EPA/540/4-90/052
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
American Samoa, Guam and Trust Territories
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the American Samoa,
Guam and Trust Territories Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
An Overview of American Samoa,
Guam and Trust Territories xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets , 1
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
11
-------
>
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
s the 1970s came to a
;; close, a series of head-
^ line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the.
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
groundwater (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in^he Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfurid. But site
discoveries continue,*and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
iii
-------
lively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites/ but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites on its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a haz-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and
deploy the experts, but the
Agency needs citizen input as
it makes choices for affected
communities.
Because the people in a
community with a Superfund
site will be those most di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This volume and the compan-
ion National Overview
volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each 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 volume.
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 volume compiles site
summary fact sheets on each
American Samoa, Guam and
Trust Territories site being
cleaned up under the Super-
fund program. Sites on the
NPL represent the most
serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation, and
require the most complicated
and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each State book
gives a "snapshot" of the con-
ditions and cleanup progress
that has been made at each
NPL site in the State through
the first half of 1990. Condi-
tions 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
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
-------
f% he diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by ,
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
' Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
VII
-------
SUPERFUND
How does EVA lea
i about potent
wastl ^
w
^;
What happens if
there is an
anger?
-
* cf*j
.,
wra
If there Isn't i
^Im**^^^^ 1
fhow does EPA ,;; s ^ ^
J'deteimine what, if 7.W3
any, cleanup
should
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now if s time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
viii
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
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
'' ££&. " x. £ % \- s:: ^ 0)~^~«~»~,;
»^V v v x ^XW^STO ^ ^w^^Jvro*,^
% sCI^.' . *\ ^ % .> %%%>. .-.. *%%^\ ^.'......v
X, f *. -X- ,X^ %% V * ^-...^ ''Xx ^^^^§^"
<. -.J".^ ^*Sv»««roX '" .< % -.VXx. w. _ 'XX w>«^
.*\, ., .. -.-.^
IX
-------
SUPERFUND
i
Vtim i
L"
In
How do people fittdT*
out whether EE& £*^;*3
Site $ s£- 7^
priority loV^
| cleanup using \ : S.
I Superlund money? NN . ^
iii
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from.
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). Thaf s why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
The public can find out whether a site that concerns them is
on the NPL by calling their Regional EPA office at the number
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
l&ftex tfa$$ is^ade^xT
v*v.\k %v»y. - --^f;? % - s s^ ~ ..sVCK
. wMt me - s|
lv .
>
"""^^
,"^»
^x> -
% «/ ''
\w. ??&*. , ,
"<.-.
W. --VV ^
; . f j^fffffj'ff
-------
SUPERFUND
f
In i I ill I r
r «
f-T
,>v
,SSx
SHI lit " "»"^N%^"«'*'*8*
' ,; ;r;^v5i
s* * ^i..«..»^^^
f
Ml urn 0
fU Jh.
ujin.^ r IUJJIT -i^ -. -"->-% -^ T,----^ >,>, , , s
1,j ^ " « > -- 5 « «*~t^lA^ V*.-W
;Jiow are cleanup * ," J]
Alternatives^., ^; "s^-
'identified a
evaluated?
r
r
t
*
* Does the pufelic havfe ^
fca say in the final ' :
kT= * ftr - .',., ^ »'\sV ; "
gcleanup decisioit? - , j
* " "'
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
xu
-------
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
v.-.-- Xv^.^
to
S%
" ".-..- «%, \
SM»
xm
-------
SUPERFUND
Once the design Ms
i , , s««* s s
complete, how
'does it take to
ac
"does it cost?
t ^^-"fr^ v
£% ^
! k> Hi* < «.
the cleanup
the
deleted?
tfll <$ .
\
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money. In most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain remedies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
If s not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And if s not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
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.
e
*s
\v»Jx
'?
XV
-------
TAX
-------
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 (NPL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
^Initial Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
at the site.
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Vs, ,,
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvii
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
Site Description
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
xvm
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
^
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental res9urces are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
Site Facts
Additional 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
THE AMERICAN
SAMOA, GUAM
AND TRUST TERRI-
TORIES BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
American Samoa, G
and Trust Territories
The islands of American Samoa, Guam and the Trust Territories of the Pacific are scat-
tered throughout the South Seas of the Western Pacific Ocean, extending from Micro-
nesia to the larger Mariana island grouping. American Samoa is the most southerly of
all lands under United States sovereignty, consisting of six islands in the Samoan island
group. Guam is the largest and most southernmost of the Mariana islands located
some 3,700 miles west of Hawaii. Over 2,100 islands and atolls in three major archipe-
ligos, the Carolines, the Marshalls and the Marianas, comprise the Trust Territories and
cover an area slightly larger than the continental U.S. In total, these islands cover 1,001
square miles, slightly less than the State of Rhode Island, and support a heterogeneous
population of approximately 315,000 residents. Principal industries among the islands
include construction, tourism, light manufacturing and banking as well as agricultural
and commercial activities.
How Many American Samoa,
Guam and Trust Territories Sites
Are on the NPL?
Proposed Sites
Final Sites
Deleted Sites
0
0
4
4
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Guam
American Samoa (Western Island)
Saipan (N. Mariana)
Eight locations on; Republic of Palau,
Truk State, Yap, Kosrae, Ponape
and Majuro
1 site
1 site
1 site
1 site
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals 7
=H=
5 --
4--
2 --
1 --
Soil GW SW Solid
Waste
Contamination Area
Soil and Solid Waste:
Pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and
petrochemicals.
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics).
Surface Water:
(inorganics).
Heavy metals
Appear at 33% or more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
Site A Remedy ^^^ Remedy
Studies *P" Selected ^^^" Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 1 site as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in American Samoa, Guam and Trust
Territories, providing specific information on threats and contaminants, cleanup
activities, and environmental progress. Should you have questions, please call one of
the offices listed below:
EPA Region IX Superfund Office
EPA Region IX Public Relations Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Public Information Office
(415)744-1519
{415)744-1764
(800) 424-9364
(202) 477-7751
Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
A
XXII
-------
The NPL Progress Report --
The following Progress Report lists the American Samoa, Guam and Trust Territories sites
currently on the NPL, and briefly summarizes the status of activities for each site at the
time this report was prepared. The steps in the Superfund cleanup process are arrayed
across the top of the chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by
an arrow (*-) which indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often organized into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and surface water pollution, or to clean up
different areas of a large site. In such cases, the chart portrays cleanup progress at the
site's most advanced stage, reflecting the status of site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
»- An arrow in the "Initial Response" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
«* An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
*- An arrow in the "Remedy Selection" category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
* An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used only when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the'completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in American Samoa
Page Site Name
County
NPL Date
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete
1 TAPUTIMU FARM
WESTERN
Delete 03/07/86
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in Guam
3 ORDOT LANDFILL
GUAM
Final 09/01/83
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the Trust Territories
5 PCB WAREHOUSE
7 PCB WASTES
N.MARIANA IS. Delete 03/07/86
TRUST TERR. Delete 03/07/86
XXIV
-------
-------
-------
TAPUTIMU
FARM
AMERICAN SAMOA
EPA ID# ASD980637656
REGION 9
GRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Western Island
Taputlmu
Site Description
The Taputimu Farm is owned by the Government of American Samoa and was the
territory's primary repository of unused and outdated agricultural chemicals and
pesticides. The farm consists of three rooms of a farm warehouse and a trailer. The
pesticide materials were stored on a concrete or steel floor of the storage areas and
trailer. Ten drums and leaking and deteriorating containers were found improperly
stored within the facility buildings. The facility is located approximately 1/4 mile from a
public beach. Approximately 3,000 people depend on groundwater for domestic
purposes within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deletion Date: 03/07/86
Threats and Contaminants
The interior floor areas of the warehouse and trailer were contaminated
with pesticides. Soil sampling for primary pollutants and visual
examination of the site confirmed that contamination was confined to the
interior floor areas of the warehouse and trailer. A health threat existed if
people touched contaminants while in the warehouse or trailer.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
TAPUTIMU FARM
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Based on the results of the site investigation in 1984, the
EPA performed the following: (1) sealed the warehouse opening to
restrict access to the site by trespassers; (2) repacked the pesticides and
shipped them to Long Beach, California for disposal at an approved federal disposal
facility; (3) washed down all of the exposed surfaces of the storage areas with bleach to
ensure deactivation of residual materials not picked up by sweeping arid vacuuming; (4)
applied two layers of epoxy paint to the interior walls and poured concrete over the
existing floor; and (5) banned all food storage in the building and placed warning signs
on the building prohibiting food storage, as an additional precautionary measure. The
EPA, with the agreement of the Government of American Samoa, deleted the site from
the NPL after determining that all the appropriate responses have been completed and
that no further cleanup is needed.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup activities at the Taputimu Farm site have been completed, making the site
safe for nearby residents and the environment. The EPA deleted this site from the NPL
in 1986.
-------
ORDOT
GUAM
EPA ID# GUD980637]
REGION 9
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Guam
Near the Villages of Ordot and Chalan Pago
Site Description
The 47-acre Ordot Landfill site has been in operation since World War II. The site
served as the island's primary landfillior industrial and municipal waste including spent
industrial and commercial chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contam\r\atedi oils
from transformers, and munitions. Analysis of groundwater, surface water, leachate,
soil, and air detected several contaminants at levels that should not affect human
health. The nearest residences are 1,500 feet from the site. The nearest groundwater
well is located 1,000 feet northwest and uphill of the site. The residents of Guam rely
primarily on a sole-source aquifer located north of the site for their drinking water.
Groundwater samples indicate the landfill is not currently affecting the quality of the
municipal wells. The landfill is in a volcanic upland region, where site runoff flows
directly into the adjacent Lonfit River, which empties into Pago Bay.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, surface water, and leachate contained heavy metals such
as iron, manganese, and nickel. Soil was contaminated with phthalates
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Leachate seeped from a number
of locations around the site into the Lonfit River. Samples from both the
river and the bay indicated that leachate from the site had not caused a
measurable change in the water quality. There are no groundwater wells
downhill from the site that provide drinking water. It is unlikely people
would have come into contact with contaminated groundwater or surface
water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
ORDOT LANDFILL
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected a "no action" remedy for the
Ordot Landfill site. Through studies, the EPA concluded that current
threats to human health and the environment are a result of poor landfill
operation practices. Therefore, any threats can best be mitigated by appropriate
operation and maintenance practices enforceable under the Clean Water Act. No
further action is planned unless new information should warrant a response action. The
EPA will perform additional groundwater monitoring.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA found Ordot Landfill in violation of the Clean Water Act
for discharging landfill leachate to the Lonfit River without a permit.
Environmental Progress
The investigation into the nature and extent of contamination demonstrated that no
further Superfund actions are needed at the Ordot Landfill site. The EPA has decided
to pursue cleanup enforcement under the Clean Water Act.
-------
PCS WAREHOU
TRUST TERRITORIE
EPA ID# CMD980798318
REGION 9
PRESSIONAL DIST. 01
irthern Marianas Islands
Saipan Island
Site Description
The PCB Warehouse site was a shelter in Saipan, one of the group of Northern
Marianas Islands, where drums of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-tainted liquid from
transformers were stored. The site contained 21 drums of oil contaminated with PCBs
and three crates of sodium arsenite. The drums in the shelter were intact, and the EPA
found no evidence of spills or leaks on the site. The transformers from which the oil
was drained were located at the Saipan Headquarters Building and at the Yard of the
Department of Public Works. The EPA found no indication of spills or leaks near the
transformers. The site was approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the nearest
freshwater intake.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deletion Date: 03/07/86
Threats and Contaminants
Three crates in the shelter were contaminated with sodium arsenite.
Twenty-one drums of oil in the shelter contained PCBs from transformer
liquid. The EPA was concerned that oils containing PCBs could be
released in the event of a severe tropical storm, thereby threatening the
health of people in the area.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
PCB WAREHOUSE
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in an immediate action focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA was concerned that a tropical storm could
cause PCBs to leak into the Philippine Sea from the drums and crates in
. the shelter. In 1984, the EPA repacked the drums and crates and shipped
them to the United States to a federally approved disposal facility. The EPA tested the
site after removing the wastes and found that neither PCB nor sodium arsenate
contaminated the site and its surroundings during or before the cleanup action. The
EPA finished cleaning up the site in 1984, and, with the concurrence of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, determined that no further cleanup
actions were needed.
Environmental Progress
The removal of the drums and crates has eliminated the exposure to contaminants at
the PCB Warehouse site. The site is now safe for nearby residents and the
environment and has been deleted from the NPL.
-------
PCB WASTES
TRUST TERRITO
EPA ID# TTD980637987
REGION 9
GRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Trust Territories
cattered throughout the Trust
Territories
Site Description
The PCB Wastes site was comprised of eight separate locations scattered throughout
the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands. The sites are located on the islands of Koror
in the Republic of Palau, Moen in Truk State, Yap, Kosrae, and two on both Ponape and
Majuro. In 1982, an investigation revealed polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in drums
and transformers and some pesticides and chemicals improperly stored at the sites. A
previous oil spill was apparent at one site formerly used to store transformers. Some
sites stored intact transformer oil containers in unsecured areas open to the general
public. The sites represented a threat to public health and the environment because of
their proximity to human populations, groundwater supplies, and marine resources.
The Trust Territories are populated with approximately 116,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site was addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deletion Date: 03/07/86
-Threats and Contaminants
Soil was contaminated with PCBs, pesticides, and other chemicals.
People faced a health risk if they touched contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SI
7
TES
continued
-------
PCB WASTES
Response Action Status
Entire Site: This site was cleaned up in conjunction with the larger
integrated actions at 31 sites throughout the Trust Territories in 1984.
PCB fluids were blended and burned on the islands. Other PCB and
hazardous wastes were transported to an approved disposal facility in the United
States. During the removal action, soils and waste oils were sampled in the field using
a portable testing kit that allowed for the segregation of wastes for transport. Only one
site had contaminated soils. Testing was conducted where the spill occurred before
and after removal of contaminated soils to determine whether PCBs remained. No
PCBs were found in structures or soils after removal. The EPA, with the concurrence
of the Trust Territories Environmental Quality Commission, determined that all
appropriate cleanup actions had been completed at the PCB Wastes site and that no
further cleanup is required.
Environmental Progress
The removal of hazardous wastes and contaminated soil has met all the cleanup goals
site and eliminated exposure to contaminated materials at the PCB Wastes site. The
EPA has determined that the site is safe for nearby residents and the environment.
This site, consisting of eight different locations, was deleted from the National Priority
List in 1986.
-------
his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the
site fact sheets for American Samoa, Guam, and the
>-, Trust Territories. The terms and abbreviations
contained in this glossary are often defined in the context of
hazardous waste management as described in the site fact
sheets, and apply specifically to work performed under the
Superfund program. Therefore, these terms may have other
meanings when used in a different context.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel
capable of storing water within cracks arid 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 purposes. The water contained
in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
G-l
-------
Seeps: Specific points where releases of liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower edges of landfills.
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, envu-onmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and ground water.
G-2
------- |