EPA/540/4-90/037
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Oregon
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 Notion 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 xxiiL
NPL: Site Fact Sheets 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-1
-------
11
-------
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
s the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
INTRODUCTION
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
notontheNPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached, the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
To understand the big picture
on hazardous waste cleanup,
citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress
across the country and the
cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections .describe the
nature of the hazardous,
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
VI
-------
J" 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
-V"
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
s,w^.sv.s
L,,
So
hazardous wast* rf
;£ \s s^V v *
=5 __ ~ " * " - s " , - - X- ? "" "I
L_ w "" X.-.V. . ^. s .Ğ.>.< "^ .^ >S
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.
^Nss. ;. ? , s
?,<*. v^ \^-- s
'5 s ''*
x ^ '- - ,:;x-,
*jjatniinent
*Sow does EPA,
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now ifs time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals? ' -
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
sows
jftxeal
what
the tccsults *tf %<
^sile lusspectionf v
" - * -
IX
-------
SUPERFUND
5cmt whether BFA!
T j* "
national
v
Cleanup
uperfttiwl
"*
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 US. 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 usecl 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.
xi
-------
SUPERFUND
piaenttfied'ana?5^
tDoestfee^
asaiyikmefij
fcr J,,-..^^^.
faeaimp
jftt tti- Jjj^v V -uvA %,.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund kw 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
*u
>s
XV
action npftcfo to be
tailored to- 'a site/ does
the
tailored tod?
XU1
-------
SUPERFUND
|lj|IONi^~^ V
T" ,
i
I :
d~\.
~- , ,v>,,Ğ ^ -.-.-s^ .. --^:
i|CO^tt^ ; ^|:K.^1
1, %* s ^ SS>\ %\ s S ^N-'^ "*
^f * 5 r v - *!?- " .".^" -^
* -^xt f. ,""<$ğ> *
; s t, -^c/ xĞi-. "§
ğ' '^^""^^'XJ
-x *N^ -.\<-^*^->^<
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".
Ifs not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parlies 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
-------
\
- he Site Fact Sheets
,,%-; presented in this book
j 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
litial 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
Site Description
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Threats and. Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Roposue Action Status
Site Facts::
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
onei 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 i
State of Orego,
This Pacific Northwest State of Oregon is bordered by Washington to the north, the
Pacific Ocean to the west, Idaho to the east, and Nevada and California to the south.
The State covers 97,073 square miles consisting of rugged coastal range mountains
which give way to the fertile Willamette River Valley, the Cascade Mountains and
plateau, to the east of the mountains. Oregon experienced a 5.1 percent increase in
population during the 1980s, and currently has approximately 2,767,000 residents,
ranking 30th in U.S. populations. Principal State industries include manufacturing,
agriculture, forestry, tourism, high technology and commercial fishing. Oregon-manu-
factured products include foods, lumber and wood products, printing and publishing,
primary metals and fabricated metal products, and machinery.
How Many Oregon Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
1
7
_Q
8
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
Cong. District 03
Cong. District 05
1 site
4 sites
1 site
2 sites
10--
8--
| a-
tO
"3 4-
*
2 --
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), creosotes
(organics), radiation, and other
inorganics.
Soil and Sludge: Heavy metals
(inorganics), creosotes (organics),
other inorganics, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics) and
creosotes (organics).
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics).
V77A
GW Soil& Seds SW
Sludge
Contamination Area
Air
"Appear at 14% or more sites
State Overview
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected'
h Remedy
" Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 1 site as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Oregon, providing specific information
on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should
you have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Oregon Superfund Office
EPA Region X Superfund Office
EPA Region X Public Relations Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Public Information Office
(503) 229-5356
(206)399-1987
(206)442-1283
(800) 424-9346
(202) 477-7751
"Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
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.
Ğ*- 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.
Ğ* An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to '
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
jrroj
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
gress iowara uieanup ai
She Name
ALLIED PLATING, INC.
GOULD, INC.
JOSEPH FOREST PRODUCTS
MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO.
TELEDYNEWAH CHANG
UMATILLAARMY DEPOT (LAGOONS)
UNION PACIFIC RR CO. TIE-TREATING
UNITED CHROME PRODUCTS, INC.
. NFL* ones
County
MULTNOMAH
MULTNOMAH
WALLOWA
WASCO
LINN
UMATILLA
WASCO
BENTON
in in
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop.
Final
e OLU.LC
Date
02/21/90
09/08/83
03/31/89
06/10/86
09/08/83
07/22/87
10/26/89
09/21/84
UJl \SJLCgUU
Initial She Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
+
+ + +
*
+ + + +
+ + +
^
+
+ + + . + +
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
ALLIED PLA
OREGON
EPA ID# ORD009051442
REGION 10
SSIONAL DIST. 03
idtnomah County
Portland
Site Description
Allied Plating, Inc., occupying 1 1/2 acres, began operating a chrome-plating facility in
Portland in 1957. The operation generated electroplating wastes that contained heavy
metals and arsenic. For over 25 years, the company discharged waste without pre-
treatment. Prior to 1969, wastes were discharged onto a low-lying area of the property
which drained into the Columbia Slough. After 1969, filling activities isolated the site
and created a surface impoundment. In mid-1985, during an EPA inspection, the banks
of the pond were found to be eroding, and the natural drainage channels were filled
with refuse. Shortly thereafter, the owner pumped the contents of the pond into the
Portland sewer system. In 1978, the company detected metals in an on-site well and
in industrial and municipal wells within 2 miles of the site. Approximately 20,000
peopje live within 3 miles of the site. Public and private wells within 3 miles of the site
provide drinking water for about 1,500 people. Water from a well located 1,700 feet
from the site is used in food processing. Groundwater is also used for irrigation. An
apartment building and mobile home park-are located nearby, but they use city water.
The Columbia Slough, which drains into the Willamette River, is about 600 feet
northeast of the site.
Site Responsibility: jhe site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Both groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals, including
chromium and lead. Soil also contains cyanide. Chromium, copper, and
nickel are present in sludge on the site. Contaminated groundwater, soil,
and sludge could be a potential hazard to individuals through direct
contact or accidental ingestion. Drainage from the site has the potential
for contaminating the Columbia Slough.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ALLIED PLATING, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA began an investigation of the site in 1987 to
determine the nature and the extent of the contamination. The results of
the study, scheduled for 1991, will be used to evaluate different
alternatives for final cleanup.
Site Facts: Allied Plating, Inc. received Interim Status under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when it filed a permit application for a surface
impoundment. In 1982, the company filed for bankruptcy.
Environmental Progress
After adding Allied Plating, Inc. to the NPL, the EPA conducted an initial evaluation and
determined that no immediate actions were needed while an investigation leading to
the selection of final cleanup remedies is under way.
-------
GOULD, INC
OREGON
EPA ID# ORD095003687,
REGION 1.0
SSIONAL DIST. 01
iultnomah County
Portland
Aliases:
Gould Inc Metals Div - Portland
N L Industries
GNB Batteries
Site Description
The Gould, Inc. site covers about 10 acres in an industrial area in northwestern Portland
known as the Doane Lake area. From 1949 until 1981, various site owners operated a
secondary lead smelting facility specializing in lead-ac/tf battery recycling, lead-smelting
and refining, zinc alloying and casting, cable sweating, and lead oxide production.
During the facility operations, recycled batteries were disassembled, fragmented, and
disposed of in adjacent Dpane Lake or next to the recycling facility. About 87,000 tons
of battery casings were disposed of at the site, and about 6 million gallons of acid were
discharged into the lake. Operations ceased in 1981 and by mid-1982, most of the
structures, facilities, and equipment were removed. However, surface piles of
approximately 2,000 tons of battery casings remain on the site. A few private
residences and rental units are located to the south and west of the facility.
Approximately 270 people are employed by the businesses in the vicinity and on the
site. About 10,000 people live within 1 mile of the site. The facility is located in the
floodplain of the Willamette River.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been detected in on-
site groundwater. Lead, chromium, and arsenic are present in the
sediments of Doane Lake. Soil contains arsenic, lead, and cadmium.
Potential health risks may exist for individuals who ingest contaminated
soil, sediments, or surface and groundwater. Access to the site is
restricted, thereby reducing the potential for people to come into direct
contact with contamination.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
GOULD, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
soils and sediments, and groundwater and surface water.
Response Action Status
Soils and Sediments: The selected remedy for the soils and sediments
at the site include: (1) excavation of all battery casing fragments and
matte from the site; (2) a phased design program to determine the
amount of material that can be recycled to minimize the amount of
material that must be landfilled; (3) separation of battery casing fragments and recycling
of all applicable components; (4) off-site disposal of non-recyclable material; (5) on-site
disposal of nonhazardous, non-recyclable components; (6) excavation, fixation,
stabilization, and on-site disposal of remaining contaminated soil, sediments, and
matte, followed by capping with soil and revegetation; (7) isolation of surface water
runoff to East Doane Lake by site regrading; and (8) a monitoring program to determine
changes in groundwater contamination and to ensure that the remedial actions do not
adversely affect air quality. In 1989, NL Industries, under EPA oversight, began
treatability studies of the proposed cleanup technologies. NL Industries is scheduled to
submit a report in August 1990. The bench and pilot scale testing have been
completed and field demonstration testing is under way. Actual cleanup work is
scheduled to begin in 1991. ;
Groundwater and Surface Water: As part of the completion of the first
phase, the Doane Lake Industrial Group, under State supervision, will
conduct hydrog'eologicalstudies to determine if additional groundwater
and surface water cleanup activities are needed. Based on this preliminary study, a
complete investigation to determine the full extent of contamination and to study
alternative cleanup technologies may be performed.
Site Facts: In April 1989, a Consent Decree between a potentially responsible party,
NL Industries, and the EPA was lodged with the Federal District Court in Portland. The
State signed a Consent Order with the Doane Lake Industrial Group in January 1990 to
conduct a hydrogeological investigation of the Doane Lake Area
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA conducted preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed while field demonstrations leading
to final cleanup activities at the Gould, Inc. site are under way.
-------
JOSEP
PRODU
OREGON
EPA ID# ORD068782
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Wallowa County
1 mile northwest of the Town of Joseph
Joseph Forest Products formerly treated wood on an 18 1/2-acre site approximately
1 mile northwest of the Town of Joseph. The wood treatment process used a water-
based mixture of chromated copper arsenate (CCA). After the treatment cycle was
completed, the treatment solution was pumped from the retort vessel into a storage
tank for reuse. The portion of the solution that could not be pumped from the retort
vessel was drained into a 2,042-gallon cement sump and later transferred to the
storage tank. Wood waste, sludges, and other process wastes were stored in a
cement pit. A fire in 1974 destroyed the treatment building and resulted in a spill of
concentrated preservative mixture to the ground. Treatment operations did not resume
at the site until the latter part of 1977. In 1985, the EPA detected elevated levels of
contaminants in on-site soils. The wood treating operation was closed in 1985.
Currently, wood cutting and planing are the only activities at the site. The shallow
aquifer lies 5 to 10 feet below the surface and is overlain by very permeable soils,
conditions that facilitate movement of contaminants into groundwater. Approximately
1,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. Groundwater within 3 miles of the site
provides drinking water to over 2,000 people. The city of Enterprise obtains drinking
water from springs 4,000 feet from the site. Groundwater is also used for irrigation.
The site lies within the City of Enterprise Watershed Protection Area. The Wallowa
River is 400 feet east of the site and is used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Elevated levels of arsenic, chromium, and lead exist in on-site
groundwater, sediment, and soil. Arsenic and chromium were also
detected in standing water from the cement pit. Individuals who
,;,accidentally ingest groundwater, soil, sediments, or surface water may be
":a't "risk. Inhalation of windblown contaminated dust particles may also
pose a potential health threat. The Wallowa River and Hurricane Creek
may be threatened by the site contaminants.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
JOSEPH FOREST PRODUCTS
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed through a single long-term remedial phase focusing on the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA initiated an investigation in 1989 to determine the
type and extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative
remedies for final cleanup. The EPA expects the investigation to be
completed and the remedy chosen by 1992.
Environmental Progress
The EPA conducted an initial evaluation of the Joseph Forest Products site and
determined the site does not pose an imminent threat to human health or the
environment while investigations leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies are
taking place.
-------
MARTIN-
MARIETX
ALUMIN
OREGON
EPA ID# ORD052221025
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Wasco County
The Dalles
The 350-acre Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co. site is located in The Dalles. The site lies
within an 800-acre area used primarily for heavy industry and manufacturing; land not
used for industrial processes is leased for agricultural purposes. Martin Marietta
Corporation (MMC) acquired the facility in 1970 from Harvey Aluminum, Inc. and
continued aluminum processing operations until 1984, when the plant was shut down.
In 1986, MMC leased the plant and an adjacent portion of the property to Northwest
Aluminum Company, which resumed aluminum operations in 1987. The site consists
of 28 areas of significant contamination resulting from treatment, storage, and disposal
practices at the site. A 15-acre landfill located near the aluminum reduction building
contains approximately 200,000 cubic yards of waste and plant construction debris
including asbestos, metallic wastes, and 5,000 tons of spent potliner materials (cathode
waste) containing cyanide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and arsenic.
Leachate emanating from the landfill prior to the installation of a leachate collection
system has resulted in the contamination of the area aquifer. In addition to the landfill,
approximately 64,670 cubic yards of cathode waste material was deposited in the
unloading area and the cathode waste management areas. Scrubber sludge ponds,
consisting of four surface impoundments, two of which are covered with soil and
vegetation, cover 15 acres and contain contaminated sludge and subsoil. Less than 20
homes and businesses are located in the area of the site. The nearest residence is
approximately 1/4 mile from the facility. Groundwater provides drinking water to
14,000 people in The Dalles and Chenoweth. The wells are also used in the immediate
vicinity for industrial purposes. The nearest well is approximately 2,000 feet from a
waste pile.
Site Responsibility:
The 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
Percfted groundwater on site is contaminated with cyanide. Sediments
and soil contain fluoride asbestos, PAHs, and arsenic. People who ingest
or come into direct contact with groundwater, soil, and sediments may be
at risk. Because the site is within the Columbia River floodplain, flooding
may affect groundwater flow patterns and contaminant distribution.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
7
continued
-------
MARTIN-MARIETTA ALUMINUM CO.
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: Based on the results of an investigation completed in 1988,
the EPA has selected a two-stage cleanup. The first stage of the cleanup,
which was completed in 1990 by the potentially responsible parties, under
EPA monitoring, consisted of: (1) excavating the cathode waste material and placing it
into the existing landfill; (2) installing a soil cap over scrubber sludge ponds 2 and 3; and
(3) groundwater monitoring. The second stage will include: (1) capping the landfill;-(2)
collecting and treating on-site leachate generated from the landfill and perched water
east of River Road, as well as perched water from a variety of places at the site; (3)
plugging and abandoning nearby production wells and connecting groundwater users to
the City of The Dalles water supply system; (4) establishing a contingency plan to
recover groundwater in the event further contamination is detected; and (5)
implementing site use restrictions or fencing following the cleanup. Stage 2 activities
began in mid-1990 and are scheduled to be completed in late 1990.
Site Facts: In July 1989, Martin-Marietta signed a Consent Decree agreeing to perform
the cleanup work and to reimburse the EPA for past response action costs.
Environmental Progress
Excavating the cathode waste material, capping the sludge ponds, and groundwater
monitoring have significantly reduced the threat to the public and the environment
while final cleanup activities continue at the Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co,.site.
-------
TELEDYNE
WAH CHAN
OREGON
EPA ID# ORD0509558
REGION 1O
.',- -r' CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Linn County
Millersburg
Alias:
Teledyne Wah Chang - Albany
Site Description
The Teledyne, Wah Chang plant in Millersburg is one of the largest producers of
zirconium ,and other rare earth metals and alloys in the world. The plant's products.are
principally used in the nuclear power industry and by the U. S. Department of Defense
(DOD). The site includes a 110-acre plant and a 115-acre area where the plant's
wastewater treatment ponds are located. Production at the site began in 1957.
Process wastes disposed of on site contained radiation, heavy metals, and chlorinated
solvents. Solids generated from the process wastewater treatment system have been
stored in a number of surface impoundments. Until 1980, sludges were taken to seven
unlined storage ponds on site, including the Lower River Solids Pond and Schmidt
Lake, both of which are adjacent to the Willamette River. In 1979, the plant added a
process to reduce radiation in sludges and wastewater. On-site waste storage areas
are not fenced. Approximately 20,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. About
1,500 employees work on site, with as many as 2,000 people previously employed at
the plant. The Willamette River, and Truax and Murder Creeks border the facility and
are used for recreational activities, irrigation, watering of livestock, and fishing.
Municipalities downstream from the site do not use the Willamette River as a drinking
water source. Private wells in use within the vicinity of the site are not contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
The 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
. On-site sludge is contaminated with thorium, uranium, radium, and heavy
metals. Potential health threats include direct contact with and accidental
ingestion of contaminated sludges.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SI
9
TES
continued
-------
TELEDYNE WAH CHANG
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the entire site and the contaminated sludge.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Teledyne Wah Chang, under EPA oversight, is conducting an
investigation into the nature and extent of site contamination. The
investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will recommend
alternatives for final cleanup. The investigation is expected to be completed in 1992.
Sludges: The selected technologies for cleanup include removing the
sludges from the Lower River Solids Pond and Schmidt Lake; solidifying
the sludges by adding cement to bind the contaminants and reduce their
mobility, making the sludge easier to handle during cleanup; and relocating
the mixture to a permitted off-site disposal facility. Teledyne Wah Chang, under EPA
monitoring, is preparing the technical specifications and design for the selected
remedy. The design phase is scheduled for completion in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, Teledyne Wah Chang signed a Consent Agreement with the EPA
requiring the company to study the nature and extent of site contamination and develop
cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
The EPA conducted an initial evaluation of the site and determined the Teledyne Wah
Chang site does not pose a threat to human health or the environment while design of
the final cleanup alternatives is taking place.
10
-------
UMATIL
DEPOT (
OREGON
EPA ID# OR62138209^?
Site Description
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Umatllla County
Hermlston
Aliases:
UmatiUa Depot Activity
U. S. Army Umatilla Depot Activity
The Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) site occupies about 20,000 acres in Hermiston and
has operated as a storage depot for chemical warfare agents since 1941. Parts of the
depot were contaminated with explosives and metals as a result of past demilitarization
and disposal operations. About 85 million gallons of wastewater from explosive
washout operations were discharged into two unlined lagoons from the mid-1950s to
1965. The lagoons cover about 1/2 acre. The groundwater contaminant plume is
estimated to cover 45 acres. Access to the site is restricted. There are about 100
people living on post and approximately 900 people within 3 miles of the site. The
distance from the site to the closest residence is 2 miles. The nearest potable well is
about 6,500 feet from the disposal area and could be contaminated. Area groundwater
flow varies seasonally. Commercial agriculture is conducted within the vicinity of the
depot and crops are irrigated with area groundwater.
Site Responsibility:
sfte js being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soil are contaminated with explosives including
dinitrotoluene (DNT) and trinitrotoluene (TNT). Soil also contains heavy
metals such as lead and arsenic. Potential health threats include ingestion
and direct contact with contaminated groundwater and soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
11
continued
-------
UMATILLA ARMY DEPOT (LAGOONS)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
10 distinct areas including: the Explosive Washout Lagoons; Ammunition Demolition
Activity Area; Inactive Lanc/f/7/s;*Remote Munitions Disassembly Area; Deactivation
Furnace Area; Sewage Treatment Plant; Active Landfill; Defense Reutilization Marketing
Office; Chemical Agent/Decontamination Area; and Miscellaneous Areas.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, the Army, under EPA and State monitoring, began an
investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the 10 areas.
The investigation, which is expected to be completed in 1992, will define
the contaminants of concern and recommend alternatives for final cleanup.
Site Facts: A three-party Interagency Agreement between the Army, the EPA, and the
State was signed in October 1989. The agreement outlines the procedures for
conducting an investigation at the site. Umatilla Army Depot has submitted a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit application to the EPA to construct and
operate an incineration facility for demilitarizing obsolete chemical agents presently
stored on site. Umatilla is targeted for closure under the Base Closure and
Realignment Act. This installation is participating in the Installation Restoration Program
(IRP), a specially funded program developed in 1978 by the Department of Defense
(DOD) to identify, control, and investigate hazardous wastes on military or other DOD
installations.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA and the Army determined that no immediate
actions were required at the Umatilla Army Depot while investigations are taking place
and cleanup activities are being planned.
12
-------
UNION
RAIL:
TIE
OREGO
EPA ID# ORD00904941
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Wasco County
The Dalles
Alias:
J. H. Baxter
The Union Pacific Railroad Co. Tie Treating Plant site covers 83 acres in a mixed
commercial and residential area just south of the Columbia River in the City of The
Dalles. Union Pacific owned the wood treatment facility from 1926 until late 1987,
when equipment and structures were purchased by Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation;
however, Union Pacific retained ownership of the land and responsibility for all pre-1987
contamination of soil and groundwater. The plant primarily treated railroad ties for
Union Pacific, but also treated wood for other commercial users across the U.S. From
1959 to 1987, J. H. Baxter Co. operated the plant for Union Pacific. The facility treated
wood with copper arsenate, creosote, a creosote/fuel mixture, and pentachlorophenol
(PCP). Spills of treatment solutions and wastewater ponds no longer in use are thought
to be the main source of contamination. Improvements in the wastewater treatment
system allows the site to operate as a zero discharge facility. Groundwater is used by
over ;11,000 people within 3 miles of the site. The City of The Dalles has increased its
monitoring of municipal supply wells.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils contain creosote components, PCP, fuel oil,
ammonia and arsenic. Contamination by arsenic and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) is greatest in the shallow and intermediate aquifers
beneath the site. Deep aquifers contain phenanthrene and naphthalene.
Potential health risks may exist from ingestion of or direct contact with
the contaminated groundwater and soils.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. TIE TREATING PLANT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site. ;
Response Action Status ,
i
Entire Site: Union Pacific, under State supervision, is conducting an
investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at thejsite. The
investigation is scheduled to be completed in 1991. !
Site Facts: In May 1989, Union Pacific signed a Consent Orderwith the State and
agreed to undertake an investigation to determine the extent of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
At the time this summary was written, the Union Pacific Railroad Co. Tie-Treating Plant
site had just been proposed for National Priority List status and it is too early to discuss
environmental progress. A study will be performed to assess the need for $ny
intermediate actions to ensure public health while investigations leading to (final cleanup
actions are taking place. Results of this assessment will be described in our next
edition. :
14
-------
UNITED CHROME
PRODUCTS, I
OREGON
EPA ID# ORD009043001
Site Description
REGION 1O
ESSIONAL DIST. 05
Benton County
31/2 miles south of Corvallis
The 2 1/2-acre United Chrome Products, Inc. site is a former chrome plating facility
located in an industrial complex adjacent to the Corvallis Municipal Airport, 31/2 miles
south of the City of Corvallis. The company conducted electroplating operations from
1956 to 1985. An on-site dry well was used to dispose of floor drippings, washings,
and product rinsate collected in a sump within the building. The liquids were reportedly
neutralized with sodium hydroxide and/or soda ash prior to disposal. Major use of the
dry well was discontinued in 1975. As a result of an immediate action to stabilize the
site, all hazardous substance source materials were removed with the exception of
residual sludges in the bottom of the plating tanks. However, there is considerable
chromium contamination in the soil beneath and around the site of the former building
and in the upper and lower aquifers as a result of leaching from the dry well and plating
tanks. Although the City of Corvallis water supply is not presently threatened, cleanup
is necessary to prevent chromium from leaving the site or further contaminating the
lower aquifer. Two city wells are located approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the
site. Contamination extends over 2 miles off site in surface water, and over 1 1/2 miles
off site in sediments. Approximately 42,000 people obtain drinking water within 3
miles of the site. The closest residence, is approximately 900 feet northeast of the
facility. Corvallis obtains some of its water from the Willamette River, which formerly
received drainage from ditches and surface water from the site until cleanup measures
were implemented.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments, soils, and shallow zone and deep aquifer groundwater are
contaminated with chromium. The surface water contamination has been
cleaned up. Exposure to contaminants may occur through direct contact
or ingestion of contaminated groundwater, sediments, and soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
UNITED CHROME PRODUCTS, INC.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, a total of 8,130 gallons of chromium-
contaminated liquids and 11,000 pounds of hazardous waste solids were
shipped off site for recycling or disposal.
Entire Site: In 1986, the following remedies were selected to clean up
the site: (1) installation of approximately 15 shallow wells in the upper
confined groundwater zone; (2) installation of 5 deep wells in the lower
confined production aquifer; (3) limited excavation of contaminated soil and off-site
disposal; (4) installation of on-site treatment equipment (chemical reduction and
precipitation) to remove chromium from extracted groundwater; (5) construction of two
percolation basins to flush soil; and (6) installation of culverts to remediate the surface
water contamination. The United Chrome building, which was contaminated with
chromium dust, was demolished in 1988. The contaminated debris from the building
and the heavily contaminated soil that was excavated from the disposal pit and plating
tank areas were disposed of off site. A pump and treat system, consisting iof 23
extraction wells, 2 infiltration basins, and an on-site treatment plant, began operations
to remove chromium contamination from the groundwater in 1988. An alternate water
supply was provided to the airport area (approximately 5,000 people), and the site was
fenced. Up to ten additional wells may be installed in the deep aquifer to better define
the deep aquifer plume. Surface drainage control measures were implemented.
Additional infiltration trenches may also be installed, as warranted. The pumping and
treating of contaminated groundwater will continue for several more years before the
site cleanup is completed. ;
Environmental Progress
The removal of the sources of contamination, the installation of a groundwater pump
and treat system and culverts, and the provision of an alternate water supply have
significantly reduced the threat the United Chrome Products, Inc. site posed to the
public and the environment, while pumping and treating of groundwater continues
toward completing cleanup efforts.
16
-------
GLOSSARY;
/iis glossary defines the italicized terms used in the
, site fact sheets for the State of Oregon. 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.
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 ground water.
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 .
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecticide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This salt is used extensively as a wood pre-
servative in pressure-treating operations. It is highly toxic and water soluble, making it
a relatively mobile contaminant in the environment.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
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].
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserving operations and produced by distillation
of tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocar-
bons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating sediments, soils, and surface water, creo-
sotes may cause skin ulcerations and cancer with prolonged exposure. |
Culvert: A pipe under a road, railroad track, path, or through an embankment used for
drainage.
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.
i
hiteragency 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.
i.
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. j
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
G-2
-------
GLOSSARY
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
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.
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.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay or rock.
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.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
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.
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid runoff for drainage or disposal.
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.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream or other water body.
G-4
-------
-------
------- |