EPA/540/4-90/031
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
New Mexico
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
, * " * * ,~""^ i--,.,.. -" , , - %'
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets , G-1
-------
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
-------
INTRODUCTION
tively 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 construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline/' EPA is
clearly gaining momentum,
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater; must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives,
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
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
ha2ardous 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
-------
JIM 9
Iff fl
Wow does E
about potential
Itazardous waste
sites?
iWhat happens |jp
[there is an imnunepJL
\ danger?
fr
*-
1
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.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
If there isn't an
^imminent danger,
tow does JB^A
letermine wnat, if s
fany, cleanup actions
Vshottld be taken?
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 water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
Vlll
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so how 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
[ t:\-t: , ;..; ^ .. * < ^.. .-..,.« ^
*" ^ . fff "" ^ ^^ ^
- "" i."s
If ffie preliiuJ
,:- that A Sadoi*s- threat- - -
^mtfy *a&&£ whai^s liiTT^
IX
-------
, How do people find 5
font whether WA ^4 J
^considers a site a ^;%\ ,x
^national priority for^r^f
Jlcleanup tising ' "E-f^
Superfund moiieyt i xu
WUUMO .« ... ^.^^.^V.-A
I
fl
li
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
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 on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
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.
4o ihe NPlty wMat are
to
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
s,
v-\\
QW are cleanup
alternatives
identified
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 site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site/ more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use 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 problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem,
r
Jr
jDoes the public have % Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
say in the final v * 5 L'"L1 J"' *~-r-
cleanup decision?
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan, Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
-------
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
xiii
' «&$0n needs to ,
- tailored to a siter dtf es
e deslgfi of fke - - -
,tyt flowed
-------
SUPERFUND
* j:
I
\ Once the design" ins
I complete, how long
I does it take to
i actually clean up the
; site and how a
. does it cost?
I
1=
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
Once the cleanup
action is complete, is ,
the site automatically ^
''deleted" from the
NPL? \ ,
y s \. *&»,'««
vw v wCi
^4
^~>
tf
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And 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.
Cajj. JSPA, malsg paxttesr ]
fo-r the
#«
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
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.
xvu
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Statu*
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, grpundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage,of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional informati9n 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 what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of New
New Mexico is the fifth largest state in the Union and covers 121,335 square miles.
Going from east to west, the terrain consists of the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains,
and high plateau. New Mexico experienced a 15,6 percent increase in population
through the 1980s and currently has approximately 1,500,000 residents, ranking 37th in
U.S. populations. The State is home to many military installations and supports
extractive industries, tourism and agriculture. New Mexico industries manufacture a
variety of goods, including foods electrical machinery, apparel, lumber, printing and
transportation equipment.
How Many New Mexico Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
4
6
a
10
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
1 site
9 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
10--
8--
* 4 4-
2 --
GW Soil& SW Seds Air
Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and radiation.
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), acids, and
radiation.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), acids, and
other organics.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics) and
radiation,
'Appear at 20% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* ?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 7 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in New Mexico, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
New Mexico Superfund Office
EPA Region VI Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region VI Superfund Public
Relations Office
(505) 827-2775
(214)655-6705
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(214) 655-2240
* 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 (>-} 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.
XXlll
-------
-------
-------
-------
ATCHISON, T0
SANTA FE (AT
NEW MEXICO
EPAID# NMD043158591
Site Description
REGION 6
CONGI^SSIQNAL DliX 02
Guny County
South of the AT&SF Railway
switching yard In Cloyis
Alias:
Clovis Site
The Atchison, Topeka, arid Santa Fe (AT&SF) Superfund site is comprised of an
approximately 26-acre area. For nearly 90 years, Santa Fe Lake, sometimes referred to
as Playa Lake, has received the wastewater discharge from AT&SF's railway
operations. The type of wastes changed over the years, but in the mid-1950s, AT&SF
began washing hopper cars at its nearby switching and repair yard. Cars hauling
potash, cement, fertilizer, grain, and coke were cleaned and the wastewater wa,s piped
to the lake. The hopper car washing facility.was closed in 1982, The area surrounding
the site is rural, but 31,000 people live nearby. The lake is currently fenced off from
public access. The closest residences are 2,000 feet away, and the closest drinking
water well is 1,200 feet away from the site..
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTJNG HIST0BY
Proposed Date; 10/23/81
Final Date; 09/0.8/183
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments and groyndwater in Santa Fe Lake are contaminated with
metals, fluoride and petroleum hydrocarbons. Contaminants found },n on-
site soil include petroleum hydrocarbons and phenols. Surface water
contaminants include metals and inorganic chemicals, the ^gty/ferthat
extends under the lake is the source of drinking water for the town of
Clovis. Although contamination of the grouhdwater does not currently
threaten the town water supply, the migration of contaminants from the
lake is possible if the source of contamination is not removed, Possible
threats include eating, drinking, direct contact with, or inhaling the
contaminated materials.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
conffnyed
-------
-------
-------
CAL WEST METALS SITE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase that will be aimed at
cleanup of the entire site-
Response Action Status
Entire Site; Studies of the nature and extent of site contamination and
potential cleanup actions are scheduled to begin in 1990. Once completed,
the EPA will evaluate the investigation findings and select a final cleanup
remedy for contamination at the Cal West Metals site.
\Etwironmental Progress
Following listing of the Cal West Metals site on the NPL, the EPA assessed the site
conditions and determined that it presently poses no immediate threat to public health
or the environment While further studies into cleanup alternatives are being conducted.
-------
CIMARRON MI
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMD980749378
REGION 6
'CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Lincoln County
Carrizozo
Site Description
From 1979 to 1982, the Cimarron Mining site operated as a metal recovery mill using a
solution of cyanide salt and metal stripper. The site covers approximately 5 to 10 acres.
Before 1979, gold was extracted using cyanide. Both processes generated a liquid
waste containing cyanide and heavy metals. The facility was operated without the
required permits, and the State cited the company for environmental violations in 1982.
Cimarron Mining filed for bankruptcy in 1983, and the following year an inspection
revealed two cyanide solution tanks, a discharge pit, an impoundment, an uncovered
pile of mine tailings, and a drum storage area. Approximately 1,500 people obtain
drinking water from 29 municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. The nearest municipal
well is about 2 miles away. Wells are also used to irrigate food crops.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soil contain contamination from
cyanide and heavy metals. The levels of cyanide on the site are
potentially toxic to people, and direct contact with or accidental ingestion
of wastes and contaminated soils and groundwater poses a risk. The
deeper aquifer used for drinking water could become contaminated, and
there is an exposure potential from breathing airborne dust. The site is
fenced and is 300 yards south of a public recreation area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
CIMARRON MINING CORP'.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages; immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
X" Immediate Actions: The site was fenced and warning signs were posted
to alert the nearby community,of contaminated site conditions.
Entire Site: The EPA began an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site in 1989. This study will define the contamination
and will recommend various cleanup alternatives. The site investigation is
scheduled to be complete in early 1991. Once completed, the EPA will evaluate the
study findings and select the final long-term clean-up remedies for the contamination at
the Cimarron Mining site.
Environmental Progress
Constructing a fence to limit access to the Cimarron Mining site has reduced the
potential for nearby residents to come into direct contact with contaminants on the site
while it awaits completion of the site investigations and further long-term cleanup
activities.
-------
CLEVELAND
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMD981155930
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST, 02
Grant County
5 miles northeast of Silver City
Site Description -- -
The abandoned Cleveland Mill site was used as a metal mine and mill and covers
approximately 10 acres. The site has a long history of mining activity going back to
1910, Approximately 12,000 cubic yards of mine tailings are piled on the site, Tailings
were piped from, the mill to the steeply sloping side of a small valley and were left
uncovered, unstabilized, and unlined. Approximately 1,200 area residents draw drinking
water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. A site investigation revealed that
runoff from the facility has acidified Little Walnut Creek and contaminated it with
metals. The creek and downstream waters are used for recreation.
site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water at Little Walnut Creek are
contaminated with heavy metals including lead, silver, zinc, copper, and
arsenic. The tailings and polluted surface water are in areas that recharge
the alluvial aquifer. Water moves downward from the coarse, permeable
shallow aquifer toward the. bedrock aquifer. There is a possibility that
drinking water could become contaminated from the groundwater
contamination, Direct Contact with the unrestricted tailings piles and
contact with surface waters could present a threat to human health,
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SifES
7
continued
-------
CLEVELAND MILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on
contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is planning to start an investigation in 1990 into,the
nature and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation will define
the contaminants of concern and recommend alternatives for sojl and
surface cleanup at the site.
\Environmental Progress
After adding the Cleveland Mills site to the NPL, the EPA has conducted an evaluation
and determined that there are currently no immediate actions required while awaiting
the results of the investigation and decisions on the cleanup alternatives for the site.
-------
HOMESTAK
COMPANY
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMD007860935
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Valencia County
Route 53 north of Milan and Grants
Aliases:
United Nuclear Homestake Partners
UNC/Homestake
Site Description
The Homestake Mining Company site is a uranium mill on standby status, largely
operational since 1958. More than 22 million tons of mine tailings have been piled over
245 acres of ground; the pile now rises to 100 feet. Although there are private wells in
the area of the site, they have not been used since the company installed alternate
water supplies in 1985. Public Wells have not been found to be contaminated.
Approximately 200 people live within 1 mile of the tailings piles. The nearest home and
private drinking well are 3,000 feet from the edge of the nearest tailings pile. Seepage
from the site's tailings piles has polluted a shallow aquifer and parts of the Upper Chinle
aquifer that provided water to four subdivisions 1/2 to 2 miles away.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
IA
Threats and Contaminants
Alkaline mill tailings are locally emitting radon gas. Windblown
particulates containing lead, radium, and uranium are transported via the
air. Radium has entered surface water from these mill tailings. These
tailings also seep sulfate, sodium, molybdenum, selenium, and uranium
into the groundwater. The shallow aquifer has been contaminated, but
this threat has been circumvented by a new water supply to the area's
residents. Studies of elevated radon levels in homes near the mill found
that the gas is coming from nearby soils rather than from the site itself.
Off-site soil contamination has been consolidated on site and will continue
to be cleaned up should wind dispersion of tailings occur. Inhalation or
accidental consumption of contaminated dust is a potential threat, as is
eating food contaminated by radioactive dust.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on radon and mine tailings.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1985, Homestake Mining had the Milan water system
extended to residents of the four subdivisions near the mill, paying hookup
and water charges for 10 years. The company is collecting contaminated
water from the shallow and the Upper Chinle aquifers and injecting water from the
deeper aquifer in an effort to flush and improve the water quality of contaminated
zones. The EPA and Homestake Mining helped affected homeowners to measure
radon levels in their homes and in ambient outdoor air and to identify methods for
reducing the indoor levels. The efforts have been largely successful in flushing
previous contaminated off site zones, and seepage has been contained on site.
Radon: Evaluation of the completed site investigation revealed that the mill
and its tailings do not significantly contribute to radon levels in the
subdivisions. The EPA has concluded that local soils are the principal source
of radon and that no further action is required at the site. Homestake presently is
conducting off-site monitoring to assure that radon levels are below regulatory concern.
Mine Tailings: The tailings piles will be dewateredas part of the corrective
action program. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued
Homestake a Source Material License in 1986 and has since required
Homestake to delineate the area extent of windblown tailings off site.
Radiological survey data identified impacted areas that were subsequently cleaned up
to regulatory levels as part of a land cleanup program. Efforts to stabilize and dewater
the tailings have begun. As of 1988, off-site soil contamination either has been cleaned
up or is in the process of being cleaned up. Monitoring of air emissions from the site
indicate that particulate radiation levels are within New Mexico State guidelines.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in 1983 and an Administrative Order was
signed by Homestake Mining Company in 1987 to perform cleanup activities at the site.
Homestake Mining is updating residents on progress and conditions at the site.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions have provided a safe drinking water supply and studies have
determined that site contamination is not contributing to elevated indoor radon levels
found in some area homes. Soil decontamination is presently underway at the
Homestake Mining site and has reduced contamination to within State regulatory limits.
10
-------
LEE ACRES
LANDFILL
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMD980750020
Site Description
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST, 02
San Juan County
Farmington
The Lee Acres Landfill, a Federal facility site, covers 40 acres of public land in San Juan
County. In 1962, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leased 20 acres to San Juan
County to operate a county landfill. The lease was renewed in 1981, with another 20
acres added to the county's lease. The landfill consists of an undetermined number of
solid waste trenches and four unlined waste lagoons, including water produced from oil
and gas field operations, waste oil, spent acids, chlorinated organic solvents, and
septage: The Lee Acres residential subdivision and the Giant Industries refinery are
nearby. Approximately 400 residents use shallow a//uv/a/groundwater within 3 miles of
the site. During a rain storm in 1985, a dike broke on one of the lagoons, resulting in
wastes entering an arroyo that feeds the San Juan River, a recreational area near the
site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and solid waste sludge are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including dichloroethane and benzene.
Contaminants were found in a residential well, presenting the potential of
exposure to nearby residents who obtain their water from the shallow
groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
LEE ACRES LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
concentrating on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
X" Initial Actions: In 1985, the Governor called the National Guard to secure
the perimeter while the BLM ordered the County to fence the site. The
New Mexico Environmental Improvements Division (NMEID) hired a
contractor to treat the lagoon contents with ferric chloride to prevent further release of
gases. The County subsequently filled in the four lagoons. An alternative water supply
was found in 1986, and hookups were completed in 1987. A total of 31 groundwater
monitoring wells and piezometers were installed around the landfill by BLM contractors
in 1987; 5 additional wells were installed in 1989.
Entire Site: Plans for studies into the nature and extent of the
contamination and possible cleanup alternatives are undergoing review and
revision. The U.S. Geological Survey will be included in the review
process. This investigation is scheduled to be complete in 1992. NMEID requested
that Lee Acres be reclassified as a non-Federal facility because the groundwater
contamination stems from the Giant Refinery and the landfill.
Site Facts: The EPA is currently drafting an Interagency Agreement for the site. There
is significant public interest in the Lee Acres site. BLM held three public meetings on
the landfill in 1988 in Farmington, Santa Fe and Albuquerque, to seek public comments
on cleanup approaches at the site.
Environmental Progress
Fencing of the site and treatment of the lagoons, as well as the other activities on the
Lee Acres Landfill site have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminants while
the site awaits further cleanup activities.
12
-------
PAGANO
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMD980749980
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Valencia County
1 mile southeast of Los Lunas
Alias:
Waste Electric Transformer #4
Site Description
The 1 1/4-acre Pagano Salvage site housed a metal salvage facility. In 1983, the
operators bought electric transformers and capacitors containing polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) oils from a U.S. Department of Energy facility in Albuquerque. They
then removed the oil, poured it over insulated wire, and burned off the insulation to
recover the wire. Burning occurred on unprotected ground at several locations. Soil
sampling in 1985 and 1987 showed PCB and pesticide contamination to a depth of 4
feet. PCBs were still being found in soils in 1988, as well as in nearby Otero Drain and
in some fish tissue. About 11,000 people obtain drinking water from public and private
wells within 3 miles of the site. Surface water near the site is used to irrigate
croplands.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The soil contains high concentrations of PCBs and pesticides, including
DDT and DDE. Groundwater at the site is shallow (about 5 feet), and the
soil consists of very permeable alluvial deposits. These conditions
facilitate movement of contaminants into groundwater and pose a
potential for contamination of the drinking water supply. Additionally,
crops and locally raised foodstuffs may become tainted if irrigated with
the contaminated water supply.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
PAGANO SALVAGE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an emergency action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
X" Emergency Action: In response to immediate threats to the nearby public,
the EPA excavated about 1,800 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris
in 1989 and moved it to an approved facility.
Entire Site: An investigation of the remaining portions of the site will begin
in 1990 to determine the extent and nature of site contamination and to
identify technologies for cleanup. When this phase is completed, the EPA
will evaluate the study findings and select a final cleanup strategy for site
contamination.
Environmental Progress
With the emergency removal of contaminated soils and debris, the EPA has removed
the accessible sources of contamination and greatly reduced the potential for exposure
to hazardous materials on the site. These actions have made the Pagano Salvage site
safer while final cleanup remedies are being investigated.
14
-------
PREWITT AB
REFINERY
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMP980622773
Site Description
OHED
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST, 02
McKinley County
WestpfPrewttpnU,©, Hwy, @§
.Aliases:
Petroleum Products Refinery
Prewitt Tar Pits
The Prewitt Refinery site, situated on 75 acres, was run under several different
operators from the early 1940s to 1965, The site consists of two tracts; Tract A (68
acres) bears the ruins of the refinery, waste pits, tank bases, and rubble from removed
equipment, and Tract B (7 acres) includes two major spill areas and the remains of a
pump lift station. In 1982, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
detected benzene in a nearby private well and, in 1986, detected benzene and xylenes
in an on^site well to a depth of 17 feet. About 1,600 people draw from the public and
private wells within 3 miles of the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with lead and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including xylene and toluene. Possible hazards
include direct contact with or consumption of contaminated groundwater.
Contamination of residential wells adjacent to the site has been recorded;
one well has been closed and a second has become contaminated.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on the entire site,
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
PREWITT ABANDONED REFINERY
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under agreements with the EPA, former owners of
the refinery have begun activities to reduce immediate threats posed by the
site. In 1989, they built a security fence and began treating well water to
remove contamination, protecting nearby residents from contaminants.
Entire Site: The former owners also began an extensive investigation of
the nature and extent of the contamination in 1989. This study, conducted
under EPA supervision, is planned for completion in 1991; the EPA will then
select the final cleanup remedies for the site.
Site Facts: In 1989, an Administrative Order was issued to parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination to fence the site and treat contaminated water
wells. Also, in 1989, an Administrative Order was signed with potentially responsible
parties to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination
and identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
By fencing the site and treating the contaminated well water, the nearby residents are
being protected from contaminants, making the Prewitt Refinery site safer while it
awaits further long-term cleanup activities.
16
-------
SOUTH VALLE
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMD980745558
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Bernalillo County
Albuquerque
Alias:
South Valley FOB Tank Site
Site Description
The South Valley site encompasses 2 square miles with a number of industrial
properties owned and operated by different organizations found on site. Industrial
development in South Valley began in the 1950s, including .metal parts manufacturing.
By the 1960s, organic chemicals were being handled in the area. Presently, petroleum
fuels and various other organic chemicals are stored and handled within the area. The
main activity on the Duke City property is the repackaging of petroleum and related
automotive products, including antifreeze, diesel fuel, gasoline, and methanol. The
Whitfield property was in operation until 1986, as a delivery truck base for shipping bulk
jet fuel, diesel fuel, asphalt, caustic soda, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid products. The
Edmunds Street property, located in the southeastern corner, surrounds the monitoring
well SV-10 and is the low spot of the property, thus receiving much of the property
drainage. Another contaminated area surrounds the SJ-6 municipal water well, which
was shut down in 1980 due to the continual detection of low levels of solvents. In
1951, the Atomic Energy Commission conducted machining of metal parts, plating,,and
welding on the western portion of the site. In 1967, the Air Force took over the
property and converted the plant into an aircraft engine manufacturing plant operated
by General Electric. General Electric then bought the plant in 1983, and currently
produces aircraft engine parts. South Valley has been designated as the State's
highest priority site for cleanup due to the presence of potentially high concentrations
of hazardous substances in the groundwater near the City of San Jose's wellfield.
Several aquifers underlie the site.. Approximately 70,000 people in Albuquerque are
served by the San Jose reservoir system. A residential district of 590 people lies just
northwest of the General Electric Facility. An .area 3/4 miles south of the site contains
housing where food crops are grown and some livestock is raised.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL. LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
SOUTH VALLfcY
I
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including toluene and xylenes. The groundwater,
which is contaminated with up to 47 compounds, is migrating towards
Albuquerque's sole source aquifer. Thirteen off-site wells have shown
contamination. All of these wells are now closed. Because of the
gardens and livestock close by, the food chain is at risk. It is believed that
the groundwater on site is only used by the people employed by the
businesses on site. Direct contact with contaminants and inhalation of
vapors is also a threat to on-site workers. Workers at Chevron, Texaco,
and Duke City are most susceptible to the contamination, because these
sites have the greatest surface soil contamination.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages; an initial action and three long-term
remedial phases focusing on groundwater treatment near municipal well SJ-6, the
drainage pit areas at the Edmunds Street property, and contaminants at the General
Electric property.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1984, the EPA removed 3,450 gallons of contaminated oil
and 63,580 pounds of contaminated soil and debris, along with a 48,140-
pound tanker. All materials were disposed of off site. The excavated areas
were then backfilled and graded. A new well was installed by the EPA in 1988, to
replace the capacity of the contaminated municipal well SJ-6.
Groundwater: In order to address the groundwater contamination in the
vicinity of municipal well SJ-6, the EPA has given the potentially responsible
parties the obligation of removing and disposing of 100 yards of
contaminated sediments at the base of the SJ-6 borehole, sealing
abandoned wells, monitoring the groundwater, and putting up restrictions to access.
These actions are underway and scheduled to continue through 1991. .Cleanup at
adjacent areas of the site as well as these source control measures will reduce the
plume concentrations to below State health criteria within 5 years. Federal health
criteria are already being attained.
Edmunds Street Property: The parties responsible for this area of
contamination will pump and treat the groundwater and then air filter the
volatile contaminants to a gas. They will then reinject the treated water into
the aquifer and monitor the groundwater and air. These actions are planned
to begin in 1990.
continued
18
-------
SOUTH VALLEY
General Electric Property: Four hazardous waste storage areas, a parking
lot contaminated with oil, and another area contaminated with methylene
chloride and freon around the former Air Force Plant and General Electric will
be addressed by the responsible parties. The selected remedies are: the
installation of soil vapor extraction wells; extraction of contaminants from the soil with
vacuum pressure; and further sampling and defining of the soil contamination.
Groundwater extraction wells in both the shallow and the deep aquifer were installed.
Extracted water will be treated by air filtering volatile contaminants to a gas followed by
carbon adsorption and reinjection of treated water into the aquifers. All remedial
actions are scheduled to be completed by 1990.
Site Facts: Groundwater was first suspected to be contaminated in 1978 when
peculiar tastes and odors were noted by users of a private well on the Edmunds Street
property. Investigations into the General Electric property were conducted from 1984'
to 1988 by the Air Force under a Memorandum of Understanding with the EPA. In
1989, a unilateral Administrative Order was issued to General Electric. The community
is organized, and Congress is following the site. All public outreach efforts need
Spanish translation.
Environmental Progress
Through the immediate removal of contaminated oil, soil, and debris, and the
installation of a new well, the EPA had reduced possible hazardous exposures at the
South Valley site. In addition, groundwater contamination has been reduced to meet
Federal health criteria, making the site safer to nearby residents while it awaits futher
cleanup activities.
19
-------
UNITED NUCLE
CORPORATION
NEW MEXICO
EPA ID# NMQD030443303
REGION 6
NGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
McKinley County
Church Rock,
17 miles northeast of Gallup
Aliases:
UNC Mining and Milling
Church Rock Mill
Site Description
This site operated as a State-licensed uranium mill from 1977 to 1982. It includes an
25-acre ore-processing mill and a 100-acre unlined mine tailings pond area.
Approximately 3 1/2 million tons of tailings were pumped to disposal ponds by 1982.
1979, a dam breach released about 23 million gallons of tailings and pond water to
Pipeline Canyon Arroyo and the Rio Puerco. While the site damage was repaired,
attention was focused on groundwater contamination resulting from tailings seepage
and wastewater discharge. Three aquifers are contaminated: the alluvial, the Upper
Gallup Zone 3, and the Upper Gallup Zone 1. The mill ceased operations in 1982. In
1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) took over licensing authority for the
site. The surrounding area is sparsely populated, with the nearest residence located 1
1/2 miles from the site. A Navajo Reservation lies 1/2 mile north of the site. Four
water wells are within a 4-mile radius, the nearest being 2 miles northeast of the site;
however, nearby residents generally have used bottled water for drinking, since the
well water had a bad taste.
In
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and surface water is contaminated with radioactive
elements, sulfate, aluminum, ammonia, and iron from mining wastes.
Possible health threats include accidental ingestion of, inhalation of, or
direct contact with the contaminants. The Upper Gallup aquifer is
contaminated by seepage from the tailings ponds.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
20
continued
-------
UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two steps: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties repaired the dam
breach that dumped 23 million gallons of tailings and pond water into the
Rio Puerco in 1979. The potentially responsible parties also constructed a
groundwater pumping system that withdrew groundwater from the aquifers underlying
the site and sent it to an on-site borrow pit for evaporation. Also, they conducted
tailings neutralization from 1979 to 1982. A pond evaporation system was installed in
1989, as well as a cluster of pumping wells to augment the groundwater treatment
system.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA finished an intensive investigation of site
contaminants and potential cleanup strategies. The selected remedies
include: (1) a monitoring program that will detect any spreading or
intensification of the contamination at and beyond the border of the tailings
disposal area; (2) operation of existing seepage extraction systems in the Upper Gallup
aquifers; (3) containment and removal of contaminated groundwater in the alluvial and
Upper Gallup sandstone using existing and additional wells; (4) evaporation of
groundwater removed from aquifers outside the disposal area using evaporation ponds
supplemented with mist or spray systems to speed evaporation; and (5) a performance
and evaluation program to determine water level and contaminant reductions in each
aquifer, and the extent and duration of pumping actually required outside the tailings
disposal area. The EPA and the NRC are taking responsibility for managing separate
phases of the site's cleanup. The EPA will manage cleanup of groundwater outside the
disposal area. The NRC will manage disassembly of the mill, removal of contaminated
groundwater, and reclamation of the mill site. The potentially responsible parties will
perform the work under Federal supervision once the design of the cleanup remedies
are completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA issued an Administrative Orcferto the potentially
responsible parties requiring them to perform groundwater cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions performed at the United Nuclear Corporation site have stabilized the
mine tailings and protected the Rio Puerco from further contamination spills.
Groundwater treatment is under way reducing contamination levels while further
cleanup activities are planned.
21
-------
-------
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
; fact sheets for the State of New Mexico. The terms
and abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
'defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Alluvial: An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity of contaminated air sources.
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.
Arroyo: A dry gully; a rivulet or streambed.
G-l
-------
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Borehole: A hole drilled into the ground used to sample soil and groundwater.
Borrow Fib An excavated area where soil, sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between EPA and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the potentially responsible parties are re-
quired to perform and/or the costs incurred by the government that the parties will
reimburse, as well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options that the gov-
ernment may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties.
If a settlement between EPA and a potentially responsible party includes cleanup ac-
tions, it must be in the form of a consent decree. A consent decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Dewaten To remove water from wastes, soils, or chemicals.
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.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. 'States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
G-2
-------
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 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.
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.
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.
Sediment The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
G-3
-------
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank after the treatment process.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with graded soils and seed for vegetative
growth to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroetiv-
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
------- |