EPA/540/4-90/026
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Missouri
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview..... iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets I
$ - f ..:.:. !ง ?,,/>. J ^ v.v.v,.,v!. . , J % , ^ i .... , ^ , ,_' ,.,-. '
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
p:
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
s the 1970s came to a
v close, a series of head-
^i iine 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, <*nd Liability Act in 1980.
CERCtA commonly
knowri\as the Superfund
was the\first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers $ps6d by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
wepe spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund 's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many otjher sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies i- like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in ofcier to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are comriiitted to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly-affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to CleanUp Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
,, establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists*
s:
^
-
-
ft
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
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.
VII
-------
SuiBMBB
, How does EPA
albout potential
hazardous waste
sites?
V '
1 '
*
^fflftat happens if ^
iitere is an i
I II I HELM
"Ik,
cljf tliere isn't: an
[Imminent danger x
' ป vmnJV """ s -wwwvw^^v
ow does EPA
I determine witat, iฃ
any/ cleanup acion$
should be taken? ,
STEPl: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION \
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of'hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the 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 arqund 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.
j
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.
STEP 2: SrrE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of/ in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated, m
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
ซxtefew&aVs
\wA.< %^, .'' <, " v. V
;-x-,.
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
-.;-,,,-,
IX
-------
ili ii i l
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (MRS). 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 secure 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). Thaf s why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
* How do people find
4t ฎ
1 out whether EPA ^
!considers a site a x f
national priority for
i cleanup using
i Superfund money?
t
in u linn
|
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, if 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. i
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible.cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/ES) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
1-
^w.
".X.-.-^"
\
<>.ฅ '
\^ v^
-;cu.
<'
~^^
s\\\^ ^O * !; ""
.X
\:
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
ow ate
Itltematives
Identified and
Evaluated?
\ %. JV*>* .
^ ^
ง-,
il xtvvf^
\ \
X \
*^v x 5f *
^ >,^
^ ^
* XX
: i : :
if* \
S
XXJ<ซ ?<[
hkl -M S
^ ^ <
tt*H ^ \
x x
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks. ;
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study. !
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their us6 of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost. !
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such a^ 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 ^nd feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
imซซ m i ii L i UIHI twsv j<. ป ^; x^
>oes the public have" ^
say in the linat V
m t - wt- xx ^
Ecleanup
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after, it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
-v^
foci", *,
S%% . \\\ ? SSS s
.^ "ซ&&<* V,^.
\S&ww'^%s
Xlll
-------
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
. n 1 i ป' ^ ...>5i^y|
nee the design, is "K 1
. ซ* ^i* ^ s- ปS
>, how long t
r^chiaily cleaซ up^
t%ite and how wiw<
ioe$ it cost?
Ms
I
r;
|y,:
IV
IT
*"?Vss
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 bases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
1 >> -.
the cleantip
complete, ii
*fdeleted* from the \ ^
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And if s not
until public comments are taken into consideratior^ that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example/if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right .away, Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
:*$**
-.y- 5."
%.ซ
"V"^
*4
:?
.&.
-------
TAX
-------
% he Site Fact Sheets
^--presented in this book
N are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Initial Actions
tave been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
RODj\ Remedy Selected
^*^ indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site. *
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
XVlll
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
v ' X% % 'w*
' VV- wmปt& " >ซ&*ป., 3
Site Facts
Additional informa^n on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the dedsionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites m
State of Missouri
Geographically near the center of the continental United States, Missouri is bordered by
Iowa to the north, Arkansas to the south, Kansas to the west, and Illinois to the east.
The State covers 69,697 square miles and consists of rolling hills, open, fertile plains,
and well-watered praire to the north of the Missouri River and rough hilly terrain with
deep, narrow valleys south of it. Missouri experienced a 4.6 percent increase in
population through the 1980s and currently has approximately 5,141,000 residents,
ranking 15th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include manufacturing,
agriculture, aerospace, and tourism. Missouri manufacturing produces transportation
equipment, food and related products, electronic/electrical equipment, and chemicals.
How Many Missouri Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
4
20
Q
24
Cong. District 03, 04, 05
Cong. District 06
Cong. District 08
Cong. District 02, 07, 09
1 site
2 sites
4 sites
5 sites
20--
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
{VOCs), dioxins, heavy metals
(inorganics), radiation, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
dioxins, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
ซ 16--
12--
8 --
4--
rx/x/i
GW Soil SW Seds Air
Contamination Area
Air: Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and radiation.
* Appear at 15% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 13 sites as interim cleanup measure:
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Missouri, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Missouri Superfund Office
EPA Region VII Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region VII Superfund Public
Relations Office
(314)751-3176
(913) 551-7052
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(913) 551-7003
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
xxii
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow {ซ*) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
ซ* An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991. .
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
ซ*- 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.
xxiii
-------
rib rib ^f-
Page
1
3
5
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
^KVfcJU AVTVbUVt VAVtUUUjฃT Ub
She Name
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING PLANT
CONSERVATION CHEMICAL COMPANY
ELLISVILLE AREA
FINDETT CORPORATION
FULBRIGHT LANDFILL
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
LEE CHEMICAL
MINKER/STOUT/ROMAINE CREEK
MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS
NORTH U DRIVE WELL CONTAMINATN
ORONOGO-DUENWIG MINING BELT
QUAIL RUN MOBILE PARK
QUALITY PLATING
SHENANDOAH STABLES
SOLID STATE CIRCUITS
ST LOUIS AIRPORT/HIS/FUTURA COAT.
SYNTEX FACILITY-VERONA
JLIJk .*-/ W7JLIซซs0 1
County
DUNKLIN
JACKSON
ST. LOUIS
ST. CHARLES
GREENE
CAPE GIRARDEAU
JACKSON
CLAY
JEFFERSON
CAPE GIRARDEAU
GREENE
JASPER
FRANKLIN
SCOTT
LINCOLN
GREENE
ST. LOUIS
LAWRENCE
.JUL IปAJ
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Prop.
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
i\s v?iai.^ ut. jiyjLi.aawiu.Ji
initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
06/10/86 ซ*-
10/04/89 ซ*" >* ซK *
09/08/83 *- *- ซ* *" +~
10/15/84 *" ซ*- * "4-
09/08^3 + +- +
10/04/89 ^ ^ ^
07/22/87 * ซ^-
06/10/86 * ^
09/08/83 "^ *- *- ^ ^>
02/21/90 ^ *-
06/10/86 * "^
06/24/88 *
09/08/83 "^ "^ "^ "^ ^>
06/10/86 ^>
09/08/83 *- "* *- "^ ^>
06/10/86 + + +
10/04/89 * *
09/08/83 * "^ ^- ซ^
XXIV
-------
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
38 TIMES BEACH ST.LOUIS.
41 VALLEY PARK TCE ST.LOUIS
43 WELDON SPRINGS ORDNANCE WORKS ST. CHARLES
45 WELDON SPRING QUARRY/PLANT/PITS ST. CHARLES
47 WESTLAKE LANDFILL ST. LOUIS
49 WHEELING DISPOSAL SERVICE CO, INC. ANDREW
Final 09/08/83
Final 06/10/86
Final 02/21/90
Final 07/22/87
Prop. 10/26/89
Final 10/04/89
XXV
-------
-------
-------
-------
BEE CEE
MANUFACTURI
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860522
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Dunklin County
City of Maiden
The former owners of the Bee Cee Manufacturing Plant, a 2-acre site in Maiden's
industrial park, manufactured aluminum storm windows and doors from 1964 to 1983.
Workers discharged chromium-contaminated wastewater directly onto the ground
without any treatment or an EPA-approved permit. An area about 50 feet by 100 feet is
visibly affected, possibly to a depth of 1 or 2 feet. In 1981, the State advised the
owners that their disposal practices put them in violation of the Missouri Clean Water
Law. Bankruptcy proceedings ended the State's efforts to have the owners install a
wastewater treatment system. Another company now leases the building, and the City
of Maiden owns the contaminated ground. Four shallow wells and two deep wells in
Maiden supply drinking water for 11,500 people; one shallow well is about 1,000 feet
southwest of the site. Approximately 8,500 people live within a 3-mile radius of the
site; 60 live within 1 mile. The closest residence is 1/4 mile away from the site. Fifteen
wells lie within 1 mile of the site, and 150 wells are within 3 miles. Of special concern
is a low-income nursing home project located 1/2 mile south of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date:. 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with chromium
and aluminum. Private wells in the vicinity used for watering livestock
and irrigating crops have been contaminated since 1984. Groundwater
contamination has been demonstrated in a shallow aquifer \NQ\\ about 1/2
mile from the site. The public wells 2 miles downgradientirom the site
may be connected to the contaminated aquifer. People who touch the
contaminated soils or drink contaminated groundwater are at risk. Local
soils are sandy, and this condition makes it easier for contaminants to
enter the groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
BEE CEE MANUFACTURING PLANT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action. Status
Entire Site: The State will begin an intensive study of soil and groundwater
pollution at and around the site in an attempt to characterize its nature and
extent, as well as the options for final cleanup. The study is scheduled to
begin in 1990 and to be completed by late 1992.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Bee Cee Manufacturing site to the NPL, the EPA performed a
preliminary evaluation and determined that no immediate actions were necessary to
protect the nearby population or the environment while the investigations leading to a
final cleanup solution are taking place.
A
-------
CONSERVATI
CHEMICAL C
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000829705
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Jackson County
3900 Front Street, Kansas City
Alias
CCC
The Conservation Chemical Company site, located in eastern Kansas City, operated as
a chemical storage and disposal facility from 1960 until 1980. The owners began waste
disposal operations almost immediately after building chemical treatment basins, a
process area, and a roadway ramp. Waste disposal basins, which were either unlined
or poorly lined, were used to store and receive wastes, and also served as drying beds
and containers for by-product sludges. Many operating records were destroyed in a
1970 fire; those records that survived listed organic chemicals, solvents, acids,
caustics, metal hydroxides, and cyanide compounds as some of the.materials accepted
for disposal at the site. Reports also indicate that pesticides, herbicides, waste oils,
organic solvents, halogenatedcompounds, arsenic, and elemental phosphorus were
handled by the facility, as well as pressurized cylinders and other metal containers
placed in the lagoons. Information is incomplete, but it is estimated that the facility
handled at least 48,000,000 gallons of liquids and sludges and 1,144 tons of solids.
About 93,000 cubic yards of materials including drums, bulk liquids, sludges, and solids,
were buried at the site. By-products from any treatment processes used on the waste
materials were also dumped on site. An attempt was made to neutralize hazardous
chemicals by blending some wastes and to stabilize the upper waste layers on the site
by mixing acidic metal finishing wastes with fly ash and certain sludges, which
produced a mixture consisting largely of gypsum. In 1977, the Missouri Clean Water
Commission ordered the site closed and covered, and the owner covered the soil caps
with gypsum. The site is located in the 10-year floodplain of the Missouri River, about
500 feet away from its banks, and near its confluence with the Little Blue River. The
site itself was raised about 10 feet above the surrounding area, but most of it would be
immersed during a flood. Private wells provide drinking water to approximately 120
people within 3 miles of the property. The Courtney Bend well field is downstream
from the site: it supplies drinking water to the City of Independence, which is 5 miles
from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
Continued
-------
CONSERVATION CHEMICAL COMPANY
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater both on and off the site contains heavy metals including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead; cyanide; phenolic compounds and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, chloroform, and
toluene. Surface and subsurface soil on the site contain all of the above
as well as dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Contaminants
are entering the Missouri River via groundwater which feeds th$ river.
The Missouri River is used locally and regionally for recreation, industry,
irrigation, and as a municipal water supply. People on or near the site may
be exposed by coming in direct contact with contaminated soils, eating
food grown in contaminated soil, or game that fed on contaminated
plants. i
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase far the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1987. It features
both source control and groundwater cleanup measures and includes: (1)
surface cleaning including demolition and disposal of existing buildings,
tanks, and debris and placing them in an on-site cap; (2) installing a withdrawal well
system designed to keep groundwater from moving away from the site; (3) building a
groundwater pump and treat system that will remove contaminants; and (4) monitoring
the quality and level of off-site groundwater. The surface cleanup began in early 1989
and was completed by August 1989. Installation of the well networks was started in
1989 and completed in early 1990. Construction of the treatment plant began in 1989
and completed in March 1990. The groundwater extraction system is currently in
operation, however no reasonable estimate can be made at this time as to how long
the system must run.
Site Facts: In November 1982, the United States filed suit against the parties it
deemed responsible for the site contamination; these defendants in turn sued a host of
other potentially responsible parties in 1984. By August 1985, the defendants had
agreed to design and conduct a cleanup on the site that included the construction of a
slurry wall, and to reimburse the government for its costs to date. However, new
information about the expense and construction difficulty associated with the slurry
wall caused a delay in actions. After additional negotiations, the potentially responsible
parties agreed to perform a cleanup based on hydraulic control through extraction wells.
Environmental Progress
Most of the remedies selected by the EPA to clean up the Conservation Chemical site
have been put into operation, with many of them completed. These actions have
eliminated surface contamination and halted further pollution of surface and \
groundwater resources. The EPA and the potentially responsible parties are actively
monitoring the effectiveness of the continuing groundwater cleanup. ;
-------
ELLISVILLE AR
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980633010
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Near Ellisville, 20 miles west of
downtown St. Louis
Aliases:
Mario Angelo Site
Rosalie Investment Co.
Mid-America Arena
Caliahan Property
Bliss, Russel SiteBliss Ranch
The Ellisville Area site consists of three non-contiguous subsites. Initial investigations
at the sites focused on these three properties. During the investigations, an additional
four contaminated properties were discovered adjacent to one of the original subsites.
The three subsites are the Bliss property, the Caliahan property, and the Rosalie
property. During the 1960s and 1970s, Russell Bliss owned and operated the Bliss '
Waste Oil Company, a business engaged in the transportation and disposal of waste oil
products, industrial wastes, and chemical wastes. These wastes were disposed of in
pits, drums, and on the surface of properties around the company's headquarters in
Ellisville. The Bliss property subsite is located in western St. Louis County and covers
28 acres of land. Developed portions of the subsite include the Mid-America Arena and
associated buildings and stables. The property is drained by Caulks Creek, which
empties into a tributary to the Missouri River. Pits were dug at the site and were used
for industrial waste disposal. Drums of wastes had been buried at the site, and liquid
wastes had been dumped on the ground. The Caliahan property is an 8-acre tract of
land located approximately 1 mile from Ellisville. Drummed liquid and solid wastes
were disposed of on the property during the 1970s. The Caliahan subsite is situated on
a steep-walled gully that drains into a tributary to the Missouri River. The Rosalie
property is an 85-acre tract of land. Drummed liquid and solid wastes were disposed of
on approximately 4 acres of the site. A housing development is now located on the
Rosalie subsite. Approximately 1,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the subsites;
5,000 live within 3 miles. Residents rely on drinking water drawn from private wells
and the public distribution system. Roughly 265 wells exist within 1 mile, and 789 are
within 3 miles of the sites.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
ELLISVILLE AREA
II
Threats and Contaminants
There is evidence that the underlying groundwater is being contaminated
by Jeachate from the subsites. Soil is contaminated with dioxin and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the Rosalie and Bliss properties.
Soils at the Callahan properties contain VOCs. The major public health
threats are direct contact with contaminated soil or drinking contaminated
groundwater. Potential health risks exist through the airborne migration
of contaminated fugitive dusts.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases directed at cleanup of the Callahan and Rosalie subsites and the Bliss
subsite, which includes four adjacent contaminated properties.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the State removed, covered, and overpacked
drums; took samples; and staged the drums from the Callahan subsite.
Workers posted signs and the State maintained 24-hour security at the site.
Excavation activities revealed up to 1,000 drums buried on the site. In early 1982, EPA
emergency workers performed the following activities: posted additional warning
signs; drained and sealed Farm Pond; built runoff control and leachate interception
trenches; excavated and overpacked buried drums; sampled and sorted drums; built an
on-site storage area; and removed and disposed of contaminated soil. In late 1984,
drums and other wastes were delivered to the TWI incinerator in Illinois for disposal.
Callahan and Rosalie Subsites: The EPA selected a remedy for the
Callahan and Rosalie properties in 1985. The Callahan property cleanup
remedy includes: (1) controlling erosion and slippage of the fill area where
drums had been excavated in 1980 to 1981 and removing what remained of that
cleanup; (2) removing and disposing of the plastic cover and hold-down blocks from the
fill area; (3) regrading the fill to a more stable slope, covering it with a compacted soil
layer, and reseeding; and (4) removing and salvaging fences and gravel from the former
drum-storage areas. The Rosalie subsite cleanup remedy includes: (1) excavating
contaminated soil from two locations and removing it to an EPA-approved hazardous
waste facility; (2) placing debris in drums; (3) excavating and overpacking buried drums
and sampling and testing their contents; (4) disposing of drums at an EPA-approved
disposal facility; (5) testing soil to verify the effectiveness of the cleanup; and (6)
backfilling excavated areas with clean soil and reseeding disturbed areas. Under State
supervision, cleanup at the Rosalie property began in 1986. The erosion-control actions
have been finished, and the fence and gravel have been salvaged. The design! of the
technical specifications for'the cleanup of the Callahan property subsite is under way.
The excavation and disposal work at the Callahan property is scheduled to begin in
1990. . i
continued
-------
ELLISVILLE AREA
Bliss and Adjacent Properties: During the investigation of the Bliss
property subsite, contamination was discovered on four neighbouring
parcels: the-Dubman and Weingart property, Primm property, Wade and
Mercantile Trust Company property, and the Russell, Evelyn and Jerry Bliss property.
The EPA selected a remedy for these properties in 1986. The first part of the cleanup
focuses on dioxin-contaminated soils; the second entails buried drums and materials
contaminated with chemicals other than dipxin. The Bliss/contiguous properties soils
cleanup remedy includes: (1) excavating dioxin-contaminated soils and containerizing
them; (2) storing the containers of waste temporarily in a metal building on the site; and
(3) maintaining security, controlling surface drainage at the site, and sampling the
groundwater. The EPA has not yet selected a final disposal action for these soils. The
drum and other cleanup remedies include: (1) excavating, sampling, and overpacking
buried drums; (2) excavating hazardous wastes and contaminated soils and materials;
(3) taking drums and waste mixtures suitable for land disposal to an appropriate EPA-
approved facility; (4) incinerating drums and waste mixtures unsuitable for land disposal
offsite at an EPA-approved facility; and (5) disposing of nonhazardous material and
debris at a permitted sanitary landfill. For both components of this remedy, site
restoration activities will include backfilling, regrading, and seeding, where needed. The
EPA is designing the technical specifications for the cleanup at the Bliss/contiguous
properties subsite.
Environmental Progress
Numerous cleanup actions have been taken at the Callahan and Rosalie subsites that
have reduced contaminant levels to make the areas safer to the surrounding
communities and the environment. The EPA has selected the final remedies for the
Bliss subsite, with cleanup activities scheduled to begin soon.
-------
FINDETT CO
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD006333975
ION
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
St. Charles County
1 mile north of St. Charles
Alias;
Hayford Bridge Road Groundwater
The Findett Corporation site is a 3-acre active manufacturing facility that is located
approximately one mile north of St. Charles in the floodplain of the Mississippi River.
The site is approximately 17 miles west of St. Louis. Until 1980, the operation
reclaimed heat transfer fluids or oils, some of which contained polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and received waste solvents for reclamation or recycling. The
company has also custom-blended or manufactured organic chemicals for other firms.
The owners stored some reprocessing wastes in a small pond on the site, .
contaminating it with PCBs. PCBs were subsequently found in on-site soils and on
adjacent properties. The Elm Point well field supplies water for St. Charles; its nearest
well is about 2,000 feet northeast of the site. Several homes are situated within 1,500
feet of the property. Approximately 50 people live within a mile of the site; 500 people
live within 3 miles. Surrounding land use is primarily agricultural, and the site is located
in a small industrial park with several other establishments. The land around the site
may be used for hunting, although much of it is now farmed.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Threats and Contaminants
LA
On-site groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including trichloroethylene (TCE) and vinyl chloride from process wastes.
Off-site sediments contain PCBs., PCBs also have been .detected in both
on- and off-site soils. The soil is also contaminated with VOCs,: including
TCE. Human health may be adversely affected if people drink
contaminated groundwater or come into direct contact with contaminated
soils on the property. EPA studies have revealed contamination of
shallow groundwater. Deeper groundwater is used as a source of
municipal drinking water, although no contamination has been found in
the municipal water supply. The site is in the Mississippi River floodplain,
increasing the potential for spreading site contamination during flood
events.
Macch 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
8
continued
-------
FINDETT CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on groundwater and soil cleanup and the sources of
contamination.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under monitoring by the EPA, Findett voluntarily
cleaned up the contaminated pond area. In 1977, the company excavated
and backfilled a portion of the pond. In 1979, however, the EPA found that
the pond area was still contaminated with PCBs and required further excavation.
Sampling after the work showed that PCBs had migrated beyond the immediate pond
area and into subsurface areas. In 1982, the EPA ordered Findett to determine the
nature and extent of PCS soil contamination, as well as the potential for groundwater
contamination in the immediate vicinity of its facility. The company installed monitoring
wells and analyzed groundwater for PCBs.
Groundwater and Soil: In 1987, the EPA completed the groundwater
investigation. The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1988. It focuses
on groundwater cleanup, but also includes excavation of the soils
contaminating the groundwater. The selected remedy includes: (1)
installing extraction wells that will both remove the contaminated groundwater and
provide hydraulic control; (2) air stripping the extracted groundwater; that is,
evaporating off the volatile contaminants, and exposing the vapors to absorbent carbon,
if necessary; (3) discharging the treated water to the municipal sewage treatment plant;
and (4) removing the PCB-contaminated soil for off-site disposal or treatment. Under a
Consent Order, the owner began the engineering design for the selected remedy in
1989. The cleanup is expected to begin in the summer of 1990.
Source Control: Although the EPA considers Findett Corporation to be a
possible source of the VOCs in groundwater, other sources also may exist.
The EPA will collect and analyze additional groundwater and soil samples.
to discover the source of this contamination.
Site Facts: The EPA issued an Administrative Order in 1980, and an Administrative
Order on Consent in 1982, requiring Findett to conduct further excavation of the
contaminated pond area and sampling and analysis to define the PCB contamination in
the soil and groundwater. A party potentially responsible for the site contamination has
signed a Consent Decree, agreeing to conduct cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
Much of the Findett Corporation site has already been cleaned up, but further work and
investigation is required to ensure that the area is safe. Once the investigations on the
sources of contamination have been completed, any required additional cleanup work
will take place.
-------
FULBRIGHT
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980631139
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Greene County
3 miles north of Springfield
Aliases:
Springfield Fulbright Landfill
Sac River Landfill
Murray Landfill
Highway 13 Landfill
Site Description
The 212-acre Fulbright Landfill site consists of the Fulbright and Sac River landfills
(formerly known as the Murray Landfill). The City of Springfield used these landfills,
both of which are now closed, for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. The
Fulbright Landfill, consisting of 98 acres, accepted waste from 1962 through 1968; the
larger of the two, the Sac River Landfill, which consists of 114 acres, operated from
1968 until 1974. Industrial wastes disposed of in these landfills include cyanides, acids,
plating and paint sludges, pesticide residues, waste oil, and solvents. The contents of
between 1,200 and 2,600 drums were dumped into pits at the site with the efnpty 55-
gallon drums left in the pits or in the general landfill areas. In 1967, a waste hauler died
from toxic fume inhalation when he inadvertently dumped a drum of acid into a pit
containing cyanide. A sinkhole on the bluff above the Fulbright Landfill contains a few
dozen drums and waste residues. Approximately 400 people work or reside within a
mile of the site; an estimated 10,000 people live within a 3-mile radius. The landfill lies
in a semi-rural area in the floodplain of the Little Sac River. Surrounding land use
includes a police shooting range, a dog pound, an active wastewater treatment plant,
and an inactive wastewater treatment plant. The local drinking water supply is drawn
from municipal wells. Groundwater is also used for crop irrigation and industrial
processes. The nearest population and well are 1,000 feet upgradientof the landfills.
Surface water in the area is used for recreation. :
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater contains a wide variety of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and other organic chemicals, as well as heavy metals and cyanide
from former waste disposal practices. Chromium was found in
sediments. Contaminated groundwater flows into the adjacent Sac River,
which also receives treated municipal wastewater. The remnants of the
drummed waste in the sinkhole may present a direct contact health
hazard. Since the landfill is in the floodplain of the Little Sac River, high
waters may spread site contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
10
continued
-------
FULBRIGHT LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under monitoring by the EPA, the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination completed an extensive study of the
site in 1988. The following remedies were selected for the site: (1)
removing drums and drum remnants from the sinkhole and the associated
trench east of the Fulbright Landfill; (2) sampling drum contents to establish the
hazardous nature of their contents; (3) disposing of the removed contents at an off-site
EPA-approved facility; (4) performing groundwater and surface water monitoring for a
30-year maintenance period; (5) monitoring the leachate that occasionally seeps from
the landfill during this period to determine if future action is warranted to curtail it; and
(6) imposing deed restrictions to prevent future development on the site and
groundwater use prohibitions. Under the EPA's guidance, the parties potentially
responsible for contamination at the site are undertaking the engineering design for the
cleanup. This design work began in 1989 and is expected to be completed in 1990.
The preliminary design documents have been submitted to the EPA for review.
Site Facts: In March 1986, the EPA issued a Consent Orderlo the City of Springfield,
Litton Industries, Inc., and Litton Business Systems, Inc., which had all been identified
as potential responsible parties for the site contamination. The Order required them to
conduct an extensive site investigation under EPA's oversight. In January 1990, the
EPA issued a Consent Decree for the potentially responsible parties to design the
selected cleanup remedies and to conduct cleanup activities at the site.
En^onmentol Pr&gress
After adding the Fulbright Landfill site to the NPL, the EPA assessed site conditions and
determined that there were no immediate actions needed while studies and long-term
cleanup activities are taking place. The cleanup technologies for the Fulbright Landfill
site have been selected by the EPA, and cleanup activities will be started by the
potentially responsible parties as soon as the engineering designs have been
completed.
11
-------
KEM-PEST
LABORATORI
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980631113
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Cape Girardeau County
Near Cape Girardeau
The Kern-Pest Laboratories site covers 6 acres and is located near Cape Girardeau.
Beginning in 1965, Kern-Pest formulated various pesticide products including liquid
pesticides, granular insecticides, granular herbicides, and pesticide dust. The company
suspended operations in 1975. There have been no production, treatment, or disposal
activities at the site since 1977. A building on site has been used to store equipment
and materials. A 1,250-square-foot lagoon at the facility was formerly used to dispose
of plant waste and sewage. When the company closed the lagoon in 1981, it was filled
with compacted clay. An EPA inspection in 1983 revealed that the lagoon covdr was
eroding and that no vegetation existed on the clay cap. Cape Girardeau, with a;
population of 60,925, draws drinking watyer from the Mississippi River, located less
than 1 mile downstream of the site. Approximately 200 people live within 1 mile of the
site, and 1,284 live within 3 miles. The site is adjacent to the floodplain of the
Mississippi River. A freshwater wetland is located within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
\L
Sampling in 1984 and 1989 detected pesticides including heptachlor,
chlordane, and endrin in the shallow aquifer. Drainage channel sediments
contained pesticides including aldrin and dieldrin. Pesticides and various
volatile organic compounds (yOCs) were detected in subsurface and
surface soil samples. Potential risks may exist for those who come in
direct contact with the contaminated building structures or the soiil on the
site. :
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the soil and sediments and cleanup of the groundwater and the contaminated on-site
structure.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
12
continued
-------
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
Response Action Status
Soil and Sediments: In 1984, the EPA installed five monitoring wells on
site and collected groundwater, soil, and sediment samples. In 1988, the
parties potentially responsible for site contamination sampled soils from
the lagoon. The EPA will excavate approximately 4,050 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sediment and will dispose of them at a federally approved off-
site land disposal facility. Sampling will be conducted to confirm that all contaminated
soils are removed. Following excavation, clean soil will be placed in the excavated
areas and will be compacted and graded. Vegetation or gravel will then be applied to
the surface to minimize erosion. The design of the technologies to be used in the
cleanup is scheduled to be completed in 1990.
Groundwater and On-Site Structure: In 1988, the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination conducted sampling of the
contaminated building structure. An intensive study was initiated in 1989
by the EPA to determine the extent of groundwater contamination and the extent of
the contamination to the building on site. The EPA is currently considering options to
decontaminate and demolish the building and is reviewing various groundwater
treatment options.
Site Facts: Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into in November
1988, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination conducted sampling of
soils from the lagoon and the formulation building in December 1988.
Environmental Prpgress
After adding the site to the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary evaluation and
determined that no immediate actions were necessary to protect the nearby population
or the environment while investigations leading to a final cleanup solution are taking
place.
A
13
-------
LAKE CITY A
AMMUNITION
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO3213890012
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Jackson County
Independence
Site Description
The Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) extends over 7 square miles. Except
for a 5-year period following World War II, the government-owned but contractor-
operated small arms ammunition plant has operated since 1941. Virtually all waste
treatment and disposal activities have been conducted on site. LCAAP has relied
heavily on lagoons, landfills, and burn pits for waste disposal. Industrial operations
have generated large quantities of potentially hazardous waste including oils, greases,
solvents, explosives, and metals. The Northwest Lagoon, the main area of
contamination at the site, operated from the early 1950s until 1975. This lagopn
received about 900 gallons of hazardous wastes that have been treated, covered,
graded, and reseeded. Heavy metals have been detected in an on-site monitoring well,
indicating that closure of the lagoon was not adequate. There are 11 residences on the
grounds served by a series of on-site wells. Adjacent to the northern boundary of the
site is Lake City, with a population of approximately 50 people. Almost all private
residences off site use groundwater from private wells. There are 18 wells on site that
supply water for base personnel. The Missouri River and Little Blue River, loqated near
the site, are used for recreational activities. The population within a 3-mile racjlius is
3,100. ;
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING
HIST
DRY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/2^/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater beneath the site, soil, and surface water are contaminated
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as heavy metals
including arsenic, zinc, and chromium from former waste disposal
practices. Potential threats exist for those who accidentally toubh or
ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
14
continued
-------
LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Air strippers are currently being installed in the
plant's drinking water supply facilities to remove contaminants.
Entire Site: The Department of Defense initiated an investigation in 1987
to determine the extent and type of contamination on site and to identify
alternative technologies for the cleanup. A second phase of the
investigation was completed in 1989 that identified two additional contaminated areas.
An Interagency Agreement (IAG) between the EPA, the Army, and the State of
Missouri was signed in 1989 covering the remaining investigative, design, and cleanup
activities throughout the installation.
Site Facts: The plant is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the
specially funded program established in 1978 under which the Department of Defense
has been identifying and evaluating its past hazardous waste sites and controlling the
migration of hazardous contaminants from these sites.
\ Environmental Progress
The installation of air strippers in the plant's drinking water supply has greatly reduced
the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Lake City Army Ammo site
while further investigations leading to final cleanup activities are taking place.
*%.
15
-------
LEE CHEMI
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980853519
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Clay County
3 miles southeast of Liberty
Alias:
Liberty Public Water Supply
Site Description
The 1-acre Lee Chemical site was used for packaging a variety of chemicals from 1966
to 1974, when Lee Chemical abandoned the facility. City officials found several
hundred drums of chemicals on site in 1976, most of which were removed by the city
in 1977. Although the city, which owns the property, has removed the building and
visible contamination from the site and taken soil samples, analyses indicate jthat
trichlorethylene (TCE) is still present on the site. During a drinking water study in 1980,
the EPA sampled the city's water wells and found TCE. Since then, the most
contaminated wells have not been used for drinking water. The water from the
remaining wells is treated to remove the TCE. There are approximately 24,000 people
living within a 3-mile radius of the site. The nearest residence is approximately 1/4 mile
from the site. The City's drinking water supply wells are 1/4 mile away from the site;
abandoned, unplugged drinking water supply wells are also on the site. There are
several irrigation wells near the site. Industrial and commercial facilities near the
facilities use groundwater for cooling or process water. :
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, City, and
State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
L\\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with TCE.
Contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soil could adversely affect
the health of individuals through direct contact or ingestion., In Addition,
bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish, water fowl, livestock, and
commercial agricultural products may be another exposure pathway. The
Town Branch of the Shoal Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet
downslope from the site and receives contaminated water discharged
from one city well and an on-site extraction well. The creek errjpties to
the Missouri River about 1 mile downstream. :
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
16
continued
-------
LEE CHEMICAL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The City removed several hundred barrels of
chemicals, and arranged to clear the land surrounding the old treatment
plant left by Lee Chemicals. In 1983, a contractor working for the City
demolished the plant, cleared the site, and disposed of the waste material. The City
has monitored the well water and drinking water and managed the use of supply wells
to minimize TCE in the drinking water. The City installed two new supply wells in 1982.
Entire Site: The City is studying the extent and nature of the
contamination. The work is scheduled to be completed in 1990. The EPA
continues to provide the City of Liberty with technical assistance in
implementing temporary cleanup measures.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above, including the removal of contaminated barrels
from the site and the monitoring of well water, have greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances at the Lee Chemical site while the City of Liberty
continues further studies into the nature and extent of the contamination.
A
17
-------
MINKER/STO
ROMAINE CR
MISSOURI
EPAID# MOD980741912
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Jefferson County
Near Imperial
Site Description
The Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site covers about 10 acres of non-contiguous
properties near Imperial. One of the properties, the Bubbling Springs Ranch horse
arena, was sprayed with dioxin-contaminated oil for dust control. Afterward, several
horses became ill, and seven died. The horse arena was excavated in 1972 and the
dioxin-contaminated soil was used as fill material in residential areas, including the
Minker, Stout, Cashel, and Sullins residences. Much of the fill from the Minker
residence eroded into Romaine Creek. In 1983, the EPA detected dioxin in the soil on
site and in sediments of Romaine Creek. Approximately 500 people live within 1 mile
of the site. The sediments of Romaine Creek are contaminated as far as 6,000 feet
downstream; however, the creek is not used as a drinking water source. ;
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments, soil, and surface water from Romaine Creek are
contaminated with dioxin from the soil that was used as fill in the
residential areas. People who come into direct contact with or ,
accidentally ingest the contaminated soil or sediments may be at risk.
The fish of Romaine Creek may pose, a health hazard if eaten. '
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term
remedial phases focusing on soil cleanup, cleanup of Romaine Creek, the Stout area,
and relocation activities. '
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
18
continued
-------
MINKER /STOUT/ROMADJE CREEK
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Between 1985 and 1989, the EPA excavated about.
1,200 cubic yards of soil at the Minker area, and at the Sullins and Cashel
residences. The soil was placed in steel storage structures at the Minker
area.
Soil: The EPA selected a remedy to clean up the soil which includes
thermally treating previously excavated contaminated soils from this site at
the Times Beach site, another dioxin-contaminated site. The soil will be
incinerated, which permanently removes the contaminants. The ash from
the incinerator will be disposed of on the Times Beach site. The excavated areas will
be backfilled with clean soil. The design of the remedy is currently being prepared in
coordination with the remedy design for the Times Beach site.
Romaine Creek: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean Romaine
Creek which included excavating the contaminated soil and sediments and
temporarily storing them in steel structures on site. The excavated areas
were backfilled with clean material suitable for a natural creek. In 1989, the EPA
completed all the cleanup work at Romaine Creek.
Stout Area: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean the Stout
property which included excavating the contaminated soil and placing it in
interim on-site storage. The EPA completed all cleanup activities at the
Stout property in 1988.
Relocation: In 1983, the EPA permanently relocated 12 families; two
other families were temporarily relocated during excavation of the Minker
Area. The families will be returned to their residences once cleanup
activities are completed at the sites.
Environmental Progress
The relocation of affected residents and the excavation of contaminated soils and
sediments from Romaine Creek and the Stout Area have greatly reduced the potential
for exposure to hazardous materials at the Minker/Stout/ Romaine site while the EPA
completes the remaining cleanup activities.
19
-------
MISSOURI
WORKS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980965982
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Cape Girardeaii County
Cape Girardeau
Site Description
The 6 1/2-acre Missouri Electric Works site, in operation since 1953, sells, services, and
reconditions electric motors, transformers, and transformer controls. In addition, it
recycles transformer oil and copper wire. The transformer oil was filtered and reused,
with about 90% being salvaged. The remaining waste oil was either sold to local
residents for dust control purposes, disposed of by a contractor, or simply allowed to
leak or spill onto the ground around the facility. Some waste oil reportedly was burned
on site. The total amount of waste oil generated was about 28,000 gallons, the facility
has been issued an order prohibiting the company from accepting electrical equipment
containing oil with high polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) levels. Approximately 37,800
people live within 3 miles of the site, while 1,000 people live within 1 mile of the site.
The land around the site is used for industrial and commercial purposes. Prime
agricultural land is less than a mile away. The Mississippi River, 2 miles from the site,
is used for fishing, recreational and commercial boating, and swimming. The Cape La
Croix Creek, which flows into the Mississippi, receives runoff from the site through a
series of drainage ditches. Most of the water needs of the City of Cape Girardeau are
provided for by the Mississippi River. However, groundwater from a public well 2 miles
south of the site supplements river water during peak demand periods. A wef/anc/area
is located immediately south of the site. ;
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
L\
The EPA found PCBs from site operations in the air on and off the site in
1987. The soils in the area are permeable, and the bedrock is hijghly
fractured. These conditions have made it easier for PCBs and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE) to flow into
the groundwater. VOCs have been found in the groundwater below the
site. Sediments in channels draining the site and areas off site contain
PCBs. PCB contamination of the soil is widespread and occurs to a depth
of at least 5 feet from leakage and disposal of contaminated transformer
oil. Residents who eat produce from gardens near the site coulq be at
risk from the contaminated soil. Breathing contaminated airborne dust
near the site could affect the health of those on or near the site.:
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE'SITES
20
continued
-------
MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing -on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties erected barriers
to stop PCBs from migrating off-site via drainage ditches and conducted
sampling of a structure on site. When it was determined that the
potentially responsible parties did not adequately perform these activities, the EPA
resampled the structure and erected new barriers across the drainage ditches to reduce
the migration of PCB-contaminated soil off site.
Entire Site: The EPA currently is monitoring a study by the parties
potentially responsible for the site contamination regarding the nature and
extent of contamination of the site. The EPA is planning to issue a final
decision on the methods for cleanup in 1990. Some of the remedies that the EPA is
considering include on-site incineration and treatment using micro-organisms to
degrade the contaminants.
Site Facts: Over 100 parties potentially responsible for site contamination have signed
an Administrative Order on Consent to study site contamination and the feasibility of
various technologies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions undertaken by the EPA and the potentially responsible parties
have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the
Missouri Electrical Works site while a complete site investigation is being conducted
and long-term cleanup activities are started.
21
-------
NORTH U
CONTAMINATliON^IT
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD007163108
Site Description
REGIOPf?
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Greene County
North of Springfield
Alias:
Montgomery Metal Craft
In 1983, the residents near the North U Drive Well Contamination site became
concerned over the taste of their water. When the State investigated, it was ;.
discovered that seven private wells at five locations were contaminated with volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs). The EPA extended public water supply lines to the affected
homes. The source of the contamination is unknown; however, it is reported that
sinkholes in the area were used for the disposal of waste petroleum products, i There is
no defined site boundary. This site is a rural residential area with approximately 300
people living within a 1/4 mile radius. The contaminated wells are 1,500 feet West of
Fulbright Spring, a major water source for the City of Springfield, which has a :
population of 133,000.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
T\
Threats and Contaminants
Soil and groundwater in the private wells are contaminated with VOCs
including toluene and benzene. The majority of the private wells: have
been plugged and, therefore, do not pose a health threat. However, a
few owners have refused to have their wells plugged, and people who
use the contaminated drinking water may suffer adverse health effects.
Although these wells are reportedly only used for lawn watering; their
continued existence may provide a subsurface connection among the
aquifers beneath the site. Because the bedrock is fractured, it allows
contaminants to migrate from the immediate area, possibly in the
direction of a source well for the Springfield community water supply.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
22
continued
-------
NORTH U DRIVE WELL CONTAMINATION SITE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA extended the Springfield public
water supply lines to North U Drive. In addition, 67 private wells were
permanently plugged to prevent their use.
Entire Site: The State of Missouri is conducting an investigation to
determine the extent of contamination at the site. Once the investigation
is completed, alternatives for the cleanup will be reviewed and selected,
and cleanup activities will begin.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above have eliminated the potential of exposure to
hazardous substances in the drinking water, and will continue to protect households
around the North U Drive Well Contamination site until the final cleanup remedies are
selected and long-term cleanup takes place.
23
-------
ORONOGO-DU
MINING BELT
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980686281
Site Description
REGION?
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Jasper Couijity
2 miles northeast pf Joplin
Aliases::
Tar Creek-Jasper Company
Tri-State Mining Area
The Oronogo-Duenwig Mining Belt site, which covers 6,400 acres, is considered part of
the Tri-State Mining District of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Two other sites in the
district, Cherokee County in Kansas and Tar Creek in Oklahoma, were placed on the
NPL in 1983. Lead and zinc ores, as well as some cadmium ores, were mined from
1848 to the late 1960s, with the greatest activity occurring in an area between Oronogo
and Duenwig, northeast of Joplin. Mining efforts were originally performed by
independent operations that, in later years, were organized by several area mining
companies. The site is honeycombed with underground workings, pits, shafts|(open,
closed, and collapsed), mine tailings, waste piles, and ponds holding tailing waters. An
estimated 10 million tons of wastes or tailings are on the site. Throughout the;mining
era, groundwater had to be pumped to prevent the flooding of mines. When mining
ceased, the shafts and underground workings filled with water. Tailing piles have been
left uncovered and unstabilized. Leachate and runoff from the piles can enter open
shafts and pits. Approximately 1,500 people obtain drinking water from private wells
within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTQRY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Tests conducted in 1977 by the U.S. Geological Survey found on-site
groundwater and surface water to be contaminated with heavy metals
including lead, zinc, and cadmium from the mining operations. Potential
risks may exist through drinking contaminated surface water and;
groundwater or coming into direct contact with contaminated water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
24
continued
-------
ORONOGO-DUENWIG MINING BELT
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation by the EPA into the extent and type of
contamination at the site is scheduled to begin in 1990. Once the
investigation is completed, alternatives for cleanup will be reviewed and
selected, and cleanup work will begin.
Site Facts: This mining site is potentially eligible for cleanup funds from the State of
Missouri's approved program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977. The EPA is developing a policy for listing such sites. This site was proposed for
the NPL to avoid delay in starting cleanup activities.
Environmental Prdgress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Oronoga-Duenwig Mining
Belt site while further studies are under way to determine the final cleanup remedy.
25
-------
QUAIL RUN
MOBILE PAR
MISSOURI
EPA ED# MOD980688634
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Franklin County
2 miles east of Gray Summit
Aliases:,
Trailer Park in Gray Summit
Chalandra Property
Bell Mobile Home,
Gray Summit Trailer Park
Mahaney Residence
Site Description
Quail Run Mobile Manor is a 10-acre trailer park with 32 occupied units located 2 miles
east of Gray Summit. In the early 1970s, the road through the park was sprayed with
an unknown quantity of dioxin-contaminated waste oil. In 1983, the EPA identified high
concentrations of dioxin in soil samples from many locations within the park. In 1974,
some of the soil was excavated from the road and deposited in the area between the
road and a lagoon, as well as on two nearby properties. In 1983, residents of Quail Run
Mobile Manor were temporarily relocated to permit cleanup of the site. The excavation
and containment of dioxin-contaminated soils were completed in fall 1986. The
residents were allowed to return, and the mobile park was renamed Fox Creek. The
dioxin-contaminated soil remains on the back portion of the property in EPA-approved
storage facilities. The population within 1 mile of the residential area is estimated at
1,000 people, with approximately 10,000 people living within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with dioxins. In 1983, the U.S. Center for
Disease Control issued a health advisory warning that the residents were
at risk of developing adverse health effects if they remained in their
homes. The public and the residents were advised to avoid contact with
or ingestion of contaminated soils. ;
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and long-term remedial
phase directed at cleanup .of the entire site. j
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
26
continued
-------
QUAIL RUN MOBILE PARK
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA temporarily relocated 28 of 33 households.
Cleanup action was begun by the EPA in early 1985. The EPA
decontaminated mobile homes and excavated the dioxin-contaminated soil
from Quail Run and the nearby Mahaney and Chlanda properties. The contaminated
soil is currently being stored on site in an EPA-approved facility.
Entire Site: Because of the similarity of the dioxin contamination at the
Quail Run site with the Times Beach site, the study has been included as
part of the Times Beach site study. Soil stored at Quail Run will be
incinerated at Times Beach.
Site Facts: Some of the residents in tha Quail Run Mobile Park had previously moved
from Times Beach, which also had a dioxin contamination problem.
Environmental Progress
EPA has taken steps to protect local residents by relocating affected households and
isolating the dioxin-contaminated soils. Additional cleanup activities will be required to
transport soils presently stored on site to the Times Beach site for final destruction of
dioxins by incineration.
27
-------
QUALITY PLA
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860555
Sฃte Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Scott County
Sikeston
The Quality Plating Site covers approximately 5 acres in Sikeston. The site originally
consisted of a 1-acre unlined lagoon and the manufacturing plant. From 1978 until the
facility was destroyed by fire in early 1983, Quality Plating was engaged in contract
electroplating of common and precious metals. Untreated wastewater originating from
the flow-through rinse tanks, as well as acid, alkaline, and metal-plating batch solutions,
was continuously discharged into the lagoon at a rate of at least 10,000 gallons per day.
The State detected elevated levels of chromium and lead in an on-site well. The area is
now used for agriculture and raising livestock. The present owner raises hogs and
calves on the former property of Quality Plating. The population within 1 mile of the
site is 120 people. Six residences within 1/4 mile of the site obtain drinking water from
shallow wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with metals such as lead and chromium
from the former electroplating operations. The extent of the :
contamination is unknown. Drinking and bathing with the contaminated
groundwater could potentially cause adverse health effects.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
28
continued
-------
QUALITY PLATING
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under monitoring by the EPA, the State will begin an
investigation of the site and alternative cleanup methods in early 1991. It
is expected to be completed by late 1992.
Site Facts: The State has repeatedly cited the company for discharging untreated
plating waste into subsurface waters. This was in violation of the company's permit
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The EPA and the State
have entered into a Cooperative Agreement to perform a study at the site led by the
State. .'-.
Environmental Prpgress
After adding the Quality Plating site to the NPL, the EPA conducted a preliminary
evaluation and determined that no immediate actions were needed to make the site
safer while the investigations into the cleanup alternatives are taking place.
29
-------
SHENANDOAH^bC
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980685838
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Lincoln County
Moscow Mills
Aliases:
Arena 1 - Shenandoah Stables
Highway 61 Fill
Slough Area
The Shenandoah Stables site covers about 7 acres near Moscow Mills. In 1971, the
horse arena became contaminated with dioxin when a St. Louis waste oil hauler
sprayed it with approximately 2,000 gallons of contaminated oil for dust control.
Afterward, numerous birds, rodents, and over 40 horses died. Several adults and
children also became ill. In 1971, the top 6 to 8 inches of contaminated soil were
excavated and used as fill material in a new highway. In 1972, more soil was Removed
from the arena and placed in a swampy area on site. EPA sampling in 1982 indicated
that the top 30 inches of soil in the arena and soil in the slough is contaminated with
dioxin. Approximately nine houses are located in the rural area within a 1/4-mile radius
of the Shenandoah Stables. The adjacent properties are mostly agricultural. The
nearest residence is approximately 330 feet east of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12|30/82
Final Date: 09/00/83
Threats and Contaminants
The soil in the arena and slough is contaminated with dioxin from the
placement of contaminated oil on the site and from earlier cleanup
attempts. Because cleanup activities have taken place, the site no longer
poses a threat to human health or the environment. !
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase directed at cleanup of the soil and solid waste.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
30
continued
-------
SHENANDOAH STABLES
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988 the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination closed the stables, posted Warning signs, and restricted
access to the property. Sampling was also done at this time to determine
the amount of contamination at the site.
Soil and Solid Waste: The EPA selected the method for cleanup of the
site in summer 1988. These cleanup activities included: (1) excavating the
soil to health-based standards; (2) placing the soil in plastic bags and
storing the bagged soil on site in an approved facility; (3) decontaminating
on-site structures; and (4) fencing and posting the area. The EPA completed the first
phase of the remedial action in August 1988. A second cleanup action phase is
planned in conjunction with the cleanup of Times Beach. At this time, the bagged soil
will be transported to the Times Beach facility to be incinerated.
Site Facts: Pursuant to an EPA Administrative Order the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination restricted public access to the site in 1983. The site
was initially identified due to citizen complaints concerning illnesses in children who
had visited the site.
Environmental Progress
By closing the stables, restricting access to the site, and removing the contaminated
soil, the Shenandoah Stables site no longer presents an immediate threat to the
community or the environment. Contaminated soils from the site will be transported to
the Times Beach Facility for final destruction of dioxins by incineration.
31
-------
SOLID STATE
MISSOURI
EPA TD# MOD980854111
Sit,e Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Greene County
Republic
Alias:
Republic Plant, SSC
The Solid State Circuits, Inc. (SSC) site covers 1 acre in Republic. During a 1980
drinking water study, trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic chemical, was detected
in one of the City of Republic's public water supply wells. Further investigation by the
State identified the site, at which SSC formerly manufactured printed circuit boards, as
the source of the contamination. Allegedly, barrels of solvents, including TCEithat was
used as a copper residue stripper, and plating wastes were stored in a sump pit in the
basement of the facility. The State learned that after a fire destroyed the building, the
new property owner (not SSC) buried the remaining structure and its contents in the
basement, where there also was an unplugged well. SSC excavated material ifrom the
basement and installed three monitoring wells in response to an order from the State.
The Town of Republic, with an estimated population of 5,535, is potentially endangered
by contaminated groundwater. There are private wells and community wells within a 3-
mile radius of the site. One community well was closed as a result of the the
contamination. Schuyler Creek is located downgradientirom the site, approximately 2
miles away. !
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: id/15/84
Final Date: 06/16/86
II
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater on and off site is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including TCE, methylene chloride, and chloroform
from the former site operations. TCE was measured in on-site soil prior to
immediate response actions. Removal of contaminated surface: and
subsurface soils eliminated exposure. Sewer line and utility workers
could be exposed to contaminated groundwater; however, standard
safety procedures eliminate unacceptable risks.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
32
continued
-------
SOLID STATE CIRCUITS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, following SSC's initial cleanup actions at the
site, the EPA removed approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil from the
basement, the soil underneath the basement, and debris to further
stabilize the site. The basement was sealed with a gravel and soil cover to bring it up
to grade. The EPA plugged the abandoned well, and two wells were installed to extract
contaminated groundwater.
Entire Site: Under the supervision of the State, SSC conducted an
investigation at the site to determine the extent and nature of
contamination and to identify alternative technologies for cleanup. As a
result of the investigation, SCC will extract the contaminated groundwater
by using new and existing wells; perform on-site treatment of extracted groundwater
using two existing air strippers; discharge treated water to the city sewer system to
receive further treatment at the publicly owned treatment works; and implement a city
ordinance to prevent construction of drinking wells in or near the contaminated
groundwater plumes. Monitoring of the groundwater will continue to ensure
groundwater quality. .. - ,
Site Facts: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources and Solid State Circuits
signed a Consent Decree in November 1986 requiring SSC to conduct an investigation
of the contamination at the site, under the supervision of the State. In November 1986,
the EPA referred a case to recover costs for the 1985 immediate response action to
the Department of Justice (DOJ). EPA and DOJ entered into settlement negotiations
with SSC in early 1987, which were concluded in March 1988.
ISnvirohmental Progress
After the initial cleanup actions undertaken by Solid State Circuits, the EPA removed
contaminated soil and debris, sealed the basement area, and installed wells to extract
and treat the contaminated groundwater. Further investigations leading to the selection
of a long-term remedy for the site have been completed and the final cleanup activities
are scheduled to begin in 1991.
33
-------
ST. LOUIS
HIS/FUTURA
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980633176
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Approximately 15 miles northwest of downtown
Lambert/St. Louis International Airport
Aliases:
Hazelwood Interim Storage & Vicinity
Latty Avenue
Lambert-St Louis Intnl Airport
The St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim Storage/Futura Coatings Co. site consists of
three areas covering approximately 32 acres. These areas were used for storing
radioactive and other wastes resulting from uranium processing operations conducted
in St. Louis. Radioactive scrap, drums of waste, and bulk waste were stored'in the
airport area in uncovered and unstabilized piles from 1947 to the mid-1960s, when they
were transferred to the 9200 Latty Avenue area, later known as the Hazelwopd Interim
Storage (HIS) site. Buildings in the airport area were razed, buried, and covered with
clean fill after 1967. In 1973, the land was conveyed to the St. Louis-Lambert Airport
Authority. The HIS and the Futura Coatings Co. plant cover 11 acres adjacent to
Coldwater Creek. In 1966, Continental Mining and Milling Co. acquired the property
and recovered uranium from wastes purchased from AEC's St. Louis operations. In
1967, the company sold the property, and by 1973 most processing residues: had been
removed. Under the direction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
present owner excavated contaminated soil and is storing it in two large piles in the
eastern portion of the 11 acres. Since the 1970s, Futura Coatings, a manufacturer of
plastic coatings, has leased the western portion of the site. A McDonnell Douglas
office building housing 24,000 employees is within 1/2 mile of the airport area. An
estimated 35,420 people reside within 3 miles of the site. ;
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed
through Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/28/89
Final Date: 10/(j)4/89
I
Threats and Contaminants
Radon-222 was present in the air near the airport area in the tests
conducted by a U.S. Department of Energy contractor in 1986. iHigh
levels of uranium, thorium, and radium are present in groundwater near
the airport area and in surface and subsurface soils. Direct contact with or
accidental ingestion of contaminated soils or groundwater on or near the
sites may pose risks to individuals.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
34
continued
-------
ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/raS/FUTURA COATING
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, The U.S. Department of Energy {USDOE)
cleared the HIS and Futura Coatings areas, constructed a vehicle
decontamination facility, installed a perimeter fence, excavated and
backfilled the edges and shoulders of Latty Avenue, and consolidated the resulting
contaminated soils into one storage pile. In 1986, during a city road improvement
project, contaminated soil from roads leading to and from all three areas was
excavated.
Entire Site: USDOE has investigated the site under its Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). In 1982, USDOE conducted
preliminary studies of radioactive contamination in the ditches along the
sides of the roads leading to and from the areas. In 1986, boreholes were
drilled to continue the contamination study and to collect geological information.
USDOE is continuing studies of all the site areas, which will lead to additional cleanup
actions. A more comprehensive investigation began in 1990 to determine the full
extent of groundwater and soil contamination and to identify alternative technologies
for the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The USDOE is conducting intensive investigations into the cleanup alternatives for the
St. Louis Airport site. Until these investigations are completed, the interim measures
described above have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials and
further contamination at the site.
35
-------
SYNTEX FA(
VERONA
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MODOO74S2154
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Lawrence County
Verona, 30 miles southwest of Springfield
Aliases: '
Spring River Basin
Syntex Tank Spill Area
Hoffman-Taff Lagoons-Former
Syntex Detoxification Area
Syntex Trenches
Slough Area-Hoffman/Taff Lagoons
Site Description
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. is a 180-acre site located in rural, predominantly agricultural
Verona. Syntex acquired the plant in 1969 from the Northeastern Pharmaceutical
Chemical Company (NEPACCO), and since 1971 has produced vitamins and prepared
animal feeds and feed ingredients. From 1969 to 1971, NEPACCO leased a portion of
the facility from Syntex and used it to manufacture hexachlorophene. The production
of hexachlorophene generated the by-product dioxin. Dioxin residues were disposed of
in five areas at the Verona facility. The major areas identified as being contaminated
are: the slough area, lagoon area, spill area/irrigation area, burn area and trench area. In
1989, Syntex excavated and transported the lagoon wastes to a mobile incinerator to
destroy the dioxin. The incineration was completed in 1989. The population within 3
miles of the Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. site is approximately 650 people. The active
portion of the facility is located within the Spring River 100-year floodplain.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed
through Federal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/ti8/83
'XV
V
Threats and Contaminants
The fish in the Spring River were contaminated with dioxin up tOj2 miles
downstream. The soil, pools and puddles on the site are also '
contaminated with dioxin. Exposure to dioxin-contaminated soij, drinking
contaminated water, and eating fish that have been contaminated by
dioxin could present a health threat.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
dioxin-contaminated materials and cleanup of the groundwater. !
Morch 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
36
continued
-------
SYNTEX FACILITY-VERONA
Response Action Status
Dioxin-Contamiriated Soils and Equipment: Syntex and the EPA reached
an agreement on the cleanup methods to be used at the site. The selected
cleanup methods include: (1) excavating and off-site thermal treatment of
dioxin-contaminated soil that exceed a health-based criteria for an industrial
site; (2) dismantling and decontaminating equipment with a series of solutions and
water rinses; and (3) installing a clay cap with a vegetative cover over the trench area
and portions of the slough area and revegetating areas contaminated with dioxin below
the action level. Syntex removed contaminated soil and transported it off site for
incineration. The ash residue was disposed of off site as well. This action also involved
clay capping and revegetating over the trench area and all areas where waste levels
were below 20 parts per billion (ppb). The final cleanup action will also include
decontamination of the equipment at the site. Decontamination and dismantling of
contaminated photolysis and old NEPACCO equipment was not initiated until March
1990 and is expected to continue through June 1991.
Groundwater: Syntex has begun an investigation of the site groundwater
and will present potential remedial cleanup alternatives to the EPA in 1991
for review and selection of the final cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: In August 1982, Syntex signed a Consent Order with the EPA agreeing to
study the disposal sites and Spring River under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). On September 6, 1983, Syntex Agribusiness and the EPA
entered into a Consent Agreement which outlined the plan for cleanup of the Syntex
site. . "
Much of the cleanup work at the Syntex site has been completed. Contaminated soils
have been removed and areas of former contamination have been capped and
revegetated, actions which have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to dioxin-
contaminated soil or surface water at the site while further investigations into a cleanup
remedy for groundwater are taking place. Dioxin levels in Spring River fish populations
have steadily decreased over the past several years.
37
-------
TIMES BEACH
MISSOURI
EPA ED# MOD980685226
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
City of Times Beach
Site Description
The Times Beach site comprises an area of 1 square mile and is located 20 miles
southwest of St. Louis. The site is a formerly incorporated city whose'road system
was sprayed annually with waste oil for dust control in the early 1970s. The oil was
later found to be contaminated with dioxin during an investigation by the EPA of the
city's road systems in 1982. During the same period, the nearby Meramec River
flooded the city, and residents were forced to evacuate their homes. Subsequently,
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended that the residents who had been
evacuated, as well as those who had returned following the 1982 flood, be
permanently relocated. The EPA transferred funds to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for the permanent relocation of residences and!,
businesses in 1983. By the end of 1986, all residents were permanently relocated.
The buy-out of the remaining vacant parcels is anticipated to be completed in 1990.
Upon completion of the permanent relocation, title to the site will be conveyed to the
State of Missouri. Currently, the site is completely vacant and fenced. All roads
leading into the city are blocked and posted with no trespassing signs. The on-site
structures of the former city are deteriorating due to the lack of maintenance.
Approximately 13,600 cubic yards of soil are contaminated at levels exceeding health-
based standards. Approximately 105,000 cubic yards of non-contaminated structures
and debris remain on site following the permanent relocation. The site is patrolled by
security guards on a 24-hour basis. Most of the former community lies within the 5-
year floodplain of the Meramec River. The population within a 1/2-mile radiusj of the
site is approximately 2,000 and includes a trailer park, the community of Crescent, and
a portion of Eureka. The site is located in a mixed-use residential and agricultural area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed
through Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/04/83
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
'XV
\
The on-site surface soils along the roadways are contaminated with
dioxin. Human exposure to dioxin has been limited by the evacuation of
the residents from Times Beach and the repaving of the contaminated
road system. On-site workers, security guards, and trespassers could be
exposed to dioxin through direct contact or accidental ingestion ;of dioxin-
cpntaminated media. Fish in the Maremec River show elevated levels of
dioxin. Area residents who consume these fish could be exposed to this
contaminant. Data indicate that sources downstream of Times Beach are
the primary contributors of dioxin into the Meramec River. ;
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
38
continued
-------
TIMES BEACH
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on stabilization
of Times Beach and three nearby sites, excavation and treatment of the soil and other
materials, and the permanent relocation of residents and businesses from the Times
Beach area. -
Response Action Status
Stabilization: The remedies selected by the EPA in 1984 to stabilize
Times Beach and three nearby sites include: (1) construction of an
approximately 50,000-cubic-yard interim storage facility at Times Beach;
(2) excavation of the dioxin-contaminated soil from the following sites:
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek, Quail Run Mobile Manor, and the Castlewood Area site.
The contaminated soils will be transferred to the interim storage facility at Times
Beach; (3) response to the contamination;of mobile homes at Quail Run Mobile Manor
within the guidelines provided in the Superfund's National Contingency Plan; and (4)
construction of a series of spur levees to control water velocity during flooding to limit
erosion of contaminated soils. In 1985, the EPA raised an existing levee constructed
by the Missouri Highway Department as the first phase in the construction of a 3-phase
spur levee. In 1989, the second and third phases of the spur levee were completed,
including relocation of roadways.
\ Soil, Structures, and Debris: This phase of the cleanup includes
tOซK5x excavation and thermal treatment of contaminated soil and the final
I iv^ปi disposal of structures and debris. Cleanup activities to be performed
include: (1) demolition and disposal of uncontarninated structures and
debris at Times Beach in a facility meeting solid waste disposal requirements; (2)
construction of a ring levee to protect a temporary thermal treatment unit from a 100-
year flood; (3) mobilization of a temporary transportable thermal treatment unit to Times
Beach; (4) excavation of all dioxin-contaminated soils at Times Beach exceeding the
levels for protection of human health and the environment; (5) thermal treatment of
excavated soils to destroy contaminants; and (6) on-site disposal of treatment residue
(ash), after receiving EPA approval of its chemical content, in a facility meeting solid
waste management requirements. The engineering design for these cleanup activities
is currently under way, and is expected to be completed in 1991.
Relocation: This third phase addresses the permanent relocation of
residents and businesses and acquisition of all remaining properties. The
State of Missouri plans to purchase all the remaining properties from their
former owners in 1991. FEMA, the State of Missouri, the trustee for the
former City of Times Beach, and St. Louis County have entered into a 4-party contract
for permanent relocation. Upon completion of these activities, ownership of the
properties will be conveyed to the State of Missouri.
continued
39
-------
TIMES BEACH
Environmental Progress
The Times Beach area has been stabilized and numerous cleanup actions have been
completed. All residents and businesses have been permanently relocated and the
purchase of the remaining parcels by the State of Missouri is scheduled to be,
completed in 1990. The demolition and disposal of the structures at Times Beach and
the removal of dioxin - contaminated soils from other sites will begin soon. :
40
-------
VALLEY PARK
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980968341
Site Description
REGION?
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Valley Park
Alias:
TCE Study
The Valley Park TCE site is in Valley Park, a densely populated urban area. The site is a
plume of contaminated groundwater in the Meramec River alluvial aquifer. In 1982, the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) detected a number of volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs), including trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE),
and trichloroethane in all three municipal water supply wells serving the community.
Private wells within the vicinity of the site are also contaminated with VOCs. However,
area private wells have been reported to be used only for industrial purposes. Possible
sources of contamination include the large number of industries located in Valley Park,
railroad spills which reportedly occurred years earlier, and illegal dumping that may have
occurred in the vicinity of the site. There are approximately 3,000 people in the
community who obtained drinking water from the impacted groundwater.
Site Responsibility;
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs including TCE. Drinking
water from the contaminated aquifer poses a potential health threat to
area residents using polluted groundwater resources.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
41
continued
-------
VALLEYIPARK TCB
Response Action Status
" Immediate Actions: In 1986, Valley Park installed aeration equipment at
its water plant in order to remove the VOCs that had been detected in the
drinking water. In 1989, Valley Park was connected to the St. Louis
County public water system, which now supplies its drinking water. Since Valley Park
was connected to the County public water system, the residents are no longer using
contaminated water for domestic purposes. ;
Groundwater: Under supervision by MDNR, the parties potentially
responsible for contamination are conducting the site investigation that will
lead to the selection of a final cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: The MDNR is currently negotiating an agreement with the party potentially
responsible for the site contamination, which would have them perform soil removal at
the properly to eliminate a potential source of contamination.
Environmental Progress
By connecting the affected residences to the public water system, the potential for
exposure to contaminated drinking water has been significantly reduced while further
investigation leading to the selection of long-term remedy for the groundwater
contamination is taking place. i
42
-------
WELDON S
ORDNANCE
WORKS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO5210021288
REGION?
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
St. Charles County
25 miles west of St. Louis
Aliases: ,
Weldon Springs National Guard Facility
US Army Training Center
Weldon Springs-Ex Army Ordnance Plant
Ft. Leonard Wood
Site Description
The Weldon Spring Ordnance Works site occupied more than 17,000 acres and
operated from 1941 to 1944. During its operation, the site produced explosives
including trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) for the U.S. Armed Services. A
series of land transfers left the Army with 1,655 acres, which it has operated since
1959 for the Army Reserve as the Weldon Spring Training Area. Contaminated areas
are spread throughout the 17,000 acres of the site, with the greatest concentration in
the Training Area. Some of the transferred land that covered two small areas of the
original Ordnance Works area are now owned by the U.S. Department of Energy
(USDOE) and listed on the National Priorities List as Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits
site. Investigations have identified a number of potentially contaminated areas,
including seven unlined lagoons where TNT wastewater was stored; TNT production
lines; a DNT production line; a drainage ditch below a TNT production line; and nine
areas where explosive wastes were buried. Approximately 5,000 people live within 3
miles of the site and approximately 70,000 people obtain drinking water from St.
Charles County wells within 3 miles of the hazardous substances at the site. Surface
water in the area flows either to the Mississippi River watershed to the north or the
Missouri River watershed to the south. Surface waters within 3 miles are used for
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
In 1987, a contractor to the USDOE found explosives such as TNT and
DNT in monitoring wells near the lagoons. TNT, DNT, and lead have been
identified in soil in several areas at the site, and TNT was detected in 1987
in surface water downstream of the lagoons. The Mississippi watershed,
which supports wetlands, wildlife, and recreational activities, may be
threatened by runoff from the site. The TNT and DNT contamination on
the site represents a physical hazard with some potential for explosion.
Ingestion of polluted surface water or groundwater and contaminated soil
may pose human health threats. DNT is a known carcinogen and may be
absorbed through direct contact.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
43
continued
-------
WELDON SPRINGS ORDNANCE WORKS
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 Department of Defense has identified a number of
contaminated areas as mentioned previously. A complete investigation
into the extent and type of contamination at the site began in 1989. The
study will identify the nature and extent of contaminants and recommend cleanup
technologies. i
Site Facts: The entire site is being cleaned up under the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP). Under this program, established in 1978, the Department of Defense
seeks to identify, investigate, and clean up contamination from hazardous materials.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA, the USDOE, and the Department of Defense
conducted preliminary investigations and determined that no immediate actions were
needed at the Weldon Springs Ordnance Works site while further investigations
continue.
44
-------
WELDON SP
QUARRY/PI
PITS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO3210090004
Site Description
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
St. Charles County
25 miles west of St. Louis
Aliases:
Weldon Spring-Raffinate Fits
Weldon Springs Chemical Plant
The'Weldon Spring site covers 230 acres and is located between the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers. This site is closely associated with the nearby Weldon Springs
Ordnance Works NPL site that the U.S. Army owns and operates. A series of land
transfers in the 1950s gave the Atomic Energy Commission {AEQ, later the U.S.
Department of Energy (USDOE), 220 acres of the originiaKOrdnance Works area. The
USDOE is now responsible for the various contamination, both radioactive and
nonradioactive, they produced on the property. The site includes a 51-acre disposal
area, a 169-acre abandoned uranium feed residue plant, various smaller properties and
a 9-acre former limestone quarry located four miles from the plant. From 1941 to 1944,
the Department of the Army operated an explosives production plant on the site. Due
to frequent spills, wastewater containing sulfonate derivatives contaminated surface
water and groundwater. The ordnance works was closed at the end of. World War II,
and the processing structures were demolished. In 1955, the AEC acquired a portion
of the ordnance works for construction of a uranium feed materials plant. Mallinckrodt,
Inc. operated the plant under a contract with the AEC from 1957 to 1966, The plant
converted uranium concentrates to uranium tetrafluoride and uranium metal. Some
thorium ore, also a radioactive metal, was processed. The residues from the
processing were disposed of into four large open pits. During that period, the plant,
buildings, equipment, soil surface, sewer system, and the drainage into the Missouri
River became contaminated with uranium, thorium and their radioactive decay
products. From 1943 until 1957, the U.S. Army used an abandoned limestone quarry
located about 3 miles southwest of the plant site for the disposal of unknown quantities
of materials contaminated with trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) residues.
The AEC acquired the site in 1958 and used the quarry from 1959 to 1966 for disposing
of uranium, thorium, and radium residues and contaminated materials and equipment.
From 1966 to 1969, the Army deposited additional TNT-contaminated materials in the
quarry. The quarry is located 3/4 of a mile from the St. Charles County well field, which
is used as a drinking water source for approximately 70,000 people.. The population
living within 3 miles of the site is 5,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
45
continued
-------
WELDON SPRING QUARRY/ftLANT/PITS
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site groundwater is contaminated with TNT, DNT, and other explosive
materials. The soil is contaminated with radionuclides, TNT, DNT,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychorinated biphenyls
(RGBs), and heavy metals. Off-site surface water is contaminated with
uranium. Accidental ingestion of and direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, surface water, and soil may cause a potential health hazard.
Adjacent wildlife and recreational areas may be threatened due jo off-site
migration of the contaminants. Contaminant migration from the quarry to
the adjacent Missouri River alluvium poses a potential threat to the
County well field. ;
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two phases: immediate actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the rest of the site. I
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The USDOE undertook interim cleanup actions at
this site in 1987 which, to date, have included removing overhead piping
and asbestos, disposing of and storing chemicals, removing electric lines
and poles, cleaning up radioactive soil from three Army Reserve properties, dismantling
the steam plant and administration building, removing PCB transformers, and'
constructing a stormwater diversion dike to reduce off-site migration. The studies for
the quarry bulk waste operable unit are also completed. |
Remaining Site Areas: Site investigations focusing on other areas of the
property are still under way. The studies are scheduled to be cohnpleted in
1992 and will result in final cleanup strategies for site contamination areas.
Site Facts: Under a 1986 agreement with the EPA, the USDOE will conduct [cleanup
actions at the quarry, as well as the plant area and nearby radioactive contaminated
properties. I
Environmental Progress
The interim response actions undertaken at this site described above have greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Weldon Spring
Quarry/Piant/Pits site while the USDOE continues further cleanup activities.
46
-------
WESTLAKE
MISSOURI
EPAID# MOD079900932
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Bridgeton
Site Description
The 200-acre Westlake Landfill site is adjacent to prime agricultural land and is in the
floodplain of the Missouri River. From 1939 to 1987, limestone was quarried on the
site. Beginning in 1962, portions of the property were used for landfilling of solid and
liquid industrial wastes, municipal refuse, and construction debris. In 1973, Cotter
Corp. disposed of over 43,000 tons of uranium ore processing residues and soil in two
areas covering a total of 16 acres of the site. In 1976, the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) closed the unregulated landfill. Since then, MDNR has
issued several permits for various portions of the site. Currently, an operating sanitary
landfill has a permitted area of 52 acres, and an operating demolition landfill has a
permitted area of 22 acres. A radiological survey completed by Radiation Management
Corporation in 1981, and in 1982 radioactive wastes on site were documented.
Approximately 60 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the
site. Water from the public water utility is presently unavailable to these people. The
nearest well is about 2,500 feet from the site. In addition, at least 480 acres of
cropland are irrigated from wells within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility :
sjte js kejng addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Threats and Contaminants
Significant levels of uranium from former dumping activities were
detected in the groundwater and soil, which could adversely affect the
health of individuals if these substances are accidentally ingested or
touched. Additional environmental and health risks may result through
surface drainage from the site, which flows through an unnamed tributary
into the Missouri River. The Missouri River is used for irrigation,
commercial fishing, and recreational activities.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
47
continued
-------
WESTLAJKE LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing oh cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An intensive investigation of on-site contamination is
scheduled to begin soon. This study will explore the nature and extent of
the contamination and will identify the best strategies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
At the time that this summary was written, this site had just obtained NPL status, and it
was too early to discuss environmental progress. The EPA will be performing a study
to assess the need for any intermediate actions required to make the site safer while
waiting for cleanup actions to begin. Results of this assessment will be described in
our next edition.
48
-------
WHEELING
SERVICE
COMPANY, I
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000830554
Site Description
AL
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Andrew County
1 mile south of Amazonia
Alias:
Wheeling Waste Disposal Site
The Wheeling Disposal Service Company operated a landfill on two adjacent areas
covering about 200 acres The landfill was established in the early 1970s, and the
facility received a State permit in 1975 to operate as an industrial waste disposal facility.
Between 1980 and 1981, the company voluntarily ceased operations. The facility
resumed operations under the authority of a special waste disposal permit issued by
the State of Missouri unitl it voluntarily closfed in 1986. The Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) periodically inspected the site and monitored groundwater
when the landfill was in operation. Based on MDNR hazardous waste records, wastes
containing pesticides, heavy metals, paint, solvents, and leather tanning sludge were
disposed of at the landfill. In field investigations conducted by the EPA, contaminants
were detected in monitoring wells and springs on the site. Drinking water is supplied
to approximately 4,000 residents of Savannah through wells within 1 to 2 miles from
the site that are 90 to 100 feet deep in the Missouri river alluvial aquifer. There are
private wells in use within 1/4 mile of the site. The shallow groundwater below the site
supplies water to the aquifer, possibly contaminating it.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater on site has been contaminated with various volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, nickel, and lead from the former waste disposal activities.
Mace Creek, 4,000 feet downslope from the landfill, is threatened by
drainage from the site. Local surface water could also be contaminated.
On-site ponds have been covered with soil, and the 'area is now planted
with crops. Therefore, eating crops grown in contaminated soil could
expose people to contaminants from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
49
continued
-------
WHEELING DISPOSAL SERVICE COMPANY, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA sampled 6n-site groundwater wells and springs in
1982 and 1983. The Missouri Department of Health (MDOH) sampled off-
site private wells and creeks in 1986. In 1987, the EPA resampled existing
on- and off-site wells and springs. These analyses confirmed the previous findings of
on-site groundwater contamination. The parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination have begun to evaluate the nature and the extent of the contamination.
This work includes installation of monitoring wells, geophysical analysis, soil analysis,
surface water analysis, mapping and surveying, groundwater analysis, and either tasks.
The study is scheduled to be completed in 1990. i
Environmental Progress
The samplings performed by the EPA and MDOH indicated that no immediate actions
were needed at the Wheeling Disposal Service Company site while the potentially
responsible parties complete further studies and begin cleanup activities, i
50
-------
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
' fact sheets for the State of Missouri. 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.
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Alluvial: An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
G-l
-------
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.
Borehole: A hole drilled into the ground used to sample soil and groundwajier.
Cap: A layer of material, such as day or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off. ;
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops accepting wastes and is shut down
under Federal guidelines that ensure the public and the environment is protected.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties jare re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period. '
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent]. \
Containment: The process of enclosing or containing hazardous substances |in a struc-
ture, typically in ponds and lagoons, to prevent the migration of contaminants into the
environment. j
Cooperative Agreement A contract between EPA and the states wherein a State agrees
to manage or monitor certain site cleanup responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis. :
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
Fly ash: Non-combustible residue that results from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants. ;
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as chlorine and bromine. Halogens arฃ very good
oxidizing agents and, therefore, have many industrial uses. They are rarely found by
G-2 '
-------
themselves; however, many chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and dioxin are reactive because of the presence of
halogens.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
ป " - " - '
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid mat trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Lorig-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Mine (or Mill) Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left from ore milling operations. Tail-
ings often contain high concentrations of lead and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or leakage of contaminating materials. Leak-
ing drums may be contained within oversized barrels as an interim measure prior to
removal and final disposal.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundwater flow
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, and the den-
sity of contaminants.
Polycydic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)^ PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives/ hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environrnent be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause livei1 damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act. i
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who ma!y have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for c6sts of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decre& or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability. ;
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure. Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment. Radop., which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionudides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters. I
I
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills. ;
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land surface in which drainage collects; associ-
ated with underground caves and passages that facilitate the movement of liquids.
G-4 - 1
-------
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging a trench around a contaminated
area and filling the trench with an impermeable material that prevents water from
passing through it. The groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped within the area
surrounded by the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with graded soils and seed for vegetative
growth to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream or other water body.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-5
-------
------- |