EPA/540/4-90/036
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Oklahoma
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets ; I
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
ii
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
\; s the 1970s came to a
5 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 6n the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
iii
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites/ but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. 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
-------
T^ 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
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
vu
-------
NX^sy. s\
"&%<$. ..
$*0w doe$ IBM Ijejim
'hazardous waste ^ *-s ^ ^
jsites? 'IV ^
, ^-.-.W^v, s j
(there isn't an
Imminent danger \
sw
, cleanup actiojis \"
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.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem.-pf contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
vui
-------
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.
..i
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
.
tk seadotis Ihfeat
^&Mty 'exist, what*s Hie
' % ^
site
Ts-
-------
fr:
|How
^o«* whether EPA
f considers a site a__^ ,
lilational priofity for ^;
ws^s ^;., ^
money? -!
r
i-
;
\"j.'^ **
>\\<.>>s$s^
*,.
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 (MRS). 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, if 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.
"V.
' ff
,-"
f.'.
"-.V" f
'£;<'
4 >
, . <%
% .--Si,.
, ;,'// s
>V^"'
. j <
XI
-------
I:"'
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.
I How are clearmp
I alternatives
* identified &$td
F evaluated?
v ii
I Does the public Itave
fa say in the final f% .
Icleatmp decision??, s
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
Xll
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
-J.S.-.V.
"i'« /
xiii
-------
SUPERFUND
;ce fhe design. Is %
Noes it take to ^ ~::I
site ancl liow muef* ^j
1 IT >* S 5'
^ V >v V V
« .. « ^ ' , , S
^
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 $26 million per
site.
x . . No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
i [ t "vW % 5 *> ^ &f s^ **f$f .. s. ' '/«-»
action, JS COlhplete, i$ £ matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
aE.~-j:*»^i_^*^;^*s*:£is»*i- ' may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And if 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
'deleted* &bmt1*e _
> ^ *.v ,,- - '-'«
v. f s^O WN <^\ v. -fi
^vN " 0 i
^.s f
' 'i *
.< & . < '" <-" f
! « K 1 » \ *« 5
v. V^", \><'«
- ,^ ,<-*, , ;
^s--X' ',v ,
^ ^s -f S
*.», ^SX>^ - ^
' ^ \t x S"A^ i
" -1 > f i S
\ " Xs s^
^. "\ "^^ ^ - / >;
^^, ^r>«-J
^ V ^ <^ SV^*, SV
*, O ^ i, * ^vSS: s Niw x "*
'^A«sf*t*> , i"^:- ^
" > XA^* ^** ' ' y^f ,^'*
^ V > ^ , s vs
~~ ^^_^ ^,' V*x*«v
xiv
-------
SUPERFUND
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.
XV
-------
TAX
-------
HOW T0:
he Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
itial 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-
mg specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
SITE NAME
SIATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
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 res9urces are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
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 feet sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Oklah
Oklahoma is located in the south central United States bounded on the south by Texas,
Kansas and Colorado to the north, and Arkansas and New Mexico to the east and west
repectively. The State covers 69,919 square miles and consists of high plains, hills and
small mountains, the Arkansas River Basin, and the Red River Plains. Oklahoma
experienced a 7.2% increase in population through the 1980s, and currently has
approximately 3,242,000 residents, ranking 27th in U.S. State populations. Principal
industries include manufacturing, mineral and energy exploration and production,
agriculture, and5 printing and publishing. Oklahoma produces food products, non-
electrical machinery, fabricated metal products, lumber, and petroleum.
How Many Oklahoma Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed 3
Final 7
Deleted 0_
10
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Cong. District 01 2 sites
Cong. District 02 1 site
Cong. District 04 2 sites
Cong. District 05 5 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
10--
8 --
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process* 7
Site .^^^ Remedy ^^^ Remedy
Studies ^^ Selected ^^ Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Complete
T
Initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Oklahoma, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Oklahoma Superfund Office
EPA Region VI Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region VI Superfund Public
Relations Office
(405)271-7159
(214) 655-6705
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(214) 655-2240
" Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview
xxii
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State sites currently on or deleted from the NPL,
and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
* An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
* An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
«* An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
>- A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
JTJ.UJ
Page
1
3
5
7
10
12
14
16
18
20
£ics» JLUWCU.U vxicaxiup at
She Name
COMPASS INDUSTRIES
DOUBLE EAGLE REFINERY COMPANY
FOURTH ST. ABANDONED REFINERY
HARDAGE/CRINER
MOSLEY ROAD SANITARY LANDFILL
OKLAHOMA.REFINING COMPANY
SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL CO.
TAR CREEK
TENTH STREET DUMP
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
, JLUJTJL/ OJbCB
County
TULSA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
MCCLAIN
OKLAHOMA
CADDO
TULSA
OTTAWA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
k JUUt tU
MPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Prop.
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
C OUXLV UA \SAJCUAU1UO.
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
09/21/84 * * * *- *"
03/31/89 «* *
03/31/89 «* *
06/10/86 * "^ - «* "K
06/24/88 *
06/24/88 *
06/10/86 * "^ * "^
09/08/83 «* * > "^ "* *
07/22/87 «* *
03/22/B7 «* *
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
COMPASS
OKLAHOMA
EPA ID# OKD980620983
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Tulsa County
Chandler Park
Aliases:
Tulsa Refining, Inc.
Chandler Landfill
Site Description
Compass Industries is a 108-acre abandoned landfill situated on a bluff that overlooks
the Arkansas River west of Tulsa. Licensed for operations from 1972 to 1976, it served
as one of the major municipal and industrial landfills in the Tulsa area. Unknown
wastes have been dumped at the site since the mid-1950s. The limited records kept
indicate that several types of hazardous wastes were dumped there, including toxic
chemicals, metals, and carcinogenic materials. Prior to that, the site was used for
limestone quarrying and oil and gas exploration. During the 1970s, poor operating
practices and open burning resulted in several fires at the landfill. The most recent fire
burned underground for several years, occasionally breaking out into the open. The
waste is piled 20 to 30 feet deep. The State Health Department began to study air and
water quality in 1983, when residents complained about odors at the site. The site is in
a rural area, but is immediately west of Chandler Park, a recreational area. The nearest
residence is 1/4 mile from the site, and the nearest drinking water well is 1/2 mile
away, although it is upgradientirom the site and not currently in use.
Site Responsibility:
The 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
The groundwater is contaminated with toxic metals and organic
compounds. Contaminants include oily sludges, jet fuel, solvents, acids,
caustics, bleaches, benzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
pesticides. In the past, the site has been troubled by recurrent fires.
Toxic air emission from burning material could reach nearby residences.
In addition, trespassers from the nearby recreational area may come in
contact with contaminated materials; people have used the site for target
practice. The area near the site is a habitat for the endangered bald eagle.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
COMPASS INDUSTRIES
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions to limit access to the site
and a long-term remedial phase to clean up the groundwater and to control the spread
of further contamination.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA installed a fence around the site and put
warning signs around its perimeter in mid-1988.
Source Control and Groundwater Cleanup: The EPA selected the
following remedies: (1) an EPA-approved cap will be installed over the
landfill area to isolate contaminated materials and reduce the amount of
water seeping into and through the landfill; (2) surface water will be
diverted to reduce overland flows and reduce infiltration; (3) 46 acres of the 108 acres
site will be capped and graded to encourage site runoff and prevent erosion, and the
capped area will be fenced and posted; and (4) contaminated shallow groundwater will
be collected and treated before discharge into the Arkansas River. These approaches
will contain contaminated material on the site and help keep pollutants from migrating
off the area via water and air. The construction phase began in 1989, and on-site field
work began in early 1990.
Site Facts: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination are
performing the cleanup pursuant to an Administrative Order.
Environmental Progress
The construction of a fence to limit access to the site has reduced the exposure
potential of the Compass Industries site, making it safer during cleanup activities.
-------
DOUBLE EA
OKLAHOMA
EPA ID# OKD007188717
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Oklahoma County
Oklahoma City
Site Description
The Double Eagle Refinery Company, southeast of the intersection of 4th Street NE
and Eastern Avenue, has been in operation since 1929. Until around 1980, this
12-acre facility refined used motor oils by acidulation, distillation, and filtration. The
operation now stores, dehydrates, and sells waste oils. About 2,500 cubic yards of
waste oils contaminated with heavy metals are in a surface impoundment and four
ponds, some of which are unlined or leaking. According to the company, the oils come
from truck fleets, garages, automobile dealers, industries, and city, State, and Federal
agencies throughout the State. In addition, waste solvents and other products were
collected from major industrial companies in Oklahoma. In 1986, the EPA detected
barium, lead, and zinc in soil in drainage paths east and west of the site and in a pond
to the east. These contaminants are probably the result of spills from the lagoon.
About 28,500 people in Del City and Smith Village get drinking water from public and
private wells within 3 miles of the site. An on-site well serves company employees.
The site is located 1/2 mile from a school and 1/4 mile from a residential area. Surface
waters within 3 miles of the site are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments from the ponds and drainage areas, the surrounding soil areas,
and surface water are contaminated with barium, lead, zinc, acid-based
natural compounds, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Groundwater in the area is shallow (10 to 25 feet in some cases) and soils
are permeable, conditions that could help contaminants move into
groundwater. There is a health risk from direct contact with the materials,
but this has been lessened since the area was fenced.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
DOUBLE EAGLE REFINERY COMPANY
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
IX1 Immediate Action: In 1988, the EPA ordered the site owner to fence the
north side of the site so that people and animals could not come into direct
contact with hazardous substances. The fence was erected in 1989.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA evaluated the site and determined that
emergency cleanup actions are not warranted at this time. The EPA will be
conducting a site investigation of impacted groundwater, soil, and surface
water and expects to conclude the study and select the technologies to clean up the
site in 1992.
Environmental Progress
Fencing of the Double Eagle Refinery site has reduced the potential of direct exposure
to hazardous substances, making the area safer while it awaits selection of cleanup
activities.
-------
FOURTH 8TRETC
ABANDO
OKLAHOMA
EPA ID# OKD980696470
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Oklahoma County
Oklahoma City
Site Description
The Fourth Street Refinery is an abandoned 42-acre facility that operated from 1940 to
1968, and the firm created numerous oil and sludge pits during this time. More recent
dumping has occurred in the form of old concrete and building materials and
government surplus supplies. An inactive oil and a gas well are on site. Approximately
32,500 people, living within 3 miles of the abandoned refinery, obtain their water from
the two interconnected aquifers that are 15 feet beneath the site. Douglas High School
is 1/2 mile south of the site. The nearest surface water is the North Canadian River,
which is approximately 2,600 feet south of the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
a combination of State and Federal
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Soil samples contain heavy metals including barium and lead, the
pesticide chlordane, and crude oil constituents. Sludge from the site
contains nickel, benzene, and xylene. Given the hydrogeology of the
site, there is significant potential for groundwater contamination to the
two aquifers. The land drains to the south and east, thus threatening
the North Canadian River. Also, the site was not completely fenced until
1989, making it possible for people and animals to come into direct
contact with hazardous substances.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
FOURTH STREET ABANDONED REFINERY
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1985, the State decontaminated junk autos, stored two
drums of benzene, and capped and seeded the area. The EPA fenced the
site and posted warning signs in 1989.
Entire Site: The EPA is conducting an investigation to determine the
extent of contamination to groundwater, surface water, sediment, soil,
sludge and tar areas, as well as to chart the movement of contaminants
through the air. The investigation will recommend alternatives for the
cleanup and is scheduled to be completed in 1991.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions to control contamination and to fence the site have reduced
the exposure potential to contaminated areas at the Fourth Street Refinery site, making
it safer while awaiting further, long-term cleanup activities.
-------
HARDAGE/RINER
OKLAHOMA
EPA ID# OKD00040009
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
McClaln County
3/4 mile west of Criner on Hwy. 122
Aliases:
Hardage Landfill
Criner Landfill
Site Description
The 60-acre Hardage/Criner site was licensed by the State of Oklahoma from 1972 to
1980 to accept industrial and hazardous wastes such as asbestos, cyanides, and
flammable sludges. Pits excavated to receive wastes filled rapidly, and wastes were
then transferred to two temporary ponds. In the west pond, liquid wastes were
s/u/r/ec/with soil and transferred to the south pond. When the south pond filled,
wastes were stacked up to 10 feet above the ground, becoming a sludge mound. In
the mid-1970s, drums were no longer emptied but were piled at the north end of the
main pit, called the drum mound. These practices resulted in pesticides, solvents,
acids, and metal sludges contaminating surface water, groundwater, and surface
soil. The nearest residence in this rural area is at the southwest site boundary.
Adjacent to the North Criner Creek floodplain, the site is surrounded by cattle grazing
land. Shallow groundwater from the site has moved into the North Criner Creek
alluvium.
site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
a combination of State, Federal, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
T\
Threats and Contaminants
The soil, groundwater, and surface waters are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, solvents, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), oils, methylene chloride, paint sludge,
and inks. Inhalation of dusts and vapors generated from the soils on site
is a potential risk for workers or trespassers. Fugitive dusts and vapors
could be inhaled off site when the soil is disrupted on site. There is no
known current use of the groundwater, but any use of the groundwater
would be hazardous.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
HARDAGE/CRINER
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on groundwater treatment and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the potentially responsible parties started
decontaminating the site by mixing pit fluids with soil, excavating visibly
contaminated soils from mixing areas and temporary ponds, capping the
source areas with a soil cover, and consolidating wastes in source areas. They also
fenced the site in 1987. In 1988, heavy rains caused slope damage to the western face
of the barrel mound. The potentially responsible parties performed the repair and also
restored the other eroded mound areas.
Groundwater: The EPA's selected remedy, which was reviewed by the
public in 1989, is to build a V-shaped trench to intercept contaminated
groundwater over most of the site. Another interceptor trench will catch
groundwater that is moving into the alluvium located under North Criner
Creek. The captured groundwater will be pumped to an on-site treatment unit, and
then the treated water will be discharged to North Criner Creek. The groundwater and
surface water will be monitored, surface drainage controlled, and the use of
contaminated groundwater will be prevented.
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA chose the following remedies for cleaning up
the source of contamination to be carried out by the potentially responsible
parties: (1) excavation of approximately 180,000 cubic yards from the
principal source areas (the drum mound, main pit, and sludge mound) to the
bedrock; (2) separation of wastes; (3) treatment and disposal of solids in an on-site
approved landfill; (4) incineration of organic liquids; and (5) treatment and disposal of
inorganic liquids. A public comment period was held in 1989 to explore options other
than those listed. The EPA is considering a proposal by the group of potentially
responsible parties to modify the remedy. Contaminated surface soils located away
from the source areas would be excavated, then consolidated in source areas and
capped. Additionally, wells would be installed in source areas, and contaminated
liquids would be extracted and shipped off site. The EPA is again requesting
comments on the new proposal before continuing.
Site Facts: In 1978, the State of Oklahoma filed complaints against the facility for
suspected lead poisoning of the air around the site. A ruling in 1982 found that the
potentially responsible parties are liable for all costs of removal or remedial actions. A
complaint was filed against 36 generators and transporters in 1986. A partial Consent
Decree was signed by the potentially responsible parties in 1987 for the groundwater
cleanup.
continued
-------
HARDAGE/CREVER
Environmental Progress
The initial actions taken by the potentially responsible parties to decontaminate the soil,
to excavate, and to cap the source areas as described above'have reduced the potential
exposure of nearby residents to the waste at the Hardage/Criner site, making it safer
while it awaits further long-term activities.
-------
MOSLEY
SANITARYLAPll
OKLAHOMA
EPA ID# OKD980620868
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Oklahoma County
3 miles east of Oklahoma City
Site Description
The Mosley Road Landfill covers 72 acres and was used as a commercial and industrial
landfill. In 1976, the landfill accepted approximately 2 million gallons of hazardous
substances under a Temporary Emergency Waiver for Hazardous Waste Disposal
issued by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. According to the permit
application, pesticides, industrial solvents, sludges, waste chemicals, and emulsions.
were deposited in two unlined pits. Since then, the pits have been buried under as
much'as 20 feet of solid refuse and fill. Concerns about groundwater contamination
brought the site to the EPA's attention. The hazardous wastes were disposed of near
the base of the landfill, and a potential long-term risk could exist if wastes were leaking
into the groundwater. The landfill lies above the Garber-Wellington Formation, an
aqu/Terthat serves as a high-quality drinking water source for many Oklahoma City
residents. The area is residential and commercial. An estimated 57,000 people obtain
drinking water from public and private wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. Six
homes within 1/2 mile obtain drinking water from private wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed by a
combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
The soil is contaminated with pesticides, industrial solvents, sludges,
waste chemicals, emulsions, and other substances disposed of in the
landfills. Potential contamination of groundwater supplying the public
drinking water system may pose a threat to human health.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
10
continued
-------
MOSLEY ROAD SANITARY LANDFILL
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is currently assessing the site to determine if public
access should be restricted or if stabilization of potential site hazards is
needed before a full-scale investigation is begun. Under an agreement
with the EPA, Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc. and Mobile Waste
Controls, Inc. have agreed to perform the study that will determine the nature and
extent of site contamination and will identify and evaluate potential remedies for site
problems. The investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992, with the EPA
selecting the final remedy, and the actual site cleanup is planned for 1993.
Site Facts: Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc. signed an Administrative Order
with the EPA in 1989 to conduct an investigation into the nature and extent of site
contamination.
Environmental Progress
The investigation into a permanent solution is being carried out, and the EPA will decide
on a final remedy soon. Meanwhile, the EPA is assessing conditions at the Mosley
Road Landfill site to determine if the site warrants immediate cleanup actions.
11
-------
OKLAHO
COMPANY
OKLAHOMA
EPAID# OKD0915988
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Caddo County
South Baskett Street in Cyril
Site Description
The 160-acre Oklahoma Refining Company site is an abandoned oil refinery that was
active from 1908 to 1984. The operator at the site-placed process wastes, some
reactive or flammable, into more than 100 impoundments, many of which were
unlined. Other wastes were tilled into the soil or placed in a waste pile. In 1981, the
EPA observed leachate coming from the site, threatening nearby Gladys and Chetonia
Creeks, which are used for recreational activities. In 1984, the owner declared
bankruptcy and abandoned the facility. In 1986, the EPA found an on-site monitoring
well to be contaminated with heavy metals. Approximately 1,600 people obtain
drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. One private well
is located within 1,000 feet of the site.
Site responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
T\
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals, including arsenic
and lead. Process wastes from oil refining were tilled into the soil through
a landfarming operation, but the soil contaminants are unspecified. Many
of the wastes remaining on-site are flammable or reactive and pose the
threat of fire or explosion. The site is unfenced, making it accessible to
people and animals. Two creeks have been shown to be affected by
contamination from the site.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in one long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire
site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
12
continued
-------
OKLAHOMA REFINING COMPANY
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA surveyed the site to determine the
emergency actions required. As a result of the survey, several possible
initial actions were identified, including restricting access to the site by
fences and posting signs, preventing wildlife from landing or feeding at the site by
placing nets over the pond, overpacking and removing drums on site, and performing a
creek insect study. Fencing and sign posting will be the first action to be implemented.
In 1989, the Oklahoma State Department of Health began an investigation to assess
the extent of contamination in soil, groundwater, and surface waters and to identify
appropriate cleanup strategies. The clean-up remedy is expected to be selected by the
EPA in 1991.
Site Facts: The EPA issued an Administrative Order m 1980 requiring the potentially
responsible parties to reduce site discharge to Gladys Creek.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of this site on the NPL, the EPA has completed a site assessment and
determined that fencing and removal of the hazardous waste will reduce the immediate
threat to public health and the environment. Once completed, the Oklahoma Refining
Company site will be safer while it awaits final remedial action.
13
-------
SAND SPRINGS
PETROC
OKLAHOMA
EPAID# OKD980748446
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Tulsa County
Sand Springs,
adjacent to Arkansas River
Site Description
This 235-acre site, approximately 3 miles west of the Tulsa city limits, operated as a
refinery from the turn of the century through the late 1940s. It was later developed as
an industrial area consisting of chemical manufacturers, solvent and waste oil recovery
operations, transformer salvaging and recycling, and various other industries. The site
contains acid sludge pits, a surface impoundment, spray ponds, and solvent and waste
oil lagoons. The refinery left two unlined pits, about 10 feet deep, containing sulfuric
acid sludge and heavy metals. Over the years, sludge seeped into the Arkansas River
levee, releasing contaminants to the river. Other industries stored or disposed of
hazardous substances in drums, tanks, and unlined pits, or simply buried them on the
site. These substances included volatile organic compounds (VOCs), acids, caustics,
chlorinated solvents, and sludges containing heavy metals. The nearest residence is
located on site. Drinking water wells are in use within 1/2 mile, although they are
upgradientoi the contaminated site. Poor operations have contaminated local
groundwater, and the pollutants may also leave the site in runoff.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed by the
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, shallow
groundwater, sediments and sludge are VOCs and heavy metals such as
lead and chromium. The Arkansas River has been shown to be
contaminated by past seepage of sulfuric acid sludges and heavy metals
through the levee. People are at risk from direct contact with or
accidental ingestion of contaminated soil, groundwater, or sludges.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
14
continued
-------
SAND SPRINGS PETROCHEMICAL CO.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases divided into three steps to focus on remedy selection, source control,
and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under orders from the EPA, some of the parties
responsible for the contamination removed drums and tanks from the site.
The EPA also removed 400 drums of hazardous material, repaired the
fence, and sampled and analyzed the pits, on-site soil, and the on-site monitoring wells.
Source Control: In September 1987, EPA determined that incineration of
the contaminated soil and sludges would be the most efficient remedy for
this site. However, the solidification or stabilization of wastes remedy
proposed during the public comment contamination, would be allowed if
the responsible parties could demonstrate that these technicques would provide
comparable protection of human health and environment in a specific time period.
ARCO started the engineering design for the remedy in 1988, including a bench-scale
pilot test to determine the most appropriate solidification technique.
Groundwater Cleanup: In 1988, the EPA selected a "no action" cleanup
remedy for the groundwater phase. This approach features monitoring of
groundwater and Arkansas River water for 30 years. The EPA believes that
once the sources of contamination are removed, groundwater pollution will
dissipate naturally over time, via the natural flushing action of the aquifer. In addition to
monitoring, signs will be posted warning residents of the dangers of coming into direct
contact with site contamination.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA issued two Administrative Orders for drum and tank
removal. In 1987, an Administrative Order was issued to the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination, who conducted on-site incineration and solidification
treatability studies.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions undertaken to remove contaminated drums and tanks and to
repair the fence surrounding the site have reduced the exposure potential at the Sand
Springs Petrochemical site, making it safer while it awaits finalization of plans for
cleanup of contaminated soils.
15
-------
TAR CREEK
OKLAHOMA
EPA ID# OKD980629844
REGIONS
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Ottawa County
Through the towns of Miami, Picher,
Cardin, Quapaw, and Commerce
Site Description
The Tar Creek site covers a 40-square mile portion of the Tri-State Mining District
(Richer Mine Field), which covers TOO square miles'. The area produced significant
quantities of lead and zinc in the 1920s and 1930s. When major mining operations
ceased in the early 1970s, groundwater accumulated in the mines. The acid water
reacted with the surrounding rock causing many of the metals present to dissolve,
resulting in high concentrations of zinc, lead, and cadmium in the water. In 1979, acid
mine water with high concentrations of heavy metals began to discharge to the surface
from boreholes and the abandoned mine shafts, contaminating the surface water in Tar
Creek. This problem, along with the potential for contaminating the drinking water
source under the mining area, prompted the U.S. Geological Survey and the State to
investigate the site. In 1981, the State declared the site its number one pollution
problem. In 1985, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board notified the EPA of elevated
levels of metals in the Picher town water well. The towns of Miami, Picher, Cardin,
Quapaw, and Commerce are located within the site area boundary. The nearby
population of approximately 21,000 receive their drinking water from the Robidoux
Aquifer.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
State and Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, sediments, and surface water were contaminated with
heavy metals including lead, zinc, and cadmium. The aquifer serving the
area was threatened due to several boreholes and abandoned wells
connecting the aquifer. Several people use the upper aquifer as a source
of drinking water. The lower aquifer also serves the town of Picher.
Because the Picher town water well passes through a highly mineralized
rock formation, the high levels of heavy metal contaminants seem to
indicate major casing failure in the well. Runoff of surface waters had
degraded Tar Creek. Wetlands are found on the site and also were
subject to contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
16
continued
-------
TAR CREEK
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1985 an emergency water supply was put in place by the
National Guard. EPA plugged the contaminated well using sand and
corrosion-resistant concrete. Backup wells were used to flush the city
lines. Subsequently, water quality in these two wells returned to normal and the
National Guard discontinued water delivery. EPA drilled the new well, connected it to
the water system, and the water was retested.
Entire Site: The selected remedies included diverting and diking the two
major inflow areas in Kansas, and a third in Oklahoma, plugging aquifer
wells, and developing a monitoring plan. A total of 83 wells were plugged.
All remedial clean up activities have been completed since 1986. The State
is currently monitoring the effectiveness of the remedy. A report was prepared by the
State to assess the effectiveness of the remedy and is being reviewed by the EPA.
Site Facts: In 1982, the EPA awarded a Cooperative Agreement to the State for a site
investigation and a study of alternative cleanup strategies.
Environmental Progress
Actions by the State of Oklahoma and the EPA have reduced the potential for
contaminants in the shallow groundwater to migrate to deeper drinking water aquifers
and achieved the groundwater cleanup standards established for the site. The State
has also completed all other cleanup activities at the Tar Creek site for surface water
improvement.
17
-------
TENTH
OKLAHOMA
EPAED# OKD980620967
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Oklahoma County
., Oklahoma City-
Alias:
FrazierPit
Site Description
The 3 1/2-acre Tenth Street site in Oklahoma City was used as a municipal landfill
before 1959. It housed a private salvage yard from 1959 to 1979, after which it
became a private automobile junkyard. During the salvage of electrical equipment,
large amounts of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) oil had been spilled on the ground. A
fire at the site destroyed 1,000 old tires, which may have contributed to a black tar-like
substance on ruined soil. Workers indiscriminately bulldozed drums of benzene and
methylene chloride onto sections of the site along with other debris. About 30,000
people draw drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site, the
nearest within 1/4 mile.-1 Residential property is adjacent to the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
- "Final Date: 07/22/87 :
Threats and Contaminants
The soils have high levels of PCBs. Residents, trespassers, and children
are threatened by direct exposure to contaminated soils and waste left on
the site. The North Canadian River is threatened by contaminated runoff
from the site. Contaminants from the soil may also threaten nearby
groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on contamination at the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
18
continued
-------
TENTH STREET DUMP
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The first phase, of the initial action started in 1985 and
included decontamination of the automobiles, spare parts, office building,
and tire repair machine shop. After decontamination, workers backfilled the
wash pit. Because contamination was widespread, the entire site was capped to
prevent rainfall and erosion from spreading pollutants in a second cleanup phase.
About 18 inches of clay was placed on the site. The entire area was fenced and
posted. The cap was seeded in 1986. Workers moved the hazardous waste drums
and left them on site pending disposal arrangements.
Entire Site: The EPA started a further investigation into the nature and
extent of the contamination at this site in 1988 in an attempt to identify and
plan final cleanup strategies. The investigation is planned for completion in
1990, after which the EPA will begin the final cleanup phase.
Site Facts: In 1985, the EPA issued an Administrative Order to the potentially
responsible parties to decontaminate and remove junked cars, remove and properly
dispose of electrical equipment and drums containing hazardous substances, install a
fence, and build a synthetic liner and clay cap to prevent runoff from spreading
contaminants.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has completed many cleanup activities at the Tenth Street Dump site,
including decontamination of hazardous items and fencing and capping the site, making
the site safer. Further immediate cleanup actions will be implemented soon to
excavate and dispose of contaminated soil outside the fenced area, while the final long-
term cleanup alternatives are investigated.
19
-------
TINKER AIR
OKLAHOMA
EPAID# OK1571724391
REGION 6
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Oklahoma County
Oklahoma City metropolitan area
Site Description
The 220-acre Tinker AFB site is located in the northeast portion of the base, east of the
North-South runway. It encompasses Building 3001, the two adjacent underground;
storage tank areas, adjacent Soldier Creek, and the contaminated groundwater under
the base. Tinker AFB was activated in 1942. Its primary mission was to serve as a
worldwide repair depot for aircraft and associated equipment and weaponry. The
Building 3001 complex used large quantities of industrial solvents in its business of
maintaining aircraft and rebuilding jet engines. In the past, waste oils, solvents, paint
sludges, and plating waste generated from maintenance activities were disposed in
two industrial waste pits, 1 mile south of Soldier Creek and Building 3001. Since 1979,
industrial wastes have been disposed of off site. Four landfills and the groundwater are
contaminated with chromium and trichloroethylene (TCE), and the base wells provide all
drinking water. As of 1988, four drinking water wells at the base were polluted. The
closest municipal well, 1/2 mile northwest, serves Midwest City with approximately
55,400 people. The well is over 500 feet deep. The nearest residences and drinking
wells are 300 feet from the site. The base has 19,500 workers and 2,700 residents.
Site .Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/29/85
Final Date: 03/22/87
T\
Threats and Contaminants
Four potable groundwater wells are contaminated with high
concentrations of TCE and cadmium. Sediments and soil are
contaminated with TCE and chromium. Surface water is contaminated
with nickel and cadmium. Drinking contaminated groundwater poses a
threat to residents and workers. Municipal wells for Midwest City are at
500 feet, and are not at great risk to contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
20
continued
-------
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on contaminants at the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1985, the Air Force removed tanks in Building
3001, contaminated soil from on-base streams, and contaminants from the
groundwater under one of the site's facility. In addition, a cap was installed
at one of the landfills, with additional capping on its SE corner. Two wells were
plugged in 1986.
Entire Site: In 1987, the Air Force contracted with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to do a study into site contaminants and remedies. This study will
also provide an engineering design for each of the contaminated areas on
the base. The Air Force will conduct an investigation into the contamination of Soldier's
Creek and develop cleanup alternatives. Other landfills will be capped to stop the
further migration of contaminants. The Air Force is finishing its investigation of solvent
contamination and remedies for the Building 3001 area.
Site Facts: The Air Force is participating in the Installation Restoration Program,
started in 1978, under which the Department of Defense takes responsibility for
identifying and cleaning up pollution from its hazardous waste sites.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials and the capping of a landfill by the Air Force has
greatly reduced the chance of accidental of hazardous exposure at the Tinker AFB site,
making it safer while the Air Force completes final investigations and begins site
cleanup activities.
A
21
-------
-------
x
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Oklahoma. The terms and
abbreviations contained in this glossary are often
defined in the context of hazardous waste management as de-
scribed in the site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work per-
formed under the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms
may have other meanings when used in a different context.
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH (less than
7.0) that are used in chemical manufacturing. Acids in
high concentration can be very corrosive and react with
many inorganic and organic substances. These reactions
may possibly create toxic compounds or release heavy
metal contaminants that remain in the environment long
after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforceable agreement between EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of non-compliance by potentially respon-
sible parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the government; it does not require
approval by a judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A legally binding document issued by EPA direct-
ing the parties potentially responsible to perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
EPA does not issue unilateral orders for site studies).
Alluvial: An area of sand, clay, or other similar material that has been gradually depos-
ited by moving water, such as along a river bed or the shore of a lake.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Borehole: A hole drilled into the ground used to sample soil and groundwater.
G-l
-------
Cap: A layer of material, such as day 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.
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.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract between EPA and the states wherein a State agrees
to manage or monitor certain site cleanup responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
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.
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.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice is commonly used for disposal of com-
posted wastes.
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
G-2
-------
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or leakage of contaminating materials. Leak-
ing drums may be contained within oversized barrels as an interim measure prior to
removal and final disposal.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Remedial: A course of study combined with actions to correct site contamination
problems through identifying the nature and extent of cleanup strategies under the
Superfund program.
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.
G-3
-------
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].
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-4
------- |