston and spills of dry
   cleaning solvents and pesticide  residues at the Main Post. Groundwater along the
   Republican and Kansas Rivers is the sole source of drinking water for Fort Riley,
   Ogden, and Junction City.  A Fort Riley water supply well is 3/4 mile from a former dry
   cleaning building.  Municipal and Army wells within 3 miles of the base provide drinking
   water for approximately 47,800 people. Groundwater also is used for crop irrigation.
   People use the Kansas River along the site property for recreational activities.
   Site Responsibility:
      This site is being addressed through
      Federal actions.

Proposed Date: 07/14/89
                  Threats and Contaminants
A 1984 study revealed vinyl chloride and other VOCs, in shallow
monitoring wells downgradient of the Camp Funston landfill. Pesticides
have been found in soils. Landfill debris contains waste oils and
degreasing solvents. This site is in the floodplains of the Republican and
the Kansas Rivers, and high waters could move contaminants into these
recreational streams.  Fort Riley is the winter home of the endangered
bald eagles, and exposure to chemicals there is a threat to them.
    March 1990

                                                                        FORT RILEY
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: In 1990, under EPA monitoring, the Army will begin an
             intensive study of soil and groundwater contamination at the site. The
             Army Corps of Engineers has written plans for an intensive investigation of
             the Camp Funston landfill and a preliminary investigation at the Old Dry
  Cleaning facility and Pesticide Storage Building. Under an Interagency Agreement, Fort
  Riley will investigate other potential areas of contamination on the installation.

  Site Facts:  Fort Riley is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The
  Department of Defense runs this program on its own facilities to identify, investigate,
  and clean up contamination from hazardous materials.
  After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers assessed
  site conditions and determined that there were no immediate actions needed at the
  Fort Riley site while studies and long-term cleanup activities are taking place.

   EPA ID# KSD007135429
                                        REGION 7
                                 CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                        Shawnee County
Site Description
   Since 1970, Hydro-Flex, Inc. has manufactured specialized tubing, hoses, heat
   exchangers, and fittings at this 3-acre site. From 1970 to 1981, operators discharged
   rinse water and sludges from a chromate metal finishing bath through a septic tank and
   into a series of buried silos. Wastes were also discharged into the on-site well. These
   open-ended vertical shafts were filled with porous fill material and penetrated to within
   2 feet of an aquifer thai is the sole source of drinking water in the area. Operators
   discharged a maximum 320 gallons per day to the silos, and periodically allowed
   overflow of wastes from the third silo onto neighboring cropland. These techniques
   were abandoned when municipal sewers became available in 1981. The silos were
   filled with sand and covered with earth. In 1987, the Kansas Department of Health and
   the Environment detected process-related metals in on-site wells.  A 1989 site visit
   showed that access to the site is unrestricted, but tall grass had covered the disposal
   areas and they appeared untouched for some time. The only evidence of the past
   disposal practice is distressed plant growth and discolored soils over the three areas.
   Approximately 30 people live within a 1-mile radius  of the site, many in older
   residences that predate the industrial zoning of the  area.  Approximately 6,500 people
   obtain drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. The
   Kansas River and Soldier Creek are within a 1-mile radius of the site, and Topeka's
   surface water intake on the Kansas River is located about 1 mile to the south. Two
   public supply wells lie about 1  1/2 miles northeast of the site.
   Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'

Proposed Date: 06/24/88

  Final Date: 03/31/89
                   Threats and Contaminants
                Groundwater both on and off the site is contaminated with various heavy
                metals.  The chief threat to human health from this site is drinking
                contaminated groundwater.
    Morch 1990


                                                                 HYDRO-FLEX, INC.
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:  Under State monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for
             site contamination are conducting an investigation to determine the nature
             and extent of contamination and strategies for final cleanup. The
   investigation is scheduled to be completed in 1992.
   Environmental Progress
   Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA determined that the Hydro-Flex site
   poses no immediate threat to public health or the environment while the potentially
   responsible parties complete further studies and start long-term cleanup activities.

   EPA ID# KSD980631980
                                          REGION 7

                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
                                          Sedgwlck County

                                        Johns' Oil Sludge Pit
Site Description
   The Johns' Sludge Pond site covers 1/2 acre and is located in a sparsely populated,
   heavily industrialized area>within the northern limits of the City of Wichita. From 1951
   to 1970, Super Refined Oil, which is no longer in business, recycled waste oil and
   disposed of an estimated 7,000 cubic yards of oily sludge into an unlined pond. The
   principal hazard associated with the site was the acidity of the sludge and the water
   layer above it.  Historically, the site would overflow periodically during periods of heavy
   rainfall, releasing its contents to the surrounding surface waters.. Most of the site was
   owned by the Johns' Estate. The City of Wichita condemned the remainder of the site
   in the 1970s to provide drainage along the adjacent highway and, as a result, owns the
   remainder of the property.  A drainage ditch adjacent to-the site carries surface water
   from the site to Chisholm Creek, 1 1/2 miles downgradient of the site; Chisholm Creek
   flows into a concrete ditch receiving runoff from the adjacent highway and empties into
   the Arkansas River south of the city. Approximately 175 people reside within 1 mile of
   the site, and 3,000 people are within 3 miles of the site. A number of private wells are
   in the area. Fishing takes place in a borrow pit located adjacent to the site.
   Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.

Proposed Date: 12/30/82

  Final Date: 09/08/83
                  Threats  and Contaminants
               The EPA found heavy metals including lead, cadmium, and chromium, as
               well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls
               (PCBs) in groundwater on and very near the site: The sludge contains
               PCBs and heavy metals including aluminum, lead, chromium, and zinc.
               The acid sludge was neutralized and then encapsulated on site.
               Therefore, it poses no threat to human health or the environment.
   March 1990


                                                              JOHN'S SLUDGE POND
Cleanup Approach
  This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
  phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
  Response Action Status
             Initial Actions:  Under EPA monitoring, the City of Wichita's Departrnent of
             Public Works removed sludge from the impoundment and stockpiled it on
             the adjacent ground surface; installed a compacted clay soil liner on the
   bottom and sidewalls of the empty impoundment; solidified stockpiled sludge with
   cement kiln dust and redeposited it in the lined disposal cell; constructed a compacted
   clay cap above the solidified sludge; ancl covered the cap with soil and vegetation.
   Deed restrictions were placed on the property, preventing land uses which would
   interfere with the effectiveness of these actions. The site was fenced to prevent dirt
   bike riding and other activities that could damage the cap and cover, and no trespassing
   signs were posted. The EPA decided to install additional monitoring wells to determine
   the direction of groundwater flow and the nature and degree of contamination, if any, of
   downgradient groundwater. Sedgwick County and the City of Wichita are conducting
   post-c/osure monitoring and maintenance of the  cap and vegetative cover under the
   plan previously approved by the EPA.

             Entire Site: After an intensive study of the site and consultation with the
             State of Kansas, the EPA determined that no further cleanup actions are
             required for the Johns' Sludge Pond at this time. The EPA finds that the
   cleanup already conducted at the site by the City of Wichita meets standards to protect
   human health and the  environment.

   Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA issued a Consent Orc/erto the City of Wichita requiring
   the City to submit a site cleanup plan for EPA's approval. An interim cleanup plan was
   submitted, approved, and implemented. The EPA evaluated the adequacy of the
   interim cleanup and, in 1989, determined that no further action is required at the site,,
   except for continued site monitoring and maintenance.
   Environmental Progress
   The numerous cleanup actions performed by the City of Wichita have greatly reduced
   the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Johns' Sludge Ponds site.
   The EPA has determined that no further cleanup actions are needed at this time, and
   that the site is once again safe to nearby residents and the environment. The site will
   be closely monitored to assure long-term effectiveness of the cleanup actions.

   OBEE R<)10
KSD9806 31766-
       REGION 7

         Reno County
     '  .   •    •• '   •,   ' &;..
     Hutchison City Dump
Site Description
   The Obee Road site is a plume of contaminated groundwater located in Obeeville. An
   investigation in 1983 by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)
   was prompted by a citizen's concerns over the taste and odor of his well water.
   Sampling by KDHE showed volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the shallow aquifer.
   The source of the contamination is suspected to be an old city landfill on the eastern
   edge of the Hutchinson Municipal Airport. Before closing in 1973, the landfill accepted
   unknown quantities of liquid wastes and sludges from local industries as well as
   solvents from small metal-finishing operations at local aircraft plants. The landfill is now
   covered with vegetation. Septic tank systems in the area are another potential source
   of contamination. Approximately 1,900 people in Obeeville obtained drinking water
   from private wells that drew water from the contaminated aquifer before alternate
   water sources were provided.  The area around the site is rural; some residents have
   farm animals on their property.
   Site Responsibility:
         This site is being addressed through
         Federal, State, and potentially
         responsible parties' actions.

    Proposed Date: 01/22/87

     Final Date: 07/22/87
                 Threats and Contaminants
               Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, such as trichloroethylene (TCE),
               vinyl chloride, and chloroform. Soil is contaminated with VOCs such as
               meta-xylene and toluene. Although the residents in the area are now
               connected to the public water supply, the private wells have not been
               plugged.  Therefore, there is the possibility the contaminated groundwater
               may be used for domestic purposes,  such as watering gardens. Should
               the contaminants accumulate in the vegetables,  people who eat them
               may be at risk.  In addition, people who touch or accidentally ingest the
               contaminated soil may suffer adverse health effects.
   March 1990


                                                                      OBEE ROAD
Cleanup Approach
  The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial
  phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
  Response Action Status
             Initial Action: In 1985, the City of Hutchison constructed a water line
             extension to the residents affected by the contaminated well water. An
             alternate water supply was also provided to the Obee school system,
   adjacent to the landfill, which was drawing water from a contaminated well.

             Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties, under State supervision,
             are conducting a study to determine the extent of the problem and to
             identify the sources responsible. This study, due to be completed in 1992,
   will lead to the selection of the final cleanup alternative.

   Site Facts:  In March 1990, a group of the parties potentially responsible for site
   contamination signed a Consent Agreement with KDHE to complete an investigation of
   the site.
   Environmental Progress
   Providing an alternative water supply greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
   contaminants. After adding the Obee Road site to the NPL, the EPA determined that
   no other immediate actions were required to make the site safer while the
   investigations leading to a selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking place.

                                                              REGION 7
                                                       CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                                               Butter County
                                                                El Dorado
   EPA ID#
Site Description
   The Pester Refinery Co. site occupies 10 acres in El Dorado. Refinery operations began
   in 1917. Refining wastes have been stored in the burn pond. These materials were
   periodically ignited through the mid-1970s. The burn pit is adjacent to the West Branch
   of the Walnut River, which is used for recreational activities. .In 1987, the Kansas
   Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) found seepage from the impoundment
   entering the river and later the same year confirmed contamination of the river.
   Seepage from the burn pond has been diked, forming a seepage pit.  Rainwater and
   contaminated pond water, which have accumulated at the lagoon surface, have
   overflowed on occasion and discharged to the river and adjacent floodplain. An
   estimated 160 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the
   site.                                   '       '." '•.;;./.;• .'•••.   •    ,  ',' ',,..
S£te Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                  Federal and State actions.
                                                          NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                                          Proposed Date: 06/24/88

                                                            Final Date: 03/29/89
                  Threats and Contaminants
               Groundwater contaminants include volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
               such as vinyl chloride and lead. Heavy metals including lead and
               chromium and VOCs have contaminated the burn pond sediments. The
               soil is contaminated with heavy metals. The burn pond sludge and
               surface water are contaminated with heavy metals and VOCs. Direct
               contact with contaminated soil, sediments, or water could be a health
               threat. Accidental ingestion of these media could also pose a health risk.
               This site lies within the 100-year floodplain, and if flooding did occur,
               contamination could spread.
   March 1990
                      NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES


                                                             PESTER REFINERY CO.
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:  The State is conducting negotiations with potentially
             responsible parties to investigate the nature and extent of the
             contamination at the site. The study is expected to be completed in 1992.

  Site Facts: In 1986, the State  issued an Administrative Orderly Pester to conduct
  studies on how to close the impoundment. The owner has demonstrated that he
  cannot afford to pay for the cleanup and has filed for bankruptcy.  A past owner and the
  creditors of the bankrupt entity are presently negotiating with the State.
   Environmental Progress
   After listing the Pester Refinery site on the NPL, the EPA determined that no
   immediate actions were necessary while investigations leading to the selection of a
   final cleanup remedy are taking place.

   EPA ID# KSD980
                                         REGION 7
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                          Cowley County
                                    Near Winfield and Arkansas City
Site Description
   Strother Field Industrial Park is located near Winfield and Arkansas City and covers
   approximately 2 square miles. Until 1946, the site was a military facility. The site now
   consists of about 20 industrial and commercial businesses as well as two inactive solid
   waste landfills.  The landfills were used for the disposal of various industrial wastes.
   Groundwater contamination with  volatile organic compounds (VOCs) has been
   documented. Until 1983, the Strother Field Commission operated a water supply
   system, consisting of eight wells  on the site. The groundwater is no longer used for
   drinking, but still is used for industrial processes.  Drinking water was brought in by
   tank truck until the Commission installed two wells  upgradientof the contaminant
   plume.  Approximately 2,300 people live within a 3-mile radius of  the site.  The size of
   the worker population at the industries on the site is approximately 2,000.  There are
   private and public wells located in the vicinity of the site; some private wells  are in the
   Industrial park.                                                         :
   Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.

Proposed Date: 10/15/84

  Final Date: 06/10/86
                   Threats and Contaminants
                Samples collected and analyzed by the State indicated the presence of
                VOCs, including trichloroethylene (TCE) in several Wells used for industrial
                processes only. The contaminated groundwater may pose health risks to
                individuals who drink it accidently or come in direct contact with it, or
                cleanup workers who may inhale VOCs generated from the air stripping
                operations taking place on the site.
    March 1990


                                                                  STROTHEK FIELD
Cleanup Approach
  The site is being addressed in two stages:  immediate actions and a long-term remedial
  phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
  Response Action Status
              Immediate Actions: After the use of the industrial park wells as a source
              of drinking water was discontinued, water was brought in by tank trucks.
              The Strother Field Commission installed two wells upgradient of the
   contaminated plume to supply water.  Two of the eight wells remained in use to supply
   process water for the industries located on the field. For the last several years, the
   Strother Field Commission has pumped these wells in order to contain groundwater
   contamination beneath the site. In 1985, General Electric installed groundwater
   extraction wells and air stripping towers to remove VOCs from the groundwater under
   an Administrative Order with KDHE.
              Entire Site: The State will monitor an investigation by potentially
              responsible parties, scheduled to begin in 1990, that will identify the types
              of contaminants remaining in the groundwater and other areas and
   remedies for final site cleanup.

   Site Facts:  In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order to General Electric Co.,
   one of the parties potentially responsible for wastes associated with the northern zone
   of the site. The order called for the company to sample soil; monitor groundwater;
   construct a groundwater flow model and use it to help locate, construct, and operate
   withdrawal wells under the guidance of the State; and to submit a  plan for a treatment
   and disposal system. The State issued another Administrative Order in January 1986 to
   each of the four potentially responsible parties associated with the southern zone of the
   site. The order requires one potentially responsible party to treat the water from the
   public supply well, each of the companies to drill monitoring wells on the southern end
   of the field, and three of the parties to submit data on chemical use during the past 20
   years. In March 1990, General Electric signed a Consent Agreement with the KDHE to
   complete an investigation of the site.
  \Environmental Progress
   The Strother Field Commission and General Electric, in conjunction with the State and
   the EPA, have greatly reduced the possibility of drinking contaminated groundwater by
   supplying a safe drinking water source and installing a treatment system for the
   groundwater while studies into a final cleanup solution for the Strother Field site are

   29TH  & ME.
   EPA TJD# KSD007241656
                                          REGION 7
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
                                          Sedgwlck County
Site Description
   The 29th & Mead Groundwater Contamination site covers approximately 1,440 acres at
   the intersection of 29th and Mead Streets in a highly industrialized area of Wichita.
   Heavy metals and organic contamination are present in significant concentrations in
   shallow on- and off-site wells, according to tests conducted by the Kansas Department
   of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the U.S. Geological Survey from 1983 to 1986.
   The actual boundary and the extent of groundwater contamination have not been
   clearly defined. There are several potential industrial sources of contamination in the
   area that include both facilities currently in operation and facilities that have  ceased
   operations. An estimated 3,300 people obtain drinking water from public and private
   wells drawing from the shallow aquifer within 3 miles of the site.
  Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.

Proposed Date: 06/24/88

  Final Date: 02/21/90
                  Threats and Contaminants
               The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
               including trichloroethylene (TCE), carbon tetrachloride, toluene, and vinyl
               chloride from as-yet-undetermined sources. The contaminated
               groundwater could adversely affect the health of individuals if it is
               accidentally ingested. Also, the contamination on site could pollute
               Chisholm Creek, which is used for recreational purposes.
  Cleanup Approach
    The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
    the entire site.
    March 1990


                                       29TH & MEAD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Response Action Status
          Entire Site: the parties potentially responsible for the groundwater
          contamination are carrying out an investigation on the site to determine the
          extent and the nature of the contaminants. The work is expected to be
completed in 1991. The results of the investigation will determine the methods to be
used for the site cleanup. - The site  cleanup is expected to be completed by 1995.

Site Facts: KDHE has identified more than 70 parties potentially responsible for the
wastes associated with groundwater contamination at,and  in the vicinity of the site.,.In
1987, the parties organized a steering committee to negotiate future investigation and
remedial activities. In 1989, the steering committee signed a Consent Agreement with
the KDHE to complete an investigation-of the site.
JE/fiinrofimentai Progress
 Extensive investigations are taking place to determine the source of contamination at
 the 29th and Mead Groundwater Contamination site so that cleanup efforts may be
 started. The EPA has determined that the site does not currently pose an immediate
 threat to the neighboring communities or the environment as long as the contaminated
 wells are not used.


        his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
       ~ fact sheets for the State of Kansas. The terms and ab-
       •- breviations contained in this glossary are often defined
"inthecontext 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.

 Air Stripping:  A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
 contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
 contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
 it is released into the atmosphere.

 Alluvial:  An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
 ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.

 Aquifer:  An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
 cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained -within an aquifer is
 of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
 poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.

 Borehole: A hole drilled into the ground used to sample soil and groundwater.

 Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up for use

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.

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.

Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.

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].

Culvert: A pipe under a road, railroad track, path, or through an embankment used for

Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.

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].

Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other

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-

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.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.

Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.

Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.

Mine (or Mill) Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left from ore milling operations.  Tail-
ings often contain high concentrations of lead and arsenic or other heavy metals.

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.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking cpmpounds.  PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes.  PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins.  Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage.  It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.


Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability.  This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.

Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.

Sediment:  The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.

Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.

Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, of cavity in the ground used for storage of liquids, usually
in the form of leachate, from waste disposal areas.  The liquid gradually leaves the pit
by moving through the surrounding soil.

Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.

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].

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-

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.