EPA/540/4-90/027
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Montana
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview. iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
- s the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
*> line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
ui
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but tihey 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 deterrxjiine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring; success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining ^ momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP VS^ORKS
i
EPA has gained, enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental [protection
does not end When the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater [ must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No mjatter who has
been delegated'responsibility
for monitoring ithe cleanup
work, the EPA |vill assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job. j
Likewise, EPA (jioes not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is| done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are/what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
The diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
Vll
-------
Kniipiiiiiiiiiii i ii Kuit ij - i
i<>w does EPA learn
|bo«| potential
iazardous waste
»w-i*r inmi BUT "'' "!Ktr "«
fsites?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION j
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 h^lf-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field jvhere waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosjton or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments1, 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 off 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. !
P"l I -t 1 -^ v. v.\ ?*
LWh&t nappenS If \ As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
tttiere IS an immnnenL 1 determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
Maneer? "" """"'^ diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quicklV as possible
fr v ^ x ^ to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. Thesejshort-term
emergency actions range from building a fence arbund the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to p| roviding
bottled water to residents while their local drinkirig water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal. j
i
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an, imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if j leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air s|how that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken. ;
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION j
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care ofj, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled waiter to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
there isn't an
ent
^ if
/ cleanup actions
be taken?
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that, they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
preliminary -v\^
-; that a serious threat '
;-»i^ exist what's ifieT^
x next step? v\ 7,1^1:
How 4oes EPA use-,
"titie resells of tle,,
IX
-------
*
It
*% f.
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in (the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring ^ystem EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release clr a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to silrrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site1 score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be [released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site. [
i
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are jjn the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superifund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund I 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.
I How do people fiitd v>;
iotit whether BiPAv " ^5t
s considers a site a ^
I'iiational priority lor
I'cleanup using V
money? / ;
i-
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office lat the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have bee^i evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous Waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the fj>JPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's o'nly after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
I
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 oftenj contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned [up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges/there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
"&
If 't
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
I
BM
aSfe
I
r
I
'"T 5
,; *
^
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mekn that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receiye an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but no|t 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. !
are cleanup
^alternatives
»Identified and
t evaluated?
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 tie 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, thej 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 use1 of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost. !
j
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy rriust be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clear up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation a: id feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to comp lete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problenji.
JDoes the public have
i a say in the final
6 cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public b|e given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup [plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final defcision is
made. i .
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
action ireeds to be
piloted.toasite,does
tibe
Xlll
-------
SUPERFUND
I?
» Once the design Is
^"complete, how long
J_ does it take to
| actually cleanup the
|i site and how much ^
does it cost? " <
fc-
r
fc
I
I
site, special plans for environmental protection, [worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decoiitaijnination.
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 i remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate tljiem an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time. \
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several yea^rs 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 ne|w contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that \|vere faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into ajccount these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 ^million per
site. i
1 Once the cleanup
action is complete/ is
e site automatically
deleted" from the (
rNPL?
i
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated gnjmndwater
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 puniping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazarjds 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". :
Ifs not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions! that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
.their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
Dpi EPA mak
m
%«w
-«£.
XV
-------
TAX
-------
The Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
Coun^Name ,
Location :
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:
Environmental Proaress
Environmental Progress ]
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and j
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site |
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here. i
K&.^fe^r^5^." <<-v%»,\*; v-; jv v »>" ^ v -
j&lsils&kA,*feJL»&\V -^ A. £x5,^,:.
XV111
-------
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 res9urces 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.
1
Site Facts
Additional informaton on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know whaj: the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete. ;
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needsl but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into accdunt if it
understands what they are.
Information must'travel both
ways in order for jcleanups 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.
i
XX
-------
NPL Sites
State of Mon£
Montana is a northern mountainous state bordered by the Dakotas to the east, Wyo-
ming to the south, Idaho to the south and southwest, and Canada to the north. The
State covers 147,046 square miles and consists of the Rocky Mountains in the western
third of the state, and the rolling Great Plains in the eastern two-thirds of the state.
Montana has experienced a 2.3 percent increase in population through the 1980s and
currently has approximately 805,000 residents, ranking 44th in U.S. populations. Princi-
pal state industries include the manufacture of lumber and wood products, petroleum
products, primary metals and minerals, farm machinery, and processed foods, as well
as agriculture; mining, and tourism.
How Many Montana Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
2
8
_Q
10
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
8 sites
2 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
10--
8--
6--
4 --
2 --
GW Soil SW Sed Air Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), creosotes (organics),
volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and dioxins.
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), creosotes
(organics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and dioxins.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics) and
creosotes (organics).
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics).
'Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the
Site ^^^ Remedy _
Studies ^^^" Selected "
Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
^^ Remedy ^^^ Cleanup ^^^ Cons true tio
^T Design ^^^ Ongoing ^^r Complete
\
n
Initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Montana, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress.! Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below: ':
Montana Superfund Office
EPA Region VIII Superfund Office
EPA Region VIII Superfund Community Relations
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
EPA Superfund Hotline
I
(406)444-2821 !
(303) 293-1720 !
(303)294-1144 j
(202) 475-7751
(800) 424-9346
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
XXII
-------
The JVPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow H-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address .the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's mosf advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
«* An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
*- An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
» An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
»- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
JtTO|
Page
1
5
7
9
11
13
16
18
20
22
^ress rowara Cleanup s
She Name
ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
COMET OIL COMPANY
EAST HELENA SITE
IDAHO POLE COMPANY
LIBBY GW CONTAMINATION
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS
MONTANA POLE AND TREATING
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
11 INJTJL/ ones in me otatt: UA muuuuii*.
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
County NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
DEER LODGE Final 09/08/83 «*~ " *- * "* *"
FLATHEAD . Prop 10/15/84 «^ «*- *"
YELLOWSTONE Prop 06/24/88 , "^ . *
LEWIS & CLARK Final 09/21/84 + + ' .
GALLATIN Final 06/10/86 "^ "K ;
LINCOLN Final 09/08/83 * *- "^ "* 1^
MISSOULA Final 09/08/83 "^ *" ^ "^ »^
SILVER BOW Final 07/22/87 *-*-.
STILLWATER Final 06/10/86
SILVER BOW Final 09/08/83 + +- "K
XXiV
-------
-------
-------
ANACONDA
SMELTE
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD0932916
Site Description
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Deer Lodge County
Southern end of Deer Lodge Valley
Aliases:
Anaconda Reduction Works
Washoe Works
Old Works
New Works
The Anaconda Company Smelter site covers several thousand acres at the southern
end of Deer Lodge Valley. From 1884 to 1980, Anaconda extracted copper from ore.
Wastes from smelting operations were distributed over a vast area by mechanical
operations, slurry ditches, and the wind. The smelting processes produced wastes
high in metals. The wastes include about 185 million cubic yards of concentrated mine
tailings (ore wastes), about 27 million cubic yards of furnace slags, about 360,000 cubic
yards of flue dust, and tens of square miles of contaminated soils. Investigations in
1984 found that Mill Creek, the closest community to the site, had the highest levels of
contamination of any inhabited areas around the smelter. Mill Creek had a population
of 100 people; it is now uninhabited. Anaconda, with a population of 10,000 people, is
1/2 mile west of the smelter.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
L
Threats and Contaminants
Airborne contaminants include arsenic, cadmium, and lead from
windblown contaminated soil, and beryllium from waste disposal areas.
Surface water, groundwater and soil contain arsenic, cadmium, and lead
from the smelting operations. Environmental testing of the community
and biological testing of pre-school children led the EPA to conclude that
contamination in the Mill Creek area posed an imminent and substantial
threat to the health of residents. The accidental ingestion of
contaminated soil or groundwater could pose a health threat to people.
Inhaling airborne contaminants may also increase health risks.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER
Cleanup Approach ;
The site is being addressed in seventeen stages: an emergency action and Sixteen
long-term remedial phases focusing on the cleanup of specific areas of contamination
at the site. I
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: Between 1986 and 1987, the EPA and th£ Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) temporarily relocatecj residents
of Mill Creek. j
!
Site-Wide: The EPA prepared an "umbrella" order and general work plan
that addresses all subsequent study activities on the Anaconda jsite. An
analysis is being undertaken to identify suitable locations for a Waste
repository on the Anaconda property. The EPA, ARCO, and the State have cjieveloped
computerized techniques for data handling and validation to speed analysis and
cleanup. Air monitoring data is being collected to support ongoing and future
investigations. |
., j
Mill Creek: The EPA selected a remedy for Mill Creek in 1987 featuring:
(1) permanently relocating of all Mill Creek residents; (2) stabili^ng the area
temporarily; (3) storing relocation or demolition debris and disposing of it,
along with contaminated soils from Mill Creek, in the final cleanup of Anacohda; (4)
regrading and replanting areas disturbed by relocation/demolition activities; (5)
monitoring and maintaining the vegetation and the fence installed around thfe area; and
(6) imposing short-term controls on access and land use. Mill Creek residents were
permanently relocated by ARCO in 1988. I
Old Works/High Risk: In 1988, ARCO began a study for an expedited
cleanup action in the Old Works area that is of high risk to hum£n health
and the environment. The ongoing study addresses community soils,
floodplain wastes, and old works waste piles. The Old Works study is expepted to be
completed by late 1990, with cleanup actions scheduled to begin in 1991. j
Old Works: The EPA planned an intensive study of the Old Works subsite
for early 1992 but has already started investigations on floodplain waste
and waste piles in this area. The study, which will explore the ifiature and
extent of pollution at the Old Works, will also recommend the best cleanup bptions. It
is scheduled for completion in mid-1994. j
Smelter Hill Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA began an intensive study of
groundwater contamination around Smelter Hill, which was takfen over by
ARCO in early 1989. Workers collected several thousand field samples in
the course of investigating groundwater, soils, and area vegetation. The stujdy, which
will also recommend the best options for final cleanup at this subsite, is slated for
completion in early 1993. j
continued
-------
ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER
Beryllium Disposal Areas: The EPA and ARCO began a study for
expedited cleanup actions in the beryllium disposal areas in late 1989.
The accelerated study is scheduled to be completed by mid-1990, and
cleanup actions are expected to begin in 1991.
Soils Adjacent to Old Works: The EPA began an intensive study of
neighborhoods adjacent to the Old Works area, which was taken over by
ARCO in early 1989, as part of the Old Works/High Risk remedial phase.
Because additional residential sampling is required and a separate cleanup action is
possible, this separate cleanup phase was created. The study is expected to be
completed by early 1991, with cleanup actions possible later in the year.
Flue Dust: When Mill Creek residents were temporarily relocated in 1986,
ARCO covered the flue dust, which is the most concentrated contaminant
on the site, and treated road dust to make it less mobile. In 1987, the
EPA and ARCO began evaluating an innovative technique to reduce the mobility of the
flue dust compounds now stored on the site. ARCO began an intensive study of flue
dust contamination in 1989, and the results are expected in mid- to late 1990.
Arbiter Waste: The EPA and ARCO started a study for an expedited
cleanup action in the arbiter plant disposal ponds in late 1989. Cleanup
actions are scheduled to begin in 1991.
Regional Groundwater: Groundwater monitoring is slated to begin in
1990 to provide data for future investigations. In early 1993, the EPA is
scheduled to begin studying pollution of the regional groundwater,
seeking to establish the nature and extent of the problem. This investigation will also
propose the best approaches for final cleanup. It is planned for completion in mid-
1995.
Community Soils: In mid-1991, the EPA is expected to start an intensive
study of community soil pollution, exploring the nature and extent of the
problem. This investigation, slated to be completed by late 1993, will also
select the best options for final cleanup.
Additional Areas: The EPA is scheduled to begin intensive studies of
tailings wastes, regional soils, sediments and surface water, slag piles,
and arbiter groundwater in early 1993. These investigations will explore
the nature and extent of the contamination and will recommend the best cleanup
options. The investigations are expected to be completed in mid-1995.
Site Facts: In 1984, ARCO entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the
EPA to conduct investigation on 13 areas of the site. A second Administrative Order on
Consent was entered into in 1986 between ARCO and the EPA for an expedited
investigation of the Mill Creek area. In 1988, ARCO and the EPA negotiated a Consent
Decree under which ARCO would permanently relocate the residents of Mill Creek. In
the same year, ARCO and the EPA also entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent to conduct studies on the Flue Dust and Smelter Hill areas and conduct
expedited cleanup actions for the Old Works/High Risk area. In 1990, ARCO and the
EPA amended the 1988 Administrative Order to conduct an accelerated cleanup action
on the arbiter and beryllium disposal areas.
continued
-------
ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER
Environmental Progress
The permanent relocation of Mill Creek residents, limiting access to the site,;the initial
actions to cover flue dust, and imposing land use controls have greatly reduced threats
to human health from the Anaconda Smelter site. However, the EPA has determined
that high concentrations of heavy metals in soils and a drainage ditch from the smelter
operations continues to pose a threat. The EPA plans to initiate additional emergency
actions to consolidate and cap heavily contaminated soils to eliminate immediate
threats while other investigations and final cleanup activities are taking placet
-------
BURLINGTON
NORTHE
RAILROAD
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD053038386
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Flathead County
Somers, on the north shore of Flathead Lake
Aliases:
Somers lie Treating Plant
.cier Park Co.-Somers Tie Treatment Plant
Site Description
From 1901 to 1986, the Burlington Northern Railroad site operated as a wood
treatment plant on 80 acres in Somers. The facility preserved railroad ties with zinc
chloride, chromated zinc chloride, and creosote with petroleum. Wastewaters were
discharged into an old disposal lagoon, which overflowed into a ditch and drained into a
marshy area on the shore of Flathead Lake. These areas have not been used for
disposal since 1971, when the owner installed two new waste lagoons. In 1981, the
company installed a wastewater recycling system and stopped discharging into the
lagoons. A fence was built around the old lagoon and treatment equipment. The site is
in Somers, a town of about 120 residents, and homes abut the site on three sides.
Approximately 400 people live within 1 mile of the site. The site is on the northwestern
shore of Flathead Lake, the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River. The
lake is popular for camping and fishing and is used as a drinking water source.
However, a school and some homes in the area still use groundwater for drinking
water. Two new municipal supply wells were drilled in 1989 and supply drinking water
to the town.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil, the lagoon, the municipal water supply, and Flathead
Lake waters and sediment contain heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) from tie treating wastes. Fish contain metals
including chromium, copper, zinc, and selenium. People may be exposed
to contaminants by ingesting contaminated groundwater, soil, and
sediments. Direct contact with contaminated water or soil may pose a
health threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site. :
Response Action Status |
i
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the owner removed creosote-coritaminated
soil, sludge, and liquids from the swamp pond area and from a portion of
the discharge ditch. Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of the most heavily
contaminated soils and 100,000 gallons of contaminated water were removed. The
swamp pond excavation was backfilled with 2 feet of clean soil, and surfaced with a
layer of gravel. The shoreline of Flathead Lake was reinforced with rock to reduce
erosion of polluted materials. Wastes were removed from the two newer disposal
ponds at the plant, and the ponds were rebuilt as double-lined basins to holdjthe liquid
and solid wastes removed from the swamp area. The liquid wastes were processed in
the plant's treatment system, and solids were transported to a State-permitted disposal
facility. ! ,
Entire Site: In September 1989, the EPA selected a remedy fo;r the site.
It features: (1) excavating contaminated soils; (2) treating the soils
biologically in an on-site land treatment unit; (3) flushing contaminated
groundwater with hot water and treating it; and (4) treating the Aquifer
with an in-place biological treatment process. Design of these selected cleanup
remedies is anticipated to start in 1990. !
Site Facts: In May 1985, the EPA and Burlington Northern signed an Administrative
Order on Consent requiring the company to conduct initial cleanup actions at the site.
The EPA and Burlington Northern signed an agreement in October 1985 undbr which
the company conducted an investigation of site contamination that led to the selection
of the final cleanup remedies.
Environmental P^f
The immediate removal of contaminated soil, sludge, and liquids from the Burlington
Northern Site has significantly reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous materials
while it awaits planned cleanup activities. j.
-------
COMET OIL COM
MONTANA
EPAID# MTD980403
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Yellowstone County
On Frontage Road in Billings
Alias:
Mountain States Petroleum Company
Site Description _____
The 10-acre Comet Oil Company site, located in Billings, operated as a waste oil
refinery beginning in the early 1960s. The site lies about 1/2 mile south of the
Yellowstone River and just north of Interstate 90 on the eastern edge of town: It was
purchased in 1974, and the new owner ceased operations in 1979 for economic
reasons. The soil across the site is heavily contaminated with waste oil, much of it
from a 100,000-gallon oil spill in 1985. Approximately 264 cubic yards of waste remain
on the site, including the contents of two lagoons and some of the spilled oil. Some
equipment also remains on the property. The site is located in a residential and
industrial area of Billings. Approximately 100 wells lie within 3 miles of the Comet Oil
facility and serve about 400 people.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site has been found to contain volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene and phenols. Soils contain
petroleum products from 15 to 34 feet below ground surface. People
who ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated groundwater
and soil may suffer adverse health effects.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
COMET OIL COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site. I
Response Action Status i
I
Immediate Action: Under supervision by the State Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences, approximately 75,000 gallons of w^ste oil
were collected after the 1985 spill. The waste oil lagoons, as well as the
entire site, were covered with clean fill. Most of the storage tanks and empty 55-gallon
drums have been removed from the site. j
Entire Site: The EPA is expected to begin an intensive study of [soil and
groundwater contamination in early 1993. This investigation willjexplore
the nature and extent of pollution problems and will recommend! the best
strategies for final cleanup. It is slated for completion in early 1995. '
Environmental Progress
The immediate cleanup of waste oil and covering the site with clean fill has addressed
the immediate sources of site contamination and reduced the threat to humajn health
and the environment while the EPA conducts an investigation leading to the selection
of a final cleanup remedy for the Comet Oil site. I
-------
EAST HEL
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD006230
SITE
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lewis and Clark County
East Helena
Aliases:
American Smelting and Refining
ASARCO Inc.
East Helena Plant
East Helena Smelter
Site Description
The East Helena Site is comprised of approximately 100 square miles of residential and
rural agricultural land around the Town of East Helena. For over 100 years, lead and
zinc smelting operations have deposited contaminants into Helena Valley. The smelter
is still active, but public access is restricted in the operating areas of the plant.
Approximately 1,600 people live within 1 1/2 miles of the site. Most of the area
residences are hooked up to the municipal water supply system; however, some
residents still maintain private wells.
Site Responsibility: The site is bejng addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Air in the vicinity of the site, as well as the groundwater, is contaminated
with heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Surface soils
located in an 8 1/2-square-mile area around the smelter contain the same
metals as the groundwater in addition to chromium, mercury, and copper.
Area residents may be subject to exposure of site-related particulates that
have become airborne. People who ingest or come into direct contact
with groundwater and soil may suffer adverse health effects. Health
advisories were issued in 1988 to area residents warning them against
consuming locally grown produce or livestock. Advisories have also been
issued concerning Wilson Ditch, an irrigation ditch that passes through a
number of yards and play fields.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
EAST [HELENA SITE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on sjource
control and groundwater and the remaining contaminated areas at the site.
Response Action Status
Source Control and Groundwater: The remedy selected in late 1989 to:
eliminate the source of the contamination includes isolating th4 process
waters from the groundwater. Storage tanks or other containment
structures will be constructed that are adequate for hazardous waste ;
storage in place of the existing ponds. The sediments contaminated by deqades of
seepage from the process ponds will be excavated and smelted. A preliminary study
addressing contamination of groundwater, soil, and bioaccumulation of site^related
contaminants in locally raised livestock and crops was conducted by ASARCO under
monitoring by the EPA in 1987. Because this study did not adequately define the
extent of groundwater contamination, a second investigation was conducted in 1989.
That comprehensive investigation resulted in a report completed by ASARGO and
submitted to the EPA in early 1990, The Agency review of this study has shifted
primary concern to the residential soils and Wilson Ditch. The EPA expects! to choose a
remedy for an immediate removal of contamination sources in late 1990 or iearly 1991-.
Remaining Areas: The work plan for the remaining areas proposed that a
comprehensive site-wide study into the contamination and effective
cleanup methods be completed in 1990. ASARCO, submitted ia
preliminary study of contamination in all areas. Soil samples, garden vegetable
samples, and grain and fish samples confirmed contamination and led to issuance of^-
local health advisories. Additional monitoring wells for groundwater have bpen drilled
by ASARCO with EPA oversight. Regularly conducted groundwater sampling within the
East Helena residential area has revealed arsenic contamination above drinking water
standards in six shallow monitoring wells and one deep well. ASARCO hasj drilled
additional wells in an effort to define the extent of arsenic contamination. T|he
alternatives for site cleanup are under development and a decision on the cleanup
remedy is expected in 1991. !
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA and ASARCO entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent under which the company performed a preliminary investigation into site
contamination. A second Administrative Order on Consent was signed by ijhe EPA, the
State, and ASARCO in 1988 to conduct the additional groundwater investigations.
Environmental Progress
Preliminary evaluations by the EPA have determined that removal of contarjninanted
residential soils and Wilsow Ditch soil must be addressed, and investigatiorjls leading to
the selection of the final cleanup remedy for the groundwater and remaining areas of
contamination are being completed. I
10
-------
IDAHO POL
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD00623227
MPANY
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Gallatin County
Bozeman '
Site Description
The Idaho Pole Company began treating wood products with creosote in 1946 at this
50-acre site in Bozeman. In 1952 the company switched to pentachlorophenol {PCP) in
the treating process. The facility has a history of contamination problems with surface
water discharge. The current wood treating operation has no discharge, however, past
spills and disposal practices have resulted in soil, groundwater, and surface water
contamination with PCP and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Groundwater in
the area is shallow and flows north to northwest, discharging into Rocky Creek. The
State found quantities of PCP in a tributary to Rocky Creek in 1978. Access to the site
is unrestricted. The facility is bordered on the north and west by residential and
industrial areas. Agricultural and residential areas lie to the south and east. The nearest
home is less than 1/2 mile from the site. About 1,250 people live within 3 miles of the
site and use groundwater as a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Ditches and trenches on the site contained various forms of dioxins and
organic compounds. Groundwater on site is contaminated with PCP,
PAHs, and dioxins. Site soils contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
such as benzene, toluene, and styrene. Surface water on the site
contains PCP. Accidental ingestion or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, soil, and surface water are potential health risks. Surface
water runoff from contaminated areas on the plant site could potentially
harm Rocky Creek.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SI
11
TES
continued
-------
IDAHO POLE COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site. |
Response Action Status ,
Immediate Actions: After its 1978 investigation, the State ordered Idaho
Pole to eliminate discharges to Rocky Creek and to stop disposing of
wastes in areas where it was likely to pollute State waters. Trie company
built an interceptor trench along a portion of the property line to halt some of the PCP
migration through the groundwater. In 1983, the EPA and the State sampled the
trench and found that PCP was moving away from the plant. Under orders1 from the
State Water Quality Bureau, Idaho Pole installed and is sampling 15 monitoring wells at
the site. Sludges produced in vats are drummed and transported to a licensed
hazardous waste disposal site. The intercepter trench and absorbent pad system
recover oily liquids from the groundwater prior to its leaving the site. I
I.
Entire Site: The State began an intensive study of soil and w^ter pollution
in mid-1990. This investigation will determine the nature and extent of
contamination problems at the site and recommend the best strategies for
final cleanup. It is scheduled for completion in late 1991. !
Site Facts: In 1978, the State issued a Compliance Order requiring Idaho Pole to take
measures to eliminate discharges into Rocky Creek and to prevent the f utu're disposal
of wastes in locations where it was likely to migrate into State waters. i
Environmental Progress
The installation of the intercepter trench and absorbent pad system have sijiccessf ully
reduced the migration of wastes through the groundwater at the Idaho Pol$ Company
site while the investigation leading to the final cleanup remedies is completed.
12
-------
LIBBY GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD980502736
Site Description
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lincoln County
Libby
Aliases:
Libby Pesticides
Champion Mill
The Libby Ground Water Contamination site is located on the Champion International
Corporation lumber and plywood mill in Libby. Between 1946 and 1969, wood treating
fluids were disposed of and spilled at several different locations on the mill property.
Wastewater and tank bottom sludges from the wood treating fluid tanks were
periodically removed and hauled to waste pits. In 1979, shortly after private wells were
installed, some area homeowners smelled a creosote odor in their water. The EPA
sampled the groundwater and soil and found it contaminated. The contaminated soil is
within the confines of the facility; however, groundwater contamination extends into
"the City of Libby. The City of Libby and the surrounding areas have a population of
approximately 11,000. The site is bordered by Flower Creek, Libby Creek, and the
Kootenai River.
Site Responsibility: jhe site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
ISIPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
I
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated primarily with pentachlorophenol (PCP) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in addition to heavy metals.
Soils are contaminated with PCP, PAHs, and to a lesser extent, dioxins.
People who touch or accidentally ingest the soil or water from private
wells may be exposed to contamination. If the contaminant plume
reaches the Kootenai River or Flower and Libby Creeks, the wildlife in
the area may be harmed by the pollutants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
LIBBY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: an initial action and three long-terrip
remedial phases focusing on the groundwater, soil and source control, and cleanup of
the lower aquifer.
Response Action Status
"** Initial Action: In 1985, Champion began a water distribution plap under
which residents with contaminated groundwater wells agreed to|cease
using their wells and use water from the public water system operated by
the City of Libby. The source of the public water supply is uncontaminated w^ter from
a reservoir upstream of Flower Creek. Champion provided monetary compensation to
the well owners to pay for the metered water. The company also sealed and (locked
the previously operating wells. The program will be terminated upon the elimination of
the threat of contamination if the well owner provides a written termination ndtice or if
other alternatives become available. i
i
Groundwater: In 1986, the EPA selected a remedy to reduce human
exposure to groundwater contamination by continuing and expanding the
water distribution plan sponsored by Champion. The remedy als
-------
LIBBY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply and capping of the contaminated private
wells has eliminated contaminated drinking water sources and the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances at the Libby Ground Water Contamination site while
excavation of contaminated soil and planned cleanup actions are taking place.
15
-------
MILLTOWN RESERVOE
SEDIMENT!
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD98071756
REGIpN 8
.CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Missoula County
MUltown
Site Description
The Milltown Reservoir Sediments site covers 800 acres in Milltown. In 1906, a
hydroelectric dam was constructed forming a reservoir that trapped sediments from
mining, milling, and smelting operations in the Upper Clark Fork Valley. During the
years since the construction, the reservoir storage has been almost filled with
approximately 120 million cubic feet of sediments. In 1981, Milltown's four bommunity
water supply wells, serving 33 residences, were found to be contaminated vyith arsenic
and other heavy metals. Residents were advised not to use this water for drjinking or
cooking and to find alternate supplies of water. Approximately 91 people liv^ within 1/2
mile of the site. The nearest house is 100 meters away. The site is adjacent to the
Milltown Dam, where the Big Blackfoot River joins the Clark Fork River. The! rivers are
used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: l!2/30/82
Final Date: 09/j)8/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and sediments are contaminated with metals including
arsenic and manganese. The Clark Fork River and Milltown Reservoir
contain elevated levels of copper, arsenic, and possibly zinc. Ah alternate
water supply has been provided, and contaminated wells have jbeen taken
out of service; therefore, residents have little chance of exposure to
contaminants by drinking the water. People who swim or fish |n the Clark
Fork River arm of the reservoir may be exposed to pollutants. Fish kills
have been reported downstream of the dam. Fish in the reseryoir that
have bioaccumulated contaminants may be harmful if eaten. Access to
the site is unrestricted, and the potential exists for direct contact with
contaminated areas. j
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
16
continued
-------
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: an initial action and three long-term
remedial phases focusing on the water supply, the sediment source control, and the
downstream surface water.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1983,,volunteers using National Guard equipment began
supplying residences with door-to-door water service on a biweekly basis.
Water supply: In 1984, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the
Milltown water supply by constructing a new well from a separate aquifer,
constructing a new distribution system; flushing the plumbing system of
each house to remove contaminants from the water system and plumbing; and testing
the water quality to ensure standards have been met. In 1985, the EPA added a
supplemental remedy, which includes replacement of household water supply
equipment that remains a source of contamination and continued sampling of individual
residences to ensure the sources of contamination have been removed. The State
completed the new water supply system and the installation of household water
equipment in 1985.
Sediment Source Control: The potentially responsible party, under EPA
monitoring, is studying the extent of the sediment contamination at the
site. The EPA is also conducting a separate endangerment assessment in
consultation with an advisory committee which includes representatives from the
public and the potentially responsible parties.
Downstream Surface Water: In 1989, the EPA completed a study on the
effects of the contamination downstream from the reservoir. Preliminary
results show no environmental damage. However, the sediment
investigation will continue to ensure there is no human health or environmental threat.
Site Facts: The EPA and a potentially responsible party signed an Administrative Order
on Consent under which the party agreed to study the extent of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
The construction of new water supply wells and the replacement of household water
supply equipment have provided a safe drinking water supply to affected residents,
significantly reducing the potential health threats from contaminated groundwater while
investigations leading to cleanup of the sources of contamination continue at the
Milltown Reservoir Sediments site.
17
-------
MONTANA POLE ANDr
TREATING
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD006230635
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Silver Bow County
Butte :
Site Description
The Montana Pole and Treating site is an abandoned 40-acre wood treatment facility in
Butte. From 1946 to 1983, the facility preserved utility poles, posts, and bridgk timbers
with pentachlorophenol (PCP). Hazardous substances from the pole-treating operations
were discharged into a ditch adjacent to the plant that ran towards Silver BowlCreek.
On site are 5 pole barns containing approximately 10,000 cubic yards of contatjninated
soil. About 10,000 gallons of waste oil have been treated for dioxin and are stpred on
site. Tanks, vats, pipes, and equfpment were cut up and stored in the pole barns.
There are forty 55-gallon drums of PCP-contaminated sludges on site. Montana Pole is
in a residential/industrial area. The nearest residence is is 100 yards from the pite. The
nearest private well is 1/5 mile downgradientfrom the site. i
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with PCPs, dioxins,
furans,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and metals. The sludge is a|so
contaminated with PCPs, dioxins, and furans, and PCP has been detected
in Silver Bow Creek. Accidental ingestion and direct contact with
groundwater, surface water, soil, and sludge pose hazards to hupnan
health. Contaminants may enter the air naturally or during cleanjjp
operations, presenting another potential source of exposure to ;
contaminants. ;
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
18
continued
-------
MONTANA POLE AND TREATING
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA completed a cleanup action in late 1988 to
halt the seepage of PCP and diesel oil into Silver Bow Creek.
Contaminated soils were excavated and stored on site. The site has been
fenced, and monitoring wells and oil recovery trenches were installed. A temporary
groundwater treatment system was put into operation to separate PCP-contaminated
oil from the groundwater. The treated water is pumped upgradientlo infiltration
galleries. The State is overseeing the continued interception of the waste oil.
Entire Site: The State began an investigation to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site in mid-1990. The preliminary
investigation report is scheduled for public comment in 1992, with the
selected remedy expected in 1992.
Site Facts: Special Notice Letters were sent to potentially responsible parties in
January 1990.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has taken measures to prevent further contamination of Silver Bow Creek, and
additional actions were taken to remove the immediate sources of soil contamination,
to treat groundwater, and to restrict access to the site. These actions have greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances while site investigations
are conducted to determine permanant cleanup remedies for the Montana Pole and
Treating facility.
19
-------
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
MONTANA
EPAID#MTD0219!
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Stillwater d ounty
Columbus
Site Description
Mouat Industries processed chromium ore into high-grade sodium dichromatje in the
late 1950s and early 1960s on this site in the City of Columbus. The process produced
wastes containing sodium chromate and sodium dichromate. In 1973, the Apaconda
Minerals Company removed a waste pile and treated the area to remove hexavalent
chromium remaining in the soil. In early 1975, gravel was imported and placed on the
site from a depth of 6 inches to 3 feet. By late 1976, yellow mineral deposit$
containing chromium were evident on top of the ground. Currently, the propjerty is
occupied by a company using resorcinal-pheno/ glues in the manufacturing of laminated
wood products. Waste from washing the manufacturing equipment is run tljrough 2
septic tanks. The remaining liquid is pumped to an outdoor waste storage pit and later
spread on the adjacent land east of the on-site building. The site has been fenced to
restrict access. The Yellowstone River and a public golf course are located sjouth of the
site. Migration of contaminants from the Mouat site has contaminated the river and
ponds on the golf course. Approximately 300 people reside within the vicinity of the
site. Private wells are in use within 1/4 mile of the site and have been founcj to be
contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HI$TORY
Proposed Date: JO/15/84
Final Date: 06JIO/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface waters are contaminated with chromium
and arsenic. Sediments downstream from the site are contaminated with
arsenic. Soil, as well as off-site surface water, also contain chriomium.
Direct contact and accidental ingestion of contaminated soil, groundwater,
and sediments are a potential health risk. Hay is grown and livestock is
raised in the vicinity of the site. Bioaccumulation of contaminants in
livestock and commercial agricultural products increases the health threat
from this site. !
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
20
continued
-------
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial action focusing on the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA has inspected and sampled the site and is reviewing
alternatives for an initial action. The EPA plans to begin an investigation in
1993 to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify
alternatives for cleanup. Completion of the investigation is expected in early 1995.
Environmental Progress
Early actions to restrict access to the site and remove chromium-contaminated soils
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances from the site. The
EPA is evaluating the site to determine if additional actions are warranted to protect
public health and the environment while site investigations are performed.
21
-------
SILVER BOW CREE]
BUTTE AR]
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD980502777
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Silver Bowt County
Butte
Aliases:
Clark Fojrk Site
Butte [Site
Site Description
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area site begins above Butte, near the Continental Divide,
and extends westward along Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork River to the Milltown
Reservoir. The site covers about 140 miles of stream and riparian habitat. Silver Bow
Creek and the Clark Fork River were used as a conduit for mining, smelting,' industrial,
and municipal wastes for over 100 years. Vast mine tailings deposits are fopnd along
the creek and river. These deposits have been dispersed over the entire flojodplain and
contain elevated levels of metals. The Milltown Reservoir is itself a separatee site on
the National Priorities List. j.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Datei 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Windblown air particles, groundwater, and soil are contaminated with
metals, including copper, iron, and lead. Silver Bow Creek and the Clark
Fork River contain metals from Butte to Milltown. The tailing^ dispersed
along the creek and river severely limit aquatic life forms and have caused
fish kills in the river. Potential health threats include direct contact and
accidental ingestion of contaminated soil and groundwater amp inhalation
of contaminated air particles. ,
Cleanup Approach
i
The site is being addressed in ten stages: an immediate action and nine long-term
remedial phases focusing on the West Camp/Travona Shaft Area; Warm Sp| rings Ponds;
Butte Priority Soils; Berkeley Pit; Rocker Timber Framing and Treating; Stre&mside
Tailings; Clark Fork River; Lower Area I; and Butte Soils. ;
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
22
continued
-------
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In Walkerville, the EPA excavated and stabilized
approximately 300,000 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil from mine
waste dumps in 1988. Contaminated soil was removed from 4 earthen
basements and 26 residential yards. Concrete basements were constructed, and 18
inches of clean fill and sod were placed in the residential yards. In Timber Butte,
approximately 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were moved to a temporary on-
site repository. Clean soil was placed on the excavated areas and revegetated. ARCO
removed highly contaminated materials in the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area.
under State supervision. Arsenic wood treating wastes and contaminated soils and
wood chips were hauled to a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. Equipment
and debris were consolidated on the site and buried. Major areas of the site were
covered with topsoil and seeded.
West Camp/Travona Shaft Area: In 1989, under EPA monitoring, the
potentially responsible parties addressed rising mine waters in the West
Camp/Travona Shaft area by constructing a pumping and piping system to
the sewer line on Iron Street. Approximately 200 gallons per minute of mine water has
been pumped to the Metro Plant since January 1990. Pumping was discontinued in
May 1990 because the level was brought down below the desired control elevation.
Pumping will be initiated as necessary to keep the level down below the control level.
Warm Springs Ponds: The three Warm Springs Ponds cover 2,400 acres
at the confluence of Silver Bow, Mill, Willow, and Warm Springs creeks.
The ponds were constructed by the Anaconda Company between 1911
and 1959 in an attempt to trap tailings before entering the Clark Fork River, which
begins immediately below the ponds. An investigation of the ponds was completed in
1989. Public comments were extensive and led to a decision to expedite certain
cleanup plans in 1990 in a portion of the area, the Mill-Willow Bypass. The bypass
contains approximately 200,000 cubic yards of tailings and contaminated soils that are a
principal cause of fish kills. The ponds contain 19 million cubic yards of tailings and
contaminated soils. The proposed remedy to clean up the Warm Springs Ponds
involves removing the Mill-Willow Bypass tailings, raising and reinforcing pond berms
consolidating contaminated soils behind the berms, capping or flooding contaminated'
soils, and upgrading pond treatment capabilities. The EPA is reviewing the proposed '
remedy and is expected to choose the final remedy in late 1990.
Butte Priority Soils: The Butte area has been divided into 36 high priority
soil areas that will be dealt with in two stages. The first stage will address
"source areas" {mine waste dumps, railroad beds, or other related mines
wastes) in or adjacent to the 36 high priority soil areas. The cleanup activities are
expected to begin in mid-1990 and slated for completion in 1991. The first cleanup
stage will also address "receptor areas" (residential yards, gardens, parks, and
playgrounds) in the 36 priority soil areas and the remaining "source areas" not
addressed by the emergency action. Field work is expected to begin in 1991.
Approximately 500,000 cubic yards of contaminated mine waste will be removed or
stabilized in-place throughout the cleanup. The second stage will consist of an
investigation that will readdress the actions already taken, all other areas of
contamination, storm runoff, and future land use problems in Butte and Walkerville.
The EPA is preparing a draft investigation plan.
continued
23
-------
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
Berkeley Pit: The EPA and the State are concerned about the rjsing
water in the pit because contaminated mine water may eventually migrate
into the shallow aquifer and Silver Bow Creek. The EPA has prepared
three reports concerning the Berkeley Pit flooding and has forwarded these reports to
the State and the potentially responsible parties. The EPA has developed a plan to
study the mine flooding problem and is presently receiving public comment op it. The.
study is expected to take approximately 3 years. :
Rocker Timber Framing and Treating: The EPA has received ja
proposed work plan from ARCO to investigate the contamination in the
___^_. Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area. Issues remaining to be
resolved are: contaminated groundwater, streamside tailings, waste rock railroad
ballast, remaining soil contamination, and a possible buried storage tank. Development
of investigation plans will continue through 1990. '
Streamside Tailings: The vast tailings deposits found on the blanks of
Silver Bow Creek and Warm Springs Ponds are toxic to plant life. The
State is evaluating an alternative to determine if revegetation can stop the
leaching of contaminants into the soil and groundwater and reduce windblown
contaminants and sediments. : .
Clark Fork River: ARCO, under State supervision, has be.rmedjhighly
contaminated areas adjacent to the Clark Fork River from the headwaters
to Deer Lodge to prevent surface sheet erosion. The State, with funding
from ARCO, has initiated a demonstration project to stabilize and vegetate i
contaminated areas. The EPA has completed the Clark Fork River screening (study.
Lower Area I and Butte Soils: The EPA is planning a cleanupjaction for
the Lower Area I and the lesser contaminated Butte soils in 1990, with
completion expected in 1992. i
Site Facts: Several potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative prefer on
Consentto conduct a portion of the work for the Berkeley Pit flooding; the regaining
parties were issued a Unilateral Orderto perform the remaining tasks. The Sjtate
issued a Unilateral Order requiring ARCO to remove highly contaminated materials in
the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area. In 1989, EPA issued an Administrative
Order on Consent to the potentially responsible parties to either discharge thje West
Camp water to the Butte Metro Plant, meeting all pre-treatment requirements or to
construct a treatment facility meeting classification discharges for toxic metals and
drinking water standards for arsenic. !
Environmental Progress
Numerous cleanup actions have been completed or are currently under way |at the
Silver Bow site including the excavation of contaminated soil in Walkerville afnd Timber
Butte, the construction and implementation of a pumping and piping system; in the
West Camp/Travona Shaft area, and the removal of contaminated soil in the Rocker
Timber Framing and Treating area. These actions have reduced the potential health
threats to the surrounding communities; however, the EPA has determined that high
concentrations of metal in soils and drainage from the smelter still pose risks. An
additional interim cleanup action is planned to consolidate and cap these soiljs while
further cleanup actions are under way at the site. ;
A
24
-------
, , |^|^j fas giossary Defines the italicized terms used in the site
* I fact sheets for the State of Montana. 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.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able 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 de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock/sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants naturally and break them down into nonhaz-
ardous components.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of theicap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off. i
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of holes in a landfill where wasjte is
dumped, compacted, and covered with layers of dirt. j
Confluence: The place where two bodies of water, such as streams, come together. ,
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties' are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parities 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. >
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
I \
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced bjy distillation
of tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure. !
Downgradienfc A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move ,
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated gjroundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants. |
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party that consists of a written proposal Demonstrat-
ing a potentially responsible party's qualifications and willingness to perforjm a site
study or cleanup. j
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen worljc to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
G-2
-------
\v.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Mine (or Mill) Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left from ore milling operations. Tail-
ings often contain high concentrations of lead and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic, modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundwater flow
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, and the den-
sity of contaminants.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may. have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for cop of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a c^urt makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree ior admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability. ;
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters. I
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants. |
i
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills. !
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes thjit may be
contaminated with hazardous materials. j
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmljss mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity. i :
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].]
i
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contamh)ated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted jgroundwa-
ter. !
i
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
G-4
------- |