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...
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites	 vii
How To:
Using the State Volume

A State Overview	

NPL: Site Fact Sheets	1
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets



      - s the 1970s came to a
      5 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-


tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
Otis 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'sjobisto
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 t&  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.


P'f"^ he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
  1 x   waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
£**"•"s  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
        exists *
   STEP 2

Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
 threat to public
   health or
    STEP 3

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.

  bout  ote»ti        >
          t danger;%SSSN ^
  -    .    '•\^\T^-.^^;:V\\?'.S:-:
how does ]

Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens — people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
                            As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
                            determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
                            diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
                            to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
                            emergency actions range from building a fence around the
                            contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
                            cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
                            bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
                            supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
                            safe disposal.

                            However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
                            threat or emergency warrants them — for example, if leaking
                            barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
                            ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
                            there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
                            is taken.

Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now ifs time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or

EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.

Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards., This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
•   Are hazardous substances likely to be present?

•   How are they contained?
•   How might contaminants spread?

•   How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
    area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?

•   What may be harmed — the land, water, air, people,
    plants, or animals?

Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment — such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
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

 ,  -      ' ••  si   •*
IHow * »«^«
                            requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfuhd mo-
                            nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.

                            To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
                            Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
                            uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
                            release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
                            groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
                            on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
                            the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
                            the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
                            affected by contamination at the site.             !

                            Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
                            scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
                            List (NPL). Thafs why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
                            but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
                            tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
                            from the national hazardous waste trust fund — the Super-
                            fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
                            actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL,
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL,by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.                           ,,......'

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

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.


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 arid 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.

rar-STT-v ,w'^v-.  " -  s
pow are <$eaxrop
Does Hie p«fol
                             Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
                             cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
                             score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
                             require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
                             scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
                             assessment of potential risk.  During subsequent site investiga-
                             tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
                             that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
                             ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility

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.
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

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 cleanup a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence pf combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
          ...•.•.••• ,. i .t.5-.  *-X-'- ^ .'
                   - 'ftV-'  v
          JL'V  fil^'  **""

 - \ ^">  -^ /-  -;-•. "":"'  '-'-'^\.  ••
  V. ^ >'  s ^  <'  \  ^  - s **^

  ^%\**88^A™5.'!JS^5^^ iv % vt3J& ««'' i\x₯*
^ %" *  X11- ~" ^ *~^; 

                            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 trie 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 it's not
                            until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
                            can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
                            occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
                            gory in the progress report found later in this book.

 Yes. Based on the belief that "the poUuters 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.
                                                            x, V I;™,•."•», ^-"ft." .
                                                             ^ " ^ •."•• '•••'•* V. «*••
                                                            ',v,, -x  v'%, --r
                                                             ' ^      '   •.
                                                            *--.vC"<[ ^  ;^,-''l'  - ...   ..
                                                               •*™    *  ^^      •• - ,,
                                                                        "•"" -.: Z •. "'£• i
                                                                        '•W'  ' •••• '"•'• •^•••rt-% ttff ^ ^""^
                                                                        % vH-1' ^ v> ^\ '•••X;\\\SNN ••wX
                                                                        * * s^N*  *-V N:^v.s^^
                                                               ^'-'\ -  '--,-,  \   '^   x:,  "•^••-•x-^
                                                               ^ ssl!1>^''  •  ^   -


        he Site Fact Sheets
        presented in this book
       " are comprehensive
 summaries that cover a broad
 range of information. The
 fact sheets describe hazard-
 ous waste sites on the Na-
 tional Priorities List (NPL)
 and their locations, as well as
 the conditions leading to their
 listing ("Site Description").
 They list the types  of con-
 taminants that have been dis-
 covered and related threats to
 public and ecological health
 ("Threats and Contami-
 nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
 proach" presents an overview
 of the cleanup activities
 completed, underway, or
 planned. The fact sheets
 conclude with a brief synop-
 sis of how much progress has
 been made on protecting
 public health and the envi-
 ronment.  The summaries also
 pinpoint other actions, such
 as legal efforts to involve pol-
 luters responsible for site
 contamination and commu-
 nity concerns.

 The following two pages
 show a generic fact sheet and
 briefly describes the informa-
 tion under each section. The
 square "icons" or symbols ac-
 companying the text allow
 the reader to see at  a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
 Icons in the Threats
 and Contaminants

        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.
                                                           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 Facts: •.-....•.•.
                          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.


                           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 informaton 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 feet 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
complete.       :

EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.

      NPL Sit
      State of Maryland
Maryland is the forty-second largest state in the nation, covering 10,460 square miles.
The State is located in the Middle Atlantic region, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to
the Allegheny Mountains. Maryland's population grew by 9.6 percent in the 1980s, and
currently has approximately 4,622,000 residents, ranking 19th in U.S. populations.
Principal State  industries include manufacturing and tourism and agricultural crops
including; corn, soybeans, and tobacco.  Maryland manufacturing produces electric and
electronic equipment, food and related products, and chemicals.
How Many Maryland Sites
Are on the NPL?
                 Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
District 01
District 03
District 04
District 06
District 07
5 sites
2 sites
3 sites
1 site
1 site
      How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
    * 4 +
      2 --
         GW   Soil   SW  Seds  Air

             Contamination Area
                         Groundwater: Volatile organic
                         compounds (VOCs) and heavy
                         metals (inorganics).
                         Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics),
                         volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
                         creosote (organics), and plastics.
                         Surface Water and Sediments:
                         Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
                         organic compounds (VOCs),
                         creosote (organics), pesticides, and

                         Air: Heavy metals (inorganics), and
                         •Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview

            Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* 7
   Initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim cleanup measures.
                         Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Maryland, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
             Maryland Superfund Office
             EPA Region III Superfund Office
             EPA Public Information Center
             EPA Superfund Hotline
             EPA Region III Superfund Public
                 Relations Office
                                (202) 475-7751
                                (800) 424-9346
                                (215) 597-9905
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview

The NPL Progress Report	—	

The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL;
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.

Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative

+•  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.          .



gress Toward uieanup a
She Name

C INJtUr OlteS ]

s oiate 01 maxyicum 	
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
06/16/88 *• •*•
03/31/89 •*•
12/30/82 •*• •*• •*• •*• •*"
06/01/86 •*• + •*• •*- *•
09/01/83 "^ "*• •*"
06/01/86 *- 4-
04/18/88 "^ "^ . •*• ^"
09/01/83 •*- •*" "*" •*• *"

06/01/86 "^ •*" "*• •*• B^
02/21/90 "*•
10/04/89 .+ •*"
07/01/87 *- •*•




EPA ID# MDD980705057
                                                         CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
                                                              Anne Arundel County
                                                                  Glen Burnie
                                                                Smucks Dump
                                                              Glen Burnie Landfill
Site Description
   The Anne Arundel Landfill site is a 130-acre parcel in the suburban Baltimore town of
   Glen Burnie that was used by the County of Anne Arundel as a municipal solid waste
   landfill for domestic waste until it was closed in 1982. Beginning in 1945,
   80 acres of the site were used as a gravel and sand excavation operation owned by a
   private individual.  During and following the excavation of borrow soils, the site was
   used as an "uncontrolled dump" with open burning. In 1968, the site was reported as
   having two large surface water ponds, into which the residues from the  burning were
   placed. By 1969, most of the 80 acres were used for dumping.  Anne Arundel County
   took over the site and began operations in 1970.  In the late 1970s, the State began to
   investigate the possible presence of hazardous substances at the site. Monitoring
   wells installed in 1980 showed that groundwater was contaminated. The Patapsco
   Aquifer, which lies under the site, is the most productive water source in the county
   and is an important source of water for public and private wells.  An estimated 93,000
   people live within 3 miles of the site, which is in a mixed industrial, commercial and
   residential area. Approximately 3,000 people live  within 1 mile of the site and less than
   100 live within 1,000 feet.
   Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                    County, State, and Federal actions.
                 Threats and Contaminants
                                                       NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                                       Proposed Date: 06/16/88
               Sampling by the EPA of 11 groundwater monitoring wells in 1983
               confirmed that the groundwater was contaminated with volatile organic
               compounds (VOCs), cyanide, and heavy metals including lead.  The EPA
               also found the sediments of Furnace Creek to be contaminated with lead
               and cyanide.  Contaminants in the groundwater may pose a threat to
               people in the area because the underlying Patapsco Aquifer is a water
               supply source for municipal and domestic wells.  This water system is
               interconnected to  Baltimore's water supply. Contamination found in
               sediments may pose a threat to the ecosystem of the stream that borders
               the site.  There is also a threat of explosion due to methane gas buildup.
  March 1990
                         NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

                                                     ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
    The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a single long-term
    remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
   Response Action Status

              Initial Action:  Gas venting pipes have been inserted to prevent methane

              Entire Site:  The State is monitoring drinking well sources to test for the
              intrusion of contamination.  It is proposed that the County begin an
              investigation of the site and a feasibility study of possible remedies in 1990
    in preparation for the cleanup. Once these studies are completed, the EPA will make a
    final remedy selection.
    Environmental Progress
    The installation of gas venting pipes to eliminate the danger of explosion from methane
    buildup has greatly reduced the potential for the Anne Arundel Landfill site to pose an
    immediate threat to the surrounding public or the environment while the site is awaiting
    further cleanup activities.


   EPA ID# MDD980504195
                                                        REGION 3
                                                 CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                                         Harford County
                                                         Harris Landfill
Site Description
   Before 1977, the 29-acre Bush Valley Landfill site was allegedly used for the open
   burning of trash.  The property, which was privately owned, was used as a /anc/f/7/for
   municipal wastes from 1975 to 1982.  During this period, the landfill had a State permit
   to accept municipal wastes.  Between 1979 and 1984, the State issued orders to the
   owner to neutralize leachates and build drainage ditches and containment berms as part
   of the landfill's operating procedures and closure plans. The owner of the facility never
   complied fully with the orders. During a site inspection in 1984, the EPA observed
   erosion and leachate seeping from slopes at the landfill. The landfill did not contain
   diversion ditches or leachate collection systems and was only partially covered. The
   Ferryman Water Treatment Plant supplies approximately 35,000 people from eight
   municipal wells. Three of the eight wells are within 3 miles of the site.  A few private
   wells are nearby, the closest of which is a shallow well 500 feet away.
    site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                     Federal actions.
                                                    NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                                   Proposed Date: 06/16/88

                                                     Final Date: 03/31/89
                  Threats and Contaminants
               An on-site groundwater monitoring well contained volatile organic
               compounds (VOCs) including vinyl chloride from former waste disposal
               practices. Also, the EPA observed soil leachate seeping from slopes of
               the landfill. Potential risks exist if contaminated groundwater is used as a
               drinking water supply.  Since water is blended into the system, the entire
               population could be affected if one or more of the wells  used by the
               Perryman Water Treatment Plant become contaminated. Runoff from the
               landfill goes to two basins on the site; one of these basins runs into
               Bynum Run, which is near the site. A wetland which adjoins the site could
               become contaminated, threatening the wildlife in the area.
    March 1990


                                                             BUSH VALLEY LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
   This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on
   groundwater and soil cleanup at the entire site.
   Response Action Status

              Entire Site: The EPA is scheduled to conduct a study to determine the
              nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
              After the completion of this investigation, the EPA will start cleanup
   activities to address the groundwater and soil contamination at this site.
    Environmental Progress
   After listing this site on the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary site investigation and
   determined that conditions at the Bush Valley site do not pose an immediate threat to
   nearby residents or the surrounding environment while the EPA begins investigations
   and performs cleanup activities.


    EPA ID# MDD980555478
       REGION 3
       Baltimore County
Site Description
    The Chemical Metals Industries site is divided into two areas: a former gas station that
    operated on one area and was also used as a dump yard for chemicals, and a
    laboratory and manufacturing center that contained chemical processing equipment
    designed for recrystallization of solid materials from liquid solutions. Gwynn's Falls, a
    tributary to the Patapsco River, is located near the site. There are approximately 10,000
    people living within 3 miles of the site.  The site is located in a mixed residential and
    industrial area, with 20 homes located between the two site areas.
   Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
                     State and Federal actions.

    Deletion Date: 12/30/82
                  Threats and Contaminants
               Specific contaminants detected in the air, soil, and surface water include
               cyanides, ammonia compounds, acids, caustics, and heavy metal salts.
               Health threats at the site included direct contact with contaminated air,
               surface water, and soils; breathing contaminated air; and drinking
               contaminated surface water or accidentally eating contaminated soils.
               Danger of fire and explosion from  volatized chemicals on the site posed
               an additional threat to nearby residents.
Cleanup Approach
   This site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
   the contamination at the entire site.
   March 1990
                         NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES


                                                    CHEMICAL METALS INDUSTRIES
Response Action Status

          Entire Site: All materials posing an immediate threat were identified,
          removed, and disposed of in 1982.  Drums and scrap debris were removed
          from the site and liquid organic waste was removed. Liquid inorganic wastes
were treated to make them acceptable for discharge to the city sewer system.  The
underground storage tank at the former gas station was filled with concrete slurry. A
clay cap and topsoil were applied and compacted over the site. Sand blasters removed
chemical contamination from the walls of the former gas station. The interior'of the
laboratory and manufacturing area were cleaned and decontaminated. The site was
fenced and police and fire personnel were made available to ensure site security.  As a
result of the cleanup activities and subsequent sampling to ensure the effectiveness of
the remedy, the EPA, in cooperation with the State of Maryland, determined that the
site no longer posed a threat to the public.  The site was deleted from the NPL in  1982.

Site Facts:  The Chemical Metals Industries site was placed on the Interim Priorities
List in October 1981; however,  all cleanup actions were completed before the first
proposed NPL was established.
\Environmentol Progress
 By performing all cleanup actions described above, the EPA has eliminated or contained
 contamination sources at the site.  In conjunction with the State, the EPA has
 determined that the Chemical Metals Industries site has been cleaned to established
 standards and is no longer a threat to the public or the environment.


   EPA ID# MDD980923783
                                     REGION 3
                              CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
                                     Baltimore County
                              Orangeville Subdivision in Baltimore
Site Description
   The 8 1/3-acre Kane and Lombard Street Drums site operated as part of an open dump
   between 1962 and 1984 and accepted demolition, municipal, and industrial wastes. The
   site and some of the adjacent property have a long history of excavation and filling.
   Approximately 1,200 drums containing hazardous materials have been removed from
   the site.  There are approximately 37,000 people within 3 miles of the site. Residential
   developments and a large medical complex are found about 1/3 mile from the site, and
   a large park area is about 3/4 mile from the site. A high school and its recreation areas
   border the property. The site lies along the edge of an industrial and commercial strip
   that borders a railroad and highway network. Herring Run and  Back River, downslope
   of the site, are an arm of the Chesapeake Bay and are used for fishing, crabbing, and
   recreational purposes.
   Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                     State and Federal actions.
                                  NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                  Proposed Date: 10/01/84

                                   Final Date: 06/01/86
                  Threats and Contaminants
               The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
               including vinyl chloride and benzene, and heavy metals including cadmium,
               and mercury from former waste disposal practices.  Cadmium has also
               been detected in off-site groundwater.  Specific contaminants detected in
               soils include various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated
               biphenyls (PCBs), polynuclear aromatics (PNAs), and phthalates. Off-site
               soil is contaminated with arsenic, beryllium, lead,  PNAs,  and phthalates.
               Health threats include exposure to contaminated soil and air through
               ingestion, inhalation, and skin contact.  If bioaccumulation of
               contaminants is confirmed, people who participate in fishing, crabbing,
               and recreational  uses of Herring Run and Back River may also be at risk.
   March 1990

                                                     KANE & LOMBARD STREET DRUMS
Cleanup Approach
    This site is being addressed in three stages:  emergency actions and a long-term
    remedial phase focusing on source control and cleanup of contaminated groundwater.

   Response Action Status

              Emergency Actions: In 1984, the EPA removed approximately 1,150
              drums from the site. The majority of full drums contained flammable  solids.
              An additional drum containing PCBs was removed and stored pending
    shipment to a disposal facility. The site was covered with 12,000 cubic yards of
    topsoil, and surface contours were reshaped to prevent surface water from mixing with
    contaminants and moving off site.  The EPA also installed a fence for security purposes.

              Source Control: The final selection of cleanup technologies to address
              contamination include:  construction of subsurface containment and
              diversion structures around the waste disposal areas, construction of  a
              multi-layer soil cap, construction of a drainage system, and  continued
    groundwater monitoring. The EPA prepared the technical specifications and* design for
    the selected cleanup technologies and is currently performing the cleanup at the  site.
    Final cleanup activities are expected to be  completed in 1990.

              Groundwater:  The State is  conducting a second investigation to determine
              the nature and extent of groundwater contamination underlying the site.
              This investigation will identify alternatives for cleanup and is scheduled to
              be completed in 1991.

    Site Facts: In -1983, the State of Maryland issued an order to the potentially
    responsible pa/t/esto conduct cleanup activities.  The potentially responsible parties
    appealed the order and the State requested the EPA's assistance.
    Environmental Progress
    Emergency actions have reduced the potential for exposure to contamination at the
    Kane and Lombard Street Drums site. Ongoing cleanup activities are designed to
    isolate the remaining contamination thereby eliminating threats to public health and the

   EPA ID# MDD980691588
                                     REGION 3
                             CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
                                    Alleghany County
                             21/2 miles southeast of Cumberland
                               Cumberland Cement & Supply
                                    Diggs Sanitation
Site Description	

   The 210-acre Limestone Road site consists of two parcels of land; the former Diggs
   Sanitation Company and the Cumberland Cement and Supply Company. The site
   includes large areas of landfilled and dumped commercial, residential, and demolition
   refuse on  both properties. Approximately 110 tons of chromium-containing sludge
   were also disposed of on the properties. Beginning in the mid-1970s,  various
   contractors were allowed to dump clean fill (housing demolition wastes) on the
   property to provide a larger and more level working surface. Allegations were made
   that  11 tons'of hazardous waste have been disposed of on the Diggs property as an
   extension of previous filling and grading operations.  There are approximately 425
   people within 1  mile of the site. The site is bordered by several residences and the
   Cumberland City Dump. There is  one residence on the Diggs property, and 18
   residences are within 1/2 mile downgradient of the site. The residences are supplied
   with groundwater from private wells.
   Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                     Federal, State, and potentially
                     responsible parties'actions.
                                  NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                  Proposed Date: 12/01/82

                                   Final Date: 09/01/83
                  Threats and Contaminants
               Inorganic chemicals and heavy metals including zinc and lead were
               detected in on-site soils during test pit sampling. The surface water is
               contaminated with chromium, cadmium, and zinc.  Possible health threats
               include direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated soil or
               surface water. There is also a possibility that groundwater may become
               contaminated through runoff from the soil or surface water.
   March 1990

                                                                   LIMESTONE ROAD
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 has selected the following remedies for cleanup of
               the site contamination: (1) reshaping site surface contours to manage
               water infiltration and runoff; (2) capping contaminated soil on all properties;
               (3) fencing of both properties; (4) continued monitoring of groundwater,
    surface water, and sediment; (5) completing a historical review of pertinent geological
    information; (6) chemically analyzing shale to determine its composition; (7) reevaluating
    and establishing background data control points for groundwater; and (8) frequent
    groundwater sampling, as well as increasing stream and residential sampling. In
    addition, the EPA remedy requires evaluating the effects of natural conditions on the
    overall water quality of the area. The parties potentially responsible for contamination
    at the site are preparing the technical specifications and design for the selected cleanup
    technologies. Cleanup activities will begin once the design phase is completed.

    Site Facts: In 1988, the potentially responsible parties entered into a Consent Decree
    with the EPA to conduct cleanup activities at the site. The State subsequently filed  a
    motion to intervene, requesting that it be made a party to the Consent Decree on equal
    terms with the EPA. The issue related to the State's  role was settled among the
    parties, and the decree was amended and signed by the potentially responsible partie's,
    the State, and the EPA. The decree was entered in court in 1990.
     Environmental Progress
    After adding the Limestone Road site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary
    investigations and found that the site does not currently pose an immediate threat to
    public health or the environment while further investigations, and cleanup activities are

   EPA ID# MDD064882889
                                     REGION 3
                              CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
                                   Anne Arundel County
                                Mid-Atlantic Harmans Wood
                                    Treatment Factory
Site Description
   The Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers site is an active wood-treating facility that stands on
   a 3-acre parcel in Harmans. It consists of two impoundments that straddle Shipley
   Avenue near its intersection with Dorsey Road.  Both are enclosed by chain-link
   fencing. The operation employs a two-part chromated copperarsenate (CCA) process.
   In the first part, workers pressure-treat lumber in an enclosed processing plant; in the
   second, the wood is allowed to drip and dry. From 1976 until 1981, operators allowed
   the contaminated drippings to fall directly onto the ground.  Surface water from the site
   drains toward Stoney Run Creek, while the groundwater moves in a northwesterly
   direction. The groundwater beneath the site and surface soils are contaminated with
   wood-treating metals. The pollution was determined to have come from the overflow of
   a CCA storage tank and from lumber drippings, and the owner undertook1 cleanup
   activities in 1980.  The area surrounding the site is industrial, commercial, and
   residential. About 1,180 people within a 3-mile radius depend on approximately 75
   wells as a source of drinking water and for a variety of other uses including domestic,
   public, commercial, recreational, institutional, industrial, and irrigation. The closest
   residence is within 200 feet of the site. Stoney Run Creek flows north through a
   wetland area 600 feet west of the site, extending 4 miles before discharging to the
   Patapsco River near Elkridge.  Stoney Run is restricted to recreational use.
   Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                     a combination of  Federal, State,
                     and potentially responsible parties'
                                  IMPL LISTING HISTORY

                                  Proposed Date: 10/01/84

                                   Final Date: 06/01/86
   March 1990

                                                    MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS
                      Threats and Contaminants
                   Heavy metals including arsenic and chromium from former process
                   wastes have been detected in monitoring wells on site and in an off-
                   site private well, as well as in the soils on the site.  Low levels of
                   copper were found in the water of Stoney Run. People are at risk
                   from accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater or from
                   inhaling contaminated residues in the soils. The wetlands and stream
                   areas near the site also are subject to contamination from the surface
                   water runoff from the site or from the inflow of contaminated
Cleanup Approach
   The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term
   remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
   Response Action Status

              Immediate Action: Under orders from the State, the owner developed
              pJans to remedy the groundwater contamination in 1980.  Operational
              changes included leaving the drying wood on the concrete drainage pad
    longer before moving it to the storage lot and modifying the drainage pad so that it
    collects all waste drippings for reuse. All wastes captured by the drip pad are
    recirculated within the process system and sludges are shipped off site for disposal.
    The owner also removed 26 cubic yards of contaminated soil from beneath the
    chemical storage tank overflow pipe and disposed of it at an EPA-approved facility.
    Nevertheless, the EPA's 1983 investigation indicated that excess contamination
    remains in the groundwater and that further cleanup may be necessary.

              Entire Site: A study of groundwater contamination at the site is under way
              and is being financed by the owner. This investigation will explore the
              nature and extent of the problems and will recommend the best strategies
    for final cleanup. It is scheduled for completion in early 1990.
    Environmental Progress
    The owner's actions to limit the spread of groundwater contamination and the removal
    of contaminated soil from the site have reduced the potential of the further spread of
    contamination at the Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers site while the selection of a final
    cleanup strategy is being made.


   EPA ID# MDD980705099
      Anne Arundel County
Off Maryland Route 50, near Annapolis
      Dale Dickerson Dump
Site Description
   The Middletown Dump, situated on approximately 2 1/2 acres, is a privately owned
   dump off Route 50 near Annapolis. The facility, now inactive, took in rubble and
   construction debris for several decades without proper State permits. In 1981,  it was
   discovered that about 40 drums and four dumpster loads of suspected hazardous
   substances were on the site. The owner was forced to initiate cleanup when a  drum-
   crushing accident spread contaminants over a half acre. That year, the State shut down
   the dump because of its violations of State water pollution and hazardous waste laws.
   Approximately 5,000 people live within 1  mile of the site; 2,500 people within 3 miles
   are served by groundwater in both public and private wells. A stream flowing off the
   site enters Whitehawk Creek, which is used for recreation.
   Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
                    Federal actions.

    Proposed Date: 12/01/82

     Final Date: 09/01/83

    Deletion Date: 04/18/88
                 Threats and Contaminants
               Soil was contaminated with heavy metals such as lead, aluminum,
               chromium, zinc, cyanide, barium, and cadmium. Access to the site was
               unrestricted, making the risk of  direct contact with contaminated areas
Cleanup Approach
   The site was addressed in two stages:  emergency actions and a long-term remedial
   phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
   March 1990
                         NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES


                                                        MIDDLETOWN ROAD DUMP
Response Action Status

           Emergency Actions: In 1983, the EPA conducted an emergency cleanup
           to eliminate immediate threats from contamination. EPA  workers
 	   performed the following:  (1) removed contaminated soil and 5-gallon pails.
 of marine paint; (2) sampled the soil to confirm that contaminant removal had been
 adequate; (3) installed six groundwater monitoring wells around the site perimeter; (4)
 sampled and tested drums; and (5) moved 1  million tires elsewhere on the site to
 expedite subsurface investigation.  More drums were discovered under the tires. The
 EPA removed 68 drums, 70 contaminated tires, and 610 tons of contaminated soil.

           Entire Site: The EPA and the State conducted an intensive investigation of
           site conditions during and after the emergency removal. The study
 	   evaluated water, soil, and sediment quality in the vicinity of the site.  It
 revealed that as a result of the previous EPA cleanup actions, the hazardous wastes
 were gone, and that no threat to human health remained. The site contains only
 uncontaminated trash and tires.  Declaring that no further cleanup action was
 warranted, the EPA, with agreement from the State, deleted the site from the NPL in
 April 1988.
 Environmental Progress
 The EPA, through emergency removal of hazardous wastes and evaluations of the
 extent of contamination at the Middletown Dump, successfully cleaned up the site.
 After further studies, the EPA, with concurrence by the State, determined that the site
 no longer posed a threat to the surrounding community or the environment, and
 delisted the site from the  NPL in 1988.

   EPA ID# MDD980705164
                                                              REGION 3
                                                       CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                                               Cecil County
                                                            3 miles west of Elkton
                                                           Elkton Quarry
                                                       Maryland Sand and Gravel
Site Description
   From 1969 to 1974, 3 acres of the Sand, Gravel, and Stone site, which is on a 200-acre
   parcel, were used for the disposal of bulk wastes such as processing wastewater,
   sludges, and st/7/ bottoms, and about 90 drums of solid and semi-solid waste. The
   operator dug pits and disposed of approximately 700,000 gallons of waste into them
   including buried drums and sJudges in on-site pits. In 1982, the EPA detected volatile
   organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater at the site, although water samples
   from nearby homes were not contaminated. Approximately 570 people  live within a 1-
   mile radius of the site; 8,000 are within  3 miles. The nearest home upgradientoi the
   buried toxic wastes is 800 feet; the nearest home downgradient is 1,800 feet from  the
   site. Elk Nest State Forest is within 3 miles, as is the Elk River estuary and wetlands.
   Mill Creek, a headwater located on the site, is a documented spawning area.
   Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                    Federal and potentially responsible
                    parties' actions.
                                                       NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                                      Proposed Date: 12/01/82

                                                        Final Date: 09/01/83
                 Threats and Contaminants
              The shallow groundwater has been shown to contain heavy metals
              including cadmium and chromium and VOCs including benzene and
              toluene from former waste disposal practices. The deep groundwater is
              contaminated with lead. Heavy metals, pesticides, and VOCs have been
              detected in sediments and surface water. Ponds heavily contaminated
              with heavy metals and VOCs have dried, and the sediments have become
              topsoil. Trespassers are at risk by touching, inhaling, or accidentally
              consuming contaminated soils. Site access is restricted by a fence
              around the perimeter of the facility. The bog turtle, an endangered
              species, has not been seen on the site since the 1970s.
  March 1990
                        NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES


                                                            SAND, GRAVEL, AND STONE
Cleanup Approach
    The site is being addressed in four stages:  immediate actions and three long-term
    remedial phases focusing on drum and shallow aquifer cleanup, deep aquifers, and soil

    Response Action Status

              Immediate Actions: Under State order, the owner removed 200,000
              gallons of liquid waste from the site in 1974. In 1985, a temporary fence
              was constructed around the site to limit access.

              Drums and Shallow Aquifer: The parties potentially responsible for site
              contamination installed  a new fence around the site and posted warning
              signs. A groundwater treatability study is in progress by the potentially
              responsible party to determine the most effective way to address
    groundwater contamination. The design of this remedy is planned for completion in
    mid-1992. Drum removal activities were initiated in March 1990.

              Deep Aquifers:  The potentially responsible parties are conducting a study
              to determine the nature and extent of site contamination and to identify
              alternatives for cleanup. Phase II, an intensive study of the deep aquifers to
              assess the nature and extent of contamination and to identify the best
    strategies for cleanup, is also ongoing. Once the EPA selects the remedy, the
    potentially responsible parties will proceed with design and cleanup activities.

              On-site Soils: An intensive study of on-site soil contamination, Phase III, is
              slated for 1990.  The parties potentially responsible for site  pollution might
              undertake this investigation, which will determine the nature and extent of
              the problem and will identify the best approaches for cleanup.  Design is
    scheduled for 1992.

    Site Facts: In 1985, a steering  committee of potentially responsible parties
    volunteered to perform the Phase II study, signing a Consent Order in 1986.  Forty-one
    responsible parties and the EPA signed a Consent Decree in  November 1987 in which
    the parties agreed to conduct cleanup actions and to  pay a portion of the EPA's past
    and future oversight costs.
    Environmental Progress
    The immediate construction of a fence around the site to limit public access and the
    removal of liquid wastes have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
    materials at the Sand, Gravel, and Stone site while further studies and a final remedy
    selection'are taking place.

   EPA ID# MDD980704852
                             CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                  Saint Mary's County
Site Description
   Four acres of the 25-acre Southern Maryland Wood Treating (SMWT) site, located
   about 50 miles southeast of Washington, D.C., were used to treat wood from 1965 to
   1978. The facility treated wood with coal tar, creosote, and pentachlorophenol (PCP)
   ,and is now inactive.  Operators disposed of process wastes in six unlined lagoons and
   filled a seventh with contaminated water and sludge. In 1982, under an order from the
   Maryland Department of Health, the potentially responsible parties attempted to clean
   up the site by spraying lagoon liquids and landfarming lagoon sludges in two areas on
   site. Sludges were mixed with wood chips and manure and spread over a 3-acre
   section of the site.  This attempt was not successful, and now the top 3 feet of soil in
   this area are heavily contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Soil
   under the former lagoon area is also heavily contaminated from seepage from the
   lagoons. Surface soil in other areas of the site was contaminated by drippings from
   treated wood. The site is surrounded by residential and agricultural areas. About 40
   homes are located within 1/2 mile of the site, and 150 homes are within  1 mile of the
   site. Approximately 260 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site for drinking
   site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                     a combination of Federal, State, and
                     potentially responsible parties'
                                  NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                 Proposed Date: 10/01/84

                                   Final Date: 06/01/86
                  Threats and Contaminants
               The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds
               (VOCs), PAHs, PCP, styrene, and creosote by-products from the wood-
               treatment operations. The main threat to public health associated with
               the site is long-term exposure to carcinogens found in PAHs in the
               subsurface and surface soils.
Cleanup Approach
   This site is being addressed in two stages:  immediate actions and a long-term remedial
   phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
   March 1990

                                             SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATING
Response Action Status                                           :

       X* Immediate Actions: In 1980, the parties potentially responsible for
           contamination of the site excavated and treated part of the contaminated
           soil on the site under orders from the State. In 1982, the six lagoons were
completely emptied, backfilled, and graded. Wastewater was used to spray a wooded
area behind the site while excavated sludge was placed in a sludge treatment area east
of the site. The seventh pond was partially excavated. The EPA and the State
conducted additional emergency measures to stabilize the site. By 1986,
approximately 1,400 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated from the
northwest bank of the freshwater pond.  The soils were then placed onto a synthetic
liner east of the former lagoon area and capped with a synthetic cover. A
decontamination pad was used to clean the heavy excavation equipment.

          Entire Site: The cleanup remedies selected for this site in 1988 include: (1)
          excavating and on-site incinerating of contaminated soils and sediments; (2)
          installing a barrier to control groundwater migration through the pond and
          process area; (3) pumping and treating contaminated groundwater and
surface water; (4) backfilling, regrading, and replanting the site where necessary; and
(5) monitoring groundwater, surface water, sediment, and organisms.  A UV oxidation
or carbon adsorption method may be used in the cleanup process. A final technology
selection will be determined during the pre-design studies. The cleanup processes will
be completed in different phases; the first phase is to install a barrier wall around the
pond and process area and then constructing a permanent decontamination area. The
design of this phase was finished in 1989. Construction has begun and completion is
expected in 1990.  The next phase will accomplish the remainder of the cleanup
process. The pre-design work of the remedy is under way for this phase.

Site Facts: In 1980, a  Consent Decree was signed between the State, the EPA, and
SMWT Corporation, one of the potentially responsible parties, to conduct immediate
cleanup actions at the site.
 Environmental Progress
 Excavating, treating, and capping contaminated soils at the Southern Maryland Wood
 Treating have prevented the further spread of contaminants and have reduced the risk
 to the public while the site awaits the completion of the permanent cleanup remedies

   EPA ID# MD2210020036
Site Description
                                     REGION 3
                              CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                           Southern Harford County and southeastern
                                     Baltimore County
                               USA Aberdeen Proving Ground
                           US Coast Guard - Upper Chesapeake Range
                                  USA Edgewood Arsenal
                             US Coast Guard - Poole Island Range
   The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) occupies 79,000 acres of land and water near the
   head of Chesapeake Bay.  The APG consists.of two areas that are listed separately on
   the NPL: the Edgewood area and the Michaelsville area. The Edgewood area is 13,000
   acres and includes Gunpowder Neck, Pooles Island, Carroll Island, and Graces
   Quarters. The Edgewood area is separated from the Michaelsville area by the Bush
   River.  The Edgewood area was used for the development and testing of chemical
   agent munitions. From  1917 to the present, the Edgewood area conducted chemical
   research programs, manufactured chemical agents, and tested,  stored, and disposed of
   toxic materials.  The Edgewood area has large areas of land and water and numerous
   buildings, which are contaminated or suspected of contamination. Virtually every land
   portion of the area is reportedly contaminated or potentially contaminated. Substances
   disposed of in the area include significant quantities of napalm, white phosphorus and
   chemical,agents. On-site area surface water includes rivers, streams and wetlands.
   There are 38j600 people living within 3 miles of the site. On-site residences house
   military personnel and military dependents. Four Edgewood area standby water supply
   wells in the Canal Creek area previously served approximately 3,000 people. The Long
   Bar Harbor well field of the County Department of Public Works and the well field used
   by the Joppatowne Sanitary Subdistrict serve 35,000 people within 3 miles of the site.
   Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                     Federal actions.
                                 NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                 Proposed Date: 04/01/85

                                  Final Date: 02/21/90
                  Threats and Contaminants
               Preliminary on-site groundwater sampling has identified various metals,
               phosphorus, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including chloroform
               and benzene. Preliminary on-site soil contamination sampling has
               identified various VOCs, metals, and unexploded ordnance in surface and
               subsurface soil. Preliminary on-site surface water sampling has identified
               various metals, phosphorus, and VOCs.  People who accidentally touch or
               ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may
               be at risk. The wetlands area is a designated habitat for bald eagles.
   March 1990


                                                          USA ABERDEEN - EDGEWOOD
Cleanup Approach
    The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
    the entire site.
                                                                       .-.••••     »

    Response Action Status

               Entire Site: As an initial action, the Army conducted an environmental
               monitoring program in 1977 and 1978 at the Edgewood area. Evidence
               was found of substantial groundwater and surface water contamination.
    Contamination at the Edgewood area has been identified in separate study areas which
    will be addressed in future cleanup actions. Within each study area there may be   . -
    multiple cleanup phases.  The areas include:  Canal Creek, Old-O-Field, J-Field, Carroll
    Island, Graces Quarters, Westwood Area, and the Other Edgewood Areas.  The Canal
    Creek study area is 700 acres and surrounds both branches of Canal Creek. There is a
    landfill and closed pilot plant in this area. The area is primarily contaminated with white
    phosphorus. The Old-O-Field is 700 acres and has six former disposal pits which are
    contaminated with mustard gas and lewesite. Four disposal/burn areas have been
    identified on the J-Field. Contaminants include various chemical agents and
    ammunitions. Carroll Island is 850 acres/and the area was used for air testing of
    chemical agents. Burning pits and small dump areas were used for disposal of water.
    Graces Quarters includes 890 acres and was used for chemical agent and biological
    stimulant testing. Some disposal activities may have been conducted. Westwood
    Area is 523 acres and the area was used as a bomb-drop target area.  There is an active
    solid waste landfill in the area which is permitted to receive only rubble and asbestos
    wastes. Other Edgewood areas include all areas not covered by specific study areas.
    Work plans outlining the schedule and objectives of environmental investigations were
    completed for each of these study areas in 1989. These studies will be conducted
    between the present time and 1993 and will result in defining the contaminants for
    each area and identifying alternatives for site cleanup once completed. The EPA will
    select cleanup remedies to be carried out by the federal government.

    Site Facts: The Aberdeen Proving Ground is participating in the Installation
    Restoration Program (IRP), the specially funded program established in 1978 under
    which the Department of Defense (DOD) has been identifying and evaluating its past
    hazardous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants at
    military or other DOD installations.
    Environmental Progress
    The EPA and the Army have isolated various areas of contamination at the USA
    Aberdeen-Edgewood site and have completed the work plans for cleanup of these
    areas.  Once these studies are reviewed and the final cleanup alternatives are selected,
    the Army will begin the work to clean up the site contamination areas.


   EPA ID# MD3210021355
                                      REGION 3
                              CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                   Southern Harford County
                                   USA Edgewood Arsenal
                                Coast Guard - Poole Island Range
                           US Coast Guard - Upper Chesapeake Range
Site Description
   The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) occupies 79,000 acres of land and water near the
   head of-the Chesapeake Bay. The APG consists of two areas that are listed separately
   on the NPL:^ the Michaelsville area and the Edgewood area.  The Michaelsville area
   consists of 17,000 acres, including the 20racre Michaelsville Landfill, the Phillips Field  :
   Disposal Area, and the White Phosphorous Burial Site, and it is separated from the
   Edgewood area of the site by the Bush River. The area contains firing ranges, impact
   areas, vehicle test tracks, and laboratories in support of the testing activities. The
   Michaelsville Landfill operated as a sanitary landfill from the 1970s until 1980. The
   landfill received household garbage and refuse from the installation. The Phillips Field
   Disposal Area includes the active Phillips Field Landfill, Disposal Areas 1 through 4, and
   two grease pits. The active Phillips Field Landfill is a construction debris landfill and lies
   on top of an older landfill that is unlined and is about 16 feet deep. The White
   Phosphorous Burial Site is believed to be within a 15-acre area in the Chesapeake Bay
   near Mosquito Cree,k. Reportedly, munitions were buried under 2 feet of soil at the
   location. The Michaelsville area is bordered on the west by the Bush River and to the
   northeast and south by the Chesapeake Bay. The area is drained by seven creeks plus
   the Bush River. There are 38,600 people living within 3 miles of the site.  Residences
   located on the Michaelsville Landfill area of the site house military personnel-and
   dependents.             ,           ;,   .
   site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed
            .'.','     through Federal actions.
                  Threats and Contaminants
                                  NPL LISTING HISTORY
                                 Proposed Date: 04/01/85

                                   Final Date: 10/04/89
               Preliminary groundwater and surface water sampling has identified
               various heavy metals, phosphorous, and volatile organic compounds
               (VOCs). Soil is contaminated with pesticides. People who accidentally
               touch or ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil or
               sediments may be at risk.  There also is a possible risk of bioaccumulation
               of contaminants in the food chain.
   March 1990

                                                     USA ABERDEEN, MICHAELSVILLE
Cleanup Approach
  The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
  the entire site.
  Response Action Status
              Initial Actions: The Army has begun excavating pesticide-contaminated
              soil at the golf course and sampling is under way. Abandoned
              underground storage tanks are also being removed.  Soil sampling around
              Entire Site: Contamination at the Michaelsville area has been identified in
              separate study areas which will be addressed in future cleanup actions.
  	    The areas include the landfill source, groundwater, the Phillips Field
   Landfill, the White Phosphorous Area, the Fire Training Area, and the other areas. An
   investigation is underway and is expected to  be completed in 1993. The study will
   define the contaminants for each area, evaluate the health and environmental risks, and
   will identify alternatives  for site cleanup.

   Site Facts:  The EPA and the Army entered into an Interagency Agreement in March
   1990. Under this agreement, the Army will conduct investigations and cleanup
   activities at the site.  The USA Aberdeen, Michaelsville site is participating in the
   Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the specially funded program established by the
   Department of Defense (DOD) to identify, evaluate, and control the migration of
   hazardous wastes at military or other DOD installations.
   Environmental Progress
   The EPA and the Army have excavated soil in one area of contamination and sampled
   it Underground storage tanks are being removed, and the Army has isolated various
   areas of contamination at the Michaelsville site. Further investigations leading to the
   final selection process for cleaning up the various areas are currently being conducted.

   EPA ID# MDD980504344
                            CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
                                    Cecil County
                              Woodlawn Transfer Station
Site Description	—	—	

   Cecil County owned and operated the 37-acre Woodlawn County Landfill from 1965 to
   1979, when it was closed under a State order.  Before becoming a landfill, the property
   was a privately owned sand and gravel quarry.  Operators filled two large quarry pits
   with agricultural, municipal, and industrial wastes.  According to  State records, the only
   documented hazardous waste disposal at the site was polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sludge
   by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. This sludge was initially disposed of
   throughout the site, but in 1977, two designated disposal cells were put into use.
   However, EPA and State analyses showed contamination of on-site groundwater as
   well as stream sediments 200 feet from the site. When the EPA sampled home wells
   in 1987, all were free of contamination. An estimated 5,700 people draw drinking
   water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site.  The nearest private well
   is within 400 feet of the landfill. All homeowners adjacent to the site use private wells
   as their sole source of water. The contaminated stream enters Basin Run, a State-
   designated trout stream, about 2 miles from the site.
   Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
                     a combination of Federal, State, and
                     potentially responsible parties'
                                 NPL LISTING HISTORY

                                 Proposed Date: 01/22/87

                                   Final Date: 07/01/87
                  Threats and Contaminants
               The groundwater is contaminated with PVC, benzene, toluene, and lead.
               Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and lead are found in stream
               sediments. Possible health threats include drinking or coming in direct
               contact with contaminated groundwater or stream sediments.
               Economically valuable trout streams are located in the vicinity that may be
               threatened by site contamination.
   March 1990


                                                        WOODLAWN COUW1Y LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
    This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
    remedial phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
   Response Action Status
              Immediate Action: The parties potentially responsible for the site
              contamination capped the PVC sludge in 1981 to keep rainwater from
              spreading the pollution, and they installed monitoring wells.  The State
    samples on-site monitoring wells twice a year.

              Entire Site: The potentially responsible parties agreed to undertake an
              intensive study of soil and groundwater contamination at the site and to
              recommend the best approaches for cleanup. The investigation began in
    1988 and is scheduled for completion in 1991, after which the potentially responsible
    parties, under EPA monitoring, will clean up the site using the EPA-selected remedies.

    Site Facts: The EPA signed a Consent Order with the Firestone Tire and Rubber
    Company and Cecil County in 1988 to conduct a site investigation.
    Environmental Progress
    Capping the PVC sludge has eliminated the possibility of rainwater spreading the
    contaminants from the Woodlawn County Landfill while further investigations and
    cleanup activities continue.

        his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
        fact sheets for the State of Maryland.  The terms and
        abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed 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.

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.

Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.

Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-

Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.

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