EPA/540/4-90/035
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Ohio
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
-------
>: x-x": " "^
v^v.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview...
.in
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume
NPL SITES:
A State Overview
.XVII
.xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets
G-l
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
A~' si
cli
Hi
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-
iii
-------
INTRODUCTION
«** 55.
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
-------
..>,
*!? he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
'* "* waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
**»»*»: establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part-of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vu
-------
SUPERFUND
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.
:|siftaj| *\V"»v STEP2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
lentdaime^1^ ^
does EPA' - ^ % Al Even after anv imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
w -, 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
x^sldl^ 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.
shows" ,
"i&ttt. a&miims threat ;,%
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
ix
-------
SUPERFUND
pmt whetir BJA \
v-<*V^
"^*si 5 s f
ssl^ V
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). Thaf s why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
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.
a sitets atffeteflh'
l,w&itair«
fco cieatmp?
%v
, "S
s*V
xi
-------
pow are
Jatternatiws
identified
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 aU 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.
xii
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may .appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
tailo to a site/
the design of tfoe
tatloir«d too?
*xv
-oW
XU1
-------
SUPERFUND
tjnee
~ ., V . -
mplete, ttojv- lnce Hie cleanup
Sst" ^^wft
jfcdtoQHi;
$b.e $l(e
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 aU 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.
%. ^ < f>vt v^x-.v. f
XV
-------
TAX
-------
he Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
. . VJA SSJ.W 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
nitial 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.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Site Description
NPLUSTWQ HISTORY
Threats and Contaminants-
«.-. ,"_ v " f !.e
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts: ^swvXv
Environmental Progress
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.
xviii
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
xix
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the 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 Sitesfi
State of Ohi
Ohio is bordered by Lake Erie and Michigan to the north, Indiana to the west, Pennsyl-
vania to the east, and Kentucky and West Virginia to the south. The State covers
41,330 square miles and consists of rolling and lake plains extending southward and
the Allegheny plateau in the east. Ohio experienced a 0.5 percent increase in popula-
tion during the 1980s and currently has approximately 10,855,000 residents, ranking
7th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include manufacturing, trade, and
services. Ohio manufactures transportation equipment, machinery, and primary and
fabricated metal products.
How Many Ohio Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
1
32
33
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 13, 17 1 site
Cong. District 01, 03, 04, 07, 16 2 sites
Cong. District 08 4 sites
Cong. District 18 5 sites
Cong. District 10, 11 6 sites
30-1-
25--
20--
*
15-J-
10--
5 --
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), radiation, plastics, and
other inorganics.
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
creosotes (organics), polychlor-
inated biphenyls {PCBs), pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and petrochemicals.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
creosotes (organics), pesticides,
and petrochemicals.
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
radiation, plastics, and gases.
*Appear at 1 0% or more sites.
GW Soil Seds SW
Atf Solid &
Liquid
Waste
contamination Area
State Overview
xxi
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 16 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Ohio, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Ohio Superfund Office
EPA Region V Superfund Office
EPA Region V Public Relations Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Public Information Office
(614) 481-7200
(312)886-7456
(312)353-2072
(800) 424-9346
(202) 477-7751
"Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
-------
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 ("H which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's 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 on/y 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.
XXUl
-------
JTJ.UJ
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
30
32
34
36
38
gACSS JLUWUIU. VxlCtUUUp ill
She Name
ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE
ALSCO ANACONDA
ARCANUM IRON & METAL COMPANY
BIG D CAMPGROUND
BOWER'S LANDFILL
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION
CHEM-DYNE CORPORATION
COSHOCTON LANDFILL
E. H. SCHILLING LANDFILL
FEED MATERIALS PRODUCTION CENTER
FIELDS BROOK
FULTZ LANDFILL
INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL
LASKIN/POPLAROILCO.
MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR
MOUND PLANT (US DOE)
NEASE CHEMICAL
NEW LYME LANDFILL
OLD MILL
VtfLf OlLCa .
County
LAWRENCE
TUSCARAWAS
DARKE
ASHTABULA
PICKAWAY
BELMONT
HAMILTON
COSHOCTON
LAWRENCE
HAMILTON
ASHTABULA
GUERNSEY '
STARK
ASHTABULA
MIAMI
MONTGOMERY
COLUMBIANA
ASHTABULA
ASHTABULA
IJU tJU
IMPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
,c oio.it; UJL VSJUAU "~
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-
06/10/86 4-4-4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-
09/08/83 4-
09/08/83 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-
09/08/83 4- 4- 4- 4-
09/08/83 4- 4-
11/21/89 4-
09/08/83 4- 4- 4-
09/08/83 4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-4-
09/08/83 4- 4- 4- 4-
09/21/84 4-4-4-4-
11/17/89 4-
09/08/83 4- 4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-
09/08/83 4-4-4-4-4-4-
XXIV
-------
Page Site Name
County
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
NPL Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
' ORMET CORPORATION
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
PRISTINE, INC.
REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORP.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. QUARRY
SANITARY LANDFILL COMPANY
SKINNER LANDFILL
SOUTH POINT PLANT
SUMMIT NATIONAL LIQUID DISPOSAL
TRW INC. (MINERVA PLANT)
UNITED SCRAP LEAD COMPANY, INC.
VAN DALE JUNKYARD
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
ZANESVILLE WELL FIELD
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
HAMILTON
TUSCARAWAS
LORAIN
MONTGOMERY
BUTLER
LAWRENCE
PORTAGE
STARK
MIAMI
WASHINGTON
GREENE
MUSKINGUM
Final
Final
Final
Prop:
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
07/21/87 "*-
09/21/84 + ' '
09/08/83 + + + +
06/24/88 ' * +
06/12/86 * * * >
06/10/86 *-
09/08/83 *-
09/21/84 *-
09/08/83 *- * +
03/31/89 *" * "K ^- ^" ^- .
09/21/84 "^ "* * *
06/10/86 "^
10/04/89 " "^ B^
09/08/83 "*
XXV
-------
-------
-------
-------
ALLIED CHE
IRONTON C
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD043730217
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Lawrence County
Ironton
The 425-acre Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke site is bordered by the Ohio River and Ice
Creek. It includes two industrial facilities that formerly used on-site lagoons to hold
hazardous wastes. There are four major areas of concern on this site: the coke plant,
the coke plant lagoons, the tar plant, and the Goldcamp disposal area. Manufacturing
operations at the coke plant began in 1917. From 1920 to the late 1960s, wastewater
and solid wastes generated in the coking process were discharged into the area east of
the plant, which drained toward Ice Creek. In the early 1970s, a series of lagoons were
constructed on site for treatment of plant process wastewater. The lagoons were
constructed by building dikes with site materials, including soil and solid wastes. In
1982, the coke plant, including the lagoon system, was shut down. In 1945, the tar
plant was constructed across from the coke plant. The purpose of the tar plant was to
manufacture products from the tar produced in the coking process. The tar plant
currently is operating. Some of the process wastes for the tar plant were disposed of
in an adjacent sand and gravel pit called the Goldcamp disposal site, which has been
owned by the Allied Chemical and Dye Company since 1955. In the late 1970s, the
Goldcamp Disposal site was closed by removing standing water, filling, and capping
with imported clay soil. Underlying the Goldcamp Disposal Area (GDA) is a zone of
contaminants that have migrated through the aquiferlo the underlying impermeable
bedrock. The surface of the GDA is also a source of contamination because many
substances have oozed up through the existing cap. Approximately 14,000 people live
in Ironton. Groundwater is the main source of municipal water for the city. The Ohio
River and Ice Creek are used for recreational activities including fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
IA
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), phenols, polycydic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and heavy metals including cyanide and arsenic. Potential health
threats include accidental ingestion of or touching these contaminants in
the groundwater, soil, or sediments.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three phases: an initial action and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the Goldcamp Disposal Area and cleanup of
the Coke Plant/Lagoon area.
Response Action Status
X" Initial Action: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination
are dismantling the coke plant located on the site in preparation for the site
cleanup. Cleanup of the coke plant area will be completed under another
phase as described below.
Goldcamp Disposal Area: Based on the results of the Goldcamp
Disposal Area investigation,xthe EPA selected the following cleanup
actions: (1) construction of a slurry wall around the disposal area; (2)
installation of a cover made of several materials over the surface of the
disposal area; (3) extraction and on-site treatment of groundwater from inside and
outside the containment system; (4) provision of an alternate water supply for the
Ironton Iron Company until groundwater cleanup levels are met; (5) imposition of deed
restrictions to limit future uses of the property; and (6) preparation of a supplemental
investigation. The design of the cleanup action is scheduled to be completed in 1990,
at which time the cleanup will begin.
Coke Plant/Lagoon Area: The potentially responsible parties are
conducting an investigation of the coke plant and lagoon area and sampling
fish tissue to determine the extent and nature of the contamination. A
study is being undertaken to determine whether the wastes can be treated
biologically. The investigation is scheduled for completion in 1990.
Site Facts: The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order in 1989 for partial cleanup
of the site. The order calls for Allied-Chemical, Inc. and the AMCAST Industrial
Corporation to design and conduct cleanup of the Goldcamp Disposal Area on the site.
Environmental Progress
The dismantling of the coke plant, along with the earlier actions taken to close the
disposal area, have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances
at the Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke site while further cleanup activities are taking
place.
-------
ALSCO ANACONDA
* . ^ % %w4a
OHIO
EPAID#OHD05724361
-------
ALSCO ANACONDA
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the sludge and soil and cleanup of the groundwater and surface water.
Response Action Status
Sludge and Soil: In 1988, based on the results of the site investigation,
the EPA selected the following methods for cleanup of contaminated
sludge and soil: (1) highly contaminated swamp sludge, known as hot
swamp waste, will be excavated, drummed, and hauled to a facility for
incineration; (2) the remaining waste from the swamp, the lagoon, and the sludge pit
will be excavated and hauled to a licensed landfill or treatment facility, where it will be
treated prior to disposal; and (3) the excavated settling basin and sludge pit will be filled
with clean fill. A design study to implement the cleanup began in 1990, and actual site
cleanup is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Groundwater and Surface Water: The parties potentially responsible for
site contamination have begun a study to determine the nature and extent
of groundwater and surface water contamination, which is scheduled for
completion in 1991.
Site Facts: A 1987 agreement between the EPA, the Ohio EPA, and ARCO provides
for an investigation to be completed by the company under EPA monitoring. In 1989,
the EPA issued Unilateral Administrative Orders to both Harvard and ARCO to clean up
the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Alsco Anaconda site while
further studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
-------
ARCANUM IRON &
METAL COM
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD017506171
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Darke County
Arcanum
Site Description
The 4 1/2-acre Arcanum Iron and Metal (AIM) site operated as a lead battery
reprocessing facility from the early 1960s until 1982. During this operation, battery
casings were split to extract lead cores for smelting. Battery acids generated from this
operation were dumped in a large steel trough and allowed to drain to a low area.
Reprocessing of the plastic and black rubber battery casings generated lead oxide
sludge that collected on the ground and surface ponds on site. Past practices at the
facility included burial of some materials in on-site pits. The State of Ohio investigated
a fish kill in Sycamore Ditch and Painter Creek near the site in 1964. Testing of
groundwater was not performed until the 1970s, the City of Arcanum's water supply
is furnished by wells within 1 mile of .the site, and private wells are also nearby.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
L\
Groundwater on the site contains lead. Lead, antimony, and arsenic have
been detected in the sediments and soil. Potential risks may exist for
individuals ingesting or touching contaminated groundwater or soils.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
ARCANUM IRON & METAL COMPANY
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: To reduce public access to the contaminated site
areas, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination constructed
a fence around the entire site in 1984.
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA determined the following actions would be
necessary to clean up the site: (1) excavation of on-site contaminated soils
and battery casings with off-site disposal in a federally approved landfill; (2)
excavation and disposal of off-site soils exceeding human health standards
to a federally approved facility; (3) improvement of site drainage; (4) demolition or
cleaning of contaminated on-site facilities; (5) implementation of deed restrictions for
land and aquifer use; (6) continuance of semi-annual groundwater monitoring; and (7)
conducting treatability studies. The EPA intends to combine cleanup with the United
Scrap Lead site, another NPL site located approximately 30 miles away that is similarly
contaminated. Contaminated soils will be removed to the United Scrap Lead site for
treatment and returned to the AIM site. Revisions to the initial proposed cleanup
actions include placing a soil cover over the excavated areas and recovery from
contaminated media. A study began in 1987 to address the appropriateness of
potential contaminant recovery and cleanup methods as part of the remedy design. It
is scheduled to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1979, the State entered into a Consent Decree with the owner to clean
up the site, but the results were not satisfactory. The owner ceased operation in 1982,
having never fully complied with the provisions of the State Consent Decree.
Environmental Progress
Fencing of the entire site has greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Arcanum Iron and Metal Company site while further
studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
-------
BIG D CAME
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980611735
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
11/2 miles northeast of Kingsville Township
Site Description
The 7 1/2-acre Big D Campground site was a former sand and gravel quarry that was
used between 1964 and 1976 for the disposal of a variety of industrial wastes. The
Olin Chemical Corporation estimates that 25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of industrial
bulk wastes, drums, and soil were disposed of at the site. Olin investigated possible
contamination problems at the site in 1978. As part of theJnvestigation, Olin installed
three groundwater monitoring wells on the north side of Conneaut Creek and collected
water samples from the wells. The results of these sampling efforts indicated the
presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater. In 1982, Olin
reported the findings of their investigation to the EPA. Subsequent groundwater
sampling conducted by the EPA in 1982 confirmed the presence of VOCs in the
groundwater. Approximately 3,900 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The
distance from the site to the nearest residence is approximately 500 feet.
Site Responsibility: Tnjs site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater located between the site and Conneaut Creek, soil, and
sediments are contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals including
barium, chromium, lead, and nickel. Surface water in Conneaut Creek is
contaminated with low concentrations of VOCs and barium. At present,
area residents are not exposed to site-related contaminants located in the
on-site groundwater. Most residents receive drinking water from the
municipal water supply system, and private wells located near the site are
not contaminated. In addition, potential exposure to contaminated soil is
limited by the clay and vegetation covering the landfilled area. However,
the EPA is concerned about the potential for future exposure. Existing
private wells could become contaminated if the area of groundwater
contamination believed to have originated from the site migrates farther
northward.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
BIG D CAMPGROUND
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two. stages: initialactions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: When erosion of the landfill soil cover exposed buried
drums in 1983, Olin covered the surface of the landfill area with clay and
took steps to control any further erosion of soil from the base of the slope.
In addition, Olin installed a rainwater collection trench to remove rainfall
runoff from the covered area, and drilled 11 new groundwater monitoring wells on the
site to expand its groundwater monitoring program.
Entire Site: The remedy selected by the EPA to address site
contamination includes the following activities: (1) excavating drums and
contaminated soils; (2) burning excavated materials in an incinerator; (3)
filling the excavated area with soil and planting vegetation; (4) constructing
a fence around the excavated area and incinerator; (5) installing two groundwater
extraction trenches and 33 groundwater extractions wells near the site to withdraw
contaminated groundwater; (6) treating contaminated groundwater by passing it
through a carbon filter system to remove contaminants; and (7) monitoring groundwater
and surface water quality to assess the effectiveness of the cleanup. The parties
potentially responsible for site contamination began developing a work plan to design
the final remedies in 1990. The EPA installed additional monitoring wells to determine
the extent of groundwater contamination migration.
Site Facts: After negotiating with the State, one of the potentially responsible parties
has completed a soil erosion control program.
Environmental Progress
The steps taken to control further erosion of contaminated soil from the Big D
Campground site have greatly reduced the potential of exposure to contaminants while
activities leading to the final site cleanup are completed.
-------
BOWER'S LJ^NDFILL
OHIO "
EPA ID# OHD980509616
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Pickaway County
25 miles south of Columbus
Alias:
Island Road Landfill
The 12-acre Bower's Landfill site operated as a pit for gravel excavation operations
beginning in 1958, but its owners subsequently converted it to a landfill, which at first
accepted only domestic refuse. From 1958 to 1968, it accepted residential, grain
elevator, and industrial wastes. Two local manufacturers of chemicals responded to a
Congressional inquiry about the site and noted that they dumped approximately 7,500
tons of chemical waste at the landfill. Disposal practices frequently consisted of
depositing the waste directly on the ground surface and covering it with soil. Waste
was also burned on site. Operations at the landfill ended in about 1968. In 1980, the
EPA found that contaminants in the landfill were polluting nearby private wells with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Approximately 60 people live within 1/2 mile of the
site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
L\
Groundwater on site contains heavy metals including barium and
manganese, VOCs, and phthalates. Sediments are contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), petrochemicals, pesticides, VOCs, and
lead. Contaminants in the soil include petrochemicals, lead, and PCBs.
Off-site soils contain heavy metals including arsenic, as well as pesticides.
Surface water is contaminated with VOCs, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals. There are several ways people
could.be exposed to contaminants from the landfill. People could drink or
touch contaminated groundwater, inhale contaminated soil or sediment
particles, or eat small animals, birds, fish or plants that are contaminated
with chemicals from the-site. The area between the landfill and the
Scioto River generally floods twice a year, which further contributes to the
threat of contaminant releases.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
9
continued
-------
BOWER'S LANDFILL
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 studied the nature and extent of contamination at
the site from 1983 to 1989. The results of this study, along with a study
by the parties potentially responsible for the site contamination, were used
to prepare an analysis of the alternatives for addressing the threat the
landfill poses to people and the environment. In 1989, the EPA recommended the
following actions at the site to address the contamination problem: (1) removing and
disposing all surface debris in an approved landfill; (2) improving erosion control and
drainage; (3) installing a natural clay cover over the landfill; (4) installing a topsoil layer
over the clay cover; (5) protecting the cap from damage from flooding; (6) installing a
limited number of new groundwater monitoring wells; (7) taking samples of the
groundwater and analyzing them to determine any increases in the level of
contaminants; and (8) installing a fence to prevent site entry. The EPA started the
design of these cleanup activities in 1989 and is scheduled to complete the work in
1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Bower's Landfill site while
cleanup activities are being designed.
10
-------
BUCKEYE
RECLAMAT
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980509657
Site Description
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Belmont County
St. Clairsville
Aliases:
Buckeye Landfill
Belmont County Landfill
The 50-acre Buckeye Reclamation site, a former disposal site for coal mine spoils, was
licensed in 1971 by the Ohio Department of Health as a sanitary landfill. Between 1976
and 1979, the landfill also accepted industrial wastes, including sludges and liquids,
without State approval. Industrial and asbestos wastes were dumped into a pond
known as the Waste Pit. The slopes of the filled area are steep, and the mining wastes
used for cover are eroding. Substantial amounts of leachate from the site have entered
a stream adjacent to a private home. The site has polluted Little McMahon Creek,
which may be used for drinking water and recreational purposes. The closest
residence is 1/4 mile from the site. The population within a 2-mile radius of the site is
approximately 100. There are private wells immediately downgradientirom the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties 'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
T\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals. Nearby King's Run and Little McMahon Creek have
been polluted by acid mine drainage from the mine wastes and
contaminants from waste disposal practices at the site. High levels of
VOCs and heavy metals have been detected in the waste pit. Potential
health risks may exist for individuals who accidentally ingest or touch
contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, and leachate.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the contamination
initiated an investigation in 1985 to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the site and to identify alternative remedies for the
cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in 1990.
Site Facts: An agreement between the EPA, the State of Ohio, and six companies
was reached in 1985, requiring the companies to investigate possible contamination at
and around the landfill. The companies will carry out the project under EPA monitoring.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Buckeye Reclamation site
while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
12
-------
CHEM-DYN
CORPORA'
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD074727
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Hamilton County
Hamilton
Alias:
Transemvironmental Services
The 10-acre Chem-Dyne Corporation site operated as an industrial chemical waste
transfer, disposal, and storage facility. As early as 1974, chemical wastes may have
been trucked to the site. In 1975, Spray-Dyne made antifreeze from recycled chemical
wastes. The operation was expanded in 1976, and the Chem-Dyne Corporation was
formed. Wastes that were unsuitable for recycling were stored jn drums and tanks on
the site or shipped to other disposal sites. More than 30,000 drums of waste and
300,000 gallons of bulk waste materials were on site when operations shut down in
1980 In the 5 years of operation, a number of environmental incidents were reported
at the site. From 1976 to 1979, at least 5 fish kills in the Great Miami River were
attributable to the Chem-Dyne facility; one fish kill stretched for 37 miles. Fires
occurred at the site in 1976 and 1979. A residential area is located approximately 1,000
feet from the site. A storm sewer drains the site into the Ford Canal, which flows into
the Great Miami River. The Ford Canal is used only for drainage and hydroelectric
power generation. The Great Miami River is used for recreation. Water supplies in the
area rely on groundwater as their source.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/21/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
T\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater was contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals. Sediments in the Ford Canal contained low
concentrations of organics. Soil was contaminated with VOCs and heavy
metals including mercury, arsenic, nickel, and beryllium. The on-site
buildings were contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The
site no longer poses a threat to human health or the environment due to
the ongoing operation of .a groundwater pump and treatment system and
the State of Ohio preventing usage of the contaminated aquifer for
drinking water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
CHEM-DYNE CORPORATION
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1980, the EPA stabilized, removed, and disposed
of 17 potentially explosive drums at a federally approved treatment facility.
Beginning in 1982, the EPA removed another 9,000 drums and solidified
and removed 200,000 gallons of liquid and solid wastes in 33 storage
tanks to a federally approved facility. Spilled materials were cleaned up and
wastewater was treated and disposed of. The storm drain in the loading dock area was
plugged to prevent the discharge of contaminated waste into Ford Canal. The site also
was fenced to prevent access.
Entire Site: In 1985, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by
installing a system to extract the groundwater and treating it by air
stripping. The contaminants are further treated with activated carbon
before they are released into the air. In addition, the buildings on the site were
demolished, selected areas of soil were removed, and a synthetic cap with a clay layer
was placed over the site. The parties potentially responsible for site contamination
completed all of these cleanup activities in 1987. The pump and treatment system has
been in operation since 1988 and must operate until at least 1998 to meet established
cleanup standards.
Site Facts: In 1979, the State of Ohio required all materials to be removed from the
Chem-Dyne site by 1980. In 1985, the EPA and 178 parties potentially responsible for
site contamination agreed on a Consent Decree far cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The treatment of contaminated groundwater, removal of contaminated soil, and
placement of a cap over the site have eliminated the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the Chem-Dyne Corporation site. The operation of the
groundwater pump and treatment system will continue to provide protection to nearby
residents and the environment.
14
-------
COSHOC
LANDFIL
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980509830
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Coshocton County
Coshocton
Site Description
The 80-acre Coshocton Landfill site was used in the early 1900s, and again from the
mid-1950s until 1979, for the mining of coal. The subsurface mines were abandoned
but contained extensive networks of mine shafts. The City built a landfill on top of the
abandoned strip mines where it disposed of municipal and industrial wastes from 1968
to 1979. The City also put some wastes in a shallow excavation at the southern end of
the site. In 1977, an area of the landfill caught fire. The fire burned for 3 days and was
allowed to burn itself out. The EPA has reported several leachate seeps at the landfill.
Approximately 13,400 people live in the City of Coshocton. Several farms are located
near the landfill. There are at least 34 private wells for domestic use within 4,000 feet
of the landfill; however, these wells do not draw their water from areas which would be
affected by the landfill.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
L\
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater'has been contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals. Sediments on site contain VOCs and
pentachlorophenol (PCP). Soils on site contain VOCs and phenols.
Acetone and heavy metals are found in the surface water. On-site
workers and trespassers can be exposed to hazardous substances if they
touch contaminated soils and groundwater, inhale contaminated soil
particles, or drink contaminated groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
COSHOCTON LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA analyzed 14 drums on site and determined
that they did not contain hazardous substances. In 1985, the City of
Coshocton completed the cleanup of the drums and disposed of them in
an off-site facility.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected a strategy to address
contamination at the site. The selected cleanup activities include: (1)
covering the landfill with a clay cap that prevents liquids from passing
through; (2) installing a soil cap over the landfill with topsoil and
vegetation; (3) imposing deed restrictions on future use of the property; (4) installing
fencing around the landfill; (5) filling and grading the necessary areas; and
(6) installing a gas collection and venting system and a leachate collection system. The
technical design for the cleanup is scheduled for completion in 1990.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the City of
Coshocton requiring it to undertake some interim cleanup measures, primarily to
protect surface water and to address the leachate being generated.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup and disposal of drums have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the Coshocton Landfill site while cleanup activities are being
planned.
16
-------
E. H. SCHIL
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD98050994
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Lawrence County
11/2 miles northwest of Hanging Rock
The 3-acre E. H. Schilling Landfill site operated as an industrial waste landfill from
1969 until 1980. The landfill was licensed to accept only non-hazardous wastes, but
was closed in 1980 due to permit violations. A variety of hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes were disposed of on site. Landfill waste is contained behind an earthen dam
and beneath a cover or cap. While the dam is structurally stable, it does not comply
with existing standards. The landfill cap also fails to comply with State and Federal
regulations. Leachate was discovered seeping from the face of the dam. Warning
signs are posted at the site, and there is a barrier preventing vehicles from
entering the premises. Approximately 1,500 people live within 3 miles of the site. The
closest residence is located within 1/4 mile of the site. Domestic water is taken from
municipal wells and private wells. The site is bounded on the north by the Wayne
National Forest. An unnamed stream carries runoff from the site into Winkler Run and
the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Nickel has been detected in air near the landfill at levels exceeding
Federal standards. Arsenic and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have
been found in groundwater. Leachate, soil, and stream sediments are
contaminated with VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
heavy metals. People who accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater,
soil, or sediments may potentially suffer adverse health effects.
March 1990
NPL HAZAR-DOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
E.H. SCHILLING LANDFILL
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 1989, the EPA selected the following cleanup technologies
to address site contamination: (1) capping the entire site; (2) removing and
treating 7,000,000 gallons of liquid waste and leachate from the landfill; (3)
constructing a cut-off wall around the landfill to prevent groundwater from
infiltrating into waste; (4) improving the earthen dam by adding a berm; (5)
consolidating 750 cubic yards of soil and 500 cubic yards of sediment under the cap; (6)
adding perimeter drainage features; (7) fencing the entire site; (8) monitoring
groundwater; (9) operating and maintaining the site; and (10) imposing deed
restrictions. The potentially responsible parties have reached a tentative agreement
with the EPA on implementing the remedy.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the E.H. Schilling Landfill site
while cleanup activities are being planned.
18
-------
FEED MATERIALS
PRODUCT!
CENTER
OHIO
EPA ID# OH6890008976
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Hamilton and Butler Counties
19 miles northwest of Cincinnati
C^? Aliases:
V^?.^ " ^National Lead Co. of Ohio (SIA)
3$i3SJtinghouse Materials Company of Ohio
Fernald
The 1,450-acre Feed Materials Production Center site is operated by the Department of
Energy (DOE) and has manufactured metallic uranium for DOE nuclear weapon reactors
since the early 1950s. The manufacturing processes have generated large quantities of
wastes, including low-level radioactive wastes, mixed hazardous and radioactive
wastes, oils, solvents, and fly ash. Operations and disposal practices have resulted in
contamination in the production area, six waste pits, three waste storage silos, a storm
sewer ditch leading to Paddy's Run, and an effluentline discharging into the Great
Miami River. Additional waste storage and disposal areas included other silos, a burn
pit, a clear well, two fly ash disposal areas, a sanitary landfill, and two lime sludge
ponds. Uranium contaminates the Buried Valley Aquifer, the sole source of drinking
water for the production center workers and most area residents. Approximately 1,100
production center workers obtain drinking water and 750 acres of land are irrigated by
wells within 3 miles of the site. A residential area is located about 4,000 feet east of
the production area. The Great Miami River is used for various recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
T\
Radon gas has been detected in the air. Fish and plants contain
radionuclides and heavy metals. Groundwater is contaminated with
uranium, radium, and various volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The
Buried Valley Aquifer is contaminated with uranium. Metallic scrap
contained in several scrap piles is contaminated with uranium and other
radionuclides. Creek and ditch sediments are contaminated with uranium
and other radionuclides, while soil is contaminated with radionuclides,
organics, inorganics, and asbestos. High concentrations of uranium,
technetium, and hexavalent chromium have been detected in the effluent
line discharging to the Great Miami River. The three uranium-
contaminated private wells have been closed and are no longer used for
drinking water. Potential health threats to people include accidentally
ingesting, touching, or inhaling contaminated soil, groundwater, air, and
surface water. Eating contaminated plants and fish is also a potential
threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
FEED MATERIALS PRODUCTION CENTER
Cleanup Approach
Cleanup activities at this site have been divided into six long-term remedial phases that
address the cleanup of site contamination areas.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The DOE has completed an environmental survey of the
waste unit area and currently is conducting separate investigations into
each of the remaining contamination areas including: the silos, the
contaminated south groundwater plume, production areas, and other contaminated
waste units and areas on the site. The investigations will define the nature and extent
of contamination for each area and result in the recommendation of specific cleanup
strategies. The investigations are expected to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: A Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement was signed in 1986 between
the EPA and the DOE. Pursuant to the Agreement, the DOE is required to conduct a
study of the nature and-extent of site contamination and to recommend alternatives for
final cleanup. A Consent Decree was signed in 1988.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Feed Materials Production
Center site while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
20
-------
F
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980614M7& :
"
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
Ashtabula
The Fields Brook site, a 3 1/2 mile channel, is a tributary of the Ashtabula River and
collects water from a 5 1/2-square-mile area. A portion of Fields Brook flows through
an industrial area containing a high concentration of diverse chemical plants and serves
as the principal receiving stream for many industrial discharges. The site includes a
brook and its tributaries and areas bordering the site. From the industrial area, the
brook flows through a residential area to the Ashtabula River. Industrial sources
adjacent to Fields Brook have contaminated the sediments with a variety of toxic
chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. The Ashtabula
River empties into Lake Erie 1 1/2 miles downstream of the site. Lake Erie serves as
the potable water source for the City of Ashtabula. Contaminated sediments threaten
drinking water intakes in Lake Erie.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments taken from the Ashtabula River are contaminated with PCBs,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PNAs), heavy metals, and phthalates. VOCs and heavy metals including
mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium have been detected in surface water
from Fields Brook and the Detrex tributary. Contaminants detected in fish
include VOCs and PCBs. The site poses a potential health risk to people
drinking or touching contaminated water from Fields Brook and the
Ashtabula River, and eating contaminated fish may cause adverse health
effects.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
FIELDS BROOK
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
sediment, a study of the continuing site contamination, and cleanup of the Ashtabula
River.
Response Action Status
Sediments: The selected cleanup technologies to address contaminated
sediments include: (1) excavating contaminated sediments from Fields
Brook, subsequent temporary storing and dewatering of the sediments,
and using thermal treatment on a portion of the sediments with the on-site
landfiHing of the remainder of the sediments; (2) treating of wastewater from the
dewatering process; and (3) long-term monitoring. Approximately 36,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments will be solidified and 16,000 cubic yards will be thermally
treated. Under EPA monitoring, six of the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination are presently designing the technical specifications for the sediment
cleanup. Final sediment cleanup activities are expected to be completed in 1994.
Continuing Contamination: Under EPA monitoring, six of the potentially
responsible parties currently are conducting a study to identify sources of
ongoing sediment and surface water contamination. The study is planned
to be completed in 1991.
Ashtabula River: Five potentially responsible parties, under EPA
monitoring, are conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination of the Ashtabula River. The investigation will identify
potential sources of contamination to the river and harbor and investigate the impacts
of contamination on the water supply of the City of Ashtabula.
Site Facts: In 1989, six of the potentially responsible parties agreed to comply with an
order from the EPA requiring them to design the cleanup technologies to address
contaminated sediments at the site and to study the ongoing sources of site
contamination. A separate order covers the river investigation. The EPA and the State
issued a health advisory recommending that people not eat fish caught in a portion of
the Ashtabula River because of possible contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Fields Brook site while
further studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
22
-------
FULTZ LANDFILL
%% vN^VXs . . . %
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980794630
REGION 5
[CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Guernsey County
1/2 mile northeast of Byesville
Site Description
From the mid-1950s to 1985, residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste was
disposed of at the 30-acre Fultz Landfill site. The site lies in an area that was strip
mined for coal in the late 1940s. Extensive subsurface coal mines are also located near
the site. The landfill was licensed by Guernsey County in 1969 to accept solid waste
products. On a number of occasions during the 1970s, County and State officials cited
the owner of the landfill for violations of the operating license, including inadequate
control of leachate runoff and unauthorized disposal of drums that contained potentially
hazardous liquid waste. In 1978, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency found
approximately 1,000 drums of hazardous waste on the property. Because the landfill
was not authorized to accept hazardous waste, the State contacted the businesses
generating the drums, requesting that they stop sending drums to the landfill. A former
employee of the landfill confirmed that drums were emptied onto the ground so the
empty drums could be sold to a recycler. The State investigated the site again in 1979
and 1980 and found that leachate seep/ngfrom the site contained phenols and heavy
metals. Six ponds lie on the northern and eastern sides of the landfill. In addition, two
streams, Streams A and B, are located nearby. Both streams discharge to Wills Creek.
Residents of Cambridge, 3 miles north of the landfill, use Wills Creek as a source of
drinking water. Five private water wells and one municipal water well are located near
the site.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
I
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains heavy metals such as arsenic, barium, chromium,
and lead; volatile organic compounds (VOCs); and phthalates. Sediments
in two on-site ponds and leachate are contaminated with heavy metals, as
well as low levels of organic compounds. Wills Creek also contains low
levels of organic compounds. An aquifer under the site is contaminated
with heavy metals. It is not currently known if the contamination of this
aquifer is site-related, or if it is the result of the extensive coal mining in
the area. If pollutants seep into the water supply, people who"touch or
drink the water may be at risk. Leachate seeps from the landfill into
nearby ponds and creeks. Wildlife in or around these bodies of water
may be harmed by the pollutants.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
23
continued
-------
FULTZ LANDFILL
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 1984, the EPA began an investigation to study the type and
extent of the contamination at the site. Additional data is being gathered
to determine the source of the contamination, the extent of groundwater
contamination, if drinking water sources are threatened, and the risk to the public
health and environment. As a result of the study, a final report is scheduled to be
prepared in 1991, which will include recommended measures for site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Fultz Landfill site while
studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
24
-------
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD000377911
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 16
Stark County
10 miles from Akron
Before 1966, the 30-acre Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) site was used for mining sand
and gravel. Gradually, the mining and excavation pit was converted into a landfill, which
operated at the site from 1966 to 1980. During this time, IEL accepted wastes
primarily from the nearby rubber industries. An estimated 780,000 tons of solid waste
and 1,000,000 gallons of liquid waste were dumped onto the ground at the landfill. The
Stark County Board of Health ordered IEL to stop dumping chemical wastes in 1972.
The landfill was closed in 1980. After the landfill stopped operations, it was covered
with soil, and fertilizer was applied to the surface to help vegetative growth. Before the
EPA became involved with the site in 1984, several State and local government
agencies were involved with licensing issues, inspections, and other response activities
at the landfill. The Ohio EPA began an investigation to determine whether area drinking
water was contaminated and if the site posed a health risk to nearby residents. The
population within a 1-mile radius of the site was approximately 2,500 in 1989. Over
400 residences located within a 1/2-mile radius of the landfill rely entirely on individual
or private wells for their drinking water supply. -
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPLLISTINP HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
II
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including barium and
chromium, and with volatile organic compounds {VOCs). On-site leachate
is contaminated with heavy metals, VOCs, and phthalates. On-site soil
gases located near the northern and southern boundaries of the site
contain VOCs. On-site sediments are contaminated with heavy metals,
cyanide, VOCs, phthalates, and pesticides. On-site surface soils have
been shown to contain VOCs, heavy metals, and plastics. Off-site surface
water is contaminated with heavy metals and phthalates. A potential
exists for adverse effects to the aquatic life in the streams that receive
runoff from the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
25
continued
-------
INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the provision of an alternate water
supply.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Between 1985 and 1988, the EPA installed an active
methane-venting system to control the migration of this chemical off site.
Methane gas has stopped moving off site since the venting system was
completed in 1988. During the installation of this system, 53 drums of suspected
industrial waste were uncovered. These drums were subsequently removed from the
site and disposed of in an EPA-approved facility. After testing completed by the EPA-in
1987 showed that ten private residential wells were contaminated with VOCs, the EPA
installed air strippers to remove vinyl chloride and other VOCs from the water.
Entire Site: The methods selected by the EPA in 1989 to clean up the
site include: (1) covering the entire site with multiple layers of clay and
other soils; (2) expanding the methane gas venting system that is already
in place; (3) extracting and treating contaminated groundwater; (4)
pumping groundwater to maintain the water table at a level that is below that of the
wastes in the landfill; (5) fencing the site; (6) placing deed restrictions on future use of
the site; and (7) continued monitoring of the site. Work began at the site in 1989 and is
expected to be completed in 1990.
Alternate Water Supply: Alternate water will be supplied to an area
comprised of approximately 100 homes located west of the site. The
system is currently under construction by the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination and is scheduled to be completed in
1990.
Site Facts: The EPA issued special Notice Letters to all potentially responsible parties
in 1989 to take the lead on cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The actions taken to control methane gas migration, the removal of drums containing
industrial waste, and the installation of air strippers have greatly reduced the potential
of exposure to hazardous substances in the drinking water and will continue to protect
residents near the Industrial Excess Landfillsite until the completed installation of an
alternate water supply and completion of the other cleanup activities.
26
-------
LASKIN/POP
OIL CO.
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD061722211
Site Description
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
Jefferson
Aliases:
Laskins Waste Oil Co.
Alaskain Greenhouse Waste Oil
The 9-acre Laskin Poplar Oil Co. site is a greenhouse and waste oil recovery operation
that opened during the late 1890s. By the 1950s, the operation had installed oil-fired
boilers to heat the greenhouses. In the 1960s, storage tanks and pits were installed to
store waste oil. Environmental problems at the site are related to the subsequent
storage, handling, and combustion of waste oil. The EPA and the Ohio EPA discovered
contamination at the site in 1977, and much of the on-site oil was removed during the
next 5 years. The site contains two drained ponds formerly used to separate oil, a
boiler house, four oil storage pits, one underground oil storage tank, 32 aboveground oil
storage tanks, a retention pond, a freshwater pond, a greenhouse complex, and other
miscellaneous buildings and sheds. Three small treatment ponds lie near the bottom of
the Cemetery Creek ravine, north of the retention pond. Liquids stored in the tanks and
ponds have the potential to overflow, leak, or collapse because of poor construction
and maintenance. Any contaminants released would enter Cemetery Creek. The creek
is a tributary of Mill Creek, which flows into the Grand River. Drinking water is drawn
from the Grand River in Harpersfield Township, approximately 11 1/2 miles ;
downstream of the site. . : .
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
IA
March 1990
Threat? and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with phenols, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and acetone. Sediments in the on-site retention
pond are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and lead. PCBs, PAHs, and
heavy metals including aluminum, iron, cobalt, thallium, silver, cadmium,
and lead are contaminating the soil, while soil in the boiler house is
contaminated with dioxin.. The surface water in the on-site retention pond
is contaminated with low levels of acetone in addition to arsenic, mercury,
and other heavy metals. A potential health threat exists if accidental
ingestion and absorption of contaminated soils and surface water we.re to
occur. There is also a possibility that contaminants may penetrate the
food chain and contaminate meats and vegetables that are raised locally.
PL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
27
continued
-------
LASKIN/POPLAR OIL CO.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of ponds, structures, and soils, as well as other areas of
surface contamination.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1980, the EPA stabilized the site by treating the water
from the pond through a sand filter and activated carbon system. The
treated water was discharged to the creek. When oil-contaminated water
from a pond overflowed into the creek, the oil was recovered with sorbent boonjs. The
pond and tanks were covered. From 1982 to 1986, various actions were performed at
the site including: (1) removal of 300,000 gallons of contaminated oil; (2) on-site
treatment of 400,000 gallons of contaminated wastewater; (3) on-site containment of
205,000 gallons of contaminated sludge; (4) removal of an additional 250,000 gallons of
wastewater and oil; (5) removal of contaminants from one pond; and (6) removal of
approximately 100 drums containing hazardous wastes. The potentially responsible
parties removed 450,000 gallons of oil and wastewater from the pits and tanks in 1985
and 1986. Later in 1986, they sampled the residues left in the pits and tanks and
conducted additional soil borings. In 1987, the EPA repaired the existing fence and
leaks found in the covers of the underground tanks.
Ponds, Structures, and Soils: The EPA chose the following methods for
cleanup: (1) drain retention and freshwater ponds, discharge the surface
water from the ponds to Cemetery Creek, with treatment if required; (2)
backfill freshwater with clean fill and grade the retention pond area; (3)
thermally treat contaminated soil, ash, and debris from the boiler house area and
dispose of the ash in a federally approved landfill; (4) demolish and thermally treat or
decontaminate dioxin-contaminated structures, or if this material cannot be
decontaminated or thermally treated, it will be contained in an on-site concrete vault
and placed beneath the cap for temporary storage until proper effective disposal can be
secured for the material; (5) construct a groundwater diversion trench uphill from the
contaminated soil and groundwater; (6) construct a multi-layer cap over soils; (7)
ctewaterthe site by natural groundwater flow to Cemetery Creek; (8) monitor
groundwater and surface water to assess the quality of groundwater migrating to
Cemetery Creek; and (9) impose access and use restrictions. Design of these cleanup
activities is expected to begin in 1990.
Surface Contamination: Based on the results of the site investigation,
the EPA has selected several remedies to address surface contamination.
The cleanup strategy for this portion of the site includes: constructing a
fence around contaminated portions of the site and the incinerator;
incinerating oils, sludges, and contaminated soils, with the safe disposal of all
incinerator ash; dismantling and disposing of all tanks and cinder blocks in the pits; and
regrading the site to prevent ponding in the excavated areas. The potentially
responsible parties, under EPA supervision, have completed most of the design work
for sludge and oil incineration and the removal of tanks and contaminated soils. The
design phase is expected to be completed in 1990.
continued
28
-------
LASKEV/POPJLAK OH, CO.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated oil, wastewater, and drums, along with the treatment of
contaminated wastewater and contaminated sludge, have greatly reduced the potential
for exposure to hazardous substances at the Laskin/Poplar Oil site while cleanup
activities are being designed and planned at the site.
29
-------
MIAMI COUNTY
INCINERATi
OHIO
EPAID# OHD980611800
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Miami County
2 miles north of Troy
The 65-acre Miami County Incinerator (MCI) site contains five areas of concern: the
South Landfill, the North Landfill, the Liquid Disposal Area, Contaminated Groundwater,
and the Ash Disposal Pit and Ash Pile. Other important features of the site include an
area of visibly stained soil near the incinerator building, a former scrubber wastewater
lagoon, and sediment'm the Eldean Tributary. The incinerator and landfill were opened
in 1968 to process and dispose of municipal and industrial wastes. Combustible
wastes were to be incinerated and non-combustible wastes were to be landfilled.
However, large volumes of combustible wastes were landfilled along with non-
combustible wastes. The facility generated scrubber wastewater and ash quench
water, which were disposed of in the wastewater lagoon. Incinerator fly ash and
bottom ash, non-combustible materials, and unburned refuse were disposed of in a
landfill north of the tributary, and liquid wastes, including waste oils and solvents, were
dumped or buried on site. MCI was ordered by the Ohio EPA to cease the disposal of
liquid waste by 1974. The site stopped accepting liquid wastes in 1975, and all landfill
operations ended in 1978. The incinerator building now serves as a solid waste
transfer station. The Eldean tributary of the Great Miami River runs across the
northwestern corner of the site. The eastern section of the site is located in a 100-year
floodplain. Municipal wells serving 19,000 people are located within 3 miles of the site.
The nearest private wells are 1,000 feet downslope of contaminated wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic,
barium, and cadmium were detected in groundwater near the Liquid
Disposal Area. Sediments along the unnamed creek are contaminated
with pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls {PCBs). VOCs, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, and heavy
metals including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and chromium were detected in
soil below the surface of the Liquid Disposal Area. Potential health risks
exist for those who ingest contaminated water,.or the contaminated soil.
Workers and children playing on site may be most at risk. However, the
site does have ground cover, lessening the opportunity for direct contact
with the soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
30
continued
-------
MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: Three residences, the Miami County Highway garage,
and the incinerator facility were provided with alternate water supplies in
1986.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected the following remedies for each
area of concern. For the South Landfill and the North Landfill, the EPA will
construct a single-barrier clay cap to prevent direct contact with the
contaminants and decrease infiltration of rainwater in order to reduce the
potential for groundwater contamination. The Ash Pile will be cleaned up by removing
contaminated soil, treating it if necessary, and placing the material into the North or
South Landfill before construction of the cap. The Ash Disposal Pit will be capped. Soil
vapor extraction, groundwater pumping and treatment, and capping will be used to
treat the Liquid Disposal Area and Contaminated Groundwater Area. Soil vapor
extraction will reduce the risk of future VOC releases and reduce the volume of
contamination in the soil. Groundwater pumping and treatment will reduce the volume
of contamination in groundwater within and downgradient of the Liquid Disposal Area.
All of the remedies include construction of a fence to reduce the potential for site
access and land use restrictions to prevent future exposure to contaminants. The
parties potentially responsible for the contamination have started to design the cleanup
technologies and are expected to complete the design in 1991.
Environmental Progress
By supplying an alternate water supply, the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances in the drinking water has been eliminated, and residents near the Miami
County Incinerator site will continue to be protected until planned cleanup activities are
completed.
31
-------
MOUND PLANT
(US DOE)
OHIO
EPAID# OH6890008984
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Montgomery County
Miamlsburg
Site Description
The 306-acre Mound Facility has operated since 1948 in support of weapons and
energy programs, with an emphasis on small explosive components and nuclear
technology. First operated by the Atomic Energy Commission, it is operated now by
EG&G Technologies for the Department of Energy (DOE). The site consists of two
elevated areas divided by a small valley. The major waste areas are on the southern
slope and the valley of the northwestern elevated area. They include a landfill in which
solvents, paints, and chemical solutions were deposited, several leachate beds used to
dispose of solutions containing radionuclides and explosive materials, and an area in
which a solution contaminated with plutonium was spilled. The landfill operated from
1948 until the mid-1970s, and in 1978, the existing wastes were excavated and placed
in a lined landfill. The facility employs 2,200 people. Miamisburg municipal wells are
within 3 miles of the site and serve approximately 17,000 people. There is no alternate
water supply source. A system of ditches, canals, and ponds carry surface waters from
the facility to the Great Miami River approximately 1 mile downstream. The river is
used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/17/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Leachate contains radionuclides and explosives. Surface water is
contaminated with plutonium. Drinking contaminated groundwater or
coming in contact with other site contaminants are potential health
threats.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
32
continued
-------
MOUND PLANT (USDOE)
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, a site investigation was begun by the DOE to
determine the extent of contamination and to recommend alternatives for
cleaning up the site. The results of this investigation are expected in 1992.
Site Facts: The site is being addressed under the DOE Comprehensive Environmental
Assessment and Response Program.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the DOE Mound Plant site
while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
33
-------
NEASE CH
OHIO ___
EPAID# OHD980610018
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 17
Columbiana County
Salem
Alias:
Ruetgers Nease Chemical Company/Salem
Plant
Site Description
The 44-acre Nease Chemical Company site was used for the manufacturing of
pesticides, fire retardants, cleaning compounds, and pharmaceutical products. The
plant closed the production facilities in 1973 and completed site closure activities in
1975. In 1982, a report indicated that contaminants had migrated from the site and
drums had been buried on the site. Following approval from the EPA in 1983, the
company removed the buried drums and associated contaminated soils from the site
and removed soils from a barren area. In addition, the company removed soil from an
abandoned pond and a freshwater ditch paralleling the main railroad line. Between
1983 and 1984, additional monitoring wells and soil borings were drilled to further
define the hydrogeology and groundwater quality. Residences are located near the
site. Feder Creek, located on the site, drains into Middle Fork and Little Beaver Creek,
where a 1987 EPA investigation verified sediment and fish contamination. These
creeks drain into the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). A 1987 EPA study showed contamination of fish and
sediments with mirex, a pesticide and fire retardant. Dairy herds on two
nearby farms were affected by exposure to creek contamination. Access
to the site is now restricted by fencing and bridges.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
34
continued
-------
NEASE CHEMICAL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
* Initial Actions: Several initial cleanup actions have been completed to
locate and remove the main sources of contamination at the site. Earlier
cleanup actions conducted by the company were the removal of
contaminated contents of the waste ponds located on the site and buried drums, along
with associated soils.
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for
the contamination initiated an investigation in 1988 to determine the
nature and extent of site contamination and to identify alternative cleanup
methods. A preliminary assessment indicates that any remaining
contaminated soil will require removal and contaminants will need to be separated from
groundwater. Additionally, a groundwater containment system will need to be
implemented. The final cleanup remedy for the site will be selected once the
investigation is completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
Initial cleanup actions have removed the immediate sources of contamination and
reduced the potential for exposure of nearby residents to hazardous wastes left on the
site at the Nease Chemical Company while studies are taking place and cleanup
activities are being planned.
A
35
-------
NEW LYME
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPA ED# OHD980794614
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
New Lyme
Alias:
Ashtabula County Waste, Inc.
Operations began at the 40-acre New Lyme Landfill site in 1969 and were initially
managed by two farmers. In 1971, the landfill was licensed by the State of Ohio, and
operations were taken over by a licensed landfill operator. The site received various
wastes and construction and demolition debris. However, numerous violations of the
license occurred, including open dumping, improper spreading and compacting of
wastes, no State approval for disposal of certain industrial wastes, and excavation of
trenches into the shale bedrock. In 1978, the landfill was closed by the Ashtabula
County Health Department. Wastes at the site included asbestos, coal tar, resins, paint
sludge, oils, corrosive liquids, acetone, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), chlorinated
solvents, and laboratory chemicals. Leachate containing organics discharged from two
sides of the fill area threaten nearby surface waters. There is also concern that
groundwater might be contaminated by leachate from the landfill. Ten families live
within 1/4 mile of this site. Three households are presently using groundwater as their
drinking water source. Lebanon Creek and a wetland known as the New Lyme Wildlife
Area are located near the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and phenols. Sediments in
Lebanon Creek, the wetlands, and leachate seeps have been exposed to
VOC, lead, and chromium contamination by surface runoff during site
operation and leachate seep discharge. Surface soil samples from the
central and eastern portion of the site contained VOCs. One soil sample
contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Potential health risks may
exist for individuals accidentally ingesting or touching the contaminated
groundwater, soil, sediments, or leachate. Lebanon Creek, other area
surface waters, and area wetlands may be threatened by the site
contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
36
continued
-------
NEW LYME LANDFILL
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 1985, the EPA selected the following cleanup actions for
the site: (1) construction of a cap over the landfill; (2) installation of
extraction and containment wells around the perimeter of the landfill to
cfewaferthe landfill and to eliminate leachate production; (3) on-site
treatment of contaminated groundwater and leachate; (4) on-site consolidation of
contaminated sediments; (5) installation of gas vents; (6) fencing of the site; and (7)
installation of a groundwater monitoring system. The cleanup work began in 1989.
The cap has been constructed, and seeding of the cap began in 1990. The wastewater
treatment plant is expected to be in operation, and all remaining cleanup work is
expected to be completed by 1990.
Environmental Progress
The completed cleanup activities, including the construction of the cap, have greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the New Lyme Landfill
site while final cleanup activities are taking place.
37
-------
OLD MILL
OHIO
EPA ED# OHD9805102
Site Description
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
Rock Creek
Aliases:
Webb MR
Rock Creek/Jack Webb
Kraus Disposal Site
The Old Mill site consists of two parcels of land, the 3-acre Henfield Property and the
10-acre Kraus property. The Henfield Property included four dilapidated wood buildings
and four concrete silos, which were removed as part of the site cleanup. This property
became contaminated when drummed waste and potting soil additives were
improperly stored. The Kraus Property partially is covered with piles of railroad ballast
and has one empty abandoned bulk liquid tank. Wastes from the Henfield property
were stored on the Kraus property with the owner's permission. In 1979, the EPA and
Ohio EPA found approximately 1,200 drums of toxic waste, including solvents, oils,
resins, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), stored on both properties. The drums
leaked, causing contamination of soil and groundwater. Approximately 100 homes are
within a 1/4-mile radius of the site. An estimated 1,400 people are living within 3 miles
of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were contaminating the groundwater
underneath the Henfield property and on the Kraus Property. VOCs and
heavy metals including lead were found to be contaminating the soils near
the silos on the Henfield Property and in the drum storage area of the
Kraus property. Prior to the cleanup activities that have been conducted,
potential health risks may have existed through accidental ingestion or
touching the contaminated groundwater or soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
38
continued
-------
OLD MILL
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination voluntarily removed 375 drums of wastes. In 1982, another
potentially responsible party voluntarily removed approximately 130 drums
Later in 1982, all remaining drums were removed, and contaminated soil was
Soil and well water samples were taken and
of waste.
removed from the drum storage area.
analyzed. In 1984, a security fence was installed around the site.
Entire Site: In 1985, the EPA selected the following cleanup alternatives:
d ) removal and off-site disposal of a select volume of contaminated soil;
(2) extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater; (3} aquifer use
restrictions; and (4) providing an alternate water supply for one residence. In 1989, the
EPA removed the contaminated soils and installed the groundwater collection and
treatment system. Groundwater is still being pumped and treated. The silos and
buildings, drums, and tanks were removed and debris was taken to an off-site disposal
facility.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil and debris, along with the installation of the
groundwater pump and treatment system, have resulted in the cleanup of the Old Mill
site. The groundwater will continue to be treated to ensure the long-term effectiveness
of the cleanup remedy.
39
-------
ORMET
CORPORATION
OHIO 1
EPA ID# OHD004379970
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Monroe County
Hannibal
The 200-acre Ormet Corporation site is an aluminum processing facility that began
operating in 1958. Between 1958 and 1968, approximately 85,000 tons of spent liner
material were stored in an unlined, open storage area. From 1968 until 1981, Ormet
operated a caustic digestion process to recover chemicals from the liner material.
Since 1981, spent liner material has been transported off site for disposal. From 1958
to 1981, as many as five unlined retention ponds were used to hold waste materials at
the site. Untreated water from the facility, as well as contaminated groundwater,
empties into the Ohio River. The Ohio River is a major industrial waterway, recreational
area, and source of drinking water for many communities along its banks.
Approximately 1,500 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The closest
residence is approximately 1,500 feet from the site. The Ohio River separates the site
from the closest residence, which is 1,500 feet away. The well that provides drinking
water for over 3,000 employees of Ormet and the nearby Consolidated Aluminum
Corp. is 1,970 feet from the site. There are no other public water supply wells within a
3-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with cyanides and fluorides. Sludges in an
8-acre lagoon on site are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), cyanide, fluoride, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and petrochemicals. People can be exposed to hazardous
substances from the site by drinking or touching contaminated
groundwater. Contaminated groundwater could affect the drinking water
supply for workers at the Ormet Corporation plant and the nearby
Consolidated Aluminum Corp.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
40
continued
-------
ORMET CORPORATION
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 1987, the EPA and the Ohio EPA began an investigation to
identify the types and amounts of contaminants on and near the site. The
following activities were completed during the first phase of the
investigation: (1) samples of surface water, groundwater, surface soils, and sediment
were collected at and near the site and tested; (2) air quality at certain locations was
analyzed; and (3) data from previous investigations of the site was reviewed to assist in
identifying contaminants present at the site. The ongoing second phase of the
investigation includes the following activities: (1) groundwater sampling; (2)
investigation of the construction material scrap dump to define the types of
contaminants within and originating from this area; (3) investigation of the carbon runoff
and deposition area to define the boundaries of the area and to determine the thickness
of the carbon material; and (4) the sampling program for the Ohio River sediment to
define the extent and type of contamination. The Ormet Corporation, under EPA and
Ohio EPA monitoring, will evaluate ways to best address contamination problems found
at the property. The investigation will provide the basis for selecting a cleanup method
for the property in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and the Ohio EPA negotiated an Administrative Order on
Consent with the Ormet Corporation to conduct a study of the nature and extent of
contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Ormet Corporation site
while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
41
-------
POWELL ROAD
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPA TD# OHD000382663
Site Description
REGION 5
RESSIONAL DIST. 03
Montgomery County
Dayton
Alias:
SCA Services Inc.
The 70-acre Powell Road Landfill site is located in a former sand and gravel staging
area. The site was first used to mine gravel before 1959, but was later used as a
landfill for municipal and demolition waste. Only household refuse, construction waste
and other similar waste materials were licensed to be disposed of at the site, but the
the Ohio EPA and the Montgomery County Health Department found that liquid and
industrial wastes were also accepted by the site's original operator. Residents in the
area complained to the Ohio EPA about uncovered waste, exposed leachate and litter
at the site, and odors. This prompted the State to investigate the site. The landfill was
closed, capped, and sealed in 1985. Approximately 3,000 people live within a 1-mile
radius of the site. The Great Miami River flows along the southern boundary of the
site. The entire site is fenced, and a locking gate restricts access to vehicles. Area
drinking water is provided from public and private groundwater wells. Surface water
runoff drams south toward the Great Miami River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Air contains various volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Groundwater is
contaminated with VOCs and phenols. The site currently poses little risk
to public health; however, people potentially could be exposed to
hazardous substances from the site by drinking or touching contaminated
groundwater or by inhaling gases or contaminated dust particles in the air.
Peopje in the area use the Great Miami River Valley Aquifer as a source of
drinking water. The contamination of this resource would increase the
chances of exposure to contaminants by those residents in the area who
use it.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
42
continued
-------
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
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 and the Ohio EPA are supervising the study being
conducted by the potentially responsible party. The purpose of the study
is to examine the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to
identify alternative remedies for cleaning up the site. The study is scheduled for
completion in 1990. The following actions have been taken to date: (1) private
residential wells were sampled to determine if site contamination had entered the local
water supply; (2) samples of surface water, groundwater, and seeps at and near the
landfill were collected; (3} soil and sediment samples were taken from locations at and
around the site; (4) a soil gas survey was conducted; (5) landfill gas and gas-vent liquid
were collected to determine what chemicals may be present in air at the site; and (6) an
air monitoring survey of the surrounding area was performed to discover if gases
leaving the landfill may cause a health problem for nearby residents.
Site Facts: SCA Services agreed to study contamination problems at the landfill. The
EPA, the Ohio EPA, and SCA Services signed a Consent Order m 1987.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Powell Road Landfill site
while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
43
-------
PRISTINE, ING
OHIO
EPAED# OHD076773712
7 REGIONS
ONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Hamilton County
Reading
Site Description
Pristine, Inc. began operating a liquid waste disposal facility at the location of a former
sulfuric acid manufacturing plant on this 2-acre site in 1974. In 1977, the company
obtained a permit allowing the operation of a liquid waste incinerator. From 1974 to
1981, a variety of acids, organic solvents, and waste products were received at the
facility, and subsequently were treated by incineration or acid neutralization and
disposed of at the site. In 1979, an inspection revealed the presence of 8,000 to
10,000 drums and 13 bulk storage tanks containing a wide variety of hazardous
substances. In 1981, the facility closed as a result of State enforcement actions. The
City of Reading has a population of approximately 12,800. Eight municipal water supply
wells serving the people of Reading are located 300 feet northwest of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
IV
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds {VOCs),
phenols, and heavy metals including manganese, fluoride, and iron.
Compounds detected in the soil and sediments include VOCs, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, and pesticides.
Compounds detected in surface water include VOCs, PAHs, phenols, and
heavy metals. The presence of trace levels of VOCs in groundwater does
not present an immediate health risk to people. Other contaminants are
present at levels low enough not to constitute a health concern.
Contaminated runoff from the site to Mill Creek may pose a problem.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
44
continued
-------
PRISTINE, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: From 1980 to 1983, Pristine, Inc., under the monitoring of
the State, removed much of the waste at the site. In 1984, some of the
parties potentially responsible for site contamination, under EPA
monitoring, performed soil, sludge, sediment, and waste removal activities to address
immediate hazardous site conditions.
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA selected the following cleanup technologies
to address both the soil and groundwater contamination: (1) incineration
of contaminated soil across the site and all other soils from the present
groundwater surface. Sediments and waste pit soils will be treated if
necessary, and ash will be placed under an on-site cap if necessary; (2) performance of
an additional groundwater investigation, extraction and treatment of the lower aquifer
with wells, an air stripper, and carbon adsorption; (3) decontamination and demolition of
on-site structures and disposal of debris in a sanitary landfill; (4) construction of a fence
to restrict access; (5) implementation of deed restrictions to restrict land use; and (6)
monitoring of groundwater flow and quality. The potentially responsible parties, under
EPA monitoring, currently are preparing the technical specifications and design for the
selected cleanup technologies.
Site Facts: From 1980 to 1983, much of the on-site waste was removed in accordance
with a Consent Decree entered into between the State and Pristine, Inc.
Environmental Progress
The removal of waste, soil, sludge, and sediment has greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances at the Pristine, Inc. site while cleanup activities are
being planned.
45
-------
REILLY T.
CHEMIC
CORPORATI
OHIO
EPAID# OHD980610042
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Tuscarawas County
Dover
The 4-acre Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation site was operated from 1932 to 1956 as a
coal tar refinery. During that time, coal tar wastes accumulated on the ground from
spillage and other site activities. The site is situated on slag originally deposited by a
local blast furnace. The site is fenced, is currently inactive, and is located on the sand
and gravel deposits of the Tuscarawas River basin. The aquifer in the deposits is the
sole source of drinking water for approximately 28,700 people served by the municipal
water systems of Dover and New Philadelphia. An additional 4,000 people obtain
drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with petrochemicals from qoal tar
constituents. Potential health threats include accidentally ingesting or
touching contaminated groundwater or soil. However, potential contact
with hazardous substances is limited, because the site is fenced and is
located in an industrial area.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
46
continued
-------
RKILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Response Action Status
hazardous waste landfill.
Initial Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination, under EPA monitoring, installed a fence around the site. In
1990, they also removed surface coal tars from the site and took them to a
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the potentially responsible parties
currently are conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. The investigation will define the contaminants
and recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to be
completed in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a fence and the removal of surface coal tars have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the Reilly Tar & Chemical Company
site while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
47
-------
REPUBLIC
CORP.
QUARK
OHIO
EPAED# OHD980903447
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 13
Loraln County
Elyria
Site Description
The Republic Steel Quarry site consists of a 4-acre quarry, containing water, surrounded
by 7 acres of fenced property. Prior to 1950, the site operated as a sandstone quarry.
The site was then used for the disposal of spent pickle liquor. Pickle liquor is an acid
used to dissolve oxides present in the mill scale that forms on steel during the hot
rolling process. Sulfuric acid was used as the pickling acid at this facility. From 1950 to
1972 approximately 200,000 gallons of waste pickle liquor were discharged into the
quarry each year. Waste pickle liquor was reportedly pumped through an aboveground
pipe to a ditch located on the eastern side of the plant. The ditch routed the liquid
north to the quarry. Beginning in 1969, the pickle liquor stopped being discharged into
the quarry and was hauled off site. From 1969 to 1975, the ditch was still used to
direct wastewater from the plant to the quarry. In 1976, the ditch was dammed. The
site although fenced, is still accessible. Approximately 60,000 people live within 3
miles of the site. The City of Elyria Water Company supplies treated water for all water
users within 3 miles of the quarry, except for 360 homes. Of thesjj 360 homes, 150
are served by the Rural Lorain County Water Authority. Both of the water companies
obtain their water supplies from Lake Erie. The remaining 210 homes obtain water
from private wells. Two residential wells are within 1 mile of the site. Both the on-site
quarry and the Black River are used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/12/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and surface water are contaminated with heavy metals
including barium, manganese/and iron. Quarry sediments are
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, and
phthalates. Heavy metals, phthalates, oil and grease, and pyrene are
contaminating the soil. Health risks include accidentally ingesting or
touching contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
48
continued
-------
REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. QUARRY
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 1988, the EPA selected the following cleanup technologies
to address soil contamination: (1) excavation of contaminated surface soil
from the pickle liquor discharge ditch and the southern end of the quarry;
(2) disposal of excavated soil; (3) a 5-year monitoring plan including a fish species
survey and fish tissue study to ensure the absence of contaminants; and (4)
groundwater monitoring. Soil removal has been completed and fish tissue sampling
has been accomplished. Results of the fish tissue sampling showed that they pose no
health risks. The EPA resampled the groundwater and determined that no VOCs are
present, and the reduced heavy metal contamination does not pose a health risk.
Based on these results, the site is planned for deletion from the NPL in 1991.
\Environmental Progress
Extensive studies performed by the EPA have determined that the low levels of
contamination remaining at the Republic Steel Quarry site after contaminated soil was
removed do not pose risks to nearby residents or the environment. Therefore, the site
is scheduled to be deleted from the NPL by 1991.
49
-------
SANITARY I
COMPANY
OHIO
EPAID# OHD093895787
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Montgomeiy County
Dayton
Alias:
Cardington Road Landfill
Site Description
The 50-acre Sanitary Landfill Company site was operated as a landfill from 1965 to
1980. The landfill reportedly accepted municipal wastes and various types of industrial
wastes including solvents. In 1980, the landfill was closed according to State
regulations. No waste material is being exposed, due to a cap that was installed.
Approximately 6,500 people live within 3 miles of the site. The closest residence is
located less than 100 feet from the site. Approximately 125,000 people draw drinking
water from wells within 3 miles of the site. Municipal wells within the vicinity of the
site are not contaminated, and private wells within the vicinity of the site are used for
potable purposes. The Great Miami River is located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with asbestos and heavy metals
including chromium, copper, cadmium, and lead. Potential health risks to
people include accidentally ingesting or touching contaminated
groundwater or soil. There is also the possibility of a health risk
associated with consuming contaminated animals and agricultural
products. Access to the site is restricted by a fence.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
50
continued
-------
SANITART LANDFILL COMPANY
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 parties potentially responsible for site contamination
currently are conducting a study of the nature and extent of contamination
at the site. The study will define the contaminants and recommend
alternatives for the final cleanup. The study is planned to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and a group of potentially responsible parties signed a
Consent Order requiring the parties to conduct an investigation of the nature and extent
of site contamination. After the investigation is completed, the EPA and the parties will
negotiate site cleanup details.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Sanitary Landfill Company
site while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
51
-------
SKINNER
OHIO
EPAJD# OHD063963714
REGION 5
.CDHC|RESSIONAL DIST. 08
Butler County
West Chester
Site Description
The 70-acre Skinner Landfill site is located on a ridge above the east fork of Mill Creek
in West Chester. The landfill accepted hazardous and demolition wastes since the late
1950s. The actual landfill area covers approximately 10 acres and includes a lagoon
less than 1 acre in size, containing hazardous waste and approximately 100 drums of
solvents, pesticides, and heavy metals. Approximately 40 feet of demolition material is
on top of this lagoon. Demolition waste was accepted until July 1990. The remaining
60 acres of the site contain scrap metal, the owner's residence, and buildings used by
the owner for his general contracting business. Approximately 3,000 people live within
3 miles of the site. On-site residences use groundwater upgradient from the landfill
area for drinking water. The majority of off-site residences are connected to a
municipal water supply.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Liquid sludge in the on-site lagoon is contaminated with heavy metals
including cyanide, cadmium, and chromium. Potential health threats
include accidental ingestion of and direct contact with contaminated liquid
sludge.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
52
continued
-------
SKINNER LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is conducting .an investigation into the nature and
extent of surface water, groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination.
The investigation will define the contaminants of concern and recommend
effective alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is expected to be
completed in 1990.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Skinner Landfill site determined that no immediate actions
are needed while the investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies
continues.
53
-------
SOUTH PO
PLANT
OHIO
EPAID# OHD071650592
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Lawrence County
South Point
Aliases:
Allied Chemical Ethanol Plant
Ashland Oil South Point Facility
Site Description
The 75-acre South Point Plant site is an active ethanol producing facility. Ammonia,
fertilizer, and formaldehyde were produced on site from 1943 to 1979. The Federal
government began operations at the site in 1943 with the production of chemicals used
in explosives. The Allied Chemical Corporation operated the plant for the military until
1946, when the company purchased the property. From 1946 until the plant closed in
1979, Allied Chemical produced chemicals used for agricultural and other purposes. In
1982, South Point Ethanol built an ethanol production plant and began operations on
the site. Several unlined landfills, covering approximately 20 acres, and surface
impoundments were used for process waste disposal. The landfills were closed in
1979, and one is eroding. Numerous activities have contributed to groundwater
contamination. In the late 1950s, a large volume of water used to extinguish a fire in
the ammonium nitrate building caused two surface waterrunoffs. In 1971, an on-site
spill of 300,000 gallons of ammonium nitrate occurred. Access to the site is
unrestricted. Approximately 65,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. The site is
located on the eastern floodplain of the Ohio River. Surface water from the facility
drains to the Ohio River through Solida Creek or the surface water drainage system.
The intake for the Ashland, Kentucky municipal water supply is located on the Ohio
River 1 mile downstream from the site. The Village of South Point draws its water
supply from two well fields, one of which is located between the site and the Ohio
River. The underlying aqfu/ferthat supplies potable water to the Village of South Point is
contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including iron and
manganese, as well as chloride, nitrate, and sulfate. Surface water is
contaminated with nitrate and manganese. Potential health threats
include drinking or touching contaminated groundwater and surface water
and eating contaminated fish, animals, and plants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
54
continued
-------
SOUTH POINT PLANT
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 parties potentially responsible for site contamination
currently are conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of site
, contamination. The investigation will define the contaminants and
recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The ongoing investigation is planned to
be completed in 1991 and includes the following activities: (1) a review of data from
historical photographs, maps, and reports to define the extent of the former disposal
areas; (2) an expanded investigation of portions of the disposal areas, fly ash ponds,
and soils surrounding these areas; and (3) sampling for gases within the soils in and
near the disposal areas and fly ash ponds.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the South Point Plant site while
investigations are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
55
-------
SUMMIT NAJTKM
LIQUID DIS
SERVICES
OHIO
EPAID# OHD980609994
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Portage County
Deerfleld
The 115-acre Summit National site is located on a former coal strip mine containing a
coal wash pond and a coal stock pile. From 1974 to 1978, the site was used as a
waste disposal facility and received such wastes as oils, resins, paint and metal plating
sludges, flammable solvents, and chlorinated solvents. In addition, two surface water
ponds and an incinerator were located on site. The facility received liquid wastes,
which were stored in drums, an open pit, or bulk tanks. Some wastes were
incinerated, others were buried, and some were dumped on the soil. In 1975, the Ohio
EPA investigated a complaint of unauthorized discharge from the site. In 1978, the
facility was ordered to stop receiving waste materials and to remove all liquid wastes
from the site. In 1979, surface water monitoring revealed violations of State water
quality standards. Approximately 4,500 people live within 3 miles of the site. There are
several agricultural fields located within a few thousand feet of the site. Berlin Lake
Reservoir is located about 1 mile southeast of the site. The site is enclosed by a fence
with locked gates.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), phenols, and phthalates. VOCs, phenols, and heavy
metals including cadmium and antimony are contaminating the soil. The
surface water is contaminated with VOCs, phenols, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals
including arsenic and chromium. The contaminated groundwater, soil,
and surface water could pose a health problem if it is accidentally touched
or swallowed. The Berlin Lake Reservoir is a standby water supply for the
City of Youngstown. The reservoir is threatened, because a contaminated
waste lagoon overflowed into the tributary of the reservoir.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
56
continued
-------
SUMMIT NATIONAL LIQUID DISPOSAL SERVICES
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1980, the EPA removed contaminated materials
that threatened the Berlin Reservoir. Also, drums, tanks, various surface
^itiiiiiaiiasiai. debris, and a small amount of contaminated surface soil were collected
and shipped off site. All drums, bulk containers, and the concrete block pit were
emptied and removed. A slope was built on the site to control the stormwater runoff.
In 1987, the EPA contained a threatened release of hazardous materials, due to the
critically deteriorating site conditions, by treating liquid wastes in ponds that were
threatening to overflow, recovering and disposing of an underground storage tank,
increasing the freeboard, and strengthening the dikes around the pond, and excavating
the underground tank. Contaminated soils were stored on site and will be treated in
the final stages of cleanup operations.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the contamination will
assume the responsibility of site cleanup. The selected cleanup remedies
for this site include: (1) excavation and on-site incineration of
, , approximately 24,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediments and
the contents of approximately 1,600 buried drums and 4 tanks, with disposal of
incinerator residuals in a federally approved landfill; (2) groundwater pump and
treatment using a trench system and extraction well system; (3) surface water
treatment on site; (4) discharge of treated water to downslope surface water; (5)
installation of a permeable cap over the site with regrading and revegetation; (6)
dismantling and on-site disposal of all on-site structures; (7) access and deed
restrictions to restrict land uses; and (8) groundwater and surface water monitoring and
residence relocation. The design of the cleanup activities is scheduled to begin in
1990.
Site Facts: In 1981, the State and the potentially responsible parties reached an
agreement to undertake a surface cleanup of the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials, control of runoff, treatment of liquid wastes,
and the strengthening of the dikes by the EPA have greatly reduced the potential of
exposure to hazardous materials at the Summit National Liquid Disposal Services site
while final cleanup activities are being planned and completed.
57
-------
TRW INC.
(MINERVA
OHIO
EPAID# OHD004179339
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 16
Stark County
Minerva
The 54-acre TRW Inc. (Minerva Plant) site is a manufacturing facility that has been sold
to PCC Airfoils, Inc. However, the TRW Corporation still owns land near its former
plant in order to conduct waste management and treatment of the contamination
associated with its past disposal practices. The facility was used for metal casting in
which volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were used as degreasers. The spent
degreasing materials were discharged directly to the Wax Ditch, which flowed into the
South Pond. Dredged material from South Pond and Wax Ditch were also deposited on
the Rubble Pile. Minerva city wells are located approximately 1 mile southwest and
downslope of the TRW building. The wells draw water from a sand and gravel aquifer,
the same aquifer that underlies the TRW property. These wells serve approximately
4,550 people. Within 3 miles of the site are shallow residential wells serving
approximately 900 people. The nearest residential well is 925 feet from the TRW plant.
site Responsibility: j|-,js s[te js being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, sediments, and soil are contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and VOCs, which could pose a health
hazard if they are accidentally touched or swallowed.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
58
continued
-------
TRW INC. (MINERVA PLANT)
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the potentially responsible parties hooked
up all residences with contaminated wells to municipal drinking water
supplies. In 1985, contaminated soils and sediments from the former
disposal areas were excavated and disposed of in an on-site. secure landfill. A PCS
vault was built on the site to secure excavated toxic materials, and a soil cap was
placed over the concrete-lined vault. TRW excavated the soils and sediments for
placement in the vault.
Groundwater: In 1986, the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination started operating a system that pumps contaminated
groundwater to the surface, treats it with an air stripper, and discharges
the treated water to the Sandy Creek. The groundwater treatment system is currently
operating. It is estimated that the cleanup process will take in excess of 30 years.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order on Consent to the
potentially responsible parties, requiring that the parties clean up the groundwater.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply, disposal of contaminated soils, securing of
toxic materials, and placement of a cap, plus the operation of the groundwater
treatment system has eliminated the potential for exposure to contaminated materials
at the TRW Inc. (Minerva Plant) and met all cleanup goals for surface contamination.
Groundwater treatment will continue at the site until established cleanup goals are met.
59
-------
UNITED SCRAP LE
COMPANY, IN
OHIO
EPALD# OHD018392928
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Miami County
Troy
From 1948 until 1980, the 25-acre United Scrap Lead site was used to reclaim lead
batteries. An estimated 32,000 cubic yards of crushed battery cases were generated
and used as fill material. The battery acid and the rinse water were disposed of in an
infiltration pit. Beginning in 1972, the acid was neutralized with ammonia prior to
discharge into the pit. In 1974, the State recommended implementing a more effective
on-site treatment system. United Scrap Lead did not implement the suggested
treatment because operations ceased, and the facility was closed shortly thereafter.
Monitoring wells on site are contaminated with lead. The site is partially fenced and
consists of three general areas: an open flat area occupying the northern half of the
site, a wooded area in the southeastern quarter of the site, and the southwestern
quarter of the site where the offices, process buildings, and waste disposal areas are
located. Forming the southern boundary of the site is a ditch that flows into the Miami
River and serves as a major drainage route for runoff for much of Troy and the
surrounding area. A residential garden is located adjacent to the site. There also is a
migrant worker population associated with commercial activity in the area. The nearest
Troy public water supply well is located approximately 2 miles upgradient of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with lead, but the concentration does
not exceed primary drinking water standards. Sediments, soil, and
surface water are also contaminated with lead; arsenic also is contained in
soils. The contaminated soil, surface water, groundwater, and sediments
could pose a health threat if they are accidentally touched or swallowed.
Also, since the site is located in the Miami River floodplain, there is a
possibility of the site contaminating the river.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
60
continued
-------
UNITED SCRAP LEAD COMPANY, INC.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1985, the EPA excavated contaminated soil and
battery casings from the western portion of the site and moved them
away from nearby residents to the interior of the site.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the following remedies for the site
cleanup: (1) excavating and treating soil and battery casings by washing,
with lead recovery and off-site disposal or recycling of casing residues and
replacement of cleaned residual soil on site; (2) dewateringtributary
sediments, followed by on-site disposal with treated soil; (3) constructing a soil cover
over treated material and revegetating the area; (4) decontaminating buildings and
debris, followed by off-site disposal; (5) installing a new residential well; (6) imposing
deed restrictions; and (7) monitoring groundwater and surface water. The EPA is
expected to complete the design specifications for the cleanup in late 1990.
Environmental Progress
The excavation and removal of contaminated soil and battery casings have greatly
reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the United Scrap Lead
site while cleanup activities are being planned.
61
-------
VAN DALE
JUNKYARD
OHIO
EPAIDSOHD98079
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Washington County
11/2 miles northeast of Marietta
Alias:
Vandalis Junkyard
Site Description
The 10-acre Vandale Junkyard is a licensed facility that accepted hundreds of drums for
salvage, some of which contained such materials as waste dyes and organic solvents.
Wastes from the drums were disposed of through open burning, direct dumping onto
soils, and burial. The small stream draining the site and an adjacent marshy area are
contaminated with volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and heavy metals. Approximately
10,000 people live within 2 miles of the site. Area surface waters are used for
recreation, while residents rely on groundwater from a public water system for water
supply.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site sediments and on-site soils have been contaminated with
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and VOCs. On-site
sludge has been contaminated with various VOCs. People may be
exposed to a health threat if they accidentally ingest or touch
contaminated materials. Site geology has contributed to contamination
reaching adjacent streams and a nearby marshy area.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
62
continued
-------
VAN DALE JUNKYARD
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA and the Ohio EPA are supervising an investigation of
the Van Dale Junkyard, which will identify the types and extent of site
pollutants. At the conclusion of the study, alternatives for site cleanup will
be recommended.
Site Facts: In 1984, the owner of the site agreed not to accept solid and hazardous
wastes and to stop filling, grading, excavating, or burning wastes.
\Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Van Dale Junkyard site
while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
63
-------
WRIGHT-PATTERS
AIR FORCE
OHIO
EPAID# OH7571724312
Site Description
REGION 5
rRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Greene County
Northeast of Dayton
The 8,511-acre Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is the headquarters for the Air Force
Logistics Command and includes the Aeronautical Systems Division and the Air Force
Institute of Technology, as well as a medical center. Past Air Force activities in support
of operational missions have resulted in the creation of several unlined waste disposal
areas throughout the base, including landfills, fire training areas, and coal storage piles.
From 1941 to 1973, the Industrial Shops and the Research and Development
Laboratories disposed of more than 6,600 tons of waste on the base, including
solvents, contaminated thinners, degreasing sludges, and miscellaneous hazardous
chemicals. The base employs approximately 32,000 people, with 8,000 people living
on the base. The Valley Train Aquifer, which is the predominant water source in the
Dayton and Wright-Patterson area, provides water to three municipal well fields within
3 miles of the site. These wells serve more than 375,000 people. The people working
and living on the base are served by 16 base wells.
Site Responsibility: 7hjs sjte js being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Air releases from the site contain methane. Contaminantsjdentified in
the groundwater and leachate include volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Surface water and sediments contain lead and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). Methane may be migrating through soils to nearby
housing, and concentrations in the soil at some landfills are above
explosive levels for methane. Threatened residents are being relocated to
other housing on base. Radiological analyses show elevated alpha and
beta radiation in leachate. A plume of VOC-contaminated groundwater is
migrating off base toward the City of Dayton's well field.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
64
continued
-------
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of. landfills 8 and 10 and cleanup of the
groundwater.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: Base residents near one landfill are being relocated,
due to the unstable nature of high levels of methane in the soil. Sixteen
base wells use air strippers to remove contamination. A work plan for the
removal of approximately 200 drums and the recovery of freeproducts at various spill
sites is being developed.
Landfills 8 and 10: The Air Force is conducting an investigation to
determine the type and extent of contamination at these landfills. At the
conclusion of the investigation in 1992, recommendations will be made for
cleaning up the site. The work plan for installing a temporary leachate collection
system is under development.
Groundwater: The Air Force is studying the need to prevent off-base
migration of contaminated groundwater, which is threatening municipal
well fields. In 1990, the Air Force will begin an investigation to determine
the extent and content of other hazardous materials on site. At the completion of the
investigation, recommendations for site cleanup alternatives will be made.
Site Facts: The Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), a specially funded program established by the Department
of Defense (DOD) for the identification, evaluation, and controlling of hazardous
materials at military installations. The EPA is negotiating an Interagency Agreement
with the DOD to oversee studies and implementation of selected remedies.
Environmental Progress
The relocation of residents will eliminate the potential for exposure to explosive
materials at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base site while studies leading to the,
selection of final cleanup activities are taking place.
65
-------
ZANESVILL:
WELL FIEL
OHIO
EPA DD# OHD980794598
Site Description
REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Musklngum County
Northeast of Zanesville
The 1-acre Zanesville Well Field site supplies water to the city of Zanesville and is
adjacent to the Muskingum River. In 1981, the State found that three of the 13
production wells were highly contaminated. A groundwater study conducted by the
EPA identified trichloroethylene (TCE) as a primary contaminant. The City took the
three contaminated wells out of service and began flushing to remove contaminants
remaining in the water lines. By 1982, the contaminated wells were still not in use, but
were being continually pumped to reduce the contamination and prevent its further
migration into the well field. A nearby production well also was not in use because of
the danger of contamination. The City conducts a regular monitoring program at the
site. A neighboring industry, after studying its operation, began to excavate buried
wastes and treat local groundwater. Approximately 40,000 people reside within 3 miles
of the site. Fourteen city wells supply water to the population.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
I
The air contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The groundwater
also is contaminated with VOCs. The soil contains VOCs and some heavy
metals. Accidentally ingesting or touching groundwater or soil could pose
a potential health threat. Inhaling contaminated airborne vapors may also
be a health threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
66
continued
-------
ZANESMTLLE WELL FIELD
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: An investigation to determine the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify alternatives for final cleanup is currently
taking place. The investigation is expected to be completed in 1990.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Zanesville Well Field site
while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
67
-------
-------
' his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the
site fact sheets for the State of Ohio, The terms
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 the Superfund program. Thus, 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).
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
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.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in ponds and lagoons, to prevent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
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.
Downslope: [see Downgradient].
G-2
-------
Effluent: Waste-water, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Fly ash: Non-combustible residue that results from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, generally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party that consists of a written proposal demonstrat-
ing a potentially responsible party's qualifications and willingness to perform a site
study or cleanup.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater, with particular emphasis on the chemis-
try and movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of Water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
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.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid 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 soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
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.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability. A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against potentially responsible parties, although EPA may
undertake certain investigatory and planning activities. The 60-day period may be
extended if EPA receives a good faith offer [see Good Faith Offer] within that period.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic, modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances produced from petroleum in refinery operations
and as fuel oil residues. These include fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are made. These chemical substances are often
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used in plastics manufacturing and are by-
products of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye, and resin manufacturing. Phenols
are highly poisonous and can make water taste and smell bad.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundwater flow
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, and the den-
sity of contaminants.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs): PAHs,
such as pyrene, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and can cause cancer.
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-
G-4
-------
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.
B.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
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.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure. Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment. Radon, which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionuclides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid used for disposing wastes and to contain
overflow from production facilities. Sometimes retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store waste.
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.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
/
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials. ,
G-5
-------
GLOSSARY
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging a trench around a contaminated
area and filling the trench with an impermeable material that prevents water from
passing through it. The groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped within the area
surrounded by the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated by surface or groundwater and, under
normal circumstances, capable of supporting vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to sustaining many species of fish and
wildlife. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, and bogs. Wetlands may be
either coastal or inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish (a mixture of salt and
fresh) water, and most have tides, while inland wetlands are non-tidal and freshwater.
Coastal wetlands are an integral component of estuaries.
G-6
------- |