EPA/540/4-90/028
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Nebraska
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 thd 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...
.111
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume
NPL SITES:
A State Overview
.xvii
.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-
111
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 — nearly half
— have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup cons ruction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipelim;," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained| enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies — like
those designed to clean up
ground water — must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy
is carefully
followed and th^t it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA c oes 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
-------
! he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
\ waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
J 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
-------
ji ,
iHow does EPA learn
ottt potential
^hazardous waste
• sites?
LWhat happens If
danger?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION |
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens — people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
I
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removinjg wastes for
safe disposal. I
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them — for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air sliow that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken. I
jif there isn'tj*n
limminent danger,
ghow does BPA
f*determine what, if •*
Fany, cleanup actions
\ « xS!-..,
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled wa'ter 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
-------
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
If tike preliminary ~ ™
•T assessment shows^ ;v?
tliat a setiotfci threat, J
.
next slip? %1_,:I\ "" --x
EPA use.,, -
jof the
site tnspectloit?
IX
-------
•- -.-x'
«!
'How do people find!
but whether EPA^ 3^|
^considers a site a ^
i national priority £or ^llf
\ cleanup using _ "" \;
| Superfund money?^ s*
*s •• ^-y-t- NSJ/S.5S
fe_ ^ S*?X^S§
,„ iW^a
^W
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release 01} a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site Score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site. ]
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 ojti the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superffind inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund — :he Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for err ergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's c n the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office a
listed in this book.
concerns them is
i the number
•n -KW UV . ^V^V>>AVlViA •ilfatdtttt&A'.'&.V
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious pjroblems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous wapte sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be mo| ved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also iiave their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned ujp with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfurjd whether
or not a site is on the NPL. i
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
•a site is added r
to %f T^PI^what awrrr;
tlte steps to ckamip?
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
^i <••"
•w
How are cleanup
alternatives
identified and
evaluated?
-
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent s,ite investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no rea|l threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, privc te 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 callec
study.
a feasibility
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that jail potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health andjthe environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to deternjiine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their us^ of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as [containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the prpblem (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 cleari up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problerji.
* *
* Does the public have ^ Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
•fc""** «**»vy »»•* *•!•*> *«k £5**x»t v mrn/rrhmifiT' fr\ rwmmo-nf r»r» fV»a rMwi-w-keo/-! *-»IAO-«I •»•*-* W1r»** TU/•«•*«
: a say in the final
cleanup decision?
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup! plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
lep
XII
-------
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
If,eve*y ete
action iieedsiCb be
tailored to a site, does
tfete desigtt ofthe
remedy need to be
tailored too?
X1U
-------
SUPERFUND
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
Once the design is
complete, how long
T does it take to
r actually cleanup the
I site and how much
»does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup]— called the
remedial action — are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them — an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different! and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time. !
For example, cleaning polluted ground water or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several yeans of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduceji to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of nevf contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that wjsre faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site. !
j
the cleanup
^action is complete, is
; the site automatically
: "deleted" from the
' *
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazard's 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
struction completed".
"con-
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and
monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions tiat have
occurred are included in the "Construction Comp .ete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this boox.
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.
•*f**" .....,-, f"V -KWXVf
Ca% EPA make patties ,
for the V
XV
-------
TAX
-------
T- he Site Fact Sheets
- - • presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
^Initial Actions
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.
NPL Listing
History
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
Site Description
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
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 resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
"*W "• ==•••". •- "'„*••
'-V-V-V ^* •» A, "* •• -St*
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process/ all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the dedsionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs; but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, became in-
volved, and assure^ that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites
State of Ne
Nebraska is located in the north central United States bordered by South Dakota to the
north, Wyoming and Colorado to the west, Kansas to the south, and Missouri River and
Iowa to the east. The State covers 77,355 square miles consisting of the till plains of
the central lowland rising to the Great Plains and hill country of the north central and
northwest. Nebraska experienced a 2.1 percent increase in population through the
1980s and currently has approximately 1,602,000 residents, ranking 36th in U.S.
populations. Principal State industries are manufacturing, agriculture, and food
processing. Nebraska manufactures transportation equipment, foods, electronic/
electrical equipment, instruments and related products, primary and fabricated metal
products, and machinery.
How Many Nebraska Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
2
4
Q
6
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 03
2 sites
4 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
o
*
2--
GW soil
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals (inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).
"Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction |
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 4 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Nebraska, providing specific irjformation
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress.! Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below: |
Nebraska Superfund Office
EPA Region VII Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region VII Superfund Public
Relations Office
(402)471-4217
(913) 551-7052
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(913) 551-7003
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
The NPL Progress Report — —
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow K-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
*• An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
•*• An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
•*• An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
«*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies. .
*- An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
•*- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Nebraska
Page
Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1
3
7
9
11
13
CORNHUSKER ARMY AMMUNITION
HASTINGS GW CONTAMINATION
LINDSAY MANUFACTURING CO.
NEBRASKA ARMY ORDNANCE PLANT
WAVERLY GW CONTAMINATION
10TH STREET SITE
HALL
ADAMS
PLATTE
SAUNDERS
LANCASTER
PLATTE
Final
Final
Final
Prop
Final
Prop
07/22/87 "^ «K
06/10/86 *- *• *-
10/04/89 *- •*-
10/26/89 *- *~
06/10/86 •*- «^
10/26/89 "^
-------
-------
-------
CORNHUSK
AMMUNITION
NEBRASKA !,..~"
EPAID#NE221382<>2$4 -
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Hall County
6 miles west of Grand Island
Site Description
The 19-acre Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant is a U.S. Army Armament, Munitions,
and Chemical Command facility. On standby status since 1973, the operation leases
16 square miles of land for agriculture, grazing, and wildlife management activities. The
plant was built in 1942 to produce munitions and to provide support functions during
World War II and has gone in and out of production over the years. It consists of five
major components: (1) five major production areas where munitions were loaded,
assembled, and packed; (2) a fertilizer manufactory; (3) two major storage facilities; (4) a
sanitary landfill; and (5) a burn ground where materials contaminated with explosives
were ignited. Activities at the site are currently limited to maintenance and leasing
operations. Once the environmental studies required for real estate transactions are
complete, the Army plans to sell the property. When the plant was active, staff
disposed of wastewater contaminated with explosives into 56 earthen surface
impoundments, which were located near the five production areas. Dried solids from
the bottom of the pits were periodically scraped and ignited at the burning ground.
Releases from the surface impoundments have contaminated about 250 private wells.
Polluted groundwater has migrated off the site and has been detected as far as 3 1/2
miles beyond the plant's border. The area affected by groundwater contamination is
mostly suburban, and residents rely on public and private wells for drinking water.
Approximately 3,000 people live within 1 mile and 27,000 live within 3 miles of the site.
Groundwater is also used for farmland irrigation and for watering livestock.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater both on and off the site and soil in the surface
impoundments are contaminated with various explosives. Human and
livestock health can be adversely affected by drinking the contaminated
groundwater or touching contaminated soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
CORNHUSKER ARMY
AMMUNI
[TION PLANT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
i
Response Action Status '
Immediate Actions: The Army provided bottled water to the 250 homes
with contaminated wells until residences could be hooked up TO the city's
water system in 1985. In 1987, the Army started an incineration program
to treat the contaminated soil in the 56 surface impoundments. Workers e'xcavated the
soil and then incinerated it to destroy the contaminants. The excavated pitb were
backfilled with sand and gravel from off the site, and the ash from the incinerator was
landfilled on the site. The Army had burned 40,000 tons of soil by 1988, wjien the
State-monitored operation ended.
Entire Site: Field work by the Army for an intensive study of groundwater
contamination at and around the site began in 1990. The Department of
Defense will investigate the plume of groundwater that has mpved off the
site to determine its shape, the types "arid levels of contaminants present, the extent of
its threat to human health and the environment, and the appropriate cleanup standards
to be sought. The study is scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), which was established in 1978. Under this program, the
Department of Defense seeks to identify, investigate, and clean up contamination at
military installations. An Interagency Agreement between the EPA and thq Department
of Defense was signed in 1990. Under this" agreement, the Army will investigate and
clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The provision of bottled water eliminated the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances in the drinking water, and the incineration of contaminated soil [greatly
reduced other pathways of contamination at the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant.
These actions will protect the public health and the environment while further studies
and cleanup activities are conducted.
-------
HASTINGS
GROUNDW,
CONTAMIMH
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED980862668
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Adams County-
City of Hastings
Aliases:
Blayney Ammunition Depot
Blayney ExNaval Ammunition Base
Hastings Plume
Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD)
Site Description
Concerns regarding volatile organic compounds {VOCs) and other halogenated
compounds in the Hastings City water supply were investigated by the State in 1983.
As a result, Hastings took two municipal wells out of service and placed other
contaminated wells on a standby basis. Community Municipal Services, Inc. (CMS), a
private water supply system serving the areas east of Hastings, also took two of their
three wells off-line due to pollution. Recent EPA testing shows that the water supplied
to users by these two utilities is safe to drink. Due to the size and complexity of the
Hastings site, the following site description is organized into its four geographical areas.
Hastings East Industrial Park/Former Naval Ammunition Depot (NAD). The former
NAD, located about 2 miles east of Hastings, straddles two counties: Clay and Adams.
The 48,000-acre NAD was used for loading armaments until the the early 1950s, and
later for the demilling of armaments until it was decommissioned in the early 1960s.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting studies at the site under the
authorization of the Department of Defense. The Corps has discovered that explosives,
heavy metals, and VOCs are the major contaminants. The Adams County portion of the
NAD subsite became the Hastings East Industrial Park in 1967 and is occupied by a
variety of small private industries. The EPA and the. Corps of Engineers are
investigating this portion of the subsite. Although contaminants that have been
detected are generally consistent with the chemicals used by the Navy operations, the
industries established in the industrial park since the 1960s may have generated some
of the VOCs being detected.
The Commercial Area. This area, east of the Hastings city limits, contains the FAR-
MAR-CO, TCA Contamination Area, and North Landfill subsites. FAR-MAR-CO has
stored and handled agricultural products, mostly grains, for more than 30 years. VOCs,
including toxic grain fumigants, have seepec/into the soils and groundwater. Grain dust
explosions and spills on the subsite have contributed to the problem. While
investigating soils at the FAR-MAR-CO subsite, EPA analysts discovered contamination
on a portion now owned by a different company. The new owner was dumping a
metal cleaning solvent on the ground at the back of the property. This area became the
TCA Contamination Area subsite. The North Landfill was originally a local brickmaker's
clay pit. Hastings operated it as a landfill In the 1960s, to dispose of various municipal
and industrial wastes. Studies have revealed that the North Landfill is polluting
downgradientwe\\s with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other VOCs.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CO!
EXAMINATION
The Central Industrial Area. This area encompasses commercial and industrial
properties situated in the heart of Hastings along the Burlington-Northern railroad right-
of-way. The three subsites that make up this area are Colorado Avenue, Se|cond
Street, and Well #3. Three different industrial solvents have been detected jin soils
around Colorado Avenue. The source is suspected to be industrial discharges into the
storm or sanitary sewers along this street. The Second Street subsite was discovered
during the 1987 to 1988 investigation of Colorado Avenue. Pollution from an old coal
gas plant operation was detected in the soil at this subsite and in the downgradient
groundwater. Contaminants include VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
and phenols. Well #3 is one of the city wells taken out of service because of
contamination. The EPA tested in the surrounding area in 1987 and 1988, fbund carbon
tetrachloride and chloroform in the soil and groundwater, and tentatively traced the
contamination to an accidental spill of grain fumigant. j
i
South Landfill. This landfill in southeast Hastings was operated by the City_ and
accepted industrial waste during the 1960s and 1970s. Contamination at th'is subsite
consists primarily of several VOCs.
Approximately 23,000 people live in the City of Hastings. Farm and pasture
the urban area, and 20 private and public wells lie within a 3-mile radius of
residents live within that 3-mile radius. A nearby stream and lake are used
recreation. Groundwater irrigates crops, waters stock, and provides water
and business use.
tie
surround
site. All
or
or home
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING WISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 0 5/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils at the various subsites are contaminated with a
wide range of VOCs and other halogenated organic compounds. The
NAD site is contaminated with heavy metals and explosives itji addition to
VOCs. The city water supply is safe for drinking, but people and livestock
may experience adverse health effects from drinking contaminated
groundwater around the subsites.
Cleanup Approach
Because of the size and complexity of the site, a number of long-term remedial phases
are planned to address general control of contamination (source control), groundwater
contamination, and soil contamination. The status of each of the long-term
phases that will address the four geographic areas discussed earlier is desc
remedial
'ibed below.
continued
-------
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Response Action Status
Colorado Avenue: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy for this subsite,
part of the central industrial area in Hastings. The remedy focuses on
cleaning up the source of groundwater contamination: 42,700 cubic yards
of overlying soil polluted with VOCs. These are the soils associated with
the contaminated sewers along Colorado Avenue. The remedy features:
(1)"vacuuming" volatile chemicals from the soil without digging it up and treating the
removed vapor with activated carbon, if necessary, and (2) monitoring soil, air, and
groundwater at the site. The parties potentially responsible for the contamination at
this subsite began designing the cleanup remedy in 1988, based on a pilot study of the
proposed cleanup technology. The design is expected to be completed in late 1990.
North Landfill Groundwater: The EPA began an intensive study of
groundwater contamination at this subsite in 1985. Workers installed
three groundwater monitoring welteat the landfill and tested wells east of
the site. Data revealed contamination by a variety of VOCs. In 1989, the parties
potentially responsible for contamination at the landfill agreed to take over this study.
This effort includes recommending to the EPA the best strategies for final cleanup. It is
slated for completion at the end of 1990.
FAR-MAR-CO Soil: The EPA selected a remedy for soil cleanup at this
subsite in 1988. A fumigant spill resulted in contamination of about 33,800
cubic yards of soil, and groundwater beneath it is also highly polluted.
Features of the remedy are: {1}"vacuuming" volatile chemicals from the
soil without digging it up and treating the removed vapor with activated carbon, if
necessary; (2) temporarily covering the contaminated soils to restrict contact; and (3)
monitoring soil, air, and groundwater at the site. The engineering design for the source
control remedy is scheduled to begin late in 1990.
Hastings East Industrial Park: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began
an intensive study of groundwater contamination at this subsite in 1986.
The subsite is in the former Navy Ammunition Depot/Hastings East
Industrial Park Area. In 1988, the Corps released the results of the first part of the
study, which determined the extent and source of groundwater contamination. The
report confirmed that explosives are the major contaminants at the site, along with
heavy metals and VOCs. The second part of the Corps' study will focus on
recommending cleanup strategies. A remedy is scheduled to be selected to control the
source of groundwater contamination in 1990. Design of the remedy is scheduled to
begin in 1991.
South Landfill: The field investigations needed to characterize the nature
and extent of contamination at this subsite have been discussed with the
City of Hastings and the other parties potentially responsible for its
contamination. Work is scheduled to begin in 1991.
continued
-------
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
i
>NT/
I
FAR-MAR-CO Groundwater: The results of the groundwater rnonitoring
activities that are part of the source control phase at this subsitb (see
"FAR-MAR-CO Soil," above) will be used to develop a technica approach
for restricting the flow of contaminated water beneath the site and to evaluate the need
for groundwater treatment once the source of contamination is cleaned up. j"
i
Well #3 Soil: The EPA selected a remedy for the Well #3 subsjte in 1989.
It focuses on cleaning up the source of groundwater contaminajtion. The
remedy features "vacuuming" volatile contaminants from the soils, and
treating the vapors with activated carbon to remove the contaminants.
The EPA plans to work with the State in conducting the soil cleanup at the Well #3
subsite. The design of the remedy is slated for completion in 1991. I
North Landfill Source Control: (see above) Studies are unde
" way to
determine sources of groundwater contamination (see "North Landfill
Groundwater," above) and cleanup alternatives. The studies arJ3
scheduled to be completed in late 1990.
i
TCA Contamination Area: The parties potentially responsible Ifor the
contamination at this subsite removed the polluted soil and transported it
to a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility in 1989. The same parties
signed a Consent Order with the EPA and are currently studying the need for any
further cleanup activities. The study is scheduled to be completed by the end of 1990.
Second Street: Additional work is needed to define the extent of
groundwater contamination at this subsite. A report on the results of field
investigations to date is being prepared, which will lead to
recommendations on the best strategies for cleanup.
Well #3 Groundwater: Studies into the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination at this subsite and possible cleanup techniques are
scheduled to begin in 1990. Cleanup activities will begin after cleanup of
the source of contamination is completed (see "Well #3 Soil," above).
Site Facts: The EPA and the City of Hastings entered an Administrative Order on
Consent in 1989 for conducting an investigation at the North Landfill subsite Hastings
Irrigation Pipe Company and the EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent in
1989 for a study at the TCA Contamination Area.
Environmental Progress
Due to the numerous long-term remedial phases and locations of contamineted areas
at the Hastings Groundwater Contamination site, the status of cleanup activities varies
at the different subsites. In general, however, the potential for exposure to
substances in the groundwater and soil has been greatly reduced by closing
contaminated wells and removing hot spots of contaminated soil, while further studies
and cleanup activities take place.
hazardous
down
-------
LINDSAY
MANUFA
COME
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED068645696
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Platte County
Lindsay
Site Description
Lindsay Manufacturing Company generates sulfuric acid waste from a galvanizing
process at its plant. The wastes were discharged into an unlined pond for at least 15
years. The pit was closed in 1983 when three monitoring wells showed contamination.
The site is surrounded by agricultural land. Approximately 3,000 people live within a 3-
mile radius of the site, with the nearest residence being 300 feet away.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
ZE
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater contains heavy metals including zinc, iron, cadmium,
chromium, and lead from former process wastes. Off-site groundwater
contains heavy metals including cadmium, zinc, and volatile organic
compounds {VOCs). VOCs have also been identified in the perched sand ,
channel in the north half of the site, in clay soils in the area around the
northern quarter of the main plant, and between the main plant and the
south end of the galvanizing building. People could be exposed to
contaminants by drinking water from contaminated priVate wells, by direct
contact with contaminated water, or by eating food in which contaminants
have bioaccumulated.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUSWASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
LINDSAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1984, Lindsay began operating an interim piump and
treat system whereby the groundwater is treated by neutralizing and
removing contaminants. The State is monitoring this groundwater
restoration project. Off-site monitoring wells show that the project is
controlling the migration of contaminants from the site.
Entire Site: Lindsay currently is studying the nature and extent of
contamination remaining at the site, as well as the alternative technologies
for cleanup. The study is scheduled to be completed in 1990.
i Environmental Progress
The groundwater restoration project described above has greatly reduced the potential
for exposure to hazardous materials at the Lindsay Manufacturing site while
studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
further
-------
NEBRASKA
ORDNANC
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NE621189001
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Saunders County
1/2 mile east of Mead
Aliases:
Mead Ordnance Plant
University of Nebraska, Mead Field Laboratory
Site Description
The 17,000-acre Nebraska Army Ordnance Plant site operated from 1942 to 1956 as a
munition production plant for four bomb loading lines during World War II and the
Korean War. The plant also was used for munitions storage and ammonium nitrate
production. Some of the processes used organic solvents. Beginning in 1962, portions
of the plant were sold to various entities. Today, the major production area of the
former plant, approximately 9,000 acres, belongs to the University of Nebraska, which
uses it as an agricultural research station. The remaining acreage is owned by the
Nebraska National Guard and numerous individuals and corporations. Approximately
400 people obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. Groundwater
also is used for crop irrigation and livestock watering.
Site Responsibility: Tnis site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and munition wastes. The soil is also contaminated with munitions
wastes as well as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). People who touch or
ingest contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk. In addition, if
contaminated groundwater is used for irrigating or watering livestock, the
contaminants may accumulate in vegetables or animals and pose a health
threat to those who eat them.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an emergency action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
NEBRASKA ARMY ORDINANCE PLANT
I
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: In 1989, the U.S. Army determined that a private well
was contaminated. The EPA immediately responded by providing the
owners with bottled water, which is now provided by the Army.
Entire Site: The Army will conduct an investigation in 1990 to c etermine
the extent of contamination at the site. Once the investigation is
completed, the results will be evaluated to select the proper technology to
clean up the site.
Site Facts: The site is being investigated as part of the Installation Restoration
Program (IRP). Under this program, the Defense Department is studying its [current and
former installations to determine the extent of contamination of these sites and
appropriate cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
Providing bottled water has eliminated the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances in the drinking water while cleanup actions are taken at the Nebraska Army
Ordnance Plant site. I
10
-------
WAVERLY
GROUNDWJ
CONTAME
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED9808627i8^
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lancaster County
Waverly
Aliases:
CCC Commodity Credit Corporation
Hedrick Site
Site Description
The Waverly Groundwater Contamination site extends over an 11-acre area underlying
the City of Waverly. The U.S. Department of Agriculture operated a federal grain facility
in Waverly from 1952 to 1974. A grain fumigant consisting of carbon tetrachloride and
carbon disulfide was used at the facility from 1955 to 1965. Since 1975, the property
has been owned by Lancaster County, which operated a district office and maintenance
facility on the premises. The EPA and the State of Nebraska sampled the municipal
wells in 1982 and found them to be contaminated. One well was taken out of
service, two wells were placed on standby status, and the city drilled a new well to
replace them. The area surrounding the site is predominantly agricultural. The
population of Waverly is approximately 1,700 people. There is a residential area
adjacent to the former grain facility. Several private wells near the site are used for
livestock and crop irrigation. Runoff from the site drains into Salt Creek.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Samples taken from the municipal wells contained concentrations of
heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrates, and sulfates.
The soil is contaminated with VOCs including carbon tetrachloride and
chloroform. Contaminants from the soil have seeped into the aquifer, the
source of water for the municipal water supply. The polluted wells were
taken out of service and new wells drilled; therefore, the municipal water
supply is safe to use. The new wells are upgradientoi the site and are
not likely to be threatened. If contaminated water is used for irrigation or
for watering livestock, pollutants may accumulate in the crops or animals,
which, if eaten, may pose a health threat to people. Because
groundwater discharges into Salt Creek, fish in the creek may be
contaminated and cause adverse health effects in people who eat them.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
WAVERLY GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, as an immediate response to thej
groundwater contamination, the EPA installed groundwater monitoring
wells, a system of pipes and wells in the ground connected to a pump to
remove vapors contaminating soil (soil gas extraction system), and a groundwater
treatment system using air stripping. The groundwater treatment involves forcing a
stream of air through the contaminated water to evaporate the chemicals, Which are
then released into the atmosphere. Air monitoring was conducted to ensure that
emissions are within acceptable limits. Treated groundwater is discharged to a ditch
near the site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is performing the bperation
and maintenance on the groundwater extraction and soil gas treatment system.
Entire Site: The USDA will conduct a study beginning in 19901
determine how effective the immediate actions have been and,
necessary, propose additional actions.
if
Environmental Progress
With the immediate actions described above, the potential for accidental contact with
contaminated groundwater or soil has been greatly reduced. Although there is no
present danger to the drinking water, the EPA and the USDA will continue to ensure
that a safe water supply is provided to area residents by maintaining its groujndwater
monitoring program while further studies take place. j
12
-------
10TH
NEBRASKA
EPA ID# NED9817138&T
REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Platte County
Columbus
Alias:
Columbus Public Water Supply
Site Description
The 10th Street site consists of nine municipal wells located in and around the city of
Columbus. The EPA conducted a soil and gas survey in 1988 and found that four of the
wells are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The highest
contaminant level was detected under a city parking lot that was formerly used as a
scrap metal yard. Among potential sources of soil contamination are a dry cleaning
facility behind the lot and a laundromat. The municipal wells within 3 miles of the site
provide drinking water to approximately 18,600 people. -All the wells use the shallow
aquifer as their water source, which is known to have been contaminated.
Site Responsibility;
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater serving municipal wells is contaminated with VOCs.
The hazardous materials on site could contaminate the nearby Loup River;
however, there are no known toxic effects from consuming the drinking
water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
1OTH STREET SITE
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA plans to start an investigation of the site to evaluate
the nature and extent of contamination. After the work is completed,
scheduled for 1992, the EPA will be able to determine the best| methods
for the site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
At the time that this summary was written, this site had just obtained NPL ^tatus, and it
was too early to discuss environmental progress. The EPA will be performing a study
to assess the need for any intermediate actions to make the site safer while waiting for
long-term cleanup actions to begin. Results of this assessment will be despribed in our
next edition.
14
-------
"N:-,
; his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Nebraska. 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.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
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.
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.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Downgradienfc A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
G-l
-------
' S V V '. '
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very good
oxidizing agents and, therefore, have many industrial uses. They are rarely found by
themselves; however, many chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), some
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and dioxin are reactive because of the presence of
halogens.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site containing exceptionally high levels olf contami-
nation.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier. I
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants frojn those
sites.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal e.gency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing he activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
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
porous and permeable rock.
through
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often day or rock.
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. I
G-2
-------
V-
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfiUs.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
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-3
-------
------- |