EPA/540/4-90/044
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Utah
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview \ jjj
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT
NPL: Site Fact Sheets i
' ^ •* '•"* „ v -?w '
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 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.
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
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
-------
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
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 allfive-
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
-------
-, •. : ^
Tr 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 *
, K:
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.
vn
-------
I How does EPA learn
* about potential
t hazardous waste
sites?
|v . [ -
i~What happens if
pihereis'an imminent;^
tdanger?
C
PIIIIII MI 'mill •>
t
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens — people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them — for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
-If there isn't an
• murtinent danger
i Itow does EPA
^determine what, if
* any, cleanup actions
should be taken?
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking \vater supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
vm
-------
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.
f .
If the ielii
| shows T
tlrat a serious threat
way exist w&at's t&e
next step?
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
How 4oes EPA
the results of tlie
site tospec&on?
IX
-------
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund — the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
How do people find
out whether EPA ,-
considers a site a
national priority for
cleanup using
Superfund money?
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
.-*•.,-.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
After a Site is ^
to flie NFL, wiiat ore ,
the steps to cleamip?
XI
-------
r
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.
How are cleanup
| alternatives
! identified and
z- evaluated?
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.
! Does the public have Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
» 3 Say in the final opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
v concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
, made.
xn
-------
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
If every cleanup
action.needs jto be
tailored to a siter does
the design of the
remedy need to be
tailored too? TO
xm
-------
L
•i 1 . . s '•XH
the design is >^<|
| complete, how long v!ji
f- does it take to s x x|
| actually clean up the c^i
1-site and how much ixl
r does it costt , vs' :i
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 $26 million per
site.
e_Once the cleanup
i action is complete, i$x7
I the site automatically
|/Meleted''from the
LNPL?
I
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
xiv
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
Can EPA make parlies
responsible far trie '
contamination pay?
XV
-------
XVI
-------
The 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 (NFL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-.
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site — or part
of the site — are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvu
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Location
Site Description '
Site Responsibility:
NPL LISTING HISTORY
-Threats and Contaminants-
Cleanup Approach •
Response 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.
XVlll
-------
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
•-n
Site Facts
Additional informa^n on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
XIX
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites
State of Uta
The Middle Rocky Mountain State of Utah is bordered by Idaho and Wyoming to the
north Nevada to the west, Colorado to the east, and Arizona to the south. Utah covers
Si H^rtTJ3 r aod COnS'ttS °f hlgh Colorado plateau in the southeast, the broad,
WP«* n9 leatDBa?'n 1H the west'the Great Salt Lake and salt f|ats in the north-
west as well as the Rocky Mountains and the valleys and plateaus of the Wasatch
hront. Utah experienced a 15.7 percent increase in population during the 1980s and
currently has approximately 1,690,000 residents, ranking 35th in U.S. populations
Principal State industries include manufacturing, tourism, trade, services mining trans-
portation, and education. Utah manufactures guided missiles and parts electronic
components, food products, fabricated metals, steel, electrical and transportation
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
How Many Utah Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
5
7
_Q
12
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
Cong. District 03
3 sites
6 sites
3 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
10-1-
8 --
0
"8 4 +
2 --
GW Soil SW Seds Air
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), and volitale organic
compounds (VOCs).
Soil: Heavy metals (mercury and
inorganics), volitale organic
compounds (VOCs), pesticides,
creosotes (organics), and radiation.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (mercury and
inorganics), volitale organic
compounds (VOCs), and
pesticides.
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics).
Appeared at;
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 5 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Utah, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Utah Superfund Office
EPA Region VIII Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region VIII Superfund Public
Relations Office
(801)538-6170
(303) 293-1720
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(303)294-1144
"Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
Stat« 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 K) 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.
xxiu
-------
-,
Page
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
Site Name
HILL AIR FORCE BASE
MIDVALE SLAG
MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS (DOE)
MONTICELLO RADIOACTIVELY CONTAM.
OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT
PORTLAND CEMENT (KILN DUST#2)
RICHARDSON FLAT TAILINGS
ROSE PARK SLUDGE PIT
SHARON STEEL (MIDVALE TAILINGS)
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH AREA)
UTAH POWER & LIGHT/AMERICAN BRL
WASATCH CHEMICAL CO. (LOT 6)
4fe » «•» tfta* ***** 1* ^*'t*F .
County
DAVIS & WEBER
SALT LAKE
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAN
WEBER
SALT LAKE
SUMMIT
SALT LAKE
SALT LAKE
TOOELE
SALT LAKE
SALT LAKE
*4M> **4U
NPL
Final
Prop
Final
Final
Final
Final
Prop
Final
Prop
Prop
Final
Prop
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
07/01/87 •*-
06/10/86 •*-
11/21/89 *-
06/10/86 •*• *- *-
07/01/87 •*- •*-
06/10/86 •*- "K
06/24/88 •*-
09/08/83 "^ + +- +-
10/15/84 "*" «*•
10/15/84 +-
10/04/89 "^ ^
01/22/87 ^- *"
-------
1 -t
I ', I v
-------
-------
HILL AIR
FORCE BA
UTAH
EPA ID# UT0571724350V \
Site Description
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Davis and Weber Counties
5 miles south of Ogden
The 6,665-acre Hill Air Force Base site is used for the overhaul and maintenance of
aircraft by the Air Force. Several areas on base have been identified by the Air Force as
being contaminated including four landfills, three chemical disposal pits, Berman Pond
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge Drying Beds, Fire Training Area One,
Refueling Area JP-4 Spill, Bamberger Pond, Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility,'and
the Tooele Army Rail Shop. Industrial and municipal wastes were dumped on base
including volatile organic chemicals (VOCs); electroplating wastes; sludges from the
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP); waste oils; and petroleum fuel products.
Migration of site-related contaminants has caused low-level contamination of nearby
groundwater and surface water as well as the sewer systems in the Sunset and Layton
communities. A private ranch offsite also received chromium-contaminated soil from
Hill Air Force Base. The site also includes areas of contamination that are located off
base including the Utah Test & Training Range (UTTR), which is under the command of
Hill Air Force Base but is located 150 miles west of the main base. Areas of
contamination within the UTTR include two landfills, a chemical disposal pit, a
herbicide-orange test area, and an explosive ordnance disposal area. Approximately
20,000 people work on Hill Air Force Base. Most of the residences in the area
surrounding the site are connected to the municipal water supply system, however
some of private wells or springs are used for drinking water and irrigation.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/01/87
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater in the disposal and pit areas is contaminated with various
VOCs and heavy metals. On-site groundwater, located near the Berman
Pond, contains lead, manganese and trichloroethylene (TCE).
Groundwater located near the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
Drying Beds and Chemical Disposal Pit #3 contains lead and VOCs.
Surface Water located in the disposal area is contaminated with lead and
manganese. Surface water located in springs downgradientfrom
Chemical Disposal Pit #3 is contaminated by VOCs and lead.
Contaminants are migrating to off-site groundwater. Possible health
threats include drinking or touching contaminated groundwater and
surface water.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
i
continued
-------
HILL AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases including cleanup of:
Landfills #3 and #4, Chemical Disposal Pits #1 and #2, and the Fire Training Area; IWTP
Sludge Drying Beds, the Sodium Hydroxide Tank Leak Area, Berman Pond, and the
Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Building 514); Landfills #1 and #2; and Tooele
Army Rail Shop and Bamberger Pond.
Response Action Status
Landfills #3 and #4, Chemical Disposal Pits #1 and #2, and the Fire
Training Area: In 1984, a clay cap was placed over landfill #4; installation
began on a slurry wall around the upgradient areas of contamination; and a
series of extraction wells were installed. The slurry wall was completed in
1985. In 1986, clay caps were constructed over landfill #3 and a portion of the chemical
disposal pits. A parking lot was installed over the Fire Training Area and the rest of the
chemical disposal pits. A total of about 70 acres have been covered. Over 50 million
gallons of contaminated groundwater have subsequently been extracted and treated by
the Air Force. Off-base migration of contaminants has been significantly reduced.
Continued studies into site contamination and the most effective ways to address it are
underway and are scheduled to be completed in 1992.
IWTP Sludge Drying Beds, the Sodium Hydroxide Tank Leak Area,
Berman Pond, and the Refueling Vehicle Maintenance Facility (Building
514): Berman Pond has been filled with construction rubble and regraded,
and a clay cap was installed over the area. The unlined IWTP Sludge Drying Beds were
lined with asphalt and then concrete. The investigation into site contamination and
methods to effectively address these sites are being conducted and are scheduled to be
completed in 1992.
Landfills #1 and #2: Investigative work into site contamination and the
most effective methods to address Landfills #1 and #2 is under way.
Studies of cleanup alternatives are scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Tooele Army Rail Shop and Bamberger Pond: The investigation into site
contamination and the most effective methods to address these areas was
begun by the Air Force in 1989.
Site Facts: Since 1981, Hill Air Base has been participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), a program where the Department of Defense addresses
contamination on or caused by its facilities. The EPA completed negotiations with Hill
Air Force Base to sign a Memorandum of Agreement in 1986. This document presents
the procedural framework for further cleanup activities and studies of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Initial actions have been performed at several of the investigation areas: the installation
of a cap, a slurry wall, and extraction wells have significantly reduced the migration of
contaminants from the Hill Air Force Base site while further studies and cleanup
activities are taking place. A
—
-------
MIDVALE SLAG
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD081834277
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Midvale
Site Description
L 5 330-acre Midvale Slag site is a former copper and lead smelting facility The
Midvale Smelter was originally constructed on this site in 1902 as a copper plant Over
Fr£meiaSV??8 PS W3S Changed to a lead facility' Producing gold-lead-silver bullion.
hrom 1918 to 1928, approximately 400,000 tons of lead were produced. The smelter is
no longer there; however, large piles of slag and other smelter wastes remain on site
SH Current operators of the site process the slag for use as sand blasting and railroad '
bed material. Two million tons of slag containing lead, arsenic, cadmium and
radioactive contaminants are present on site. A substantial amount of slag has been
removed and used for road bases, fill, and sandblasting. Access to the site is
somewhat restricted by fences bordering the roads, however, the site may be
accessible from the Jordan River on the west. A clay berm has been constructed to
i ™nnp i er°StK " f/,Sla^,int? tue borderin9 Jorclan River. There are approximately
1 500 people within 1/4 mile of the site. The contaminated shallow aquifer on site has
been reported to discharge into the Jordan River at some locations Public and
municipal wells located near the site are used for domestic purposes Livestock
reportedly graze in an area directly adjacent to the slag piles
Site Responsibility: This s|te js be[ng addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
IA
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and sediments are contaminated with heavy metals
including cadmium, lead, and chromium. Radium was detected in off-site
slag. On-site soils are contaminated with heavy metals and radioactive
compounds. The Jordan River is potentially contaminated from runoff
from the site and groundwater discharge. Potential health threats may
include drinking contaminated groundwater and surface water direct
contact with groundwater, surface water, or slag; or ingestion of
contaminated soil, fish, waterfowl, livestock, and agricultural products
1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
MIDVALE SLAG
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is scheduled to begin in 1990 a study into the
nature and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation will
define the contaminants of concern and recommend alternatives for final
cleanup. This site is adjacent to the Sharon Steel Site, another NPL site. Activities at
both the Midvale Slag and Sharon Steel sites are on the same schedule for the
investigation and claeanup phases.
Environmental Progress
After proposing this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Midvale Slag site to protect
area residents and the surrounding environment while further investigations and
cleanup activities are being planned.
-------
MONTICELLO
TAILINGS (D
UTAH
EPA ID# UT389009003
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
San Juan County
City of Monticello
Aliases:
AEC MU1 Site
Monticello Remedial Action Project
Site Description
The Monticello Mill Tailings site lies in the Montezuma Creek Valley, east of the Abajo
Mountains. The inactive ore milling facility, on 78 acres of land, is bordered by the City
of Monticello and Bureau of Land Management lands. Approximately 11 acres of the
site was the mill area, and the other 67 acres constituted the mill tailing impoundment
area containing 2 million tons of tailings and contaminated soil. The former ore buying
stations and areas contaminated by wind and waterborne particulate material and
tailings cover another 300 acres. These areas, known as the Peripheral Properties
contain an estimated 300,000 tons of contaminated materials. The mill was
constructed by the Vanadium Corporation of America in 1942 with funds from the
Defense Plant Corporation. Initially, vanadium was produced, but in 1943 the mill
began production of a uranium/vanadium sludge for the Manhattan Engineer District. In
1948, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) bought the site. Uranium milling
continued until 1960, when the mill was permanently closed. It is estimated that
approximately 900,000 tons of ore were processed at the site. In 1961 the AEC
stabilized the tailings piles. In 1964, the mill was dismantled. The population of the
City of Monticello is estimated to be 1,900. An estimated 2,400 people live within a 1
1/2-mile radius of the site. The City of Monticello has its own water system, supplied
by water from springs located on the flanks of the Abajo Mountains. The domestic
water source for those people living outside the city limits is groundwater drawn chiefly
from a well completed in the Burro Canyon Formation. There is no known
contamination of the domestic water supplies attributable to contamination from the
mill site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being cleaned up through
a combination of Federal and State
action.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
LI
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with uranium from tailings
deposited on the site, as well as its radioactive decay products, thorium-
230, radium 226, and radon-222. Exposure to uranium through contact
with contaminated soil, groundwater, and airborne contaminated dust
may be a potential threat to the health of individuals in the area of the site.
Montezuma Canyon, which contains sites eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic sites, is contaminated with site-related
materials.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5
continued
-------
MONTICELLO MILL TAILINGS (DOE)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the tailings piles and former mill site, the peripheral properties, and the surface water
and groundwater.
Response Action Status
Tailings Piles and Former Mill Site: The Department of Energy (DOE)
has completed an investigation to determine the nature and extent of
contamination in the tailings piles and the former mill site. The proposed
remedy, based on the results of the investigation, recommends the removal of the
contaminated material from the floodplain and its contact with the groundwater and
stabilization of the material in a storage area approximately 3/4 mile south of the site.
The final selection of a remedy is expected in 1990.
Peripheral Properties: An investigation determining the nature and
extent of the contamination at the peripheral properties has been
completed. The proposed remedy involves excavating the contaminated
material and placing it on the mill site tailings piles. The material will ultimately be
disposed of in the storage facility.
Surface Water and Groundwater: The DOE has initiated an investigation
to determine the nature and extent of contamination in the surface water
and groundwater. Completion of this investigation is not anticipated until
the cleanup of the contaminated source materials at the tailing piles and mill site is
finished.
Environmental Progress
uMWMMMnl .1..JI »•»*•,• ^jm*t-,l^fff,ff, &- rTi:r.?i •
The DOE is conducting numerous investigations of the Monticello Mill Tailings site
which will ultimately lead to the final selection of the most appropriate remedies for the
site contamination. While these investigations are ongoing, the EPA has determined
that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding community or the
environment.
-------
MONTICELLO rr—
RADIOACTIVELY
CONTAMINATED
PROPERT
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980667208
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
San Juan County
Monticello
Aliases:
Monticello Remedial Action Project
Monticello Vicinity Properties
Site Description
The Monticello Rad.oactively Contaminated Properties consist of private and
commercial properties in Monticello covering approximately 4 square miles An
estimated 150 residences have been contaminated with radioactive m?l wastes from
ore processing operations near the town. During World War II the Federal
Government established an ore processing mill to produce vanadium a steel hardener
for the war effort. Vanadium is not radioactive itself, but it is foundTn the same ore '
S±Te'rTs con^ ^ *•n r^"9, W8Stes C0ntain 5^lil^ Activity.
tho M h 5 construction, the mill began production of a uranium/vanadium sludaeior
the Manhattan Engineer District. Uranium production continued until 1960 when the
plant was closed and d.smantled. Contaminated dust from the mill ta lings'&\e
-------
MONTICELLO RADIOACTTVELY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
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: In 1984, the EPA cleaned up two of the most heavily
contaminated homes. Beginning in 1984, the Department of Energy
(DOE) has been systematically cleaning up the remaining properties.
Cleanup actions have been completed at 55 properties. An additional 90 or more
properties will be cleaned up by 1994. In 1989, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up
the radioactive properties by excavating the mill tailings around the residences and
disposing of the material at the Monticello mill site. A repository will be built to contain
the material. The DOE is presently completing the technical specifications for the
repository on the Monticello mill site. The plan outlining the selected remedy is
scheduled for 1990. Construction of the repository is expected to begin in 1991 . The
DOE recently initiated additional investigations to determine if other properties are
contaminated. It is anticipated that another 40 to 50 properties requiring cleanup will
be identified.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA, the DOE, and the State signed an Interagency
Agreement Under this agreement, the DOE will clean up the contaminated properties.
Some property owners will not allow investigations or cleanup of their property.
Environmental Progress
The DOE has finished cleaning 55 properties at the Monticello site, greatly reducing
the potential for exposure to hazardous substances and making it safer for the public
and the environment. The DOE is also completing the technical design for further
cleanup activities including the repository for the mill tailings and conducting an
investigation of possible off-site contamination..
-------
OGDEN DEFENSE
DEPOT
UTAH
EPA ID# UT9210020922
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Weber County
31/2 miles northwest of Ogden
Alias:
Defense Depot Ogden Utah (DDOU)
Site Description
The Ogden Defense Depot (ODD) site is located northwest of Ogden The 1 319-acre
site is a major supply distribution center for the Defense Logistics Agency. Unknown
quantities of hazardous wastes, including methyl bromide and mustard gas were
™nSt°n f «6 K9, the 194? and 1950s when * was an ArmV installation. The ODD
consists of 6 possible waste disposal areas. These areas include: the french drain in
the herbicide/pesticide mixing area; burial site #3 used to dispose of toxic chemical
warfare agents ,n the 1940s; burial site #4 which includes burning pits and a Sy
bromide disposal pit; building 244 4-C (metal plating shop); burial site #1 (riotSi
?n99t H 'Sf3?hS +lfea); a?d bunal s'te #5 (mosqu'to repellent disposal area). The ODD is
mm ttWc t 'rh8 CHtV "mitSi The P°Pulation center is located approximately 3 miles
from the site. The distance from the site to the nearest residence is about 500 feet
LnepS, 6Th JiCated ab°Ve thS ?6bf Delta Aqu/fer' which consists of shall°w and deep
zones. There are no municipal wells in use within the vicinity of the ODD Pineview
thpS^°ir4rfP thn City °f °9dPn With drinking water and is located 10 miles ewt of
the site. Streams and a creek are located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This sfte fe bejng addressed thrQugh
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater sampling results have identified the heavy metals
ar/^ni
-------
r
OGDEN DEFENSE DEPOT
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in five stages: an immediate response and four long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the three waste burial sites and the French
Drain at the herbicide/pesticide mixing area.
Response Action Status
Immediate Response: During soil excavations in 1988, a team from the
Escort and Disposal Detachment at Dugway Proving Ground excavated
Burial Site #3. During the soil excavation, vials were recovered and
identified as items from both the chemical agent identification and training sets.
Defused riot control grenades were also recovered and safely disposed of.
Burial Site #1, #3, #4 and French Drain: Investigations to determine the
extent of contamination and to identify alternative technologies for cleanup
in all of these areas were initiated in 1989. The EPA will evaluate the
results of these investigations and then select the best remedy to address
contamination at the site.
By excavating and removing contaminated soil, vials, and the defused grenades from
Burial Site #3 at the Ogden Defense, the potential for exposure to hazardous materials
has been significantly reduced. Investigations into the extent of contamination at the
other identified areas and into appropriate cleanup alternatives are being conducted.
10
-------
PORTLAND CEME
(KILN DUST #2
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980718670
Site Description
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake City
Alias:
Lone Star Industries
DUSt #2^ #3) C°mpany Site consists of ^ree disposal sites
mMrn^SeSt°^Q diSp°Sal °f spent kiln dust and °'d kiln
chromate bricks. The kiln dust and bricks are stored in piles on the surface exoosino
them to transport by wind and water. The company disposed o Win dus? and old Sn
bnCk m the 9feater Salt Lake City area until 1983, including disposal since {L
S 3t fef #2 9nd, #3 8nd the west area' The dust ^ alkaTne byproduct of
t? a
-------
PORTLAND CEMENT (KILN DUST #2 & #3)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Ix* Immediate Actions: The site was fenced by the potentially responsible
parties to prevent access to contaminants. A dust suppressant is applied
on an as needed basis to prevent fugitive emissions.
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the nature and extent of
contamination in the waste kiln dust and chromium bricks has been
completed. A plan outlining the selected remedy is scheduled for 1990. A
groundwater study also will be evaluated.
Site Facts: The State currently has a State Enforcement Agreement with the EPA to
pursue a Consent Decree with the Portland Cement to clean up the site. The company
and the State entered into an agreement in November 1985, in which the State will
monitor the company's work.
Environmental Progress
Actions taken to fence the site and apply a dust suppressant to the site surface help
prevent possible contact with contamination both on and off site at the Portland
Cement site. These actions also remove any immediate threat to the surrounding
community or the environment. Further investigations leading to the selection of final
remedies for the site have been completed, and the cleanup alternatives for the
groundwater are currently being evaluated.
12
.
-------
RICHARDSON
TAILINGS
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980952840
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Summit County
Park City
Site Description
The Richardson Flat Tailings site covers approximately 60 acres in Park City and lies
within a topographical depression. Mining operations near the site generated
approximately 2 million tons of metal contaminated mine tailings. The site was most
recently used to dispose of mine tailings from 1975 to 1981. Field surveys show that
various metals, calcium, and sodium exist at elevated levels within the tailings The
EPA also found high levels of arsenic, copper, and lead three miles downstream from
the site in Silver Creek, which is used by local residents to irrigate pastureland and
fields producing hay. High winds during the spring and summer months create clouds
of dust from the tailings. Approximately 4,500 people live in the town of Park City
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Threats and Contaminants
Surface water offsite contains arsenic, copper, and lead. The tailings piles
contain heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,
magnesium, mercury, silver, and zinc, as well as calcium and sodium
People may be at risk from direct contact with contaminants from the site
or inhaling dust particles contaminated with site-related chemicals.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
13
continued
-------
RICHARDSON FLAT TAILINGS
Cleanup Approach —
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The State is studying the type of contaminants at the site,
their exact location, and how far they have traveled from the tailings. This
work was started in 1988 and is expected to be completed in 1991. Once
completed, the state and EPA will evaluate the study finding and select a final cleanup
strategy for all areas of site contamination.
Site Facts: The EPA entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the State of Utah to
negotiate with the potentially responsible parties to conduct a study to determine the
extent of site contamination. The potentially responsible parties have challenged EPA's
inclusion of the site on the NPL, suggesting that the site was improperly scored. This
challenge is based upon the contention that dust particles present the only source of
exposure and that groundwater and surface water do not pose the same degree of risk.
The EPA is currently considering the request to re-evaluate the potential threats posed
by the site.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has determined the Richardson Flat Tailings site does not pose an imminent
threat to the public or the environment while the exact type and extent of
contamination is being investigated to select the most effective cleanup techniques.
Additionally, the EPA will review the potential threats to area residents and the
environment and make final determinations of the status of the site on the NPL.
14
-------
ROSE PARK
SLUDGE PIT
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980635452
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake City
Site Description
The Rose Park Sludge Pit site is approximately 2 acres in size and is located in a Salt
Lake City park that includes a baseball field, tennis courts, soccer fields and a qolf
course. The area was used by predecessors of Amoco Oil Co. for the disposal of
petroleum wastes from in the early 1920s until 1957. Refinery sludges were placed
into unlmed storage pits. The City bought the property in 1957 and covered the site
During park development grading operations site contamination was discovered when a
bulldozer broke through the cover and re-exposed the sludge. The area surroundinq the
site is primarily residential, with 150,000 people residing in Salt Lake City
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, municipal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
as a result of refinery sludges being placed in unlined pits. Accidentally
drinking or inhaling vapors from contaminated groundwater may be a
potential health threat.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
15
continued
-------
ROSE PARK SLUDGE PIT
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: Construction of a lined clay cap and slurry wall over and
around the site was completed in 1983. Revegetation was completed in
spring 1984. The site cleanup was completed as of 1985. However,
groundwater monitoring is being continued by the Salt Lake City and County Health
Departments for a period of 30 years. The annual monitoring meeting was held in
1989, at which time it was concluded that the present groundwater operation and
maintenance criteria may not be adequate to determine the effectiveness of the
remedy. In January 1990, Amoco submitted a plan to monitor groundwater flow
around the containment area. This activity is expected to start in 1990. In early 1991, a
new system of water quality monitoring wells will be installed to augment ongoing
monitoring activities.
Environmental Progress
The cap and slurry wall have contained the sludges and prevented further
contamination of groundwater resources. All planned cleanup activities for the Rose
Park Sludge Pit size have been completed. The State will continue to monitor
groundwater to insure that no further contamination is present and that the site will not
pose threat to human health or the environment.
16
-------
SHARON STEE
(MIDVALE T
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980951388
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Midvale
Site Description
MM, * n J S'teuS a f°'mer milling and sme|t''ng operation covering 268 acres in
M.dvaie. Operations began ,n 1905, with the smelter closing in 1958 and the mHKnq
operations closing ,n 1971. Sulfide concentrates of lead, copper zinc and otter metals
msuLedla?ned ftr0mt°He dUn'ng T6 mi"ing Operations" Was?ePs from this process
resulted in an estimated accumulation of 10 million tons of mine tailings piles on the
site, which are 40 to 50 feet deep. The State first became involved at the mil°n 1982
when ,t learned that nearby residents were gathering the windblown tai^nqT or use in
gardens and chi dren's sandboxes. The State tested the "sand" fram the qardensanS
sandboxes and found high levels of lead. The U.S. Geological Surrey (u!G9|) found
lead in> groundwater underneath the site. Approximately 1 400 people live within 1/4
mile of the site; roughly 8,000 people live within 1 mile The Jordan River sopites
°f rm, I8nd thr°Ugh 10 irn'9ation ''»*<*** w*hin 3 mTes of the site
tChf'th n N°rt,h J°rdan Canal and Galena Canal' ^ nearby A
several small ponds also are on the mill site. The deep aquifer
underlying the site is a source of drinking water for the metropolitan Salt Lake Qtv area
Municipal wells that draw from this aquifer are within 3 miles of the site Y
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
March 1990
Threats and Contaminants
The shallow groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals such as
^SrSnC'R'r0n' manganesf' an4d zinc from the mill site. Sediments from the
Jordan River, which is classified by the State for cold-water game fishing
and recreation other than swimming, are contaminated with heavy
metals. The wetlands on the site contain heavy metals and zinc tailings
Soil ,s contaminated with heavy metals including lead, arsenic, cadmium
and zinc. The greatest potential health threat to people is exposure to
lead and arsenic through direct contact with or inhalation of contaminated
soils including dust; children playing in nearby neighborhood soils or
sandboxes are especially at risk.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
17
continued
-------
SHARON STEEL (MIDVALE TAILINGS)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the groundwater and soils at the mill site and
the vicinity property.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1989, the party potentially responsible for the site
contamination installed a fence around the site.
Mill Site and Grounds: The EPA is currently conducting studies to
determine the nature and extent of groundwater and soil contamination on
the mill site. The studies will define the contaminants of concern and will
recommend alternatives for final groundwater and soil contamination cleanup. The
studies are expected to be completed in 1990.
Vicinity Property: The EPA is conducting an additional investigation that
will define the contaminants of concern associated with properties in the
vicintity of the site and will recommend the most effective alternatives for
final cleanup of the area. This study also is planned to be completed in 1990.
Environmental Progress
By constructing a fence to restrict access to the mill site and grounds, the potentially
responsible parties and the EPA have reduced the possibility of direct exposure to the
contaminants on the Sharon Steel site. Investigations leading to permanent solutions
for cleaning up the soil and groundwater at the site and the surrounding affected areas
are being conducted.
18
-------
TOOELE
DEPOT
(NORTH ARE
UTAH
EPA ID# UT3213820894
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Tooele County
Tooele Valley, 2 miles south of Tooele
Site Description
The 24,732-acre Tooele Army Depot site, established in 1942, is one of the major
ammunition storage and equipment maintenance installations in the United States
Disposal practices at the site have included discharging wastes to unlined evaporation
or percolation ponds, neutralization and thermal destruction of chemical agents and
munitions, detonation and burning, and burial at the demilitarization range The City of
InuS h95 a P°pulation of 15'000- The deeP ^ional aquifer, used as a drinking water
source by area communities, is contaminated beneath the area of the Depot and
several hundred yards beyond the property boundary.
Site Responsibility: This site js being addressed througn
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE) On-site
contamination of the Industrial Waste Lagoon and wastewater ditches
include some low-level organic contamination and relatively high levels of
the heavy metals cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium. A-release of
I U=, TNT-related compounds, and mercury contamination was identified
adjacent to Building T-533 on the site. The potential health threat to
people includes drinking contaminated groundwater, and direct contact
with the groundwater and sediments. Because the site is a secure
military installation, public access is restricted
PL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
19
continued
-------
TOOELE ARMY DEPOT (NORTH AREA)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater
cleanup and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The Army has completed a Groundwater Quality
Assessment and Corrective Action Plan for groundwater cleanup at the
Industrial Waste Lagoon. Pilot testing of potential cleanup technologies is
scheduled to begin in late 1990.
Entire Site: The Army has begun investigations to identify releases of
hazardous chemicals and cleanup alternatives at numerous other identified
areas of contamination on the site. Investigations will determine the
nature and extent of the contamination and develop alternatives for final cleanup at
these waste disposal and release areas.
Site Facts: The EPA and the State have agreed that a Federal Facility Agreement
should be negotiated only after completion of the agreement for Defense Depot Ogden
and for Hill Air Force Base, two other military installations listed on the National
Priorities List. Regulatory questions remain due to the Federal versus State authority at
the site. The Army is under a Consent Decree for cleanup of the Industrial Waste
Lagoon. Toole Army Depot is participating in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP),
a specifically 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
The Army, in conjunction with the EPA and the State, has selected the remedy for the
groundwater contamination at both the Industrial Waste Lagoon and the areas
underneath the Depot and the boundary area. The Army is conducting investigations
into additional identified areas of contamination on the site and potential releases to the
surrounding area.
20
-------
UTAH POWER &
LIGHT/AMER
BARREL
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD980667240
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County
Salt Lake City
Site Description
The 2 1/2-acre Utah Power & Light/American Barrel site was used as a barrel storage
recycling, and reconditioning facility. Empty barrels at one time contained various
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), degreasers, and solvents. Prior to the barrel
operation, the site was used by Utah Power and Light as a creosote pole treating
facility. Approximately 39,700 people live within 2 miles of the site. Four schools are
located within 1 mile. The nearest residence is 225 feet away. One municipal well and
one private well are located within 1 mile of the site. A drainage ditch runs along the
eastern fence of the site. Water conveyed by the ditch is believed to percolate into the
ground within several yards of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Soil contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from wood treating
operations, phthalates, VOCs, and heavy metals including chromium
copper, lead, and zinc. Groundwater contains VOCs including benzene
styrene, toluene, and xylene. Potential health risks may exist for
individuals who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with
contaminated soil and groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
21
continued
-------
UTAH POWER & LIGHT/AMERICAN BARREL
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In 1988, under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially
responsible for the contamination removed 50,000 barrels containing
VOCs, solvents, and herbicide residues to a federally approved facility.
Soil and Groundwater: The parties potentially responsible are scheduled
to initiate an investigation in 1990 to determine the type and extent of
groundwater and soil contamination and to identify possible cleanup
alternatives. Once this investigation phase is completed, EPA will review the study
findings and select the final cleanup remedies for contaminated soils and groundwater
resources.
Environmental Progress
The removal of waste barrels containing VOC's, solvents, and herbicide residues has
greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Utah Power &
Light/American Barrel site while further site investigations and cleanup activities are
planned.
A
XV
22
-------
WASATCH CHEM
COMPANY (LO
UTAH
EPA ID# UTD000716399
REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Salt Lake County-
Salt Lake City
Ore it
Aliases:
Efuntsman-Christensen Corporation
Western Chemical Company-Wasatch
Industrial Park
Site Description
The 15-acre Wasatch Chemical Company (Lot 6) site was used for the formulation of
various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) products in the early 1960s. Approximately
2,300 cubic yards of waste were disposed of in a concrete pond and drums on the site
During an inspection in 1985, the State found 48 drums holding ignitable and reactive '
liquids and 13 pressurized gas cylinders in deteriorated condition. Additional wastes
from the operation were discharged into a street ditch, which eventually drains into the
Great Salt Lake. Approximately 85,000 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site
The cosest residence is 1/4 mile away. Although previously accessible to trespassers
the site is now secured. There are private wells within a 1/4-mile radius of the site '
used for drinking, bathing, cooking, and other household purposes
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties'actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site contains VOCs and herbicides
Sediments contain herbicides and pesticides. Soils contain VOCs
pesticides, herbicides, and dioxin. Low levels of pesticides were '
detected in surface water; however, these may have resulted from an off-
site source. Potential health risks may exists for individuals who
accidentally ingest or touch contaminated surface water groundwater
sediments, or soils.
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
23
-------
WASATCH CHEMICAL COMPANY (LOT 6)
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
**" Immediate Actions: The EPA removed abandoned gas-cylinders from the
site in 1986 and detonated them at a State-owned site. The parties
potentially responsible for the contamination constructed a dioxin storage
facility. Abandoned drums were repackaged and stored in the facility along with certain
surface soils removed from Lot 6.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible, under State monitoring, .
initiated an investigation in 1988 to determine the type and extent of soil,
surface water, and groundwater contamination and to identify alternative'
technologies for the cleanup. The investigations are scheduled to be completed in .
1990.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State of Utah and the EPA negotiated a Consent 'Order for. '.,
removal of the drums. A Consent Decree-was signed in 1988 with one of the parties
potentially responsible to complete a site investigation.
Environmental Progress
The removal of gas cylinders and storage of abandoned drums has greatly "reduced the"
potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the Wasatch Chemical Company :-
site. The EPA has determined three drums of dioxin contaminated wastes have
deteriorated. The EPA plans to overpack.the drums to further reduce the threat to ';
public health and the environment while investigations are being completed and '
cleanup activities are being planned.
24
-------
This glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Utah. The terms and abbre-
, viations 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. Therefore, these terms may have other
meanings when used in a different context.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able agreement between EPA and the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of
the Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to
perform or pay for site studies or cleanups. It also de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
IRPs 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 groundwater.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
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.
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- ~
G-l
-------
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].
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.
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.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes, soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic slope that causes groundwater to move
toward lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a contaminated groundwater
source are prone to receiving pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain system constructed of perforated pipes,
which is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Intake: The source where a water supply is drawn from, such as from a river or water-
bed.
Interagency Agreement: A written agreement between EPA and a Federal agency that
has the lead for site cleanup activities (e.g. the Department of Defense), that sets forth
the roles and responsibilities of the agencies for performing and overseeing the activi-
ties. States are often parties to interagency agreements.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
G-2
-------
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Mine (or Mill) Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left from ore milling operations Tail-
ings often contain high concentrations of lead and arsenic or other heavy metals.
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.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering of water or other liquids through subsur-
face rock or soil layers, usually continuing downward to groundwater.
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.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and biphen-
yls, are a group of highly reactive organic compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment. Radon which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionuclides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
G-3
-------
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.
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
------- |