EPA/540/4-90/034
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
North and South Dakota
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
-------
r- 4v
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:
State Overviews xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxv
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
\ \ \ . ff *AV' -> %
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 wat^r
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 mbnitoring 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 splving 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 r-^-
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
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.
STEP 1
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 hi the Nation
h 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.
vu
-------
SUPERHJNP
hete is an J
w^?***
"V M,.
-;;^ ;
3Z ^ \ .s^i-^xW^
Kgiinent da^gefe "'
iow
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 td 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. .
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
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.
- tttata sertoias Unreal
,j»*y «xM,what's Hie
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
How does EPA use
IX
-------
SUPERFUND
\xi ,sS «&. x>v& ?s
S~»SSSS^S
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM GLEANUP 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.
, to
s-\
XI
-------
SUPERFUND
yftowjipe "deaiiytp ^ s\ ^;
pttfematlves s ^ ^H*^^
l^etttifkd attd Ji^l_^
fe^..->. -; - "; s"s;" - ^
S£«k - "s**^* -s-V^* -
^ r\--- ' * "K?%r, s
» s %' X> "
^ ^\ss \s
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.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
je
5*
.-W
.. ":<,
(Vi* f
,f
^f
A'->
s V^f
i^ .
:*;
^
&SK
^v- V-1
o
';*»
, <'
"'''.
'f
\"«tXT
' ^ ' -.'
,- «s . =
&
.-. "^'^> '^^''X ^^'-
i«^v
yP-
xiii
-------
SUPERFUND
-
e$ it Jske to ? *
gite and Kow j&w&r :
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.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And 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.
- -^r\ - "*v,
fot 11^
',*"
*v
\
<*
-------
TAX
-------
"",; he Site Fact Sheets
'^presented in this book
are comprehensive
. JT
X^.«.V'.w.s','.'.\\«.'.%s« . , i . - ' i «
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
at the site.
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
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
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.
xvm
-------
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.
_.,
s f s^, &'
Sv-:-.-.-. v. \
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 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 necess.ary.
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 North
North Dakota lies in the West North Central section of the United States, situated ex-
actly in the middle of North America. The State is bordered on the north by Canada,
the east by Minnesota, the south by South Dakota, and the Montana to the west.
North Dakota covers 70,702 square miles and consists of the Missouri Plateau of the
Great Plains in the west, and the Central Lowland in the east, which comprises the Red
River Valley and the Rolling Drift Plain. The State experienced a 2.2 percent increase in
population through the 1980s and currently has approximately 667,000 residents,
ranking 46th in U.S. populations. Principal state industries include agriculture, mining,
tourism, and the manufacture of farm equipment and processed foods.
How Many North Dakota Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
0
2
Cong. District 01
2 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
5--
4--
2 --
1 --
GW Soil SW
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pesticides
and radiation.
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics),
and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
Surface Water: Heavy metals
(inorganics), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
'Appear at 50% 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 2 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in North Dakota, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
North Dakota Superfund Office
EPA Region VIII Superfund Office
EPA Region VIII Superfund Community Relations
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
EPA Superfund Hotline
(701)224-2366
(303) 293-1720
(303) 294-1144
(202) 475-7751
(800) 424-9346
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
-------
South Dakota is a North West Central state bordered on the north by North Dakota, on
the east by Minnesota and Iowa, on the south by Nebraska, and Wyoming and Mon-
tana to the west. The State covers 77,116 square miles consisting of the Prairie Plains
in the east, the rolling hills of the Great Plains in the west, and the Black Hills in the
southwest corner. South Dakota experienced a 3.2 percent increase in population
through the 1980s and currently has approximately 713,000 residents, ranking 45th in
U.S. populations. Principal state industries include agriculture, services, and manufac-
turing. North Dakota produces food and kindred products, machinery, and electric and
electronic equipment.
How Many South Dakota Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
2
1
fi
3
Cong. District 01
3 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
*
5- -
4 - -
3--
2 4-
1
GW Soil SW Seds
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), pesticides,
radiation, and other inorganics.
Soil: Heavy metals (inorganics).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics),
volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), creosotes (inorganics),
and pesticides, radiation, and
other inorganics.
* Appear at 33% or more sites
State Overview
xxiii
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in South Dakota, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental
progress. Should you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
South Dakota Superfund Office
EPA Region VIII Superfund Office
EPA Region VIII Superfund Community Relations
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
EPA Superfund Hotline
(605)773-3153
{303)293-1720
(303)294-1144
(202) 475-7751
(800) 424-9346
'Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
XXIV
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*-) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
K 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.
XXV
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of North Dakota
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1 ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SITE
3 MINOT LANDFILL
RICHMOND
WARD
Final 09/08/83
Final 03/31/89
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of South Dakota
5 ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE PENNINGTON
7 WHITEWOOD CREEK LAWRENCE
9 WILLIAMS PIPE LINE DISPOSAL PIT MINNEHAHA
Prop 10/26/89
Final 09/08/83
Prop 10/26/89
XXVI
-------
-------
-------
ARSENIC
SITE
NORTH DAKOT/
EPA ID# NDD98071696J
IDE
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Richmond County
20 townships in Richland, Ransom,
and Sargent Counties
Site Description
The Arsenic Trioxide site consists of 20 townships covering approximately 500 square
miles of land. Heavy grasshopper infestations of agricultural crops in the 1930s
resulted in widespread and frequent applications of arsenic-based pesticides. In 1979,
it was discovered that the public and private water supplies for the City of Lidgerwood
exceeded the maximum contaminant level for arsenic. Naturally occurring arsenic in
shale found in the area may also have contributed to the contamination problem.
Approximately 4,500 people reside in the area. In 1970, 278 homes in Lidgerwood that
used private wells were considered to be at a health risk due to arsenic exposure.
Presently, groundwater is used for agricultural and domestic purposes.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a. combination of Federal and State
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with arsenic as a result of the use of
arsenic-based pesticides. People who drink from private wells in the area
could be adversely affected. Public water supplies in several small cities
are being addressed, including the cities of Lidgerwood and Wyndmere.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ARSENIC TRIOXIDE SITE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on the cleanup of the rural areas water system and treatment of the
water supplies of Lidgerwood and Wyndmere.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1986, 10,000 square feet of contaminated surface area
were covered with clay. Individual treatment units were installed in 116
private wells, and five residences were hooked up to a rural water supply
system. Also, an abandoned bait station was cleaned up. In 1988 and 1989, the City of
Lidgerwood's water treatment plant was repaired and the filter sand was changed. A
design to upgrade this treatment plant has been approved by the State.
Rural Areas Water System: Based on the results of the site
investigation, the EPA has selected to expand the construction and hookup
of homes to the new rural water treatment and distribution system to be
constructed by the State of North Dakota in 1990 and to evaluate institutional controls
on well use and well drilling.
Lidgerwood/Wyndmere: Based on the results of the site investigation,
the EPA is assisting the City of Lidgerwood with its efforts to improve its
water treatment plant. Construction to improve the Lidgerwood water
treatment plant began in 1989 and is scheduled for completion in 1990.
The EPA has also provided funds to the City of Wyndmere to increase its water
treatment plant's capability to handle periods of high demand. Site work began in 1989
at the Wyndmere water treatment system and the plant began operations that same
year. Treated water is now being pumped to city water users. The treatment plant's
operating procedures and equipment will continue to be monitored for 1 year, under
State request, to ensure that the treatment plant consistently operates as designed and
produces high quality, colorless drinking water. In 1990, the City of Lidgerwood, the
North Dakota State Department of Health, and the EPA conducted an inspection of the
treatment plant; additional minor modifications are required.
Site Facts: In 1982, a Cooperative Agreement was awarded to the North Dakota State
Department of Health to conduct a remedial investigation. In 1985, the State of North
Dakota was awarded a second Cooperative Agreement to conduct an investigation into
the nature and extent of site contamination as well as the most effective methods to
cleanup the site.
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the State have taken action to install water treatment facilities and provide
waterline hookups to affected residents. These actions have eliminated the potential
for area residents to access contaminated drinking water supplies. The EPA and the
State will continue to monitor water quality and to provide required modifications to
treatment facilities.
-------
MINOT LANDFILB^
NORTH DAKOX
EPA ID# NDD980959548
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Ward County
Mlnot
Alias:
Old Minot Landfill
Site Description
The 45-acre Minot Landfill was privately owned but was operated by the City of Minot
from 1962 to 1971. The landfill received refuse from several nearby industries from
1962 to 1970. While the exact composition of the disposal materials is not known,
available sources indicate that oily wastes, spent battery casings, calcium carbide, lime
sludge from acetylene production, and wastes from the construction of nearby missile
sites are probable elements of the wastes. Runoff from the site area flows toward the
Souris River, a source of drinking water for the City of Minot with a population of
approximately 33,000 people. Additional residential and commercial development has
been proposed for the area. The nearest home and business are approximately 750
feet from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, Municipal, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Hazardous compounds detected in on-site groundwater include barium,
arsenic, and manganese. Two monitoring wells downgradient of the
burial cells contain various volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Soils
contain chlorinated organics and inorganic contaminants similar to those in
groundwater. Surface water analysis showed the presence of zinc,
toluene, benzene compounds, and xylene. Potential risks may exist for
individuals touching or drinking the contaminated groundwater or
leachate. The Souris River may be threatened by runoff from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
MINOT LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The City of Minot has installed a fence around the landfill.
Parties potentially responsible for site contamination have completed
additional fencing and surface erosion control measures at the site to halt
pesticides and metal contamination in the landfill from seeping to the surface.
Entire Site: The EPA is scheduled to conduct an investigation in 1990 to
determine the extent of the groundwater contamination at the site and to
identify alternative technologies to clean up the groundwater and areas
surrounding the site. Cleanup is scheduled to begin soon thereafter.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a fence has restricted access to the site and reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances at the Minot Landfill site. Surface erosion control
measures have been completed to prevent the possible migration of contaminants to
the Souris River while further cleanup investigations are scheduled to begin.
-------
ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE CONGRSZ8DIsr
Meade and Pennington Counties
BASE
SOUTH DAKOTA
EPA ID# SD2571924644
Site Description
11 miles northeast of Rapid City
The 4,858-acre Ellsworth Air Force Base was established in 1942 and is now the site of
the 44th Strategic Missile Wing of the Strategic Air Command (SAC). Activities at the
base generate a variety of chlorinated solvents, waste oils contaminated with solvents,
pesticides, and other hazardous wastes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
disposed of at various areas on the base throughout its history of operations. The EPA
has identified 5 contaminated areas at the base. Of these, 4 are unlined landfills and
one is the burn pit for the Fire Protection Training area. The DOD has identified an
additional 13 contaminated areas on site. Between 1987 and 1988, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers monitored the groundwater on site and found that wells downslope
from two landfills and burn pit are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals. Approximately 1,600 people obtain drinking water from
wells within 3 miles of the site. The nearest surface water intake is approximately
6,400 feet from the site. ,
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil, and surface water on site are contaminated with VOCs
and heavy metals including arsenic and chromium. People who drink
contaminated surface water or groundwater could be exposed to site-
related contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The DOD began a study into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site in 1985, which is scheduled to be completed in
1992. Technologies that best address contamination at the site will be
selected based on this study. The EPA plans to select the final cleanup technologies
for site contamination by 1992.
Site Facts: Currently, Ellsworth Air Force Base is participating in the DOD's Installation
Restoration Program (IRP) that Congress initiated in 1978 to address contamination on
lands owned by the military or other DOD installations.
Environmental Progress
At the time this summary was written, the Ellsworth Air Force Base site had just
obtained NPL status and it was too early to discuss environmental progress. The EPA
will be performing a study to assess the need for any intermediate actions required to
make the site safer while waiting for cleanup actions to begin. Results of this
assessment will be described in our next edition.
-------
WHITEWOOD CREEK
SOUTH DAKOTA
EPA ID# SDD980717136
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lawrence, Meade, and Butte Counties
Along an 18-mile stretch of the
Whitewood Creek floodplain
Site Description
The Whitewood Creek site contains approximately 11 million tons of mining-related
wastes such as mine tailings containing toxic metals. Since the 1870s, millions of tons
of mine waste have been discharged from gold mining operations and deposited along
the Whitewood Creek floodplain. Wastes continued to be discharged to Whitewood
Creek until 1977, when the only mine in the area that still followed this practice closed.
The EPA has detected arsenic in shallow groundwater in amounts above the standards
set for drinking water. Whitewood Creek contains low amounts of site-related
contaminants, and local residents use it to water livestock and for fishing.
Approximately 1,400 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. The site lies within
the boundary of the Town of Whitewood.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, surface water, and soils contain heavy metals including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, and cyanide. Soils are also
contaminated with sulfates. People could potentially be exposed to site-
related contaminants by drinking or touching contaminated groundwater,
surface water, or soil. In 1974 and 1975, approximately 50 Holstein cattle
from a dairy operation next to Whitewood Creek died of unknown causes.
Later, a study that the South Dakota State University conducted showed
that the cattle had died of arsenic poisoning, caused by eating corn
contaminated with mining wastes.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
WHITEWOOD CREEK
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site
which includes: (1) removing and covering the contaminated soil at the
existing residential properties; (2) continuing the monitoring of Whitewood
, , Creek; and (3) establishing institutional controls to limit future uses of
contaminated areas. The institutional controls involve continuing the ban on water
wells in the 100-year floodplain, zoning regulations to prohibit development in the
tailings deposits areas, and an educational program informing future buyers of the
condition of the properties within the site. Cleanup actions will begin once the design
for the soil removal and covering has been completed.
Site Facts: By 1977, Homestake Mining Company was the only operator continuing to
discharge wastes into Whitewood Creek when other milling operations ceased. In
1982, "the EPA, South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources, and
Homestake Mining Company entered into an agreement to conduct a study of the site.
The study investigated the quality of surface waters, groundwater, soils, sediments,
and vegetation in the site area and selected aquatic life of Whitewood Creek.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Whitewood Creek site
while planned cleanup activities are being finalized and conducted.
-------
WILLIAMS
COMPANY D
SOUTH DAKOTA
EPA ID# SDD000823559
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Minnehaha Counly
Sioux FaUs
Site Description
The 50-acre Williams Pipe Line Company Disposal Pit site operated as a disposal pit in
the 1970s for leaded stillbottoms and storage tank sludge. The facility was an unlined
pit where the company disposed of metals, oily wastes, pesticides, and solvents. The
company burned the wastes in the pit periodically until the 1970s. The pit is now dry
and covered with a plastic sheet. From 1986 to 1987, the EPA tested the sediments in
the pit for contaminants and determined that they contained volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The EPA found that groundwater near the pit is contaminated with pesticides
and heavy metals. Approximately 33,500 people live within 3 miles of the site.
Approximately, 100,000 people in the Sioux Falls area obtain drinking water from two
sets of public wells that are within 3 miles of the site. The site is directly west of a
housing development and is 2 miles west of the Big Sioux River and Skunk River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially,responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the disposal pit contains pesticides and lead.
Sediments in the pit are contaminated with various heavy metals, VOCs,
PAHs, and pesticides. People who use or come into direct contact with
contaminated groundwater or sediments could be exposed to hazardous.
chemicals from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
WILLIAMS PIPE LINE COMPANY DISPOSAL PIT
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is scheduled to begin a study into the nature and
extent of contamination at the site in 1991. The EPA will use the results of
this study to select cleanup technologies to address contaminated
_, _ f .
groundwater and sediments at the site.
Environmental Progress
At the time this summary was written, the Williams Pipe Line Company Disposal Pit
site had just obtained NPL status and jt was too early to discuss environmental
progress. The EPA will be performing a study to assess the need for any intermediate
actions required to make the site safer while waiting for cleanup actions to begin.
Results of this assessment will be described in our next edition.
10
-------
x»
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the. site
fact sheets for the States of North and South Dakota.
The ternis and abbreviations contained in this glossary
are often defined in the context of hazardous waste management
as described in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work
performed under theSuperfund program. Thus, 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 describes the
oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non- ^ «
compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is sighed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of holes in a landfill where waste is
dumped, compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract between EPA and the states wherein a State agrees
to manage or monitor certain site cleanup responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land. ... . r
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.tj: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soilby.water or some other
percolating liquid. . , , -.,
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Mine (or Mill) Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left from ore milling operations. Tail-
ings often contain high concentrations of lead and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Polycydic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
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 rninerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate; torm from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the process of recovering spent solvents.
G-2
-------
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
-------
------- |