United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA540-R-98-033
OSWER9200.2-35P
PB98-963248
Superfund
&EPA
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund
Fiscal Year 1995
Report to Congress
-------
T T
-------
EPA 540-R-98-033
OSWER 9200.2-35P
PB98-963248
Progress Toward
Implementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
REPORT TO
CONGRESS
Required by
Section 301 (h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthprization Act (SARA) of 1986
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
51-013-78
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 7995
Notice
This Report to Congress has been subjected to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
review process and approved for publication as an EPA document. For further information about this Report,
contact the Office of Planning Analysis and Resource Management, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response at (703) 603-8770. individual copies of the Report can be obtained from the U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) by writing to NTIs!, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, VA 22161, or calling (703) 605-6000.
-------
Fiscal Year 7995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued its progress in protecting public health,
welfare, and the environment through the Superfund program in fiscal year 1995 (FY95). As me Superfund
program completed its fifteenth year, the Agency had begun work at 95 percent of the 1,374 sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL), and completed construction on 346 of them. EPA is pleased to submit this
Report documenting the fiscal year's achievements. Through administrative improvements implemented
during the year, the Agency accelerated the pace of cleanup, enhanced the fairness of the Superfund program,
reduced transaction costs, and expanded public involvement.
Section 301(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund), as .amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
requires the Agency to report annually on response activities and accomplishments and to compare remedial
and enforcement activities with those undertaken in previous fiscal years. During the fiscal year, the Agency
or potentially responsible parties (PRPs) started approximately 30 remedial investigation/feasibility studies,
84 remedial designs (RDs), and 110 remedial actions (RAs). PRPs began 71 percent of the RDs and 84
percent of the RAs. Continuing its successful efforts to compel PRPs to undertake cleanup, EPA entered into
enforcement agreements worth more than $1.6 billion in settlements and response work. The Agency and
'PRPs have also now undertaken more than 3,971 removal actions, including approximately 311 during FY95.
Federal facility accomplishments have shown dramatic increases. EPA also continued to encourage public
involvement in the Superfund process, to enhance partnerships with states and Indian tribes, and to encourage
the use and development of treatment technologies. These three aspects of the program were highlighted in
the Agency's administrative improvement initiative.
In addition to providing an overall perspective on progress in the past fiscal year, this Report contains the
information Congress specifically requested in Section 301 (h) of CERCLA, including a report on the status
of remedial actions and enforcement activity in progress at the end of the fiscal year and an evaluation of newly
developed feasible and achievable treatment technologies. The Report also includes a description of current
minority firm participation in Superfund contracts and EPA's efforts to encourage increased participation, as
required by Section 105(f). The Report fulfills the requirement of Section 301(h)(l)(E) by providing an update
on progress being made at sites subject to review under Section 121(c). This Report also satisfies certain
repotfagrequuments of CERCLA Section 12Q(eX5\ the EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress Toward
in
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Foreword
(continued)
Implementing CERCLA at EPA Facilities as Required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5). The EPA Inspector
General's report on the reasonableness and accuracy of the information in this Report, as required by CERCLA
Section 301(h)(2), is included as Appendix D.
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
'«m
othy Fidffls, Jr.
Acting Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
IV
-------
Fiscal Year 7995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acknowledgments
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency appreciates the contributions made by staff members
throughout the Agency's management and program offices, as well as other federal agencies and departments.
Within the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, which manages the Superfund program,
contributors included: Sharon Hallinan (project manager), Karl Alvarez, Erin Conley, Roger Hoogerheide,
David Reynolds, Robin Richardson, Stuart Walker and Ed Ziomkoski from the Office of Planning Analysis
and Resource Management; Jackie Tenusak from OSWER; Elaine Davies and John Smith from the OERR
Immediate Office; Carol Bass and Art Johnson from the Region 1/9 Center; Carolyn Kenmore from the Region
4/10 Center; Lois Gartner from the Community Involvement and Outreach Center; Randy Hippen of the. State
Tribal and Site Identification Center; Joseph Lafornara and Bruce Potoka from the Environmental Response
Center; and Lisa Tychsen and Renee Wynn from the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office.
Additional key contributions from other Environmental Protection Agency offices were provided by: Lance
Elson from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA's) Federal Facilities Enforcement
Office; Scott Blair from OECA' s Office of Site Remediation; Linda Fiedler, from the Technology Innovation
Office; and Becky Neer, from the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
Notice jj
Foreword . jjj
Acknowledgments v
Acronyms ^
Executive Summary xv
Chapter 1: Site Evaluation Progress 1
1.1 Site Evaluation Process '. 1
1.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Progress ...............]... 2-
1.2.1 CERCLIS Site Additions: Discoveries and Removals 2
1.2.2 Preliminary Assessments Completed 2
1.2.3 Site Inspections Completed _ 3
1.2.4 Site Inspection Prioritization ; 3
1.3 National Priorities List 3
1.3.1 National Priorities List Update ; , -3
1.3.2 Relationship Between CERCLIS and NPL Update 4
1.4 Site Evaluation Support Activities 5
1.4.1 .Lead Program Progress ; 5
1.4.2 Radiation Program Progress ; 5
1.4.3 Site Evaluation. Regulations and Guidance ...f g
Chapter 2: Emergency Response Progress 9
2.1 Removal Action Process ; 9
2.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Progress '...' " ........... \Q
2.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress , 10
2.3 Environmental Response Team Activities ; \\
2.4 Emergency Response Regulations and Guidance 12
2.4.1 Reportable Quantity Regulations 12
2.4.2 Removal Guidance 13
Chapter 3: Remedial Progress : 15
3.1 Remedial Process 15
3.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Remedial Progress 16
3.2.1 Construction Completions 16
3.2.2 New Remedial Activities 17
3.2.3 Status of Remedial and Enforcement Activities in Progress 18
3.2.4 Remedy Selection 19
3.3 Remedy Improvement Programs 19
3.3.1 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program 19
3.3.2 Superfund Technical Assistance Programs 19
3.3.3 Technology Transfer and Interagency Coordination Programs 20
3.4 Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121 (c) 23
VII
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 4: Enforcement Progress 27
4.1 The Enforcement Process 27
4.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Progress 29
4.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities 29
4.2.2 PRP Participation in Cleanup Activities 29
4.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements ;... 30
- 4.2.4 Success in Reaching and Enforcing Agreements with PRPs 30
4.3 Enforcement Initiatives 30
4.3.1 Increased Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution 31
4.3.2 The Allocation Pilot Project ...... 32
4.3,3 Guidance on Prospective Purchaser Agreements 33
4.3.4 Guidance on Properties Containing Contaminated Aquifiers 33
4.3.5 Guidance on Supplemental Environmental Projects 34
4.3.6 Environmental Justice and Superfund Enforcement 34
4.3.7 Early PRP Searches , 36
4.3.8 Superfund Enforcement Expedited Settlements 36
Chapter 5: Federal Facility Cleanups 47
5.1 The Federal Facilities Program 47
5.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities Under CERCLA 47
5.1.2 EPA's Oversight. Role 47
5.1.3 The Roles of States and Indian Tribes 48
5.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Progress 48
5.2.1 Status of Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 48
5.2.2 Status of Federal Facilities on the NPL 49
5.2.3 Interagency Agreements Under CERCLA Section 120 49
5.3 Federal Facilities Initiatives 49
5.3.1 Military Base Closure 50
5.3.2 Interagency Forums 50
5.4 CERCLA Implementation at EPA Facilities 51
5.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) .' 51
5.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA Facilities Subject to Section 120
of CERCLA 52
Chapter 6: Resource Estimates 57
6.1 Source and Application of Resources 58
6.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup 59
6.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Cleanup Effort 59
6.2 Resource Model Assumptions 59
6.2.1 Active NPL Sites 60
vni
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
6.2.2 Sites Yet to Begin the Remedial Process 60
6.2.3 Non-Site Costs 60
6.3 Estimated Resource to Complete Cleanup 61
6.4 Estimated Resources for Other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies 62
Chapter?: Superfund Program Support Activities 63
7.1 Overview of Program Support Activities 63
7.1.1 Community Involvement 63
7.1.2 Public Information 65
7.1.3 EPA's Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 67
7.2 Minority Firm Contracting ; 69.
7.2.1 Minority Firm Contracting During Fiscal Year 1995 69
7.2.2 Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 70
7.2.3 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments to
Use Minority Firms 71
Appendices
Appendix A: Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial
Actions at Sites on the National Priorities List in Progress
on September 30,1995 A-l
Appendix B: Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30,1995 B-l
Appendix C: List of Records of Decision C-l
Appendix D: Report of the Inspector General D-l
Appendix E: Summary of the Superfund Program [1995-1997] E-l
Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Fiscal Year 1995 Superfund Activities xvi
ExhibitES-2 Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year .., xvii
Exhibit ES-3 Statutory Requirements for the Report xx
ExhibitES-4 Fiscal Year 1995 Superfund Program Initiatives xxii
Exhibit 1.3-1 Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1995 4
Exhibit 2.2-1 Cumulative Removal Action Starts 11
Exhibit 2.2-2 Cumulative Removal Action Completions 12
Exhibit 3.2-1 Work Has Occurred at 95 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites 16
Exhibit 3.2-2 Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program for Fiscal Year 1980
Through Fiscal Year 1995 17
IX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Contents
(continued)
Exhibit 3.2-3 Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead
For Fiscal Year 1994 and Fiscal Year 1995 18
Exhibit 3.3-1 FY95 Site Program Accomplishments 19
Exhibit 3.4-1 Sites at Which Five-Year Reviews, Required Under CERCLA
Section 121(c), Were Conducted During Fiscal Year 1995 25
Exhibit 4.2-1 Cumulative Value of Response Settlements Reached with Potentially
Responsible Parties 28
Exhibit 4.2-2 Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
StartedbyPRPs '. - 29
Exhibit 4.2-3 Cumulative Value of Collected Cost Recovery Dollars
and Negotiated Settlements 30
Exhibit 4.2-4 Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments 38
Exhibit 5.4-1 Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 55
Exhibit 6.1-1 EPA Superfund Obligations .' 58
Exhibit 6.3-1 Estimate of Total Trust Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites on the National
Priorities List 61
Exhibit 6.4-1 List of Department and Agencies Receiving Trust Fund Monies 62
Exhibit 7.1-1 Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from Fiscal
Year 1988 Through Fiscal Year 1995 65
Exhibit 7.2-1 Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1995 70
Exhibit 7.2-2 Services Provided by Minority Contractors 70
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acronyms
ABA
ADR
AOC
ARAR
BCT
BRAC
CA
CAG
CD
CEC
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CERT
CLU-IN
CPCA
CPR
DERTF
DNAPL
DoD
DOE
DOI
DOJ
EPA
ERT
FFA
FFEO
FFERDC
FFRRO
FS
FUDS
GET
GWRTAC
HEAST
HRS
HSRC
IAG
INSS
LSW
MBE
NAMC
NCP
NFRAP
NORM
NPDES
American Bar Association
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BRAC Cleanup Team
Base Realignment And Closure Act
Cooperative Agreement
Community Advisory Group
Consent Decree
CERCLA Education Center
Comprehensive Environmental Response Cleanup and Liability Act
CERCLA Information System
Center for Ecological Research and Training
Cleanup Information
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
Center for Public Resources
Defense Environmental Restoration Task Force
Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Response Team
Federal Facilities Agreement
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Feasibility Study
Formerly Use Defense Sites
Genesis Environmental Team
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous Substance Research Center
Interagency Agreement
Information Network for Superfund Settlements
Lead Sites Workgroup
Minority Business Enterprise
National Association of Minority Contractors
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
No Further Remedial Action Planned
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System'
XI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Acronyms
(continued)
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Response Center
NRT National Response Team
NTCR ' Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
NTIS National Technical Information Service
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OLM Outyear Liability Model
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORIA Office of Radiation and Indopr Air
OSC On-Scene. Coordinator .
OSDBU Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
OSRE . Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA Preliminary Assessment
POLREPs Pollution Reports
PPA Prospective Purchaser Agreement
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RAB Restoration Advisory Board
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision _,
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RQ Reportable Quantity
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
RTDF Remedial Technologies Development Forum
SACA Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
S ACM Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
SARA 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SEP Supplemental Environmental Project
SHEMP Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Program
SI Site Inspection
SIP Site Inspection Prioritization
SITE , Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SNAP Superfund NPL Assessment Program
SPIDR Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution
SRO Superfund Revitalization Office
SRP Superfund Removal Procedures
xn
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acronyms
(continued)
SSC
SSL
START-
TAG '
TIO
TSC
UAO
VISITT
Superfund State Contract
Soil Screening Levels
Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team
Technical Assistance Grant
Technology Innovation Office
Technical Support Center
Unilateral Administrative Order
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
Xlll
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Executive Summary
As the Superfund program entered its fifteenth
year in December 1994, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or the "Agency") continued
to fulfill the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) for protecting public health, welfare,
and the environment. CERCLA requires that EPA
update Congress each year on progress in the
Superfund program. This Report fulfills the
requirement.
EPA is committed to accelerating the pace of
hazardous waste site cleanup. As part of this
commitment, the Agency completed construction
activities to place 68 National Priorities List (NPL)
sites in the construction completion category during
fiscal year 1995 (FY95). By the end of the fiscal
year, work had occurred at more than 95 percent of
the 1,374 sites proposed to, listed on, or deleted from
the NPL, including a total of 346 sites (25 percent)
that have achieved construction completion. Leaving
a total of 1,236 sites currently listed on the NPL for
FY95. Reflecting the Agency's increasing emphasis
on completing site cleanups, more than 80 percent of
the construction completions have been achieved in
the past four years.
The Agency also continued its successful efforts
to encourage potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
to undertake and finance cleanup efforts at
Superfund sites. PRPs were leading more than 75
percent of remedial designs (RDs) and remedial
actions (RAs) started during the fiscal year. Since
the inception of the Superfund program, EPA has
reached agreements worth more than $11 billion for
PRP response work at Superfund sites, including
$1.4 billion achieved this year.
This Report summarizes Superfund FY95
progress, highlighting accomplishments and
initiatives to improve the program. Exhibit ES-1
presents a summary of FY95 accomplishments'.
Exhibit ES-2 provides a comparison of FY95
accomplishments with those of previous years and
presents cumulative -program accomplishments.
FY95 accomplishments reflect the Agency's
commitment to, and focus of resources on, activities
required to complete site cleanups.
Site Evaluation Progress
EPA continued its progress in identifying and
assessing newly discovered sites. At the end of
FY95, there were 39,000 sites identified in the
CERCLA Information System, the Superfund
inventory of potentially hazardous waste sites. EPA
had evaluated more than 95 percent of these sites for
potential threats. The assessment activities included
36,913 preliminary assessments and 17,584 site
inspections. Based on these evaluations, EPA has
determined that 1,374 of the sites should be proposed
to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL. For a total of
1,232 remaining on the NPL for FY95. These sites
include nine proposed to, 30 listed on, and 25 deleted
from the NPL during FY95. To date, a total of 88
sites have been deleted from the NPL.
Emergency Response Progress
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, the Agency and
PRPs started nearly 311 removal actions and
completed 298 during FY95. More than 3,971
xv
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit ES-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1995 Superfund Activities
Remedial Activities
Percentage of National Priorities List Sites Where Work Has Begun
Sites Classified as Construction Completions as of September 30, 1995
Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30, 1995
Records of Decision Signed1
Remediaf Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies in Progress on September 30, 1995
Remedial Design Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1995
Remedial Action Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Actions in Progress on September 30, 1995
95%
346
854
187
30
33%
67%
836
84
29%
71%
413
' 110
16%
84%
516
Removal Activities
Removal Action Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Removal Action Completions2
Fund-Financed
Potentially-Responsible Party-Financed
311
81%
19%
298
76%
24%
Site Assessment Activities -
CERCLIS Sites Added2
Preliminary Assessments Conducted2
Site Inspections Conducted2
National Priorities List Sites to Date
Sites Proposed for Listing During Fiscal Year 1995
Final Sites Listed During Fiscal Year 1995
Sites Deleted During Fiscal Year 1995
Enforcement Activities
Settlements for All Potentially Responsible Party Response Activities
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Settlements4
Unilateral Administrative Orders Issued (AH Actions)
Cost Recovery Dollars Collected .
222
77
94
N/A
700
813
584
1,374
9
30
25
($851 million)3
{$671 million)
N/A
($254 million)
Accomplishments at Federal Facility Sites
Records of Decision Signed
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts2
Remedial Design Starts2
Remedial Action Starts2 ".
82
45
54
59
Records of decision signed for Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed sites.
'Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
Estimated value of work potentially responsible parties have agreed to undertake.
Remedial design/remedial action settlements include remedial design/remedial action consent decrees and
unilateral administrative orders with potentially responsible parties have stated their intention to comply.
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response;
Federal Register notices through September 30, 1995.
xvi
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
In other efforts, the Agency initiated work on the
remaining five volumes of the Superfund Removal
Procedures Manual.
Remedial Progress
Remedial progress during the fiscal year reflects
the Agency's continuing efforts to accelerate the
pace of cleanup activities and complete cleanups at
Superfund sites. At the end of FY95, work had
occurred at 95 percent of the 1,374 sites proposed to,
listed on, or deleted from the NPL, and construction
activities had been completed to place 346 NPL sites
(25 percent) in the construction completion category.
During the year, the Agency and PRPs started nearly
3 0 remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs),
84 RDs, and 110 RAs. EPA also signed 187 records
of decision (RODs) for Fund-financed and
PRP-financed sites. The Agency also completed 37
five-year reviews as required under CERCLA
Section 121(c) to ensure that remedies fully protect
human health and the environment.
Enforcement Progress
Enforcement progress for FY95 reflects the
Agency's continued commitment to maximize PRP
involvement in financing and conducting cleanup,
and to recover Superfund monies expended for
response actions. During FY95, EPA reached
agreements with PRPs worth more than $851 million
in PRP response work. Through its FY95 cost
recovery efforts, EPA achieved $160 million in
settlements and collected more than $254 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures.
Examples of significant enforcement actions are
provided in Chapter 4 of this Report.
While continuing to promote "enforcement first"
to secure PRP involvement in financing and
conducting cleanups, the Agency also worked to
ensure equity in the enforcement process and to seek
ways to reduce transaction costs. To support these
goals during FY95, the Agency focused on.
increasing the use of allocation tools such as
alternative dispute resolution, encouraging early
settlements with de minimis and "de micromis"
parties, fostering greater fairness for owners and
prospective purchasers of Superfund sites, and
evaluating the increased use of mixed funding. The
Agency also took steps to increase the effectiveness
of compliance monitoring, improve cost recovery
efforts, and expedite enforcement activities to
support accelerated cleanups under SACM.
Federal Facility Cleanups
Federal departments and agencies are largely
responsible for implementing CERCLA at federal
facility sites. To ensure federal facility compliance
with CERCLA requirements, EPA provides advice
and assistance, oversees activities, and takes
enforcement action where appropriate. At sites on
the NPL, EPA must concur in remedy selection.
At the end of FY95, there were 2,070 federal
facility sites identified on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and there were
165 federal facility sites proposed to or listed on the
NPL, including 160 final and five proposed sites.
Activities during the fiscal year at federal facility
sites listed on the NPL, included starting
approximately 45 RI/FSs, 54 RDs, and 59 RAs;
signing 82 RODs; and achieving construction
completion at seven sites.
During FY95, DoD, EPA and states
continued to implement the Fast Track Cleanup
Program for the Base Realignment And Closure
(BRAC) Act. EPA's program activities were
directed at working with the DoD and the states to
achieve the goal of making property environmentally
acceptable for transfer, while protecting human
health and the environment at closing or realigning
installations. Using resources provided under a
Memorandum of Agreement with the DoD, EPA has
participated on BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCTs) at 77
BRAC 1, 2, and 3 installations, 23 of which were
NPL sites, and 54 were non-NPL. The BCT includes
representatives from the military service, EPA, and
the state regulatory agency.
CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) requires an annual
report to Congress from each federal department or
agency on its progress in implementing Superfund at
its facilities. EPA's progress at its sites is provided
in Section 5.4 of this Report. Of the sites on the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket at the end of FY95, 25 were EPA-owned.
xvin
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit ES-2
Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year
FY80-86
Total FY87
FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 Total
25,200 27,600 30,000 31,900 33,600 34,200 36,400 37,500 38,300
20,200 4,000 2,900 2,200 1,600
6,400 1,300 1,200 1,700 1,900
1,300 1,900 1,100 ' 900
1,900 1,300 700 600
298 3,348
700 39,000
813 36,913
584 17,584
1,275 1,320 1,355 1,374 1,374
Removal 810 230 320 260 290 270 340 290 240
Completions1-2
CERCLIS Sites'
PA Completions'
SI Completions'
National Priorities 901 964 1,194 1,254 1,236 1,245
List Sites3
Remedial 660 210 170 170 170 70 90 60 70 30 1,700
Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Starts'1
Records of 199 77 152 136 149 175 126 134 159 187 1,494
Decision Signed2
Remedial Design 120 110 120 180 130 160 170 130 110 84 1,314
Starts':
Remedial Action 70 70 70 110 80 100 110 120 120 110 960
Starts':
Construction - - - - - 61 88 68 61 68 346
Completions4
National Priorities' 13 0 4 11 1 9 2 11 13 25 885
List Deletions
1 Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
2 Includes Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed activities; excludes federal facility activities and
state-lead activities where no Fund monies were spent.
3 The figures reported in this now represent the cumulative total of proposed, final, and deleted National Priorities List
sites as of the end of each fiscal year.
* Adopted as measure of program progress by 1991 30-Day Study Task Force. FY91 value represents FY80 through
FY91.
s Total NPL deletions do not include sites that have since met CERCLA cleanup objectives or been deferred to other
authorities. ^
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Federal Register notices through September 30,
1995.
removal actions have been started and nearly 3,348
have been completed since the inception of the
Superfund program.
The Environmental Response Team (ERT)
continued to provide expert support for Superfund
response actions. During the fiscal year, ERT
conducted 157 Superfund responses, responded to 8
oil spills and 3 international incidents, and conducted
240 training courses nationwide. Response to
international incidents are not paid for using
Superfund dollars.
Under the reportable quantities (RQ) regulatory
program EPA promulgated a final rule on June 12,
1995 (60 FR 30926) addressing the designation,
RQs, and notification requirements for hazardous
substances under CERCLA.
xvn
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Resource Estimate for Superfund
Implementation
Under section 301(h)(l)(c) of CERCLA, EPA is
required to estimate the resources needed to
implement Superfund, and CERCLA requires that
EPA provide the estimates in this Report. Since the
enactment of CERCLA in 1980, Congress has
provided Superfund with $15.0 billion in budget
authority (FY81 through FY95). This includes $1.8
billion for the pre-SARA period (FY81 through
FY86) and $13.3 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY95.
Estimates of the long-term resources required to
implement Superfund are.based on the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM). The OLM estimate of the
cost of completing cleanup of current NPL sites is
more than $16.1 billion for FY96 and beyond,
bringing the total estimated cost for the program to
$31.1 billion.
Superfund Program Support Activities
EPA took measures in FY95 to enhance
community involvement, public access to Superfund
information, and EPA's partnership with states and
' Indian tribes. As required by CERCLA Section
105(f), the Agency also engaged in efforts o
encourage minority firm participation in Superfund
contracting.
In its community involvement efforts, EPA
continued measures to tailor activities to the specific
needs of individual communities and to identify ways
to enhance community involvement efforts. The
Agency emphasized the importance of effective
community involvement in its administrative
improvements and reauthorization efforts. The
Agency also continued to provide technical outreach
to communities, hold national conferences on
community involvement, offer training and
workshops, and facilitate community access to
technical assistance grants (TAGs). To aid
communities in obtaining technical assistance, EPA
awarded 26 TAGs during the fiscal, year, bringing the
total number of TAGs awarded since FY88 to 177,
for a total worth of more than $9 million.
To enhance public access to Superfund
information, the Agency continued its partnership
with the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), which provides Superfund document
distribution services. During FY95, the Agency
expanded the Superfund document collection
available through NTIS, continued outreach to
inform the public of the services available, and began
implementing a communications and outreach plan
using NTIS services.
To support state and tribal involvement in the
Superfund response activities, EPA has awarded
nearly $1.7 billion in cooperative agreements (CAs),
including $160 million awarded in FY95 through
site-specific CAs. To further support state and tribal
Superfund programs, EPA engaged in outreach
activities, provided technical assistance, and began
developing guidance for a state deferral program for
NPL-caliber sites.
To promote small and disadvantaged business
participation in Superfund contracting in FY95,
EPA, through direct and indirect procurement,
awarded contracts and subcontracts valued at more
than $147.4 million to minority contractors to
perform Superfund work. Direct procurement
involves any procurement activity in which EPA is a
direct party to a contractual arrangement for supplies,
services or construction. Under financial assistance
programs (indirect procurement), EPA awards grants
and/or cooperative agreements to states, local
municipalities, universities, colleges, non-profit or
profit-making institutions or firms, hospitals and
individuals or otherwise known as recipients. This
amount represents more than 10.1 percent of the total
dollars obligated to finance Superfund work during
the year. To help minority contractors become more
successful in winning Superfund contracts and
encourage them to participate in the Superfund
program, EPA conducted training sessions,
conferences, and seminars throughout the year.
Organization of this Report
Information prepared for this Report is assembled
in response to Congressional requirements specified
in CERCLA. Exhibit ES-3 is a guide to the
information required under CERCLA and its location
in the Report.
xix
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit ES-3
Statutory Requirements for the Report
CERCLA
Section
CERCLA Requirement
Report
Section
Report Content
Annual Report to Congress on the
progress achieved in implementing
Superfund during the preceding
fiscal year
Detailed description of each
feasibility study (FS) at a facility
Status and estimated date of
completion of each FS
Notice of each FS which will not
meet a previously published
schedule for completion and the
new estimated date for
completion
An evaluation of newly developed
feasible and achievable permanent
treatment technologies
Progress made in reducing the
number of facilities subject to
review under CERCLA Section
121(c), which requires the report
to Congress to contain a list of
facilities for which a five-year
review is required, the results of
all such reviews, and any actions
taken as a result of such reviews
Executive Initiatives to improve the Superfund
Summary program
Chapter 1 Site evaluation progress
Chapter 2 Emergency response progress
Chapter 3 Remedial progress
Chapter 4 Enforcement progress
Chapter 5 ' Federal facility cleanups.
Chapter 7 Community relations, state and Indian
tribe, and public outreach activities
Section 3.2.4 Overview discussion of RODs signed
during the fiscal year, including the
number of treatment and
containment remedies selected
Appendix C List of RODs signed in the fiscal year
Appendix A Status and estimated completion date
of each ongoing FS in progress at the
end of the fiscal year
Appendix A Scheduled completion date published
for the last fiscal year, the scheduled
completion date recorded in CERCLIS
as of end of the current fiscal year,
and identification of schedule
changes
Section 3.3 Evaluation of newly developed
technologies through the Superfund
Innovative Treatment Evaluation
Program
Section 3.4 Annual update on progress being
made on sites subject to review
under CERCLA Section 121{c)
xx
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
CERCLA Requirement
Report
Section
Report Content
301(h}{2)
105(f)
120{e}{5)
Report on the status of all
remedial and enforcement actions
undertaken during the fiscal year,
including a comparison to remedial
and enforcement actions
undertaken in prior fiscal years
Estimates of the amount of
resources, including the number of
work years or personnel, which
would be necessary for each
department, agency, or
instrumentality which is carrying
out any activities to complete the
implementation of all duties
vested in the department, agency,
or instrumentality
Review by the Inspector General
and submission of any report
related to EPA's activities for
reasonableness and' accuracy
Brief description of the contracts
which have been awarded to
minority firms under Superfund
and the efforts made to encourage
the participation of such firms in
the Superfund program
Annual report to the Congress
concerning EPA progress in
implementing remedial activities at
its facilities
Section 3.2.2 Information on fiscal year remedial
activity starts (including PRP
involvement) with a comparison of
fiscal year activities to those of
previous years
Section 4.2 Information on fiscal year
enforcement activities with a
comparison of fiscal year activities to
those of previous years
Appendix A Information on the status of each
RI/FS and RA in progress at the end
of the fiscal year
Appendix B Information on the status of RDs in
progress at the end of the fiscal year
Sections 6.1 EPA resource estimates for
and 6.3 completion of CERCLA
implementation
Section 6.4 Other federal agency's and
department's estimates for
completion of CERCLA
implementation
Appendix D Review of the Inspector General on
this Report
Section 7.2 Information on minority contracting
awards by EPA, states, Indian tribes,
and other federal agencies using
Superfund monies. EPA efforts to
encourage increased minority
contractor participation in the
Superfund program
Section 5.4 Report on EPA progress in CERCLA
implementation at EPA-owned
facilities, including a state-by-state
report
Fiscal Year 1995 Initiatives
In FY95, the Agency focused efforts on
identifying possible legislative amendments that
would improve the efficiency and equity of the
program. Working within the existing statutory and
regulatory framework, the Agency also continued to
implement the recommendations of the 1993
Superfund Administrative Improvements Task Force.
The task force recommendations included
implementation of nine new or enhanced initiatives
in FY95 and the continuation of eight ongoing
initiatives. Exhibit ES-4 provides a summary of
major initiatives undertaken by the Agency in FY95.
xxi
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit ES-4
Fiscal Year 1995 Superfund Program Initiatives
Promoting Economic Redevelopment
Brownfields
Initiative:
EPA appointed a Brownfield coordinator to each Region to serve as a point-
person for local industrial property revitalization and awarded 29 Brownfield
pilots in 1995.
EPA is also fostering job-development and training through partnership with
Brownfield pilot communities and community colleges.
Removing Sites
from CERCLIS:
In February 1995, EPA archived 24,000 sites from the CERCLIS inventory that
were determined to be of no further federal Superfund interest. (Over 39,000
sites have been listed in CERCLIS, but less than 5% actually become NPL sites.)
Partial NPL
Deletions:
In May 1995, a workshop was convened to evaluate several alternatives for
deleting portions of sites from the NPL. A policy change was recommended
that would allow Regions to delete portions of sites based on site geography or
medium, in an effort to promote the return of uncpntaminated parcels of sites
to productive use.
Enforcement Reform
Initiating the Use of
Allocation Pilots:
EPA initiated a new approach to allocation of Superfund costs to PRP's,
whereby a neutral allocator selected by the PRP's and EPA conducts a non-
binding, out-of-court allocation procedure , and assigns shares of responsibility
to the PRP's based on a number of equitable factors. The PRP's can then settle
their liability based on their "share" of the cleanup costs assigned by the neutral
party.
Eight pilot sites were selected, and were guided by several new documents:
U.S. Statement of Intent, Overview of the Pilot Allocation, Confidentiality
Agreement, and Litigation Standstill and Tolling Agreement.
Improving the PRP
Search Process
(initiated May
1995):
EPA convened a national Conference in March 1995 to prepare for piloting
efforts that would determine whether the time line proposed in the Superfund
Reauthorizatibn Act of 1994 is achievable.
14 pilot sites were identified and used to test methods of streamlining the PRP
search process including, using newspaper advertisements to solicit information
about PRP's from the public, conducting early interviews of parties to obtain
information and minimize the need for multiple rounds of requests, and
gathering information about PRP's regarding the actions of other parties.
Based on the findings of the pilot efforts and the Conference, EPA began to
expand and update existing PRP search guidance and reorient the PRP search
process to facilitate expedited settlements and allocation of responsibility.
Expedited
Settlements:
EPA began piloting expedited settlement efforts in FY95. At sites where the
PRP search process is substantially complete, EPA is settling early with de
minimi's contributors and with certain PRP's who have a demonstrated limited
ability to pay.
xxu
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
gnvironmental Justice ~
Executive Order
12898,
"Environmental
Justice Strategy":
Issued in May 1995 to specifically address EPA's environmental justice efforts
Focuses on two main goals: 1)To ensure "No segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, as a result of EPA's
policies, programs, and activities, suffers disproportionately from the adverse
human health or environmental effects and all people live in clean, healthy, anc
sustainable communities", and 2) "Those who must live with environmenta
decisions-community residents, State, Tribe, and local governments,
environmental groups, businesses-must have every opportunity for public
participation in the making of those decisions. An informed and involved
community is a necessary and integral part of the process to protect the
environment."
Medical Assistance
Plan:
EPA cooperated with the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) and established the
Medical Assistance Plan (MAP) which is designed to improve the delivery of
existing medical services to communities with potential exposures to hazardous
substances, and to build environmental health expertise in communities through
physicians training and placement.
Minority Worker
Training:
The Agency, in cooperation with the National Institute of Environmental Health
Services, began testing a range of strategies for recruiting arid training citizens
of low-income and minority communities located near Superfund sites, and in
FY95 EPA piloted seven training programs prescribing pre-employment training
(literacy and life-skills), as well as environmental health and safety training
(hazardous waste and asbestos handling, lead abatement, and health and
safety).
Enhancing Community Involvement
Community
Advisory Groups:
CAG's, which are designed to fit the needs of the particular community, are an
effective tool in making information more accessible to the public, and in
facilitating public participation in cleanup efforts.
By the end of FY95, the Agency had piloted 26 GAG sites within 9 Regional
offices.
Technical
Assistance Grants
(TAG'S):
EPA revised TAG regulation to simplify the TAG application and administrative
process by; making TAG's available upon listing the site on the NPL, eliminating
the three-year budget period while allowing groups to determine their own
budget period according to site specific needs, and removing the 20%
administrative cap.
Community
Involvement and
Enforcement:
EPA initiated 13 pilots to observe what impact community review and comment
on draft Statements of Work, and active dissemination of information would
have on Superfund cleanups.
improving Clean-up gffectivenesjs. and Consistency
Soil Screening
Guidance (released
for public comment
FY95):
Provides soil screening levels (SSL's) for 100 contaminants in soil, contaminant
levels below which there is no concern, and contaminant levels above which
further site-specific evaluation is warranted.
SSL's can be used to streamline investigations, thereby saving time and money,
and to enhance consistency across soil cleanups.
xxm
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Land-Use Directive:
Presumptive
Remedies:
Issued in May 1995 to clarify how land-use should be considered in risk
assessment, and to describe how the assumptions about land-use should be
made by involving the community, considering the context of the site, and
recognizing the site's potential for reuse.
EPA examined presumptive remedies for sites with contaminated groundwater,
wood-treater facilities, sites with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination,
manufactured gas plants, and grain storage sites.
* > ' ' * s ' S " , ~> "' ' ,'~
Expanding the Role of States and Indian' Tribes ^iC-", _-*»,* '^ v" ,* -'" -'- ,* - »-. -t
Voluntary Cleanup
Program:
Federal, State, and
Tribal Site
Management
Program:
State and Tribal .
Block Funding:
EPA initiated a joint EPA, state, and tribal effort to define roles in promoting
the development and operation of State and Tribal voluntary cleanup
programs, which are designed to speed the cleanup of non-NPL sites.
A workgroup consisting of EPA, DOJ, and State representatives was formed
to draft EPA guidance that would assist in developing MOA language that
addresses state voluntary cleanup programs, and that would assist in
examining vehicles for the distribution of any financial support EPA may offer
such programs.
In May 1995, EPA issued final guidance on the deferral program, that is-
meant to defer the responsibility for overseeing and compelling PRP actions
at selected NPL-caliber sites to the states.
The Agency is working with states and tribes to identify options to
consolidate the Superfund process through block funding. Ten states and one
tribe are currently participating in efforts to pilot the block funding concept.
XXIV
-------
Chapter 1
Evaluation Progress
By the end of FY95, nearly 40,000 potential
hazardous waste sites had been identified and added
to the Superfund inventory. EPA and states
continued to evaluate these sites and had begun
evaluation of more than 95 percent of these sites for
potential threats to human health and- the
environment by the end of the year. To streamline
the site evaluation process and decrease the amount
of time required for site evaluations on specific
candidate sites, EPA continued to use an integrated,
single-assessment investigation process initiated by
the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
Integrated assessments involve consolidating some or
all of the assessment steps, as well as other site
studies, into a single, integrated site evaluation.
EPA announced the Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative in January 1995. This
initiative places a new focus on brownfields and is
directed toward empowering states, local
governments, communities and others to work
together to assess, safely cleanup and sustainably
brownfields. To further assist in the economic
redevelopment, EPA amended the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) in such a way that sites identified in the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) as
needing no further EPA financed response actions
could be placed in a separate "archived" database.
EPA also continued to address technical complexities
associated with lead and radionuclide contamination,
and improved site evaluation guidance.
1.1 Site Evaluation Process
The Superfund site evaluation process begins
when EPA is notified of a potentially threatening
hazardous waste site or incident. The Agency
.records basic information about the site in the
inventory of potential hazardous waste sites
maintained in CERCLIS, which also tracks
subsequent site specific actions and decisions. At
sites that pose an immediate threat to human health,
welfare, or the environment, EPA uses its removal
authority under Comprehensive Environmental
Response Cleanup and Liability Act (CERCLA) to
address the threat. A Superfund removal action may
be taken at any time during the evaluation process or
after EPA has determined that no federal
involvement is warranted under CERCLA if an
immediate threat to human health or the environment
is identified.
At other sites, a two-stage assessment is
conducted consisting of: (1) a preliminary
assessment (PA) to determine whether a potential
threat exists; and, (2) a site inspection (SI) to
determine the relative threat posed and to evaluate
the site for possible listing on the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL is the list of sites designated
for long-term remedial evaluation and response.
At any point in the evaluation process, EPA may
determine that the Superfund evaluation of the site is
complete and no further steps to list the site on the
NPL are needed. This decision does not necessarily
mean that there is no hazard associated with the site.
Rather, based on available information, the site does
not meet the criteria for placement on the NPL. Sites
not considered appropriate for the NPL might be
addressed under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), state laws, or other
authorities.
EPA's Brownfields Initiative announced by
Administrator Carol Browner on January 25, 1995,
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
outlined EPA's activities and future plans to help
states and localities implement and realize the
benefits of the Brownfields Initiative. Four key areas
of action include awarding pilots, building
partnerships with brownfields stakeholders;
clarifying liability and cleanup issues; and fostering
workforce development and job training. The .
brownfields effort will help reverse the downward
spiral of unaddressed contamination, declining
property values, and increased unemployment often
found in inner city industrial areas and will continue
to evolve as EPA seeks advice and input from a
broad range of stakeholders.
As part of its effort to eliminate obstructions to
the cleanup and redevelopment of previously used
property, EPA removed and archived approximately
24,000 sites from CERCLIS in 1995. Historically,
EPA has kept all sites in the CERCLIS inventory
regardless of status. Even sites where no action was
needed or taken remained on the list as part of EPA's
tracking mechanism. Sites are archived, after
investigation(s) have determined no further federal
involvement is necessary. EPA initiatied the archive
process to eliminate any possible disincentive to
purchase, improve, redevelop, and revitalize sites as
a result of a mere inclusion of a site in CERCLIS.
Sites are archived if EPA determines that:
no contamination was found at the site;
contamination was quickly removed without the
need for the site to be placed on the NPL and
associated enforcement actions are complete;
the site, while contaminated, did not meet the
criteria for inclusion on the NPL; or
the contamination does not currently require any
Superfund response actions.
Based on the FY93 Superfund Administrative
Improvements Final Report, EPA established an
initiative to enhance the state role in the NPL listing
process. This initiative resulted in the development
of the OSWER Directive (9375.6-11) "Guidance on
Deferral of NPL Listing Determinations While States
Oversee Response Actions." This directive allows
EPA to consider the deferral of an NPL site to the
state or federally-recognized tribal government if
certain conditions are met and agreed upon by all
parties involved. The guidance provides a framework
for states, and federally-recognized tribes to
determine the most appropriate, effective, and
efficient means to cleanup sites. The guidance also
accounts for differing capabilities of participating
states and tribes.
1.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Progress
During FY95, EPA continued its progress in
identifying and assessing potential hazardous waste
sites.
1.2.1 CERCLIS Site Additions: Discoveries
and Removals
EPA is notified of potential hazardous waste
sites in a variety of ways. Information may be
provided by states, handlers of hazardous materials,
or concerned citizens. Local law enforcement
officials may submit a formal report to EPA or
facility managers may notify EPA of a release as
required by CERCLA Section 103. Section 103
specifies that a person, such as a manager in charge
of a vessel or facility, immediately report to the
National Response Center any release of a hazardous
substance of an amount that is equal to or greater
than the reportable quantity for that substance. The
National Response Center operates a 24-hour hotline
for immediate notification. Penalties are imposed for
failure to comply with this reporting requirement.
When the Agency is notified of a site that may
pose a threat to human health or the environment,
EPA records basic information about the site in
CERCLIS. EPA added more than 700 sites to
CERCLIS during FY95, bringing the total number of
sites under Superfund to 39,000. Preliminary
assessments have been or will be conducted to
initially assess threats posed by these sites.
1.2.2 Preliminary Assessments Completed
When notified of a potential hazardous waste
site, EPA or the state will conduct a PA to assess the
threat posed by the site. The PA can include either
on-site or off-site reconnaissance activities, such as
an on-site visit or survey, an off-site perimeter
-------
Fiscal Year 7995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
survey, or collection of data from local authorities.
EPA or the state will also review other existing
site-specific information for such items as past state
permitting activities, local population statistics, and
any other information concerning the site's potential
effect upon the environment. PA activities enable
the Agency or state to determine whether further
. study of the site or a removal assessment/action is
necessary.
EPA and states conducted more than 813 PAs in
FY95. Since the inception of Superfund, PAs have
been completed at approximately 36,913 sites.
About 70 percent of these PAs resulted in no further
action decisions under Superfund; the remainder
have proceeded to the SI stage for more extensive
evaluation.
1.2.3 Site Inspections Completed
If the PA indicates that a potential threat to
human health or the environment is posed by the site,
EPA will perform an SI to determine whether the site
should be proposed for listing on the NPL. The SI
usually includes collecting and analyzing
environmental and waste samples to identify:
the hazardous substances present at the site;
the concentrations of these substances;
whether the substances are being released or
there is potential for their release; and
whether the identified hazardous substances are
attributable to the site.
During the SI, data are gathered through
increasingly focused collection efforts. For sites
judged to be prospective candidates for the NPL, the
data will be used to calculate a score using the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The HRS serves as
a screening device to evaluate and measure the
relative threat a site poses to human health, welfare,
or the environment and to determine whether the site
is eligible for placement on the NPL. The HRS
evaluates four pathways through which contaminants
from a site may threaten human health or the
environment: ground water, surface water, soil, and
air.
The Agency and states completed 584 Sis during
FY95 for a total of more than 17,584 Sis conducted
since the inception of the Superfund program. About
50 percent of these Sis resulted in no further action
decisions under Superfund. The remainder have
undergone additional assessment, or are awaiting
further EPA action such as proposal to the NPL.
1.2.4 Site Inspection Prioritization
When the revised HRS was promulgated in
response to a mandate in SARA, EPA could no
longer use the original HRS for making NPL
determinations. At that time, several thousand sites
were eligible for NPL listing based on Sis conducted
under the original HRS. EPA developed the site
inspection prioritization (SIP) process to update
preliminary HRS scores at those sites based on the.
revised HRS model.
SIPs were limited to 6,600 sites where an SI was
conducted prior to August 1,1992; but is also used
to assist in identifying candidates for early actions
under SACM. EPA completed approximately 1,800
SIPs in FY95. Most SIPs completed have resulted in
no further action decisions.
1.3 National Priorities List
The NPL is the list of sites for long-term
remedial evaluation and response. EPA evaluates the
potential hazard of sites using the HRS. If a site
scores 28.50 or higher, the site is eligible for listing
on the NPL. For those sites proposed to the NPL, the
Agency solicits public comments for consideration,
and then either announces the final site listing on the
NPL or removes the site from consideration for
listing. A site remains on the NPL until no further
CERCLA response action is appropriate. When this
condition is met, EPA deletes the site from the NPL.
1.3.1 National Priorities List Update
At the end of FY95, 1,374 sites were proposed
to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL: 1,236
currently listed sites, 58 proposed sites, and 81
deleted sites where all CERCLA cleanup goals have
been achieved. Exhibit 1.3-1 illustrates the historical
cumulative number of sites on the NPL for each
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
fiscal year since SARA was enacted in 1986. Sites
deleted from the NPL reflect an activity required to
be reported. At the end of FY95, the 1,374 sites
proposed to, listed on, or deleted consisted of the
following:
1,212 non-federal sites (1,083 currently listed
sites, 52 proposed sites, 78 deleted sites); and
162 federal sites (153 currently listed sites, 6
proposed sites and 3 deleted sites).
Updates to the NPL during FY95 included
proposal of nine sites (7 non-federal and 2 federal
facility sites), final listing of 30 sites (23 non-federal
and 7 federal facility sites), and deletion of 25 sites
(22 non-federal sites and 3 federal facility sites).
Twenty-eight sites were proposed for deletion during
the fiscal year, including 23 of the 25 sites that were
deleted. These proposals to and listings on the NPL
were included in one proposed rule (NPL Proposal
18) and four final rules. The proposed rules was
published in the Federal Register on February 13,
1995 (7 non-federal sites and 2 federal sites). The
final-rules were published in the Federal Register on
December 16, 1994 (14 non-federal sites and 4
federal sites), April 25,1995 (3 non-federal sites and
1 federal site), May 26,1995 (1 non-federal site), and
September 29, 1995 (5 non-federal sites and 2
federal sites).
1.3.2 Relationship Between CERCLIS and
NPL Update
CERCLIS is used to track the discovery of
potential hazardous waste sites, including those that
are subsequently listed on the NPL, and to track
actions at these sites. Of the 39,000 sites in
CERCLIS .at the end of FY95, 1,374 were either
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL.
Although the sites on the NPL are a relatively small
subset of the inventory in CERCLIS (approximately
3.4 percent), they generally are the most complex and
environmentally significant sites. Under CERCLA,
EPA can only use the Trust Fund for long-term
remedial actions at NPL sites. Fund money,
Exhibit 1.3-1
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1995
D Previously Listed
D Sites Added
FY87
Sites Added 99
Total1'2 802
1 This graph illustrates final NPL sites only and reflects the fact that EPA deleted 13 sites from FY80 to FY86, 4 sites in
FY88,11 sites in FY89,1 site in FY90, 9 sites in FY91,2sitesin FY92,11 sites in FY93,13 sites in FY94, and 25 sites in
FY95. At these deleted sites, all CERCLA cleanup objectives were achieved. In FY93, one additional site was deleted
because it v/as deferred to another authority for cleanup. Also, eight sites were either voluntarily removed from the NPL
or removed from the NPL by court order (seven sites in FY93 and one in FY94). The total of final, proposed, and deleted
NPL sites as of September 30,1995 was 1,232.
2 The total number of sites listed final on the NPL from 1983 to 1986 was 703.
Source: Federal Register notices through September 30,1995.
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
however, can be used to conduct a removal action at
a site, whether or not it is on the NPL. Chapter 3 of
this report discusses removal actions at NPL and
non-NPL sites and Chapter 4 of this report highlights
progress in remediating NPL sites.
1.4 Site Evaluation Support Activities
EPA manages two support programs dedicated to
addressing lead and radionuclide contamination
because these contaminants present special hazards
and problems. During FY95, EPA continued its
progress under these programs. Under the lead
program, EPA continued to work on risk assessment
procedures and tools as well as provide advice on
national lead issues. Under the radiation program,
EPA continued to develop Superfund guidance and
examined environmental fate and transport modeling
for radionuclides.
1.4.1 Lead Program Progress
Lead is one of the most frequently found toxic
substances at Superfund sites. Exposure to lead at
Superfund sites occurs by multiple media and EPA
risk assessments consider all sources of exposure to
more fully assess lead risks. In order to promote
more consistent evaluations and continually improve
upon our assessment and management practices, the
use of Agency experts to provided advice on national
lead issues has been part of the Agency's
Administrative Reforms. During 1995, efforts were
initiated to increase the involvement of site managers
and senior managers in their interactions with the
Lead Technical Review Workgroup.
Lead Technical Review Workgroup
The Lead Technical Review Workgroup
provides advice and recommendations on lead risk
assessment issues. This advice has included the
development of guidance documents and review of
individual risk assessments. While discussions with
individual site managers have taken place on a
regular basis, interactions with multiple site
managers to identify information needs and prioritize
activities was facilitated as a result of the formation
of the Lead Sites Workgroup (LSW), a group of site
managers that address lead issues from across
different EPA regions and Headquarters.
Coordination and information sharing were also
improved in FY95 through the exchange of
information with senior regional and headquarters
managers.
1.4.2 Radiation Program Progress
During the fiscal year, EPA made progress in
addressing technical complexities associated with
site assessment, risk assessment, and cleanup
technology evaluation for sites contaminated with
radionuclides. Specific activities included
developing Superfund guidance, examining
environmental fate and transport modeling,
conducting technology demonstrations and
evaluations, and providing technical support to the
Regions.
Site Assessment
Through an interagency agreement with the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA)
provided assistance in conducting site evaluations
and health assessment in areas near DOE nuclear
weapons productions facilities, including the San
ndefonso Indian Pueblo near the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the environs surrounding the
Fernald Environmental Management Project, and the
areas surrounding the Mound Laboratory site.
Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling
EPA continued to work with representatives
from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of an
interagency workgroup evaluating environmental fate
and transport modeling for radionuclides. The
interagency workgroup completed two guidance
documents in FY95. The workgroup continued to
prepare additional technical documents:
Draft Report: Three Multimedia Models Used in
Support of Cleanup Decision making at
Hazardous, Mixed, and Radioactive Waste Sites:
A Technical Evaluation ofMEAS, MMSOILS,
and PRESTO-EPA-CPG. Reviews three
multimedia models of interest to the participants
based on documentation published reviews,
personal interviews with the model developers,
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 7995
and on model summaries extracted from
computer databases and expert systems.
Draft Report: A Review Guide for Model
Applications at Sites Contaminated with
Radioactive, Hazardous, and Mixed Waste
Substances. Documents a process by which
ground-water flow and transport models may be
applied, and how applications by others may be
systematically reviewed during each phase of the
remedial process.
Support and Liaison Activities
EPA continued participation in an.Interagency
Steering Committee on Radiation Standards. Efforts
focused on harmonizing the approaches taken by
EPA and NRC to risk assessment and risk
management involving radiation hazards. Other
issues being studied include radiation cleanup
standards, recycling, mixed waste and interagency
cooperation.
EPA continued to provide technical assistance in
the evaluation of proposals to exclude naturally
occurring radioactive materials (NORM) from
CERCLA as part of the reauthorization process.
These efforts have included generation specific
questions and answers, analyzing draft language,
defining terms, establishing criteria for
differentiating between NORM near background
radiation levels and NORM where anthropogenic
activity has concentrated these materials creating
increased levels 'of risk. .In addition, OERR has
continued survey and tracking activities at sites with
radionuclide or mixed waste contamination. This is
accomplished in the Superfund NPL Assessment
Program (SNAP).
1.4.3 Site Evaluation Regulations and
Guidance
EPA published the following site evaluation
regulations and guidance during FY95:
EPA issued a notice of proposed ruiemaking for
"Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain
Radionuclide Releases" under CERCLA arid
EPCRA (40 CFR 302 and 40 CFR 355). These
exemptions are for releases of naturally occurring
radionuclides associated with land disturbances
incidental to extraction activities at certain kinds of
mines, and for coal and coal ash piles at all sites.
Future activities will involve responding to public
comment and issuing a final rule.
During FY95, EPA issued final guidance on
OSWER Directive (9375.6-11) "Guidance on
Deferral of NPL Listing Determinations While States
Oversee Response Actions." This directive allows
EPA to consider the deferral of an NPL site to the
state or tribal organization if certain conditions are
met and agreed upon by all parties involved. Since
1994, a total of eight sites have been formally
deferred, while several sites have been informally
deferred or are under consideration for deferral.
Ah interagency workgroup completed two
guidance documents entitled "A Technical Guide to
Ground-Water Model Selection at Sites
Contaminated with Radioactive Substances" and
"Evaluating Technical Capabilities of Ground-Water
Models Used to Support the Cleanup of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Sites: An Illustrative Critique of
Three Representative Models." The first document
addresses the selection of ground-water flow and
contaminant transport models and the second study
describes a process for critically evaluating the
technical capabilities of ground-water models, using
three models that have been used in remedial
investigation/feasibility studies.
EPA continued to update toxicity information on
radionuclides for the Health Effects Assessment
Summary Tables (HEAST);
EPA developed guidance for radionuclide
toxicity assessment. At the end of FY95, the
Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment Manual
was undergoing peer review;
EPA continued work on a toxicity manual for
addressing risk assessment radiation issues. A draft
document was produced and will be reviewed by
other agencies and the Regions. This document,
together with an exposure manual, will replace
Chapter 10 of the Risk Assessment Guide for
Superfund (RAGS).
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA continued guidance development for
determining the appropriate treatment options for soil
contaminated with radionuclides.
EPA continued to develop standard cleanup
levels for radioactive materials in soil and ground
water at federal facility sites. The draft technical
support document for the proposed Radiation Site
Cleanup Regulation was submitted to the Science
Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory Committee for
review.
EPA continued development of a proposed
Federal Register rule, "EPA Radiation Site
Cleanup Regulation." This rule would establish
cleanup levels for sites with radioactive
contamination prior to the sale or public use of the
site. It also specifies levels of cleanup necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
EPA continued development of a fact sheet
explaining how the rulemaking described above will
become an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement (ARAR) Under CERCLA.
Supplementing this fact sheet will be two
supplementary guidance documents: (1) a 750-page
document explaining how to set background
radiation levels and apply relevant confidence levels
for risk-based decision making; and, (2) a document
which describes analytical methods for conducting
measurements under the rule.
EPA sponsored an effort to develop a
probablistic decision support tool for evaluating
wastes sites, including mixed waste sites.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 2
Emergency Response Progress
Throughout the 15-year history of Superfund,
removal actions have successfully prevented,
minimized, or mitigated threats to human health,
welfare, or the environment. EPA and potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) have initiated 3,971
removal actions to address threats posed by the
release or threatened release of hazardous substances,
including 311 undertaken in FY95. The expanded
use of removal authority to more rapidly reduce risks
posed by Superfund sites is a key element of the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
This chapter discusses the removal action
process, the progress achieved through Superfund
removals in addressing threats to human health and
the environment, the contributions of the
Environmental Response Team (ERT), and
emergency response rulemaking and guidance
development.
2.1 Removal Action Process
Removal actions are taken in response to a
release or threat of release of a hazardous substance
or of a pollutant or contaminant that may present an
imminent and substantial danger to the public health
or welfare. Examples of situations that may warrant
removal actions include chemical spills or fires at
production or waste storage facilities, transportation
accidents involving hazardous substances, and illegal
disposal of hazardous waste (midnight dumping). A
removal action can occur at any point in the
Superfund process. Managed by a federal On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC), a removal action is often
short-term, and addresses the most immediate threats.
Removals comply with substantive applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) to
the extent practicable, given the exigencies of the
situation. ARARs are substantive requirements of
federal and more stringent state environmental laws.
When notified of a release or threat of release
that may require a removal action, the Agency (or
lead-Agency) conducts a removal site evaluation to
determine the source and nature of the release, the
threat to public health and the environment, and
whether an appropriate response has been initiated.
A removal site evaluation could be completed in
minutes or months, depending on the specific
incident and the information available to determine
the need for a removal action. When the removal site
evaluation is completed, the Agency reviews the
results and other factors to determine the appropriate
extent of a removal action. At any point in this
process, EPA may refer the site for further evaluation
or determine that no further action is necessary.
When it concludes that a removal action is required,
the Agency undertakes an appropriate response to
minimize or eliminate the threat.
The Agency defines three kinds of removal
actions based on the time available before a response
action must be initiated. "Emergency" removal
actions require a prompt response at the site.
"Time-critical" removal actions are conducted when
the Agency (or lead Agency) concludes that the
action must begin within six months. For
"non-time-critical" removal actions, the planning
period may extend for more than six months; during
this planning period, the lead agency conducts an
engineering evaluation/cost analysis for the response
actions and seeks public comment on the response
options.
To document the selection of a response action,
the Agency prepares an action memorandum that
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
states the authority for initiating the action, the action
to be taken, and the basis for selecting the response.
EPA also establishes an administrative record,
compiling the documents that form the basis for the
selection of the response action. The following
sections discuss additional aspects of the removal
action process, including community involvement,
the role of the OSC, and CERCLA limitations on the
scope of removal actions.
Community Involvement in Removal Actions
EPA provides many opportunities for community
involvement during the removal process. The
Agency appoints an official spokesperson to keep the
public informed of the progress of a given removal
action. The administrative record file and index of
documents maintained at the central location is made
available to the public (except confidential portions)
at a repository at or near the site and at EPA offices.
If the removal action is expected to continue beyond
120 days, the lead agency must involve local officials
and other parties in the process through such
activities as community interviews and development
of a community relations plan.
The On-Scene Coordinator
The OSC organizes, directs, and documents the
removal action. The specific responsibilities of the
OSC include conducting field investigations,
monitoring on-scene activities, and overseeing the
removal action. The OSC is required to prepare the
action memoranda including description of the need
for a removal response, the proposed action, and the
rationale for the removal for all fund-financed
actions conducted under removal authority. In
addition, if requested by the National Response
Team, the OSC will prepare a final report that
describes the site conditions prior to the removal
action, the removal action performed at the site, and
any problems that occurred during the removal
action.
Fund-Financed Removal Action Statutory
Limits
Removal actions are generally short-term,
relatively inexpensive responses to releases or threats
of releases that pose a danger to human health,
welfare, or the environment Accordingly, Congress
included limitations on removal actions in CERCLA.
The cost of a fund-financed removal action is limited
to $2 million, and the duration is limited to one year.
Congress established exemptions from these
limitations for specific circumstances. A removal
action may exceed the monetary and time limits if:
Continued response is required immediately to
prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency; there is
an immediate threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment; and such action cannot
otherwise be provided on a timely basis; or
Continued response action is otherwise
appropriate and consistent with the remedial
action (RA) to be taken.
During FY95, EPA granted 18 exemptions for
removal actions to exceed the $2 million limitation.
In addition, EPA granted 25 exemptions allowing
removal actions to continue for more than one year.
2.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Progress
Since the inception of Superfund, the Agency
and PRPs have begun 3,971 removal actions at
National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites to
address threats to human health, welfare, or the
environment posed by releases or potential releases
of hazardous substances. Under SACM, the Agency
is expanding its use of removal authority to further
expedite response, especially at NPL'sites.
2.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress
Of the 3,971 removal actions undertaken by EPA
and PRPs under the Superfund program, 311 were
started in FY95 (see Exhibit 2.2-1). Of these 311
removal actions, PRPs financed 59 and EPA
financed 252. The removal actions started by PRPs
included 20 removal actions at NPL sites and 39
removal actions at non-NPL sites. EPA started 33
removal actions at NPL sites and 219 removal
actions at non-NPL sites. The 311 removal actions
begun by EPA and PRPs in FY95 compared to 310
started in FY94.
As shown in Exhibit 2.2-2, EPA and PRPs have
completed 3,348 removal actions under the
10
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 2.2-1
Cumulative Removal Action Starts
0)
o>
ys
u
<
E
3
Through FY95
PRP-Financed 939
Fund-Financed 3.032
Total 3,971
FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95
Source: CERCLIS. October 10,1995.
Superfund program, including 298 in FY95. Of the
298 removal actions completed during the fiscal year,
PRPs financed 73, including 27 at NPL sites and 46
at non-NPL sites. EPA financed 225 of the
completed removal actions, including 29 at NPL sites
and 196 at non-NPL sites. The 298 actions
completed by EPA and PRPs in FY95 compared
with 240 completed by EPA and PRPs in FY94.
Removal actions that were begun but are not yet
complete are considered "ongoing." Ongoing
removals include actions that have been in progress
less than 12 months at the end of a fiscal year and
removal actions that have been granted exemptions
from the statutory one-year duration limit. Sites
where a removal action has taken place, including
thermal treatment, but the contaminants have not yet
been transported to a disposal facility are also
defined as having ongoing removals.
2.3 Environmental Response Team
Activities
Under the National Oil. and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, EPA
manages the ERT. Over its 15 years of service, this
team of EPA experts has been available to OSCs and
Remedial Project Managers to support removal and
remedial actions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In
addition to its response support, ERT conducts
introductory and intermediate-level training courses
in health and safety and other technical aspects of
response. ERT provides expertise in emergency
response, hazard assessment, health and safety, air
monitoring, alternative and innovative technology,
site investigation, ecological damage assessment,
cleanup contractor management, and oil and
chemical spill control.
During FY95, ERT conducted approximately
157 Superfund responses and responded to 8 oil
spills and 3 international incidents. ERT also offered
240 training courses nationwide.
11
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 7995
Exhibit 2.2-2
Cumulative Removal Action Completions
OT
O
3,500-,
3,000-
2,500
o 2,000
Through FY95
d] PRP-Financed 743
I I Fund-Financed 2.605
Total 3,348
FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95
Source: CERCLIS. October 20,1995.
2.4 Emergency Response Regulations
and Guidance
Under the reportable quantity (RQ) regulatory
program; the Agency proposed adjustments to certain
RQs and to several administrative reporting
exemptions. Ill addition, the Agency continued
updating the Superfund Removal Procedures (SRP)
Manual.
2.4.1 Reportable Quantity Regulations
Section 102(b) of CERCLA, as amended, sets an
RQ of one pound for hazardous substances, except
those substances for which different RQs have been
established in Section 311(b)4) of the Clean Water
Act Section 102(a) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to
adjust RQs for hazardous substances and to designate
additional CERCLA hazardous substances.
Under CERCLA Section 103(a), the person in
charge of a vessel or facility must immediately notify
the National Response Center upon learning of a
release of hazardous substance in a quantity that
equals or exceeds its RQ. In addition to this
reporting requirement, Section 304 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986 requires that a release of a hazardous substance
in a quantity that equals or exceeds its RQ (or one
pound if a reporting trigger is not established by
regulation) be reported to state and local authorities.
Reportable Quantity Adjustments
On October 23,1993, EPA proposed changes to
the designation, RQs, and notification requirements
for hazardous substances under CERCLA (58 FR
54836). The Agency took final action on these
changes in a final rule dated June 12, 1995 (60 FR
30926). The final rale revised the table of hazardous
substances to:
12
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Add 47 individual Clean Air Act hazardous air
pollutants and adjust their statutory one-pound
RQs;
Add five other hazardous air pollutants that are
broad generic categories of substances, assigning
no RQ to the categories; and
Add and adjust the RQs for 11 hazardous wastes
listed under RCRA.
Reportable Quantity Exemptions
On November 30,1992, the Agency proposed a
rule to codify four administrative reporting
exemptions for naturally occurring radionuclide
releases from the requirements of CERCLA Section
103. The proposal would exempt such releases from:
Large, generally undisturbed land holdings, such
as golf courses and parks;
Disturbances of land for purposes other than
mining, such as farming or building
construction;
The dumping of coal and coal ash at utility and
industrial facilities with coal-fired boilers; and
Coal and coal ash piles at utility and industrial
facilities with coal-fired boilers.
The Agency has determined that administrative
reporting requirements related to these releases serve
no purpose. The rule is in accordance with the
decision of the court in Fertilizer Institute v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency 935 F.2d
1303 (U.S.App.D.C. 1991) wherein the court
specified that the original promulgation of the
exemptions in a final rule (54 FR 22524, May 24,
1989) did not provide sufficient notice and
opportunity for public comment. The purpose of the
November 30, 1992, proposal was to provide such
notice and opportunity for comment. On March 5,
1993, at the request of several parties, the Agency
reopened the comment period for an additional 60
days to provide greater opportunity for the public to
evaluate the issues.
On August 4, 1995, in response to comments
received on the four exemptions, the Agency
proposed broader exemptions to the reporting
requirements for release of certain naturally
occurring radionuclides. In particular, it proposed
exemptions for such releases associated with
extraction activities of certain kinds of mines, and at
coal and coal ash piles at all kinds of sites. At the
request of commentors, on October 3, 1995, the
Agency extended the comment period on the broader
exemptions for an additional 60 days to give the
public .greater opportunity to evaluate the issues (60
FR 51765).
2.4.2 Removal Guidance
The SRP Manual covers all procedural and
administrative requirements for removal actions. It
is used by OSCs; removal, remedial, and
enforcement personnel; and staff from other federal
and state agencies. In FY90, EPA began
restructuring the manual into a series of 10
stand-alone volumes, each addressing a distinct
aspect of Superfund removal actions. EPA
previously completed five volumes of the series:
Consideration ofARARs During Removal Actions:
Removal Enforcement Guidance for On-Scene
Coordinators; Public Participation Guidance for
On-Scene Coordinators; Action Memorandum
Guidance; and Removal Response Reporting:
POLREPs (pollution reports) and OSC Reports.
During FY95 the Agency initiated work on the
remaining five volumes including: State
Participation in Federal-Lead Removal Actions,
Response Management: Removal Action Start-Up to
Close-Out, and an overview volume.
13
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 3
Remedial Progress
The Agency's progress during FY95 illustrated
its continuing commitment to accelerating and
completing cleanups at Superfund sites. The Agency
or PRPs started more than 110 remedial actions
(RAs) to construct remedies, and completed
construction activities to place 68 sites in the
construction completion category. To date under the
Superfund program, the Agency has placed a total of
346 National Priorities List (NPL) sites in the
construction completion category. This chapter
describes the remedial progress during the year.
Specifically, this chapter provides information on:
FY95 progress in remediating NPL sites;
Remedies selected during FY95;
FY95 results of five-year reviews under
CERCLA Section 121(c) at sites where
contamination remained after the initiation of the
RA;
FY95 efforts to develop and use innovative
treatment technologies, including an evaluation
of newly developed and achievable permanent
treatment technologies, as required by CERCLA
Section 301 (h)(l)(D); and
Other programs to improve remedial efforts at
sites.
3.1 Remedial Process
The remedial process complements the removal
process (see Chapter 2) by addressing more
complicated, long-term evaluation and response for
hazardous waste sites on the NPL. The remedial
process is preceded by the site evaluation process,
which consists of the discovery or identification of a
potential site, the preliminary assessment of the site,
and the site inspection (SI). During the.SI, the site is
evaluated for possible listing on the NPL. If a site is
listed on the NPL after the SI, the Trust.Fund can be
used to finance cleanup activities at the site under the
remedial authority of CERCLA.
The remedial process to clean up NPL sites is
comprised of the following activities:
The remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of
contamination and to evaluate and develop
. remedial cleanup alternatives;
The record of decision (ROD) to identify the
remedy selected, based on the results of the
RI/FS and public comment on the cleanup
alternatives;
The remedial design (RD) to develop the plan's
and specifications required to construct the
selected remedy;
The remedial action (RA) to implement the
selected remedy, from the start through the
completion of construction of the remedy; and
Operation and maintenance (O&M) to ensure the
effectiveness and/or integrity of the remedy.
O&M occurs after implementation of a response
action.
A Remedial Project Manager (RPM) oversees all
remedial activities and related enforcement activities.
Regional coordinators at EPA Headquarters assist
RPMs by reviewing remedial and enforcement
15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
activities and by answering technical and policy
questions.
3.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Remedial
Progress
The Agency's progress during the fiscal year in
initiating RAs and completing construction activities
to classify sites as construction completions indicates
its continuing commitment to accelerate the cleanup
of NPL sites. ' By the end of FY95, work had
occurred at over 95 percent of the 1,374 -NPL sites.
In addition, over 88 sites were removed from the
NPL. Exhibit 3.2-1 illustrates the status of the work
at NPL sites, showing sites by the most advanced
stage of activity accomplished. The following
sections of this chapter highlight progress made at.
the sites during FY95.
During FY95, EPA developed a plan to modify
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) to allow for the partial
deletion of an NPL site. EPA has been able to
delete releases only after evaluation of the entire site,
but the deletion of an entire site does not
communicate the successful completion of portions
of those sites. EPA expects partial deletions will
help promote the economic redevelopment of
Superfund sites where potential investors may be
reluctant to undertake economic activity at a site
listed on the NPL. Partial deletions will be
considered when a site meets the standards
established in the NCP and both EPA and the state
concur.
EPA also produced a draft guidance on
conducting removal responses at site where radiation
hazards are present. (OSWER Directive #9200.5-
144)
3.2.1 Construction Completions
Responding to the recommendations of the 1991
30-Day Study and the 1993 Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force, the
Agency has worked to accelerate and complete
Exhibit 3.2-1
Work Has Occurred at 95 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites
Proposed NPL Sites
Final NPL Sites
Subtotal
Deleted Referred to
Another Authority
Deleted NPL Sites
Total*
52
1.232
1,284
2
. 33.
1,374
Includes 162 Federal Facilities
472
346
213
23
Source: CERCLIS. October 20,1995.
16
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.2-2
Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program
for Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1995
FY95 Remedial
Accomplishments
960
Remedial Actions
1,314
Remedial Designs
1,681
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Number of Actions
Source: CERCLIS. October 20,1995.
SPRP-Financed
Actions
D Funded-Financed
Actions
cleanup at NPL sites. The Agency completed
construction activities at 68 sites during FY95,
bringing the total number of sites in the construction
completion category to 346. This exceeded the
FY95 target of 330. More than 80 percent of the
construction completions have been achieved in the
past four years.
3.2.2 New Remedial Activities
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-2, the Agency or
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) had undertaken
approximately 1,681 KUFSs, 1,314 RDs, and 960
RAs since the inception of the Superfund program
through the end of the FY95.
The remedial activities started during FY95
reflect the Agency's continued emphasis on
accelerating the pace of cleanup and focusing
resources on RAs. New remedial activities
undertaken during the fiscal year include:
RI/FS Starts: The Agency or PRPs started
nearly 30 RlTFSs during FY95, including 10 (33
percent) financed by EPA and 20 (67 percent)
financed by PRPs. For comparison, in FY94 the
Agency or PRPs started nearly 70 RI/FSs, including
nearly 40 (60 percent) financed by EPA and more
than 30 (40 percent) financed by PRPs.
RD Starts: The Agency or PRPs started 84 RDs
during FY95, including 24 (29 percent) financed by
EPA and 60 (71 percent) financed by PRPs. For
comparison, in FY94 the Agency or PRPs started
approximately 110 RDs, including nearly 30 (25
percent) financed by EPA and more than 80 (75
percent) financed by PRPs.
RA Starts: The Agency or PRPs started more
than 110 RAs during FY95. EPA was financing 18
(16 percent) and PRPs were financing more than 92
(84 percent). For comparison, in FY94, the Agency
or PRPs started more than 120 RAs, including
approximately 30 (20 percent) financed by EPA and
more than 90 (80 percent) financed by PRPs.
17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit 3.2-3
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites
by Lead for Fiscal Year 1994 and Fiscal Year 1995
Fund-FinancedState-Lead
Fund-Financed Federal-Lead1
Fund-Financed EPA Performs Work at Site2
PRP-Financed and PRP-Lead
Mixed Funding Monies from Fund and PRPs
PRP-Financed State Order and EPA Oversight3
State Enforcement
Federal Facility
Total
RI/FS
FY94 FY95
19 15
155 135
10 9
176 179
1 3
26 23
2 2
484 470
873 836
RDs
FY94 FY95
26 18
105 89
4 4
237 218
2 1
15 12
2 1
56 70
447 413
RAs
FY94 FY95
28 37
96 100
2 2
21 5 241
7 4
24 26
0 0.
75 106
447 516
1 Includes remedial program-lead projects and enforcement program-lead projects.
2 Projects at which EPA employees, rather than contractors, perform the site cleanup work.
3 Projects where site cleanup work is financed and performed by the PRPs under state order, with EPA
oversight.
Sources: Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY94 (Appendices A and B) and FY95 (Appendices A
and B).
3.2.3 Status of Remedial and Enforcement
Activities in Progress .
At the end of-FY95,1,765 RI/FS, RA, and RD
projects were in progress at 854 sites. For
comparison, at the end of FY94,1,767 RI/FS, RA,
and RD projects were in progress at 867 sites.
Projects in progress at the end of FY95 included
1,352 RI/FS and RA projects and 413 RD projects.
As required by CERCLA Sections 301(h)(l)(B),(C),
and (F), a listing of the RI/FS and RA projects in
progress at the end of FY95 is provided in Appendix
A, along with a projected completion schedule for
each project A listing of all RDs in progress at the
end.of FY95 is provided in Appendix B.
Of the 1,352 RI/FS and RA projects in progress
at the end of FY95, over 60 percent were on
schedule, ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal
year, or had no previously published completion
schedule,'and less than 40 percent were behind
schedule. These projects include 434 on schedule,
30 ahead of schedule, 238 started during the fiscal
year, 127 that had no previously published
completion schedule, and 529 that were behind
schedule. Exhibit 3.2-3 compares the number of
projects in progress at NPL sites at the end of FY94
with the number in progress at the end of FY95, by
lead.
PRPs were conducting 420 of the RI/FS and RA
projects in progress at the end of FY95, including
179 RI/FSs and 241 RAs. . Of these 420 PRP-
financed projects, over 60 percent were on schedule,
ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal year, or
had no previously published completion schedule,
and less than 40 percent were behind schedule.
Projects include 97 on schedule, 7 ahead of schedule,
103 started during the fiscal year, 52 that had no
previously published completion schedule, and 161
that were behind schedule.
18
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
3.2.4 Remedy Selection
The Agency signed 187 RODs in FY95,
including 52 new and amended RODs for
PRP-financed sites, 53 RODs for Fund-financed
sites, 82 RODs for federal facility sites. For
comparison, in FY94 159 RODs were signed,
including 58 new and amended RODs for PRP-
financed sites, 43 RODs for Fund-financed sites, 60
RODs for federal facility sites. The ROD documents
the results of all studies performed on the site,
identifies each remedial alternative that the Agency
considered, and explains the basis for selecting the
remedy. The ROD is signed after the RI/FS is
completed and the public has had the opportunity to
comment on the remedial alternatives that are being
considered to clean up the site.
The Agency selected a variety of remedies in
FY95 RODs, based on a careful analysis of
characteristics unique to each site and the proximity
of each site to people and sensitive environments
(wetlands and endangered wildlife are'examples of
environmental resources that are taken into
consideration when evaluating remedies). Congress,
with the enactment of SARA, indicated that EPA
should give preference to permanent remedies, such
as treatment, rather than temporary remedies, such as
containment.
A complete list of the 187 RODs signed during
'FY95 is provided in Appendix C. To fulfill the
statutory requirement of CERCLA Section
301(h)(l)(A) to provide an abstract of each
feasibility study (i.e.; ROD), the National
Technology Information Services (NTIS) can provide
requested RODs. Appendix C provides detailed
information on how to make these ROD requests.
3.3 Remedy Improvement Programs
In addition to selecting remedies in the RODs,
EPA undertakes numerous programs to facilitate
remedy implementation and to encourage the use of
innovative technologies at NPL sites that are better,
faster, and more cost-effective than available
technologies. These include the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program,
the Superfund Technical Assistance Programs, the
Technology Transfer and Iriteragency Coordination
Programs, and other programs. The FY95
accomplishments of these programs are detailed in
the sections below.
3.3.1 Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program
The SITE program was established more than
nine years ago to encourage the development and
implementation of innovative treatment technologies
for hazardous waste site remediation. Development
of this program was in direct response to the
legislative mandate under the 1986 Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).
SITE is the pioneer program in testing and evaluating
' innovative treatment technologies.
Exhibit 3.3-1 displays three of the four
components of the program with the number of FY95
accomplishments. Under the fourth component,
Technology Transfer, more than 467,000 SITE
documents were distributed to industry, consulting
firms, and state and federal agencies.
Exhibit 3.3-1
FY95 SITE Program Accomplishments
Demonstration Program
Emerging Technology
Program
Characterization and
Monitoring Program
FY95
Projects
Cumulative
Projects
11
11
7
82
53
31
To fulfill the statutory requirement of CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l)(D) to provide an evaluation of
newly developed feasible and achievable permanent
treatment technologies, a summary of each project is
provided in The Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program Annual Report to Congress, FY
1995 (EPA/540/R-97/500), December 1995.
3.3.2 Superfund Technical Assistance
Programs '
Superfund projects require broad technical
knowledge and .expertise. To provide multi-
disciplinary expertise and technical support for
Superfund cleanups, the Agency sponsors the
19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Technical Support Centers (TSCs) and the
Ground-Water, Engineering, and Federal Facilities
Forums. The goals of these technical assistance
programs are to increase the speed and quality of
Superfund cleanups, reduce cleanup costs, address
technical issues encountered in site cleanup, and
provide Regional Superfund staff with direct access
to the technical expertise and resources of the
Agency's researchers.
Technical Support Centers and Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team
In FY95,- the Agency funded five TSCs at five
ORD laboratories. ORD also sponsored the START
program. The purpose of the TSCs and the START
program is to provide' site-specific technical
assistance in the areas of release response, site
characterization, human health risk assessment,
ecological assessment, radiological evaluation,
ground-water remediation, and engineering. The
TSCs and START program are invaluable to the
Agency's Superfund effort, fulfilling a critical niche
in developing and delivering the best expertise
available in support of faster, better, and more
cost-effective cleanups. The TSCs funded in FY95
are listed below. Annual funding totaled $2.4
million.
Monitoring and Site Characterization TSC:
ORD-Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory - Las Vegas, Nevada
Health Risk Assessment and Toxicology TSC:
ORD-Environmental Health and Criteria Office
Cincinnati, Ohio
Ecological Assessment TSC: ORD-
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
Ground-Water Characterization and
Remediation TSC: ORD-R.S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory - Ada,
Oklahoma
Engineering and Treatment TSC: ORD-Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) -
Cincinnati, Ohio
RREL also sponsors the START program, which
provides intensive, long-term, site-specific technical
and engineering support to provide better, faster, and
more cost-effective remediation at Superfund sites
with difficult engineering problems or sites of
national significance. Sites admitted into the START
program are nominated by EPA's Regional offices.
Ground-Water, Engineering, and Federal
Facility Forums
The Ground-Water, Engineering, and Federal
Facility Forums are regional volunteers who share a
common concern of, and commitment to, EPA
consistency in the type and quality of information
needs for hazardous site remediation. They discuss
technical and policy issues in monthly conference
calls and meet once or twice a year (usually jointly
with other federal agencies) to discuss technical
issues representatives of the ORD TSCs and
Headquarters' program offices.
The Forums held two joint annual meetings, one
in January in Las Vegas, and the second in Boston in
June. The latter was attended by almost 100 federal
remediation professionals. Some of the activities in
which the Forums participated in FY95 include:
initiation and review of five technical issue papers;
review of EPA and Air Force Remedial
Design/Remedial Action handbooks; development
and participation in Federal Facility Remediation
training; planning and application of the Soil Vapor
Extraction Thermal Desorption Field Experiences
project; and participation in the DoD-sponsored
Bioremediation of Explosives Workshop.
3.3.3 Technology Transfer and Interagency
Coordination Programs
TIO, as a producer of technological information,
is widely recognized as a leader in the technology
innovation arena. Since its creation in 1990, TIO has
identified, cataloged, and disseminated information
to users related to technology demonstration and use,
markets, procurement, and support services.
TIO also has brought federal agencies,
academics, and the private sector together to
demonstrate and evaluate technologies, and to
remove impediments to their use. TIO has
20
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
established a national center to promote the use of
innovative technologies to clean up contaminated
groundwater. The following sections detail FY95
technology transfer and interagency information
sharing efforts, including forums and conferences,
demonstrations and evaluations of innovative
technologies, reference materials, and training and
continuing education opportunities.
Innovative Technology Forums and
Conferences,
To encourage collaborative efforts across EPA,
other federal agencies, academics, and the private
sector, EPA sponsored forums, conferences, and a
center for exchanging information on innovative
technologies. The Agency also participated in
international information exchanges.
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies
Analysis Center (GWRTAC): In FY95 TIO
established this center through a three-year
cooperative agreement to enhance information
exchange between groundwater technology
developers and users by: improving the
understanding and use of innovative ground-water
technologies; supporting a broad range of audiences
needing access to technology information; and
serving as the focal point for information transfer
between developers and users. GWRTAC activities
include monitoring the state of development of
groundwater remediation technologies, compiling
current data; analyzing data to identify trends and to
provide technology summaries; and distributing the
information in hard-copy and electronic form world-
wide. GWRTAC is operated by the National
Environmental Technologies Applications Center, in
association with the University of Pittsburgh's
Environmental Engineering Program.
Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable: Through this forum, TIO provides an
information exchange network for federal agencies
that are conducting applied research and developing
innovative remediation techniques. In FY95, the
Roundtable published 37 remediation case studies in
four volumes (Bioremediation; Ground Water; Soil
Vapor Extraction; and Thermal Desorption, Soil
Washing and In Situ Vitrification) and a guide to
documenting cost and performance. The latter set
forth, for the first time, a set of standard data
elements that federal agencies agree to collect on
full-scale use of cleanup technologies. The
Roundtable also published a fact sheet, Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable: 5 Years of
Cooperation, and. an update of Federal Publications
on Alternative and Innovative Treatment
Technologies for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation, Fifth Edition.
Marketplace Conferences: The purpose of
these conferences is to highlight business
opportunities and markets for vendors and
developers of innovative treatment technologies.
The conferences bring together top-level state, EPA,
DoD, DOE, and Department of Commerce officials
with business executives from technology firms. In
FY95 TIO held two conferences, one in Denver in
November 1994 and the second in Atlanta in July
1995. Several hundred attendees came to both
events.
International Efforts: TIO participated in the
NATO-CCMS Pilot Study, a joint effort with 13
country participants to exchange information on
innovative technologies to clean up sites. On behalf
of the study, TIO published an Interim Status Report
document to make results available on a more timely
basis.
Efforts to Demonstrate and Evaluate
Innovative Treatment Technologies
To encourage increased use of innovative
treatment technologies, TIO improved the
documentation of cost and performance data for
innovative treatment technologies, described under
the FRTR, above. TIO also engaged in two
collaborative efforts among government agencies,
research organizations, and the private technology
user industry to jointly develop, implement, and
evaluate innovative technologies.
The Clean Sites Public-Private Partnership is
led by Clean Sites, Inc., a non-profit public interest
and research organization, under a cooperative
agreement with TIO. The technologies in this
program are generally past the research and
development stage. In FY95 six technology
evaluation partnership projects were underway:
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
McCIellan Air Force Base, California; Pinellas DOE
Plant, Florida; Mound DOE Facility, Ohio;
Massachusetts Military Reservation/Otis Air
National Guard Base, Massachusetts; Lasagna
Project. (DOE); and Naval Air Station, North Island,
California.
Technologies evaluated under the Remedial
Technologies Development Forum (RTDF) are in
earlier research and development stages. In FY95,
there were four action teams dealing with separate
remediation areas: Lasagna partnership,
Permeable Barriers Action Team, INERT Soil-
Metals Action Team, and the Bioremediation
Consortium.
Reference Materials
To encourage use of innovative technologies, the
Agency provides and maintains a variety of reference
materials on the technologies. Examples include
electronic sources of information on innovative
treatment technologies, hard copy publications, and
traveling information booths.
Electronic Information
The Agency currently sponsors a variety of
electronic sources of information on innovative
treatment technologies. In August 1995, TIO
introduced VISITT version . 4.0 with 325
technologies from 204 vendors and the ability to
download the database from the CLU-IN bulletin
board and America On-Line as a way to reduce
printing and distribution costs. CLU-IN served
7,000 users this year. The second version of BFSS,
which contains site specific data on the bench, pilot
and full scale use of bioremediation, was released by
ORD.
Publications
TIO also has developed several publications that
provide information on new developments and
applications of innovative treatment technologies:
The Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report provides technical background
information and information on the selection and use
of innovative treatment technologies at Superfund
sites. The 7th Edition was published in September
1995, and tracks almost 300 innovative technology
projects. A supplemental database containing site-
specific data on each innovative project is planned
forFY96.
Tech Trends and Ground Water Currents are two
newsletters distributed by TIO. These newsletters
are published quarterly and are distributed to
interested subscribers, including federal and state
project managers, consulting engineers, academics,
and technology users. In FY95, TIO published three
issues of TechTrends and four issues of Ground
Water Currents.
Abiotic Groundwater Remediation Technologies
Reports are six mini-reports issued in FY95 on the
latest emerging technologies for dense nonaqueous
phase liquids (DNAPLs) and metals in groundwater.
The reports address permeable treatment walls,
surfactant flushing, electrokinetics, cosolvents,
thermal enhancements, and hydraulic/pneumatic
"fracturing.
Resource Guides are annotated bibliographies
published by TIO for specific technologies. One
resource guide was complete in FY95: The Soil
' Vapor Extraction (SVE) Enhancement Technology
Resource Guide.
Traveling Information Booths
TIO also sponsored several traveling information
booths that were sent to hazardous waste remediation
conferences and other meetings around the country.
These displays were major outlets for dissemination
of EPA materials and database information on
innovative remediation technologies. In FY95, the
booth traveled to over 20 venues including state
meetings and technical conferences.
Training and Continuing Education
In FY95, the Agency sponsored efforts to
develop training resources and materials on
technologies and site remediation.
The CERCLA Education Center (CEC)
(operated by TIO) provides job-related training to the
Superfund workforce nationwide. Since its
22
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
establishment in 1991, the CEC has trained close to
2,500 participants (63 percent EPA, 27 percent
states, and 10 percent other federal agencies). More
than 800 students have had direct responsibility for
assessment, removal, or remedial activities at
contaminated sites. In FY95, the CEC offered eight
courses in North Carolina and opened a Western
center (at existing facilities at the National
Enforcement Training Institute in Denver) that
offered five courses. The CEC gave a special
innovative technology workshop at the request of
New England Waste Management Officials with
over 70 attendees.
OSWER, in cooperation with the American
Association of Environmental Engineers, continued
work on monographs that detail specific innovative
technologies. These monographs provide
information to consulting engineers and other
potential users about the use of state-of-the-art
technology. Eight monographs have been published
inFY95.
3.4 Report on Facilities Subject to
Review Under CERCLA Section
121 (c)
Certain remedies, such as containment
remedies, allow hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants to remain on site if they do not pose a
threat to human health or the environment.
CERCLA Section 121 (c), as amended by SARA,
requires that any post-SARA remedial action that
results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site be reviewed at
least every five years after the initiation of such
remedial action. Such reviews assure that human
health and the environment are being protected by
the selected remedial action being implemented.
These five-year reviews are referred to as "statutory"
reviews. Section 121 (c) requires the Agency to
report to Congress a list of facilities for which such
review is required, the results of all such reviews,
and any actions taken as a result.
As a matter of policy, EPA also conducts a five-
year review for sites where hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants will not remain on site
upon completion of the remedy, but where the
remedy will take longer than five years. These policy
reviews are conducted every five years until the
remedial action is complete and achieves cleanup
levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. Additionally, at least one policy review is
conducted for pre-SARA sites where upon
attainment of the ROD cleanup levels, the remedial
action will not allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.
"Policy" reviews were announced in Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Directive 9355.7-02, May 23, 1991, Structure and
Components ofFive-Year Reviews. Guidelines for
the conduct of five-year reviews were further
articulated in two supplemental directives in 1994
and 1995. The determination of whether a site
requires a statutory or policy five-year review is
generally made based on information provided in the
ROD.
FY95 was the fifth year in which sites were
eligible for five-year review. Headquarters data
indicated that a total of 27 sites required five-year
reviews in FY95. A total of 37 five-year reviews
were completed in FY95, as illustrated in Exhibit
3.4-1. Thirteen of the 37.reviews were due in prior
fiscal years. Nineteen reviews were completed early,
and were due in later fiscal years. Headquarters data
initially suggested that one review was not required.
However, the Region identified this site, New Castle
Steel, as requiring a review and submitted a report.
Of the 37 sites that were reviewed during FY95,
22 required statutory reviews and 15 required policy
reviews. EPA determined that the remedies continue
to protect human health and the environment at 32 of
the 37 sites. Ongoing remedies are included among
those considered protective. For the remaining five
sites, the review report either did not make a
determination on protectiveness or stated that
remedies do not currently protect human health and
the environment. The five sites are addressed below:
1) The Charles George Reclamation Landfill report
noted that further analysis is required for some
remedial actions at the site. The report further noted
that the five-year review did not determine whether
the current risk falls within an acceptable range, and
that changing regulatory standards and changing site
conditions may necessitate an upgrade to the remedy.
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
2) The TRW Minerva report stated that the onsite
disposal cell appears to be meeting the objectives of
the Consent Agreement, but that the groundwater
pump-and-treat system requires modifications to
provide adequate protection.
3) The Waite Park Water Supply report
recommended further evaluation of the effectiveness
of the groundwater pump-and-treat system, and
modifications if found inadequate.
4) No five-year review was required at the New
Castle Steel site, because a no action ROD was
signed in 1988, in which no remedy was selected
under CERCLA section 121. However, the report
reviewed the "Recommendations Outside the Scope
of the ROD" that were originally detailed in the
ROD. These recommendations included closure
requirements to be enforced by the state. The report
documented a change in projected land use to
residential, and stated that EPA has concerns over
the potential exposure of waste materials to
construction workers and future residents. Other
issues discussed included potential toxic conditions
in the eastern disposal area and the observation of
black residue in the eastern and western disposal
areas. The report recommended limiting the use of
shallow groundwater by residential developments,
sampling subsurface soils prior to any residential or
industrial development, and closure in accordance
with state regulations.
5) The West Virginia Ordnance Works report stated
that the remedy is not at this time protective of
human health and the environment The remedy will
be protective once necessary actions are taken, but at
the time of the report the remedy was judged not
protective because of problems including erosion of
roads and cap areas, overgrowth, and drainage
problems.' In addition, sampling will be done to
determine if the caps are effective and if
contamination is migrating.
24
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.4-1
Sites at Which Five-Year Reviews, Required Under CERCLA
Section 121(c), Were Conducted During Fiscal Year 1995
Region
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
State
MA
MA
PA
PA
PA
DE
WV
PA
TN
FL
FL
AL
SC
IL
MN
Ml
Ml
MN
OH
MN
MN
TX
TX
TX
KS
IA
IA
MT
CO
MT
CO
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
OR
Site Name
Cannon Engineering Corp. '
Charles-George Reclamation Trust LF 2
Douglassville Disposal 3
Lackawanna Refuse 2
McAdoo Associates 2
New Castle Steel 4
West Virginia Ordnance3 ' '
Whitmoyer Laboratory (OU3) 2
American Creosote Works (Jackson Plant) 3
Brown Wood Preserving 2
Gold Coast Oil Corp. 3
Perdido Groundwater Contamination Site 2
SCRDIDixiana2
Belvidere Municipal Landfill #1 r
NL Industries/Taracorp/Golden Auto 2
Northernaire Plating Company 2
Southwest Ottawa County Landfill 2
St. Regis Paper Company 2
TRW Inc. (Minerva Plant) 2
Waite Park Water Supply 3
Windom Municipal Dump3
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc. 2
Crystal City Airport '
French Limited 3
Cherokee County2
John Deere (Dubuque Works) 3
Lawrence Todtz Farm 3
Anaconda Co. Smelter3
Broderick Wood Products (Amendment) 2
Libby Groundwater3
Sand Creek Industrial 1
Applied Materials2
Fairchild Semiconductor (South San Jose Plant) 2
Firestone Tire (Salinas Plant) 2
Intersil Inc./Siemens Components 2
Operating Industries Inc. Landfill #2 3
Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co. 3
Review Date
6/29/95
9/7/95
1/10/95
9/28/95
12/28/94
3/20/95
1/30/95
3/31/95
1/25/95
3/30/93
1/25/95
5/16/95
9/29/95
6/27/95
3/1 5/95
9/28/95
9/25/95
4/6/95
7/10/95
3/30/95
2/9/95
12/5/94
3/7/95
1/9/95
9/28/95
9/22/95
9/25/95
11/23/94
3/23/95
1/27/95
9/28/95
4/28/95
3/13/95
11/16/94
9/28/95
6/21/95
12/28/94
Type
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Policy
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Policy
Policy
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Policy
Policy
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
.Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
1) DueinFY95;2)
Source: Five-Year
Early - due after FY95; 3) Late due prior to FY95; 4) Review not previously required.
Review Program Implementation and Management System
25
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 4
Enforcement Progress
The Agency's enforcement goals are to:
Maintain high levels of PRP participation in
conducting and financing cleanups through use
of EPA's statutory authority;
Ensure fairness and equity in the enforcement
process; and
Recover Superfund monies expended by EPA
for response actions.
FY95 accomplishments illustrate the continuing
success of EPA's Superfund enforcement efforts.
EPA achieved enforcement agreements worth more
than $1.4 billion in PRP response work. PRPs
financed approximately 75 percent of the remedial
designs (RDs) and remedial actions (RAs) started
during the fiscal year. Through its cost recovery
efforts, EPA achieved approximately $206 million in
settlements and collected more than $200 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures.
Under the Superfund Administrative Reforms
initiative, EPA advanced toward its goal, of ensuring
fairness in the enforcement process by reducing
transaction costs and accelerating the pace of
cleanups. FY95 saw the postponement of Superfund
reauthorization legislation in the 103rd Congress.
EPA is using its 'administrative authority to
implement a number of the most promising proposals
from the draft legislation. In May 1995, EPA
announced a series of Administrative Reform efforts
that included increasing the use of allocation tools,
encouraging early settlements with de minimis and
"de micromis" parties, fostering greater fairness for
owners and prospective purchasers of Superfund
sites, and using enforcement discretion to promote
fairness and flexibility in settlements. Guidance
documents issued during FY95 detail EPA's specific
approaches to enforcement fairness.
4.1 The Enforcement Process
The Superfund program integrates enforcement
and response activities. To initiate the enforcement
process, EPA identifies PRPs, notifies them of their
potential liability, and seeks to negotiate an
agreement with them to perform or pay for the
cleanup. If agreement is reached, the Agency
oversees the work performed under the legal
settlement. If the PRPs do not settle, EPA may issue
a unilateral administrative order (UAO) compelling
them to perform the cleanup. If PRPs do not comply
with the UAO, EPA may conduct the cleanup using
Superfund monies and later pursue a cost recovery
action against the PRPs. These steps are
fundamental for obtaining PRP involvement in
conducting response activities and recovering
expended Trust Fund monies. The Superfund
enforcement process is explained in more detail
below.
When a site is being proposed for the National
Priorities List (NPL), or when a removal action is
required, EPA conducts a PRP search to identify
parties who may be liable for site cleanup and collect
evidence of their liability. PRPs include present and
past owners or operators of the site, generators of
waste disposed of at the site, and transporters who
selected the site for the disposal of hazardous waste.
EPA notifies parties of their potential liability for
future cleanup work and any past response costs
incurred by the government, thus beginning the
27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit 4.2-1
Cumulative Value of Response Settlements
Reached With Potentially Responsible Parties
,» Through FY95
Cleanup Design and
Construction (RD/RA) $8.571 Billion
I I Other Response Actions $2.48 Billion
Total Response Settlements $11.051 Billion
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95
Source: CERCLIS. October 20,1995.
negotiation process between the Agency and the
PRPs.
EPA encourages PRPs to settle with the Agency
and undertake cleanup activities, specifically to start
removal actions, remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RJ/FSs), or remedial design/remedial action
(RD/RA). If PRPs are willing and capable of doing
the response work, the Agency will attempt to
negotiate an agreement allowing the PRPs to conduct
and finance the proposed work and reimburse past
government costs. For RD/RA, the settlement must
be in the form'of a judicial consent decree (GD) that
is lodged with a court by the Department of Justice
(DOJ). For other types of response actions, the
agreement may be in the form of a CD or an
administrative order on consent (AOC) issued and
signed by the EPA Regional Administrator. Both
agreements are enforceable in a court of law. .Under
either agreement, PRPs conduct the response work
under EPA oversight. PRPs who settle may later
seek contribution toward the cost of the cleanup from
non-settling PRPs by bringing suit against them.
If negotiations do not result in a settlement,
CERCLA Section 106 provides EPA with the
authority to issue a UAO requiring the PRPs to
conduct the cleanup; EPA may also bring suit
through DOJ to compel PRPs to perform the work.
If the Agency issues a UAO and the PRPs do not
comply, the Agency again has the option of filing a
lawsuit to compel the performance specified in the
order or to perform the work itself and then seek cost
recovery and treble damages. Where the PRP
notifies EPA in writing of its intent to comply with a
UAO, EPA classifies the UAO as a settlement.
Although UAOs in compliance are technically not
legal settlements, they are counted as such
programmatically because they result in PRPs
performing response work.
If a site is cleaned up using Superfund monies,
DOJ will file suit on behalf of EPA, when
practicable, to recover monies spent. Many of these
suits to recover past costs will also include EPA
claims for estimated future costs. Any sums
28
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
recovered from the PRPs are returned to the Trust
Fund.
4.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Superfund
Enforcement Progress
FY95 progress reflects the continuing success of
Superfund enforcement efforts in securing PRP
participation in Superfund cleanups and recovering
Trust Fund monies expended by EPA in its response
efforts.
4.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities
During FY95, the Agency reached 222
settlements (CDs, AOCs, or UAOs in compliance)
with PRPs for response activities worth over $851
million. As shown in Exhibit 4.2-1, the cumulative
value of PRP response settlements achieved under
the Superfund program exceeds $11 billion. Of the
222 settlements achieved in FY95, 77 settlements
worth almost $671 million were for RD/RA. These
RD/RA settlements included 40 CDs referred to DOJ
for approximately $362 million, 6 AOCs for almost
$2.3 million, and 31 UAOs in compliance for more
than $306.5 million. These RD/RA settlements
include 57 RD/RA negotiations started and 92
RD/RA negotiations completed by EPA during the
fiscal year.
During FY95, the Agency issued 94 UAOs,
including 37 for RD/RA. The Agency also signed
163 AOCs. The 94 UAOs issued and the 163 AOCs
signed include agreements for removal actions,
RI/FSs, RD, and RD/RA.
4.2.2 PRP Participation in Cleanup Activities
Exhibit 4.2-2 illustrates the continuing high level
of PRP participation in undertaking and financing
RDs and RAs since the implementation of the
"Enforcement First" initiative in 1989. In FY95,
PRPs continued to finance and conduct a high
percentage of the remedial work undertaken at
Superfund sites: 71 percent of new RDs (exceeding
the FY95 target by 15 percent), 84 percent of new
Exhibit 4.2-2
Percentage of Remedial Designs
and Remedial Actions Started by PRPs
FY90
Remedial Design Starts
FY92
FY94
FY95
Remedial Action Starts
Fund-Financed l~l PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS. October 20,1995.
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit 4.2-3
Cumulative Value of Collected Cost Recovery Dollars and Negotiated Settlements
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95
Source: CERCLIS. October 20,1995.
RAs (exceeding the FY95 target by 11 percent), and
67 percent of new Rl/FSs (exceeding the FY95 target
by 11 percent).
4.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements
EPA and DOJ reached 220 settlements worth
more than $160 million through pursuit of cost
recovery actions. These included 184 CERCLA
Section 106/107 or Section 107-only cost recovery
actions each valued at $200,000 or more. FY95 cost
recovery settlements represent 10 percent of the total
$1.6 billion achieved in cost recovery settlements
since the inception of Superfund. More than 60
percent of the total $1.6 billion has been recovered in
the past five years. Exhibit 4.2-3 illustrates cost
recovery settlements collected to date.
EPA collected over $254 million from cost
recovery settlements, bankruptcy settlements, and
other sources during the fiscal year. This sum is
more than 21 percent of the approximately $1.2
billion collected by EPA to date; more than 77
percent of that $1.2 billion has been collected in the
past five years.
4.2.4 Success in Reaching and Enforcing
Agreements with PRPs
During FY95, the EPA Offices of Regional
Counsel and Regional Waste Management Divisions,
working in conjunction with the Office of
Enforcement and.Compliance Assurance (OECA)
and DOJ, entered into numerous enforcement
agreements with PRPs. Exhibit 4.2-4 highlights a
cross-section of the most significant enforcement
settlements reached during the fiscal year.
4.3 Enforcement Initiatives
At 15 years old, the Superfund enforcement
program is mature and effective at reaching
settlements with PRPs to conduct cleanups or
reimburse EPA for cleanup costs. Superfund
30
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
enforcement, however, has also been criticized for
lacking fairness, taking too long, and costing too
much. EPA is aware of these difficulties with the
Superfund enforcement process and has used
Administrative Reforms to undertake a number of
initiatives to address them.
Fairness. Enforcement fairness was the rallying .
cry of the Superfund enforcement program for FY95.
EPA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE) initiated a number of pilot projects and
published guidance and policies designed to promote
enforcement fairness. First, EPA used
Administrative Reforms to step up its use of
alternative dispute resolution to settle difficult
Superfund issues expeditiously and more fairly.
Second, EPA initiated the allocation pilot project, in
which a neutral, third-party allocator assigns PRP's
liability and responsibility for cleanup costs based on
their "fair share" of the waste contributed. Further,
guidance on prospective purchaser agreements and
owners of property with contaminated aquifers will
help interested parties to acquire and redevelop
contaminated properties without fear of Superfund
liability. Guidance on supplemental environmental
projects will enhance access to this mechanism for
responsible parties to reduce their Superfund liability
in exchange for performing environmentally
beneficial projects. Finally, continuing emphasis on
environmental justice in Superfund enforcement
protects at-risk communities from disproportionate
adverse effects of Superfund sites and increases
grass-roots participation in Superfund enforcement.
Reducing Transaction Costs. EPA's
Superfund enforcement initiatives for FY95 also
focused on identifying and implementing procedures
for reducing the time and costs associated with
Superfund enforcement The allocation pilot project
has adopted timelines from proposed Superfund
reauthorization legislation that should result in PRP
and cost-share liability being determined within nine
months of the beginning of allocation negotiations.
Further,.new techniques in PRP searches initiated
under Administrative Reforms have resulted in
quicker and more complete identification of PRPs at
Superfund sites.
These enforcement initiatives are described
further below.
4.3.1 Increased Use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution
Using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in
environmental enforcement has been EPA policy
since 1987. FY95 saw EPA continuing to make
great strides toward expanding the use of ADR
mechanisms in Superfund and other EPA
enforcement actions. EPA is committed to using
ADR to increase enforcement fairness and reduce
enforcement-related transaction costs and litigation.
Progress was made during FY95 on every aspect of
the ADR program, including case development,
provision of ADR support services, and ADR
training.
ADR Case Development
During FY95, ADR mechanisms were used to
resolve Superfund enforcement negotiations at a
number of sites. EPA Regional office personnel
initiated the use of ADR mechanisms at 16 sites, and
PRP-initiated allocation efforts were coordinated
with OSRE at an additional 25 sites. EPA Regional
offices continue to support PRPs using ADR to assist
Superfund settlements. By the end of FY95, all 10
EPA Regional offices had either used ADR
mechanisms in settlements or supported their use.
Providing ADR Support Services
During FY95, the national network of EPA
Regional and Headquarters ADR specialists
continued its efforts to implement EPA's policy of
routinely considering and appropriately using ADR
in all enforcement and site-related disputes. The
members of the ADR network, comprised of ADR-
experienced staff in EPA Regional and Headquarters
offices, serve as consultants to EPA and DOJ staff on
the use of ADR in enforcement actions.
Li May 1995, OSRE published the fact sheet Use
of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Enforcement
Actions. This fact sheet answers many of the most
common questions about using ADR to help resolve
enforcement negotiations. The fact sheet defines
ADR, details EPA's experience with ADR, discusses
ADR's benefits, describes procedures for using ADR
in. enforcement actions, and provides names and
contact numbers of the ADR network specialists.
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
The sheet was widely distributed, including
publication in BNA's Environment Reporter, thereby
increasing awareness of ADR in government and
among the regulated community.
Other progress was made during FY95 in
educating the regulated community on EPA's
support for ADR and the potential for using ADR to
reduce private and government Superfund
enforcement transaction costs. Members of the ADR
Specialists Network made presentations and provided
consultation services on effective ADR use to
numerous professional and PRP organizations,
including the American Bar Association (ABA),
Center for Public Resources (CPR), Information
Network for Superfund Settlements (INSS), Society
of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR), and
several federal and state agencies, including the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
ADR Training
In November 1994, EPA's ADR Program
sponsored a conference in conjunction with Region
1 and the National Corporate Counsel Association on
effective use of ADR in environmental disputes,
including Superfund settlements. The two-day
conference, held in Boston, brought over 100
corporate executives together with upper
management of EPA Regions and Headquarters and
the Department of Justice to discuss strategies for
using ADR to solve enforcement disputes. The
conference received outstanding reviews from
participants, and several ADR cases have developed
as a result of the conference.
ADR training was provided to all EPA Regional
and Headquarters Superfund offices during FY95.
An intensive, one-day training program was designed
for legal and program staff who participate in
enforcement settlement activities. ADR Users
Training, taught jointly by EPA ADR staff and ADR
professionals who have served as mediators in
Superfund cases, concentrates on the difficulties
inherent in enforcement negotiations and how ADR
can facilitate resolution of enforcement disputes.
4.3.2 The Allocation Pilot Project
During FY95, EPA initiated the allocation pilot
project. Designed to respond to criticism that current
Superfund allocation methods lack fairness, the
allocation pilot project is testing an approach to
allocating responsibility that is based on a party's
"fair share" of cleanup costs. The pilot project is
patterned after allocation methods detailed in
proposed Superfund reauthorization legislation, and
has adopted the legislation's timelines for
allocations.
PRPs at seven Superfund sites have agreed to
participate in the allocation pilot project. A neutral
allocator, selected jointly by the PRPs and EPA, will
conduct a non-binding, streamlined, out-of-court
allocation, and assign shares of responsibility for
cleanup costs among all the parties at each site. EPA
expects to pay the shares of defunct or insolvent
(orphan) parties.
In May 1995, EPA placed an announcement in
the Commerce Business Daily requesting criteria
packages from individuals interested in serving as
neutral allocators for the allocation pilot project.
EPA personnel evaluated these criteria packages and
created a pool of allocator candidates for which PRPs
will vote to choose an allocator for each site. As the
representative of the orphan parties, EPA will also
vote for allocators at each site. Once an allocator has
been selected, he or she will work with the parties at
each site to determine their share of liability for the
contamination, and make recommendation regarding
each party's share of the cleanup costs. The entire
process at each site is expected to be completed
about nine months after the beginning of allocation
negotiations.
EPA is committed learning from this pilot
project and realizing the potential the proposed
allocation process has for increasing fairness and
reducing transaction costs in the Superfund program.
The allocation pilot project will enhance fairness
because allocation will be based on each party's "fair
share," and each PRP has a vote in determining who
will conduct the allocation. Government and PRPs
will benefit from the streamlined out-of-court
allocation because the allocation process is quicker
and costs less than reaching traditional enforcement
32
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
settlements. The allocation pilot project will
continue at the seven pilot sites into FY96. EPA will
use this pilot project to gain experience with the
allocation process and to understand better the costs
and timelines involved in the allocation procedures.
4.3.3 Guidance on Prospective Purchaser
Agreements
During FY95, EPA launched the Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative, designed to
empower stakeholders in economic redevelopment to
prevent, assess, safely clean up, and sustainably reuse
Brownfields. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial or commercial facilities where
expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination. One
important element in ensuring the success of the
Brownfields initiative is to assure prospective buyers
of brownfield properties that they will be free from
Superfund liability for existing contamination.
When prospective purchasers-of Superfund sites
know of contamination prior to purchase of property,
they may be liable for site cleanup because their
knowledge of the contamination prevents their use of
CERCLA's "innocent landowner" defense.
Prospective purchasers may be willing to enter into
agreements to conduct or finance some cleanup work
in return for a covenant from EPA not to sue. EPA,
local communities, and the regulated community can
benefit in several ways from successful prospective
purchaser agreements. EPA can gain additional
funding to finance cleanup at the site. Local
communities and economies can benefit from
redevelopment of the site that creates jobs and
returns the property to productive use. The
prospective purchaser benefits by gaining access to
a prime business location without fear of possible
Superfund liability.
EPA published Guidance on Agreements with
Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property on
July 3, 1995, superseding the 1989 prospective
purchaser agreement guidance. The 1995 guidance
includes a model prospective purchaser agreement.
In an effort to increase the use of prospective
purchaser agreements, EPA has expanded the criteria
to be considered in entering into these agreements.
EPA will now consider entering into a prospective
purchaser agreement if it results in either 1) a
substantial direct benefit to the Agency in terms of
cleanup or funds for cleanup, or 2) a substantial
benefit to the community, such as creating or
retaining jobs, making productive use of abandoned
property, or revitalizing blighted areas.
Prospective purchaser agreements have become
an important element of EPA's commitment to
enforcement fairness in the Superfund program. The
revised guidance on prospective purchaser
agreements now affords EPA greater enforcement
flexibility and provides prospective buyers a large
measures of fairness and confidence that they will
not be held liable under CERCLA for contamination
that occurred under previous landowners. In FY95,
EPA entered into eight prospective purchaser
agreements (PPA) with private parties. Regions 2, 8,
and 9 each achieved one agreemnt, while Regions 3
and 4 achieved three and two agreements,
respectively. Five of the agreements lead to the
direct redevelopment and reuse of contaminated
properties, including new building construction and
decontamination and resue of existing structures.
CERCLA prospective purchaser agreements.
Settlement terms included undertakings to conduct
cleanup and oversight and maintenance operations,
implement an on-site multimedia environmental
program, conduct on-site inspections of underground
storage tanks, and pay EPA Superfund response costs
of over $1.6 million. Under these agreements,
companies such as Home Depot, Rogers Iron and
Metal Corporation, and GMT Microelectronics are
now free to pursue redevelopment of Superfund sites
in Pennsylvania, Missouri, California, and Colorado.
Communities, industry, and EPA all have benefitted
from the agreements, and EPA will continue to
negotiate these agreements that put industrial
properties back to work.
4.3.4 Guidance on Properties Containing
Contaminated Aquifers
During FY95, EPA issued its Final Policy
Toward Owners of Property Containing
Contaminated Aquifers. This policy removes the
threat of Superfund liability for owners of property
contaminated with hazardous substances as a result
of migration in an aquifer from a source or sources
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
outside the property. In order to be protected by the
policy, the property owner must not have caused,
contributed to, or exacerbated the migration and must
not have contributed to the source of contamination
as a generator or transporter of hazardous substances.
In addition, the property owner must ensure EPA that
the person who caused the contamination of the
aquifer was not an agent or employee of the owner or
involved in a contractual relationship with the owner
of the property. Property owners who meet these
conditions will no longer be subject to Superfund
enforcement actions on the basis of migratory
contamination.
Contaminated groundwater is an issue of great
concern in Superfund. Approximately 85 percent of
sites on the National Priorities List have some degree
of groundwater contamination. Contaminated
groundwater plumes are often long and/or large, and
determining the source of contamination can be
difficult. Previously, owners of properties with
contaminated groundwater faced uncertainty with
respect to Superfund liability as an "owner." The
Aquifer Policy removes this uncertainty and
demonstrates EPA's willingness to exercise its
enforcement discretion in an effort to increase
fairness in the Superfund enforcement program.
4.3.5 Guidance on Supplemental
Environmental Projects
In May 1995, EPA issued its Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs) Policy, clarifying and
superseding its 1991 policy on SEPs. The revised
policy establishes guidelines for proposing SEPs that
secure significant environmental or public health
protection and improvements. SEPs can enhance
Superfund settlement opportunities by giving PRPs
an incentive to go beyond the minimum settlement
response requirements and undertake value-added
projects as part of an overall settlement agreement.
The policy defines SEPs as "environmentally
beneficial projects which a defendant/respondent
agrees to undertake in settlement of an enforcement
action, but which the defendant/respondent is not
otherwise legally required to perform." The policy
also details the legal guidelines that must be met for
SEPs. The project must demonstrate a relationship
between the SEP and the violation (this is known as
the "nexus" relationship) and that the project must
fall within one of seven categories. These categories
include:
Public health analysis or improvement
Pollution prevention
Pollution reduction
Environmental restoration and protection
Assessments and audits
Environmental compliance promotion
Assistance in emergency planning and
preparedness
SEPs are particularly appropriate for brownfield
site settlements. In September 1995, OSRE
-published a fact sheet entitled Using Supplemental
Environmental Projects to Facilitate the
Redevelopment of Brownflelds. As noted above,
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used
industrial and commercial facilities where expansion
or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived
environmental contamination. The fact sheet
summarizes EPA's May 1995 SEP Policy and
provides examples of SEPs that can facilitate the
redevelopment of Brownfields. These SEPs include
investigating contamination, pollutants, or discharges
at the site, ecological surveys, natural resource
damage assessments, and risk assessments.
To date, SEPs have not often been used to
facilitate Superfund settlements, but FY95 saw the
beginning of an increase in their use. During FY95,
EPA entered into SEPS with a total value of
approximately $115,000. These SEPs were used to
supplement CERCLA Section 103 settlements
(dealing with notification requirements for spills and
discharges).
4.3.6 Environmental Justice and Superfund
Enforcement
EPA continued to.demonstrate its commitment to
environmental justice in Superfund enforcement
during FY95. Environmental justice ensures the fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures, incomes,
and education levels with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies. Focusing on
environmental justice in Superfund enforcement is
particularly important, as many Superfund sites are
34
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
located in minority, low-income, or other at-risk
areas.
EPA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement's
environmental justice efforts have concentrated on
supporting the Regions' and EPA's Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Superfund programs. This support has included
identifying data collection and quality needs,
enhancing community involvement, evaluating
innovative ways to assist Regional offices in
resolving enforcement settlement negotiations, and
reviewing and evaluating current Superfund
enforcement policies and guidance. OSRE has
dedicated one full-time employee to manage
environmental justice activities. In addition, OSRE
has established an office-wide Environmental Justice
Coordinating Team.
During FY95, environmental justice became the
focus of EPA's Administrative Reform efforts, with
emphasis on increasing fairness in the enforcement
process through enhancing community involvement
in Superfund enforcement. Environmental justice
pilot projects are underway to encourage community
involvement at Superfund sites where PRPs are
conducting studies or site cleanup under EPA
oversight. Following implementation of the pilot
project, EPA will evaluate the impacts that enhanced
community involvement had on both the settlement
negotiation process and the cleanups and studies
themselves.
EPA used several criteria to identify PRP-lead
sites where different approaches for enhancing
community involvement could be reasonably tested
and evaluated. In general, the Agency selected sites
where: 1) EPA had already selected, or would select
in the near future, the response action; 2) EPA
expected that the PRPs would perform the response
action; and 3) the community had already
demonstrated an interest in the cleanup. EPA has
initiated 12 community involvement pilot projects in
the Regions. Approximately half the projects
involve providing opportunities for communities to
discuss and review drafts of Statements of Work for
sites where PRPs are designing and conducting
cleanups. Many of the other pilot projects involve
giving local citizens an opportunity to discuss and
review draft Statements of Work for feasibility
studies, which evaluate measures for reducing threats
posed by the Superfund sites to human health and the
environment. Efforts to ensure the public's input
have gone even further at sites such as the Pine Street
Barge Canal site, where local citizens are working
jointly with PRPs to prepare the draft Statement of
Work for a supplemental feasibility study.
Two other pilot projects involve increasing
public involvement in removal actions being
implemented by PRPs. In addition, at the Springfield
Township site in Michigan, EPA Region 5 personnel
are working with the PRPs and local citizens to
develop a consensus on an appropriate amendment to
the cleanup option originally selected by EPA and
documented in the Record of Decision. EPA is
providing the public at this site with an opportunity
to review and comment on various technical
documents, including a treatability study being
prepared by the PRPs for alternative cleanup
technologies.
Other FY95 environmental justice initiatives in
the Superfund enforcement program included efforts
to increase awareness of environmental justice,
expand its application in Superfund enforcement,
coordinate environmental justice training, and
develop community-based partnerships to enhance
grass-roots environmental justice efforts. Specific
FY95 initiatives include the following:
OSRE personnel presented a workshop entitled
"Environmental Justice Issues in Public Policy
Disputes" as part of Bowie State University's'
Alternative Dispute Resolution conference. The
workshop focused on the creation and use of
effective methods of public participation in
alternative dispute resolution, and included an
overview of how ADR principles can be used to
facilitate environmental justice efforts.
Region 4's Waste Management Division in
conjunction with OSWER awarded a $252,000
grant to Clark/Atlanta University Environmental
Justice Resource Center to develop an
environmental justice partnership project.
A "Community Economic Partnership" Seminar
was held in December 1994 in New Orleans,
Louisiana by the Region 6 Hazardous Waste
35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 7995
Division in response to requests from small,
minority-owned businesses in the area of the
Agri-Street Superfund site to provide
opportunities to community businesses to bid on
subcontracts for cleanup work and related
support at the site. A similar conference was
held in Albuquerque, New Mexico in August
1995.
OSRE participated in EPA's National
Enforcement Training Institute Environmental
Justice Training Pilot. In coordination with the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
and the Regions, this training is being developed
to assist Headquarters and the Regions in
conducting environmental justice training. The
training focuses on providing employees with an
awareness of environmental justice, identifying
issues surrounding the incorporation of
environmental justice into EPA's practices, and
identifying barriers to community involvement in
an effort to provide community-based
environmental protection. Environmental justice
modules were also added to computer-based
training on Superfund enforcement, negotiations,
and settlement.
4.3.7 Early PRP Searches ""
One of the key components of the Superfund
Administrative Reform efforts is reducing the
transaction costs associated with Superfund
settlements for both PRPs and the government.
Throughout FY95, EPA has been conducting 'an
Administrative Reforms pilot project designed to test
procedures to streamline and improve PRP search
procedures in order to speed the process and reduce
transaction costs. The central focus of the pilot
project has been identifying PRPs early and releasing
PRP information to the public early. The PRP search
pilot project reorients search procedures to facilitate
the expedited settlements and allocations pilot
projects.
In March 1995, EPA convened a national
conference on PRP search procedures to share
information and brainstorm innovative ways to
expedite the PRP search process. Based on the
results of the conference, EPA has begun expanding
and updating existing PRP search guidance. Pilot
PRP search procedures got underway at 12
Superfund sites during the spring of 1995. Each
pilot PRP search is designed to identify and notify de
minimis parties of their potential liability within 12
months of the start of the search. All others parties
will be notified of their potential liability within 18
months of the start of the search. Several PRP search
streamlining techniques are being tested, including
newspaper advertising to collect information from
the public, conducting early interviews to obtain
information and minimize the need for multiple
rounds of information requests, and-giving PRPs the
opportunity to provide information regarding other
potential parties. EPA anticipates that these more
open and expedited PRP search procedures will
speed enforcement settlements by providing more
complete and reliable data concerning PRPs faster.
4.3.8 Superfund Enforcement Expedited
Settlements
During FY95, EPA's Administrative Reform
efforts focused on procedures for expediting
settlements with de minimis parties and parties with
limited ability to pay. In May 1995, EPA announced
the initiation of pilot projects to test and evaluate
these expedited settlement procedures.
EPA has begun implementing expedited
settlement procedures at sites where the PRP search
is substantially complete. At these sites, EPA will
settle earlier (generally prior to the Record of
Decision) with both small volume (de minimis)
contributors and PRPs with a limited ability to pay
response costs. EPA is developing response cost
estimates and has issued premium guidance to
facilitate early de minimis settlements as well as
uniform criteria and procedures for determining a
PRP's ability to pay. Where appropriate, EPA will
also develop model information request clauses,
consent decree language, or other tools to expedite
such settlements.
Several tools were developed during FY95 to
assist with the settlement of de minimis and ability-
to-pay parties under this reform. These tools include:
"Overview of Ability-to-Pay Guidance and
Models," May 1995 - This fact sheet identifies
and describes documents that are relevant to
36
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund ability-to-pay analyses. The fact
sheet summarizes eight general policy
documents and nine documents that assist in
determining a party's ability to pay status and the
amounts they should pay.
"Standardizing the De Minimis Premium,"
July 1995 - This guidance document establishes
presumptive premium figures, describes the most
likely basis for deviating from such figures, and
recommends a method for effectively
communicating the premium determination
process to the de minimis settlers and other
interested parties at a site.
Revised Model CERCLA Section 122(g)(4) De
Minimis Contributor Consent Decree,
September 1995 - The model, which supersedes
the October 19, 1987 interim model, provides
guidance for EPA and DOJ staff when
negotiating de minimis contributor judicial
consent decrees. The model is expected to
expedite negotiations of de minimis settlements,
increase fairness and consistency of settlements,
and streamline review of de minimis consent
decrees.
Revised Model CERCLA Section 122(g)(4)Z>e
Minimis Contributor Administrative Order
on Consent, September 1995 - The model,
which supersedes the October 19, 1987 interim
model, provides guidance for EPA and DOJ staff
when negotiating de minimis contributor
administrative orders on consent. The model is
expected to expedite negotiation of de minimis
settlements, increase fairness and consistency of
settlements, and streamline review of de minimis
consent orders.
A workshop was also conducted for financial
analysts in June 1995 where the concepts of new
guidance documents on ability-to-pay settlements
were developed. Additional information and
contractor support resources were also made
available to increase the Regions' financial analysis
capacity.
Four expedited settlements were successfully
completed during FY95, resulting in the release of
236 de minimis parties from the Superfund process
prior to signature of the Record of Decision. At two
of the four sites, EPA settled early with four parties
based upon their inability or limited ability to pay
their proposed share of the cleanup costs. In
addition, the PRPs associated with the pilot sites
were provided the opportunity to nominate other
parties to the process. This was done in a variety of
ways, i.e., through the PRP Steering Committees,
highlighting the nominations process in the 104(e)
and general notice letters, and at meetings with PRPs
to inform them about nominations opportunity.
Guidelines for nominating additional parties to the
process were developed and used to implement this
portion of the reform.
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit 4.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments
Ewan Property ' .
New Jersey (Region 2)
Settlement: UAO (UAO07) for RD/RA at
OU2 - issued on 5/19/95; PRPs notified
EPA on 6/8/95 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value:
$30 million
Eighteen PRPs are performing remedial work at the Ewan
Property site located in Burlington County,. New Jersey,
pursuant to a UAO issued on May 18, 1995. The PRPs' notice
of intent to comply with the order was dated June 8, 1995.
The UAO directs the PRPs to perform the remedial design and
action, the first phase of which consisted of removing buried
drums and associated soils. This phase was completed in July
1995. The second phase will consist of pumping and on-site
treatment of contaminated ground water, using a combination
of chemical, physical and biological treatment, followed by on-
site discharge of treated water to infiltration basins. The
estimated value of this settlement is $30 million.
The Ewan Property consists of 43 heavily wooded acres located
within the Central Pine Barrens portion of the New Jersey
Pinelands. Ground water and soil are contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), including acetone and benzene,
semi-volatiles, and the metals lead, chromium, and aluminum.'
The New Jersey Pinelands is a major ground water recharge
zone, and the aquifer underneath has been designated a sole-
source aquifer for the area. Approximately 330 people live in
the area and are served by individual domestic water wells. The
PRPs performed earlier remedial actions at the site, including the
restoration of a small on-site wetland area.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Niagara Falls Plant
New York (Region 2)
Settlement: Region 2 issued an
administrative consent order on 9/28/95,
settling a case in which EPA cited
Goodyear with violations of CERCLA
Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304.
The settlement includes a supplemental
environmental project (SEP). .
Estimated Value:
$75,000 civil
penalty
$95,000 SEP
The order asserted that Goodyear failed on three occasions to
immediately notify the National Response Center and state and
local emergency response agencies of releases of vinyl chloride,
a hazardous substance, from its facility in Niagara Falls, New
York. Goodyear subsequently documented changes in its
internal release notification procedures and provided training in
those procedures to its staff to prevent late notifications from
occurring in the future. The settlement also included a
supplemental environmental project (SEP). The SEP will provide
equipment and materials including a response vehicle,
communications equipment, the CAMEO computer equipment
program and a computer to run it, confined space rescue
material, self-contained air supply equipment, and expendable
materials such as sorbent materials to assist the fire
departments of the cities of Niagara Falls, North Tonawanda,
and Lockport, New York.
38
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Delaware Sand and Gravel Site
Delaware (Region 3)
Three settlements:
Settlement 1: CD for part of EPAs past
costs incurred after April 1988 - entered
in the District Court for the District of
Delaware on 9/22/95
.Estimated Value:
$375,000
Settlement 2: CD for past costs -
entered in the District Court for the
District of Delaware on 9/22/95
Estimated Value:
$300,000
Settlement 3: CD for RA at OU3, RD/RA
for OUs4&5 and site-wide O&M. PRPs
will also reimburse EPA for RD/RA at
OU1, and RD at OU2. CD was lodged in
the District Court for the District of
Delaware on 4/18/95 and entered on
6/16/95.
Estimated Value:
$33.5 million
EPA reached three separate agreements with PRPs to recover
past costs and conduct cleanup work at the Delaware Sand
and Gravel Site in New Castle County, Delaware. These
settlements recover approximately 97% of the costs that EPA
incurred cleaning up the site. Consent decrees detailing two
of the settlements were entered in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware on September 22, 1995. In one,
Avon Products, Inc. agreed to reimburse EPA for $375,000 in
response costs incurred at the site. In the other, MRC
Holdings, Inc. agreed to reimburse the Agency for $300,000
in response costs. A third decree was entered on June 16,
1995. Under the terms of this settlement, 33 cooperating
companies will spend approximately $33.5 million performing
remedial action at three disposal areas that have not yet been
cleaned up. They will install a multi-layer cap over the Inert
Area (Operable Unit 3), an 11-acre landfill containing 25 to
30 feet of mixed chemical and industrial wastes, and perform
remedial design and remedial action (RD/RA) for the Drum
Disposal/Ridge Areas (Operable Units 4 and 5). This work
will include installation of a slurry wall, excavation and off-
site disposal of drummed waste, treatment of contaminated
soils using bio-venting technology, placement of a RCRA-type
cap over the treated soils, and site-wide operation and
maintenance. The 33 settling PRPs will also reimburse EPA
$4.3 million for performing RD/RA at the Grantham South
Area (Operable Unit 1) and RD for Operable Unit 2, an
abandoned plan to incinerate wastes at the Drum
Disposal/Ridge Areas.
Halby Chemical Co.
Delaware (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for removal
activities issued on 7/20/95; PRPs
notified EPA on 7/28/95 of their intent to
comply
Estimated Value: $ 13 million
On July 20, 1995, EPA issued a UAO (UAO01) requiring Witco
Corporation to perform removal activities at the 14-acre Halby
Chemical site located in Wilmington, Delaware. Witco
Corporation notified EPA of its intent to comply with the order
on July 28, 1995. Removal activities worth an estimated $13
million will address highly contaminated and flammable soils in.
the vicinity of a public water line. A treatability study exploring
the possibility of in-place chemical neutralization of carbon
disulfide in soils is under way.
EPA expects to select a remedy for ground water and sediment
contamination in the lagoon and marsh area in December 1996.
In 1991, EPA issued a record of decision calling for the
excavation, stabilization and capping of the upper six inches of
surface soil in the former process plant area. In 1992, Witco
agreed to design and construct the soil stabilization remedy, but
implementation has been delayed due to a land use conflict
between Witco and Brandywine Chemical Company, the current
property owner. Work is expected to resume in the spring of
1996.
39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Novak Sanitary Landfill
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement 1: UAO (UAO01) for RD/RA
at OU1 issued on 6/30/95; PRPs notified
EPA on 8/1/95 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value:
$16,105,149
Settlement 2: De minimis AOC for past
RI/FS costs and future costs signed on
9/29/95
Estimated Value:
$300,920
On June 30, 1995, EPA issued a UAO to 20 PRPs requiring
them to perform all remedial design and remedial action work
necessary to clean up the Novak Sanitary Landfill site in Lehigh
County, Pennsylvania. By early August, EPA had received
notices of intent to comply with the order from all 20 PRPs.
The work, which includes installation of a landfill cap, a gas and
leachate collection system, possible treatment of the leachate,
further investigation of another potential source area, and
monitoring of residences and wells in the vicinity of the site, will
cost an estimated $16,105,149. The Agency may direct the
PRPs to install an active gas collection system if the proposed
passive collection system proves ineffective. In addition, EPA
reached an agreement with seven de minimis parties on
September 29, 1995. The agreement, an AOC, recovers past
costs, RI/FS costs, and remedial design and remedial action
costs in return for a release from further liability. This
settlement recovers $300,920.
Revere Chemical Co.
Pennsylvania (Region 3}
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RD/RA
issued on 12/14/94; PRPs notified EPA
on 1/20/95 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value:
$15,581,432
EPA issued a UAO (UAO02) on December 14, 1994, requiring
12 PRPs to perform 'an estimated $11,152,824 worth of
cleanup work at the Revere Chemical Co. site in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania. In January 1995, the PRPs notified EPA of their
intent to comply with the order to perform remedial design and
action at the site, including removal of solid waste and debris,
excavation of a lagoon for buried drums, design of an in situ
vacuum extraction system to treat organically contaminated soil,
construction of a slurry wall around former basins to contain
organics unsuitable for* in situ treatment, and installation of a
semi-impermeable cap to prevent release of metals from
contaminated soils.
William Dick Lagoons
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA,
oversight, and other cost recovery for
OU1, RD for OU2, and RD/RA for OU3.
PRPs will also pay $260,000 in penalties
for violating a 1992 EPA order. CD was
lodged in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
7/10/95 and entered on 10/10/95.
Estimated Value:
$14.57 million
EPA reached an agreement with Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc. (CLTL) regarding the William Dick Lagoons site in Chester
County, Pennsylvania. A consent decree (CD01) setting forth
the terms of the settlement was entered in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 10,-
1995. The settlement requires CLTL to reimburse EPA $1.57
million for installation of a public water supply line to protect
nearby homes from potential ground water contamination and
$420,000 for additional response costs associated with the
site. CLTL will also install a pump and treat system as an
interim ground water cleanup measure, and use a combination
of low temperature" thermal absorption, soil vapor extraction/bio-
remediation, and hot air vapor extraction to clean up
contaminated soil. In addition, CLTL will pay $260,000 in
penalties for violating a 1992 EPA order requiring cleanup of
contaminated ground water. The total estimated value of the
settlement is $14.57 million.
The groundwater was contaminated with trichloroethylene
(TCE), chloroform, and other volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and soil was contaminated with a variety of VOCs and
semi-VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
pesticides. :
40
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Woodlawn County Landfill
Maryland (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RD/RA
issued on 11/25/94; PRPs notified EPA
on 12/28/94 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value:
$24 million
On November 25, 1994, EPA issued a UAO (UAO01) requiring
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. and the Board of County
Commissioners for Cecil County to conduct the remedial design
and remedial action at the Woodlawn County Landfill in Cecil
County, Maryland. Both patties notified EPA of their intent to
comply with the order in December 1994. The work, valued at
$24 million, includes design, construction, and operation and
maintenance of a cap over the landfill, a ground water
extraction system, and an on-site air stripping system to treat
contaminated ground water. ^^^
Bypass 601 Ground water Contamination
Site
North Carolina (Region 4)
Settlement: Consent Decree for RD/RA
entered on 1 /25/95 in the Middle District
Court of North Carolina. CD provides for
cleanup costs and collection of 100% of
past costs, utilizing preauthorization
mixed-funding and "de micromis"
settlements.
Estimated Value:
$40 million
The Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site includes an
inactive battery cracking facility and 10 source areas around the
site, where the battery casings were buried after being cracked.
Approximately 4,000 PRPs were identified, including
approximately 2,400 "de micromis" parties. Of the "non-de
micromis" parties, only approximately 500 PRPs were located,
creating an orphan share of approximately 1,100 PRPs. The
$40 million remedy selected for the site includes soil
solidification and stabilization and a pump-and-treat system.
The Consent Decree at the site provides for Preauthorization
Mixed Funding of approximately $10.1 million, because of the
large orphan share at the site. Region 4 will recover 100% of
its past costs, and has negotiated a "de micromis" settlement
which provides for a covenant by the settling defendants not to
sue "de micromis" parties at the site. This approach protects
small parties from contribution suits and unnecessary
transaction costs.
Maxey Flats Landfill
Kentucky (Region 4)
Settlement 1: CD (CD03) for RD/RA at
OU1, and past costs - lodged with the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky Frankfort Division on 7/5/95
and entered on 4/18/96.
Estimated Value:
$60 million
Settlement 2: De mm/mis CD (CD02) for
initial remedial phase of cleanup, and
future costs - lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky Frankfort Division on 7/5/95
and entered on 4/18/96.
EPA reached two separate agreements with approximately 400
private and government parties to clean up contamination at the
Maxey Flats Landfill site in Fleming County, Kentucky. Both
consent decrees (CD02 and CD03) were lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort
Division on July 5, 1995. CD03 requires 43 settling private
parties to spend approximately $35 million to perform the initial
phase of the remedial action, which consists of designing and
constructing a cap to replace the one currently over the landfill
and performing 10 years of operation and maintenance. The
settlors will also reimburse EPA $5 million for past cleanup
costs. CD02 directs 366 de minimis PRPs, including several
universities. Fortune 500 companies, and 12 federal agencies,
to pay approximately $9.27 million into a special trust fund for
the initial phase of the cleanup and possible cost overruns.
Estimated Value:
$9.27 million
41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Olin Corporation (Mclntosh Plant)
Alabama (Region 4}
Settlement: CD for RD/RA and O&M -
lodged with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama,
Southern Division on 7/5/95.
Estimated Value:
$10 million
EPA and the Department of Justice reached an agreement with
Olin Corporation to perform approximately $ 10 million worth of
ground water cleanup work at the 60-acre Mclntosh plant in
Mclntosh, Alabama. A consent decree setting forth the terms
of the settlement was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division on July 5,
1995. Olin will pump and treat ground water on the plant
property and extend and/or upgrade existing caps over old
disposal areas. Olin is currently conducting studies to determine
the most effective method for treating contaminated ground
water. Once the construction phase of the remedy is complete,
operation and maintenance at the site could last up to 30 years.
A O Smith Electric Motor Company
Indiana (Region 5).
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for two
removal actions, issued 02/26/95; notice
of intent to comply given 12/15/95.
On February 26, 1995 EPA issued a UAO (UAO01) for two
separate removals at the A 0 Smith Electric Motor Company
site located in Union City, Indiana. On 12/15/95, AO Smith
Electric notified EPA of its intent to comply with the order. The
PRP will perform cleanup work worth an estimated $14 million.
One of the removal actions, estimated to cost $4 million and the
other is valued at an estimated $10 million.
Estimated Value:
$14 million
Arrowhead Refinery Company
Minnesota (Region 5)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA at
Operable Unit 1, lodged with U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, Fifth
Division 03/09/95; entered 05/24/95
Estimated Value:
$16,135,000
EPA entered into a mixed-funding agreement with 72 PRPs to
perform cleanup work at the Arrowhead Refining Company site
in Hermantown, Minnesota.. The terms of the agreement are set
forth in a consent decree (CD01) that was entered in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Fifth Division on
May 24, 1995. The PRPs agreed to remove approximately
4,600 cubic yards of contaminated sludge and filter cake from
a two-acre lagoon and recycle the sludge as fuel oil. EPA
agreed to commit Superfund money to stabilize and dispose of
the residual solids from this process in an off-site facility and to
excavate approximately 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and dispose of them off site. Superfund is paying for part
of the cleanup because of the site's large "orphan share"
contamination for which no viable PRP can be identified. In a
related settlement, 137 de minimis and "de micromis" PRPs
agreed to reimburse the 72 major PRPs for part of the cleanup
costs in exchange for a release from further liability. The total
estimated value of the cleanup work to be performed by the
PRPs is $16,135,000. The PRP has completed excavation of
the lagoon sludge; EPA expects to complete its excavation,
stabilization, and disposal activities in FY 1996.
42
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Kerr-McGee Residential Areas
Illinois (Region 5)
Settlement: UAO (UA001) for removal
actions, issued 11/18/94; notice of intent
to comply given 11 /30/94.
Estimated Value:
$70 million
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation is conducting cleanup
activities at the Kerr-McGee Residential Areas site in West
Chicago, Illinois pursuant to a UAO (UAO01) issued by EPA on
November 18,1994. The order requires the PRP to excavate
radioactive soil at area residences, backfill and restore the
properties, and transport the excavated soil to a licensed off-site
disposal facility. The PRP notified the Agency of its intent to
comply with the order on November 30, 1994. EPA has so far
identified 65 properties as contaminated; of these, the PRP has
completely cleaned up 42 and is at work on others. EPA field
crews are intensively surveying approximately 1 ,-200 individual
properties in the site study area for elevated levels of
radioactivity, and is continuing to identify contaminated
properties. The Agency may also identify other contaminated
areas and designate them part of the site. When the survey
work is completed, EPA will seek to recover its costs from the
PRP. The cleanup work alone has an estimated value of $70
million.
Ninth Avenue Dump
Indiana (Region 5)
Settlement: UAO (UAO03) for RD/RA at
Operable Unit 2, issued 12/27/94; notice
of intent to comply given 01/31/95
Estimated Value:
$20 million
EPA issued a UAO (UAO03) on December 27, 1994, requiring
95 PRPs to perform cleanup work at the Ninth Avenue Dump
site in Gary, Indiana. By January 31, 1995, 20 PRPs had
notified the .Agency of their intent to comply with the order.
The cleanup work consists of constructing an inner slurry wall
around an 11-acre area of the site, placing an impermeable cap
over the area, and installing a soil vapor extraction system. The
work has an estimated value of $20 million. Earlier remedial
work at the site, which also cost approximately $20 million,
included construction of an outer slurry wall, pumping and on-
site treatment of oil-contaminated ground water; and installation
and operation of a surface water treatment system. The slurry
walls prevent migration of contaminated ground water off site.
Construction of the inner wall will also preserve an on-site pond.
The Agency is also seeking an agreement with the PRPs for
recovery of approximately $2.5 million in outstanding past
response costs and reimbursement of future oversight costs.
Missouri Electric Works
Missouri (Region 7)
Settlement: CD (CD02) for cost recovery
and RA at Operable Unit 1, lodged with
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri 03/09/95; entered 05/10/95
Estimated Value:
$13 million
EPA and DOJ reached a settlement with a.major PRP to recover
past response costs and conduct cleanup work at the Missouri
Electric Works site in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. The terms of
the settlement, which is worth approximately $15 million, are
set forth in a consent decree (CD02) that was entered in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May
10, 1995. The cleanup work consists of excavation and off-site
disposal of contaminated soil.
43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Broderick Wood Products
Colorado (Region 8)
Settlement: CD (CD02) for RD/RA at
Operable Unit 2, lodged with U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado
05/22/95; UAO (UAO01) for same issued
02/22/95
Estimated Value:
$24,330,000
On May 22, 1995, EPA and DOJ lodged a consent decree
(CD02) with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
requiring Broderick Investment Company (BIC) to perform an
estimated $13 million worth of cleanup work at the Broderick
Wood Products site in south Adams County. Under the terms
of the settlement, the PRP will operate a soil treatment unit,
remove oil that is currently floating on top of contaminated
ground water, de-water the aquifer system, and treat it with a
process called bioventing, which stimulates.the growth of
natural organisms that help break down contaminants. The
settlement also requires the PRP to reimburse EPA $ 10.7 million
and the State of Colorado $630,000 in past response costs. In
order to take advantage of the construction season, cleanup
work began in the summer of 1995 under the authority of a
UAO (UAO01) issued on February 22, 1995. The UAO will
expire when the district court approves and enters the CD. The
Agency and DOJ -are currently seeking to recover an additional
$10.5 million in past response costs from another PRP.
Lowry Landfill
Colorado (Region 8)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RD/RA at
Operable Unit 1, issued 11/18/94; notice
of intent to comply give 01/17/95; CD
(CD09) for cost recovery and cash-out
lodged with U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado 07/10/95
Estimated Value:
$101,283,104
EPA issued a UAO (UAO02) to 34 PRPs, requiring them to
undertake approximately $94 million in cleanup work at the
Lowry Landfill site in Arapahoe County, 15 miles southeast of
downtown Denver. The Agency ordered the PRPs to implement
a sitewide remedy affecting contaminated soil, sediment, and
ground and surface water, landfill gas, waste pit liquids, and
buried drums. Three PRPs - the City and County of Denver
(Denver), Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (WMC), and
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) - have notified EPA
that they intend to comply with the order, and have reached
agreements with 22 other PRPs to perform the work on their
behalf. Another PRP agreed to pay $7,283,104 to resolve Its
liability for cleanup work and to reimburse the Agency for past
response costs. A consent decree setting forth the agreement
was lodged with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado on July 10, 1995.
Apache Powder Company
Arizona (Region 9)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RD/RA at
Operable Unit 1, issued 12/21/94; notice
of intent to reply given 01/06/95
Estimated Value:
$20 million
EPA issued a UAO (UAO02) on December 21, 1994, requiring
Apache Nitrogen .Products, Inc. (ANP) to perform cleanup design
and construction work at the Apache Powder site in St. David,
Arizona, approximately 50 miles southeast of Tucson. The PRP
notified EPA of its intent to comply with the order on January
6, 1995. The Agency's remedy for nitrate contamination at the
site includes pumping and treating perched ground water in a
brine concentrator, pumping and treating shallow aquifer ground
water in constructed wetlands, excavating and removing lead-
and dinitrotoluene-contaminated soils for off-site treatment and
disposal, and conducting additional ground water investigation
and monitoring during the design phase. Heavy-metal-
contaminated soil and sediment in several inactive disposal
ponds will be covered with a low-permeability clay cap. In
compliance with the UAO, ANP has connected eight area
households whose well water was contaminated to deep aquifer
replacement wells. ANP supplied these households with bottled
water since 1989 at EPA's direction. In response to comments
received from members of the community, EPA also directed
ANP to study various alternatives for recharge of the treated
ground water, including possible use for agricultural irrigation.
The design and construction work is expected to cost
approximately $10 million to $15 million.
44
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
King Neptune Site
California (Region 9)
Settlement: De Minimis Administrative
Cost Recovery Settlement completed on
11722/94 for reimbursement of EPA's
incurred costs at the site.
Estimated Value:
$580,264
A hospital group made up of 240 de minimis PRPs will
reimburse EPA for costs incurred in removal actions at the site.
The site operated as a former lead smelter, and the major
generators were area hospitals disposing of lead "pigs" from
radioactive isotopes. This settlement utilized transaction cost
reduction techniques such as conducting non-confrontational,
business negotiations, providing microfiche documentation with
the settlement offer, and accepting payment as proof of
settlement. Most of the hospitals completed their settlement
negotiations within 30-60 days.
Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill
California (Region 9)
Settlement: CD (CD06) for RD/RA and
cost recovery at Operable Units 1-4,
lodged with U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California 12/29/94;
entered 04/03/95
Estimated Value:
$36 million
EPA negotiated settlement of a contribution action involving
two groups of parties at the Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill
site in Montebello, California. A consent decree (CD04) setting
forth the terms of the agreement was entered in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 3,
1995. Under the terms of the decree, 14 municipalities, the
County of Los Angeles, the California Department of
Transportation, six garbage disposal districts, and numerous
waste haulers, will contribute approximately $63 million toward
cleaning up the landfill, bringing to over $268 million the total
amount committed by PRPs to site cleanup. The lawsuit dated
from 1989, when a group of PRPs who had settled with EPA
brought -a contribution action against 29 municipal entities.
Other parties were brought in through third-party claims. EPA
facilitated-the settlement by agreeing to provide the defendants
contribution protection as part of an overall settlement
agreement. Some de minimis defendants settled with EPA
under a previous administrative agreement.
45
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 5
Federal Facility Cleanups
Departments and agencies of the federal
government manage a variety of industrial activities
at 27,000 installations. Due to the nature of such
activities, whether they are federally or privately
managed, federal installations may be contaminated
with hazardous substances and therefore subject to
CERCLA requirements.
Although federal facilities comprise only a small
percentage of the community regulated under
CERCLA, they are usually larger and more complex
than their private industrial counterparts. Because of
their size and complexity, compliance with
environmental statutes may present unique
management issues for federal facilities.
5.1 The Federal Facilities Program
CERCLA Section 120(a) requires that federal
facilities comply with CERCLA requirements to the
same extent as private facilities. Executive Order
12580 delegates the President's authority under
CERCLA to federal departments and agencies,
making them responsible for cleanup activities at
their facilities. At federal facilities that are National
Priorities List (NPL) sites, which are sites having the
highest priority for remediation under Superfund,
CERCLA mandates that cleanups be conducted
under interagency agreements (lAGs) between EPA
and relevant federal agencies. States are often a
party to these agreements as well. To ensure federal
facility compliance with CERCLA requirements,
EPA provides technical advice 'and assistance and
may take enforcement action when appropriate.
In addition to CERCLA, there is a range of
authority and enforcement tools under state statutes
that apply to non-NPL federal facility sites. Indian
tribes also may be involved in federal agency
compliance with environmental regulations when
acting as either lead or support agencies for
Superfund response actions.
5.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities
Under CERCLA
Federal departments and agencies are responsible
for identifying and addressing hazardous waste sites
at the facilities that they own or operate. They are
required under CERCLA to comply with all
provisions of federal environmental statutes and
regulations and all applicable state and local
requirements during site cleanup.
5.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role ~
EPA oversees federal facility cleanup activities
and provides cleanup assistance to federal agencies.
EPA's responsibilities include:
listing sites on the NPL,
negotiating lAGs,
promoting community involvement through
site-specific advisory boards and restoration
advisory boards,
selecting or assisting in the determination of
cleanup remedies,
concurring with cleanup remedies,
providing technical advice and assistance,
overseeing cleanup activities,
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
reviewing federal agency pollution abatement
plans, and
resolving disputes regarding noncompliance.
To fulfill these responsibilities, EPA relies on
personnel from Headquarters, Regional offices, and
states. This includes personnel from the Federal
Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) in the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
and-the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office (FFRRO) in the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
To track the status of a federal facility, EPA uses
several information systems. The Facility Index
System 'provides an inventory of federal facilities
subject to environmental regulations. Through the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), EPA
maintains a comprehensive list of all reported
potentially hazardous waste sites, including federal
facility sites. CERCLIS also contains cleanup
project schedules and achievements for federal
facility sites. A list of federal facility sites potentially
contaminated with hazardous waste, which is
required by CERCLA Section 120(c), is made
available to the public through the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and through
routine docket updates published in the Federal
Register.
5.1.3 The Roles of States and Indian Tribes
Under the provisions' of CERCLA Section
120(f), state and local governments are encouraged
to participate in planning and selecting remedial
actions to be taken at federal facility NPL sites within
their jurisdiction. State and local government
participation includes, but is not limited to, reviewing
site information and developing studies, reports, and
action plans for the site. EPA encourages states' to
become signatories to the lAGs that federal agencies
must execute with EPA under CERCLA Section
120(e)(2). State participation in the CERCLA
cleanup process is carried out under the provisions of
CERCLA Section 121.
Cleanups at federal facility sites not listed on the
NPL are carried out by the federal agency that owns
or operates the site, often under state or EPA
oversight. Federal agencies use the CERCLA
cleanup process outlined in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan at
these sites. In addition to CERCLA, these cleanups
are subject to state laws regarding response actions.
A state's role at a non-NPL federal facility site,
therefore, will be determined both by the respective
state's cleanup laws and CERCLA.
CERCLA Section 126 mandates that federally
recognized Indian tribes be afforded substantially the
same treatment as states with regard to most
CERCLA provisions. Thus, the role of a qualifying
Indian tribe in a federal facility cleanup would be
substantially similar to that of a state. To qualify, a
tribe must be federally recognized; have a tribal
governing body that is currently performing
governmental functions to promote the health, safety,
and welfare of the affected population; and have
jurisdiction over a site.
5.2 Fiscal Year 1995 Progress
FFEO and FFRRO, in conjunction with other
EPA Headquarters offices, Regional offices, and
states, ensure federal department and agency
compliance with CERCLA and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requirements.
Progress in achieving federal facility compliance may
be measured by the status of federal facility sites on
the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket and on the NPL, and by the execution of
lAGs for federal facility sites.
5.2.1 Status of Facilities on the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket
Federal facilities where hazardous waste is
managed or from which hazardous substances have
been released are identified on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The docket
was established under CERCLA Section 120(c) and
functions as an important record in the Superfund
federal facilities program. Information submitted to
EPA on identified facilities is compiled and
maintained in the docket and then made available to
the public.
48
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
The initial federal agency docket was published
in the Federal Register on February 12, 1988. At
that time, 1,095 federal facilities were listed on the
docket. Most recently, the docket update of April 11,
1995, listed a total of 2,070 facilities. Of this total,
the Department of Defense (DoD) owned or operated
933 (45 percent) of the facilities and the Department
of the Interior (DOI) owned or operated 434 (21
percent). The remainder were distributed among 18
other federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities.
5.2.2 Status of Federal Facilities on the NPL
To distinguish the increasing number of federal
facility NPL sites from non-federal NPL sites, NPL
updates list federal facility sites separately from
non-federal sites. NPL updates also contain
language that clarifies the roles of EPA and other
federal departments and agencies with regard to
federal facility sites. Consistent with Executive
Order 12580 and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, EPA is
typically not the lead agency for federal facility sites
on the NPL; federal agencies are usually lead
agencies for their own facilities. EPA is, however,
responsible for overseeing federal facility compliance
with CERCLA.
At the end of FY95, there were 165 federal
facility sites proposed to or listed on 'the NPL,
including 160 final and five proposed sites. Sites
that were deleted from these totals during FY95
included two sites that were proposed for listing,
seven proposed sites that were listed as final, and
three final sites.
Federal departments and agencies made
substantial progress during FY95 toward cleaning up
federal facility NPL sites. Activity at federal facility
NPL sites during the year included the start of
approximately 45 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), 54 remedial designs (RDs), and 41
removals and 59 remedial actions (RAs). Also, 82
records of decision (RODs) were signed, and seven
sites achieved construction completion. Ongoing
activities at the end of FY95 included 475 Rl/FSs, 71
RDs, and 109 RAs.
5.2.3 Interagency Agreements Under
CERCLA Section 120
lAGs are the cornerstone of the enforcement
program for federal facility NPL sites. They are
enforceable documents and contain, among other
things, a description of remedy selection alternatives,
schedules of cleanup activities, and provisions for
dispute resolution. During FY95, three CERCLA
lAGs were executed to accomplish hazardous waste
cleanup at federal facility NPL sites. Of the 160 final
federal facility sites listed on the NPL, 99 were
covered by enforceable agreements by the end of the
fiscal year.
lAGs between EPA and each responsible federal
department or agency, to which states may be
signatories, address some or all of the phases of
remedial activity (RI/FS, RD, RA, operation and
maintenance) to be undertaken at a federal facility
NPL site. lAGs formalize the schedule and
procedures for submission and review of documents
and include a timeline for remedial activities in
accordance with the requirements of CERCLA
Section 120(e). They also must comply with the
public involvement requirements of CERCLA
Section 117.
Included in IAG provisions are mechanisms for
resolving disputes between the signatories. EPA can
also assess stipulated penalties for noncompliance
with the terms of lAGs. The agreements are
enforceable by the states, and citizens may seek to
enforce them through civil suits. Penalties may be
imposed by the courts against federal departments
and agencies in successful suits brought by states or
citizens for failure to comply with lAGs.
5.3 Federal Facility Initiatives
The growing awareness of environmental
contamination at federal facilities has increased the
public demand for facility cleanup. To address this
demand, EPA has worked to establish priorities for
cleanup programs and thereby maximize the
cleanups that can be accomplished with the limited
resources available. EPA's federal facility offices
(FFRRO and FFEO) continued their efforts to clean
up closing military bases, accelerate cleanup, and
address issues through interagency forums.
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
5.3.1 Military Base Closure
During FY95, DoD, EPA and states continued to
implement the Fast Track Cleanup Program for the
Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) Act. EPA's
program activities were directed at working with the
DoD and the states to achieve the goal of making
property environmentally acceptable for transfer,
while protecting human health and the environment
at closing or realigning installations. Using resources
provided under a Memorandum of Agreement with
the DoD, EPA has participated on BRAC Cleanup
Teams'(BCTs) at77 BRAC 1,2, and 3 installations,.
23 of which were NPL sites, and 54 were non-NPL.
The BCT includes representatives from the military
service, EPA, and the state regulatory agency.
Major components of the Fast Track Cleanup
program include identifying uncontaminated parcels,
accelerating cleanup, enhancing community
involvement, facilitating lease agreements,
encouraging removal actions, providing technical
assistance at non-NPL bases, and integrating cleanup
with economic development. The program aims to
maximize and expedite the reuse of bases scheduled
for closure in a manner consistent with the
requirements of CERCLA Section 120 (h).
EPA's approach in supporting DoD's Fast Track
Cleanup program was to follow the agreed upon Fast
Track 'guidance. This guidance assigns an EPA
Remedial Project Manager to each installation with
a BCT. The key element of the Fast Track Cleanup
success has been the establishment of BCT, at every
major closing or realigning base. The BCT
addresses cleanup and reuse issues and provides a
forum for the open discussion of a wide range of
technical and regulatory issues impacting the cleanup
process, including issues germane to property
transfer. EPA's expertise, early involvement, and
experience with CERCLA cleanups have expedited
the cleanup process, saved time,, and avoided
unnecessary costs.
In FY 1995, 100 full-time equivalent
reimbursable positions were dedicated to supporting
the BRAC program. Over 90 percent of the Dob
resources were assigned to EPA's Regional offices.
The major achievements in FY95 of the Fast
Track Cleanup program were:
accelerated cleanup schedules made property.
available for transfer and economic reuse - a
combined total of over 1,069 months or nearly
90 years, were eliminated from the various parts
of the environmental restoration process at 70
installations;
avoided costs of $ 120 million - a success which
was largely attributable to early involvement of
all stakeholders and the participation of EPA's
"in-house" technical experts; and
greatly improved community involvement and
trust in the cleanup process through assistance to
the Restoration Advisory Board.
5.3.2 Interagency Forums
Through its participation in interagency
organizations, EPA made significant progress in
addressing concerns associated with federal facility
cleanup.
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee (FFERDC), established in 1992
as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, provided a forum for identifying and
refining issues related to environmental restoration '
activities at federal facilities. During FY95,
FFERDC held national discussions on improving the
federal approach to environmental management and
revised its February 1993 interim report,
Recommendations for Improving the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration Decision-
Making and Priority-Setting Processes.
Defense Environmental Restoration Task
Force
EPA continued to participate in the Defense
Environmental Restoration Task Force (DERTF).
The goals of DERTF are to examine environmental
issues associated with the cleanup and reuse of
closing military installations and to identify and
50
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
recommend ways to expedite and improve
environmental response actions at military
installations scheduled to be closed. During FY95,
working groups established by DERTF addressed the
following topics: fast track cleanup implementation,
environmental baseline surveying, future land use,
and. public participation in cleanup and reuse
decisions.
BRAC Cleanup Teams
EPA conducted BCT member training for BCTs,
which were established in coordination with DoD
and the states at all major installations scheduled for
closure. EPA and DoD prepared and conducted
bottom-up reviews of BRAC cleanup plans for
closing installations, established restoration, advisory
boards (RABs) at closing installations, provided
RAB training workshops, and determined, by
consensus, the suitability of property to transfer or
lease for reuse. As mandated by the Community
Environmental Response Facilitation Act, EPA
reviewed, and where appropriate, concurred in the
identification of uncontaminated parcels of property
that are part of an NPL site.
In addition, EPA HQ developed BCT training
modules for new BCT members and in anticipation
of more base closures, and BRAC specific policies
such as the CERCLA 120 (h) (3) guidance to assist
BCTs with their field work and the reuse
acceleration.
Environmental Management Advisory Board
With DOE, EPA participated in the
Department's Environmental Management Advisory
Board. The Board consists of representatives from
industry, academia, and the environmental
community. It provides information, advice, and
recommendations on issues confronting the national
environmental management program. These issues
include cleanup criteria and risk assessment, land
use, priority setting, management effectiveness,
cost-versus-benefit analyses, and .strategies for
determining the future national configuration of
waste management and disposal facilities.
5.4 CERCLA Implementation at EPA
Facilities
Of the 2,070 sites on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket at the end of
FY95, 25 were EPA-owned or operated. Of these
EPA-owned or operated sites, one was listed on the
NPL. As required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5), a
report on cleanup progress at these 25- facilities is
provided in Exhibit 5.4-1.
5.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA Section
120(e)(5)
CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) requires an annual'
report to Congress from each federal department,
agency, or instrumentality on its progress in
implementing Superfund at its facilities.
Specifically, the annual report to Congress is to
include, but need not be limited to, the following
items:
Section 120(e)(5)(A): A report on the progress
in reaching lAGs under CERCLA Section
120(e)(2);
Section 120(e)(5)(B): The specific cost
estimates and budgetary proposals involved in
each IAG;
Section 120(e)(5)(C): A brief summary of the
public comments regarding each proposed IAG;
Section 120(e)(5)(D): A description of the
instances in which no agreement (IAG) was
reached;
Section 120(e)(5)(E): A progress report on
conducting RI/FSs required by CERCLA
Section 120(e)(l) at NPL sites;
Section 120(e)(5)(F): A progress report on
remedial activities at sites listed on the NPL; and
Section 120(e)(5)(G): A progress report on
response activities at facilities that are not listed
on the NPL.
51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
CERCLA also requires that the annual report
contain a detailed description, by state, of the status
of each facility subject to Section 120(e)(5). The
status report must include a description of the
hazards presented by each facility, plans and
schedules for initiating and completing response
actions, enforcement status (where applicable), and
an explanation of any postponement or failure to
complete response actions. EPA gives high priority
to maintaining compliance with CERCLA
requirements at its own facilities. To ensure
concurrence with all environmental statutes, EPA
uses its environmental compliance program to
heighten regulatory awareness, identify potential
compliance violations, and coordinate appropriate
corrective action schedules at its laboratories and
other research facilities.
5.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA
Facilities Subject to Section 120 of
CERCLA
At the end of FY95, the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket listed 25
EPA-owned or operated facilities, including one that
has been listed on the NPL (the Old -Navy
Dump/Manchester NPL site in Washington). Two of
the sites (the Brunswick Facility in Brunswick,
Georgia; and the Philadelphia Site in Philadelphia, .
Pennsylvania) listed previously and four of the sites
(the Bay City CERT Site in Bay City, Michigan; the
Electro Voice Site in Buchanan, Michigan; the Ottati
& Goss Site in Kingston, New Hampshire; and Fine
Petroleum in Norfolk, Virginia) listed in FY95 may
have been listed on the docket in error. EPA is
currently investigating, those listings. EPA has
evaluated and, as appropriate, undertaken response
activities at the 25 sites list on the docket. As
required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5), Exhibit
5.4-1 provides the status, by state, of EPA-owned or
operated sites and identifies the types of problems
and progress of activities at-each site. EPA facilities
that have undergone significant response activities in
FY95 are discussed in detail below. As required for
EPA-owned or operated NPL sites, the information
presented below for the Old Navy Dump/Manchester
NPL Site provides a report on progress in meeting
CERCLA Section 120 requirements for reaching
lAGs, conducting Rl/FSs, and providing information
on the status of remedial activities. For other
EPA-owned or operated sites on the docket, the
information presented below provides a report on
progress in conducting response activities at the
facilities.
National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory, Alabama
.EPA's air and radiation laboratory formerly
operated at a site near.its current location at Gunter
Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. During
operations at the original site, waste solvents,
including xylene and benzene, were discharged into
a pit adjacent to the laboratory building. The
releases were identified by EPA's internal auditing
program. The site was remediated initially, by
removing the accessible contaminated soil and
replacing it with uncontaminated soil. Then EPA, in
conjunction with the Underground Injection Control
'Program of the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, determined the extent
of the remaining contamination and developed an
" appropriate mitigation program. EPA is monitoring
the ground-water wells on the property regularly and
initiating a program to pump ground water from the
. contaminated area.
Casmalia Resources, California
The Casmalia Resources Hazardous Waste Facility
operated as a commercial hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facility from 1973 to 1989.
During this time period, the facility accepted billions
of pounds of waste materials. Subsequently, efforts
to close the facility properly and permanently were
abandoned by the owner/operators. In 1992, the
State of California requested EPA step in as the lead
regulatory agency. EPA has since undertaken
emergency response activities while seeking
voluntary cleanup by PRPs.
New England Regional Laboratory,
Massachusetts
An underground oil storage tank was replaced at
the New England Regional Laboratory in October
1993. During excavation, the cavity left by the old
tank filled with water and developed a sheen. The
laboratory was given a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit exclusion and
52
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
allowed to pump the water because tank inspection
and water analysis indicated that no leaks were
present and no groundwater contamination occurred.
The laboratory continues to improve its environment,
safety, and health program with regular audits by the
Safety, Health, and Environmental Management
Program (SHEMP);
EPA Central Regional Laboratory, Maryland
EPA conducted an on-site investigation of
ground-water contamination at the EPA Central
Regional Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland.
Although the State of Maryland is satisfied that
hazardous substances have not been released into the
environment and that further response action is not
required, the Agency installed a homogenizing tank
and continued to maintain monitoring wells at the
site. The laboratory was given the status of "no
further remedial action planned" (NFRAP) on April
7, 1994.
Bay City CERT Site, Michigan
EPA was authorized by Congress to purchase
property for the construction of a Center for
Ecological Research and Training (CERT) in Bay
City, Michigan. A preliminary site characterization
and three subsequent phases of site characterization
were performed on the approximately 90 acre (25
parcel) site. Field investigations (Phase II and Phase
HI) began in FY93 continued through FY95. Results
of the investigations showed that localized areas of
the CERT site had been impacted by past onsite and
offsite land usage and related activities. Potential
environmental liabilities at the site and costs
associated with remediation of these liabilities were
also identified. Authorization and funding was
rescinded in FY94 halting the CERT project. EPA
had acquired six of the 25 parcels at that time.
During the investigation, miscellaneous drums
deposited by unknown parties were discovered on
two of the EPA owned parcels.
Electro Voice, Michigan
The Electro Voice site has been occupied by
several manufacturing companies since the 1920s.
Demolitions refuse was deposited in an onsite natural
land depression from the 1920s to the early 1950s.
Portions of Electro Voice, Inc.'s facilities have been
built upon this fill. Electro Voice built two lagoons
for the purpose of disposing electroplating waste in
1952. The lagoons were removed from service in
1962 and a wastewater treatment facility was
installed. In 1979, an industrial sewer link broke
discharging liquid waste into the north lagoon.
Electro Voice responded to this spill by treating and
removing the discharge and installing a holding tank
to prevent similar incidents. The lagoons were
closed and backfilled in 1980. In 1987, EPA and
Electro Voice entered into a Consent Order requiring
the company to carry out a feasibility study of site
contamination. The- study was completed by the
EPA in September of 1991. Final remedies' were
selected for the lagoon area, onsite groundwater, and
dry well area soils. The design is projected to be
completed by 1996.
Ottati & Goss Superfund Site, New
Hampshire
The Ottati & Goss Superfund Site was used by
several companies and corporations for the purposes
of drum reconditioning operations from 1959 until
1980. The site was used by Ottati & Goss from
March 1978 until July 1979 as a hazardous materials
processing and storage facility. An Rl/FS conducted
in 1986 revealed that groundwater under the site was
contaminated well above drinking water standards.
The investigation also found a significant amount of
soil and sediment contaminated above levels
protective of human health and the environment.
EPA conducted emergency removal actions at the
site between December of 1980 and July of 1982.
PRPs performed partial soil cleanup remediation at
the site in 1989. The first remedial design began in
1993 and will be completed in 1996.
EPA Edison Facilities, New Jersey
The EPA Edison Facilities site was formerly the
Raritan Depot, which was owned by DoD and used
for munitions testing and storage. In 1963, the
General Services Administration (GSA) took
possession of the property and, in 1988, transferred
approximately 200 acres of the site to EPA.
Although residual contamination from past DoD and
GSA activities at the facility persists, EPA has not
stored, released, or disposed of any hazardous
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
substances on the property. A site inspection was
conducted in FY91, following the discovery of a
contaminated surface-water impoundment. The
investigation resulted in the implementation of
interim clean-up actions. Response activities have
included spraying a rubble pile containing asbestos
with a bituminous sealant; removing the liquid in the
surface impoundment, excavating soil, installing a
liner, and backfilling the impoundment with clean
material; excavating and storing munitions; and
removing underground storage tanks. EPA expects
that DoD will pursue additional clean-up work at the
site.
Fine Petroleum, Virginia
The Fine Petroleum/Mariner HiTech site has
been a paint and paint-related product recycling
facility since the late 1960s. Approximately 13,000
containers with capacities ranging from 1 quart to 55
gallons were discovered in varying stages of decay in
a field on the approximately 3 acre property. EPA
performed a sampling assessment in July 1992
leading to a removal action in 1993 in which 26,330
gallons of paint and paint-related materials were
removed. In May 1995, a fee occurred at the sole
building on the property which housed numerous
containers of hazardous substances. Following the
fire, engineer evaluations indicated the warehouse to
be structurally unsound. A runoff barrier was erected
and air monitoring was conducted around the
perimeter of the building's remains. A total of 365,
55-gallon drums of reportable quantity wastes,
approximately 1120 cubic yards of non-hazardous
demolition debris, and 916 tons of non-hazardous,
petroleum-impacted soil was removed during this
1995 event.
Old Navy Dump/Manchester NPL Site,
Washington
EPA acquired this former Navy site from DoD in
1970 and used the land to construct an environmental
testing laboratory in 1978. The property is also used
for two other environmental laboratories run by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Washington State Department of Ecology. The
property adjacent to the laboratories had been used
by the Navy to conduct firefighting training
exercises, maintain metal anti-submarine nets, and
serve as a Navy landfill. Investigations of the
property history revealed that in the 1940s and
1950s, the Navy had used a lagoon on the property to
dispose of metal debris and other waste from the
nearby Bremerton Naval Shipyard. Also, chemical
residues from the Navy firefighting training school
had been allowed to drain into the ground. Li FY93,
a preliminary assessment and site inspection of the
property revealed the presence of hazardous
substances in the soil, sediment, and surface-water
run off. Li January 1994, EPA proposed the site to
the NPL, and in June 1994, EPA listed the site on the
NPL.
Because the site is a former Navy site, the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program for
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) will provide
funding for evaluating and correcting the hazardous
conditions. Negotiations for an IAG for site cleanup
were initiated in July 1994 and were ongoing as of
the end of the fiscal year. Also during the year, the
Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
was authorized under the Department of Defense's
Environmental Restoration Program for FUDs to
perform an RJ/FS of the Old Navy Dump/Manchester
NPL Site (FUDS Site No. F10WA011900) and to
prepare a proposed plan and ROD. The RI/FS was
initiated in FY95.
54
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.4-1
Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket*
State
EPA Facility
Known or Suspected
Problems
Project Status
AL National Air and Radiation Environment
Laboratory (formerly known as the
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility)
CA Casmalia Resources
MA New England Regional Laboratory
MD
MI
MI
NH
NJ
VA
WA
EPA Central Regional Laboratory
Bay City CERT Site
Electro Voice
Ottati & Goss Superfund Site
Soil and groundwater
contamination
Groundwater
contamination,
hazardous waste landfill
Oil sheen detected
during tank upgrade,
packaged sample leak,
no contamination
No contamination
Miscellaneous drums
discovered on EPA
owned parcels
Electroplating waste
contamination
Groundwater, soil, and
sediment contamination
EPA Edison Facilities (formerly known as No contamination that
the Raritan Depot) poses a threat to the
environment
Fine Petroleum
Old Navy Dump/Manchester NPL Site
(formerly known as the Region 10
Environmental Services Division
Laboratory)
Decaying containers of
hazardous materials
Soil and-sediment
contamination
attributable to DoD
ownership
Groundwater remediation
efforts being implemented
Remedial action in progress
NPDES Permit Exclusion
granted prior to present fiscal
year. Pollution Prevention
Plan signed
No further remedial action
planned
Funding halted in for CERT
project in previous fiscal
year, site characterization
work underway.
Groundwater remediation
systems in operation
Remedial design stage
Removal actions performed .
on non-EPA owned acreage,
continuing investigations
Removal actions underway
Remedial
investigation/feasibility study
started
Source: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and the Office of Administration and Resource Management.
* This list does not include the following 15 EPA facilities with completed remedial activities that have
either been conditionally exempt from PA requirements or were placed on the docket in error. These
facilities include the Andrew W. Breidenback Environmental Research Ctr., Ann Arbor Motor Vehicle
Lab., Brunswick Facility, Center Hill Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Lab., Combustion Research
Facility-AR, Corvallis Environmental Research Lab., Houston Laboratory, Mobile Incinerator-Demmry
Farm, National Enforcement Investigation Ctr., Philadelphia Site, Region 5 Environmental Services
Division Lab., Region 7 Environmental Services Division Lab., Technology Center-NC, Testing and
Evaluation Facility-OH, and Washington Headquarters.
55
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 6
Resource Estimates
Section 301(h)(l)(G) of CERCLA requires EPA
to estimate the resources needed by the federal
government to complete Superfund implementation.
The Agency interprets this requirement to be a report
on the cost of completing cleanup at sites currently
on the National Priorities List (NPL). Much of this
work will occur after FY95.
Section 6.1 of this chapter includes annual
information on Trust Fund resources needed by EPA
and other federal departments and agencies through
FY95, and on the allocation of the resources for
FY95andFY96. An overview of the method used to
estimate the long-term costs associated with site
cleanup is contained in Section 6.2, and an estimate
of the long-term costs of cleaning up sites on the
existing NPL is contained in Section 6.3. The
estimate includes Trust Fund resource projections for
EPA and other Superfund allocations to other federal
departments and agencies forFY96 and beyond.
The long-term estimate provided in Section 6.3
is based primarily on the resources required to carry
out the responsibilities and duties assigned to EPA
and other federal departments and agencies by
Executive Order 12580. To compute the estimate,
EPA must make assumptions about the size and
scope of the Superfund program, the nature and
number of response actions, the level of participation
by states and private parties, and the use of treatment
technologies. For active NPL sites (those that have
reached or passed the remedial investigation/
feasibility study [RI/FS] planning stage), these
assumptions relate to management of the workload
already in the remedial pipeline and the costs of
those actions. For NPL sites that have not yet
entered the RI/FS planning stage, assumptions are
made about which activities will be necessary to
clean up the sites and delete them from the NPL.
In developing the long-term resource estimate,
EPA considered several sources of information:
EPA Superfund budgets for FY92 through
FY96, including budgets allocations to other
federal departments and agencies;
« The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket developed under Section
120(c) of CERCLA and each federal
department's and agency's annual report to
Congress on federal facility cleanup as required
under Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA; and
Various EPA information systems, primarily the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) and
the Integrated Financial Management System.
Specifically, EPA has estimated resource needs
for FY96 and beyond. This long-term effort has
been coordinated with the development of the FY96
budget: In conjunction with the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) and its policies affecting program
direction and scope, EPA continues to refine the
complete cost estimate for implementing CERCLA.
The Agency is working to improve data quality,
refine cost estimatinglnethods, and collect additional
information.
EPA's ability to project the federal resource
requirement for CERCLA implementation improves
each year as more experience is gained. Improved
coordination with other federal departments and
agencies and additional data on the implementation
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
of the federal facilities requkement of Section 120
also will increase the accuracy of future resource
estimates.
6.1 Source and Application of
Resources .
Since the enactment of CERCLA in 1980,
Congress has provided Superfund with $15.0 billion
in budget authority (FY81 through FY95). This
estimate includes $1.8 billion for FY81 through
FY86 and $13.3 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY95. The FY95 budget allocated
total resources of $1.5 billion for the following
activities:
EPA Response Activities (62.5 percent):
Response activities include site assessment,
time-critical and non-time-critical removals,
long-term cleanup actions, and program
implementation activities. Also included is
support provided by the Office of Water, Office
of Indoor Air and Radiation, Office of Program
Planning and Evaluation, and Office of
Administration.
Other Federal Agencies Response Activities (9.5
percent): Agencies included are: Department of
Agriculture, Department of Commerce,
Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
General Services Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
Department of the Interior, Department of
Justice, Department of Labor, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Department of
Transportation, and Department of Veterans
Affairs.
EPA's Enforcement Activities (14.8 percent):
Enforcement activities include PRP negotiations,
litigation, and settlements and cost recovery
efforts.
Management and Support (8.7 percent): This
category includes program analysis provided by
the Office of Program Planning and Evaluation;
personnel, contracting and financial management
services from the Office of Administration and
Resources Management; legal services provided
by the Office of General Counsel; and the audit
function provided by the Office of the Inspector
General.
Research and Development (4.5 percent):
Research and development resources are used
for technical support and for developing and
evaluating faster, better and less expensive
methodologies and technologies in the areas of
site characterization, risk assessment,
Exhibit 6.1-1
EPA Superfund Obligations
(in Millions)
Program Area
Response Activities (Total)
EPA
Other Federal Agencies
Enforcement Activities
Management and Support
Research and Development
Total Superfund
FY94
Operating Plan
$1,123.4
996.6
126.8
209.9
101.9
61.9
$1,497.1
FY95
Operating Plan
$1,030.03
893.9
136.4
212.3
124.8
63.9
$1,431.3
Source: Senior Management Report FY95.
58
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
monitoring, remedy selection and remedy
design, and construction and operations.
Exhibit 6.1-1 presents the actual obligations of
Superfund resources for FY94 and FY95 within
these categories. The snapshot data is from EPA's
Senior Management Report.
6.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup
Site cleanup is the single largest category of
Superfund expenditures and is expected to remain so
in the future. To project EPA funding needs for
cleanup activities, several key estimations were made
including
The projected number and average cost of
studies, remedial designs (RDs), and remedial
actions (RAs) undertaken;
The extent and cost of removal activity; and
The proportion of direct cleanup actions
undertaken by PRPs.
6.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Cleanup
Effort
The most significant way PRPs contribute to the
hazardous substance cleanup effort is by conducting
and financing response actions (whether voluntarily
or under order). When PRPs finance site cleanup
efforts, potential' EPA Superfund obligations for
those sites are dramatically reduced and the
remaining principal cost is PRP oversight. EPA
continues to develop and implement policies
designed to encourage PRP cleanups.
In addition to response actions actually
performed by PRPs, a portion of the costs of certain
Fund-financed response actions will be recovered
from PRPs through enforcement activities. Typically,
there are delays of several years between
expenditures from the Trust Fund and recovery of
costs.
6.2 Resource Model Assumptions
Estimating the cost of cleaning up current NPL
sites depends on a number of factors, many of which
will change as the program continues to mature. The
main factors are:
Changes in Superfund program policies and
procedures because of the revised NCP,
particularly the cleanup standards as required
under Section 121 of CERCLA;
Changes in the remedial program because of
revisions to the Hazard Ranking System, as
required under Section 105 of CERCLA;
The long period required to identify, develop,
select, and construct a remedy, and the need for,
scheduling flexibility to maximize the impact of
enforcement activities;
The level of state Superfund program activity;
The level of PRP participation in .the program;
Changes in cleanup approaches, such as
implementing more early actions in favor of
remedial actions; and
The nature of and demand for removal actions.
Based on these factors, EPA uses the Outyear
LiabiKty Model (OLM) to estimate the long-term
resource needs of the Superfund program. The OLM
provides meaningful long-range forecasts, has the
flexibility to refine forecasts, and can be adjusted for
a large number of program-related variables. These
variables can be individually adjusted to reflect
actual or anticipated changes in the program. The
four primary cost categories used in the OLM to
estimate the long-term resources required to clean up
the existing NPL sites are
Active NPL sites;
NPL sites where the remedial process has not yet
begun;
Non-site activities; and
59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
RA costs.
EPA's estimate of resources required to clean up
the existing NPL sites is provided in Section 6.3. To
develop this estimate, the Agency has concentrated
on remedial and removal activities. These activities
are the major components of the Superfund program
and account for the majority of Fund expenditures by
the Agency.
6.2.1 Active NPL Sites
Remedial efforts are underway at most of the
sites on the current NPL. Remedial plans are being
developed for the -remaining sites on the NPL,
leaving 90 sites on the existing NPL pending study at
theendofFY95.
Data on the active NPL sites are stored in
CERCLIS and incorporated into the OLM to present
the most accurate picture of planned activities. The
OLM estimates ancillary activities for sites at which
some level of planning or remediation activity is
underway. Because most of the existing NPL sites
are active, they constitute a large portion of the total
liability estimate.
In addition to planned remedial activities,
enforcement activities have a significant impact on
the costs of addressing Superfund sites. All
enforcement activities are estimated by the model
according to past program experience and several
standard sequences of activities, each representing a
different enforcement approach. Enforcement-
related variables within the model include costs,
workyears, and the shift in remedial costs when
Superfund assumes responsibility from, or passes
responsibility to, a PRP. As with remedial activities,
most enforcement costs and workyears are estimated.
6.2.2 Sites Yet to Begin the Remedial
Process
The OLM uses the same general approach for
sites where the remedial process has yet to begin.
Cleaning up an NPL site involves a number of
different activities occurring over time and in
predictable arrangements. For sites where the
remedial process has yet to begin, the OLM must
first approximate the activities that will be involved
when remediation of the sites begins.
Approximations are made by applying several
generic activity sequences to the number of sites
being estimated. When the activities have been set,
cost and workyear pricing factors are applied to
estimate the necessary resources. A consistent
approach is used for all site activities, both remedial
and enforcement. In the approach, tradeoffs such as
avoiding cleanup costs but incurring PRP oversight
costs are handled automatically as assumptions are
adjusted.
The OLM includes a library of different activity
sequences. Each sequence represents a typical site
and involves different activities, durations,1 and
schedules. In addition to the key activity starts
discussed above, the OLM includes a number of
other factors to control the mix of these activity
sequences.
6.2.3 Non-Site Costs
Although non-site activities comprise a
substantial portion of the budget, individually they
are fairly small and stable. For these reasons,
resource needs for these activities are estimated by
applying annual growth factors to the levels included
in the requested budget for the current year.
Aside from the number of sites requiring cleanup
and the cost of individual cleanups, the assumption
of managerial and financial responsibility for a site
has the largest potential impact on the cost of the
Superfund program. There are many factors
involved in establishing who is responsible for a site
(referred to as the site lead), including
Level of emphasis on enforcement;
Willingness of states to assume financial
responsibility; and
Cost-sharing arrangements between Superfund
and the states and between Superfund and the
PRPs.
The model accommodates each of these factors
with one or more variables, allowing the estimation
of Superfund liabilities across a wide range of
60
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
site-lead and cost-sharing scenarios. Site variables
include:
Proportion of sites addressed by each lead
category (Fund, PRP, state, and state
enforcement);
Number of sites that are owned and/or operated
by state or local governments; and
Number of sites that follow each of several
enforcement paths.
Choices among these variables generally affect
both cost and duration of the program. Increases in
PRP leads will ultimately result in lower Fund costs,
but related litigation will substantially extend the
amount of time required to reach deletion of a site
from the NPL.
6.3 Estimated Resources to Complete
Cleanup
As illustrated in Exhibit 6.3-1, EPA's estimate of
the .total liability to complete cleanup of existing
NPL sites is $31.1 billion. This total includes the
OLM long-term estimate of $16.1 billion for FY96
and beyond. Major assumptions shaping the
long-term estimate are as follows:
Only the cost of the sites currently proposed to or
listed on the NPL (1,374 sites, including 1,232
final, 52 proposed, 2 deferred, and 88 deleted
sites as of September 30,1995) is included.
Removal activities at sites on the NPL remain at
current levels.
The RA cost factor is estimated at $8.3 million
per RA (in 1994 dollars) based on an analysis of
RODs signed from 1990 through 1994. This
analysis substantially improves previous analyses
by evaluating RODs in current year dollars,
changing assumptions about ROD cost growth,
and using a five-year average of ROD data to
better depict changing trends in RA estimates.
Program support and other non-site elements are
straightlined at the levels of the current request
year budget (FY96 President's budget).
Approximately 45 percent of all new RI/FS starts
will be Fund-financed.
For non-federal facility sites, PRPs will take the -
lead on 75 percent of the RAs. (Because
oversight is significantly less expensive than
cleanup, Fund costs drop dramatically when
PRPs assume financial responsibility for more
cleanups.)
No resource and programmatic assumptions for
. federal facility sites are included in the OLM.
The OLM does not generate a resource estimate
for the federal facility program.
Assumptions about the future reflect planning
assumptions from the Superfund Program
Management Manual and historical performance
averages, both of which are revised periodically.
EPA will continue to monitor developments that
Exhibit 6.3-1
Estimate of Total Trust Liability to Complete Cleanup
at Sites on the National Priorities List
(in Billions)
Total Allocations
FY95 and
FY96 and
Prior
Beyond
Total
$15.0
16.1
$31.1
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation and Outyear Liability Model
61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
affect program costs. Changes will be incorporated
into the model as they occur, improving depiction of
future programmatic direction and refining previous
analysis. OLM estimates will vary over time as a
result, and subsequent editions of this Report will
most likely contain revised estimates.
6.4 Estimated Resources for Other
Executive Branch Departments
and Agencies
The second element in fulfilling the requirements
of Section 301(h)(l)(G) of CERCLA is providing an
estimation of the resources needed by other federal
departments and agencies. The Superfund resource
needs of the other Executive Branch departments and
agencies are met through two sources: the Superfund
Trust Fund and the individual federal department's
or agency's budget.
Trust Fund monies are provided to other federal
departments and agencies through two mechanisms:
Interagency Budgets: EPA provides Trust Fund
monies to other federal departments and agencies
that support EPA's Superfund efforts. Transfers
are accomplished through an interagency budget
under Executive Order 12580.
Site-Specific Agreements: EPA also provides
money from the Trust Fund to other federal
departments and agencies through site-specific
agreements.
Federal departments and agencies also provide
support to Superfund activities through CERCLA-
Specific Funds and general funds of the department
or agency. Exhibit 6.4-1 summarizes the other
federal departments and agencies that receive Trust
Fund monies. The information below shows a
breakdown of funding provided by EPA to other
federal agencies and departments for their Superfund
cleanup needs. (Please see individual agency and
department annual reports for specific site cleanup
costs and descriptions.)
Exhibit 6.4-1
List of Departments and Agencies
Receiving Trust Fund Monies
Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Federal Emergency Management Agency
General Services Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
National Institute for Environmental Sciences
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Tennessee Valley Authority
Department of Transportation
Department of Veterans Affairs
62
-------
Chapter 7
Superfund Program Support
Activities
7.1 Overview of Program Support
Activities
The Superfund program's other support activities
primarily focus on enhancing community
involvement, disseminating public information, and
promoting partnerships with states and Indian tribes.
This section provides an overview of new and
ongoing program support activities conducted by the
Superfund program during FY95.
7.1.1 Community Involvement
Superfund's community involvement efforts
demonstrate EPA's commitment to informing
potentially affected citizens about Superfund sites
and involving them in the cleanup process. EPA
focuses on:
Informing the public of planned or ongoing
actions;
Giving the public an opportunity to comment on
and provide input for technical decisions; and
Identifying and resolving conflicts.
The guideline for EPA's proactive community
involvement effort is "early, often, and always."
EPA is committed to beginning outreach activities
early in the Superfund process, meeting with citizens
on a regular basis, and always listening to citizens'
concerns.
EPA's policy of enhancing community
involvement is demonstrated by its continued efforts
to tailor community involvement activities to each
community's needs and to identify effective
approaches for reaching concerned citizens. Each
community is unique and requires an individual
communication strategy. EPA, while satisfying
statutory and regulatory requirements, also promotes
the following innovative involvement techniques:
Sponsoring open houses and public availability
sessions for local citizens to meet one-on-one
with EPA Superfund site teams to discuss
community concerns or site information;
Promoting greater public understanding and
encouraging public participation in site activities
using various media, such as public access
television and public monitoring equipment, to
convey information from EPA to local citizens;
and
Conducting introduction to Superfund
workshops and video presentations to educate
affected citizens about the Superfund cleanup
process and opportunities for involvement in the
process.
Under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM) and Superfund Administrative
Improvements, the-Agency remains committed to
promoting meaningful community involvement in
decision-making during all phases of site cleanup.
EPA views early and frequent community
involvement as critical to the success of EPA's
mission to protect human health and the
environment. The Agency continued offering
technical assistance grants (TAGs) to communities to
enable them to participate more fully in Superfund
63
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
cleanup and decision making. Other efforts include
the establishment of community advisory groups
(CAGs).
Fiscal Year 1995 Highlights
During FY95, EPA continued to improve the
vigorous community involvement efforts by
emphasizing the importance of public participation
through it's Superfund administrative improvements.
In addition, the Agency continued to provide a
technical outreach program for communities, held a
national conference on community involvement, and
offered training and workshops to communities. A
national Superfund Community Involvement
Conference held hi New York, New York, brought
together community involvement managers and
coordinators from across the country to discuss issues
such as innovative techniques for reaching hard-to-
.reach populations and community-based
environmental protection. Finally, the program
began developing a Superfund jobs training program,
modeled after the Housing and Urban Development's
Step-Up program, during FY95.
Enhanced Community Involvement Through
Administrative Improvements
The enhancement of meaningful community
involvement is one of the areas where EPA is
changing Superfund through the administrative
improvements. Efforts focused on identifying ways
to increase community involvement in the Superfund
program, enhance outreach between EPA and
communities, and ensure environmental justice by
addressing concerns of minority and low-income
communities.
EPA also held a national community
involvement conference that provided Regional
personnel with an opportunity to share information
and discuss issues of national concern.
Technical Outreach Services for
Communities
The Agency continued support for the technical
outreach program that expands EPA's tools for
community outreach by providing an alternative,
independent source of technical information. EPA's
Office of Research and Development's Office of
Exploratory Research provides a national network of
five hazardous substance research centers (HSRCs).
Authorized by SARA Title m, Section 311(d), the
HSRCs are supported by a network of 23 universities
nationwide. On a budget of $125,000, each HSRC
supports two EPA Regions and provides technology
transfer and training. The HSRCs also provide
services that are flexible and tailored to each
community's needs. For example, the technical
expert at the HSRC may review site-related
documents, attend public meetings, explain technical
process information, or provide an independent
assessment of site activities.
Community Advisory Groups
During FY95, the Agency worked on developing
guidance to encourage the Regions to establish
CAGs. CAGs are committees, task forces, or boards
made up of citizens with diverse community interests
that provide a public forum for discussing the needs
and concerns of the community about the decision
making process at Superfund sites. Based on the
success of early CAG pilots, EPA continued to
develop the CAG program.
Superfund Community Relations Skills
Course
.EPA offered the Superfund Community
Relations Skills course five times and instructed
more than 100 participants in FY95. The course
ensured EPA staff members are equipped with the
latest community involvement skills and techniques,
and that they have a thorough understanding of
community relations requirements at Superfund sites.
Introduction to Superfund Workshop
Development
EPA developed a national course using a
national workshop format and delivered course
materials to 10 EPA Regions. The workshop serves
as a tool to allow EPA Regions to educate public on
the basic CERCLA statutory and regulatory
framework.
64
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 7.1-1
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded
from Fiscal Year 1988 Through Fiscal Year 1995
o
0>
o
i
<
CO
(3
5
w
0>
£
z
D Fiscal Year Awards
Cumulative Prior Awards
FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. September 30,1995.
Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA
Section 117(e)
The TAG Program, authorized by CERCLA
Section 117(e), as amended by SARA, provides
eligible communities affected by NPL sites with
grant funds to hire independent technical advisors.
Only communities affected by sites listed on the NPL
or sites proposed to the NPL with response actions
underway are eligible for such funds. By allowing
communities to hire independent advisors, TAGs
enable communities to become more knowledgeable
about the technical and scientific aspects of a
Superfund site. Communities are able to participate
in the decision making process surrounding their
sites using their increased understanding of site-
specific cleanup strategies. Because TAG
regulations require recipients to share their
information with the entire affected community, the
broader community benefits as well. Initial TAG
awards are for $50,000, but additional funds are
available for more complex sites.
As illustrated in Exhibit 7.1-1, since the TAG
program began in FY88, EPA has awarded 177
TAGs, which are worth more than $9 million to
support community involvement in Superfund
cleanup. This total includes 26 TAGs awarded
during FY95. Because of the benefits of the TAGs,
many TAG recipients choose not to close-out their
grant award as they mature, but rather request
additional funds through a waiver or deviation.
More than $1.5 million additional grant dollars have
been awarded through waivers and deviations.
7.1.2 Public Information
A Coordinated Approach to Public
Information
The Agency's public information outreach
program is built on a system of information
coordination and management. Under this program,
EPA is committed to providing quick public access
to high-quality documents.
65
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
All Superfund documents available to the public
are listed in the Catalog of Superfund Program
Information Products and its regular update
bulletins. Copies of the catalog and updates are
available from the Superfund Document Center or
from the Department of Commerce's National
Technical Information Service (NTIS). Electronic
access to the catalog and updates is available through
Agency internal electronic bulletin boards or through
the NTIS- FEDWORLD gateway to the Internet
system which is advertised nationwide to the general
public.
During FY95, EPA continued to participate in
the full implementation of the EPA-NTIS Superfund
partnership, a comprehensive interagency effort to
provide maximum public access to Superfund
documents. Through this partnership, the Agency
and NTIS' conduct an outreach and marketing
program to inform the public about the availability of
Superfund documents from NTIS. This partnership
effort has provided the public with rapid delivery of
Superfund documents and has conserved EPA
resources.
The public can also access information about
Superfund through other information sources, such
as the Superfund Docket and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Superfund
Hotline. Further information on public information
services is provided below.
considerable savings to the government and
facilitates access to the many production services
housed at the NTIS headquarters in Springfield,
Virginia.
NTIS also maintains a Superfund Order Desk
where users may purchase single copies of
documents or customized subscriptions for categories
of documents pertinent to their needs. Prepublication
documents are available at the Superfund Order Desk
prior to being formally printed and distributed.
In other FY95 efforts, EPA broadened it's use of
electronic tools such as the Internet and multimedia
computers to increase communication between
Superfund stakeholders and to improve access to
Superfund information. Homepages for Superfund
and for each of the Regions are posted on the
Internet. The relative number of visits to these
websites continues to increase.
The Superfund Docket
The Superfund Docket provides public access to
the materials that support proposed and final
regulations. In compliance with the Freedom of
Information Act, the public is allowed access to
docket materials following approval of the material
by the Office of General Counsel and announcement
of the proposed or final regulation in the Federal
Register.
The National Technical Information Service Other Information Sources
The Department of Commerce's NTIS serves as
a permanent archive and general source of federal
publications, including Superfund documents.
Before the EPA-NTIS partnership, EPA had fulfilled
requests for more than two million documents free of
charge. Due to resource constraints, however, free
document distribution was no longer possible. To
fulfill its commitment to ensure that Superfund
documents are available to the public, EPA has
worked to maximize public access to and promote
the availability of Superfund documents through
NTIS.
The Agency's joint effort with NTIS provides
the public with ready access to the entire Superfund
collection. Using NTIS employees provided
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, managed by EPA
Headquarters, provides information to the public and
EPA personnel concerning hazardous waste
regulations and policies. The hotline is a
comprehensive source of general information about
ongoing Superfund program developments.
EPA also maintains the Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection at EPA Headquarters and
Regional libraries. The collection contains
documents ranging from records of decision to
commercially produced books on hazardous waste
and the Superfund program.
66
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
7.1.3 EPA's Partnership with States and
Indian Tribes
EPA continues to promote and maintain its
partnership with states, federally recognized Indian
tribes, commonwealths, territories, and political
subdivisions in the Superfund cleanup process.
(States, commonwealths, and territories will be
referred to as states for the purposes of this Report.)
Subpart F of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
provides mechanisms for ensuring meaningful state
and tribal involvement in implementing Superfund
response activities, as required by Sections 104 and
121(f) of CERCLA. Subpart O of 40 CFR Part 35
provides additional detail on requirements for
transferring funds and responsibilities to states and
Indian tribes to undertake response actions, as. well as
on building their overall program capabilities.
The following sections describe response
agreements and Core Program cooperative
agreements (CPCAs) between EPA and states, tribes,
or political subdivisions because these agreements
serve as a tool to enable states to participate in the
Superfund cleanup process. In addition, FY95
highlights of EPA efforts to promote involvement of
states and Indian tribes in Superfund response
activities are provided.
Response Agreements and Core Program
Cooperative Agreements
5
Response agreements provide states, tribes, arid
political subdivisions with the opportunity to
participate in response activities at sites under their
jurisdiction. Superfund CPCAs assist states and
tribes in developing their overall Superfund response
capabilities. This section discusses each type of
agreement in detail.
Response Agreements
Response agreements fall into two categories:
Superfund state contract (SSCs) and cooperative
agreements (CAs). Both serve as the contractual
tools through which states, tribes, and political
subdivisions work with EPA to conduct or support
Superfund response activities.
SSCs and remedial action CAs document
assurances required from a state, tribe, or political
subdivision by CERCLA Section 104. Before EPA
provides funding to conduct a remedial action (RA)
in a state (i.e., a Fund-financed RA), for example, the
state must provide the Agency with the following
assurances, required by CERCLA Section 104 and
formalized in the SSC or remedial action CA:
Provide for 100 percent of RA operation and
maintenance;
Provide 10 percent of the RA cost;
Ensure the availability of a 20-year capacity for
the disposal or treatment of hazardous wastes;
Provide for off-site disposal, if necessary; arid
Acquire or accept transfer of interest in property,
if necessary.
Assurances are not required for Fund-financed
response actions that are not RAs. Where a state or
a political subdivision was an operator at the facility
at the time when hazardous substances were
disposed, however, the state must provide at least 50
percent of the cost of the removal, remedial planning,
and RA in cases where a CERCLA-funded RA is
conducted. Tribes are exempt from providing most
of the CERCLA assurances, but may need to provide
the assurance to acquire or accept interest in property
in Certain cases. The following sections describe
SSCs and CAs.
Superfund State Contracts: A state or tribe
must enter into an SSC with the Agency when EPA
conducts (i.e., is the lead for) a Fund-financed RA.
The SSC, which must be signed before EPA
conducts the RA, documents the CERCLA
assurances that have been made with a State or
Indian tribe. The SCC also includes provisions
detailing the cost-share required and specifying the
process for the collection of cost-share payments.
A three-party SSC among the state/political
subdivision/EPA is required when a political
subdivision assumes the lead for remedial activities.
The three-party SSC parties include EPA, the state,
and the political subdivision. The SSC must be in
67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
place before EPA can transfer funds, through a
remedial CA, to the political subdivision. Also,
although the political subdivision will conduct the
remedial activity, the state still is responsible for
providing.the requked CERCLA assurances in the
SSC.
Cooperative Agreements: Superfund CAs are
the vehicle through which EPA provides funds to
states, tribes, and political subdivisions to ensure
their meaningful involvement in implementing
Superfund. The following five types of response
CAs, describe*! in 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O, are
available for site-specific response activities:
Pre-remedial CAs are awarded to states, tribes,
and political subdivisions to conduct pre-
remedial activities, including preliminary
assessments (PAs) and Site Investigations (Sis).
Remedial CAs allow states, tribes, or political
subdivisions to receive Superfund money for
taking the lead in remedial planning, remedial
design (RD), and RAs at specified sites within
their jurisdiction. When a state or tribe takes the
lead for an RA, the remedial CA documents the
state or tribe's CERCLA Section 104 assurances,
and an SSC is not required. When a political
subdivision takes the lead for a remedial activity,
a three-way SSC must be signed. This three-way
SCC documents the state's CERCLA
assurances.
Removal CAs are awarded to states, tribes, or
political subdivisions that lead a non-time-
critical removal action (NTCR). Such actions
are taken when a planning period of more than
six months is available. Cost-share payment is
not requked (unless the facility was operated by
the state or political subdivision, as described
above), but EPA encourages cost-sharing for
removal actions that cost more than $2 million.
Enforcement CA funds may be used by a state,
tribe, or political subdivision to conduct
potentially responsible party (PRP) searches,
issue notice letters for negotiation activities,
implement administrative and judicial
enforcement actions, or oversee PRP response
actions. Subpart O contains specific
enforcement-related criteria that an applicant
must meet to be eligible for an enforcement CA.
Support agency cooperative agreements
(SACAs) allow states, tribes, and political
subdivisions that do not have lead-agency
responsibility to actively participate in response
activities at sites under their jurisdiction.
SACAs may assist the state, tribe, or political
subdivision in facilitating investigations,
response selection, and implementation through
the sharing of information and expertise. They
may not be used, however, to document
CERCLA assurances.
In addition to describing response CAs, 40 CFR
Part 35 Subpart O also specifies financial,
administrative, and other requirements with which a
state, tribe, or political subdivision must comply, in
order to receive funds. A multi-site cooperative
agreement, which has the same requirements as the
other types of agreements, is a multi-purpose
agreement that has been used to consolidate funding
for various response activities at different sites.
Core Program Cooperative Agreements
Congress has expressed the intent to include
CERCLA funding to states and tribes for certain
basic, or core, activities that are not attributable to a
specific site but are necessary to implement
CERCLA response capabilities. The legislative
history of CERCLA Section 104(d), as .amended,
demonstrates this intent to support the development
of Superfund infrastructure. Through CPCAs, EPA
offers states and tribes the opportunity to develop
comprehensive, self-sufficient Superfund programs.
CPCAs have a single budget and scope of work
designed to enhance state or tribal program activities.
Approval of the budget request and scope of work is
dependent on the continuing developmental needs of
a state or tribal program, demonstrated progress in
meeting previous core objectives, and funds
availability. States are required to provide a 10
percent cost-share for Core Program awards.
The Core Program is intended to lay the
groundwork for the implementation of an integrated
EPA/state/tribal approach for meeting Superfund
68
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
goals. EPA typically budgets and annually
distributes $10 million to $13 million among the 10
Regional offices for CPCAs. Regions also may
provide additional funding if resources are available.
Fiscal Year 1995 Highlights
From FY81 through FY95, EPA has awarded
nearly $1.7 billion in CAs to states, tribes, and
political subdivisions to assist them in participating
in Superfund response activities. This total includes
$160 million awarded in FY95 through site-specific
CAs. Remedial, removal, or enforcement CAs
enable states-, tribes, and political subdivisions to lead
new or continuing Fund-financed remedial
investigations and feasibility studies, RDs, and RAs
at Superfund sites during the fiscal year.
State Highlights
EPA continued to build the state/EPA
partnership through outreach initiatives with states.
These initiatives included meetings with states on
special topics of interest, such as soil screening
levels, integrated assessments, and communications
between EPA and state removal managers. EPA also
provided states with assistance to enhance their
Superfund programs by funding the participation of
60 representatives from 15 states in CERCLA
training. The state representatives attended two
sessions of state site managers' training that
addressed in the basics of the federal Superfund
program.
Under the administrative improvements initiative
to enhance states' role in cleanup, the Agency
continued developing the Superfund state deferral
program. Under this program, EPA may defer
consideration of certain sites for listing on the NPL,
while interested states or tribes compel and oversee
response actions conducted and funded by PRPs. In
FY95, five to seven sites served as pilots for the
deferral program in several states.
Tribal Highlights
In FY95, the Superfund program was actively
involved in addressing hazardous waste problems on
Native American lands and in assisting tribes to
assume regulatory and program management
responsibilities. Tribes received funding, technical
assistance, and training for Superfund
implementation through SSCs, CAs, SACAs,
CPCAs, and other agreements.
The development and enhancement of voluntary
cleanup programs is being promoted by EPA in
conjunction with states and tribes. Voluntary cleanup
programs encourage private parties to undertake
protective cleanups of contaminated sites. EPA is
developing guidance outlining the circumstances
under which it will agree to take no further action at
sites involved in the program. Ten states have signed
agreements with the EPA to encourage participation
in voluntary investigation and cleanup of properties
under state programs. In exchange, EPA agrees to
take no further action against program participants
except in limited circumstances.
7.2 Minority Firm Contracting
Section 105(f) of CERCLA requires EPA to
consider minority contractors for procurement
opportunities when awarding Superfund contracts,
encourage the participation of such firms in the
Superfund program, and report annually on the
number and types of minority contractors receiving
Superfund contracts.. EPA's Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) is
responsible for ensuring that the Agency complies
with Section 105(f) of CERCLA.
7.2.1 Minority Firm Contracting During
Fiscal Year 1995 -
EPA contracts include direct procurements
awarded by the Agency, and indirect procurements
that result from Superfund financial assistance
awards to states and other federal agencies (i.e.,
contracts and subcontracts resulting from CAs
awarded to the states and from interagency
agreements (lAGs) with other federal agencies).
During FY95, contracts worth over $147.4 million
were awarded to disadvantaged businesses and
minority contractors to perform Superfund work.
This amount represents 10.1 percent of all Superfund
contracts, which exceeds the 8 percent goal
established by the Administrative Provisions of P.L.
103-389. As Exhibit 7.2-1 illustrates, EPA's CAs
69
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Exhibit 7.2-1
Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1995
Type of Activity
Direct Procurement
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements2
Total
Minority Contractor Percentage of
Total Dollars Obligated Participation1 Total
$1,144,840,000
84,061,710
228,095,276
$1,456,996,986
'This does not include women's business enterprise
^This amount represents the total dollars awarded in
$121,150,650
511,134
25,739,898
$147,401,682
participation.
FY95 through interagency agreements.
10.58
.61
1 1 .30
10.12
Source: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
with states resulted in contracts worth over $511,000
to minority contractors. Other federal agencies
awarded over $25 million in contracts, subcontracts,
and purchase orders to minority firms with funds
transferred from the Superfund program under lAGs.
Through the Agency's direct procurements,
minority business enterprises (MBEs) received
$121.2 million in Superfund contracts and
subcontracts. This total was awarded through
various contracting methods (i.e., Small Business
Administration 8(a) awards and subcontracts).
Minority firms provide three types of services to
the Superfund program: professional, field support,
and construction. Exhibit 7.2-2 illustrates examples
of tasks performed under each category.
7.2.2 Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority
Firms
OSDBU conducted a number of outreach
activities during FY95 to encourage qualified
minority firms to seek contract and subcontract
opportunities through the Superfund program. These
activities included the following:
NAMC and OSDBU conducted six training
sessions designed to help minority contractors
become more successful in winning Superfund
direct prime contract and subcontract awards. A
total of 150 attendees participated in the training
sessions. In addition, 40 registrants attended the
marketing seminar and several hundred
"individuals visited the various booths at a trade
fair for minority contractors held in conjunction
with Congressional Black Caucus Week.
Exhibit 7.2-2
Services Provided by Minority Contractors
Professional
Reid Support
Construction
Health Assessments
Community Relations
Feasibility Studies
Data Management Security
Geophysical Surveys
Remedial Investigations
Expert Witness
Editing
Air Quality Monitoring
Drilling/Well Installation
Laboratory Analysis
Site Cleanup
Excavations
Waste Hauling & Drilling
Security
Site Support
Facilities
Source: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
70
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA, in cooperation with the Colorado District
SBA Office and the Genesis Environmental
Team (GET), conducted several seminars to
provide information on Superfund contracting
and subcontracting opportunities in the Colorado
region, and to increase minority participation in
Superfund contracting. More than 200 minority
and. women businesses were represented at these
sessions. Directories of qualified minority firms
were distributed to encourage their utilization by
prime contractors and government agencies!
7.2.3 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal
Agencies and Departments to Use
Minority Firms '
OSDBU continues to work with other federal
agencies to enhance participation of minority
contractors in the Superfund program. Throughout
the fiscal year, federal agencies held numerous
conferences, workshops, and seminars to encourage
minority business participation in the Superfund
program.
lAGs between EPA and any agency or
department that involve Superfund monies also
contain provisions to ensure that agencies or
departments are aware of the requirements of
CERCLA Section 105(f). In addition, the special
provisions require that agencies or departments
undertaking Superfund work submit an annual report
to EPA on minority, contractor utilization.
71
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix A
Status of Remedial
Investigations, Feasibility
Studies, and Remedial Actions
at Sites on the National
Priorities List in Progress on
September 30, 1995
Appendix A satisfies the combined statutory
requirements of CERCLA Sections 301(h)(l)(B)
and (F). Accordingly, this appendix reports the
status and estimated completion date of all1
remedial investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS) and
remedial action (RA) Title I projects in progress at
the end of FY95. This appendix also provides
notice of RI/FSs and RAs that EPA presently
believes will not meet its previously published
schedule for completion, and includes, new
estimated dates of completion, as required by
Section 301(h)(l)(C). These dates were previously
published in Appendix A of Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994. In
addition to meeting these statutory requirements,
this appendix lists new remedial projects that were
begun in FY94 and were in process at the end of
FY95. Listed activities may include remedial
projects at several operable units on a single site,
as well as first and subsequent activities at a single
operable unit.
. Information in the appendix is organized under
the following headings:
RG- EPA region in which the site is located.
ST - State in which the site is located.
Site Name-Name of the site, as listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Location - Location of the site, as listed on
the NPL.
Operable Unit - Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring; a
single site may include more than one operable
unit.
Activity - Type of project in progress on
September 30,1995.
Lead - The entity leading the activity, as
follows:
EP: Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;
A-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;
FE: EPA enforcement program-lead;
FF: Federal facility-lead;
MR: Mixed funding; monies from both the
Fund and potentially responsible parties
(PRPs);
PRP: PRP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the
PRP under a state order (may include federal
financing or federal oversight under an
enforcement document);
Sk' State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include
federal financing).
, Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS) database, O
(other), SN (state-lead and financed, no Fund
money), and SR (state-ordered PRP response
activities), are excluded from this status report
because they do not include federal financing.
For some activities, the indicated lead is
followed by an asterisk (*), which indicates that
funding for the activity was taken over by the
indicated lead during FY95.
Funding Start - The date on which funds
were allocated for the activity.
Previous Completion Schedule - For
projects ongoing at the end of FY94 that
continued into FY95, the quarter and fiscal
year of the planned completion date for the
activity, as of 9/30/95. This column is blank
for projects that were begun in FY94.
Present Completion Schedule - The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion of
the activity, as of 9/30/95. This information
was compiled from CERCLIS on 11/15/95.
An initial completion schedule is required to
be put into CERCLIS when an activity is entered.
Plans at this point are based on little site
knowledge. As work continues, schedules are
adjusted to reflect actual site conditions.
A-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund:: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX.A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
ST
GU
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
SITE NAME
Anderson Air Force Base
Barkhamsted-New Hartford
Landfill
Beacon Heights Landfill
Gallup's Quarry
Keltog-Deering Well Field
New Londbn Submarine Base
.
Raymark Industries, Inc.
Solvents Recovery Service of New
England
Atlas Tack Corp.
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
LOCATION
YIGO
Barkhamsted
Beacon Falls
Plainfield
Norwa Ik-
New London
Stratford
South ington
Fairhaven
Holbrook
Tyngsborough
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
02
01
02
' '03
02
03
04
05
01
03
03
01
02
03
04
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/30/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
09/30/91
03/31/92
09/07/93
12/29/94
05/16/90
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
07/27/95
09/20/93
08/12/88
09/18/89
06/26/90
09/30/91
04/20/95
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
4
2001
2000
1997
2000
2002
2003
1995
1995
1996
1999
1997
1996
1997
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997
.1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
3
3
.3
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
4
4
2
2001
2000
1997
2000
2002
2003
1996
1996
1997
1996
1999
1997
1997
1998
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1995
1995
1998
Landfill
A-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION
1 MA Fort Devens Fort Devens
1 MA Fort Devens - Sudbury Training Fort Devens
Annex
1 MA ' Groveland Wells Groveland
1 HA Hocomonco Pond Uestborough
1 MA Industri-Plex (Mark Philips Woburn
Trust)
1 MA Iron Horse Park Billerica
1 MA Materials Technology Laboratory Uatertown
(USARMY)
1 MA New Bedford Site New Bedford
1 MA Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Ashland
1 MA Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Falmouth
Edwards
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
04
05
06
07
03
04
05
02
02
01
02
01
03
01
01
03
04
02
03
05
06
07
08
09
10
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
.RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
05/13/91
08/31/92
08/11/95
08/31/92
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/13/91
06/15/93
06/15/93
11/02/92
06/02/93
05/18/92
12/08/89
07/15/91
01/31/90
05/05/95
02/15/85
09/28/93
02/18/93
1.0/15/92
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
09/21/93
07/17/91
02/01/93
03/02/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
3
4
2
1
4
3
1
1
4
4
1
2
1
3
1995
1995
1996
1997
1996
1995
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1997
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
2
1
1
3
1
4
2
4
1
4
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
4
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1996
1996
1998
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1998
1998
1998
A-4
-------
Progress Toward Impleraentjng Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
'ME
ME
ME
NH
NH
NH
NH
SITE NAME
Re-Solve, Inc.
Shpack Landfill
W.R. Grace & Co., Inc.
Wells G&H
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Lor ing Air Force Base
Saco Municipal Landfill
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Ui nth rop Landfill
Fletcher's Paint Works
New Hampshire Plating Co.
Pease Air Force Base
Tinkham Garage
LOCATION
Dartmouth
Norton/Attleboro
Acton
Woburn
Brunswick
Limestone
Saco
South Hope
Winthrop
Milford
Merrimack
Portsmouth/Newington
Londonderry
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
05
07
03
04
05
07
08
09
10
14
15
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
02
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
PRP.
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/05/93
09/24/90
09/03/93
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
12/06/94
06/22/90
06/22/90
05/09/91
05/09/91
05/09/91
02/10/95
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/13/95
03/16/95
09/26/95
04/05/95
04/28/94
07/29/90
07/14/92
09/20/94
02/07/94
02/07/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
2
1
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1995
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
1996
1999
PRESENT .
COMPLETION
SCHPnni F
4
3
4
' 4
2
2
1
2
4
2
4
4
.1
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
3
4
4
2
3
1995
1997
1996
2000
1998
1998
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
.1996 '
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1998
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
A-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS OH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
ST
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
VT
VT
VT
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Central Landfill
Davis (GSR) Landfill
Davis Liquid Waste
Davisville Naval Construction Batt
Center
Landfill & Resource Recovery, Inc.
(L&RR)
Newport Naval Education/Training
Center
Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Bennington Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Burgess Brothers Landfill
Pine Street Canal
American Cyanamid Co.
Asbestos Dump
Bridgeport Rental SOU
LOCATION
Johnston
Smithfield
Smithfield
North Kingstown
North Smithfield
Newport '
South Kingstown
Bennington
Woodford
Burlington
Bound Brook
Millington
Bridgeport
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
02
04
05
01
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
04
05
02
03
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
. RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
.RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
PRP
F
F
FF
ff
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
SE
SE
F
.FF
F
FUNDING
START
08/25/94
09/27/90
04/27/88
03/23/92
01/04/95
03/23/92
03/23/92
06/23/94
12/27/94
' 12/27/93
03/23/92
03/23/92
09/30/90
06/28/91
08/27/91
07/22/94
05/28/88
05/28/88
08/31/93
01/24/91
1
04/19/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
1
2
4
4
4
2
1
1996
1996
1996
1995
1997
1996
1997
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
. 1
1
4
1
4'
4
4
4
3
1
1
4
2
3
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1996
1996
1998
1996
2000
2001
1995
1996
1996
Services
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATES, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Burnt Fly Bog
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Chemsol, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (TOMS RIVER
CHEMICAL)
Combe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Corp.
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
D'Imperio Property
Diamond Alkali Co.
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ewan Property
Fair Lawn Well Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
LOCATION
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Pi scat away
Toms River
Chester Township
Beverly
Saddle Brook
Township
Hamilton Township
Newark
Dover Township
Shamong Township
Fair Lawn
Atlantic City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY
02
03
01
02
03
03
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
01
07
08
09
10
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
'
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS .
LEAD
S
S .
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/29/94
09/30/88
05/12/93
03/29/85
06/16/95
09/13/95
07/15/85
09/28/90
07/05/89
09/28/90
09/29/94
04/21/95
05/10/94
. 04/20/94
07/06/93
08/16/94
09/30/92
08/19/92
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
4
1
2
3
r
1
4
1
2
4
2
3
4
1
1
1
1996
1996
1994
1993
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
1
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
4
1
1
1997
1998
1996
1997
1997
. 1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
A-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS Of REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
SITE NAME
Florence Land Recontouring
Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Franklin Burn
.Glen Ridge Radium Site
Goose Farm
LOCATION
Florence Township
Pemberton
Township
Franklin Township
Glen Ridge
Plumstead
Township
OPER-
ABLE-
UNIT ACTIVITY
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
01
RA
RA
. RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
S
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/29/89
08/06/92
06/19/91
10/01/92
09/30/92
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/30/92
08/27/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
1
4
2
4
4
1995
1996
1996
1996
1998
1995
1998
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
X 1
2
4
2
4
2
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1995
1998
1996
.2 NJ Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown
Plant)
2 NJ Higgins Disposal
2 NJ Higgins Farm
2 NJ Hopkins Farm
2 NJ Imperial Oil Co., Inc./Champion
Chemicals
2 NJ Industrial Latex Corp.
2 NJ Kauffman & Minteer, Inc.
2 NJ Kin-Buc Landfill
Gibbstown
Kingston
02 RI/FS PS 07/02/86 1 1996 4 1996
01 RI/FS F 05/17/90 1 1996 4 1996
Franklin Township
Plumstead
Township
Morganville
Wai I ing ton
Borough
Jobstown
Edison Township
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
01
01
02
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
F
F
PS
S
S
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
03/17/95
02/06/95
02/03/87
09/29/94
09/28/84
04/28/95
09/30/93
04/11/89
06/23/93
06/10/94
3
1
3
4
2
2
2
1994
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1
3
3
1
3
1
4
1
2
2
1997
1996
1996
1998
1995
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
A-8
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ .
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ.
SITE NAME
King of Prussia
Lang Property
Li pan' Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
Metal tec/Aerosystems
Monitor Devices/Intercircuits,
Inc.
Montclair/West Orange Radium
Site
Nascolite Corp.
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Weapons Station
Picatinny Arsenal
Renora, Inc.
Rockaway Borough Well Field
LOCATION
Winslow Township
Pemberton
Township
Pitman
Maywood/Rochelle
Park
Franklin Borough
Wall Township
Montclair/West
Orange
Millville
Lakehurst
Colts Neck
Rockaway Township
Edison Township
Rockaway Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
18
19
20
21
23
01
02
03
04
02
03
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA.
RI/FS
RA '
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
07/22/94
09/30/92
09/30/88
12/29/93
09/21/87
07/21/90
03/29/91
03/12/92
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/30/92
06/15/95
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
08/30/94
09/27/90
10/01/92
10/01/92
05/28/93
08/25/95
09/30/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
1995
1996
1999
1995
1995
1996
1998
1995
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
1998
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
. 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
4
4
4.-
1
1
1995
1997
1999
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
1995
1998
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1998
1997
2000
1996
1997
A-9
-------
Progress Toward Inplewenting Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
' NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Roebling Steel Co.
Sayreville Landfill
Scientific Chemical Processing
Shei Id Alloy Corp.
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
U.S. Radium Corp.
UR Grace & Co. Inc. /Wayne Interim
Storage Site
Williams Property ,
American Thermostat Co.
Applied Environmental Services
Batavia Landfill
Brewster Well Field
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(USDOE)
LOCATION
Florence
Sayreville
'Carlstadt
Newfield Borough
Pennsauken
South Kearny
Orange
Wayne Township
Swainton
South Cairo
Glenwood Landing
Batavia
Putnam County
Upton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
02
02
02
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PS
PRP
PS
PRP
S
F
FF
S
F
F
PS
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/29/92
11/26/91
12/19/88
10/05/88
09/07/88
05/23/89
09/01/89
07/21/90
.06/30/93
08/07/92
06/30/93
03/28/94
04/20/95
09/23/87
05/11/93
12/14/94
06/30/94
11/19/91
10/29/93
06/02/94
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
4
1
3
1
3
1
4
2
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1998
1995
1997
1998
1996
1997
1997
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
1
2
2
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
4
2
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1994
1993
1996
1995
1997
1999
1998
1996
1996
1997
1998
1998
1996
1997
1997
2 NY Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Port Jervis
02
RI/FS
PRP
07/31/92 1. 1996 3 1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychemical
Colesvill-e Municipal Landfill
Conklin Dumps
Endicott Village Well Field
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Subdivision
Fulton Terminals
General Motors (Central Foundry
Division)
Genzale Plating Co.
Griff iss. Air Force Base
LOCATION
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town, of Colesville
Conklin
Village of
Endicott
Town of Shelby
Elmira
Niagara Falls
Fulton
Massena
Franklin Square
Rome
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01 .
03
04
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07 .
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
F
F
F
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/30/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
09/30/93
07/14/94
07/06/93
08/16/95
03/06/95
05/02/94
05/22/86
09/30/92
09/29/94
03/31/95
06/21/95
06/14/95
09/30/94
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1992
1996
1999
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996 .
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1995
1996
1998
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1992
1996
1996
1997
1999
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
2 NY Hooker (Hyde Park)
Niagara Falls
01
RA
PRP 08/15/87 1 1996
1 1997
A-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Ye.ar 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STl/DIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY .
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Hooker (South Area)
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Hudson River PCBs
I slip Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Johnstown City Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Li Tungsten Corp.
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Love Canal
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
LOCATION
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Town of Johnstown
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Horseheads
Glen Cove
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
Malta
Glen Cove
North Sea
Oyster Bay
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
03
02
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
07
08
01
04
05
06
02
or
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
S
S
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PS
FUNDING
START
11/02/90
12/09/93
11/02/90
09/23/94
07/25/90
03/31/95
06/23/95
03/29/91
03/26/91
08/08/91
08/26/92
09/28/90
02/09/87
06/26/87
11/10/89
09/30/93
06/30/93
06/30/93
07/27/89
11/13/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
1
1
4
2
3
3
3
1
3
1
4
4
4
1
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1998
1996
1995
1997
1995
1995
1992
1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
4
1
2
4
1
4
2
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
4
1
1998
1997
1999
1996
1997
1999
1998
1997
1995
1996
1997
1996
1998
1996
1996
1998
1996
1997
1992
1993
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Onondaga Lake
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
Ramapo Landfill
Richardson Hill Road Landf I I/Pond
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
Sarney Farm
Seneca Army Depot
Sinclair Refinery.
Syosset Landfill
Tri-Cities Barrel Co., Inc.
Vestal Water Supply Well
1-1
Volney Municipal Landfill
Warwick Landfill
LOCATION
Syracuse
Plattsburgh
Port Washington
Farmingdale
Ramapo
Sidney Center
Cortland
Amen i a
Romulus
Wellsville
Oyster Bay
Port Crane
Vestal
Town of Volney
Warwick
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY
01
05
06
07
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
02
02
01
02
02
01
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
' LEAD
PS
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PS
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/10/93
04/23/91
06/04/92
10/01/92
03/31/95
01/31/92
06/20/94
07/22/87
01/04/90
03/31/92
03/19/90
04/29/91
03/31/95
03/30/95
06/19/95
09/20/95
03/03/95
11/15/90
05/14/92
09/30/94
09/28/90
08/25/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
4
1
1998
1995
1996
1996
2007
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
1
3
1
1
2
3
1
.4
2
3
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
2007
1996
1997
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
2000
1996
1996
1997
1997
2000
1997
A-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 '
3
3
3
ST
NY
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
VI
VI
DE
DE
DE
SITE NAME '
York Oi I Co.
*
Barceloneta Landfill
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Naval Security Group Activity
Upjohn Facility
Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells
Island Chemical Corp/V.I. Chemical
Corp
Tutu Wellfield.
Delaware City PVC Plant (Stauffer
Chemical Co.)
Delaware Sand & Gravel -Llangollen/A
rmy Creek Landfill)
Dover Air Force Base
LOCATION
Warwick
Florida Afuera
Jobos
Sabana Seca
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
Tutu
Tutu
Delaware City
New Castle
County
Dover
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01.
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
03
04
02
06
07
08
09
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
Rt/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
10/17/94
05/21/92
09/28/90
09/28/95
03/19/92
10/01/92
04/19/89
02/11/92
09/18/92
10/23/90,
09/29/94
02/19/92
06/30/95
07/28/93
06/29/95
08/09/94
09/20/93
09/20/93
09/20/93
09/20/93
PREVIOUS .
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
3
4
1
4
3
4
2
2
2
2
.
1996
1996
1996
1994
1994
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
4
4
4
4.
1
3
. 4
4
2
2
2
2
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1994
1994
1995
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
3 DE E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Co.(Newport Pigment plant
LdF
Newport
01
RA
PRP 09/29/95
1 1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG ST
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 PA
3 PA
SITE NAME
Halby Chemical Co.
(Coppers Co., Inc. (Newport
Plant)
New Castle Spill (once listed as
TRIS Spill)
Tyler Refrigeration Pit
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
Area)
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
(Michaelsville Landfill)
Kane & Lombard Street Drums
Limestone Road
Sand, Gravel & stone
AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
Austin Avenue Radiation
Site
LOCATION
New Castle
Newport
New Castle
County
Smyrna
Edgewood
Aberdeen
Baltimore
Cumberland
Elkton
Glen Rock
Deleware County
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
02
06
07
08
09
10
11
02
03
05
06
02
01
02
03
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF .
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
12/20/91
09/26/91
09/29/92
03/29/91
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
12/05/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
08/30/91
07/16/93
03/29/94
02/28/90
05/18/95
03/01/89
12/13/94
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETIO
SCHEDULE enucniii e
4 1995
3
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
2
1
1997
1999
1997
1996
. 1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1994
1995
' 1995
1996
3 1996
1
- 1
1
4
4
2
4
3
3
4
1
1
4
3
2
4
2
2
1
1
1998
1999
1997
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
1996
1999
3 PA Bally Ground Water Contamination
Bally Borough
01
RA
PRP 02/17/95
1996
A-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A .
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS," FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Berks Landfill
Blosenski Landfill
Boarhead Farms
Brodhead Creek
Butler Mine Tunnel
Craig Farm Drum
Crater Resources/Keystone
Coke/Alan Wood
Crossley Farm
CryoChem, Inc.
Delta Quarries & Disposal, Inc.
(Stotler Landfill)
Dorney Road Landfill
Drake Chemical
Dublin TCE Site
LOCATION
Bridgewater
Township
Denver
Spring Township
West Cain
Township
Bridgeton
Township
Stroudsburg
Pittston
Parker
Upper Her ion
Township
Hereford Township
Uorman
Ant is/Logan
Townships
Upper Macungie
Township
Lock Haven
Dublin Borough
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
04
05
01
01
04
01.
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/15/92
03/10/94
. 06/23/94
03/12/90
06/26/91
04/29/95
12/05/89
05/04/94
03/30/87
09/27/93
09/07/94
09/27/94
09/30/93
06/07/95
06/14/95
09/30/91
08/15/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
4
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
-
19.95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
4
3
1
3-
3
4
3
4
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1995
1995
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1996
A-16
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal' Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
East Mount Zion
Elizabethtown Landfill
Fischer & Porter Co.
Havertown PCP
Hellertoun Manufacturing
Co.
Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting and
Refining Inc.
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Letterkenny Army Depot (Property
Disposal Office Area)
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
Lord-Shope Landfill
MW Manufacturing
Malvern TCE
McAdoo Associates
Metal Banks
Metropolitan Mirror and
LOCATION
Springettsbury
Township
Elizabethtown
Warm i.nster
Haverford
Hellertown
Ma it-land
Union Township
Franklin County
Chambersburg
Girard Township
Valley Township
Malvern
McAdoo Borough
Philadelphia
Frackville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
01
02
03
' 02
01
. 02
02
01
02
03
01
04
01
02
01
01
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PRP
F
>
F
F
F .
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
09/30/94
09/28/90
02/20/92
08/15/91
09/22/93
08/28/90
04/21/94
02/03/89
09/08/93
02/03/89
02/03/89
07/20/94
11/07/94
03/16/94
08/02/94
05/29/91
09/19/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
1997
1995
1995 .
1995
1997
1995
1996
1995
1994
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
4
2
3
3
4
1
3
4
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
Glass
A-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supcrfunci: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, -1995
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Middletown Air Field
Mill Creek Dump
Modern Sanitation Landfill
Moyers Landfill
Naval Air Development Center (8
waste centers)
North Penn-Area 12
North Penn-Area 6 (J.U. Rex/Allied
Paint/Keystone hydra
Ohio River Park
Old City of York Landfill
Osborne Landfill
.
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Publicker Industries Inc.
Revere Chemical Co.
LOCATION
Middletown
Erie
Lower Windsor.
Township
Eagleville
Warminster
Township
Township
Lansdale
Neville Island
Seven Valleys
Grove City
Palmerton
Philadelphia
Nockamixon
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
05
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
04
02
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP "
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
04/25/94
02/28/94
02/01/92
05/04/92
09/28/95
09/29/88
01/15/95
06/14/94
06/27/94
' 12/23/91
05/11/95
09/28/93
10/16/91
05/08/95
01/24/95
10/31/92
07/31/88
08/12/88
09/21/89
12/16/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
4
1
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
1
2
1997
1996
1995
1995
.1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1999
1997
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
1
3
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
4
3
1
1
1997
1997
2005
1997
1998
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1998
1996
1999
1997
1995
1996
3 PA River Road Landfill (Waste
Management, Inc.)
Hermitage
01
RI/FS
PRP 05/05/90 3 1995
1' 1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES, '
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST SITE NAME
PA Rodale Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
PA Saegerton Industrial Area
PA Strasburg Landfill
PA Tobyhanna Army Depot
PA Tysons Dump
PA Walsh Landfill
PA Uestinghouse Elevator Co. (Sharon
Plant)
VA Avtex Fibers, Inc.
VA C&R Battery Co., Inc.
VA Culpeper Wood Preservers,
Inc.
VA Defense General Supply Center
LOCATION
Emraaus Borough
Saegertown
Newlin Township
Toby Hanna
Upper Merion
Township
Honeybrqok
Township
Sharon
Front Royal
Chesterfield
County
Culpeper
Chesterfield
County
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
04
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
01
01
04
01
04
06
07
08
01
01
02
04
06
07
08
09
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS '
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
F
PS
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/22/92
08/08/95
01/14/92
09/27/90
09/27/90
09/27/90
06/22/93
06/22/93
06/22/93
06/22/93
07/15/93
06/03/88
05/01/90
09/20/88
07/22/91
09/27/90
03/30/93
06/19/95
04/28/92
06/16/93
09/21/90
09/21/90
10/11/91
10/11/91
10/11/91
12/31/94
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCNFniiiP crHcnnic
2
3
4
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
3
1
1996
1997
1994
1996
1995
1994
1995
1997
1996
1998
1998
1997
1995
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1
4
- 3
2
1
2
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
3
1
3
1
1
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1998
1998
1998
1996
1996
1997
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
A-I9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
SITE NAME
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
Greenwood Chemical Co.
L.A. Clarke & Son
Langley Air Force Base/NASA
Lang ley Cntr
Naval Surface Warfare -
Dahlgren
Naval Weapons Station -
Yorktown
Rinehart Tire Fire Dump
Saltville Waste Disposal
Ponds
U.S. Titanium
Allegany Ballistics Laboratory
(USNAVY)
Fike Chemical
LOCATION
Salem
Newton
Spotsylvania
County
Hampton
Dahlgren
Yorktown
Frederick
County
Saltville
Piney River
Mineral
Nitro
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
03
01
02
03
04
02
03
04
01
02
03 .
02
04
01
01
02
04
06
07
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/15/94
09/29/94
08/07/90
12/14/92
12/16/93
12/13/93
12/13/93
12/13/93
12/13/93
07/25/94
. 07/14/95
04/30/95
09/29/89
08/26/94
06/17/94
04/27/93
09/15/88
08/18/94
11/10/94
12/20/94
09/30/94
08/28/95
05/18/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
1
1995
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
2
1
4
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
3
4
4
1
3
1
1996
1997
1996
1998
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
3 WV Follansbee Site
Foltansbee
01
RI/FS
PRP
09/27/90 1 1996 1 1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
WV Ordnance Works Disposal Morgantown
Areas
WV West Virginia Ordnance point Pleasant
AL Alabama Army Ammunition Childersbura
Plant '
AL Anniston Army Depot (Southeast Anniston
Industrial Area) ,
AL Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Mclntosh
Plant)
AL 01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant) Mclntosh
AL Redstone Arsenal (USARMY/NASA) Huntsvill'e
AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne Axis
Plant)
AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Bucks
Plant)
ABLE
UNIT
02
04
08
09
10
11
12
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
02
01
05
02
03
01
01
01
02
02
04
01
01
04
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
EP
PRP
EP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F*
FUNDING
START
06/04/90
05/26/95
09/28/93
09/28/93
01/24/95
01/04/94
11/24/94
01/04/95
10/02/94
09/27/94
09/29/94
09/27/94
08/01/94
05/04/92
12/12/90
' 09/28/89
05/21/93
06/17/94
05/21/93
05/17/95
09/27/89
08/18/93
01/05/90
12/31/92
05/21/93
09/27/89
09/27/93
05/21/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
3
3
2
3
2
1
1
4
3
3
1
4
1
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
1
1996
1998
1998
1998
1996
1996
1998
1997
1996
1996
2000
1995
2000
1999
1999
1995
1995
2000
1999
1999
2000
PRESENT "
COMPLETION
2
2
3
- 2
3
3
3
3
4
2
1
3
1
4
3
1
1
2
1
3
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
1
1997
1996
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1995
1997
1997
1996
1998
. 1997
1997
2019
2000
1996
2000
1998
1999
1999
1996
1998
2000
1999
1999
2000
A-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
Rfi
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
Agrico Chemical Co.
BMI Textron
Broward County --21st Manor
Dump
Cabot/Koppers
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho
Division)
Davie Landfill
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Escambia Uood-Pensaco I a
Florida Steel Corp.
Helena Chemical Co.
LOCATION
Montgomery
Pensacola
Lake Park
Fort Lauderdale
Gainesville
Jackspnville
Orlando
Davie
Cantonment
Pensacola
Indiantown
Tampa
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
03
04
05
07
01
02
01
00
01
02
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
"RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
.PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
'F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
START
07/14/94
09/23/94
03/24/95
03/02/93
12/29/93
09/29/93
09/23/94
05/17/94
12/12/89
02/02/95
02/02/95
10/22/90
02/18/92
02/18/92
06/02/94
01/25/93
07/28/95
02/16/93
09/20/94
09/21/94
06/12/95
09/02/92
11/06/92
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
4
1
4
3
2
1
1
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
1995
1997
>
2000
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1999
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
2
4
1
1
3
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
4
1996
1997
1998
2000
1995
1996
1999
1996
1995
1996
1998
1999
1997
1997
1999
1995
1996
1995
1997
1996
1996
1995
1995
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION
4 FL Homestead Air Force Base Homestead
4 FL Jacksonville Naval Air Station Jacksonville
4 FL Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal Tampa
(once listed as Timber Lake
Battery Disposal)
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
05
07
OS
09
01
01
02
02
03
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
05/21/93
10/08/90
03/20/95
07/01/92
03/06/95
12/17/93
09/02/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
4
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
2000
1997
1997
1997
1996
4 FL Madison County Sanitary
Landfill
4 FL Munisport Landfill
4 FL Peele-Dixie Uellfteld Site
4 FL Pensacola Naval Air Station
Madison
North Miami
Fort Lauderdale
Pensacota
01
RA
PRP 02/07/95
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
1 . 1997
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
06/05/95
02/16/94
11/01/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
06/24/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
11/29/93
11/29/93
11/29/93
2
2
3
3
4
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
4
4
4
4
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
1998
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997.
1997
A-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
SITE NAME
Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.
Petroleum Products Corp.
Pickettville Road Landfill
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sherwood Medical Industries
Stauffer Chemical Co (Tarpon
Springs)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Tower Chemical Co.
Uhitehouse Oil Pits
Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator
Dump .
Yellow Water Road Dump
Zellwood Ground Uater Contamination
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
Diamond. Shamrock Corp. Landfill
LCP Chemicals Georgia
LOCATION
Medley
Pembroke Park
Jacksonville
Cottondale
Plant City
Deland
Tarpon Springs '
Tampa
Clermont
Uhitehouse
Fort Lauderdale
Baldwin
Zellwood
Cedartown
Cedartown
Brunswick
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
02
01
01
03
'. 01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F .
F
PRP
PRP
F
MR
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/26/87
09/15/89
09/30/93
03/10/93
09/30/90
06/24/92
06/07/94
06/25/93
. 07/28/92
09/02/92
12/12/92
03/22/94
' 04/15/94
09/27/91
06/17/95
09/21/92
T1/04/94
06/29/95
07/06/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
1
3
4
3
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
2
2
1995
1996
1996
V.
1996
1995
1995
1997
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
1
3
4
3
1
2
2
3
4
4
2
2
2
2
3
4
1
1995
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1997
1995
1997
2015
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL.INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME
GA Marine Corps Logistics Base
GA Marzone Inc. /Chevron Chemical.
Co.
GA Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
GA T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Co.
KY Airco
KY B.F. Goodrich
KY Distler Brickyard
KY National Electric Coil/Cooper
Industries
KY National Southwire Aluminum
Co.
KY Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Albany 01
01
02
03
04
Tifton 02
Houston County 01
02
Albany 02
Cat vert City 01
Calvert City 01
West Point 01
. Dayhoit 01
. Hawesville 01
Paducah 01
04
05
06
07
08
10.
11
13
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
XRA
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
.RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
. FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/23/91
12/30/94
07/23/91
11/29/93
09/15/92
04/15/95
12/31/91
08/02/94
01/20/93
09/29/95
09/29/95
09/28/88
02/25/93
12/12/94
04/10/89
08/12/93
09/10/92
03/27/95
07/09/93
03/29/95
04/27/93
06/28/93
07/25/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
3
3
2
1
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
4
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
1999
1995
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
4
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
4
4
4
3
1
4
2
3
1
4
3
4
3
3
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1996
1997
1997
2000
1995
1996
1999
1997
1996
1996
1999
1998
1999
1999
1997
A-25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
KY
KY
MS
MS
NC
.NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Red Penn Sanition Co. Landfill
Smith's Farm
Chemfax, Inc.
Newson Brothers/Old Reichhold
Chemicals, Inc.
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Battery Tech (Duracell-Lexington)
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum
Storage
Chemtronics, Inc.
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air
LOCATION
Peewee Valley
Brooks
Gulf port
Columbia
Aberdeen
Lexington
Ons I OH County
Fayetteville
Cordova
Swannanoa
Havelock
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
05
01
02
03
05
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
01
01
01
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
'RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
EP*
PRP
PRP
PRP*
FF
FF ;
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF.
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
08/18/89
05/20/93
09/07/94
10/21/94
03/21/94
09/09/94
03/20/95
01/27/95
08/21/91
06/08/94
06/30/93
12/02/91
04/13/92
07/21/95
04/04/94
04/04/94
06/23/95
09/29/94
06/28/94
06/10/91
07/12/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
1
4
3
3
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
4
1994
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
2000
2000
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
3
1
3
2
1
4
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
1996
1995
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
2000
2000
1996
1996
Station
NC DAVIS PARK ROAD TCE SITE
NEED TO IDENTIFY
01
RI/FS
06/29/95
2 1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
FCX, Inc. (Statesvi lie Plant)
Jadco- Hughes Facility
(Coppers Co., Inc (Morrisville
Plant)
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco,
Inc.
National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
North Carolina State University
(Lot 86, Farm Unit #1)
Potter's Septic Tank Service
Pits
Aqua-Tech Environmental Inc (Groce
Labs)
Calhoun Park/Ansonborough
Home
Carolavm, Inc.
Geiger (C & M Oil)
Golden Strip Septic Tank
Service
Koppers Co., Inc (Florence
Plant)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston
Plant)
Statesvi lie
Belmont
Morrisville .
Charlotte
Salisbury
Raleigh
' Maco
Greer
Charleston
Fort Lawn
Rantoules
Siropsonville
Florence
Charleston
03
01
01
01
01
01
.01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
. RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
06/25/93
06/20/95
06/22/95
09/25/89
06/27/90
03/31/92
09/23/94
09/26/95
01/22/93
05/12/93
03/31/92
; 01/19/94
02/28/94
02/29/88
01/14/93
3
2
2
1
3
2
4
1
2
4
2
1995
V
1999
1999 '
1997
1995
1995 .
1994
1996
1995
1994
1995
3
4
3
2
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
1995
2001
1999'
1999
1999
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1995
A-27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
4 SC Leonard Chemical Co., Inc. Rock Hill 01
4 . SC Palmetto Wood Preserving Dixiana 02
4 SC SCRDI Bluff Road Columbia 01
4 SC Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile Pickens 01
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB
4 SC Savannah River Site (USDOE) Aiken 04
05
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
31
32
36
37
38
39
40
44
45 -
46
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS .
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
' FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF .
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
12/13/90
09/25/89
06/22/94
11/22/93
02/28/90
02/28/90
01/09/91
03/06/91
06/07/91
07/01/91
07/01/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
07/01/91
08/05/91
10/31/91
10/28/91
03/25/92
10/21/91
02/25/92
02/05/92
07/15/92
08/15/92
08/23/95
07/16/90
08/06/90
12/29/89
08/05/91
01/31/95
03/31/95
03/31/95
12/29/89
02/15/92
05/15/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
4
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
4
3
1
1
1
4
1995
1995
1994
1994
1996
1996
1995
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997.
1998
1998
1996
1998
1997
1996
1996
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
3
1
2
2
4
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
3
1
2
. 2
1
1
1
4
2
1
1996
1996
1995
1997
1997
1997
1995
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1999
1995
.1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME
SC shuron Inc
SC Townsend Saw Chain Co.
SC Wamchem, Inc.
TN American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Jackson Plant)
TN Arlington Blending &-Packaging
TN Carrier Air Conditioning
Co.
TN Mallory Capacitor Co.
TN Memphis Defense Depot (DLA)
.
TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant
.
TN North Hollywood Dump
TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
LOCATION
Barnwell
Pontiac
Burton
Jackson
Arlington
Collierville
Waynesboro
Memphis
Milan
Memphis
Oak Ridge
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
09
10
11
12
13
01
04
05
06
07
09
12
13
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
' LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
11/21/94'
06/21/95
12/04/92
07/26/95
12/29/89
12/12/94
11/03/94
' 06/08/93
01/11/94
02/09/94
03/10/94
05/09/94
11/15/93
11/01/94
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
07/23/90
11/26/91
09/27/93
03/31/90
03/31/90
05/15/95
06/05/90
06/05/90
01/03/90
06/09/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
1995
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1999
1998
1998
1999
2001
PRESENT
COMPLETION
2
3
2
3
i
1
3
4
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
1996
1996
1996
1996
1994
1996
1995
1997
1996
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997 .
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1999
1996
1998
1998
1999
1998
A-29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL'INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION ' UNIT
14
15
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
29
30'
31
32
33
» 34
35
36
37
40
4 TN Tennessee Products . . Chattanooga 01
4 TN Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman Toone 01
County)
4 TN Wrigley Charcoal Plant Wrigley 01
5 IL Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Morristonn 06
Inc.
5 IL Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Joliet Ot
Landfill)
t
5 IL Beloit Corp. Rockton 01
5 IL Byron Salvage Yard Byron 03
03'
04
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
HI/FS
RI/FS .
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PS
S*
S
EP
FUNDING
START
10/25/86
09/14/90
10/25/86
07/16/90
08/28/92
12/28/90
01/14/91
10/25/86
08/31/92
10/02/91
02/01/93
10/04/93
09/23/93
09/30/93
10/25/86
12/02/92
02/02/94
03/31/94
12/31/92
12/22/94
03/22/95
05/26/95
09/29/93
_ 09/29/94
04/07/94
09/27/90
09/04/92
08/25/94
12/29/89
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
1
2
3
4
'4
1
4
1
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1997
1999
1999.
1998
1998
1999 v
1999
1999
1996
1996
1996
1999
1998
1999
1996
1999
1999
1999
1998
1995
2000
1996
1996
1999
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
1997
1999
1997
1996
1998
1998
1999
1999
1996
1996
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1995
2000
1996
1998
1999
1996
1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A .
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST SITE NAME
" '" '" '
5 IL Central Illinois Public Service
Co.
5 IL Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
5 IL DuPage County Landfill/Blackwell
Forest Preserve)
5 IL Galesburg/Koppers Co.
5 IL H.O.D. Landfill
5 IL Ilada Energy Co.
5 IL Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
5 IL Joliet Army Ammunition Plant(Load-A
ssembly-Packing Area
5 IL Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West
Branch of Dupage River)
5 IL Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler
Park)
5 IL Kerr-McGee (Residential
Areas)
5 IL Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat
Plant)
5 IL LaSalle Electric Utilities
5 IL Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
LOCATION
Taylorville
Pembroke Township
Warrenville
Galesburg
Antioch
East Cape
Girardeau
Joilet
Joliet
DuPage County
West Chicago
West Chicago/DuPage
Cnty
West Chicago
LaSalle
Lemont
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
S
PRP
i MIIIS « nu
START
02/22/94
09/30/93
05/26/95
09/29/89
05/05/95
08/20/90
06/19/89
06/09/89
06/09/89
09/30/92
05/20/92
09/17/93
05/20/92
04/11/89
09/29/89
bunr L.C 1 1 UN LUHKLS 1 1 C
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2 1995 1 1996
4 1995 1
1
3 1995 1
2
3 1995 3
2 1993 1
2 1995 2
4 1995 2
3 1996 1
4 1996 4
4 1997 4
4 1996 4
1 2005 1
3 1995 1
1996
1996
1997
1999
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
1997
1998
2005
1997
A-31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
. IN
IN
SITE NAME -
MIG/Dewane Landfill
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Ottawa Radiation Areas
Outboard Marine Corp.
Pagel's Pit
Parsons Casket Hardware
Co.
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
(USDOI)
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Uauconda Sand & Gravel
Yeoman Creek Landfill
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Continental Steel Corp.
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Lemon Lane Landfill
LOCATION
Belvidere
Granite City
Ottawa
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
Carterville
Savanna
Wauconda
Waukegan
Elkhart
Kokomo
LaPorte
Fort Wayne
Bloomington
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
01
01
02
03
04
02
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
1 RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS .
LEAD
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
. PRP
S
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
S
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/01/95
09/30/92
09/30/93
03/26/93
09/26/90
06/27/93
08/13/91
09/29/88
06/30/93
09/27/95
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/29/89
09/30/91
12/22/89
08/29/94
05/25/90
08/26/91
03/27/92
09/30/95
09/20/90
05/08/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
2
1
1
4
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1997
1996 v
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1998
1996
1996.
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
1
4
3
3
3
2
2
4
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF.REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
PREVIOUS PRESENT
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
.
IN
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
MIDCO I Site
MIDCO II Site
Neal's Landfill (Bloomington)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Norths i de Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Tri -state Plating
Allied Paper, Inc. /Portage
Creek/Kalamazoo River
Bendix Corp./Allied Automotive
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Chem Central
Cliff /Dow Dump
LOCATION
Gary
Gary
Bloomington
Gary
X2ionsville
Indianapolis
Seymour
1 Lafayette
Columbus
Kalamazoo
1
St. Joseph
Muskegon
Detroit
Wyoming Township
Harquette
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
04
05
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
01
02
01
01
01
ACTIVITY IFfln
RA
. RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
'PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FE*
FE*
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PS
PS
PS
PRP
f
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/22/93
08/23/93
07/07/88
02/14/94
09/30/94
09/21/92
09/21/92
08/17/87
09/08/89
03/08/90
03/29/91 .
12/28/90
12/28/90
12/28/90
12/28/90
02/13/89
09/25/92
03/31/90
06/09/95
08/18/94
07/05/95
COMPLETION COMPLETIC
CEPIICnill C rtsiupitiii f
3 1995
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
1
2
1995
1989
K
1999
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1999
1996
2000
1996
ov.ncuuLC
4 1996
2
2
1
2
4
4
3
4
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
3
4
4
1996
1989
1997
1999
1995
1995
1997
1996
1997
1999
1998
1997
1997
1999
1996
2000
1996
1996
1996
1996
A-33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES, .
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 '
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Electrovoice
G&H Landfill
Hi -Mi 1 1 Manufacturing Co.
Ionia City Landfill
J & L Landfill
Kentwood Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc..
Lower Ecorse Creek Dump
Metal Working Shop
North Bronson Industrial
Area
Northernaire Plating
Novaco Industries
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical
Pr\
LO.
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Parsons Chemical Works,
LOCATION
Buchanan
Utica
Highland
Ionia
Rochester
Hills
Kentwood
Cadillac
Utica
Uyandotte
Lake Ann
Bronson
Cadillac
Temperance
Da I ton Township
Grandville
Grand Ledge
UNIT
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA '
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
EP
S
PRP
F
F
F
F
F*
F
S
START SCHEDULE
09/15/92 3 1995.
06/02/95
06/28/95
01/29/86
07/12/94
03/17/94 1 1996
03/03/95
09/30/92 1 1998
03/14/94 4 1996
11/15/90
06/24/87 1 1996
03/03/95
04/23/92
09/25/91 1 1996
09/28/92 2 1996
03/29/95
02/09/94 3 1995
04/22/88 4 1995
09/29/89 2 1996
SCHI
1
1
3
4
2
1
2
4
2
3
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
1
EDULE
1997
1999
1996
1996
1996
1996
2020
1996
1997
1992
1996
2020
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
Inc.
A-34
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Petoskey Municipal Well
Field
Rasmussen's Dump
Rockwell International Corp.
(Allegan Plant)
Rose Township Dump
Roto-Finish Co., Inc.
SCA Independent Landfill
Shiawassee River '
Sparta Landfill
Spartan Chemical Co.
Spiegel berg Landfill
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo- Chem, Inc.
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Wurtsnith Air Force Base
LOCATION
Petoskey
Green Oak
Township
Allegan
Rose Township
Kalamazoo
Muskegon Heigths
Howell
Sparta Township
Wyoming
Green Oak
Township
Sturgis
Mancelona
Township
Muskegon
Howard Township
Battle Creek
losco County
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
02
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
S
PRP
FE
PRP
PRP
PS
S
PRP
S
PRP
PRP '
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
FF
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE cnucnm e
10/05/90
03/16/95
03/31/88
09/08/92 1
12/18/87 3
10/20/93 1
06/19/87 3
09/23/93 4
02/16/94 1
07/17/94 3
05/12/93 1
01/29/86
09/21/87 3
09/27/91 1
04/12/95
12/28/94
01/03/95.
1996
1995
1997
1995
1997
1996
1995
2000
1993
1995
obncuuuc
3 1997
1
V
1
2
3
1
4
1
1 .
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
1996
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1998
1998
1996
2000
1993
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997
A-35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Agate Lake Scrapyard
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxte
r Plant)
Freeway Sanitary Landfill
Long Prairie Ground Water
Contamination
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bell Lumber
& Pole Co.
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
Allied 'Chemical & Ironton
Coke
A I sco Anaconda
Big D Campground
Buckeye Reclamation
Coshocton Landfill
LOCATION
Fairview Township
Hermantown
Brainerd/Baxter
Burnsville
Long Prairie
New Brighton , .
Fridley
Oak Grove
Township
St. Louis
Park
'Ironton
Gnadenhutten
Kingsville
St. Clairsville
Franklin Township
OPER-
ABLE
-UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
02.
02
04
02 .
02 '
01
02
01
01
01 .
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PS
S*
PRP
PRP
PS
S
S
S
S
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/08/94
08/15/90
0.4/20/95
03/31/87
03/27/86
04/11/91
04/11/91
12/09/93
09/30/94
06/14/91
03/28/91
08/05/92
09/30/87
04/01/91
03/03/95
03/03/95
09/30/91
09/28/94
05/11/94
02/10/95
12/03/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
2
3
3
4
2
4
1
4
1
1
1
2
1996
1995 .
2021
2021
1995
1996
1999
1996
1999
1996
1999
1996
1996
2016
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
2
1
3
3
2
4
4
2
.4
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
2
2000
2000
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1999
1996
1999
1996
1999
2026
1996
1996
1996
2016
1998
1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG_
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.ST
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME -
Dover Chemical Corp.
Feed Materials Production Center
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
Miami County Incinerator
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Nease Chemical
New Lyme Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover
Plant)
Rickenbacker Air National Guard
(USAF)
South Point Plant .
Summit National
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base
LOCATION
Dover
Fernald
Ashtabula
Troy
Miamisburg
Salem
New Lyme
Reading
Dover
Lpckbourne
South Point
Deerfield
Township
Troy
Dayton
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
05
02
03
03
04
01
02
05
06
09
01
01
04
01
00
01
01
01
01
02
03
04 .
05
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
' PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/24/88
04/09/90
04/09/90
03/22/89
09/26/89
09/09/94
01/10/93
05/20/95
06/21/93
02/04/93
07/17/92
05/22/92
01/27/88
04/11/88
05/30/94
03/29/89
09/15/93
03/31/87
06/22/93
09/17/92
10/03/94
07/10/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
<*PHPniH P enuefttii r-
wUflEIL/ULC
2 1996
2
2
2
2
3
4
1
1
3
1
2
4
3
4
3
1
4
1
1996
1995
1995
1995
2000
1997
2001
2008
1995
1995
1995
1995
1997
'1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
3 ' 1996
2
2
1
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
2000
1997
2001
2008
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
A-37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
WI
UI
WI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
SITE NAME
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Delavan Municipal Hell #4
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hagen Farm
Hunts Disposal
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Lemberger Landfill, Inc.
(Lemberger Fly Ash Landfill)
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
LOCATION
DePere
Dunn
Delavan
Franklin
Stoughton
Caledonia
Kohler
Henomonee
Falls
Uhitelaw
Franklin Township
Blooming Grove
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
03/16/93 4 1997
12/12/94
06/28/94 4 1997
01/10/94 3 1998
07/28/93 3 1996
12/12/94
08/31/95
09/28/90 2 1996
08/05/91 3 1997
03/30/95
09/28/90 1 1996
05/21/93 2 1994
08/14/91 . 1 1997
05/19/95
07/06/95
07/31/92 3 1995
08/01/90
03/08/95
03/08/95
09/24/92 2 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1 .
4
4
2
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
UI
District
Master Disposal Service
Landfill
Brookfield
01
RA
PRP 03/29/94 3 1995 2 1996
A-38'
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
ST
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI '
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
AK
AR .
AR
AR
SITE NAME
Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil
Co.)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
National Presto Industries,
Tnr
1 IK*.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inr
Kli*.
Onalaska Municpal Landfill
Scrap Processing Co., Inc.
Sheboygan Harbor & River
t
Spickler Landfill
Tomah Armory
Tomah Fairgrounds
Tomah Municiple Sanitary
Landfill
Uheeler Pit
Frit Industries
Gurley Pit
Midland Products
Popile, Inc.
LOCATION
Milwaukee
Muskego
Eau Claire
Ashippin
Onalaska
Medford
Sheboygan
Spencer
Tomah
Tomah
Tomah
t
La Prairie
Township
Ualnut Ridge
Edmondson
Ola/Birta
El. Dorado
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
. RI//S
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FE*
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
S
F
F
FUNDING
START
05/19/95
10/07/93
11/12/93
06/04/86
09/30/91
05/12/94
09/20/90
02/28/92
05/11/92
04/11/86
02/23/94
05/27/93
05/27/93
01/11/94
05/21/92
09/08/83
03/29/89
06/29/90
12/27/9"!
09/27/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1995
1999
1995
1995
1996
1997
1995
1995
1996
1.995
1996
1996
1996
1998
1995
1995
1995
1995
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
1
2
1
4
3
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
2000
1996
1999
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
1995
1995
1998
1995
1999
A-39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 '
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
AR
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
. LA
LA
NM
NM
NM
NM
SITE NAME
Vertac, Inc.
Agriculture Street Landfill
American Cresote Works, Inc
(Winnfield)
Bayou Bonfouca
Cleve Reber
Combustion, Inc.
i
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
Old Citgo Refinery (Bossier
City)
Old Inger Oil Refinery
Petro-Processors of Louisiana,
Inc.
Southern Shipbuilding
. AT & SF (Clovis)
AT&SF (Albuquerque)
Cal West Metals (USSBA)
Cimarron Mining Corp.
LOCATION
Jacksonville
Net* Orleans
Winnfield
Slidell
Sorrento
Denham Springs
Doyline
Bossier
Darrow
Scotlandville
Slidell
Clovis
Albuquerque
Lemttar
Carrizozo
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
06
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PS
FF
FF
F
S
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
EP
EP
FUNDING
START .
09/26/94
07/12/89
07/12/89
03/14/95
09/28/93
02/04/91
04/10/92
10/25/88
01/31/89
09/30/93
09/22/94
04/25/86
06/30/87
06/24/94
08/07/89
06/06/94
09/29/93
08/13/91
12/20/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
4
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
1
4
4
2
1
2
1996
1995
1995
1996
1997
1997
1996
1995
1995
1996
1999
1997
1995
1998
1995
1995
1995
.1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
4
2
1
4
1
2
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
1998
1995
1998
1996
1995
1996
1996
A-40
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND.REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
NM
NM
NM
NM
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
SITE NAME
Lee Acres Landfill (USDOI)
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth. Street Abandoned
Refinery
National Zinc Corp.
Rab Valley Wood Preserving
Sand Springs Petrochemical
Complex
Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
ALCOA (Point Comfort VLavaca
Bay
Air Force Plant #4 (General
Dynamics)
Bailey Waste Disposal
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
Crystal Chemical Co.
LOCATION
Farmington
Prewitt
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Bartlesville
Panama
Sand Springs
Ottawa County
Oklahoma City
Point Comfort
Fort Worth
Bridge City
Friends wood
Houston
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
01
01
06
01
02
01
02
, 01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01 '
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
Rl/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PS
F
PRP
F '
F
F
PRP
FF
MR
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE srHPnni F
02/25/92 1
01/16/95
01/16/95
06/18/95
09/12/89 4
07/17/95
09/20/94 1
07/17/95
03/15/94
09/27/94 4
09/16/94 4
08/25/94
08/25/94
09/28/94 1
03/31/94 2
08/20/90 4
02/19/92 3
06/29/89 2
01/03/95
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
1
4
4
V 1.
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
4
2
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1998
1996
A-41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
SITE NAME
French, Ltd.
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann
Energy
Lone Star Army Ammunition
Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition
Plant
HOTCO, Inc.
North Calvacade Street
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Highway)
RSR Corp.
Sikes Disposal Pits
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
South Cavalcade Street
LOCATION
Crosby
Houston
Texarkana
Karnack
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
Dallas
Crosby
Houston
Houston
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
01
02
01
02
03
03
04
05
06
01
02
01
02
02
02
03
02
03
05
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA .
LEAD
PRP
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
S
S
S
S
PRP
PRP
F
F
S
S
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/28/89
03/31/89
06/18/90
06/18/90
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
12/31/88
12/13/93
09/12/91
09/03/93
09/27/89
03/30/90
04/18/93
08/09/93
07/17/93
05/10/93
05/04/89
09/10/91
01/11/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
1998
1999
1996
1996
1995
1997
1995
1997
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1998
1998
1997
1998
1995
1995
1995
1996
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
1998
1999
1997
1997
1996
1997
1995
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1997
1998
1995
1996
1996
1996
2004
1999
A-42
-------
.Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
6
6
7
7
7
7.
7
7
7
7
7
/
7
7
ST
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
SITE NAME
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Co.
United Creosoting Co.
Des Moines TCE (once listed as
DICO)
Fairfield Coal Gasification
Plant
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Mason City Coal Gasification
Plant
Midwest Manufacturing/North
Farm
Peoples Natural Gas Co.
Ralston
Vogel Paint & Wax
Waterloo Coal Gaasification
Plant
29th & Mead Ground Water
Contamination
57th and North Broadway Streets
Site
Cherokee County (Tar Creek,
Cherokee County)
LOCATION
Texarkana
Conroe
Des Moines
Fairfield
Middle town
Mason City
Kellogg
Dubuque
Cedar Rapids
Orange City
Waterloo
Wichita
Whichita Heigths
Cherokee County
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
03
02
04
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
07
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
f. LEAD
S
S
S
F*
F*
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PS
F
PRP
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
05/21/93 4 1999
09/17/93 4 1997
09/17/93 2 1998
10/26/94
10/26/94
07/20/92
09/20/90 4 1996
10/01/91 4 1996
08/03/95
03/29/94 4 1996
11/27/91
05/20/91 2 1997
05/30/95
09/27/89 4 1995
09/15/94 4 1996
05/07/90
08/23/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
4
1
1
. 4
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
1
4
2
4
1
1999
2000
1999
1996
1995
2001
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997.
1998
1997
1999
1995
1996
A-43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
SITE NAME
Doepke Disposal ( Hoi I i day)
Fort Riley
Fourth & Carey Site
Obee Road
Pester Refinery Co.
Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lake City Array Ammunition Plant
(Northwest Lagoon)
Lee Chemical
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood
Interim Storage/Future Coat
Syntex Facility
Times Beach Site
We 1 don Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
LOCATION
Johnson County '
Junction City
Hutch inson
Hutch inson
El Dorado
Maiden
Cape Girardeau
Independence
Liberty
Jasper County
Republic
St. Louis
County
Verona
Times Beach
St. Charles
County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
01
02
01 .
02.
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
03
03
05
06
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RA
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
. RA
RI/FS
RI-
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
FF
FF.
FF
PS
F
PS
PS
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
MR
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/06/95
08/23/90
01/22/92
07/01/93
05/03/94
09/30/94
11/01/94
12/16/93
09/03/93
02/10/93
08/01/87
04/21/92
06/27/90
09/30/92
12/31/92
08/02/91
04/24/90
09/27/91
06/26/90
09/30/89
09/30/94
04/10/95
06/19/95
04/15/95
10/24/91
05/18/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
4
4
4
'1
4
4
3
1
2
1
4
1
4
1995
1996
1996
V
1996
1996
1996
1999
1996
1996
1999
. 1995
1994
1996
1995
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
3
4
2
4
2
4
3
4
1
4
1
3
4
3
4
4
1
4
1
3
2
1
4
4
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997
2000
1997
1996
1995
1996
1999
1996
1998
1999
1999
1997
1995
2034
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997 .
1998
A-44
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A .
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES, '
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
DPER-
RG
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
ST
MO
MO
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
CO
CO
CO
SITE NAME
Weldon Springs Ordnance
Works
West lake Landfill
Bruno Co-op Association/Associated
Prop
Cleburn Street Well
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
i
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Nebraska Ordnance Plant
(Former)
Ogallala Ground Water Contamination
Air Force Plant PJKS
Broderick Wood Products
California Gulch
LOCATION
St. Charles
County
Bridgeton
Bruno
Grand Island
Hall County
Hastings
Mead
Ogallala
Water-town
Denver
Leadville
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
05
12
14
15
16
19
02
03
01
01
02
00
00
02
02
03
04
05
05
05
06
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
02/16/90
03/03/93
12/14/94
05/17/94
09/16/91
03/15/90
12/01/94
09/30/93
08/31/90
09/30/91
07/19/95
02/11/91
03/22/85
08/18/92
02/08/95
09/29/94
02/07/89
05/01/95
06/12/92
04/07/94
04/07/87
08/26/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
08/29/91
09/16/93
08/26/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
1
4
1
2
2
3
2
1
4
1
2
1
1995
1996
V
1995
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
1996
1996
1999
1995
1996
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
4
1
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
1
2
1
1
4
3
2
1
2
3
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1998
1997
1999
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
A-45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME . LOCATION UNIT
07
08
08
09
09
09
10
12
8 CO Central City - Clear Creek Idaho Springs 03
03
03
03
8 CO Chemical Sales Co. Commerce City 02
03
8 CO Denver Radium Site Denver 08
09
8 CO Eagle Mine Minturn/Redcliff 01
02
8 CO Lincoln Park Canon City 01
8 CO Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) Golden 01
02
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11 '
12
. 13
14
15
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
' RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
FS
RI
RA
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
S
S
S
F
F
PRP
F
PS
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/26/94
04/08/93
08/26/94
09/15/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
08/28/94
04/08/93
09/30/92
09/29/93
09/29/93
09/29/93
04/25/95
03/23/95
03/31/93
06/04/92
09/01/88
09/01/92
03/11/92
02/06/90
09/11/92
04/12/90
07/10/91
06/08/90
04/05/91
04/19/91
06/08/90
05/01/92
06/08/90
11/26/91
06/08/90
05/08/92
05/15/92
06/26/92
05/27/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
1
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
1
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
S
1995
1995
1996
1994
1996 .
1995
1995
1995
1999
1999
1996
1999
1996
1996
1999
1999
1999
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
3
4
1
2
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
4
4
4
4
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1999
1995
1999
1999
1996
1999
1996
1996
1997
1999
1999
1999
1999
A-46
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG ST SITE NAME
8 CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal
8 CO Smuggler Mountain
8 CO Summitville Mine
8 MT Anaconda Co. Smelter
, .
8 MT East Helena Site
8 MT Idaho Pole Co.
8 MT Libby Ground Water Contamination
8 MT Milltown Reservoir Sediments
flDLt
LOCATION UNIT
16
Adams County 02
03
04
15
25
26
26
26
26
28
Pitkin County 02
Rio Grande 00
County 00
01
02
03
Anaconda 04
07
11
14
16
East Helena 01
02
03
Bozeman 01
Libby 02
Mi 1 1 town ' 02
02
03
ACTIVITY IFAO
RI
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
KA-
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
RI
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
MR*
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
*J I nn 1
09/24/91
10/27/87
02/15/85
02/15/85
01/01/90
03/21/91
11/15/91
07/15/93
04/14/94
05/01/94
02/05/93
04/14/95
05/11/93
06/07/95
06/07/95
06/07/95
09/21/94
09/30/94
05/19/94
06/10/93
09/28/88
09/30/94
03/31/92
06/23/87
06/27/87
06/29/95
10/18/89
02/02/90
02/02/90
07/07/95
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
CPUCnill C «*mur>M.iii _
otnbuuLc
4 1999
1
2
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
4
3
3
2
1
3
1
3
4
1995
1996
1995
1998 v
1997
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1998
1996 .
1996
1999
1998
1996
1999
aincuuLt
4 1999
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
4
3
2
4
2
4
4
1
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
1
4
2
1995
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1998
1997
1999
2003
1996
1997
1998
1996
1997
1996
1997
1998
1998
1997
1999
1997
1996
1998
A-47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME . LOCATION UNIT
8 HT Si Iver Bow Creek/Butte Area Silver Bow/Deer 01
Lodge 04
07
08
12
8 SD Annie Creek Mine Tailings Lead 01
8 SD Ellsworth Air Force Base Rapid City 01
02
03
04
. 05
06-
07
08
09
10
11
12
8 UT Hill Air Force Base Ogden 01
02
02
04
05
06
08
8 UT Kennecott (South Zone) Coppertown 00
00
01
02
8 UT Midvale Slag ' Midvale 01
8 UT Monticello Mill Tailings Monticello 01
(USDOE) 01
01
02
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS ,
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PS '
PRP
PRP
PRP
FE*
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
' START
09/30/91
06/30/92
08/02/91
06/30/92
05/18/94
05/11/92
12/11/92
04/12/93
04/05/93
04/12/93
04/05/93
01/24/92
04/05/93
04/05/93
01/26/93
01/26/93
02/03/94
01/26/93
06/28/91
06/28/91
01/30/92
09/14/95
08/13/91
09/10/92
05/03/95
09/22/93
09/22/93
09/22/93
07/29/94
09/07/95
06/22/92
07/31/93
08/01/95
05/21/95
08/04/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
4
1
3
1997
1997
1999
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998,
1997'
1996
1996
1997
1996
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
3
1
1
3
4
4
3
4
1
1
3
4
4
1996
1997
1996
1998
1997
1999
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1995
1996
1998
1996
1997
1999
1996
1995
1996
1997
1996
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
SITE NAME ' . '
Mqnticello Radioactively
Contaminated Properties
Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek
. Plant
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 &
Richardson Flat Tailings
Sandy Smelter Site
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings/Smelters)
Tooele Army Depot (North
Area)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
Uasatch Chemical Co.
LOCATION
Monti cello
Salt Lake
City
Salt Lake
City
Summit County
Sandy
Midvale
Tooele
Salt Lake
City
Salt Lake
City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
03
01
02
03
05
01
01
03
01
00
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
03
04
08
09
10
01
01
01
01
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
S
F
PRP
F
F
S
S
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/31/91
09/06/84
11/09/90
11/23/93
01/07/94
07/10/92
04/03/95
10/24/94
09/29/89
11/15/93
11/15/93
05/18/95
09/20/94
09/29/95
08/16/90
12/31/91
12/31/91
11/01/94
07/15/93
03/19/93
01/02/92
08/29/95
07/23/94.
09/18/95
09/10/93
10/11/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
4 -
1998
1996
1997
1996
1998 -
1995
1995
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
1'
4
4
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1998
1997
1997
1997
1999
1996
1997
1996
1997
1995
1995
1997
1996
1997
1995
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998.
2001
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996 .
A-49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL 'INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST
8 UY
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
SITE NAME
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area
.
Luke Air Force Base
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport
Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Williams Air Force Base
Yuraa Marine Corps Air Station
LOCATION
Cheyenne
.
Hassayampa
Scottsdale/Tmpe/Phnx
Glendate
Phoenix
Goodyear
Tucson
Chandler
Yurna
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
06
07
08
09
10
01
01
03
06
06
07
07
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
01/06/94
01/25/93
03/09/94
03/23/94
01/01/94
01/01/94
01/01/94
07/21/95
02/20/92
03/14/88
02/08/94
07/11/94
09/26/90
05/31/95
09/27/90
04/10/95
05/11/95
09/30/94
12/12/91
12/11/90
03/09/95
12/31/92
01/19/93
07/31/95
09/01/93
09/30/91
09/30/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
4
4
4
4
4-
3
1
2
2
1
2
3
4
3
1997
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996 -
1997
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
4
4
3
4
3
2
1
1
4
4
2
1
3
3
2
1997
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1995
1997
1999
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1998
1996
1997
1997
A-50
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST SITE NAME
CA Aerojet General Corp.
CA Atlas Asbestos Mine
CA Barstow Marine Corps Logistics
Base (Nebo Area)
CA Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
CA Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base
CA Castle Air Force Base
CA Cooper Drum Co.
CA Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill
CA Del Amo Facility
CA Edwards Air Force Base
CA El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station
LOCATION
Rancho Cordova
Fresno County
Barstow
Arvin
San Diego
County
Merced
i
South Gate
Salinas
Los Ange[es
Kern County
El Toro
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
02
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
01
01
01 .
02
01
02
03
05
07
01
02
03
04 .
05
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
. RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
. PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
EP
MR
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/08/88
06/22/94
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/21/89
01/04/93
11/12/93
12/16/92
08/12/93
09/18/93
05/07/92
05/07/92
09/26/90
09/26/90
12/18/92
06/21/94
06/03/94
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
crucnni c
4 1996
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
4
1
4
4
2
1
4
2
1
4
2
1
4
2
3
3
3
1996
1996
1996 .
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
1999
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
2004
1997
1999
1999
1996
1996
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
cpucniii c
ouncUULc
4 1999
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
4
4
2
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
4
3
4
2
4
4
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1996
1997
1998
1996
1999
1999
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
2004
1997
1999
2001
1999
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
A-51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST SITE NAME
9 CA Fairchild Semiconductor/Camera &
(South San Jose Plant)
9 CA . Fort Ord
9 CA Frontier Fertilizer
9 CA GBF, Inc., Dump
9 CA George Air Force Base
9 CA Hunter's Point Annex
9 ' CA Industrial Waste Processing
9 CA Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
9 CA 'Iron Mountain Mine
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
South San 02
Jose
Marina 01
02
04
,04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
06
Davis 00
Antioch 01
Victorville 02
03
San Francisco 01
02
03
04
05
Fresno .01
Mountain View 02
Redding 03
04
ACTIVITY
RA
. RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE '
04/04/95
07/23/90 3
09/29/95
09/02/94 1
06/19/95
06/21/95
06/26/95
06/26/95
. 07/05/95
07/10/95
07/10/95
07/26/95
08/01/95
08/02/93
07/28/93 1
09/21/90 4
08/27/91 2
09/28/90 4
09/28/90 3
09/28/90 4
10/01/90 1
01/22/91 2
05/12/93
04/17/95
08/23/94
04/21/94 3
1997
1995
1996
1999
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
2
2
3
1
4
3
1
2
1
3
1997
1997
1999
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1999
1996
1996
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1996
1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
CA J.H. Baxter & Co. Weed
CA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena
(NASA)
CA Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville Oroville
Plant)
CA LEHR/Old Campus Landfill ' Davis
(USDOE)
CA Lawrence Livermore National Livermore
Laboratory
CA Lawrence Livermore National Livermore
Laboratory (USDOE)
CA March Air Force Base Riverside
CA Mather Air Force Base (AC & U Sacramento
Disposal Site)
CA McClellan Air Force Base (Ground Sacramento
Water Contamination)
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
03
04
05
06
01
01
02
03
04
01
03
04
01
04
05
06
08
09
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/16/92
08/04/95
12/23/92
07/07/93
04/29/94
09/17/93
09/30/94
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
08/05/92
09/27/90
09/27/90
08/06/91
01/24/92
06/06/91
. 06/21/94
09/19/95
05/11/95
07/21/89
08/21/90
11/23/92
01/13/93
07/21/89
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
4
1
1
4
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1996
1996
1996
1996 -
1996
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
2000
1997
1995
1996
1997
1996
1996
2001
2001
1996
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHFniii F
1
4
3
3
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
2
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
2000
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1998
1998
2001
2001
1996
1997
1997
A-53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
.CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
McCol I
McCormic and Baxter Creosoting
Co.
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
Monolithic Memories
Mont rose Chemical Corp.
National Semiconductor Corp. -
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Norton Air Force Base
Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Ralph Gray Trucking Co.
Raytheon Corp.
Rivet-bank Army Ammunition
LOCATION
Fullerton
Stockton
Modesto
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Torrance
Santa Clara
San Bernadino
San Bernardino
Monterey Park
Fillmore
Westminster
Mountain View
Riverbank
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
04
01
03
01
01
02
05
06
06
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
04
01
02
02
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
.S
PRP
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PRP
PS
F
F
FF
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
06/11/84
02/04/94
06/30/92
09/28/94
03/21/91
08/08/89
06/13/94
08/08/89
08/08/89
07/06/92
09/11/91
10/10/86.
09/11/91
09/18/95
02/09/94
09/16/94
09/15/89
05/11/89
12/29/94
06/19/93
02/28/95
06/05/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
1991
1997
.1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1997
1995
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
2
3
4
3
4
2
1
1
4
2
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1991
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1998
1996
Plant
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST SITE NAME-
PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Sacramento Army Depot
, s
San Fernando Valley (Area
1 \
1)
San Fernando Valley (Area
San Gabriel Valley (Area
1)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
4)
Selma Treating Co.
Sharpe Army Depot
South Bay Asbestos Area (Alviso
Dumping Area)
South Bay Basin
Stoker Company
Stringfellow
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Los -Angeles
El Monte
La Puente
Selma
Lathrop
Alviso
Silicon Valley
Imperial
Glen Avon
Heights
Clear Lake
02
05
01
03
02
00
01
05
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
05
01
02
03
RA
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
F
EP
F
EP
*'"*'
02/16/90
04/08/94
02/18/94
11/22/93
09/28/92
06/13/84
03/16/95
07/25/95
09/30/93
07/22/92
05/30/95
03/16/89
10/15/93
01/28/87
05/01/92
10/01/90
09/28/90
11/18/91
09/28/90
Obi
4
2
1
2
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
2
3
2
1CUUL.C
2005
1996
1995
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1991
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
am
4
3
1
2
4
1
3
4
1
4
3
1
1
4
4
1
4
1
4
1EUULE
2005
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1991
1996
1997
1996
1998
1996
9 CA T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Thompson-Haywood Chem
Fresno
01
RI/FS
PS
02/06/87 1 1995
1 1996
A-55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST SITE NAME
CA ' Tracy Defense Depot
CA Travis Air Force Base
CA Watkins-Johnson Co. (Stewart
Division)
CA Western Pacific Railroad
Co.
CA Uestinghouse Electric Corp.
(Sunnyvale Plant)
HI Del Monte Corp. (Oahu Plantation)
HI Pearl Harbor Naval Complex
HI Schofield Barracks
NV Carson River Mercury Site (Trust
Territories PC)
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Tracy 01
02
Solano County 01
02
03
04
Scotts Valley 01
Oroville 01
Sunnyvale 01
Honolulu County 01
Pearl Harbor 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
10
Oahu. 01
02
03
04
Lyon/churchill 02
County
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
. FF
FF
F
FUNDING
START
06/27/91
08/12/93
09/28/90
04/01/94
05/19/94
06/10/95
07/16/91
03/15/94
06/28/94
09/28/95
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
08/23/94
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
3
1997
1996
1997
1996
1998 -
1995
1996
1999
1997
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
4
1
2
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
1
1
1997
1997
1997
1996
1998
1998
1996
1997
1996
1997
1999
1997
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1996
1997 .
1996
1997
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPERr
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10.
10
10
10
10
ST SITE NAME
AK Arctic Surplus
AK Eielson Air Force Base
AK Elmendorf Air Force Base
AK Fort Richardson (USARMY)
AK Fort Uainright
AK Standard Steel and Metals Salvage
Yard
ID Blackbird Mine
ID Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
ID Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
ID Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
LOCATION
Fairbanks
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Greater Anchorage
Borough
Anchorage
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Anchorage
Lemhi County
Smelterville
Pocatello
Idaho Falls
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
04
05
07
08
03
06
08
01
01
02-
03
04
05
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
06
07
08
18
20
24
25
26
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
.RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS '
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/24/92
05/06/92
05/06/92
05/06/92
05/21/91
05/05/93
04/06/93
01/18/94
08/05/93
11/29/94
08/10/94
11/01/93
09/15/92
11/27/92
01/17/95
09/26/92
11/18/94
09/27/94
04/13/95
05/30/91
12/20/91
02/11/94
04/01/95
.03/17/95
01/29/93
12/07/94
07/10/95
12/14/93
12/01/93
12/14/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
4
1
2
2
4
1
3
1
4
1
4
1
4
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1995
1996
1995
2002
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
4
4
4
- 2
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
4
1
3
2
3
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
4
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1995
1996
1997
1996
1998
2002
2000
1996
1995
1996
1997
1998
1996
1997
1999
1996
1996
1996
A-57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ID
ID
ID
ID
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
WA
UA
UA
UA
Kerr-McGee chemical Corp. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Monsanto Chemcial Co. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Mountain Home Airforce Base
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Fremont Nat. Forest Uranium Mines
(USDA)
Gould, Inc.
McCormick & Baxter Creos. Co.
(Portland)
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
American Crossarm & Conduit
Co.
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Bonnevi lie .Power Administration
Ross Complex
Booms nub/Airco
Colbert Landfill
Soda Springs
Soda Springs
Mountain" Home
Pocatello
Lakeview
Portland
Portland
Hermiston
Chehalis .
Silverdale
Bremerton
Vancouver
Vancouver
Colbert
01
01
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
06
07
01
01
01
01
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
.PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
MR
09/20/90
03/19/91
05/12/92
05/19/94
10/17/94
03/02/92
09/07/94
02/15/94
06/20/94
09/01/94
09/13/94
10/14/91
02/04/93
03/05/93
01/18/94 .
03/27/95
08/28/89
4
1.
3
1
4
4
1
3
4
1
4
2
2
4
1995
1996
1995
1996
1998
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1998
4
2
4
1
2
4
2
1
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
4
1995
1996
1995 .
1996
1997
1998
1996
1997
1998
1996
1999
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
A-58
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG ST
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
SITE NAME
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel
Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Waste
Area)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Hamilton Island Landfill
(USA/COE)
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Pierce County 04
05
06
07
08
09
11
19
21
22
Tacoma 03
Spokane County , 01
02
03
THlicum 01
North Bonneville 01
Benton County 01
05
08
09
1-1
12
13
14
Benton County 01
02
11
12
14
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
11/12/91
01/16/90
12/17/93
04/11/91
09/30/89
07/31/92
06/25/93
10/04/94
06/25/92
12/21/93
07/19/90
03/16/93
' 03/07/94
. 09/15/92
01/15/92
09/24/93
01/15/95
04/09/90
10/12/90
10/12/90
05/24/93
10/28/93
06/30/93
04/15/91
05/15/89
08/31/92
01/31/94
04/28/93
05/05/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1995
2
2
1
4
3
4
2
4
2
3
1
3
4
3
2
2
4
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995 .
1996
1995
1997
- 1995
1996
1997
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
crucniii c
ObnCUULC
1 1997
2
2
2
4
1
4
4
4
4
1
3
1
1
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
.1996
.1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
A-59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL.INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
10
10-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
HA
UA
WA
'UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
SITE NAME
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Naval Air Station, Uhidbey Island
(Ault Field)
Naval Undersea Uarfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Uaste Area)
Northwest Transformer (South
Harkness St.)
Old Navy Dump/Manchester
Lab(USEPA/NOAA)
Pacific Sound Resources
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Complex
Tulalip Landfill
Vancouver Uater Station #4
Contamination
Uoods Industry
Uycof f Co. /Eagle- Harbor
LOCATION
Benton County
Seattle
Uhidbey Island
Keyport
Everson
Manchester
Seattle
Bremerton
Marysvi I le
Vancouver
. Yakima
Bainbridge
Island
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
07
01
02
03
05
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
02
04
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
05/15/89 4 1995
09/27/89 4 1995
09/07/88 4 1995
08/15/94
01/10/95
04/14/95
07/14/94 4 1995
07/17/90 2 1995
09/30/92 1 1995
10/18/94
09/29/94 4 1997
05/18/95
10/31/92
01/26/94
07/31/94
10/09/92
08/12/93 4 1996
04/02/92 3 1996
06/28/90
09/16/92 2 1996
12/15/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
2
3
1
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1996
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
2000
A-60
-------
Appendix B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30, 1995
This appendix lists the remedial designs in
progress at the end of FY95 and their estimated
completion schedule. Activities at multiple
operable units, as well as first and subsequent
activities, are listed.
RG- EPA region in which the site is located.
ST - State in which the site is located.
Site Name - Name of the site, as listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Location - Location of the site, as listed on
the NPL.
Operable Unit - Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring; a
single site may include more than one operable
unit.
Lead - The entity leading the activity, as
follows:
EP: Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;
F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;
FE: EPA enforcement program-lead;
FF: Federal facility-lead;
MR: Mixed funding; monies from both the
Fund and potentially responsible parties
(PRPs);
PRP: PRP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the
PRP under a state order (may include federal
financing or federal oversight under an
enforcement document);
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include
federal financing).
Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS) database, O
(other), SN (state-lead and financed, no Fund
money), and SR (state-ordered PRP response
Activities), are excluded from this status report
because they do not include federal financing.
Funding Start - The date on which' funds
were allocated for the activity.
Present Completion Schedule - The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion date
for the activity, as of 9/30/95. This
information was compiled from CERCLIS on
11/15/95.
B-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
NH
HH
NH
NH
NH
SITE NAME
Laurel Park Inc. (once listed as
Laurel Park Landfill)
Linemaster Switch Corp.
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
Fort Oevens
Fort Devens - Sudbury Training
Annex
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp
Edwards
Re-Solve, Inc.
Sullivan's Ledge
Wells G&H
O'Connor Co.
Auburn Road Landfill
Coaktey Landfill
Dover Municipal Landfill
Ottati & Goss)
Pease Air Force Base
LOCATION
Naugatuck
Borough
Woodstock
Tyngsborough
Fort Devens
Fort Devens
Ashland
Falmouth
Dartmouth
New Bedford
Woburn
Augusta
Londonderry
North Hampton
Dover
Kingston
Portsmouth/Newington
. OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
04
01
01
02
03
01
03
01
02'
01
01
02
01
01
03
03
04
05
06
07
08
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
F
F
FF
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
04/24/91
11/03/94
09/30/88
>
09/26/95
09/29/95
04/08/92
07/27/93
09/25/95
03/30/89
03/15/91
04/05/93
04/27/90
12/14/90
09/30/90
06/19/92
01/22/92
09/20/90
09/30/94
09/26/95
06/26/95
09/18/95
09/26/95
01/30/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
1
4
2
1
3
2
4
4
4
3
2
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
-------
. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NH
NH
RI
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Savage Municipal Water Supply
Tibbets Road
Picillo Farm
A. 0. Polymer
Asbestos Dump
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
I nc .
Combe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
DeRenewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co. .
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ellis Property
Evor Phillips Leasing
Ewan Property
LOCATION
Mi I ford
Barrington
Coventry
Sparta Township ,
Millington
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Chester Township
Beverly
Kingwood Township
Newark
Dover Township
Evesham Township
Old Bridge
Township
Shamong Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
10
01
02
01
02
02
01
03
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
LEAD
FF
S*
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
S
S
SE
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/09/95
09/30/93
04/28/94
11/07/94
01/25/95
04/20/92
09/30/92
05/30/95
01/03/91
06/26/87
09/27/94
04/28/95
09/30/89
09/30/89
12/14/89
07/06/93
06/30/93
09/30/93
05/02/94
06/09/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
4
2
3
4
4
2
1
4
1
2
2
1997.
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1997
1994
1996
1996
1995
1998
1996
1997
1995
1997
1995
1997
B-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME '
Fried Industries
GEMS Landfill
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Global Sanitary Landfill
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Meta I tec/Aerosystems
Morttc I air/West Orange Radium
Site
Montgomery Township Housing
Development
Myers Property
Radiation Technology Inc.
Reich Farms
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Township Wells
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Roebling Steel Co.
Sharkey Landfill
LOCATION .
East Brunswick
Township
Gloucester
Township
Glen Ridge
Old Bridge
Township
Morganvi lie-
Franklin Borough
Montclair/Uest
Orange
Montgomery
Township
Franklin Township
Rockaway Township
Pleasant Plains
Rockaway Township
Rockaway
Rocky Hill
Borough
Florence
Parsippany/Troy
Hills
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
03
01
01
02
02
03
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
03
01
LEAD
F
S
F
ps*
S
S
F
F
S
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PS
S
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/94
05/22/86
09/2$/90
1.1/15/93
09/30/91
03/31/93
03/29/91
09/26/90
03/24/89
05/12/92
08/31/94
04/05/90
07/14/94
04/20/94
03/24/89
09/25/91
10/18/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
3
4
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
4
1
3
2
1997
.
1996
1998
1996
1996
1995
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1994
1997
1996
1997
2 NJ Suope Oil & Chemical Co.
Pennsauken
02
PRP
06/07/93
4 1995
B-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
OPER-
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
U.S. Radium Corp.
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
Woodland Route 532 Dump
Woodland Route 72 Dump
Byron Barrel & Drum
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychemical
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Cortese Landfill
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
GCL Tie & Treating Inc.
Genzale Plating Co.
Haviland Complex
Hertel Landfill
Hooker (102nd Street)
Hooker (South Area)
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corn.
LOCATION
Orange
Vineland
Wall Township
Woodland Township
Woodland Township
Byron
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesville
Vil. of Narrousburg
Elmira
Village of
Sidney
Franklin Square
Town of Hyde
Park
Plattekill
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
02
02
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
F
F
F
F
F
PS
PS
PRP
r
f
PS
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
09/30/93
09/29/95
09/30/89
10/02/89
06/28/91
08/30/90
08/31/91
09/25/90
02/01/95
09/30/92
04/01/91
09/29/95
05/25/93
05/17/95
05/17/95
09/25/91
09/30/93
11/23/92
10/22/91
12/15/94
12/28/94.
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
3
4
4
1998
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1994
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
B-5
-------
Progress Toward I up lenient ing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
3
3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
SITE NAME .
Johnstown City Landfill
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
Niagara County Refuse
Pfohl Brothers Landfill
Port Washington Landfill
Robintech, Inc. /National Pipe
Co'.
Rowe Industries Ground Water '
Contamination
Solvent Savers
Syosset Landfill
York Oil Co.
GE Wiring Devices
Juncos Landfill
Delaware Sand & Gravel-Llangollen/A
rmy Creek Landfill)
Dover Air Force Base
Dover Gas Light Co.
LOCATION
Town of Johnstown
Horseheads
Clayville
Glen Cove
Wheatfield
Cheektowaga
Port Washington
Town of Vestal
Noyack/Sag
Harbor
Lincklaen
Oyster Bay
Oyster Bay
Juana Diaz
Juncos
New Castle
County
Dover
Dover
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
01
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
05
05
01
LEAD
. PS
PRP
PS
F
PRP
PS .
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
12/19/94
08/29/91
11/12/89
09/30/92
01/17/95
10/17/94
09/28/90
11/25/92
01/26/94
07/02/91
04/03/91
03/29/95
09/14/94
12/21/92
12/15/94
09/26/95
06/16/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1996
3 1996
2 1994
4 1996
1 1997
1 1996
1 1997
3 1996
1 1996
1 1997
1 1996
1 1999
3 1995
4 1995
4 1996
2 1997
4 1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
DE
DE
MD-
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME '
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.(Newpo
rt Pigment plant LdF
Halby Chemical Co.
Southern Maryland Wood-Treating
Woodlawn County Landfill
Blosenski Landfill
Bufz Landfill
C & D Recycling
CryoChem, Inc.
Dorney Road Landfill
Eastern Diversified Metals
Havertown PCP
Heleva Landfill
Hunterstown Road
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
LOCATION
Newport
New Castle
Hollywood
Wood I awn
West Cain
Township
Stroudsburg
Foster Township
Worman
Upper Macungie
Township
Hometown
Haverford
North Whitehall
Straban Township
Union Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
05
06
07
08
01
03
01
03
01
01
02
03
02
02
03
02
03
01
. 03
04
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
. PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
03/16/92
09/29/95
01/03/95
02/23/94
09/29/92
11/10/94
12/28/90
12/31/91
05/11/93
05/11/94
08/31/93
04/10/92
06/21/94
09/12/94
03/11/92
03/11/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
4
1
3
1
1
4
4
1997
1998
1999
1999
1998
1998
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
B-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA'
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Lindane Dump
MW Manufacturing
Naval Air Development Center (8
waste centers)
North Penn-Area KGentle Cleaners/G-
ranite Knitting Mill
Novak Sanitary Landfill
Occidental Chemical Corp. /Firestone
Co,
Paoli Rail Yard
Rect icon/Allied Steel Corp.
Revere Chemical Co.
Saegerton Industrial Area
Tonolli Corp. .
Uestinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
Uhitmoyer Laboratories
William Dick Lagoons
LOCATION
Lindane
Valley Township
Uarminster
Township
Souderton
South Whitehall
Twp
Lower Pottsgrdve
Tup.
Paoli
East Coventry
Tup.
Nockamixon
Township
Saegertown
Nesquehoning
Gettysburg
Jackson Township
West Cain
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
03
05
01
02
03
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP.
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/24/93
06/01/93
09/30/90
. 03/10/95
02/07/95
07/30/95
08/23/94
07/22/93
05/11/94
05/11/94
05/11/94
01/13/95
01/13/95
10/18/93
12/21/93
03/16/93
03/05/92
03/05/92
09/17/92
07/10/95
07/10/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
1
1
3
3
4
3
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
4
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
' 1997
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1996
1998
1996
1997
1997
1996
3 VA Arrowhead Associates/Scovill
Corp.
Montross
01
PRP
09/07/94
1 1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
VA
VA
VA
VA
UV
UV
UV
At.
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
Greenwood Chemical Co.
L.A. Clarke & Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood
Preservation Division)
Saunders Supply Co.
Fike Chemical
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
Airco Plating Co.
American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant)
Anodyne, Inc.
LOCATION
Newton
Spot sy I van i a
County
R i chmond
Chuckatuck
Nitro
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
Saraland
Axis
Bucks
Montgomery
Miami
Pensacola
North Miami
Beach
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
04
01
01
03
01
06
02
04
01
01
01
01
03
03
01
01
02
01
01
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F*
FUNDING
START
02/20/92
03/03/90
05/02/94
\
07/22/92
10/07/93
08/06/90
. 01/11/94
05/26/92
07/12/93
09/30/91
08/30/95
11/16/93
11/20/92
03/08/94
03/08/94
09/27/95
09/20/94
04/18/94
12/12/94
08/12/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
4
4
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
4
3
1996
; 1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1995
1996
B-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30; 1995
Rn
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
KY
KY
SITE NAME
B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Hun i sport Landfill
Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water &
Sewer
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Cedartown Industries, Inc.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Hercules 009 Landfill
Marzone Inc. /Chevron Chemical
Co.
Mathis Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road)
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Co.
Wool folk Chemical Works, Inc.
Brantley Landfill
Green River Disposal, Inc.
Smith's Farm ' .
LOCATION
Hialeah
Jacksonvi I le
Jacksonville
North Miami
Vero Beach
Tampa
Cedartown
Albany
Brunswick
Tifton
Kensington
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Calvert City
Macco
Brooks
OPER- -
ABLE
UNIT
01
06
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
LEAD
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/20/95
04/21/95
09/21/95
12/12/91
12/12/91
09/22/94
03/26/93
11/30/94
11/30/94
11/03/93
03/16/94
10/07/93
OB/14/95
10/14/93
08/01/91
11/01/93
06/28/94
09/29/95
05/08/95
05/12/95
06/01/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
' 1
4
1
4
2
4
1
3
4
3
1
4
2
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1997
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1995
1996
1996 '
1997
1996
1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year .1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SITE NAME
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Bypass 601 Ground Water Cent ami nati
on
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
Carolina Transformer Co.
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen
Plant)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
New Hanover County Airport Burn
Pit
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston
Plant)
LOCATION
Aberdeen
Concord
Ons low County
Fayetteville
Statesville
Washington
Aberdeen
Oxford
Salisbury
Wilmington
Fairfax
Beaufort
Charleston
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
02
06
01
01
02
01
01
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
03/14/90
08/25/94
08/24/93
10/06/94
12/28/94
09/30/92
08/03/94
08/18/94
02/23/94
05/21/93
08/20/93
09/29/95
09/29/95
04/18/94
06/23/94
08/09/94
08/09/94
P6/05/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
3
4
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
2
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996 .
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
B-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.5
ST
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
TN
TN
II
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Lexington County Landfill Area
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
Rock Hill Chemical Co.
SCRDI Bluff Road
Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
Murray-Ohio Dump .
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. ,
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Pagel's Pit
Tri -County Landfill Co. /Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc.
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
American Chemical Service,
Inc.
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Douglas Road/Uni royal, Inc.,
LOCATION
Cayce
Simpsonville
Rock Hill
Columbia
Pickens
At ken '
Milan
Laurenceburg
Morristown
Granite City
Rockford
iSouth Elgin
Woodstock
Griffith
Elkhart
Mishawaka
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
29
14
01
04
08
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F.F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
f
FUNDING
START
06/13/95
08/04/94
03/23/95
11/0.1/91
06/30/92
02/16/95
04/19/95
05/17/95
11/18/91
11/18/91
03/08/91
12/14/92
02/02/94
09/02/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
. 06/14/95
02/23/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
3
.4
1
4
3
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1997
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
Landfill
-------
Progress Toward Implementing'Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Himco, Inc., Dump
Lakeland Disposal Service,
Inc. ,
Neat's Dump (Spencer)
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Berlin & Farro
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Chem Central
Duel 1 & Gardner Landfill
Electrovoice
Forest Waste Products
Ionia City Landfill
j & L Landfill
K & L Avenue Landfill
Metamora Landfill
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Peerless Plating Co.
Rose Township Dump
Spartan Chemical Co.
LOCATION
Elkhart
Claypool
Spencer
Indianapolis
Swartz Creek
Grand Rapids
Sault Sainte
Marie
Wyoming Township
Da I ton Township
Buchanan
Otisville
Ionia
Rochester
Hills
Oshtemo Township
Hetamora
Lansing
Muskegon
Rose Township
Wyoming
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
03
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
FE*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
r
PRP
S
FUNDING
START
04/13/95
05/25/94
08/22/85
09/14/94
12/07/92
02/23/93
05/10/93
04/07/92
07/29/94
09/29/93
05/08/95
06/27/88
09/13/90
06/27/95
09/18/92
04/26/91
05/16/92
09/21/92
07/18/89
09/28/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
3
4
1
3
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
3
1996
1997
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1998
1996
1999
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
B-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Torch Lake
Wash King Laundry
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bell Lumber
& Pole Co.
New Bright on/ Arden Hills
Perham Arsenic
Ritari Post & Pole
St. Regis Paper Co.
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Feed Ma'terials Production Center
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Miami County Incinerator
Powell Road Landfill
LOCATION
Sturgis
Mancelona
Township
Houghton County
Pleasant Plains
Twp
New Brighton
New Brighton
Perham
Sebeka
Cass Lake
Ironton
Fernald
Ashtabula
Jackson Township
Uniontown
Troy
Dayton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
03
03
07
01
01
01
02
02
02
01
02
04
06
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
S
PRP
.
F
S
S
F
F
FF
F
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/21/93
03/09/93
09/01/94
09/21/93
07/16/93
03/31/95
03/31/95
09/30/93
09/19/94
11/14/94
04/28/95
06/16/93
07/23/93
06/16/93
04/25/95
08/07/95
02/07/95
09/19/94
03/22/89
06/24/92
09/29/89
09/29/89
04/02/93
06/21/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
4
4
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
1997
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1997
1998
2005
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
B-14
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
ST
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
AR
AR
LA
LA
SITE NAME
Pristine, Inc.
Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial
Uaste Disposal Co.Inc
Skinner Landfill
Van Dale Junkyard
Zanesville Uell Field
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Eau Claire Municipal Uell Field
Hunts Disposal
Janes vi lie Ash Beds
Janesville old Landfill
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil
Co.)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
South 8th Street Landfill
Vertac, Inc.
American Cresote Uorks, Inc
(Uinnfield)
Gulf Coast Vaccuum Services
LOCATION
Reading
Dayton
Uest Chester
Marietta
Zanesville
Dunn
Eau Claire
Caledonia
Janesville
Janesville
Brookfield
Milwaukee
Muskego
Stoughton
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Uinnfield
Abbevi I le
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
05
05
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
05
01
01
02
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
F*
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/29/91
12/10/94
06/06/94
03/29/94
03/29/94
09/23/94
09/21/92
04/23/93
09/29/88
05/05/92
07/12/91
07/12/91
08/13/91
07/15/91
06/26/95
09/28/92
09/11/92
04/19/94
02/19/92
05/24/94
12/11/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
4
3
4
1996-
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
. 1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
B-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Soperfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
ST
LA
NM
NM
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
SITE NAME
PAB Oil & Chemical Service,
Inc.
Cleveland Mill
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Oklahoma Refining Co. (Pesses
Chemical Co.)
Crystal Chemical Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc.
(Turtle Bayou)
RSR Corp.
Sheridan Disposal Service
29th & Mead Ground Water Contaminat
ion
Strother Field Industrial Park
Ellisville.Site
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (Area
2: Fills 1 & 2)
Shenandoah Stables (once listed as
LOCATION
Abbeville
Silver City
Prewitt
Oklahoma City
Cyril
Houston
Texarkana
Liberty County
Dallas
Hempstead
Wichita
Cowley County
Ellisville
Imperial
Moscow Mills
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
03
04
05
01
02
02
01
04
05
01
02
LEAD
F
PS
PRP
. PRP
F
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
EP
EP
EP
EP
FUND I KG
START
11/17/94
01/19/95
05/14/93
01/15/95
. 06/21/93
09/22/92
03/3.1/92
03/31/93
03/31/93
09/25/92
09/25/92
07/15/93
05/10/93
05/10/93
12/29/89
03/29/90
05/18/94
12/18/94
10/07/91
10/07/91
05/01/91
05/01/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
2
4
'4
3
1
4
1
1
4
3
3
1
2
4
2
1
2
2
2
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
B-16
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX 8
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
MO
MO
NE
NE
NE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
SITE NAME
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
Wet don Springs Ordnance Works
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former)
Chemical Sales Co.
Denver Radium Site
Eagle Mine
Lowry Landfill
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Sunmitvi lie Mine
Idaho Pole Co.
LOCATION
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
Hall County
Hastings
Mead
Commerce City
Denver
Minturn/Redcliff
'Arapahoe County
Golden
Adams County
Rio Grande
County
Bozeman
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
03
01
01
01
02
04
10
01
01
04
08
01
01
. 02
27
28
04
01
PRESENT
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
.FF
FF
FF
f
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/15/95
05/20/94
10/15/93
10/11/93
04/04/94
12/01/94
04/27/93
10/01/92 '
09/28/90 .
10/01/92
08/29/95
04/08/94 .
05/09/94
06/07/92
06/08/94
05/15/95
09/01/92
09/24/93
02/05/93
03/15/95
09/08/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
2
2
4
4
1
3
4
3
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1994
1996
1997
1996
B-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS OH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
Rfi
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
MT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
WY
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Montana Pole and Treating
Hill Air Force Base
Midvale Slag
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Monti cello Radioactively Contaminat
ed Properties
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale .
Tailings/Smelters)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
Apache Powder Co.
Hassayampa Landfill
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
Castle Air Force Base
Fairchild Semiconductor/Camera &
(South San Jose Plant)
Fort Ord
LOCATION
Butte
Ogden
Midvale
Monticello
Monticello
Midvale
Salt Lake
City
Laramie
St. David
Hassayampa
Goodyear
Tucson
Arvin
Merced
South San
Jose
Marina
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
04
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
04
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
' 02
03
LEAD
F
FF
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FE
F
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/16/94
06/14/94
03/27/95
12/24/91
01/12/93
05/12/92
07/26/93
09/29/89
11/23/93
03/17/95
09/27/93
09/18/95
02/15/87
03/22/95
03/14/95
01/04/91
01/07/89
04/19/94
03/01/93
01/02/91
09/29/95
09/15/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
4
3
2
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
. 4
4
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1993
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX 8
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS OH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill
George Air Force Base
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
Mather Air Force Base (AC & U
Disposal Site)
McColl
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
Raytheon Corp.
LOCATION
Fresno
Victorville
Mountain View
Redding
Weed
Mountain View
Oroville
Livermore
Livermore
San Jose
Sacramento
Ful lerton
San Bernadino
Monterey Park
Malaga
Mountain View
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
02
03
02
01
LEAD
PRP
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
F
FF
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
. FUNDING
START
12/17/93
03/07/94
05/14/91
09/21/92
01/27/93
09/21/94
08/19/91
08/19/91
12/16/92
02/21/92
02/21/92
09/26/95
08/05/92
03/15/95
08/15/95
08/31/93
09/24/93
04/17/95
04/01/92
10/25/93
05/14/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
4
3
2
1
2
3
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
B-19
-------
Progress Toward Imp lenient ing Soperfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IH PROGRESS OH SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NV
AK
AK
ID
ID
OR
WA
UA
SITE NAME
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley. (Area 2)
Tracy Defense Depot
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Haste Disposal, Inc.
Cafson River Mercury Site (Trust
Territories PC)
Eielson Air Force Base
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Bunker .Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
American Crossarm & Conduit
Co.
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
LOCATION
Riverbank
Sacramento
Los Angeles/Glendale.
Tracy
Turlock
Santa Fe Springs
Lyon/Churchill
County
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Greater Anchorage
Borough
Smelterville
Idaho Falls
Hermiston
Chehalis
. Silverdale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
04
05
02
03
02
01
01
01
01
02
01 '
02
05
02
15
18
19
03
04
06
07
01
01
05
PRESENT
'LEAD
FF
FF
. FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/23/94
03/13/95
03/13/95
03/13/95
05/01/94
05/01/94
08/12/93
06/25/92
09/27/94
04/05/95
10/18/94
10/18/94
03/16/95
06/09/95
03/17/95
03/29/93
12/23/94
09/24/93
11/07/94
09/12/94
09/02/94
09/02/94
07/19/94
01/14/94
09/28/94
09/02/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
4
2
1
3
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1997
1996
1995
1996
1996
B-20
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1995
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
WA
UA
UA
WA
UA
UA
WA
WA
WA
SITE NAME
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Waste
Area)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Hanford 200- Area (USDOE)
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Complex
Queen City Farms
Wycoff Co. /Eagle Harbor
~
LOCATION
Pierce County
Spokane County
Tillicum
Vancouver
Benton County
Keyport
Bremerton
Maple Valley
Batnbridge
Island
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
06
07
12
13
02
02
03
01
13
02
01
01
03
LEAD
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/15/93
01/30/91
05/18/94
06/22/94
11/18/93
10/15/93
10/15/93
03/23/88
06/07/95
03/31/95
08/04/95
09/20/94
04/04/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
1
1995
1995
1998
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
B-21
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix C
List of Records of
Decision
This appendix provides a specific list of FY95 records of decision (RODs) signed from October 1,1994
through September 30,1995. Detailed descriptions of the feasibility studies, as required by CERCLA Section
301(h)(l)(a), are available from the National Technology Information Services (NTIS) at 703-605-6000.
EPA's Superfund Docket Center will assist hi providing the publication number or answer any questions about
the availability of specific RODs and can be reached at 703-603-9232. RODs can also be ordered through
NTIS over the internet at http://www.fedworld.gov/ntis/ntishome.html.
REGION SITE
1 Davisville Naval Construction Battery Center
Fort Devens (AOCs 44 AND 52)
Fort Devens {Shepley's Hill Landfill)
Fort Devens - Sudbury Training Annex
Loring Air Force Base
New London Naval Submarine Base
Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards
Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards
Parker Sanitary Landfill
Pease Air Force Base (Site 32/36) (OU4)
Pease Air Force Base (Site 45) (OU10)
Pease Air Force Base (Zone 1)
Pease Air Force Base (Zone 2)
Pease Air Force Base (Zone 3)
Pease Air Force Base (Zone 4) (OU8)
Raymark Industries, Inc.
Transitor Electronics, Inc.
2 Anchor Chemicals
Batavia Landfill
Caldwell Trucking
Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.
GCL Tie and Treating, Inc.
Genzale Plating Co.
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
STATE
DATE
Rl
MA
MA
MA
ME
CT
MA
MA
VT
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
CT
VT
9/18/95
3/28/95
9/26/95
9/29/95
9/20/95
9/26/95
9/25/95
9/29/95
4/4/95
9/26/95
8/9/95
6/26/95
9/18/95
9/26/95
. 1/30/95
7/3/95
9/29/95
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
9/29/95
6/6/95
2/27/95
3/31/95
"3/28/95
9/29/95
3/31/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
C-l
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
REGION SITE
Hooker (102nd Street)
JIS Landfill
King of Prussia
Naval Air Engineering Center
Niagara Mohawk Power Co. (Saratoga Springs)
PJP Landfill
Pittsburgh Air Force Base
Pittsburgh Air Force Base (Site ST-020)
Sealand Restoration, Inc.
Sydney Landfill
U.S. Radium Corp.
Warwick Landfill
3 A.I.W. Frank/Mid-County Mustang
Aberdeen Proving Ground
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area)
Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.
Brqdhead Creek
Bush Valley Landfill
Centre County Kepone
Dover Air Force Base (Bldg. 124 (WP32))
Dover Air Force Base (Bldg. 918)
Dover Air Force Base (target Area 2 of Area 6)
Dover Air Force Base (Target Area 3 of Area 6)
Dover Air Force Base (Target Area 1 of Area 6)
Dover Air Force Base (Lindane Source Area of Area 6)
H & H Inc., Burn Pit
Naval Air Development Center (8 Areas)
Naval Weapons Station - Yorktown
North Penn - Area 6
Resin Disposal
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
' Shriver's Corner Site
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.
Sussex County Landfill No. 5
U.S. Defense General Supply
Westinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
York County Solid Waste/Refuse Landfill
4 Anaconda Aluminum Co./Milgo Electronics
Beaunit Corp. (Circular Knit & Dye)
Brantley Landfill
Carolawn Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
PCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone Quarry
General Electric Co./Shepherd Farm
STATE
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NY
PA
MD
MD
VA
PA
MD
PA
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
VA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
PA
MD
DE
: PE
VA
PA
PA
FL
SC
KY
SC
AL
NC
KY
NC
DATE
6/9/95
8/15/95
9/27/95
1/5/95
9/29/95
9/28/95
3/31/95
3/31/95
9/29/95
9/28/95
8/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/8/95
10/11/94
9/29/95
6/30/95
9/26/95
4/21/95
3/28/95
3/28/95
9/26/95
9/26/95
9/26/95
9/26/95
6/30/95
3/10/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
9/8/95
3/9/95
12/29/94
9/29/95
3/31/95
1 2/29/94
11/22/94
9/29/95
12/14/94
9/21/9.5
7/25/95
11/22/94
3/30/95
9/29/95
C-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION SITE
Green River Disposal, Inc.
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant)
National Starch & Chemical Corp.
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Sixty-Second Street Dump
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
Taylor Road Landfill
T.H. Agriculture SiNutrition (Montgomery)
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (Kerr Hollow Quarry)
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (Lower Watts Bar Reservoir)
US DOE Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (NE Plume)
US DOE Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (SWMU 2&3)
US DOE Savannah River Site (GW OU)
. US DOE Savannah River Site (PAR Ponds)
US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site -
US DOE Savannah River Site (M - Area)
USA Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
USAF Homestead AFB
USAF Homestead AFB OU4
USAF Homestead AFB OU6
USAF Robins AFB (Landfill/Sludge LA)
USMC Camp Lejeune
USMC Logistics Base 555
USMC Logistics Base 555
USN NAS Jacksonville
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman County)
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
Zellwood Ground Water Contamination
5 Albion Sheridon Township Landfill
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Carter Lee Lumber Co.
Douglas Road Uniroyal Inc. Landfill
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE)
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE)
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE)
Galen Myer's Dump/Drum Salvage
STATE
KY
SC
. FL
AL
AL
SC
NC
AL
SC
FL
FL
AL
FL
AL
TN
TN
TN
KY
KY
SC
SC
. SC
SC
SC
SC
AL
FL
FL
FL
GA
NC
GA
GA
FL
TN
GA
TN
FL
' . Ml
OH
Ml
IN
IN
OH
OH
OH
IN
DATE
12/14/94
.9/1/95
2/1 5/95
9/29/95
10/13/94
3/29/95
10/6/94
12/16/94
3/30/95.
8/3/95
6/29/95
8/1 6/95
9/29/95
4/17/95
8/17/95
9/29/95
9/29/95
6/1 5/95
8/22/95
11/9/94
2/13/95
3/6/95
4/13/95
4/13/95
9/11/95
11/14/94
. 9/7/95
6/22/95
8/24/95 ' '
9/25/95
9/22/95
10/11/94
6/23/95
9/21/95
9/26/95
9/29/95
. 2/2/95
8/24/95
3/28/95
7/31/95
2/28/95
9/29/95
7/13/95
3/1/95
6/8/95
1 2/7/94
9/29/95
C-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
REGION SITE
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Mid-State Disposal Inc. Landfill
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
Petoskey Municipal Wellfield
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill
Refuse Hideaway
Reilly Tar & Chemical St. Louis Park-
Rockwell International Corp.. Allegan Plant
Sauk County Landfill
Southside Sanitary Landfill
SE Rockford Groundwater Contamination
US DOE Mound Plant
Whiteford Sales & Service National Lease
6 Bayou Bonfouca
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
National Zinc Corp.
RSR Corp.
RSR Corp.
Southern Shipbuilding
7 10th Street Site
Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former)
Quality Plating
Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal
8 Ellsworth Air Force Base
Ellsworth Air Force Base
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Hill Air Force Base
Hill Air Force Base
Midvale Slag
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2&3)
Summitville Mine
Summitville Mine
Summitville Mine
Summitville Mine
9 Carson River Mercury Site
Fort Ord
Hewlett-Packard (620-640 Page Mill Road)
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Site 300)
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
Mather Air Force Base
McClellah Air Force Base (Ground Water Contamination)
Moffett Naval Air Station
STATE
Wl
Wl
Wl
. Ml
MN
Wl
MN
Ml
Wl
IN
IL
OH
IN
LA
TX
TX
OK
TX
TX
LA
NE
NE
MO
IA
SD
SD
WY
WY
UT
UT
UT
UT
CO
CO
CO
CO
NV
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
DATE
9/6/95
8/4/95
2/2/95
6/.14/95
9/28/95
6/28/95
6/30/95
7/11/95
9/28/95
9/28/95
9/29/95
6/12/95
9/29/95
7/20/95
5/12/95
9/27/95
12/13/94
5/9/95
5/9/95
7/20/95
2/23/95
8/29/95
1/24/95
9/20/95
5/16/95
5/1 6/95
11/3/94
8/9/95
9/28/95
9/28/95
4/28/95
9/29/95
12/15/94
"12/16/94
12/17/94
12/18/94
3/30/95
4/13/95
3/24/95
9/26/95
8/1/95
8/13/95
5/11/95
1 2/22/94
C-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION SITE STATE DATE
Newmark Ground Water Contamination CA 3/24/95
Sacramento Army Depot CA 1 /17/95
United Heckathron Co. CA 10/26/94
10 Adak Naval Air Station AK 3/31/95
Arctic Surplus AK 9/28/95
Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tide Flats WA 3/24/95
Eielson Air Force Base AK 9/22/95
Elmendorf Air Force Base AK 12/28/94
Elmendorf Air Force Base AK 3/31/95
Elmendorf Air Force Base . AK 9/27/95
Fort Wainwright . AK 7/20/95
Hamilton Island Landfill (USA/COE) WA 3/30/95
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE) (OUs 100-BC-1, 100-DR-1 and 100-HR-1) WA 9/28/95
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) . WA 1/20/95
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE) ' WA 5/24/95
Idaho National Engineering Lab (USDOE) ID 12/2/94
Idaho National Engineering Lab (USDOE) ID 8/18/95
Idaho National .Engineering Lab (USDOE) ID 9/28/95
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (Soda Springs) ID 9/28/95
Mountain Home Air Force Base (OU 1,3,5,6) ID 9/27/95
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (AULT) WA 4/14/95
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co. ID 9/27/95
Port Hadlock Detachment (USN) WA 8/4/95
Teledyne Wah Chang OR 9/27/95
C-5
-------
This p.age intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix D
Report of the
Inspector General
D-l
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT. 2 2 1S98
OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Review of the Superfund_Annual Reports to Congress
for Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996
Audit Report E 1 SFF7- 1 1 -0022- 9100024
Nikki'L.Tinsiey
Acting Inspector General
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
L
U.
Background and Summary of Results
Section 301 (h)(l) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, requires EPA
(the Agency) to submit to Congress, by January 1st of each year, a report on its progress in
implementing Superfund during the prior fiscal year.
We have completed our mandated review of two of the. Agency's Annual Reports to Congress
(Annual Reports), Progress Toward Implementing Superfund. This review covers the Annual
Reports for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. In accordance with Section 301 (h)(2), we reviewed
these Annual Reports for reasonableness and accuracy. This report becomes part of the Annual
Reports. .
After conducting a limited scope review, we determined that the fiscal years 1995 and 1996
Annual Reports were generally reasonable and accurate, though we observed that the two reports
are being issued late. This led us to question their usefulness since, in their absence, Congress
had to obtain needed information through means other than the Annual Reports. We believe the
Agency should consider alternative reporting methods like the Internet to transmit accomplish-
ment data and the SARC faster to Congress and the public with less administrative costs.
We are closing this report on issuance. Accordingly, no written response to the report is ~
necessary. .
R*cycl*d/R«cyclab<* . Printed with Vegetable OK Based Inks on 100% Recyded Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
Purpose, Scope and Methodology
We conducted our review at EPA Headquarters' Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) in the Office of Solid Waste.and Emergency Response (OSWER). and in Regions 1
and 5. For purposes of this review, we defined "reasonableness" as information that was
rationally grounded and not excessive in nature. We defined 'accuracy" as consistent with
supporting documentation and not contradicting past or similar information. See the attachment
to this report for a complete discussion of the scope and methodology of our review.
Objectives .
The overall objective of our review was to determine whether the Agency's fiscal years 1995 and
1996 Annual Reports were reasonable and accurate, as required by the statute. Sub-objectives
we pursued in order to meet our overall objective were to determine whether:
/; the Annual Reports presented consistent accomplishment information within each report,
between the two reports and with supporting documentation.
2) the necessary statutory requirements were met.
3) internal controls over data entry and reporting were adequate.
4) construction completion accomplishments, one of the Agency's main indicators of site
progress, were supported by source documentation.
We also inquired into the causes for significant delays in issuing the Annual Reports.
Results of the Review- ; :
Based on our review, we believe the Annual Reports for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 were
generally accurate and reasonable. Below are the review results individually addressing each ot
our four specific sub-objectives.
To answer our first sub-objective, we selected a judgmental sample of the majority of data
relating to accomplishment results. We identified inconsistencies, most of which were minor,
within and between the Annual Reports and with supporting documentation. We communicated
our concerns to OERR staff who made the necessary corrections.
Concerning our second sub-objective, we noted that the draft Annual Reports did not include
statutorily required information for a detailed description of each feasibility study at each facility.
We notified OERR which added a reference to an alternative source for a detailed description ot
the feasibility studies (a CD-ROM provided by National Technology-Information Services).
Additionally, Record of Decision abstracts, another source for detailed information on a site, can
be found at hrtp:/A>W.epa.gov/Superfund Therefore, the statutory information requirements
were reasonably met. _
-------
For sub-objective three, we conducted a partial review of internal controls over data entry
procedures for the data system supporting compilation of the accomplishment information and
observed that in EPA Regions 1 and 5 the controls appeared adequate. (We last looked at
CERCLIS data internal controls in depth in our report entitled "Reliability of CERCLIS Data:
Superfund Performance Measures for Fiscal 1993," audit report number 4100229, March 30,
1994.)
Under sub-objective four, we determined that source documentation supported 100 percent of the
construction completion accomplishments, one of the Agency's main indicators of site progress.-
(See our report entitled "Superfund Construction Completion Reporting," audit report number
8100030, December 30, 1997, which further details our work in this area.)
In addition to our four sub-objectives, we also examined the causes of significant delays in the
issuance of the Annual Reports. Even though the Agency streamlined content information
included in the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 Annual Reports, the reports significantly exceeded
their January 1996 and January 1997 deadline dates. The fiscal year 1995 report is over two and
a half years late and the fiscal year 1996 report is over a year and a half late. Part of the delay in.
preparing the two reports originated in the untimeliness of prior reports spanning back to the
fiscal 1992 Annual Report. (For background information concerning delays in earlier Annual
Reports, see bur special report entitled "Superfund Reports to Congress Were Not Timely," audit
report number 2400033, March 31, 1992.) Additional reasons given by the Agency for delays in
preparation of the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 Annual Reports were:
. A reorganization in the report preparation office in early 1996;
Expiration of the contract to support the fiscal 1992 through 1994 Annual Reports'
preparation aiid a delay in awarding the subsequent support contract; and
Subsequent in-house preparation and printing of the fiscal 1992 through 1994 Annual
Reports.
Conclusions . .
The Agency took the necessary actions to correct and clarify information during our review of
these Annual Reports; therefore, as of the date of this report, we believe the fiscal years 1995 and
1996 Annual Reports are generally reasonable and accurate. However, we observed that the two
reports are being issued late, despite streamlining efforts. This led us to question their usefulness
since, in their absence, Congress obtains needed information through other means. We believe
the Annual Reports will continue to be late unless OSWER adopts additional corrective actions
to improve the report production process. We suggest the Agency should consider alternative
reporting methods like the Internet to transmit accomplishment data and the SARC faster to
Congress and the public with less administrative costs. This suggestion is provided for Agency
consideration, but we are not making a formal recommendation at this tune.
-------
ATTACHMENT
Scope and Methodology
With respect to the first sub-objective discussed on page 2 we compared Comprehensive ,
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) printouts
and other supporting documents to the data included in the Annual Reports. ^We reviewed key
accomplishment data in each of the Annual Reports' executive summary exhibits ( Summary of
Fiscal Year 1995 [or 1996] Superfund Activities" and "Summary of Program Activity by F«l
Year") and compared the data in the exhibits to the data within the texts of the Annual Reports
themselves. We also compared the consistency between the two Annual Reports, and reviewed
accomplishment numbers from past fiscal years to detect any significant increases or ^crease*.
Additionally, we reviewed accomplishment definitions to identify any changes that would cause
significant increases or decreases in accomplishment numbers.
For the second sub-objective, we reviewed the Annual Reports' content to determine whether '
hlrnSn required by statute was included. We examined the exhibit "Statutory Requirements
for the Report" to determine what information the Agency used to meet the conditions of the
statute. We communicated with various Headquarters officials to discuss the text and the
Agency's interpretation of the requirements using January 1998 drafts of the Annua ^P*,
On July 23, 1998, we received and consequently reviewed .the latest versions of the two Annual
Reports.
Next, we addressed'the third sub-objective by performing a partial review of internal controls
over data entry procedures for the CERCLIS data system which supports compilation of the
accomplishment information. We interviewed staff at Headquarters and in Regions 1 and 5
regarding controls over data entry. We performed reviews of policy documentation for entering
and verifying data. We reviewed documentation discussing CERCLIS and its related systems
which the Agency uses to capture Superfund information. Also, we discussed issues such as
employee training and the coding of Superfund information for data entry.
Fourth, we determined whether EPA met its criteria for reporting Superfund site
completions for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Properly supported construction completions would
be an indicator that the accomplishments under this category were reasonable and accurate. For
this review, acceptable support consisted of preliminary or final close-out reports, no-further-
*ti£ RecorTSDecisZ or deletion notices. TTiese are documents the Agency would sign to
confirm that the criteria for a construction completion has been met. We reviewed earlier work
^rformed in this area by Office of Inspector General staff. We then compared our listing of
construction completions to related source documents and an Agency listing.
-------
Finally, concerning the timeliness of the Annual Reports, we obtained documents regarding
requests for data to prepare the Annual Reports, who the contributors were, and progress toward
finalizing the reports. We also spoke with various Headquarters staff concerning methods for
ensuring accuracy and timeliness of the Annual Reports.
We began our review on October 30. 1997. and completed field work on August 28, 1998.
-------
-------
Appendix E
Summary of the Superfund
Program [1995-1997]
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is committed to accelerating the pace of
hazardous waste site cleanup. As part of this
commitment, EPA has placed 220 National Priorities
List (NPL) sites into the construction completion
category during FY95-FY97 for a total of 498 NPL
sites in this category.
Throughout FY95-FY97, EPA successfully
encouraged potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to
undertake and finance cleanup efforts at Superfund
sites. By the end of FY97, PRPs led more than 69
percent of remedial designs (RDs) and remedial
actions (RAs) started during the fiscal year. During
FY95-FY97, EPA continually improved the
effectiveness of the Superfund program through the
continuation of SACM, the implementation of
administrative reforms and the brownfields initiative,
reorganizing the Superfund program, and supporting
reauthorization efforts with Congress.
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
EPA's continued implementation of the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)
resulted in streamlining the cleanup process and
changed the paradigm of doing business in
Superfund. SACM allows for rapid reduction of
risks at Superfund sites and long-term restoration of
the environment. SACM introduced significant
improvements to the existing cleanup process by:
eliminating sequential and duplicative studies
by combining site assessment and investigation
activities;
removing the existing overlap between the
types of cleanup actions done under the
Superfund removal program and those done
under the remedial program, to save time and
money; and
redefining Superfund cleanup actions as early
and long-term actions.
Administrative Reforms
EPA improved the effectiveness of the
Superfund program by further refining initiatives and
identifying administrative changes to be made within
the existing statutory and regulatory framework.
Three rounds of reforms have been launched,
including the second round and third rounds, in
FY95 and FY96, respectively. Each round of reforms
brought about a number of new or enhanced
initiatives and continued ongoing initiatives.
Collectively, the initiatives involve diverse activities
such as promotion of economic redevelopment,
enforcement reform, environmental justice,
enhancement of community involvement, improve-
ment of cleanup effectiveness and consistency, and
expansion of the roles of states and Indian tribes.
Examples of specific initiatives include:
Round 2
testing the allocation process under which
neutral parties allocate shares among responsible
parties;
providing relief to lenders by clarifying
application of liability exemption;
E-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
promoting economic redevelopment by archiving
sites from CERCLIS determined to be of no
further federal Superfund interest and awarding
Browrifields pilots;
reducing the cost and duration of cleanup
through additional groundwater and land use
guidances; and
initiating a voluntary cleanup program to speed
the cleanup of non-NPL sites.
Rounds
compensating settlors for a portion of orphan
shares, thereby reducing the responsibility of
cooperative parties for shares attributable to
insolvent parties;
increasing the number of protected small
contributors;
reducing oversight of cooperative parties
performing remedies and decreasing transaction
costs;
establishing a National Remedy Review Board to
review proposed cleanup actions and help reduce
cleanup costs;
initiating remedy "Rules of Thumb" to produce
time and cost savings;
allowing economic redevelopment with the
partial deletion of some sites; and
fostering consistency among Regions for faster,
fairer cleanups, reasonable risk assessments, and
reduced PRP oversight.
Brownfields Initiative
EPA also promoted the redevelopment of
abandoned and contaminated properties once used
for industrial and commercial purposes
("brownfields"). EPA believes that environmental
cleanup is a building block to economic
redevelopment and must go hand-in-hand with
bringing life and economic vitality back to
communities.
The FY95 Brownfields Economic Re-
development Initiative is a comprehensive approach
to empower state and local governments,
communities, and other stakeholders interested in
economic redevelopment to work together in a timely
manner to prevent, assess, safely cleanup, and
sustainably reuse brownfields. In 1995, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that there are
450,000 brownfields sites in the United States.
EPA addressed implementation of the initiative
through the Brownfields Action Agenda and the
subsequently established Brownfields National
Partnership Action Agenda. The Agendas comprise
a collection of bold strategies:
implementing Brownfields pilot programs in
cities, counties, towns, and Tribes across the
country;
. clarifying liability and other issues of concern
for lending institutions, municipalities,
prospective purchasers, developers, property
owners, and others;
establishing partnerships with other EPA
programs, federal agencies, states, cities,
stockholders, and organizations;
promoting community involvement by
supporting job development and training
activities linked to brownfield assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment; and .
linking environmental protection with economic
redevelopment and community revitalization.
By the end of FY97, EPA had announced the
selection of 121 Brownfields Pilots to be funded
through cooperative agreements worth up to
$200,000 each for a two-year period. These pilots
are either funded through Headquarters or the 10
Regional offices. The pilots are intended to provide
redevelopment models, direct efforts toward
removing regulatory barriers, and coordinate public
and private efforts at the federal, state, and local
levels.
E-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund Program Reorganization
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) was reorganized in FY96 from a
hierarchical, four division structure to a matrix
organization with 14 centers of expertise. The
reorganization had several distinct purposes:
to accelerate site cleanup:
promote teamwork;
empower states; and
provide better customer service.
Reauthorization Activities
EPA continued to work with Congress on
reauthorization issues. CERCLA was last amended
in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA).
The major Superfund program areas include:
Site Evaluation, Emergency Response, Remedial
Progress, Enforcement Progress, Federal Facility
Cleanups, Resource Estimates, and Superfund
Program Support Activities.
Site Evaluation
Over FY95-FY97, EPA's progress in identifying
and assessing newly discovered sites has resulted in
a total of over 40,100 sites identified in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS). CERCLIS is
Superfund's inventory of potentially threatening
hazardous waste sites that require further federal
Superfund program attention.
. Through FY97, the Agency had begun work at
over 98 percent of the 1,405 sites proposed to, listed
on, or deleted from the NPL. Through the end of
FY97, a total of 156 sites have been deleted from the
NPL.
EPA carried on the implementation of SACM
that encourages EPA Regions to reduce repetitive
tasks and cost by combining certain site assessment,
long-term remediation program, and removal
program activities.
The NCP was modified so that CERCLIS sites
needing no further EPA-financed response actions
could be placed in a separate "archived" database.
During FY95-FY97, EPA also proceeded with
ongoing efforts to address technical complexities and
improve site evaluation guidance.
During the 1995-1997 time period, EPA has
undertaken projects to address brownfields issues by
establishing the Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative in FY95. This initiative is
directed toward empowering states, local
governments, communities, and others to work
together to assess and safely cleanup brownfields
sites.
Emergency Response
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, EPA and
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) started nearly
830 removal actions and completed more than 889
removal actions during FY95-FY97. Through the
end of FY97, more than 4,490 removal actions have
been started and nearly 3,939 have been completed
since the inception of the Superfund program.
The removal authority for "early actions," has
been expanded to reduce immediate risks and
expedite cleanup at NPL sites. The expansion was a
key element of SACM. Early actions may include
emergency, time-critical, or non-time critical removal
responses or quick remedial responses.
Under the reportable quantities (RQ) regulatory
requirements, EPA proposed an expanded
exemptions rule (60 FR 40042) under which
exemptions may be granted for releases of naturally
occurring radionuclides associated with land
disturbance due to certain mining activities.
EPA also issued guidance during FY96 that
provides answers to common removals/RQ
adjustment questions and concerns of the regulated
community and general public. Additional guidance
was completed on the removal response to radiation
sites.
E-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1995
Remedial Progress
Accomplishments during FY95-FY97 reflect
EPA's continued efforts to accelerate the overall
pace of cleanup and complete cleanup activities at an
increasing number of sites. During the period,
cleanup activities resulted in the placement of 220
additional NPL sites in the construction completion
category for an overall total of 498 NPL sites in this
category. Also started by EPA or PRPs were nearly
107 remedial investigation/feasibility studies
(RI/FSs), more than 230 remedial designs (RDs), and
more than 328 remedial actions (RAs). EPA signed
492 records of decision (RODs) at Fund-financed or
PRP-financed sites.
Two components of the remedial program with
significant activity during FY95-FY97 were the five-
year review program and the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. A total of
146 five-year reviews, required by CERCLA Section
121 (c), were carried our during this period. These
reviews assure that human health and the
environment are being protected by the selected
remedial action. The SITE Program demonstrates
and evaluates full-scale, innovative hazardous waste
treatment technologies. In FY96, the program
shifted from a technology-driven focus to one that
was more integrated, driven by the needs of the waste
remediation community. EPA's technology transfer
and interagency coordination efforts have long been
recognized leaders in the technology innovation
arena, and are continually enhanced through
conferences, demonstrations, and reference
publications.
Enforcement Progress
Accomplishments during 1995-1997 reflect
EPA's continuing commitment to maximizing PRP
involvement in financing and conducting cleanup
and recovery of Superfund monies expended for
.response actions. Over the three-year period, EPA
has achieved enforcement agreements worth
approximately $2.2 billion in PRP response work.
Through its cost recovery effort, EPA achieved
approximately $769 million in cost recovery
settlements and collected more than $822 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures in FY95-
FY97. By the end of FY97, EPA had collected a
total of over $1.7 billion in cost recovery settlements,
bankruptcy settlements, fines and penalties.
" EPA has been working toward improving the
efficiency and fairness of Superfund enforcement.
Transaction costs have been reduced through SACM,
three rounds of administrative reforms, and
promotion of an "enforcement first" initiative to
secure increased PRP financial involvement. The
reforms of FY95 encouraged de minimis settlements
and de micromis settlements. Other approaches to
promote fairness and flexibility in settlements were
continued, and guidance documents were issued in
FY95, detailing specific approaches to enforcement
fairness.
Federal Facility Cleanups
Federal departments and agencies are largely
responsible for implementing CERCLA at federal
facility sites. To ensure federal facility compliance
with CERCLA requirements, EPA provides advice
and assistance, oversees activities, and takes
enforcement action where appropriate. For sites that
are on the NPL, EPA must concur with the selected
remedy. The June 27, 1997 Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket listed a total
of 2,104 federal facilities sites. Of the sites on the
docket, 157 were proposed to or listed on the NPL,
including 151 final and six proposed sites.
Throughout 1995-1997, the closure of military
bases was an important issue. Major achievements
in FY95 led EPA and the Department of Defense
(DoD) to determine which installations to include in
the Fast Track Cleanup Program of the Base
Realignment and Closure Act (BRAG) in FY96.
These actions allow for expedited cleanup and reuse
of bases scheduled for closure. Several interagency
forums were also held during this time span,
allowing EPA to make significant progress in
addressing further concerns associated with federal
facility cleanup.
Resource Estimates
Under Executive Order 12580, EPA is required
to estimate the resources needed to carry out
Superfund program responsibilities assigned to EPA
and other federal departments and agencies. Since
E-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1995
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
the enactment of CERCLA in 1980, Congress has
provided Superfund with $17.7 million in budget
authority (FY81 through FY97).
Estimates of the long-term resources required to
implement Superfund are based on the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM). The OLM provides long-
range forecasts, with flexibility to refine these
forecasts, and can be adjusted to accommodate many
program-related variables. To calculate a cost
estimate, the OLM reviews active NPL sites, sites yet
to begin the remedial process, non-site costs, and
factors related to remedial action costs. The OLM
cost estimate of completing cleanup of current NPL
sites is more than $ 13.6 billion for FY97 and beyond,
bringing the total estimated cost of the program to
$31.3 billion.
Superfund Program Support
Throughout 1995-1997, EPA has taken measures
to enhance support activities in the Superfund
program. These steps include efforts to improve
community relations, enhance public access to
information, strengthen EPA's partnership with
states and Indian tribes, and increase minority
contractor utilization.
In its community involvement efforts, EPA
tailors activities to the specific needs of individual
communities and identifies ways to enhance
community involvement efforts. EPA emphasized the
importance of effective community involvement with
guidance that encourages the Regions to establish
community advisory groups (CAGs) in FY96. EPA
also continued to provide technical outreach to
communities, hold national conferences on
community involvement, offer training and
workshops, and facilitate community access to
technical assistance grants (TAGs). To aid
communities in obtaining technical assistance, EPA
awarded 46 TAGs during FY95-FY97, bringing the
total number of TAGs awarded since FY88 to 198,
for a total value of more than $13 million.
To enhance public access to Superfund
information, EPA continued its partnership with the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), to
provide Superfund document distribution services.
EPA has fulfilled requests for more than two million
documents free of charge through NTIS, aided by a
broadened use of electronic tools (e.g. the Internet
and multimedia computers) initiated in FY96. A
Superfund Order Desk is also maintained where
single copies of documents or customized
subscriptions may be purchased.
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) or
Cooperative Agreements (CAs) may be awarded to
states or tribes by EPA to support state and tribal
involvement in the Superfund response activities.
More than $20 million is awarded annually in Core
Program Cooperative Agreements (CPCAs). These
agreements make it easier for Regions to assist states
and tribes in developing comprehensive Superfund
programs.
To promote small and disadvantaged business
participation in Superfund contracting, EPA directly
and indirectly awards Superfund work contracts to
minority contractors. Direct procurement involves
any procurement activity where EPA is a direct party
to a contractual arrangement for supplies, services or
construction. Financial assistance programs utilize
indirect procurement methods. Awards and/or CAs
are granted to eligible states, local municipalities,
universities, non-profit and commercial institutions,
hospitals and individuals. Direct procurement
contracts totaled nearly $151.5 million during FY95-
FY9.7, while cooperative and interagency agreements
with minority contractors totaling more than $3.1
million and nearly $104 million, respectively. In
addition, EPA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (OSDBU) conducted a number
of outreach activities during FY95-97, including
seminars, conferences, and training sessions.
E-5
-------
This page intentionally left blank
------- |