September 1990
American Samoa,  Guam and Trust Territories
           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

A Brief Overview	iii

How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites	vii

How To:
Using the American Samoa,
Guam and Trust Territories Volume	xvii

An Overview of American Samoa,
Guam and Trust Territories	xxi


NPL: Site Fact Sheets	,	1

Terms Used in the Fact Sheets	G-l



       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
After Discovery, the Problem

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.

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-

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.

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 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

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

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

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

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

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.


    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-

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.

      Discover site
     and determine
      whether an
        exists *
   STEP 2

Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
 threat to public
   health or

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.

 How does EVA lea
i about potent
            wastl ^
 What happens if
 there is an
                     * •cf*j
 If there Isn't i
^Im**^^^^ 1
fhow does EPA   ,;; s ^ ^
J'deteimine what, if 7.W3
 any, cleanup
                           STEP 1:  SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY

                           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

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
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>«™^

            .*\, •.•••,  .. -.-.^

 Vtim i

 How do people fittdT*
 out whether EE& £*^;*3
              Site $ s£-  7^
           priority loV^
| cleanup using   \  :   S.
I Superlund money? NN . ^
                             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.


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

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

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

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

In i I  ill   I r
r    «
            SHI lit   " "»"^N%^"«'*'*8*
           '      ,; ;r;^v5i
            •™s* *     ^i..«..»^^^
 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
* 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

                             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

                             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


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
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^.^
        " ".-.•.- «%, ™\


 Once the design Ms
           i  , , s««* s  s
 complete, how
 'does it take to
"does it cost?
         •t ^^-"fr^ v
          £% ^ „
          ! k> Hi* < «.
       the cleanup
           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
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.


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.


       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

       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
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
          Cleanup Complete
          shows that all
          cleanup goals have
          been achieved for
the contaminated site  or part
of the site.

     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
                       EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
                     Site Description
   NPL Listing
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
        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.

                           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.

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.

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

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.

      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
            Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
                          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
5 --


2 --

1 --
           Soil  GW  SW  Solid
            Contamination Area
                       Soil and Solid Waste:
                       Pesticides, polychlorinated
                       biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic
                       compounds (VOCs), and

                       Groundwater: Heavy metals
                                             Surface Water:
                                      Heavy metals
                       •Appear at 33% or more sites
State Overview

      Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process*?
      Site     A Remedy ^^^ Remedy
    Studies ™	*P" Selected ^^^" Design
   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
     (800) 424-9364
     (202) 477-7751
•Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.

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
•»- 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
*• 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.

Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in American Samoa
Page    Site Name
NPL  Date
Initial    Site    Remedy Remedy  Cleanup  Construction
Response  Studies  Selected Design  Ongoing  Complete
Delete 03/07/86
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in Guam
Final   09/01/83
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the Trust Territories

N.MARIANA IS.  Delete  03/07/86

TRUST TERR.   Delete  03/07/86




   EPA ID# ASD980637656
                                         REGION 9
                                      GRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                          Western Island
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.
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

                                                                  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.

   EPA ID# GUD980637]
                                          REGION 9
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                 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.

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
   March 1990

                                                                 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.

   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.

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

                                                                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.

   EPA ID# TTD980637987
                                      REGION 9
                                   GRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                      Trust Territories
                                    cattered throughout the Trust
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.

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

                                                                   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.

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.