United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA 540-R-98-034
OSWER 9200.2-36P
PB98-963249
Superfund
v>EPA
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund
Fiscal Year 1996
Report to Congress
-------
-------
EPA 540-R-98-034
OSWER 9200.2-36P
PB98-963249
Progress Toward
Implementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1 986
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
51-013-78
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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 1996
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 1996 (FY96). As the Superfund'
program completed its sixteenth year, the Agency had begun work at over 97 percent of the 1,387 sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL), and completed construction on 410 of them. EPA is pleased to submit this
Report documenting the fiscal year's achievements. Through administrative improvements implemented
during the year, the Agency continued its efforts to accelerate the pace of cleanup, enhance the fairness of the
Superfund program, reduce transaction costs, and expand public involvement. In addition, during FY96, the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) reorganized from a hierarchial, four division structure
to a flatter organization of 14 centers. The purpose of the reorganization was to accelerate site cleanup,
promote teamwork, empower states, and provide better customer service.
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 36 remedial investigation/feasibility studies,
74 remedial designs (RDs), and 116 remedial actions (RAs). PRPs began 73 percent of the RDs and 71
percent of the RAs. Continuing its successful efforts to compel PRPs to undertake cleanup, EPA entered into
enforcement agreements worth almost $1.0 billion in settlements and response work. The Agency and PRPs
have also now undertaken more than 4,238 removal actions, including approximately 267 during FY96.
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
reporting requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5), the EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress Toward
in
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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
mothy Fieffls, Jr.
Acting Assistant Administratoffor
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
IV
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
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 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments v
Acronyms xi
Executive Summary xv
Chapter 1: Site Evaluation Progress 1
1.1 Site Evaluation Process . . : 1
1.2 Fiscal Year 1996 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 4
1.3.2 Relationship Between CERCLIS and NPL Update 4
1.4 Site Evaluation Support Activities 5
1.4.1 Brownfields Initiative 5
1.4.2 Lead Program Process 6
1.4.3 Radiation Program Progress 7
1.4.4 Site Evaluation Regulations and Guidance 9
Chapter 2: Emergency Response Progress 11
2.1 Removal Action Process 11
2.2 Fiscal Year 1996 Progress 13
2.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress 13
2.3 Environmental Response Team Activities 14
2.4 Emergency Response Regulations and Guidance 14
2.4.1 Reportable Quantity Regulations 14
2.4.2 Reportable Quantity Exemptions 14
2.4.3 Removal Guidance 15
Chapter 3: Remedial Progress 17
3.1 Remedial Process 17
3.2 Fiscal Year 1996 Remedial Progress 18
3.2.1 Construction Completions 18
. 3.2.2 New Remedial Activities 18
3.2.3 Status of Remedial and Enforcement Activities in Progress 19
3.3.4 Remedy Selection 20
3.3 Remedy Improvement Programs 21
3.3.1 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program 21
Vll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Contents
(continued)
3.3.2 Superfund Technical Assistance Programs 21
3.3.3 Technology Transfer and Interagency Coordination Programs 22
3.4. Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121(c) 25
Chapter 4: Enforcement Progress 29
4.1 The Enforcement Process 29
4.2 Fiscal Year 1996 Superfund Enforcement Progress 30
4.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities 31
4.2.2 PRP Participation in Cleanup Activities 31
4.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements 31
4.3 Enforcement Initiatives 32
4.3.1 Continued Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution 33
4.3.2 Revised "De Micromis" Guidance 34
4.3.3 Equitable Issuance of Unilateral Administrative Orders 35
4.3.4 Orphan Share Compensation 35
4.3.5 Prospective Purchaser Agreements 36
4.3.6 Reducing Federal Oversight at Sites with Cooperative and Capable Parties 37
4.3.7 Site Specific Special Accounts 37
Chapter 5: Federal Facility Cleanups 43
5.1 The Federal Facilities Program 45
5.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities Under CERCLA 43
5.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role 43
5.1.3 The Roles of States and Indian Tribes 44
5.2 Fiscal Year 1996 Progress 44
5.2.1 Status of Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket '44
5.2.2 Status of Federal Facilities on the NPL 45
5.2.3 Interagency Agreements Under CERCLA Section 120 45
5.3 Federal Facility Initiatives 45
5.3.1 Military Base Closure 46
5.3.2 National Risk-Based Priority Setting 46
5.3.3 Interagency Forums 46
5.4 CERCLA Implementation at EPA Facilities 47
5.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) 47
5.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA Facilities Subject to Section 120 of CERCLA 48
Chapter 6: Resource Estimates 53
6.1 Source and Application of Resources 54
6.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup : 54
Vlll
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
6.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Cleanup Effort 54
6.2 Resource Model Assumptions 55
6.2.1 Active NPL Sites 56
6.2.2 Sites Yet to Begin the Remedial Process 56
6.2.3 Non-Site Costs 56
6.3 Estimate Resources to Complete Cleanup 57
6.4 Estimated Resources for Other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies 57
Chapter 7: Superfund Program Support Activities 59
7.1 Overview of Program Support Activities 59
7.1.1 Community Involvement 59
7.1.2 Public Information 61
7.1.3 EPA's Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 63
7.2 Minority Firm Contracting 66
7.2.1 Minority Firm Contracting During Fiscal Year 1996 66
7.2.2 Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 66
7.2.3 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments to
Use Minority Firms 67
Appendices
Appendix A: Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial
Actions at Sites on the National Priorities List in Progress
on September 30, 1996 A-l
Appendix B: Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1996 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 1996 Superfund Activities xvi
Exhibit ES-2 .Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year xvii
Exhibit ES-3 Statutory Requirements for the Report xx
Exhibit ES-4 Fiscal Year 1996 Superfund Program Initiatives xxiii
Exhibit 1.3-1 Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996 4
Exhibit 2.2-1 Cumulative Removal Action Starts 12
Exhibit 2.2-2 Cumulative Removal Action Completions 13
Exhibit 3.2-1 Work Has Occurred at Over 97 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites 18
IX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Contents
(continued)
Exhibit 3.2-2 Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program for Fiscal
Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1996 19
Exhibit 3.2-3 Project in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead for Fiscal
Year 1995 and Fiscal Year 1995 20
Exhibit 3.3-1 FY96 Site Program Accomplishments 21
Exhibit 3.4-1 Sites at Which Five-Year Reviews, Required Under CERCLA Section
121(c), Were Conducted During Fiscal Year 1996 27
Exhibit 4.2-1 . Cumulative Value of Response Settlements Reached with
Potentially Responsible Parties 30
Exhibit 4.2-2 Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
Started by PRPs 31
Exhibit 4.2-3 Cumulative Value of Cost Recovery Dollars Collected and Settlements 32
Exhibit 4.3-1 Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments 38
Exhibit 5.4-1 Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 49
Exhibit 6.1-1 EPA Superfund Obligations 55
Exhibit 6.3-1 Estimate of Total Trust Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites on the
National Priorities List 57
Exhibit 6.4-1 List of Departments and Agencies Receiving Trust Fund Monies 58
Exhibit 7.1-1 Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from Fiscal Year 1988
Through Fiscal Year 1996 . 62
Exhibit 7.2-1 Minority Contract Utilization' During Fiscal Year 1996 . 66
Exhibit 7.2-2 Services Provided by Minority Contractors 67
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acronyms
ABA American Bar Association
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BCT BRAC Cleanup Team
BAC Bioremediation Action Committee
BRAC Base Realignment And Closure Act
CA Cooperative Agreement
CAG Community Advisory Group
CD Consent Decree
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Cleanup and Liability Act
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CLU-IN Cleanup Information
CPCA Core Program Cooperative Agreement
CPR Center for Public Resources
CSCT Consortium for Site Characterization Technologies
DERTF Defense Environmental Restoration Task Force
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
ERT Environmental Response Team
FFA Federal Facilities Agreement
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FFERDC Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FUDS Formerly Use Defense Sites
GET Genesis Environmental Team
GWRTAC Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HRS Hazard Ranking System
HSRC Hazardous Substance Research Center
IAG Interagency Agreement
INSS Information Network for Superfund Settlements
ISCORS Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards
LSW Lead Sites Workgroup
MARLAP Multi-Agency Radiation Laboratory Protocols Manual
MARSSDVI Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MCL Maximum Containment Level
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
XI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Acronyms
(continued)
NAMC
NAREL
NCP
NFRAP
NIEHS
NOAA
NOID
NORM
NPL
NPR
NRC
NRMRL
NTCR
NTIS
OECA
OERR
OLM
O&M
OMB
ORD
ORIA
OSC
OSDBU
OSRE
OSWER
PA
PPA
PRP
RA
RAB
RCRA
RD
RD/RA
RERAM
RI/FS
ROD
RPM
RQ
RTDF
SACA
SACM
SARA
SEDSS
National Association of Minority Contractors
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
No Further Remedial Action Planned
National Institute of Environmental Health Services
National Atmospheric Administration
Notice of Intent to Delete
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
National Priorities List
National Performance Review
National Response Center
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
National Technical Information Service
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Outyear Liability Model
Operation and Maintenance
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Research and Development
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Preliminary Assessment
Prospective Purchaser Agreement
Potentially Responsible Party
Remedial Action
Restoration Advisory Board
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Design
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment Manual
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Reportable Quantity
Remedial Technologies Development Forum
Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Sandia Environmental Decision Support System
xn
-------
Fiscal Year 7996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acronyms
(continued)
SI
SIP
SITE
SPIDR
SRP
SSC
START
TAG
TIO
TOSC
TSC
UAO
VISITT
Site Inspection
Site Inspection Prioritization
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution
Superfund Removal Procedures
Superfund State Contract
Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team
Technical Assistance Grant
Technology Innovation Office
Technical Outreach Services for Communities
Technical Support Center
Unilateral Administrative Order
Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
xni
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Executive Summary
As the Superfund program entered its sixteenth
year in December 1995, 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 64 National Priorities List (NPL)
sites in the construction completion category during
fiscal year 1996 (FY96). By the end of the fiscal
year, work had occurred at more than 97 percent of
the 1,387 sites proposed to, listed on, or deleted from
the NPL, including a total of 410 sites that have
achieved construction completion. Reflecting the
Agency's increasing emphasis on completing site
cleanups, nearly 50 percent of the construction
completions have been achieved in the past three
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 73
percent of remedial designs (RDs) and 71 percent of
remedial actions (RAs) started during the fiscal year.
Since the inception of the Superfund program, EPA
has reached agreements worth almost $12.0 billion
for PRP response work at Superfund sites, including
almost $1.0 billion achieved this year.
This Report summarizes Superfund FY96
progress, highlighting accomplishments and
initiatives to improve the program. Exhibit ES-1
presents a summary of FY96 accomplishments.
Exhibit ES-2 provides a comparison of FY96
accomplishments with those of previous years and
presents cumulative program accomplishments.
FY96 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
FY96, there were 39,600 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
37,694 preliminary assessments and 17,943 site
inspections. Based on these evaluations, EPA has
determined that 1,387 of the sites should be proposed
to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL. This leaves a
total of 1,211 remaining on the NPL for FY96.
These sites include 27 proposed to, 18 listed on, and
34 deleted from the NPL during FY96. To date, a
total of 118 sites have been deleted from the NPL.
To enhance site evaluation efforts, the Agency
proceeded with ongoing efforts to address technical
complexities associated with lead and radionuclide
contamination, which could pose special hazards and
problems.
XV
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Exhibit ES-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Superfund Activities
Remedial Activities
Percentage of National Priorities List Sites Where Work Has Begun
Sites Classified as Construction Completions as of September 30, 1996
Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30, 1996
Records of Decision Signed1
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies in Progress on September 30, 1996
Remedial Design Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1996
Remedial Action Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Actions in Progress on September 30, 1996
97%
410
845
156
36
72%
28%
802
74
27%
73%
370
116
29%
71%
594
Removal Activities
Removal Action Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Removal Action Completions2
Fund-Financed
Potentially-Responsible Party-Financed
267
79%
21%
276
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 1996
Final Sites Listed During Fiscal Year 1996
Sites Proposed for Deletion During Fiscal Year 1996
Sites Deleted During Fiscal Year 1996
Enforcement Activities
Settlements for All Potentially Responsible Party Response Activities
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Settlements4
Unilateral Administrative Orders Issued (All Actions)
Cost Recovery Dollars Collected
154
68
70
N/A
600
781
359
1,387
27
18
37
34
($888 million)3
($700 million)
N/A
($252 million)
Accomplishments at Federal Facility Sites
Records of Decision Signed
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts2
Remedial Design Starts2
Remedial Action Starts2
76
57
58
70
1 Records of decision signed for Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed sites.
2 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, 1996.
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
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 FY96 Total
810
230 320 260 290
270
340
290
240
298 276 3,624
Removal
Completions1'2
CERCLIS Sites1 25,200 27,600 .30,000 31,900 33,600 34,200 36,400 37,500 38,300 39,000 600 39,600
A Completions1 20,200 4,000 2,900 2,200 1,600 1,300 1,900 1,100 900 813 78137,694
SI Completions1
National
Priorities List
Sites3
Remedial
nvestigation/
Feasibility Study
Starts1
-1.2
Records of
Decision Signed2
Remedial Design
Starts1-2
Remedial Action
Starts1'2
Construction
Completions4
National
Priorities List
Deletions
6,400
901
660
199
120
70
13
1,300 1,200 1,700 1,900 1,900 1,300
700
600
584 359 17,943
964
210
77
110
70
1,194 1,254 1,236 1,245 1,275 1,320 1,355 1,374 1,387 1,387
170
152
120
70
170
136
180
110
11
170
149
130
80
70
175
160
100
61
9
90
126
170
110
88
2
60
134
130
120
68
11
70
159
110
120
61
13
30
187
84
110
68
25
36 1,736
156 1,650
, 74 1,388
116 1,076
64 410
34 118
Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
Includes Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed activities; excludes federal facility activities and state-
lead activities where no,Fund monies were spent.
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. , . . ,-wn
Adopted as measure of program progress by 1991 30-Day Study Task Force. FY91 value represents FY80 through FY9
Total NPL deletions do not include sites that have since met CERCLA cleanup objectives or been deferred to other
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Federal Register notices through September 30, 1996.
Emergency Response Progress
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, the Agency and
PRPs started nearly 267 removal actions and
completed 276 during FY96. More than 4,238
removal actions have been started and 3,624 have
been completed since the inception of the Superfund
program.
During FY96, EPA granted 14 exemptions for
removal actions to exceed the $2 million limitation.
In addition, EPA granted 15 exemptions allowing
removal actions to continue for more than one year.
The Environmental Response Team (ERT)
continued to provide expert support for Superfund
response actions. During the fiscal year, ERT
conducted 143 Superfund responses, responded to 10
xvn
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
oil spills and 4 international incidents, and conducted
233 training courses nationwide. Response to
international incidents are not paid for using
Superfund dollars.
The Agency continued to work on regulations to
establish administrative reporting exemptions for
naturally occurring radionuclide releases. EPA
proposed a rule on August 4,1995 (60 FR 40042) to
expand these exemptions.
In other efforts, the Agency issued guidance
entitled Questions and Answers on Release
Notifications and Requirements and Reportable
Quantity Adjustments.
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 FY96, work had
occurred at over 97 percent of the 1,387 sites
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL, and
construction activities had been completed to place
410 NPL sites in the construction completion
category. During the year, the Agency and PRPs
started nearly 36 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/GFSs), 74 RDs, and 116 RAs. EPA also
signed 156 records of decision (RODs) for
Fund-financed and PRP-financed sites. At the end of
the year, 802 RI/FSs, 370 RDs, and 594 RAs were in
progress at 845 sites.
In efforts to encourage the development and use
of innovative treatment technologies to cleanup
Superfund sites, the Agency took measures to
demonstrate the technologies and provide
information about them to potential users. To this
end, EPA continued the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program, sponsored seven
technical support centers and the Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team, and provided
access to information and training. Working together
with other federal agencies, academics, and the
private sector, EPA conducted technology transfer
efforts that included conferences and forums,
demonstration and evaluation of innovative
technologies, preparation of reference materials, and
development of training and continuing education
opportunities.
Enforcement Progress
Enforcement progress for FY96 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 FY96, EPA reached
agreements with PRPs worth more than $888 million
in PRP response work. Through its FY96 cost
recovery efforts, EPA achieved $451 million in
settlements and collected more than $252 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 FY96, 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 FY96, there were 2,070 federal
facility sites identified on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Of the sites
on the docket, 158 were proposed to or listed on the
NPL, including 151 final and 7 proposed sites.
XVlll
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
During FY96,10 sites were proposed to and 24 were
listed on the NPL.
Activity during the fiscal year at federal facility
sites listed on the NPL, included starting
approximately 57 RI/FSs, 58 RDs, 41 removals, and
70 RAs; signing 76 RODs; and achieving
construction completion at 9 sites.
In FY96, the Agency, in conjunction with'the
Department of Defense (DoD), states, and local
citizens, continued to implement the Fast Track
Cleanup Program to expedite cleanup and reuse of
bases scheduled for closure under the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act. BRAC was
enacted to promote economic recovery of
communities near closing bases. EPA, DoD, and the
states established BRAC cleanup teams (BCTs) at
110 bases in FY96.
In FY 1996, EPA and DoD worked together to
determine what BRAC !95 installations should be
included on the "Fast Track Cleanup" list and then
develop an appropriate workload assessment of what
would be necessary to achieve installation cleanup
and reuse. Under the revised Memorandum of
Agreement, EPA participated on BRAC Cleanup
Teams (BCTs) at 110 BRAC 1, 2, 3, and 4
installations. Of these installations, 32 were NPL
sites, and 78 were non-NPL.
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 FY96, 25 were EPA-owned.
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 $16.3 billion in budget
authority (FY81 through FY94). This includes $1.8
billion for the pre-SARA period (FY81 through
FY86) and $14.5 billion for the post-S ARA period,
FY87 through FY96.
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
$14.9 billion for FY97 and beyond, bringing the total
. estimated cost for the program to $31.2 billion.
Superfund Program Support Activities
EPA took measures in FY96 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 11 TAGs during the fiscal year, bringing the
total number of TAGs awarded since FY88 to 189,
for a total worth of more than $9.5 million.
To support state and tribal involvement in the
Superfund response activities, EPA has awarded
nearly $1.8 billion in cooperative agreements (CAs).
To promote small and disadvantaged business
participation in Superfund contracting in FY96,
EPA, through direct and indirect procurement,
awarded contracts and subcontracts valued at more
than $59.7 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
xix
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
(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 8.2 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.
Exhibit ES-3
Statutory Requirements for the Report
CERCLA
Section
CERCLA Requirement
Report
Section
Report Content
Annual Report to Congress on the Executive
progress achieved in implementing Summary
Superfund during the preceding
fiscal year Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 7
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
Section 3.2.4
Appendix C
Appendix A
Appendix A
Section 3.3
Initiatives to improve the Superfund
program
Site evaluation progress
Emergency response progress
Remedial progress
Enforcement progress
Federal facility cleanups
Community relations, state and Indian
tribe, and public outreach activities
Overview discussion of RODs signed
during the fiscal year, including the
number of treatment and
containment remedies selected
List of RODs signed in the fiscal year
Status and estimated completion date
of each ongoing FS in progress at the
end of the fiscal year
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
Evaluation of newly developed
technologies through the Superfund
Innovative Treatment Evaluation
Program
xx
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
CERCLA Requirement
Report
Section
Report Content
301(h)(2)
105(f)
120
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Fiscal Year 1996 Initiatives
In FY96, OERR reorganized from a hierarchial
four division structure to a flatter organization of 14
centers. The purpose of the reorganization was to
accelerate site cleanup, promote teamwork, empower
staff, and provide better customer service. In
addition, the Agency introduced a third round of
initiatives under the Administrative Improvements
effort in FY96 to further increase enforcement
fairness and reduce transaction costs, improve the
effectiveness and consistency of cleanups, enhance
meaningful public involvement, and expand the role
of state and Indian tribes.
Exhibit ES-4 provides highlights of these and
other initiatives undertaken by the Agency during
FY96.
XXll
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit ES-4
Fiscal Year 1996 Superfund Program Initiatives
Superfund Initiative
Accomplishments
Accelerating the Pace of Cleanups: The new and continuing initiatives set forth by EPA in FY96 to
accelerate cleanups have saved EPA and stakeholders time and money.
Expedited Settlements
Improving the PRP
Search Process
Revised "De Micromis"
Guidance
In efforts to remove small waste contributors form the enforcement
process, EPA negotiated several pre-ROD de minimi's settlements that will
result in the protection of 264 small waste contributors when the public
comment period ends.
Streamlining of evaluation of claims from PRPs with limited ability to pay
has led to a number of ability-to-pay settlements at Superfund sites.
Based on the information gained from PRP search pilots initiated prior to
FY96, EPA was able to begin updating and expanding the PRP Search
Manual.
EPA revised the guidance and issued additional guidance to reaffirm the
Agency's policy not to pursue de micromis contributors and improve
EPA's ability to resolve their liability concerns quickly and fairly
The new and revised guidance also streamlines and simplifies the
settlement process.
Promoting Economic Redevelopment: EPA is promoting economic redevelopment through its Brownfield
Economic Redevelopment Initiative, directed toward empowering States, communities, and others to work
together to assess, safely cleanup, and sustainably reuse brownfields. EPA is accomplishing these efforts
through the Brownfields Action Agenda.
Brownfields Initiative
Removing Sites from
CERCLIS
Partial NPL Deletions
EPA is continuing the two-year Brownfield Assessment Pilots begun in
FY95.
By the end of FY96, EPA exceeded its commitment to fund 50 pilots by
funding 76 pilots at up to $200,000 each.
EPA signed memoranda of understanding with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Economic Development Administration, and
the Departments of Labor and Interior to coordinate issues related to
Brownfields redevelopment and to leverage additional opportunities.
Two meetings conducted in regards to brownfields in FY96; a
Brownfields Pilot National Workshop and a Brownfields National
Conference.
EPA continued to remove sites from CERCLIS with the NFRAP status,
bringing the total number of sites archived to over 27,000.
Guidance issued on how to research those sites remaining in the CERCLIS
inventory and make archive decisions as appropriate.
By the end of FY96, EPA had initiated partial deletions at nine sites.
EPA issued guidance establishing SSLs which serve as a basis for partial
deletions of NPL listing and guidance aimed at mapping and tracking
partial deletions in order to better portray the Agency's success.
Environmental Justice: EPA continues to ensure that risks to low-income and minority populations are
adequately addressed by following the goals outlined in Executive Order 1 2898 issued in the previous fiscal
year.
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Superfund Initiative
Medical Assistance Plan
(MAP)
Job Training and
Development
Accomplishments
The MAP continues to improve the delivery of existing medical services
to communities with potential exposures to hazardous substances and
build environmental health expertise in communities through physicians
training and placement.
The EPA continued the pilot site, Del Amo/Montrose in Torrence,
California, by obligating an additional $400,000.
EPA continued to work with the HIEHs minority worker training program
and plans to develop additional pilots in Brownfield areas.
Work continued with the Hazardous materials Training and Research
Institute to expand environmental training dn curriculum developed at
community colleges located near Brownfield sites.
EPA hosted its second workshop designed to assist community colleges
in development of environmental curricula in FY96.
Enhancing Community Involvement: During FY96, EPA continued to work to increase community
involvement in Superfund cleanups by supporting the creation of CAGS and TAGS.
Community Advisory
Groups
Technical Assistance
Grants
Community Involvement
and Enforcement
EPA issued an OSWER directive entitled "Guidance for Community
Advisory Groups."
EPA took the 1 6 site CAG program begun in FY95 out of the pilot stage
and brought the total number to 23 successfully implemented CAGs by
the end of FY96.
EPA continued revisions to the TAG regulations in FY96 in an effort to
simplify the TAG application and administrative process.
EPA began evaluating the impacts that enhanced involvement had on
both the settlement negotiation process and studies and cleanups
themselves from the pilot projects begun in FY95.
Improving Cleanup Effectiveness and Consistency and Reducing Costs
National Consistency in
Remedy Selection
Directive
Soil Screening Guidance
National Remedy Review
Board
Updating Remedy
Decisions at Selected
Sites
Directive issued on "National Consistency in Superfund Remedy
Selection" that identifies a range of efforts that support national
consistency in remedy selection and encourages informed discussion of
cross-cutting issues.
EPA released the final Soil Screening Guidance in FY96 providing soil
screening levels (SSLs) for 100 contaminants in soil, or contaminant
levels below which there is no concern and above which further site-
specific evaluation is warranted.
EPA established the NRRB in FY96 to review proposed cleanup actions
at sites meeting specific criteria. The NRRB reviewed 12 proposed
decisions during FY96 and provided recommendations on nine of the
decisions. The Board's preliminary analysis indicates potential reductions
in the range of $15-30 million in total estimated cleanup costs from
review conducted during FY96.
EPA expects to realize cost reductions of approximately $8 million from
6 of the decisions which have progressed since the Board's
recommendations.
EPA issued guidance on updating remedies specifying three types of
changes aimed at streamlining and cost efficiency.
XXIV
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund Initiative
Establishing New Remedy
Selection Management
Flags
Clarifying the Role of
Cost in Remedy Selection
Process
Presumptive Remedies
Accomplishments
Developed two fact sheets in an effort to help implement the newly
created remedy selection management flags, otherwise known as "Rules-
of -Thumb."
EPA issued a fact sheet entitled "The Role of Costs in the Superfund
Remedy Selection Process, " that summarizes the current role of cost in
the Superfund program as established by CERCLA, the NCP, and other
guidance.
Throughout FY96, EPA continued its effort to evaluate historical patterns
of selecting and implementing remedies to identify and utilize
"presumptive" remedies for specific types of sites.
EPA estimates time savings from use of these remedies in the range of 36
to 56 percent and future cost reduction of up to 60 percent at municipal
landfill pilots.
Expanding the Role of States and Indian Tribes: EPA continued its efforts to expand the roles of states
and tribes in the Superfund program by providing funding and technical assistance.
Voluntary Cleanup
Program
Federal, State, and Tribal
Site Management
Program
State and Tribal
Superfund Block Funding
EPA has been developing a memorandum setting out an interim approach
for its relations with state voluntary cleanup programs with an expected
completion date in early FY97
Final guidance is expected to be issued at the end of FY97, after EPA
assesses how the process is working and receiving public comment.
Ten million dollars earmarked in the FY97 appropriations in its continuing
efforts to advocate the development or enhancement of state programs
that encourage private parties to voluntarily undertake protective cleanups
of less seriously contaminated sites.
EPA continued to implement the site deferral program.
Initiated the concept of block funding to improve timeliness and
effectiveness of the CA process.
EPA is developing a report that will provide recommendations on
improving the award and utilization of Superfund monies to states and
tribes.
Reducing Costs in Enforcement: EPA adopted the use of Site-Specific Special Accounts and Private Party
Allocations in efforts to save time and money in enforcement.
Site-Specific Special
Accounts
Adopting Private Party
Allocations
In a May 1 996 memorandum, EPA encouraged and advised Regional use
of Special Accounts for settlement funds.
A June 1 996 agreement between EPA, the Office of Management and
budget (OMB) and the Department of Treasury allows EPA to retain and
apply interest earned on Special Accounts to settlement funds for cleanup
of specific sites. ,
EPA established a national workgroup to determine the parameters and
identify opportunities to implement the Private Party Allocation initiative.
xxv
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1996
Superfund Initiative
Reduced Oversight for
Capable and Cooperative
PRPs
Accomplishments
Reduction of oversight results in decreased transaction costs for EPA as
well as the cooperating parties and increases incentives for settlement.
In July 1 996, EPA issued a directive entitled "Reduced Federal Oversight
at Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable Parties", providing the
Regions with guidance for determining whether a PRP is cooperative and
capable and encouraging Regions to discuss oversight with stakeholders,
acknowledge parties that have already received reduced oversight, and
discuss future oversight plans.
Ensuring Fairness in Enforcement: EPA initiated a number of pilot projects and published guidance and
policies designed to promote enforcement fairness
Orphan Share
Compensation
Equitable Issuance of
UAOs
Use of Allocation Pilots
In an effort to enhance fairness and encourage PRPs to enter into
settlement agreements, EPA announced that it would compensate
performing parties for a limited portion of orphan shares in future cleanup
settlements.
EPA issued interim guidance entitled "Interim Guidance on Orphan Share
Compensation for Settlors of Remedial Design/Remedial Action and Non-
Time-Critical Removals."
Established a team of EPA and DOJ staff to resolve issues on a site-by-
site basis and to ensure consistent results.
EPA issued a memorandum entitled "Documentation of Reason(s) for Not
Issuing CERCLA 1 06 UAOs to All Identified PRPs" which reaffirms EPA's
policy to issue UAOs to the largest manageable number of PRPs and
establishes the formal procedures required for Regional staff to document
their reasons for not issuing UAOs to certain PRPs, or late-identified PRPs.
Continued to utilize its new approach to the allocation of Superfund costs
to PRPs, in which, a neutral allocator selected by the PRPs and EPA
conducts a non-binding, out-of-court allocation process and assigns'
shares of responsibility to the PRPs based oh a number of equitable
factors.
XXVI
-------
Chapter 1
Site Evaluation Progress
By the end of FY96, 39,600 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 97 percent of these sites for potential
threats to human health and the environment by the
end of the year. To enhance site evaluation, EPA
continued implementing the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM). With the implementation
of SACM, EPA's Regions have been encouraged to
further reduce repetitive tasks and costs by
implementing a streamlined, single-assessment
process that can combine site assessment and
removal evaluation activities when warranted by site
conditions. EPA has also proceeded with ongoing
efforts to address technical complexities and
improved site evaluation guidance.
1.1 Site Evaluation Process
The site evaluation process begins when states,
federally recognized Indian tribes, citizens, other
federal agencies, or other sources notify the EPA
Superfund program of a potential or confirmed
hazardous waste site or incident. EPA confirms
information and places those sites requiring further
Federal Superfund attention in the Agency's
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) database. In the case of federal
facilities, sites are placed on the Federal Facility
Hazardous Waste Docket for assessment.
EPA manages site assessment activities,
including necessary laboratory and technical support,
by directing a network of contractors, or by providing
funding for these activities to states and tribes
through site assessment cooperative agreements. At
sites that pose an immediate threat to human health,
welfare, or the environment, EPA conducts a
removal action to address the threat. At other sites,
a two-stage assessment is conducted; the assessment
consists 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. Approximately 10 percent
of the sites assessed by Superfund lead to federal
removal or remedial cleanup actions to reduce or
eliminate risks to human health and the environment.
At any point in the evaluation process, EPA may
determine that the Superfund evaluation of the site is
complete and that no further steps to list the site on
the NPL will be taken. Federal Superfund site
assessment activities are suspended when the
appropriate Regional official signs a letter, form, or
memo approving the site assessment report and
makes a determination that no further action is
planned. Sites not considered appropriate for the
NPL might be addressed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), state laws,
or other authorities such as the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission -(NRG). -This decision does not
necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated
with the site; it merely means that, based on available
information, the site does not meet the criteria for
placement on the NPL.
No further remedial action planned (NFRAP)
decisions should not be confused with CERCLIS
archiving. NFRAP decisions are made from a site
assessment perspective only; they simply denote that
further Superfund remedial assessment work is not
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
required based on currently available information. In
contrast, the archival of CERCLIS sites is made only
when no further Superfund interest exists at a site.
This means that sites are not archived if there are
planned or ongoing removal or enforcement
activities, or if other Superfund interest still exists.
This may include sites that have had NFRAP
decisions made at them during site assessment
activities.
EPA added more than 600 sites to CERCLIS
during FY96, bringing the total number of sites
under Superfund to 39,600. Although the number of
new sites brought to the Agency's attention has
declined recently, EPA must address a large backlog
of sites that still needing assessment to identify
priority NPL candidates or to archive sites from
CERCLIS. Final assessment decisions (NPL listing
or archival) are needed at over 12,650 sites currently
in the CERCLIS inventory, including federally
owned or managed properties. Under the SACM
initiative, EPA continues to integrate remedial and
removal assessment activities, where possible, to
reduce costs and durations in an effort to utilize
resources most efficiently and effectively. Results
have been encouraging with combined preliminary
assessment and site inspection durations declining 20
percent at SACM sites.
Listing property on the NPL may affect the value
of that property and the surrounding area - whether
or not all of the property or adjacent property is
contaminated. In order to facilitate the transfer,
development or redevelopment of property or
portions of property determined to be
uncontaminated, EPA developed a program that
provides its Regions with the flexibility to clarify the
areas of sites determined to be contaminated or
uncontaminated. EPA published the partial deletions
rule in the Federal Register. The rulemaking allows
EPA to delete releases at portions of an NPL site,
provided that deletion criteria are met. Previously,
EPA policy deleted releases only after evaluation of
the entire site. Partial deletions allow potential
investors and developers to undertake economic
activity at a cleaned up potion of real property that is
part of a site listed on the NPL.
During FY96, EPA also issued the Soil
Screening Guidance to identify portions of sites that
do not warrant federal attention. In addition, EPA is
considering, on a pilot basis, deletion of remediated
parcels of a closing military base that is listed on the
NPL so that the parcel may be returned to productive
use. EPA has also continued to implement the
Brownfields Initiative and initiated a joint
EPA/State/Tribal effort to define roles in promoting
the development and operation of State/Tribal
voluntary cleanup programs that are designed to
speed the cleanup of non-NPL sites.
1.2 Fiscal Year 1996 Progress
During FY96, EPA continued its progress in
identifying and assessing potential hazardous waste
sites while streamlining the process through
administrative reforms efforts.
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, EPA records basic information about the site
in CERCLIS.
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. A PA is the first phase of
the site assessment that determines whether a site
should be recommended for further action under
Superfund. Federal, state, and local government
files, geological and hydrological data, and data
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
concerning site practices are reviewed to complete
the PA report. An on- or off-site reconnaissance also
may be conducted, although it is not required. 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 removal assessment/action is
necessary.
EPA and states completed 781 PAs in FY96.
Since the inception of Superfund, EPA and states
have completed PAs at 37,694 sites. The Agency
has classified approximately 70 percent of sites
where a PA has been conducted as no further action.
A total of approximately 16,300 PAs have been
archived.
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
purpose of the SI is to continue the site evaluation to
detertnine whether a site is appropriate 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 completed 359 Sis during FY96 for
a total of 17,943 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
March 1991 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 SI prioritization (SIP) process to update
preliminary HRS scores at those sites based on the
revised HRS model.
1
The SIP process may assist in identifying
candidates for early actions under SACM. SDPs were
limited to 6,600 sites where an SI was conducted
prior to August 1, 1992; but may also assist in
identifying candidates for early actions under SACM.
EPA completed approximately 400 SIPs in FY96.
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 Agency may propose the
site for listing on the NPL, solicits public comments
for consideration, and then either announces the final
listing of the site on the NPL or removes the site
from consideration for listing (classified as "no
further remedial action planned"). 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.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
1.3.1 National Priorities List Update
At the end of FY96, there were 1,387 sites
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL:
1,211 currently listed sites, 52 proposed sites, and
118 deleted sites where all CERCLA cleanup goals
have been achieved and six sites that have been
deferred to another authority. Exhibit 1.3-1
illustrates the historical cumulative number of final
sites on the NPL for each fiscal year since SARA
was enacted in 1986. Sites deleted from the NPL
reflect an activity required to be reported. At the end
of FY96, the 1,387 sites proposed to, listed on, or
deleted from the NPL consisted of 1,223 non-federal
sites and 164 federal sites.
Updates to the NPL during FY96 included
proposal of 27 sites (25 non-federal and 2 federal
facility sites), final listing of 18 sites (all non^federal)
and deletion of 34 sites (31 non-federal sites and 3
federal facility sites). These proposals to and listings
on the NPL were included in two proposed rules
(NPL Proposals 19 and 20) and one final rule. The
proposed rules were published in the Federal
Register on October 2, 1995 (12 non-federal sites)
and June 17, 1996 (13 non-federal and 2 federal
sites). The final rule was published in the Federal
Register on June 17, 1996 (13 non-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 39,600 sites in
CERCLIS at the end of FY96, 1,387 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.
Exhibit 1.3-1
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996
D Previously Listed
DSites Added
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96
Sites Added
99
Total 1'2 802
0
798
101
888
300
1,187
7
1,185
0
1,183
33
1,197
43
1,226
30
1,232
18
1,211
This graph illustrates ffna/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, 2 sites in FY92,11 sites in FY93,13 sites in FY94, 25 sites in
FY95, and 34 sites in FY96. At these deleted sites, all CERCLA cleanup objectives were achieved. In FY93, one
additional site was deleted because it was 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 30,1996 was 1,211.
The total number of sites listed final on the NPL from 1983 to 1986 was 703.
Source: Federal Register notices through September 30,1996.
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
1.4 Site Evaluation Support Activities
EPA is managing a new site evaluation support
program designed to promote the redevelopment of
abandoned and contaminated properties known as the
Brownfields Initiative. In addition, EPA manages
two ongoing support programs dedicated to
addressing lead and radionuclide contamination
because these contaminants present special hazards
and problems. During FY96, EPA continued to
work with all stakeholders to prevent, assess, safely
cleanup, and sustainably reuse brownfields. 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, examined environmental fate and transport
modeling for radionuclides, and provided technical
support to the Regions in addressing radioactive
sites. The Agency also worked to enhance site
evaluation guidance.
1.4.1 Brownfields Initiative
EPA is promoting the redevelopment of
abandoned and contaminated properties across the
country that were once used for industrial and
commercial purposes ("brownfields"). While the full
extent of the brownfields problem is unknown, the
General Accounting Office estimated in its report,
Community Development Reuse of Urban Industrial
Sites (GAO/RCED-95-172, June 1995), that
approximately 450,000 brownfields sites exist in this
country, affecting virtually every community in the
nation. EPA believes that environmental cleanup is
a building block to economic redevelopment, and
that cleaning up contaminated property must go
hand-in-hand with bringing life and economic vitality
back to communities.
The Brownfields Economic Redevelopment
Initiative is a comprehensive approach to
empowering states, 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. EPA is addressing imple-
mentation of this initiative through a Brownfields
Action Agenda. The Action Agenda is a collection
of bold strategies that will continue to evolve as the
Brownfields Initiative matures. Activities have
focused on four main categories:
(1) implementing Brownfields Pilot programs in
cities, counties, towns and Tribes across the
country;
(2) clarifying liability and other issues of concern for
lending institutions, municipalities, prospective
purchasers, developers, property owners and
others;
(3) establishing partnerships with other EPA
programs, federal agencies, states, cities, and
stakeholders; and
(4) promoting community involvement by
supporting job development and training
activities linked to brownfield assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment.
By the end of FY96, EPA announced the
selection of 76 Brownfields Pilots to be funded
through cooperative agreements at up to $200,000
each for a two-year period. The cooperative
agreements for all pilots are subject to negotiation.
Of the 76 pilots, 39 are national pilots selected and
funded through Headquarters; while 37 are Regional
pilots selected and funded through the 10 Regional
offices. EPA intends the pilots to perform the
following: provide redevelopment models; direct
efforts toward the removal of regulatory barriers; and
facilitate coordinated public and private efforts at the
federal, state, and local levels.
EPA signed Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) with other federal partners to coordinate
issues related to brownfields redevelopment and to
leverage additional opportunities. In FY96, MOUs
were signed with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Economic Development
Administration, and the Departments of Labor and
Interior.
EPA conducted a Brownfields Pilot National
Workshop in Washington, D.C. in February 1996
and a Brownfields National Conference in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in September 1996. A
variety of guidances and other initiatives announced
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
by the Agency in FY96 have affected the liability
aspects of the Brownfields Action Agenda.
Each EPA Region has established a Brownfields
coordinator position to oversee Brownfields pilots
and initiate other Brownfields activities. EPA also
has- assigned five staff members to cities through
inter-governmental personnel assignments to assist in
addressing the Brownfields redevelopment
challenges presented at the State and local levels.
EPA is promoting and fostering job development
and training through partnerships with brownfields
pilot communities and community colleges. EPA is
working with the Hazardous Materials Training and
Research Institute to expand environmental training
and curriculum development. In November 1995,
EPA hosted a workshop in Baltimore, Maryland to
assist community colleges from 17 Brownfields pilot
communities in developing environmental job
training programs. In July 1996, EPA held a second
workshop in St. Louis, Missouri with additional
community colleges from more recently selected
Brownfields pilot communities. Through a
cooperative agreement with Rio Hondo Community
College, EPA has established an environmental
education and training center to provide
comprehensive technical-level training. EPA and the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) are working to coordinate minority worker
training grant recipients with Brownfields pilot city
.activities.
By mid-1996, EPA completed all of its
commitments under the initial Action Agenda and it
became clear that the problem required more
interaction between all levels of government, the
private sector and non-governmental organizations.
The need for continuation and expansion of the
national brownfields response has been further
buttressed by the recommendations of the President's
Council on Sustainable Development regarding the
redevelopment of brownfields sites. To that end,
EPA began working with other federal agencies in
the summer of 1996 and established an interagency
working group on brownfields. A new action agenda
enhancing public participation in local decision-
making, building safe and sustainable communities
through public/private partnerships; and recognizing
that environmental protection can be a positive force
for economic redevelopment is being developed.
1.4.2 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 that provide advice on
national lead issues has been part of the Agency's
Administrative Reforms. During 1996, two
significant steps were taken. First, a national
workshop was held to discuss lead model validation.
Second, efforts were initiated to increase the
involvement of site managers and senior managers in
their interactions with the Lead Technical Review
Workgroup.
Lead Model Validation Workshop
The lead model validation workshop was held in
October of 1995 in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. The workshop involved invited scientists
from outside of EPA and various EPA staff who
address lead issues. This meeting provided an
opportunity for open exchange of ideas on model
validation and. advanced the understanding of
activities ongoing both within and outside of EPA.
Industry representatives who attended this meeting
have recommended that workshops like this continue
and EPA is planning to hold similar workshops in the
future.
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 through the formation of the
Lead Sites Workgroup (LSW). The LSW is a group
of site managers that address lead issues from across
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward implementing SUPERFUND
different EPA Regions and Headquarters. During
FY96, coordination and information sharing were
also improved by exchanging of information with
senior Regional and Headquarters managers.
1.4.3 Radiation Program Progress
During FY96, EPA made progress in addressing
technical complexities associated with site
assessment, risk assessment, technology assessment
and transfer, emergency response, and policy
development and implementation.
Site Assessment
The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA)
continued to provided technical assistance to OERR
with staff from Headquarters and both ORIA
laboratories. ORIA gave this assistance directly to
remedial project managers (RPMs) and on-scene
coordinators (OSCs) to address National Priorities
List (NPL) sites contaminated with radioactive
materials.
In FY96, the ORIA National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) and the ORIA
Las Vegas facility continued to serve as an EPA
Technical Support Center (TSC) in the areas of
radiochemical analysis of samples, site-specific
remedial technologies, detection and measurement of
radioactive contamination, site remediation
oversight, risk assessment, and document review.
ORIA, working with Regional radiation program
staff, continued to provide ongoing technical support
to regional Superfund staff for questions related to
radiation risk assessment. The sites where ORIA
provided direct technical support to RPMs in FY96
include:
Ottawa - Illinois radium site
Maywood - New Jersey radium site
Weldon Springs - DOE FUSRAP site in
Missouri
Rocky Flats - DOE facility in Colorado
Kerr-McGee/West Chicago Thorium and
Radium Site, Illinois
Denver Radium Site, Colorado
Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Captains Cove Site, New York
Risk Assessment
EPA published the Radiation Exposure and Risk
Assessment Manual (RERAM) in June, 1996
(EPA/402-R-96-016). This document explains how
EPA developed its radionuclide cancer incidence
slope factors. Since there were no updates to the
radionuclide slope factors during FY96, no changes
were made to these values in the Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). The
HEAST and other radiation dose and risk modeling
information were published on the Internet in
September 1996, at the following web pages:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/modeling/
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/heast/
In addition, two fact sheets focusing on ionizing
radiation and heath effects were also made available
on the Internet in September 1996, at the following
web page:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/
Representatives from OSWER and ORIA
completed work with representatives from the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) during FY96 as part
of an interagency workgroup . evaluating
environmental fate and transport modeling for
radionuclides. Issues addressed include determining
the mathematics for transport modeling and the
estimation of water flow in specific underground
conditions. Additional work by the multi-agency
group included development of fact sheets, fate and
transport modeling, and guidance documents. The
final two documents from this interagency
workgroup were published in January 1996.
Documenting Ground Water Modeling at Sites
Contaminated with Radioactive Substances
(EPA/540-R-96-003)
Three Multimedia Models Used at Hazardous
and Radioactive Waste Sites (EPA/540-R-96
-004)
Work continued on two other documents
supporting fate and transport modeling: (1) a
technical support document on the selection of
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
distribution coefficient (Kd) values and their use in
remediation and contaminant transport modeling, and
(2) a guidance document to evaluating unsaturated
zone infiltration methodologies to assist remediation
and contaminant transport modeling.
Technology Assessment
The following OERR/ORIA technology
assessment projects were either initiated, completed,
or continued during FY96.
EPA in conjunction with the Departments of
Defense (DoD), DOE, NRC, the U. S. Geological
Survey, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology
initiated development of the Multi-Agency Radiation
Laboratory Protocols Manual (MARLAP).
MARLAP, which is the laboratory counterpart to the
Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual (MARSSDVI) will be a
multi-agency consensus guidance document.
MARLAP will provide guidance for laboratories and
project planers to assure the generation of consistent
and comparable data among laboratories and to
assure that laboratory data is of sufficient quality to
support the site-specific environmental decisions.
A mill tailings site in Fry Canyon, Utah was
characterized as part of a field scale demonstration
study investigating the effectiveness of several types
of permeable reactive walls to control uranium
contamination in the groundwater. ORIA staff also
assisted the Superfund program in developing an
approach for outlining presumptive remedies for soils
contaminated with metals (including radionuclides).
A working group of industry, government, and
academic representatives met in a technical
workshop (October 1995) to discuss the latest
developments in containment technologies.
Proceedings from this workshop were published in
the Spring of 1996, "Assessment of Barrier
Containment Technologies: A Comprehensive
Treatment for Environmental Remediation
Applications."
EPA in conjunction with the DoD, DOE, and
NRC continued working to develop the
Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation Manual (MARSSEVI). When finalized,
MARSSIM will be a multi-agency consensus
guidance document. It will provide guidance for
planning, conducting, evaluating, and documenting
environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating
compliance with dose-based or risk-based
regulations. Internal agency review was completed
in FY96, and the draft document was readied for
public comment and external peer review. .
Work also continued on a remedial technology
selection decision support guidance for RPMs and
OSCs responsible for radioactively contaminated
sites. A guidance document to assist RPMs in
performing or reviewing treatability studies for
radiologically contaminated sites was also being
rewritten. Finally, work continued on the Sandia
Environmental Decision Support System (SEDSS).
This software tool will eventually be available to
DOE, DoD, EPA, and NRC for site characterization,
cleanup and remediation decisions.
Technology Transfer
During FY96, ORIA presented workshops in
EPA Regions 1, 3, 9, and 10 that were designed to
present an overview of radiation risk assessment
methodology to Regional Superfund staff. The target
audience was familiar with chemical risk assessment
methodology so the workshop emphasized the
similarities and critical differences between chemical
and radiation risk assessment.
Emergency Response
Staff from ORIA headquarters and two
laboratories along with Region 6 OSCs participated
in DOE's Digit Pace Exercise in Albuquerque, New
Mexico. This exercise included the spread of
radioactive contamination resulting from a
transportation accident involving nuclear weapons
and other hazardous materials.
ORIA and the State of Texas agreed to hold a
Texas/EPA radiological exercise in Austin, Texas in
September 1998. The exercise will examine the
ability of EPA emergency response personnel to
respond to a State request for assistance under both
the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and the
Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ORIA and OERR continued working on the EPA
Radiological Emergency Response Plan which will
delineate when a response is conducted under the
NCP and the Federal Radiological Emergency
Response Plan. The EPA plan will also designate
which office has the lead for a particular response
activity.
Policy Development and Implementation
EPA also continued participation on the
Interagency Steering Committee on Radiatipn
Standards (ISCORS). 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
modeling, recycling, mixed waste and interagency
cooperation.
1.4.4 Site Evaluation Regulations and
Guidance
During FY96, the Agency undertook several
initiatives to enhance the site evaluation process
including enforcing the state role in identifying NPL
sites and issuing several site evalution guidance
documents.
Enforcing the State Role in Identifying NPL
Sites
In FY96, the Department of Veteran Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Appropriations Act, 1996,. included a requirement
that EPA must receive a written request from the
Governor of the State in order for the Agency to
propose to place a site on the NPL or to place a site
on the NPL.
Issuing Site Evaluation Guidance
EPA published several site evaluation guidance
documents and memorandums during FY96
including guidance on redeveloping contaminated
property, partial site deletions, identifying sites
eligible for archiving, and establishing soil screening
levels.
EPA issued several crosscutting enforcement
guidance documents related to redevelopment of
contaminated property. These guidance documents
provide some assurance to prospective purchasers,
lenders and property owners that they need not be
concerned with Superfund liability:
"Guidance on Agreements with Prospective
Purchasers of Contaminated Property;"
"Policy Towards Owners of Property
Containing Contaminated Aquifers;"
"Policy on CERCLA Enforcement Against
Lenders and Government Entities that Acquire
Property Involuntarily;" and
Policy on the Issuance of Comfort/Status
Letters."
EPA sent guidance to the Regions to map and
track partial deletions at NPL sites on April 30,1996.
A partial deletion of an NPL site may occur when a
portion of a formerly contaminated area of a site is
determined by EPA to need no further action.
Several Regions have published Notices of Intent to
Delete and the Regions are re-evaluating sites to
determine if a partial deletion is warranted. The
partial deletion guidance was signed and sent to the
Regions on April 30, 1996 (OERR Directive 9320.2-
11). Although the guidance does not outline partial
deletion procedures since they are the same as
deletion procedures for total site deletion, it does
focus on mapping and tracking partial deletions at
NPL sites in order to better portray the Agency's
successes. Region 6 published the first Notice of
Intent to Delete (NOID) in the Federal Register on
April 11, 1996 (61 FR 16068). Regions 4 and 10
subsequently have published three more NOIDs.
In June 1996, EPA provided guidance
identifying types of sites eligible for archiving, and
initiated efforts to research those sites remaining in
the CERCLIS inventory and make archive decisions
as appropriate. These actions, combined with
completions of ongoing assessment work, have
yielded over 28,000 federal and non-federal sites
archived from CERCLIS through FY96.
EPA issued final soil screening guidance in May
1996. The soil screening levels established in the
guidance serve as a basis for partial deletions of NPL
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 7996
listings. They also will complement the ongoing
SACM initiative and provide the framework for other
cleanup efforts, such as RCRA corrective actions,
voluntary cleanup programs, and State/Tribal
cleanup programs. Additionally, the development of
soil screening levels will be useful in streamlining
baseline risk assessment.
EPA issued a pre-CERCLIS screening guidance
in September, 1996. The purpose of this directive is
to ensure that the Agency's CERCLA Information
System becomes a more accurate inventory of
hazardous substance sites while minimizing the
number of sites unnecessarily entered into CERCLIS.
This is accomplished by introducing pre-CERCLIS
screening criteria which assists the Regions in
identifying sites which are likely to be addressed by
states or under federal authority other than CERCLA,
those for that information on releases is insufficient
to substantiate the presence of hazardous substances,
or those for which sufficient information exists to
show that risk is low. In this way, CERCLIS will
become a list of sites that the regions and states/tribes
believe, based on available data, will require a
response using Superfund authorities and resources.
10
-------
Chapter 2
Emergency Response Progress
Throughout the 16-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 4,238
removal actions to address threats posed by the
release or threatened release of hazardous substances,
including 267 undertaken in FY96. During FY96,
the EPA continued to look for opportunities to
expand the use of removal authority to rapidly
reduce risks and speed the pace of overall cleanup at
Superfund sites.
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.
11
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
To document the selection of a response action,
the Agency prepares an action memorandum that
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 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
rational 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
. Exhibit 2.2-1
Cumulative Removal Action Starts
*3
*
o
o
J3
FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96
Source: CERCLIS. October 24, 1996. x
12
-------
Fiscal Year 7996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 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 FY96, EPA granted 14 exemptions for
removal actions to exceed the $2 million limitation.
In addition, EPA granted 15 exemptions allowing
removal actions to continue for more than one year.
2.2 Fiscal Year 1996 Progress
Since the inception of Superfund, the Agency
and PRPs have begun 4,238 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.
2.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress
Of the 4,238 removal actions undertaken by EPA
and PRPs under the Superfund program, 267 were
started in FY96 (see Exhibit 2.2-1). Of these 267
removal actions, PRPs financed 56 and EPA
financed 211. The removal actions started by PRPs
included 13 removal actions at NPL sites and 43
removal actions at non-NPL sites. EPA started 29
removal actions at NPL sites and 182 removal
actions at non-NPL sites. The 267 removal actions
begun by EPA and PRPs in FY96 compared to 311
started in FY95.
Exhibit 2.2-2
Cumulative Removal Action Completions
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
As shown in Exhibit 2.2-2, EPA and PRPs have
completed 3,624 removal actions under the
Superfund program, including 276 in FY96. Of the
3,624 removal actions completed during the fiscal
year, PRPs financed 66, including 24 at NPL sites
and 42 at non-NPL sites. EPA financed 210 of the
completed removal actions, including 41 at NPL sites
and 169 at non-NPL sites.
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 16 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 FY96, ERT conducted approximately
143 Superfund responses, and responded to 10 oil
spills and 4 international incidents. ERT also offered
233 training courses nationwide.
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. In 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.
2.4.2 Reportable Quantity Exemptions
During FY96 the Agency reviewed and analyzed
public comments on expanded exemptions from the
reporting requirements of CERCLA Section 103 and
EPCRA Section 304 for certain releases of naturally
occurring radionuclides in preparation for
promulgating a final rule on these exemptions. The
expanded exemptions were proposed on August 4,
1995 (60 FR 40042). In that rule, the Agency
proposed to grant reporting exemptions for releases
of naturally occurring radionuclides associated with
land disturbance incidental to extraction activities at
certain kinds of mines, and coal and ash piles at all
kinds of sites. The proposed exemptions were
developed in response to public comments on a
November 30, 1992 proposed rule on administrative
reporting exemptions (57 FR 56726).
14
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
2.4.3 Removal Guidance
During FY96 EPA issued guidance entitled,
Questions and Answers on Release Notifications
Requirements and Reportable Quantity Adjustments.
The guidance provides answers to common questions
and concerns raised to the Agency by the regulated
community and the general public. The purpose of
the guidance was to promote a better understanding
of CERCLA and EPCRA release notification
requirements and the RQ adjustment process. Also
during FY96, EPA completed the last draft of the
guidance document, Removal Response to Radiation
Sites: Reference Document. The guidance provides
OSCs with references and a planning guide for
conducting removal actions involving radioactive
materials.
15
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 3
Remedial Progress
The Agency's progress during FY96 illustrated
its continuing commitment to accelerating and
completing cleanups at Superfund sites. The Agency
started more than 116 remedial actions (RAs) to
construct remedies, and completed construction
activities to place 64 sites in the construction
completion category. To date under the Superfund
program, the Agency has completed clean-up
activities to place a total of 410 National Priorities
List (NPL) sites in the construction completion
category. This chapter describes the remedial
progress during the fiscal year. Specifically, this
chapter provides information on:
FY96 progress in remediating NPL sites;
Remedies selected during FY96;
FY96 results of five-year reviews under
CERCLA Section 121(c) at sites where
contamination remained after the initiation of the
RA;
FY96 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 plans
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
17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Exhibit 3.2-1
Work Has Occurred at Over 97 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites
491
Proposed NPL Sites 52
Final NPL Sites 1.211
Subtotal 1,263
Deleted - Referred to
Another Authority 6
Deleted NPL Sites 113
Total* 1,387
Includes 164 Federal Facilities
410
203
Source: CERCLIS (as of September 30, 1996).
RPMs by reviewing remedial and enforcement
activities and by answering technical and policy
questions.
3.2 Fiscal Year 1996 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 FY96, work had
occurred at over 97 percent of the 1,387 NPL sites.
In addition, over 124 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 FY96.
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
cleanup at NPL sites. The Agency completed
construction activities at 64 sites during FY96,
bringing the total number of sites in the construction
completion category to 410. Nearly 50 percent of the
construction completions have been achieved in the
past three years.
3.2.2 New Remedial Activities
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-2, the Agency or
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) had undertaken
approximately 1,736 RI/FSs, 1,388 RDs, and 1,076
RAs since the inception of the Superfund program
through the end of the FY96.
The remedial activities started during FY96
reflect the Agency's continued emphasis on
18
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.2-2
Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program
for Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1996
FY96 Remedial
Accomplishments
1,076
Remedial Actions
1,388
Remedial Designs
1,736
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
- r= - f- - r= - r - r - r - r - r - r
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Number of Actions
Source: CERCLIS. October 24, 1 996.
O PRP-Financed
Actions
D Funded-Financed
Actions
accelerating the pace of cleanup and focusing
resources on RAs. New remedial activities
undertaken this fiscal year include:
RI/FS Starts: The Agency or PRPs started
approximately 36 RI/FSs during FY96, including 26
(72 percent) financed by EPA and 10 (28 percent)
financed by PRPs.
RD Starts: The Agency or PRPs started
approximately 74 RDs during FY96, including 20
(27 percent) financed by EPA and 54 (73 percent)
financed by PRPs.
RA Starts: The Agency or PRPs started 116
RAs during FY96. EPA was financing 34 (29
percent) and PRPs were financing 82 (71 percent).
3.2.3 Status of Remedial and Enforcement
_ Activities in Progress _
At the end of FY96, 1 ,766 RI/FS, RA, and RD
projects were in progress at 845 sites. Projects in
progress at the end of FY96 included 1,396 RI/FS
and RA projects and 370 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 FY96 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
FY96 is provided in Appendix B.
Of the 1,396 RI/FS and RA projects in progress
at the end of FY96, 57 percent were on schedule,
ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal year, or
had no previously published completion schedule,
and 43 percent were behind schedule. These projects
include 439 on schedule, 37 ahead of schedule, 223
started during the fiscal year, 94 that had no
previously published completion schedule, and 603
that were behind schedule. Exhibit 3.2-3 compares
the number of projects in progress at NPL sites at the
end of FY96 with the number in progress at the end
ofFY95,bylead.
19
-------
Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
PRPs were conducting 429 of the RI/FS and RA
projects in progress at the end of FY96. Of these
429 PRP-financed projects, 56 percent were on
schedule, ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal
year, or had no previously published completion
schedule, and 44 percent were behind schedule.
Projects include 125 on schedule, 10 ahead of
schedule, 80 started during the fiscal year, 23 that
had no previously published completion schedule,
and 191 that were behind schedule.
3.2.4 Remedy Selection
The Agency signed 156 RODs in FY96,
including 44 new and amended ROD for
PRP-financed sites, 31 RODs for Fund-financed
sites, and 81 RODs for federal facility sites. For
comparison, in FY95, 187 RODs were signed,
including 52 new and amended RODs for PRP-
financed sites, 53 RODs for Fund-financed sites, 82
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
FY96 ' 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 156 RODs signed during
FY96 is provided in Appendix C. To fulfill the
Exhibit 3.2-3
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites
Fund-Financed State-Lead
Fund-FinancedFederal-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
FY95 FY96
15 20
135 136
9 8
179 161
3 3
23 22
2 2
470 450
836 802
RDs
FY95 FY96
18 20
89 77
4 0
218 192
1 0
12 11
1 1
70 69
413 370
RAs
FY95 FY96
37 37
1 00 110
2 2
241 268
4 6
26 29
0 0
106 142
516 594
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
Sources: Progress Toward Implementing-Superfund: FY95 (Appendices A and B) and FY96
(Appendices A and B).
20
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 Interagency Coordination
Programs, and other programs. The FY96
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 ten
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 FY96
accomplishments. The fourth component,
Technology Transfer, involves publication and
distribution of SITE program results.
The SITE Emerging Technology Program was
discontinued in 1996 in an effort to reduce
expenditures. The program continues to honor
commitments to technology developers currently in
the program, but new technologies were not admitted
into the program after 1995.
Exhibit 3.3-1
FY96 SITE Program Accomplishments
Demonstration Program
Emerging Technology
Program
Characterization and
Monitoring Program
FY96
Projects
4
4
0
Cumulative
Projects
86
57
31
The Characterization and Monitoring Program
has leveraged its resources with EPA's
Environmental Technology Verification Program.
These programs, now known collectively as the
Consortium for Site Characterization Technologies
(CSCT), have developed a partnership agreement
with the Department of Energy to identify the topics
and procedures of mutual interest. This agreement
will allow the CSCT portion of the SITE program to
supplement its funding of characterization and
monitoring demonstrations and will also include the
expertise of DOE's national laboratories to assist in
the demonstrations process. As a result of decreased
funding, no new demonstrations were conducted
during FY 96.
More detail on the SITE program is available in
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 1996
(EPA/540/R-97/508), September 1997.
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
Technical Support Centers (TSCs) and the
Groundwater, Engineering, and Federal Facilities
Forums. The goals of these technical assistance
programs are to increase the speed and quality of
Superfund cleanups, reduce clean-up 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.
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Technical Support Centers and Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team
In FY96, the Agency funded TSCs at four 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 FY96
are listed below. Annual funding totaled $1.7
million.
Monitoring and Site Characterization TSC:
ORD-National Exposure Research Laboratory
(NERL), Characterization Research Division -
Las Vegas, Nevada
Health Risk Assessment and Toxicology TSC:
ORD-NERL, Human Exposure Research
Division - Cincinnati, Ohio
Engineering and Treatment TSC: ORD-
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) - Cincinnati, Ohio
Ground-Water Characterization and
Remediation TSC: ORD-NRMRL, Subsurface
Protection and Remediation Division - Ada,
Oklahoma
NRMRL 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.
Groundwater, Engineering, and Federal
Facility Forums
The Groundwater, 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
Headquarter's program offices.
In June, the Forums held an annual meeting in
San Francisco, in conjunction with researchers from
the Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center,
Port Hueneme and Navy Remedial Project Managers
from South West Division, San Diego. Some of the
activities in which the Forums participated in FY96
include: initiated or reviewed five technical issue
papers; provided comments on the DOE course
"Principals of Environmental Restoration;"
developed a subcommittee to draft guidelines for
sampling wells in low flow aquifers; and commented
on OSWER's draft position paper on natural
attenuation, OERR's Soil Screening Guidance, the
Air Force report "Natural Attenuation of
Hydrocarbons," the Air Force protocol on
chlorinated hydrocarbons, and the DoD Range Rule.
The Forums also developed and distributed a
summary of the two Air Force documents.
3.3.3 Technology Transfer and Inter-
agency 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. The following
sections detail FY96 technology transfer and
interagency information sharing efforts, including
forums and conferences, demonstrations and
22
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
evaluations of innovative technologies, and reference
materials.
Innovative Technology Forums and
Conferences
To encourage collaborative efforts across EPA,
other federal agencies, academics, arid 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): EPA continued to
fund GWRTAC to enhance information exchange
between groundwater technology 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 worldwide. 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 FY96, the
Roundtable published two documents, Accessing
Federal Databases for Contaminated Site Cleanup
Technologies, Fourth Edition and Accessing the
Federal Government: Site Remediation Technology
Programs and Initiatives, First Edition,
Bioremediation Action Committee: The BAG,
co-chaired by TIO and ORD, is a partnership of
experts from government, industry, and academia
dedicated to expanding the use of bioremediation in
treatment, control, and prevention of environmental
contamination. In its August 1996 meeting, the BAG
developed three subcommittees to address new
research needs: alternative endpoints, natural
attenuation, and oil spills. Subcommittees coordinate
joint research and applied development activities
across organizations, transfer information, identify
priorities, and conduct projects to accomplish BAG
goals.
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.
TIO held its fifth conference in Philadelphia in
November 1995.
International Efforts: EPA continued to
participate in the NATO-CCMS Pilot Study, a joint
effort with 13 country participants to exchange
information on innovative technologies to clean up
sites.
Efforts to Demonstrate and Evaluate
Innovative Treatment Technologies
To encourage increased use of innovative
treatment technologies, OSWER issued its policy
directive (OSWER Directive #9380.0-25) on the use
of innovative technology in waste management
programs, which sets forth nine initiatives in this
area. Two of the initiatives were included in the
Superfund Administrative Reforms. The first
reform, Risk Sharing: Implementing Innovative
Technology, allows EPA to share risks associated
with implementing innovative technologies by
underwriting the use of certain promising innovative
approaches for a limited number of approved
projects. Several Regions have identified candidate
sites for this initiative, and EPA has entered into one
risk sharing agreement with PRPs at the
Somers worth Landfill site in New Hampshire. The
second reform, Risk Sharing: Identifying Obstacles
to Using Innovative Technology, was to explore and
identify contractor concerns with the selection and
use of innovative technologies. This issue was
addressed in the directive by expanding
indemnification coverage to include both the prime
contractor and the innovative technology contractor
when indemnification is offered. To date, this
protection has not been requested by any vendors or
primes.
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
TIO also engaged in two collaborative efforts
among government agencies, research organizations,
and the private technology user industry to jointly
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 FY96 six technology
evaluation partnership projects continued: McClellan
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 FY96
there were five action teams dealing with separate
remediation areas: Lasagna partnership,
Permeable Barriers Action Team, Sediments
Remediation Action Team, INERT Soil-Metals
Action Team, and the Bioremediation Consortium.
This year, the teams were conducting demonstrations
at two sites: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Kentucky (DOE) and Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware.
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 FY96, TIO created its
CLU-IN homepage on the Internet. TIO also
released the first version of the Vendor Analytical
and Characterization Technologies System (Vendor
FACTS), and the sixth version of the Vendor
Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT).
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 report is designed to enhance
communication among vendors, experienced
technology users, and those who are considering
using innovative treatment technologies to clean up
contaminated sites. In FY96, TIO made available the
supplemental database to the 7th Edition of this
report. The database contains site specific
information on almost 300 innovative technology
projects.
Completed North America Innovative
Technology Demonstration Projects, also published
this year, provides a matrix summarizing 259
government-sponsored demonstrations of innovative
cleanup technologies. The matrix includes basic
project information such as technology type,
contaminants treated, demonstrations dates, reports
available, and contacts.
Regional Market Surveys. TIO published
Market Opportunities for Innovative Site Cleanup
Technologies: Southeastern States (EPA542-R-96-
007) and Regional Market Opportunities for
innovative Site Cleanup Technologies: Middle
Atlantic States (EPA542-R-96-010). These
documents give state- and site-specific information
on the numbers and types of sites still requiring
remediation in these two regions.
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 FY96, TIO published three
issues of TechTrends and three issues of Ground
Water Currents.
24
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Citizen Guides are four-page descriptions of
innovative technologies written in less technical
language to be understood by the layperson. In
FY96, TIO published eight revised and two new
guides, including Spanish-language versions of each.
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 FY96, the
booth traveled to approximately 20 venues including
state meetings and technical conferences.
3.4 Report on Facilities Subject to
Review Under CERCLA Section
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. 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 of Five-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.
FY96 was the sixth year in which sites were
eligible for five-year review. Headquarters data
indicated that a total of 43 sites required five-year
reviews in FY96. A total of 35 five-year reviews
were completed in FY96, as illustrated in Exhibit
3.4-1. Three reviews were done for different
portions of a single site, the Naval Air Engineering
Station. Thus, 33 sites were reviewed during FY96.
Reviews for eight sites were due in prior fiscal years.
Reviews for fifteen sites were completed early and
were due in later fiscal years. Headquarters .data
initially suggested that two of the reviews were not
required. However, the Regions identified these sites
as requiring reviews and submitted reports.
Of the 33 sites that were reviewed during FY96,
23 required statutory reviews and 10 required policy
reviews. EPA determined that the remedies continue
to protect human health and the environment at 29 of
the 33 sites. Ongoing remedies are included among
those considered protective. For the remaining four
sites, the review report either did not include a
protectiveness determination or stated that remedies
do not currently protect human health and the
environment. These four sites are addressed below:
1) The Picatinny Arsenal report did not include a
protectiveness determination. It recommended that
an additional well be added and that the delivery
system be cleaned and upgraded so that the pump-
and-treat system will fulfill its objective of arresting
the flow of contaminated groundwater into Green
Pond Brook.
2) The Gratiot County Landfill report did not include
a protectiveness determination. The attached site
25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
review and update stated that there is not an apparent
health hazard at this time.
3) The Wildcat Landfill report stated that the site is
not currently considered protective due to certain site
conditions and outstanding administrative issues.
Issues at the site include missing perimeter signs, not
meeting the target survival rate for groundcover in
some areas, the development of seeps in some areas
of wetlands, and the protrusion of a drum through the
landfill cover. Also, groundwater data at the site did
not show any significant change in contaminants.
4) The Palmerton Zinc Pile report stated that the
remedy is not at this time protective of human health
and the environment. It noted that vegetation of
some portions of the Cinder Bank was not adequate,
and that a future operable unit will investigate many
of the concerns at the site.
26
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
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 1996
Region
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
State
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
PA
PA
PA
PA
DE
DE
NC
FL
TN
NC
MI
Wl
IN
IN
MN
OH
MN
Wl
LA
TX
MO
MT
CO
CO
UT
CA
CA
CA
AZ
CA
Site Name
Naval Air Engineering Center, Area C '*
Naval Air Engineering Station, Area H*
Naval Air Engineering Station, Site 28*
Picatinnv Arsenal '
SMS Instruments Inc. 2
Berks Sand Pit 2
Butz Landfill 2
Middletown Air Field 2
Palmerton Zinc Pile '
Sealand Limited 2
Wildcat Landfill 1
Celanese Shelby Ffbers OU2 3
Hipps Road Landfill 2
Mallory Capacitor Co. 2
National Starch & Chemical Corp. 1
Gratiot County Landfill4
Hagen Farm '
IMC Terre Haute East Plant 3
Lake Sandy Jo/M&M Landfill 2
Lehillier Mankato Site 2
Old Mill 1
Reilly Tar and Chemical St. Louis Park 3
Wausau Groundwater Contamination 2
Bayou Bonfouca 1
Highlands Acid Pit4
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant '
Burlington Northern (Somers Plant) 2
California Gulch 2
Marshall/Boulder Landfill 2
Ogden Defense Depot 2
City of Coalinga Operable Unit 3
Coast Wood Preserving 3
Intel Corp. (Santa Clara III) 2
Motorola Inc. (52nd Street Plant) 3
Sacramento Armv Depot Activitv 3
Review Date
2/1 6/96
2/1 6/96
9/1 6/96
5/24/96
1/22/96
12/15/95
9/17/96
9/17/96
9/26/96
9/24/96
8/26/96
1 2/4/95
2/21/96
9/24/96
6/18/96
7/9/96
8/14/96
9/27/96
3/26/96
6/26/96
1/17/96
3/28/96
8/20/96
9/25/96
11/2/95
6/20/96
9/4/96
2/2/96
11/13/95
6/21/96
5/15/96
2/5/96
11/6/95
11/16/95
5/3/96
Type
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Policy
Policy
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
1) Due in FY96; 2) Early - due after FY96; 3) Late -- due prior to FY96; 4) Review not
* Three five-year reviews were done for different portions of the Naval Air Engineering
Source: Five-Year Review Program Implementation and Management System
previously required.
Station site in FY96.
27.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 4
Enforcement Progress
The Superfund enforcement program uses the
enforcement provisions of CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, to maximize the involvement of potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) in the cleanup of
Superfund sites. The Agency's enforcement goals are
to:
Maintain high levels of PRP participation in
conducting and financing cleanup 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.
FY96 accomplishments illustrate the continuing
success of EPA's Superfund enforcement efforts.
EPA achieved enforcement agreements worth over
$888 million in PRP response work. PRPs financed
approximately 73 percent of the remedial designs
(RD) and 71 percent of the remedial actions (RA)
started during the fiscal year. Through its cost
recovery efforts, EPA achieved $451 million in
settlements and collected more than $252 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures.
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 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 work. If PRPs do not comply with the
UAO, EPA may conduct the cleanup itself 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
wastes.
EPA notifies parties of their potential liability for
future cleanup work and any past response costs
incurred by the government, thus beginning the
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 (RI/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
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
(0
It
^ o
Q =
TJ m
ts ~
Cu s*^.
^
UJ
Exhibit 4.2-1
Cumulative Value of Response Settlements
Reached With Potentially Responsible Parties
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-
n-
s*
[~| Cleanup Design and
Construction (RD/RA)
| | Other Response Actions
Total Response Settlements
Through FY9
$9.271 Billio
!$2.668 Billio
-i
$11.939 Billion
r^-1
§L
l^~i
'««
x'
-
^
i
^~
1
X
-^
;,
s^~
^~T
5
\
-
lit
~r^
x^
H
i
i
c>, ,
i
.rt-"^ffffi
il
-
^f"
1
IS
s
^
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96
Source: CERCLIS.
form of a judicial consent decree (CD) 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 recovered from the PRPs are returned to
the Trust Fund.
4.2 Fiscal Year 1996 Superfund
Enforcement Progress
FY96 progress reflects the continuing success of
Superfund enforcement efforts in securing PRP
participation in Superfund cleanup and recovering
30
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Trust Fund monies expended by EPA in its response
efforts.
4.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities
During FY96, the Agency reached 154
settlements (CDS, AOCs, CAs, or UAOs in
compliance) with PRPs for response activities worth
over $888 million. As shown in Exhibit 4.2-1, the
cumulative value of PRP response settlements
achieved under the Superfund program is almost $12
billion.
Of the 154 settlements achieved in FY96, 68
settlements worth over $700 million were for
RD/RA. These RD/RA settlements included 39
CDS referred to DOJ for work estimated at $487
million, 9 AOCs and 1 consent agreement for
approximately $17 million, and 19 UAOs in
compliance for $196 million. These RD/RA
settlements include 42 RD/RA negotiations started
and 64 RD/RA negotiations completed by EPA
during the fiscal year.
During FY96, the Agency issued 70 UAOs. The
Agency also signed 111 AOCs. The UAOs issued
and the 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 FY96, PRPs continued to finance and conduct
a high percentage of the remedial work undertaken at
Superfund sites: 73 percent of new RDs, 71 percent
of new RAs, and 28 percent of new RI/FSs.
4.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements
EPA and DOJ reached 220 cost recovery
settlements worth more than $451 million. These
included 181 CERCLA Section 106/107 or Section
Exhibit 4.2-2
Percentage of Remedial Designs
and Remedial Actions Started by PRPs
FY90
Remedial Design Starts
FY92
FY94
FY95
FY96
Remedial Action Starts
CD Fund-Financed CD PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS. October 24, 1996.
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
§
o
o
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Administrative Orders or UAOs) to only a subset of
possible parties, the Agency committed to issuing
such UAOs to the largest manageable number of
PRPs. Fourth, EPA published the "Interim Guidance
on Orphan Share Compensation for Settlors of
Remedial Design/Remedial Action and Non-Time-
Critical Removals," which established the amount of
orphan share compensation that the Regions may
offer to settling parties. Finally, EPA continued to
promote redevelopment of contaminated properties
by shielding some purchasers from Superfund
liability.
Reducing Transaction Costs. During FY96,
EPA continued to focus on identifying and
implementing procedures for reducing the time and
costs associated with Superfund enforcement. First,
EPA issued "Reducing Federal Oversight at
Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable
Parties," which established guidelines for identifying
high-quality PRP site remediation that qualifies for
reduced federal oversight. Second, EPA made
significant progress with respect to applying the
interest earned on site-specific accounts to the
remediation of a site.
These enforcement initiatives are described in
more detail below. Highlights of successful
enforcement accomplishments are given at the end of
the chapter in Exhibit 4.3-1.
4.3.1 Continued Use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution
. FY96 was an outstanding year for the use of
ADR in the Superfund program. Significant strides
were made in every aspect of the ADR Program,
including case use, case support systems, training,
provision of ADR services, and outreach to the
regulated community.
Case Development
During FY96, regional offices supported PRP
allocation settlement efforts at over 30 sites by
encouraging and/or providing ADR services in
coordination with OSRE. Regional support for the
use of ADR grew substantially, with all regional
offices using or supporting PRP use of ADR to assist
settlement efforts. Awareness of ADR as a tool for
increasing the efficiency of future disputes also
increased during FY96, with mediation included in
the dispute resolution provisions of several judicial
and administrative settlement documents.
Region I used ADR in fully 13 cases during
FY96. Of these, seven used ADR as an essential
enforcement tool, three used ADR in consensus
building, two used ADR in convenings (i.e., use of a
neutral to bring parties together to consider using
ADR, select a neutral and/or design an ADR
process), and one case used ADR in conjunction with
a precedential ADR provision in a Consent Decree.
Region PV also enjoyed considerable success with
ADR techniques. Among these was the use of ADR
at the Aberdeen Dump Site in North Carolina, which
resulted in an agreement among PRPs for allocation
of past costs and future work totaling an estimated
$44.7 million.
ADR Training
Training in the effective use of mediation and
other ADR techniques was provided to all regional
offices during FY96. This intensive one-day training
is designed for legal and program staff who
participate in settlement activities. The ADR Users
Training, taught jointly by EPA ADR staff and ADR
professionals who have served as mediators in
Superfund cases, concentrates on the inherent
difficulties in Agency negotiations and how use of
ADR can facilitate prompt resolution of such
disputes.
A five-day advanced training, Mediating
Environmental and Public Policy Disputes, was also
given to ADR Specialists and Regional Judicial
Officers in Boulder, Colorado. The training included
advanced mediation skills training as well as
principles and process training in convening complex
multi-party mediations.
Institutionalization of ADR
During FY96, the national network of regional
and Headquarters ADR specialists continued their
efforts to implement the Agency's ADR Guidance
requirement for routine consideration and appropriate
use of ADR standard operating procedure in all
enforcement and site-related disputes. The members
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
of the ADR Specialists Network, comprised of
experienced ADR staff from each Region and
Headquarters, serve as consultants to Agency and
DOJ staff on the effective use of ADR in
enforcement actions. The ADR Specialists Network
held monthly conference calls to exchange
information and coordinate ADR program efforts.
Senior staff to the Agency's Dispute Resolution
Specialist provide consultation and design services to
several offices of the Agency. In cooperation with
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation .Service,
these individuals continue the Agency's efforts to
foster the use of ADR in all Federal disputes,
consistent with the Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Act of 1996 and the National Performance
Review (NPR).
Outreach Efforts
Substantial progress has also being made to
educate the regulated community about the Agency's
support for the use of ADR and the potential for use
of ADR techniques to reduce private and government
transaction costs. As part of this effort, members of
the ADR Specialists Network have made
presentations and provided consultation services on
effective ADR use for numerous professional and
PRP organizations, including the American Bar
Association (ABA), the Center for Public Resources
(CPR), the Information Network for Superfund
Settlements (INSS), the Society of Professionals in
Dispute Resolution (SPIDR), and several Federal and
state agencies.
Provision of Neutral Services
Pursuant to confidentiality agreements between
regional offices and site PRPs, the ADR Liaison
continues to serve as a neutral convener, assisting
PRPs in the design of ADR procedures and the
selection of allocation professionals.
Superfund Administrative Reform Initiatives
Members of the ADR Specialists Network
assisted Agency efforts to implement several of the
Superfund Administrative Reform Initiatives. The
ADR Implementation Initiative involves several
activities designed to further implementation of the
ADR Act, and the Agency's ADR Guidance. This
highly successful effort, which required coordination
across Headquarters and regional Superfund offices,
resulted in the establishment of an ADR
Implementation Plan in each Region. In addition,
several Network members continue to assist in the
development of the Allocation Pilot, which involves
the design and implementation of a comprehensive
program to test the use of an ADR-based cost
allocation method modeled after the Superfund
Reform Act of 1994, HR 4916, 103rd Congress, 2nd
session.
4.3.2 Revised "De Micromis" Guidance
In June 1996, EPA issued its "Revised Guidance
on CERCLA Settlements with De Micromis Waste
Contributors," modifying and superseding its 1993
guidance on "de micromis" settlements. The revised
policy and associated model settlement documents
are designed to discourage third party contribution
litigation against contributors of extremely small
volumes of waste ("de micromis parties") and, where
necessary, improve EPA's ability to resolve their
liability concerns quickly and fairly.
The revised guidance makes three important
changes to the 1993 "de micromis" policy. First, it
doubles the volumetric cut-off level that the 1993
policy established for "de micromis" eligibility. This
will significantly increase the number of parties who
can be protected under the "de micromis"
designation. Second, consistent with EPA's policy
that "de micromis" parties should not participate in
financing site cleanups, it recommends that "de
micromis" settlements be effected without any
exchange of money. The 1993 guidance, in contrast,
instructed the Regions to determine "de micromis"
settlement payments using a method that considers
individual volumetric contribution and total site
costs. Third, it clarifies that "de micromis"
settlements should only be considered when the
Region finds that minuscule contributors are being
pursued by other PRPs at a site.
In addition to the guidance memorandum, the
revised guidance includes supplemental materials
intended to establish routine "de micromis"
settlement practices, thereby increasing the speed and
34
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
efficiency of the "de micromis" settlement process.
These materials are identified below:
Brochure that provides introductory information
for potential settlors about the Superfund
program and "de micromis" settlements;
Sample cover letter to be used with the "de
micromis" questionnaire;
Questionnaire that asks potential "de micromis"
parties about their waste contribution and
involvement with the site, which EPA uses to
determine eligibility for "de micromis"
settlements;
Sample cover letter that accompanies the "de
micromis" settlement when it is sent out for
signature by the settling party;
"De micromis" administrative order on consent
(AOC) that provides model settlement language
for administrative resolution of a de micromis
party's liability;
"De micromis" consent decree (CD), that
provides model settlement language for judicial
resolution of a "de micromis" party's liability;
Model Federal Registrar notice for use by EPA
when providing the notice and comment required
by section 122(1) of CERCLA.
In FY96, EPA succeeded in reducing Superfund
liability for "de micromis" parties. Consistent with
the FY95 model consent decree for the finance and
performance of RD/RAs, EPA increased the number
of settlements in FY96 that included agreements by
settling parties to waive their rights to pursue "de
micromis" parties for further contribution.
Furthermore, where "de micromis" parties were
pursued for contribution, EPA routinely attempted to
protect the smallest volume contributors from
Superfund liability. For example, at the Keystone
Sanitation Landfill in Pennsylvania, EPA entered
into settlements with approximately 167 third and
fourth party defendants whose "de micromis" status
protected them from future contribution suits.
4.3.3 Equitable Issuance of Unilateral
Administrative Orders
It has long been EPA's policy to issue Section
106 unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) to the
largest manageable number of parties, after taking
into account the adequacy of evidence of liability,
financial viability, and waste contribution. Concerns
ave been raised, however, that EPA is failing to issue
UAOs to all parties who have been identified as
viable and viable. To address this concern and to
ensure that UAOs are implemented fairly and
equitably, EPA issued a supplemental policy
memorandum, "Documentation of Reason(s) for Not
Issuing CERCLA Section 106 UAOs to All
Identified PRPs," on August 2, 1996. The
memorandum does not substantively change current
UAO policy; rather, it clarifies the criteria for UAO
party selection and requires documentation of
decisions not to pursue parties, including parties who
are identified after a UAO has been issued.
EPA actions at the Green River Disposal Site in
Maceo, Kentucky demonstrate the Agency's
commitment to selecting UAO parties in a fair and
equitable manner. Several years ago, Region IV
issued a UAO requiring four PRPs to perform an
RI/FS and removal actions at the site. In FY96, the
Region issued another UAO directing these same
PRPs and six additional PRPs to undertake design
and implementation of the remedial action. The
Region considered including several other PRPs in
the second UAO, but decided against it due to
insufficient evidence of liability or financial viability
concerns. Consistent with the new reform, the
Region documented specific reasons why these
parties were excluded from the UAO.
4.3.4 Orphan Share Compensation
Under CERCLA's joint and several liability
scheme, viable PRPs are required to assume the
liability share of insolvent or defunct parties who are
unable to pay the costs of cleanup (i.e., the orphan
share). In an effort to mitigate this effect and
encourage PRPs to settle, EPA announced in October
1995 that it would compensate parties conducting
cleanup actions for a limited portion of the orphan
share in future cleanup settlements. The Agency
35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
intended to compensate parties through forgiveness
of past costs and projected oversight costs.
Soon after the announcement, however, sources
of revenue for the Superfund program were
suspendedSuperfund's taxing authority expired
and was not reinstated and Congress did not provide
EPA with a separate appropriation for orphan share
compensation. Committed to implementing this
reform, the Agency examined alternative means of
orphan share compensation. The result of this effort
was the "Interim Guidance on Orphan Share
Compensation for Settlors of Remedial Design/
Remedial Action and Non-Time-Critical Removals,"
which was issued on June 3, 1996.
The guidance establishes the amount of orphan
share compensation that the Regions may offer to
viable parties. This amount is not to exceed 25
percent of the estimated cost of a cleanup action at a
site. EPA believes that such a limitation strikes a
glance between preserving the Trust Fund and
providing parties with meaningful relief by
minimizing transaction costs and delays in cleanup
negotiations associated with calculation and
allocation of the orphan share.
The guidance instructs Regions to offer
compensation only where the following conditions
have been met: 1) EPA initiates or is engaged in
ongoing negotiations for an RD/RA at a site or for a
non-time-critical (NTC) removal at a National
Priorities List (NPL) site; 2) a PRP or group of PRPs
agrees to conduct the RD/RA pursuant to a consent
decree or the NTC removal pursuant to an
administrative order on consent; and 3) an orphan
share exists.
To assist the Regions in determining the
appropriate orphan share component of a federal
compromise (i.e., forgiveness of past costs), EPA and
the Department of Justice established an orphan
share assistance team. The team worked closely with
Regional staff to resolve issues on a site-by-site basis
and to ensure consistent application of the reform.
In FY96, EPA offered to compromise orphan
shares worth over $57 million to parties who agreed
to conduct cleanups at 24 Superfund sites. This
achievement fulfilled Administrator Browner's
commitment to compensate parties for over $50
million in costs associated with orphan shares. The
initiative has proven effective in expediting the
settlement process by reducing the conflict over who
should pay for the orphan share.
4.3.5 Prospective Purchaser Agreements
In FY96, EPA continued to promote
redevelopment of contaminated properties by
protecting prospective purchasers, lenders, and
property owners from Superfund liability. EPA's
May 1995 Guidance on Agreements with Prospective
Purchasers of Contaminated Property is helping to
stimulate .the development of contaminated sites
where parties, particularly developers, have been
reluctant to take action. Under this guidance, EPA
issues agreements known as "prospective purchaser
agreements" (PPAs), which provide assurances that
prospective purchasers of contaminated properties
will not be held responsible for cleanup costs when
they did not contribute to or worsen the
contamination. Of the 45 agreements to date, more
than half have been reached since the guidance was
issued in FY95.
Region VIE recently finalized two prospective
purchaser agreements. One agreement involves a
parcel of land located at the Jasper County Site
(a.ka., the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt NPL site),
a large mining site in southwest Missouri, that is
contaminated with mining waste. The prospective
purchaser agreed to perform work to reduce potential
exposure to mining wastes, including grading the
site, leveling piles of mining wastes, filling open
mine shafts with rock, and fencing the site to prevent
public access. The purchaser plans to use the
property for operation of a metal recycling facility.
A second agreement involves the Kansas City
Structural Steel Site in Kansas City, Kansas. The
purchaser is a neighborhood organization working
with disadvantaged Latino and Hispanic community
members, who will use the property for light
industrial purposes. The current plan is to construct
a self-storage complex on the property.
Consideration received by EPA includes institutional
controls concerning use of the property, and
implementation of operation and maintenance
requirements.
36
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
4.3.6 Reducing Federal Oversight at Sites
with Cooperative and Capable Parties
As the Supeifund program has matured, parties
have developed substantial expertise in performing
cleanup activities. Many of these parties perform
high quality cleanups and work closely and
cooperatively with EPA. To encourage and reward
such actions, EPA issued a policy memorandum on
July 31, 1996 entitled "Reducing Federal Oversight
at Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable
Parties." The memorandum sets guidelines for
determining PRP cooperativeness and.capability. If
these guidelines are met, EPA may reduce federal
oversight of remedial and non-time-critical removal
actions performed by PRPs at Superfund and non-
Superfund sites. Regions are instructed to reduce
such oversight costs wherever practicable.
While the guidance provides site managers with
examples of opportunities for reducing oversight
costs, it is careful to point out that not all
circumstances may warrant a reduced federal
oversight role (e.g., highly complex sites).
Furthermore, mangers are instructed to estimate,
document, and measure reductipns in oversight
activities and costs.
Regions identified approximately 100 sites with
cooperative and capable parties and have either
already reduced or plan to reduce oversight activities.
Cost savings are already being realized. EPA may
also explore opportunities to involve communities in
determining the appropriate level of PRP oversight.
4.3.7 Site Specific Special Accounts
CERCLA provides EPA with the authority to
retain and use funds for future cleanup work that
were received as a result of settlements with PRPs.
EPA has used this authority to create special
accounts at individual sites. -Prior to FY96, however,
interest earned on settlement funds could not be
credited to these accounts. This changed in FY96
when EPA reached an agreement with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department
of Treasury that interest can accrue directly to special
accounts. This agreement will benefit parties who
enter into settlements with EPA at Superfund sites
because settlement payments designated for future
work will now both earn and retain interest. The
1996 events that led to the establishment of interest
bearing special accounts are listed below.
In March 1996, EPA issued a memorandum
encouraging Regional offices to place settlement
funds in special accounts and detailed the
process and utility of establishing these accounts;
In June 1996, EPA reached an agreement with
OMB and the Department of Treasury that
interest can accrue to special accounts. The
Agency can now use interest from the accounts
to carry out the terms of its settlement
agreements;
In October 1996, OMB approved EPA's
methodology for calculating interest rates for the
accounts. EPA then sent a memorandum to the
Regions outlining the agreement with OMB,
listing principal and interest balances for special
accounts, and describing the procedures for
requesting these funds.
In FY96, Regions established 23 special
accounts with an aggregate balance of $78 million.
As of the end of FY96, EPA had opened a total of 59
accounts with an aggregate balance of $261 million
($226 million in principal and $35 million in interest
through August 1996). The following examples
illustrate the success of this reform in making site-
specific special accounts available for response
actions at Superfund sites:
Love Canal Superfund site in New York.
Five million dollars in special account funds is
being applied toward the remaining work at the
site, which entails revitalizing the site and
completing a health register.
Oronogo-Duenweg Superfund site in
Missouri. EPA entered into a $1 million
settlement with a PRP who had limited
resources. EPA used funds from a special
account to expedite the settlement process with
the PRP.
Sharon Steel and Midvale Slag Superfund
sites in Utah. EPA has established a special
account for the two contiguous sites worth $65
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
million. While most of these funds have already
been used to clean up the sites, $11 million in
interest recently credited to the account will be
used to pay for future cleanup activities.
San Fernando Valley-North Hollywood
Superfund site in California. Five PRPs
contributed to a special account that EPA plans
to use to pay for the operating costs of the site's
groundwater treatment system.
Exhibit 4.3-1
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments
Centra! Landfill
Rhode Island (Region 1)
Settlement: Consent Decree (CD01) for
RA and cost recovery for RI/FS, and its
appropriate RD lodged on 7/16/96 at
the Federal District Court for the
District of Rhode Island and entered on
10/2/96.
Estimated Value: $32,000,000
EPA reached a Consent Decree with a major PRP to perform
remedial activities at the Central Landfill site in Johnston,
Rhode Island. The Consent Decree was lodged in the Federal
District Court for the District of Rhode Island on July 16, 1996.
Remedial action costs are estimated at $32,000,000.
Wastes that contaminated and affected nearby aquifers, wells,
surface waters, bedrock trenches, and wetlands included latex
wastes, acid wastes, and solvents containing various VOCs and
heavy metals. The owner of the landfill entered into a Consent
Order with EPA in 1987 to conduct a study of the level of
contamination at the site. Once the contaminants were
identified in the summer of 1994, a Record of Decision (ROD)
was issued by EPA and cleanup remedies were selected:
capping the landfill, extracting and treating the contaminated
groundwater in the most contaminated Vi acre of the site,
conducting a detailed study of the landfill gas combustion
system that was installed as an initial remedy, as well as
maintaining public water supply lines. These remedies have
significantly reduced health risks to the public while studies are
being completed and final remedies are being planned.
Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disp.
New York (Region 2)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RD/RA
issued on 9/29/95; notice of intent to
comply given on 10/30/95.
Estimated Value: $8,500,000
On September 29, 1995, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative
Order (UAO01) requiring the implementation of remedies to
source areas on the Carroll & Dubies Sewage Disposal Site in
Port Jervis, New York. On October 30, 1995, the PRPs gave
notice of intent to comply. The site was once used for disposal
of numerous wastes, including septic and cosmetic wastes.
Wastes accepted at the site were placed into unlined lagoons
and trenches. Contamination studies for seven lagoons,
groundwater, and nearby soils were performed in 1992 and
1993. Separate RODs regarding the use of remedial actions
were signed by the EPA in 1995 (Operable Unit 1), and
September 1996 (Operable Unit 2), based on results of the
studies.
Groundwater and nearby soils were contaminated with VOCs
and heavy metals, and the lagoon liquids were contaminated
with VOCs, heavy metals, and phthalates, a plastic byproduct.
The first remedy (OU1) addressed the actual source areas
(surrounding lagoons and impacted soils) at the site and the
actions that needed to be taken to ensure that source areas
would pose no threat to human life and no further threat to
groundwater. The second remedy (OU2), whose investigation
is currently underway, will address removal and control of
contaminated groundwater beneath the site. The two PRPs
who performed the RI/FS for OU1 are currently conducting the
RI/FS for OU2.
38
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Waste, Inc. Landfill
Indiana (Region 5)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RD/RA in
Operable Unit 1 (OlM)on 12/8/95.
Notice of Intent to comply given on
1/8/96.
Estimated Value:
$16,000,000
On December 8, 1995, a UAO was issued by EPA for cleanup
of the Waste, Inc. Landfill site in Michigan City, Indiana. Notice
of intent to comply was given on January 8, 1996. RD/RA
activities worth an estimated $16,000,000 will address the
contaminated area. The 32-acre site was once used as a
permitted landfill. However, in the early 1970's, the landfill
began accepting unapproved materials. The site was closed in
1983. Preliminary assessment and site screening inspections
revealed that the soil and groundwater were contaminated with
VOCs, PCBs, phthalates, and other organic substances, while
sediments from a nearby stream yielded high levels of heavy
metals, in addition to other organic compounds.
In 1994, the EPA issued a ROD (OU1) that called for an eight-
step plan to remediate the site, with an emphasis on control
and treatment of groundwater. Steps included the installation
of a RCRA Subtitle D cap, the collection of contaminated
leachate, and the installation and operation of groundwater
wells on site.
Sherwood Medical Co.
Nebraska (Region 7)
Settlement: Consent Decree for RD/RA at
Operable Unit 1, RD/RA at Operable
Unit 2, and cost recovery for oversight
at Operable Units 1 & 2 lodged on
8/30/96 in the District of Nebraska
Federal District Court.
Estimated Value: $6,833,135
EPA reached a Consent Decree with PRPs for remedial design
and remedial action at Operable Units 1 and 2 on the Sherwood
Medical Company site in Madison County, Norfolk, Nebraska,
worth an estimated $6,833,135. The Consent Decree was
lodged in the District of Nebraska Federal District Court on
August 30, 1996. The selected remedy addresses the VOC
contamination found in the groundwater and the soil.
Contaminants identified in the groundwater include TCE, PCE,
and DCE.
EPA issued a prior ROD that called for the excavation of
contaminated soil and monitoring of groundwater, among other
things. Components of a remedy currently under investigation
include providing a potable water supply to the Park Mobil
Home Court and certain other residences situated within the
contaminated groundwater aquifer, and treating contaminated
soil onsite with a soil vapor extraction method. A decision on
the remedy is expected to take place in November of 1996.
39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Kennecott (North Zone)
Utah (Region 8)
Settlement: Administrative Order by the
EPA on June 4, 1996, for Removal
Action and cost recovery for oversight
at operable Unit 8.
Estimated Value: $76,000,000
Kennecott Utah Copper Company is conducting cleanup
activities at the Kennecott North Zone site near Magna, Utah
in Salt Lake County after EPA issued an administrative order on
June 4, 1996. The estimated cost of the cleanup is
$76,000,000. Streams, ditches, ponds, and wetlands were
contaminated by mine wastes from years of smelting and
processing ore. The contaminants, identified as lead, arsenic,
and selenium, occur in the sludge ponds, slag piles, and tailings
ponds on the site. The removal action (OU8) is being
conducted in three major steps: a short-term investigation of
soils and two long-term cleanup phases. The initial analysis of
soils indicates no threat to human health. The two long-term
phases address the removal of contaminants from nearby
sludge ponds, tailings ponds, surface waters, and groundwater
plumes.
The company is responsible for cleaning up the site under state
and federal supervision. The site was proposed for NPL status
in January of 1994. In 1995, however, Kennecott, EPA, and
the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UTDEQ) entered
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This MOU
ensures that Kennecott itself will continue the cleanup process.
The EPA, in turn, was to defer the site's final listing on the
NPL. In 1996, the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a
Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit allowing the tailings
ponds to be expanded to further the surface cleanup efforts in
the future.
Mouat Industries
Montana (Region 8)
Settlement: UAO (UAO03) issued to 6
PRPs on July 22, 1996, for removal
actions; notice of intent to comply
given in August of 1996.
Estimated Value: $20,000,000
On July 22, 1996, EPA issued a UAO to six PRPs for removal
activities at the Mouat Industries site near Columbus, Montana
in Stillwater County. The site served as a plant that processed
chromium ore into sodium dichromate from 1957 to 1963. In
1976, yellow mineral deposits containing chromium began to
appear at the surface. The soil and groundwater were found to
be contaminated with hexavalent chromium, which is the
primary health and environmental threat. In 1990, EPA
requested that the city of Columbus construct a chain link
fence around the contaminated soil area, and re-rout the
ditches that transported run-off into the contaminated soil area.
In addition, monitoring wells drilled in the 1970's were capped.
An earlier administrative order (UAO01) was issued by EPA to
the PRPs to remove and treat ail contaminated soil at the site.
This action was completed in 1994. The current, administrative
order (UAO03) addresses all environmental and health issues
(primarily surface water and groundwater) remaining at the site.
PRPs gave notice of intent to comply in August 1996.
40
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Stringfellow
California (Region 9}
Settlement: Consent Decree (CD04)
lodged on 5/9/96 in the US District
Court for the Central District of
California for Long-Term Response
(LR2).
Estimated Value: $4,881,300
EPA reached a de minimis settlement with 79 PRPs for Long-
Term Response (LR2) pertaining to the Stringfellow site located
in Riverside, California. The Consent Decree was lodged in the
US District Court for the Central District of California on May
9, 1996.
Between 1956 and 1972, approximately 34,000,000 gallons
of toxic waste were disposed of at the site. Liquid wastes such
as acids and heavy metals were discharged into on-site
evaporation pools. Past EPA RODs spanning 1983-1990 called
for the maintenance of the existing cap, on-site pre-treatment
of contaminated leachate, construction of a groundwater barrier
system and surface channels, de-watering the original disposal
area, and treating and re-injecting that water. The expected
capital cost for the selected remedy is approximately
$1,136,000 with O&M costs around $1,408,000. As of 1996,
EPA was in the process of completing a Feasibility Study (FS)
and producing a final Proposed Plan and ROD, which address
the remaining soil contamination on the site.
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.
Delaware (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for the RD/RA
issued on 5/30/96; notice of intent to
comply given on 7/1/96
Estimated Value: $17,000,000
A Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO01) calling for cleanup
action was issued by EPA on May 30, 1996, for RD/RA at the
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. site near Delaware City,
Delaware in New Castle County. In 1981 and 1986, benzene
spills (some containing VOCs) occurred, leaving the soil,
groundwater, sediment, and surface water areas contaminated
with chlorobenzenes. In addition, wetlands nearby were left
under threat of contamination from the spill areas.
An earlier EPA ROD also put into effect a final remedy plan.
That plan entailed two phases. The first phase included the
containment of groundwater by slurry wall or trench as well as
the treatment of contaminated groundwater. The second action
called for the use of bioremediation to treat contaminated soils
and sediments. PRPs gave notice of intent to comply on July 1,
1996.
Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
South Carolina (Region 4)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA
beginning on 8/14/96.
Estimated Value: $300,000
EPA reached an agreement with a major PRP on August 14,
1996, for RD/RA activities at the Palmetto Recycling, Inc. site
near Columbia, South Carolina. The site was used to reclaim
lead from old batteries. Discharge of wastewater of unknown
composition into the sewer system and mishandling of wastes
containing lead, sulfuric acid, barium, and chromium led to soil,
groundwater, and sediment contamination.
Two major phases made up the structure of the cleanup
process. The first and immediate phase, which was conducted
by a major trustee of the company, consisted of removal and
treatment of 365 tons of contaminated soil and 10,800 gallons
of contaminated water from one of the on-site pits. This action
was completed in 1985. The second phase addressed complete
cleanup of the entire site, and included an investigation of the
severity of site contamination. This action was completed in
the fall of 1994, and led to a final remedy chosen by the EPA
in 1995 to address contaminated surface soil and groundwater
monitoring. Remedy design is expected to begin in early 1997.
41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Fike Chemical, Inc.
West Virginia (Region 3)
Settlement: CD (CD04) for RD/RA at
OU4, RD/RA at OU8, and cost recovery
for RA, RV, and Rl/FS lodged with the
Southern District Court Of West
Virginia on 4/24/96.
Estimated Value: $59,000,000
EPA reached a settlement with 59 PRPs to recover past costs
and for RD/RA at Operable Units 4 and 8 at the Fike Chemical,
Inc. site in Nitro, West Virginia. The terms of the settlement,
which is worth approximately $59,000,000, are set forth in a
consent decree (CD04) that was lodged with the Southern
District Court of West Virginia on April 26, 1996. The Consent
Decree is expected to be entered into in January of 1997. The
11-acre site, once used as a chemical manufacturing plant and
abandoned in 1988, includes trenches in which drummed
waste was disposed of. After conducting numerous
investigative studies, EPA found the drums to
be highly contaminated with VOCs, and other inorganic
contaminants. A water treatment facility is also located on the
site.
An earlier ROD (OU3) focused on removing buried drums and
other sources of contamination. Removal of these materials has
greatly reduced immediate health and environmental risks to
the surrounding area. Cleanup work in Operable Unit 4 (OU4)
addressed soil and groundwater contamination. A two-phase
investigation of soil and groundwater contamination is
underway, and cleanup alternatives are expected to be
identified in 1997. The remedy for Operable Unit 8 (OU8)
includes the dismantling of the on-site water treatment facility,
to be conducted once all cleanup of contaminants has been
accomplished.
42
-------
Chapter 5
Federal Facility Cleanups
Federal departments and agencies manage a
variety of- industrial activities at more than 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, many federal facilities are
larger and more complex than their private industrial
counterparts and are likely to host continuing
activities. Because of their size and complexity and
the existence of ongoing activities, 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. The federal
facility agreement (FFA) is another type of
agreement that may govern cleanup terms at a federal
facility. 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,
43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
providing technical advice and assistance,
overseeing cleanup activities,
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 federal
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 that 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 1996 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
44
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
maintained in the docket and then made available to
the public.
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. Although a docket update was not issued in
FY96, the April 11,1995, docket update 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 FY96, there were 164 federal
facility sites proposed to or listed on the NPL.
Federal departments and agencies made
substantial progress during FY96 toward cleaning up
federal facility NPL sites. Activity at federal facility
NPL sites during the year included the start of
approximately 57 remedial investigation/ feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), 58 remedial designs (RDs), 41
removals, and 70 remedial actions (RAs). Also, 76
records of decision (RODs) were signed, and a total
of nine sites have achieved construction completion.
Ongoing activities at the end of FY96 included 459
RI/FSs, 71 RDs, and 151 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 FY96, one CERCLA
IAG was executed to accomplish hazardous waste
cleanup at federal facility NPL sites. Of the 160 final
federal facility sites listed on the NPL, 100 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 time line 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) directed their efforts to cleaning
up closing military bases, accelerating cleanups,
prioritizing cleanups, addressing issues through
45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
interagency forums, and promoting the use of
innovative technologies at federal facility sites.
5.3.1 Military Base Closure
During the fiscal year, 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 DoD and the states to
achieve President Clinton's goal of "making property
environmentally acceptable for transfer, while
protecting human health and the environment" at
closing or realigning installations. In FY 1996, EPA
and DoD worked together to determine what BRAC
'95 installations should be included on the "Fast
Track Cleanup" list and then develop an appropriate
workload assessment of what would be necessary to
achieve installation cleanup and reuse. Under the
revised Memorandum of Agreement, EPA
participated on BRAC Cleanup Teams (BCTs) at
110 BRAC 1, 2, 3, and 4 installations. Of these
installations, 32 were NPL sites, and 78 were non-
NPL.
DoD, EPA, and State regulators have developed
BCTs to deal with the complex environmental
problems at closing and realigning bases. BCTs
work to expedite and integrate cleanup with potential
reuse options.
As part of this effort, EPA and state regulators
assemble technical and legal experts to support the
BCTs. This leads to real-time decision making,
reduction in documents, and identification of
innovative ways to accomplish faster cleanup. In the
FY95 Defense Environmental Response Task Force
Report, EPA reported via an initial survey, that the
first two years of this creative approach eliminated
over 80 years of project work and avoided over $100
million in costs. In FY96, EPA's second survey
showed an additional savings of 70 years of project
work and avoided over $50 million in costs.
5.3.2 National Risk-Based Priority Setting
During FY96, FFRRO developed a draft
guidance to address the role of risk and other factors,
including cost, community concerns, environmental
justice, and cultural considerations, in setting
priorities for cleanup at federal facility sites. The
guidance also discusses DoD and DOE approaches
to evaluating risks at sites, and the appropriate role of
stakeholders in the process of setting priorities.
Federal agencies and states were provided with the
opportunity to comment on the draft guidance.
Regions began to implement the risk-based priority
setting concept, including Regions 3, 9, and 10,
which had success setting risk-based priorities at
Navy Superfund sites.
5.3.3 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 developing
consensus policy recommendations aimed at
improving the process by which federal facility
environmental cleanup decisions are made.
Committee members included individuals from EPA,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, DOI, DOE, DoD,
the National Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR); state, tribal and local
governments; and numerous other nationally,
regionally and locally based environmental,
community, environmental justice, Native American
and labor organizations. In April 1996, FFERDC
released its final report, Consensus Principles and
Recommendations for Improving Federal Facilities
Cleanup. The report contained fourteen principles
that should be the basis for making federal facility
cleanup decisions.
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
46
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
closing military installations and to identify and
recommend ways to expedite and improve
environmental response actions at military
installations scheduled to be closed. DERTF
conducted three meetings in FY96, and provided the
public the opportunity to participate and comment on
its activities along with cleanup and reuse issues at
closing military installations. The Future Land Use
Working Group addresses the effectiveness of
existing DoD guidance on full disclosure and
understanding of the implications of restricted future
land use.
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 training entitled
"RCRA/CERCLA 101 Training" for the new BCT's
formed to handle the BRAC '95 installations (a.k.a.
BRAC 4). In addition, EPA issued the "Fast Track
Cleanup Guidance," the Landfill policy, the
"Operating Properly and Successfully" policy, and
other BRAC related guidances to assist BCTs with
their field work and the reuse acceleration.
In FY 1996, 146 Full Time Equivalent
reimbursable positions were dedicated to supporting
the BRAC program. Over 90 percent of the DoD
resources were assigned to EPA's Regional offices.
RCRA/CERCLA Lead Regulator Workgroup
Federal facilities are governed by numerous
environmental laws, such as CERCLA, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and state
laws, with different sources of authority. Multiple
authorities with their own cleanup processes and
standards may cause duplicative and inefficient use
of cleanup resources. To discuss streamlining the
application of multiple cleanup laws and overlapping
authorities at a federal facility site, FFRRO hosted a
workgroup composed of representatives from EPA
Regions, federal agencies, and state agencies. The
workgroup began developing guidance to establish
clearly defined roles for various regulators at federal
facilities, highlighting the concept of a predominant
or "lead" regulator.
Environmental Management Advisory Board
With DOE, EPA participated in the
Department's Environmental Management Advisory
Board. The board consists of representatives from
industry, acadernia, 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
FY96, 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 below.
5.4.1 Requjrernents_pf 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:
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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.
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 FY96, 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 EPA sites on the docket for which
it is responsible, including the site on the NPL. 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
FY96 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 RI/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 monitored
the ground-water wells on the property regularly and
48
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.4-1
Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket1
State
EPA Facility
Known or Suspected
Problems
Project Status
AL National Air and Radiation Environment
Laboratory (formerly known as the Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility)
MA New England Regional Laboratory
Ml Bay City CERT Site
Ml Electro Voice
NH Ottati & Goss Superfund Site
NJ EPA Edison Facilities (formerly known as
the Raritan Depot)
VA Fine Petroleum
WA Old Navy Dump/Manchester NPL Site
(formerly known as the Region 10
Environmental Services Division
Laboratory)
Soil and groundwater
contamination
no contamination
Miscellaneous drums on
EPA owned parcels
Electroplating waste
contamination
Groundwater, soil, and
sediment contamination
No contamination that
poses a threat to the
environment
Decaying containers of
hazardous materials
Soil and sediment
contamination
attributable to DoD
ownership
No further remedial action
required
Pollution prevention plan
continues
Site turned over to Bay City
Remedial design completed, soil
cleanup efforts performed
1st Remedial design completed,
FS initiated
Continuing investigations
Remedial work completed, site
referred to DOJ
Remedial
investigation/feasibility study
completed
Source: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and the Office of Administration and Resource Management.
This list does not include the following 16 EPA facilities where remedial activities have been completed,
that have been conditionally exempt from PA requirements, or 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., Central Region
Laboratory-MD, 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.
implemented a program to pump ground water from
the contaminated area. In FY96, EPA received
confirmation from the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management that the monitoring
wells and pumping system could be closed and that
no further action was required at the site.
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
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
laboratory was given a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit exclusion and
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).
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 n and Phase
HI) began in FY93 and were ongoing through FY96.
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. The
site was turned over to Bay City in FY96
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 1950's.
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, the 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 hi September of 1991. Final remedies were
selected for the lagoon area, onsite groundwater, and
dry well area soils. The remedial design was
completed in FY96 along with the excavation of
contaminated soil and construction of a clay cap.
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 then used by Ottati & Goss from
March 1978 until July 1979 as a hazardous materials
processing and storage facility. An RI/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 remedial design was
completed in FY96 and a feasibility study was
initiated.
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
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 cleanup 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
50
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
material; excavating and storing munitions; and
removing underground storage tanks. EPA expects
that DoD will pursue additional cleanup 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 1960's. 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 fire 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. The site began cost recovery stage in
FY96.
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. In 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. In 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 JAG 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 RI/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
completed in FY96.
51
-------
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 FY96.
Section 6.1 of this chapter includes annual
information on Trust Fund resources needed by EPA
and other federal departments and agencies through
FY96, and on the allocation of the resources for
FY96 and FY97. 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 for FY97 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 FY93 through
FY96, including budgets from 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 FY97 and beyond. This long-term effort has
been coordinated with the development of the FY97
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 estimating methods, 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
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
of the federal facilities requirement 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 appropriated $16.3 billion to the EPA
Superfund program (FY81 through FY96). This
estimate includes $1.8 billion for FY81 through
FY86 and $14.5 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY96. The FY96 resources were
spent for the following activities:
EPA Response Activities (70.8 percent):
Response activities include site assessment,
time-critical and non-time-critical removals,
long-term cleanup actions, and program
implementation activities. These activities also
include support provided by the Office of Water
and the Office of Indoor Air and Radiation.
Other Federal Agencies Response Activities (9.9
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 (9.5 percent):
Enforcement activities include PRP negotiations,
litigation, and settlements and cost recovery
efforts.
Management and Support.(8.4 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 (1.4 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,
monitoring, remedy selection and remedy design,
construction and operations
Exhibit 6.1-1 presents the actual obligations of
Superfund resources for FY95 and FY96 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
54
-------
Fiscal Year 7996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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
FY95
Operating Plan
$1,030.3
893.9
136.4
212.3
124.8
63.9
$1,431.3
FY96
Operating Plan
$1,202.7
1,054.7
148.0
141.1
125.6
20.5
$1,489.9
Source: Senior Management Report FY96.
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
Liability 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
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
55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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 60 sites on the existing NPL pending study at
theendofFY96.
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, 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
site-lead and cost-sharing scenarios. Site variables
include
Proportion of sites addressed by each lead
category (Fund, PRP, state, and state
enforcement);
56
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 $31.2 billion. This total includes the
OLM long-term estimate of $14.9 billion for FY97
and beyond. Major assumptions shaping the
long-term estimate are as follows:
Costing sites that are only currently proposed to
or listed on the NPL.
Removal activities at sites on the NPL remain at
current levels.
The RA cost factor is estimated at $7.8 million
perRA (in 1995 dollars) based on an analysis of
RODs signed from 1991 through 1995.
Program support and other non-site elements are
straightlined at the levels of the current request
year budget (FY97 President's budget).
Approximately 50 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
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
Exhibit 6.3-1
Estimate of Total Trust Liability to Complete Cleanup
at Sites on the National Priorities-List ~
(in Billions)
Total Allocations
FY96 and Prior
FY97 and Beyond
Total
$16.3
14.9
$31.2
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation and Outyear Liability Model
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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. (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
58
-------
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 FY96.
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
to convey information from EPA to local citizens
using various media, such as public access
television and public monitoring equipment; 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
cleanup and decision making. Other efforts include
59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
the establishment of community advisory groups
(CAGs).
Fiscal Year 1996 Highlights
During FY96, EPA continued to improve the
vigorous community involvement efforts by
emphasizing the importance of public participation
through a variety of means. In particular, the
reorganization of the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response benefited community
involvement nationally through the creation of an
organization devoted to community involvement and
outreach efforts at the Headquarters level. EPA's
involvement in a DoD/DOE public participation
workgroup also strengthened community
involvement at federal facilities through enhanced
coordination and cooperation within the "federal
family." EPA provided the opportunity for greater
involvement in the Superfund process for
stakeholders through the establishment of a regional
ombudsmen program in all 10 EPA regions. This
program, based on an administrative reform, provides
a point of contact for stakeholders to resolve issues
when normal channels fail. EPA also sponsored a
forum to discuss issues concerning relocation in
Pensacola, FL with a variety of stakeholders.
Finally, EPA introduced a job training initiative to
provide training to community residents and promote
their employment with Superfund site cleanup
contractors.
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.
Technical Outreach Services for
Communities
The Agency continued support for the technical
outreach program through initiation of an evaluation
effort to assess the three year-old Technical Outreach
Services for Communities (TOSC) program. TOSC
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. 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 FY96, the Agency issued Guidance for
Community Advisory Groups at Superfund Sites to
encourage the Regions to establish community
advisory groups. CAGs are committees, task forces,
or boards made up of citizens with diverse
community interests that proivde 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 took
the program out of the pilot stage to a fully
implemented program. EPA undertook efforts to
evaluate the program by conducting five CAG case
studies. The evaluation concluded that CAGs should
be formed as early as possible in the cleanup process
to ensure success. The case studies highlighted
found that access to good technical expertise and
strong community initiative in forming and operating
a CAG are important factors for success.
National Community involvement
Conferences
EPA held its annual national Superfund community
involvement conference in Chicago, Illinois. Topics
discussed included the new ombudsmen program,
CAGs, TAGs, and a keynote address focusing on
public participation theory.
60
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA
Section I17(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.
EPA continues to improve the TAG Program by
establishing efficient lines of communication
between potential TAG recipients and the Agency,
including communication between the Regional
offices and Headquarters. EPA sponsored a national
conference to bring together regional TAG
coordinators for a discussion on TAG issues as a key
initiative to foster this regional/headquarter
communication.
EPA's revision of the TAG rule throughout
FY96 also played an important component in further
streamlining and improving of the program.
Revisions proposed for the TAG rule included:
Reduction in reporting requirements for TAG
recipients;
Elimination of the cap on administrative.
expenses; and
Inclusion of interpretation of congressional
intent regarding the "not more than one grant
may be made ... with respect to a single facility"
language, to allow multiple, non-concurrent
grant recipients.
As illustrated in Exhibit 7.1-1, since the TAG
program began in FY88, EPA has awarded 189
TAGs, which are worth more than $9.5 million to
support community involvement in Superfund
cleanup. This total includes 11 TAGs awarded
during FY96. 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. EPA
has awarded almost $2 million additional grant
dollars 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.
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 FY96, 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
61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
Exhibit 7.1-1
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded
from Fiscal Year 1988 Through Fiscal Year 1996
o
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 FY96 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 EPA 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
Other Information Sources
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.
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, FY96
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
Response agreements provide states, tribes, and
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:
63
-------
Progress To ward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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; and
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: 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
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 required 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, described 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 required (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,
64
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward implementing SUPERFUND
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 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
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 1996 Highlights
From FY81 through FY96, EPA has awarded
nearly $1.8 billion in CAs to states, tribes, and
political subdivisions to assist them in participating
in Superfund response activities. This total includes
funding awarded 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, and enforced
PRP responses 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
54 representatives from 15 states in CERCLA
training. The state representatives attended two
sessions of state site managers' training that
addressed 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.
Twenty-two sites in seven states are serving as pilots
for the deferral program.
Tribal Highlights
In FY96, 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
65
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
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 1996
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 FY96, contracts worth nearly $59.7 million
were awarded to disadvantaged businesses and
minority contractors to perform Superfund work.
This amount represents 8.2 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
with states resulted in contracts worth nearly $1.8
million to minority contractors. Other federal
agencies awarded over $39 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 $18.7
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 FY96 to encourage qualified
minority firms to seek contract and subcontract
opportunities through the Superfund program. These
activities included the following:
Exhibit 7.2-1
Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1996
Type of Activity
Direct Procurement
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements2
Total
Minority Contractor
Total Dollars Obligated Participation1
$534,375,800 $18,738,062
27,386,190 1,754,267
166,590,970 39,176,210
$728,352,960 $59,668,539
Percentage of
Total
3.5
6.4
23.5
8.2
'This does not include women's business enterprise participation.
2This amount represents the total dollars awarded in FY96 through interagency agreements.
Source: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
66
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 7.2-2
Services Provided by Minority Contractors
Professional
Field 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.
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.
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.
67
-------
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, 1996
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 all
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and
remedial action (RA) Title I projects in progress at
the end of FY96. 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 Superjund: Fiscal Year 1995. 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
FY96. 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, 1996.
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 1996
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.
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 FY96.
Funding Start - The date on which funds
were allocated for the activity.
Previous Completion Schedule - For
projects ongoing at the end of FY95 that
continued into FY96, the quarter and fiscal
year of the planned completion date for the
activity, as of 9/30/96. This column is blank
for projects that were begun in FY95.
Present Completion Schedule - The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion of
the activity, as of 9/30/96. This information
was compiled from CERCLIS on 11/15/96.
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 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST SITE NAME
GU Anderson Air Force Base
CT Barkhamsted-New Hartford
Landfill
CT Beacon Heights Landfill
CT Gallup's Quarry
CT Kellog-Deering Well Field
CT Laurel Park Inc. (once listed as
Laurel Park Landfill)
CT New London Submaine Base
CT New London Submarine Base
CT Raymark Industries, Inc.
CT Solvents Recovery Service of New
England
MA Atlas Tack Corp.
MA Baird & McGuire
LOCATION
YIGO
Barkhamsted
Beacon Falls
Plainfield
Norwalk
Naugatuck
Borough
New London
New London
Stratford
South ington
Fairhaven
Holbrook
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
02
01
02
02
03
01
02
04
05
02
03
03
01
02
03
04
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP*
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
07/29/96
09/27/94
09/23/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/04/96
09/20/93
07/12/96
09/18/89
06/26/90
09/30/91
04/20/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 2001
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
4
4
2000
1997
2000
2002
2003
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1996
1997
1997
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
cpucm I) c
oonCUULt
3 2001
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
1
3
4
1
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
2
4
4
2000
1998
2000
2002
2003
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1995
1995
A-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST
1 HA
1 HA
1 MA
1 HA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
SITE NAME LOCATION
Charles-George Reclamation Trust Tyngsborough
Landfill
Fort Devens . Fort Devens
Fort Devens - Sudbury Training Fort Devens
Annex
Groveland Wells Groveland
Hocomonco Pond Westborough
Industri-Plex (Mark Philips Woburn
Trust)
Iron Horse Park Billerica
New Bedford Site New Bedford
Norwood PCBs Norwood
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Ashland
Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Falmouth
Edwards
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
01
02
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
01
03
02
02
01
02
01
02
03
03
01
04
03
05
06
08
09
10
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
09/28/96
06/13/96
05/13/91
08/31/92
05/24/94
05/24/94
03/25/96
07/06/95
07/06/95
10/15/95
07/08/96
05/13/91
11/02/92
06/02/93
05/18/92
12/08/89
07/15/91
09/27/95
01/31/90
09/28/93
08/08/96
02/18/93
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
02/01/93
03/02/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
4
3
4
1
1
3
1
4
2
4
3
1
3
1
2
3
4
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997-
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
2
2
4
1
4
3
4
4
4
2
3
1
3
4
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
2
3
4
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
A-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
NH
NH
NH
SITE NAME
Re-Solve, Inc.
Shpack Landfill
W.R. Grace & Co., Inc.
Wells G&H
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Eastern Surplus
Loring Air Force Base
O'Connor Co.
Saco Municipal Landfill
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Winthrop Landf i 11
Coakley Landfill
Fletcher's Paint Works
New Hampshire Plating Co.
LOCATION
Dartmouth
Norton/Attleboro
Acton
Woburn
Brunswick
Heddybemps
Limestone
Augusta
Saco
South Hope
Wi nthrop
North Hampton
Hi I ford
Merrimack
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
01
01 .
01
02
03
01
05
07
01
02
05
08
10
12
13
15
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
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
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
07/10/96
09/24/90
09/03/93
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
12/06/94
06/22/90
06/22/90
08/27/96
07/25/95
05/09/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/16/96
02/15/96
03/16/95
07/30/96
09/26/95
04/05/95
04/28/94
01/25/96
07/29/90
07/14/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
2
2
A
2
4
3
4
1997
1996
2000
1998
1998
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
1
4
3
1
3
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
3
2
2000
1998
1997
2000
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
2001
1997
1998
1999
1999
1998
1998
1996
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
A-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfuod: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL.INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
NH
NH
NH
NH
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
VT
VT
VT
SITE NAME
Ottati & Goss)
Pease Air Force Base
Tibbets Road
Tinkham Garage
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
LOCATION
Kingston
Portsmouth/Newington
Barrington
Londonderry
Johnston
Smithfield
Smithf ield
North Kingstown
North Smithfield
Newport
South Kingstown
Bennington
Uoodford
Burlington
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
03
08
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
04
05
01
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
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
LEAD
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/18/96
11/01/95
03/29/96
07/26/96
02/07/94
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
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
1
1
4
1
4
4
.4
4
3
1998
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1996
1996
1998
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
1
4
1
4
3
4
3
1
4
4
1998
1998
1998
2000
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
2000
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
A-6
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
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
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
American Cyanamid Co.
Asbestos Dump
Bridgeport Rental & Oil
Services
Burnt Fly Bog
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Chernsof, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (TOMS RIVER
CHEMICAL) I
Combe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Corp. '
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
D1 Imperio Property
Diamond Alkali Co.
LOCATION
Bound Brook
Mill ington
Bridgeport
Marlboro Township
Fairf ield
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Piscataway
Toms River
Chester Township
Beverly
Saddle Brook
Township
Hami Uon Township
Newark
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
05
02
03
01
02
03
01
02
03
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
SE
SE
F
FF
F
S
s
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP*
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/28/88
05/28/88
08/31/93
01/24/91
04/19/88 .
09/29/94
09/30/88
05/12/93
03/29/85
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
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
2
3
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
3
3
4
1
4
1
2000
2001
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
2
3
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
3
4
4
1
4
1
2000
2001
1995
1996
1996
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1999
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
A-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
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
SITE NAME
Dover Municipal Well 4
Evor Phillips Leasing
Fair Lawn Well Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
Florence Land Recontouring
Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Franklin Burn
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Goose Farm
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown
Plant)
Higgins Disposal
Higgins Farm
LOCATION
Dover Township
Old Bridge
Township
Fair Lawn
Atlantic City
Florence Township
Pemberton
Township
Franklin Township
Glen Ridge
Plumstead
Township
Gibbstown
Kingston
Franklin Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
01
01
02
06
07
08
09
10
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA '
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF"
FF
S
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
PRP
PS
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
07/06/93
02/15/96
02/15/96
09/30/92
' '08/19/92
10/24/95
. 06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
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
07/02/86
05/17/90
03/17/95
02/06/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
1
3
1997
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997 '
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1995
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
2
4
1
3
4
4
3
3
1
3
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
1
4
2
3
1997
2000
1998
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
1998
1995
1998
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
A-8
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULED SCHEDULE
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
Hopkins Farm
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Industrial Latex Corp.
Kauffman & Minteer, Inc.
Kin-Buc Landfill
King of Prussia
Lang Property
Li pan' Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
Metaltec/Aerosystems
Monitor Devices/Intercircuits,
Inc.
Monte I air/West Orange Radium
Site
Nascol i te Corp.
Naval Air Engineering Center
Plumstead
Township
Morganvi I le
Wellington
Borough
Jobs town
Edison Township
Uinslow Township
P ember ton
Township
P i tman
Maywood/Rochelle
Park
Frankl in Borough
Wall Township
Montclair/West
Orange
MHlville
Lakehurst
01
01
03
01
02
01
01
03
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
20
21
23
RI/FS
RA
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
PS
S
S
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
02/03/87
09/29/94
09/28/84
04/28/95
09/30/93
04/11/89
06/23/93
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
08/30/94
3
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
3
3
1
1996
1998
1995
1997
1996
1996
1996
1995
1997
1999
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
1995
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
3
1
3
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
2
4
1996
1998
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1997
1999
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
1995
1998
1996
1997
1998
1996
A-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
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
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Naval Weapons Station
Picatinny Arsenal
1
Renora, Inc.
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Roebling Steel Co.
Sayrevi He Landfill
Scientific Chemical Processing
Shei Id Alloy Corp.
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
UR Grace & Co. Inc. /Wayne Interim
Storage Site ;
Wi 11 jams Property
American Thermostat Co.
Applied Environmental Services
Brewster Well Field
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(USDOE)
LOCATION
Colts Neck
Rockaway Township
Edison Township
Rockaway Township
Florence
Sayrevi I le
Carlstadt
Newfield Borough
Pennsauken
South Kearny
Wayne Township
Swainton
South Cairo
Glenwood Landing
Putnam County
Upton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
02
03
04
01
02
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
PS
PS
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
S
FF
S
F
F
PS
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/27/90
10/01/92
10/01/92
05/28/93
08/25/95
09/30/92
09/29/92
02/13/96
11/26/91
12/19/88
10/05/88
09/07/88
03/15/96
05/23/89
07/21/90
06/30/93
08/07/92
06/30/93
03/28/94
09/23/87
05/11/93
12/14/94
06/30/94
11/19/91
10/29/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
1
1 '
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
4
1997
1998
1997
2000
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1994
1996
1995
1997
1999
1998
1996
1997
1998
1998
1996
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
1
1
2
3
4
2
4
2
1
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
4
1997
1998
1997
2000
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1994
1996
1995
1997
1999
1996
1996
1998
1998
1998
1996
1997
A-10
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS Of REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
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
SITE NAME
Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychemical
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Conk I in Dumps
Endicott Village Well Field
i
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
Fncet Enterprises, Inc.
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Subdivision
Fulton Terminals
General Motors (Central Foundry
Division)
Gcnzale Plating Co.
Griffiss Air Force Base
LOCATION
Port Jervis
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesvi Ue
Conklin
Vi Uage of
Endicott
Town of Shelby
Elmira
Niagara Fa I Is
Fulton
Massena
Frank I in Square
Rome
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
06
02
01
03
04
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
PRP
F
F
F'
F
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
f
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
06/02/94
07/31/92
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
05/14/96
09/30/92
09/29/94
03/31/95
06/21/95
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
2
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1997
1996
1995
1996
1998
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1992
1996
1996
1997
1999
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
4
4
2
2
1
4
2
4
4
3
1
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
1997
1996
1995
1996
1998
1997
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1992
1998
1996
1996
1997
1999
1997
1998
1996
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
A-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
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 (102nd Street)
Hooker (Hyde Park)
Hooker (South Area)
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Hudson River PCBs
Islip 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.
LOCATION
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Town of Johnstown
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Horseheads
Glen Cove
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
Malta
Glen Cove
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
02
01
01
02
01
01
03
01
01
02
07
08
01
04
05
06
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
S
s
PRP
F
F '
F
FUNDING
START
04/08/96
11/07/95
08/15/87
11/02/90
12/09/93
11/02/90
09/23/94
07/25/90
03/31/95
06/23/95
02/28/96
03/29/91
03/26/91
08/08/91
08/26/92
09/28/90
09/30/95
02/09/87
06/26/87
11/10/89
09/30/93
06/30/93
06/30/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
1
4
1
2
4
1
4
2
3
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
1997
1998
1997
1999
1996
1997
1999
1998
1997
1995
1996
1997
1996
1998
1996
1996
1998
1996
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHFOIII F
4
1
1
^
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
1
4
2
3
2
1
3
4
1
3
4
4
1998
1995
1997
1998
1997
1999
1996
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
1995
1996
1997
1996
1998
1998
1996
1996
1998
1996
1997
A-12
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
SITE NAME
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Onondaga Lake
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
Ramapo Landf i 1 1
Richardson Hill Road Landf 1 1 /Pond
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
Seneca Army Depot
Sinclair Refinery
Syosset Landf i 11
Tri-Cities Barrel Co., Inc.
LOCATION '
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Syracuse
Plattsburgh
Port Washington
Farmingdale
Ramapo
Sidney Center
Cortland
Romulus
Wellsville
Oyster Bay
Port Crane
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY
02
01
01
05
06
07
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
02
02
01
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS .
RI/FS
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PS
PS
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/27/89
11/13/90
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
03/19/90
04/29/91
03/31/95
03/30/95
06/19/95
09/20/95
10/26/95
11/15/95
12/21/95
01/22/96
01/31/96
03/03/95
11/15/90
05/14/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHFn II P
4
1
4
1
3
1
1
2
3
1
.4
3
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1992
1993
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
2007
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
2000
1996
1996
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
1
4
1
3
2
1
2
4
1
4
2
2
4
4
3
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
4
1992
1993
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
2008
1996
1997
1995
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
2000
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
1996
1996
1997
A-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
VI
VI
DE
DE
DE
SITE NAME
Vestal Water Supply Well
1-1
Volney Municipal Landfill
Warwick Landfill
York Oil Co.
Barceloneta Landfill
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Naval Security Group Activity
Upjohn Faci I i ty
Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells
Island Chemical Corp/V.I. Chemical
Corp
Tutu Wellfield
Delaware City PVC Plant (Stauffer
Chemical Co.)
Delaware Sand & Gravel-Llangol len/A
rmy Creek Landfill)
Dover Air Force Base
LOCATION
Vestal
Town of Volney
Warwick
Warwick
Florida Afuera
Jobos
Sabana Seca
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
Christ iansted
Tutu
Delaware City
New Castle
County
Dover
UNIT
02
02
01
02
01
02
01
' 02
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
04
03
05
02
06
08
09
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
START
09/30/94
09/28/90
08/25/95
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
12/12/95
07/28/93
07/24/96
08/09/94
09/20/93
09/20/93
09/20/93
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
4
4
4
4
1
3
4
2
2
2
1997
2000
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1994
1994
1995
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
3
3
4
2
2
2
1998
2001
1997
1997
1996
1997
1998
1996
1996
1994
1994
1995
1996
1995
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
A-14
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
DE
DE
DE
DE
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME .
Halby Chemical Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport
Plant)
Tybouts Corner Landfill
Wildcat Landfill
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
Area)
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
(Michaelsville Landfill)
Kane & Lombard Street Drums
Ordanance Products
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Spectron, Inc.
Austin Avenue Radiation
Site
Bally Ground Water Contamination
Bendix Flight Systems Division
LOCATION
New Castle
Newport
Smyrna
Dover
Edgewood
Aberdeen
Baltimore
Cecil County
Elkton
Elkton
Deleware County
Bal ly Borough
Bridgewater
Township
UNIT
02
01
01
01
02
02
04
06
08
10
02
03
06
02
01
03
01
01
01
05
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
F
PRP
MR
PRP '
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
START
12/20/91
09/26/91
11/25/92
10/16/89
02/15/91
03/27/90
10/18/95
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
08/30/91
07/16/93
09/25/96
05/18/95
05/20/96
12/13/94
02/17/95
06/23/94
SCHEDULE
3
1
4
4
4
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
4
2
1996
1998
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1999
1996
1996
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
2
2
1
4
2
3
3
4
1
1
2
3
2
4
1
4
4
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
2000
2005
1998
1998
1997
1998
1999
1997
1996
PA Berks Landfill
Spring Township
01
RI/FS
PRP 06/26/91
1996
1997
A-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
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
Blosenski Landfill
Boarhead Farms
Brodhead Creek
Commodore Semiconductor
Group
Crater Resources/Keystone
Coke/Alan Wood
Cross ley Farm
Croydon TCE i
CryoChem, Inc.
Delta Quarries & Disposal, Inc.
(Stotler Landfill)
Dorney Road Landfill
Drake Chemical
Dublin TCE Site
East Mount Zion
Eastern Diversified Metals
El izabethtown Landfill
LOCATION
West Cain
Township
Bridgeton
Township
Stroudsburg
Lower Providence
Townsh
Upper Marion
Township
Hereford Twonship
Croydon
Worman
Ant is/Logan
Townships
Upper Macungie
Township
Lock Haven
Dubl in Borough
Springettsbury
Township
Hometown
El izabethtown
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
03
02
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
. RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
04/29/95
12/05/89
05/04/94
11/18/94
09/07/94
09/27/94
09/30/91
09/30/93
06/07/95
06/14/95
12/28/95
09/30/91
08/15/91
09/30/94
08/29/96
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
3
1
3
3
4
3
4
4
1
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
. 1997
1998
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
2
3
. 2
2
1
1
4
1
3
3
4
4
1
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
2005
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1998
1997
A-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
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
Fischer & Porter Co.
Foote Mineral Co.
,
Havertown PCP
Hellertown Manufacturing
Co.
Jack's Creek/Si tkin Smelting and
Refining Irjc.
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Letterkenny Army Depot (Property
Disposal Office Area)
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
I
I
!
Lord-Shope Landfill
MU Manufacturing
Malvern TCE
Metal Banks
Metropolitan Mirror and
ft i
LOCATION
Warminster
East Whiteland
Township
Haverford
Hel lertown
Mai tland
Union Township
Franklin County
Chambersburg
Girard Township
Val ley Township
Malvern
Phi lade I phi a
Frackvi I le
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
03
02
01
02
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
04
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FE
FF
FF
FF
FF-
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
02/20/92
09/30/96
09/27/96
08/15/91
09/22/93
08/28/90
04/21/94
02/03/89
08/31/94
08/31/94
09/08/93
02/03/89
02/03/89
07/31/94
07/31/94
07/31/94
07/20/94
11/07/94
03/16/94
05/29/91
09/19/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
4
2
3
3
4
3
4
1997"
1997
1997
1996
1997
1995
1995 .
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
4
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
4
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1997
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
A-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
IG
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
Mill Creek Dump
Modern Sanitation Landfill
Moyers Landfill
Naval Air Development Center (8
waste centers)
North Penn-Area 12
North Penn-Area 2 (Ametek, Inc.
Hunter Spring Division)
North Penn-Area 6 (J.W. Rex/Allied
Paint/Keystone hydra
Occidental Chemical Corp./F irestone
Co.
Old City of York Landfill
Osborne Landf i 1 1
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Rodale Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
Saegerton Industrial Area
Strasburg Landfill
LOCATION
Erie
Lower Windsor
Township
Eaglevi I le
War-minster
Township
Township
Katfield
Lansdale
Lower Pottsgrove
Twp.
Seven Va 1 1 eys
Grove City
Palmerton
Emmaus Borough
Saegertown
Newl in Township
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
04
05
01
01
02
02
03
02
01
01
02
01
03
01
02
01
04
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
START
02/01/92
05/04/92
09/28/95
09/29/88
01/15/95
09/13/96
06/27/94
12/23/91
06/30/88
01/31/93
05/11/95
09/28/93
09/23/96
05/08/95
01/24/95
10/31/92
07/31/88
01/05/94
09/22/92
08/08/95
08/08/96
01/14/92
SCHEDULE
3
1
3
4
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
4
1
4
3
2005
1997
1998
1996 .
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1999
1997
1996
1997
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
3
2005
1998
1999
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1996
2000
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
A-18
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
RG ST
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
SITE NAME
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tysons Dump
Walsh Landfill
Westinghouse Elevator Co. (Sharon
Plant)
Whitmoyer Laboratories
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
C&R Battery Co., Inc.
Culpeper Wood Preservers
Inc.
Defense General Supply Center
LOCATION
Toby Hanna
Upper Men' on
Township
Honeybrook
Township
Sharon
Jackson Township
Front Royal
Chesterfield
County
Culpeper
Chesterfield
County
ABLE
UNIT
01
04
05
06
08
01
03
04
01
06
04
06
07
08
01
01
02
04
06
07
08
09
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PRP
F
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/27/90
06/22/93
06/22/93
06/22/93
06/22/93
06/03/88
'07/22/96
05/01/90
09/20/88
05/10/96
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
Crucnill C cnuc-fMii r
2 1996
4
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
3
1
3
1
1
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1998
1998
1998
1996
1996
1997
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
oontuuLt
4 1996
1 1997
1 1997
2 1997
1 1998
1 1997
3 1997
1 1998
1 1998
3 1998
1 1998
4 1998
1 1998
1 1998
1 1997
1 1998
3 1997
2 1998
4 1997
2 1997
4 1998
1 1997
3 VA Fort Eustis (US Army)
Newport News
01
RI/FS
FF
04/30/96
1998
A-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST SITE NAME
VA Greenwood Chemical Co.
VA L.A. Clarke & 'Son
VA Langley Air Force Base/NASA
Langley Cntr
VA Marine Corps Combat Development
Command
VA Naval Surface Warfare -
Dahlgren
VA Rinehart Tire Fire Dump
I
i
VA Saltville Waste Disposal
Ponds
VA Saunders Supply Co.
I
1
VA U.S. Titanium,
WV Allegany Ballistics Laboratory
(USNAVY)
WV Fike Chemical
LOCATION
Newton
Spotsylvania
County
Hampton
Quant i co
Dahlgren
Frederick
County
Saltville
Chuckatuck
Piney River
Mineral
Nitro
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
04
02
03
04
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
02
03
04
06
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F '
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/29/94
09/26/96
08/07/90
12/16/93
04/30/95
12/13/93
12/13/93
07/25/94
12/13/93
07/14/95
12/13/93
04/30/95
09/29/89
08/26/94
06/17/94
09/15/88
09/25/96
08/18/94
11/10/94
12/20/94
02/07/96
09/30/94
08/28/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
4
4
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
4
1
3
1997
1996
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST SITE NAME - LOCATION
3 WV West Virginia Ordnance Point Pleasant
4 AL Alabama Army Ammunition Childersburg
Plant
4 AL Anniston Army Depot (Southeast Anniston
Industrial Area)
4 AL Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Mclntosh
Plant)
4 AL 01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant) Mclntosh
4 AL Redstone Arsenal (USARMY/NASA) Huntsville
4 AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne Axis
Plant)
4 AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Bucks
Plant)
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
08
09
10
11
12
13
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
02
01
02
04
05
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
02
04
01
01
04
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP -
PRP
EP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
05/26/95
09/28/93
09/28/93
01/24/95
01/04/94
11/24/94
12/20/95
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
09/30/96
09/30/96
05/21/93
06/17/94
05/21/93
05/17/95
09/27/89
08/18/93
11/20/92
01/05/90
12/31/92
05/21/93
09/27/89
09/27/93
05/21/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
1
3
1
4
3
1
1
2
1
3
4
4
4
4
1
1 -
4
4
1
1996
1998 -
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1995
1997
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
2019
2000
1996
2000
1998
1999
1999
1995
1996
1998
2000
1999
1999
2000
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
4
1
1
4
4
1
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1997
1999
1996
1998
1997
1996
2000
2000
2000
2019
1998
1998
2000
1997
2000
1998
1999
1999
1997
1996
1998
2000
1999
2010
2000
A-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST SITE NAME
4 AL T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
4 FL Agrico Chemical Co.
4 FL Airco Plating Co.
4 FL B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
4 FL Broward County --21st Manor
Dump
4 FL Cabot/Koppers
4 FL Cecil Field Naval Air Station
4 FL Dubose Oi I Products Co.
4 FL Escarnbia Wood - Pensacola
4 FL Florida Steel Corp.
4 FL Helena Chemical Co.
4 FL Homestead Air Force Base
LOCATION
Montgomery
Pensacola
Miami
Hiateah
Fort Lauderdale
Gainesvi I le
Jacksonvi I le
Cantonment
Pensacola
Indiantown
Tampa
Homestead
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
01
00
01
02
02
02
02
05
07
08
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/27/96
07/14/94
09/23/94
12/20/95
12/07/95
03/02/93
12/29/93
09/29/93
09/23/94
05/17/94
02/02/95
10/22/90
02/18/92
02/18/92
06/08/95
06/02/94
02/29/96
02/16/93
09/20/94
09/21/94
06/12/95
01/24/96
11/06/92
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
4
1
2
4
2
4
1
1
3
4
1
3
3
4
2
1
1
1
1996
1997
2000
1995
1996
1999
1996
1998
1999
1997
1997
1999
1995
1997 .
1996
1996
1995
1996
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
1
4
1
4
4
2
4
3
1 .
2
2
4
3
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
4
3
2
2
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
2000
1995
1996
1999
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1996
1999
1997
2001
1997
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
1997
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
4 FL Jacksonville Naval Air Station Jacksonville 01
01
02
02
02
03
4 FL Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal Tampa 02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/08/90
03/20/95
07/01/92
03/06/95
02/12/96
12/17/93
09/02/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
3
1
2
3
1996
2000
1997
1997
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
1
4
2
2
1996
2000
1998
1997
1999
1998
1997
(once listed as Timber Lake
Battery Disposal)
4 FL Madison County Sanitary
Landfill
4 FL Muni sport Landfill
4 FL Pensacola Naval Air Station
Madison
North Miami
Pensacola
4 FL Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.
4 FL Petroleum Products Corp.
Medley
Pembroke Park
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
01
02
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
RA
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
F*
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
02/07/95
12/21/95
11/01/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
11/29/93
06/24/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
11/29/93
11/29/93
11/29/93
03/26/87
09/15/89
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1995
1996
1 1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998-
1998
1997
1997
2000
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
4 1998
4 1996
A-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
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
GA
GA
GA
GA
SITE NAME
Pickettville Road Landfill
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sherwood Medical Industries
Stauffer Chemical Co (Tarpon
Springs)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Tower Chemical Co.
Whi tehouse Oi I Pits
Whiting Field Naval Air
Station
Yellow Water Road Dump
Cedartown Industries, Inc.
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Firestone Tire & Rubber
LOCATION
Jacksonville
Tampa
Cottondale
Plant City
Del and
Tarpon Springs
Tampa
Clermont
Whi tehouse
Milton
Baldwin
Cedartown
Cedartown
Cedartown
Albany
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
02
01
01
03
01
02
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
MR
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/93
02/27/96
03/10/93
.09/30/90
06/24/92
06/07/94
06/25/93
07/28/92
12/12/92
03/22/94
04/15/94
11/27/95
11/27/95
11/27/95
06/17/95
11/16/95
11/04/94
06/29/95
06/28/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
3
1
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
4
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1997
1997
2015
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
4
4
4
1
'1998
1997
1999
2000
1997
1997
1997
1997
2000
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1997
1999
1997
1999
1999
Co.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
4
4
4
4
4
It
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
. KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
SITE NAME . LOCATION
LCP Chemcials Georgia Brunswick
Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany
'
Marzone Inc. /Chevron Chemical Tifton
Co.
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill Houston County
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Albany
Co.
Airco Calvert City
B.F. Goodrich Calvert City
Distler Brickyard West Point
1
1
Green River Disposal, Inc. Macco
National Electric Coil/Cooper Dayhoit
Industries
1
National Southwi re Aluminum Haweswille
Co.
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Paducah
(USDOE)
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
04
05
07
08
09
10
11
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/06/95
07/23/91
12/30/94
07/23/91
11/29/93
09/15/92
01/16/96
05/20/96
04/15/95
12/31/91
08/02/94
11/29/95
09/29/95
09/29/95
09/28/88
04/29/96
02/25/93
12/12/94
04/10/89
05/20/96
08/12/93
09/10/92
'07/09/93
03/29/95
10/25/94-
04/27/93
06/28/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
1
2
3
3
1
3
4
4
4
3
1
4
2
3
4
3
4
3
1997
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
2000
1995
1996
1999
1997
1996
1999
1998
1999
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
4
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
1
3
2
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
1997
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
1999
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
2000
1998
1995
1997
2010
1997
1999
1996
1999
1998
1996
1999
1999
A-25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
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.
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps j
Battery Tech (Duracell -Lexington)
Bcnfield Industries, Inc.
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
.
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum
LOCATION
Peewee Valley
Brooks
Gulf port
Columbia
Jacksonvi I le
Aberdeen
Lexington
Haze I wood
Ons low County
Fayettevi 1 le
Cordova
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY
12
13
15
01
02
01
02
01
05
01
01
02
03
07
08
10
12
13
14
01
01
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
- RI/F.S .
; RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
EP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF.
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/28/94
07/25/94
05/15/94
08/18/89
03/13/96
09/07/94
10/21/94
09/30/96
03/21/94
09/09/94
09/30/96
03/20/95
01/27/95
06/08/94
06/30/93
04/13/92
04/04/94
04/04/94
06/23/95
09/29/94
06/28/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
3
1
3
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1997
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
2000
2000
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
1
3
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1997
1999
1997
1998
1998
1999
1996
2001
1997
1997
2000
1999
1996
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
1998
2000
2000
Storage
4 NC Chemtronics, Inc.
Swannanoa
01
RA
PRP 06/10/91
1996
1997
A-26
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
ABLE
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
NC
NC
SC
SITE NAME
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air
Station
Davis Park Road TCE Site
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
Flanders Fi Iters Inc.
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen
Plant)
JFD Electronics/Channel
Master
Jadco-Hughes Facility
Koppers Co., Inc (Morrisville
Plant)
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco,
Inc.
National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
Potter'.s Septic Tank Service
Pits
Reasor Chemical Company
Aqua-Tech Environmental Inc (Groce
1 _L._ *
LOCATION
Have lock
Gastinia
Statesville
Washington
Aberdeen
Oxford
Belmont
Morrisvi lie
Charlotte
Sal isbury
Maco
Castle Hayne
Greer
UNIT
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
i unu i nu L,UPIrLC 1 lUn
START SCHEDULE
03/20/96
07/12/95 3 1996
08/03/95 2 1997
09/30/96
02/12/96
02/22/96
09/11/96
06/20/95 4 2001
06/22/95 3 1999
09/25/89 2 1999
06/27/90 2 1999
09/23/94 1 1997
08/09/96
09/26/95 4 1997
IUI
1
2
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
1
3
1
3
"ll-LCI IUN
HEDULE
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
2000
1999
2001
1999
1999
2000
1996
1998
1998
Labs)
4 SC Calhoun Park/Ansonborough
Home
Charleston
01 RI/FS PRP 01/22/93 2 1996 2 1997
A-27
-------
Progress Toward Inpleraenting Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS^ SEPTEMBER II
RG ST SITE NAME
4 SC Carolawn, Inc.
.4 SC Elmore Waste Disposal
4 SC Geiger (C & M Oil)
4 SC Kalama Specialty Chemicals
4 SC Koppers Co., Inc (Florence
Plant)
4 SC Koppers Co., inc. (Charleston
Plant)
4 SC Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
4 SC Lexington County Landfill
Area
4 SC Palmetto Wood Preserving
4 SC Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
1 SC Rock Hill Chemical Co.
4 SC SCRDI Bluff Road
SC Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mi le
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB
SC Savannah River Site (USDOE)
OPER-
ARI C
LOCATION
Fort Lawn
Greer
Rantoules
Beaufort
Florence
Charleston
Rock Hill
Cayce
D i x i ana
Simpsonvitle
Rock Hill
Columbia
Pickens
Aiken
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
UNIT ACTIVITY Iran er« G COHP1-ET' COMPLETION
ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE srHFniiiF
01
m
U I
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
04
05
08
09
10
10
11
13
14
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F*
FF
05/12/93 1
09/30/96
03/31/92 2
01/19/94 3
04/18/96
02/29/88 2
01/14/93 2
03/25/96
12/13/90 2
09/30/96
09/25/89 2
02/15/96
09/19/96
06/22/94 1
12/04/95
11/22/93 1
02/28/90 1
02/28/90 1
04/05/96
04/05/96
09/21/96 3
01/09/91
03/06/91 3
06/07/91 4
07/01/91 3
1996
1996
1997
1997
1995
1996
1996
.1995
1997
1997
1997
1995
1997
1996
1996
2 1998
2 1998
2 1997
4 1998
1 1997
3 1997
4 1996
3 1998
1 1997
2 1998
1 2000
1 1998
2 2006
1 1997
1 1997
1 1997
2 1997
2 1997
3 1999
3 1999
4 2000
3 1995
3 1997
1 1997
1 1997
A-28
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
^ ?I S1TE NAHE LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
31
32
36
37
38
39
40
42
44
45
46
47
51
52
55
Rl/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
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
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
07/01/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
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
03/18/96
' 08/05/91
02/15/96
07/16/90
07/01/96
12/29/89
08/05/91
01/31/95
03/31/95
03/31/95
01/31/92
12/29/89
02/15/92
05/15/93
12/19/95
04/04/96
04/03/96
03/31/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
3
1
2
4
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1999
1995
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
1
4
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
4
4
1
3
4
2
2
3
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
2001
1998
1998
2000
1999
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1997
1998
1999
2000
1998
1998
4 SC Shuron Inc
4 SC Townsend Saw Chain Co.
4 SC Wamchem, Inc.
BarnwelI
Pontiac
Burton
01
01
01
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
11/21/94
06/21/95
12/22/93
2
3
1996
1996
2
3
1
1997
1996
1997
01
RA
PRP 07/26/95 3 1996
1997
A-29
-------
RG ST SITE NAME '
4 TN Arlington Blending & Packaging
4 TN Carrier Air Conditioning
Co.
4 TN Mallory Capacitor Co.
4 TN Memphis Defense Depot (DLA)
4 TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant
Progress Toward Implementing Soperfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
LOCATION
Arlington
Collierville
Waynesboro
Memph i s
Milan
4 TN Murray-Ohio Dump
4 TN North Hollywood Dump
4 TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
Lawrenceburg
Memph i s
Oak Ridge
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
09
10
11
12
13
01
01
04
05
07
09
10
12
13
14
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
Rl/F'S
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
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
RA
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
12/12/94
11/03/94
06/08/93
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
07/16/96
09/27/93
03/31/90
03/31/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
07/15/96
01/03/90
06/09/90
10/25/86
09/14/90
10/25/86
07/16/90
08/28/92
12/28/90
01/14/91
04/10/96
10/25/86
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
3
3
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
3
4
1996
1995
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1999
1998
1998
1999
1998
1997
1999
1997
1996
1998
1998
1999
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
3
3
4
1
2
4
1
1
3
3
3
1
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
2008
1995
2027
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1996
1997
1999
1998
1999
1997
1999
1998
1997
1999
1999
1996
1999
1998
1999
1997
1999
A-30
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
RG ST SITE HAMP
TN
Tennessee Products
TN Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman
County)
TN
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
5 IL Acme Solvent Reclaiming
Inc. ' .
5 IL Amoco Chemcials (Joliet
Landfill)
5 IL Beloit Corp.
5 IL Byron Salvage Yard
5 IL Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
5 IL DuPage County LandfiIl/BlackwelI
Forest Preserve)
5 IL Galesburg/Koppers Co.
5 It- H.O.D. Landfill
OPER-
ARIF
LOCATION
"
Chattanooga
Toone
Wrigley
__
Morris town
Jo I iet
Rockton
Byron
Pembroke Township
Warrenvi I le
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Antioch
UN11
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
40
01
m
U I
01
I
06
01
01
04
01
01
01
01
- ACTIV11
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
~r in i j
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
I LEA]
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
. FF
F
PRP
r
PRP
PS
PS
EP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PREVIOUS
T QTflDT n
;* O 1 Ht\ 1 Jj
10/01/95
10/04/93 4
09/23/93 4
09/30/93 2
10/25/86 4
12/02/92 4
02/02/94 4
03/31/94 4
12/31/92 1
12/22/94 2
03/22/95 3
05/26/95 2
09/29/93 2
==
09/29/94 1
04/07/94 3
09/27/90 2
12/29/89 3
09/30/93 1
09/29/89 1
05/05/95 2
08/20/90 3
OMPLETM
CHEDULE
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1995
" I mm
2000
1996
1998
1996
1996
1997
1999
1996
PRESENT
N SCHEDULE
3 1998
4 1999
4 1998
2 1999
4 1998
4 1999
4 1999
4 1999
2 1997
3 1999
3 1997
2 2027
2 1995
.
1 2000
3 1997
2 1998
1 1997
4 1997
4 1997
2 1999
2 1997
A-31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
Ilada Energy Co.
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West
Branch of Dupage River)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler
Park)
Kerr-McGee (Residential
Areas)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat
Plant)
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
MIG/Dewane Landfill
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Ottawa Radiation Areas
Outboard Marine Corp.
Pagel's Pit
Parsons Casket Hardware
East Cape
Girardeau
Joilet
DuPage County
West Chicago
West Chicago/DuPage
Cnty
West Chicago
LaSalle
Lemon t
Belvidere
Granite City
Ottawa
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
02
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
S
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
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
05/01/95
03/08/91
03/15/93
03/26/93
09/26/90
06/27/93
08/13/91
09/01/96
1
2
1
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
1996
1996
1997
1998
1997
1998
2005
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
4
4
1
3
4
4
4
1
3
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
1
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
2005
1997
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
Co.
A-32
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
!L
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
(USDO!)
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Southeast Rockford Ground Water
Contamination
Wauconda Sand & Gravel
Yeoman Creek Landfill
American Chemical Service,
Inc.
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglas Road/Uni royal, Inc.,
Landfill
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Lemon Land Landfill
MIDCO I Site
LOCATION
Carterville
Savanna
Rockford
Uauconda
Waukegan
Griffith
Elkhart
Kokomo
Misha^waka
LaPorte
Fort Wayne
Bloomington
Gary
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
02
03
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
02
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHFnill P
06/30/93 4
09/27/95 1
09/13/91 3
09/13/91 4
09/29/89 1
.02/07/96
09/30/91 3
12/22/89 1
04/10/96
06/06/96
08/29/94 4
05/25/90 3
08/26/91 3
03/27/92 3
03/27/92
03/27/92
03/27/92
09/10/96
09/27/96
09/30/95 2
09/20/90 2
05/08/95 4
07/22/93 4
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
4
2
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1997
1996
1997
A-33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
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
IN
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
SITE NAME
MIDCO II Site
Marion (Bragg) Dump
Neal's Landf it'l (Bloomington)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Northside Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Tri State Plating
Waste, Inc. Landfill
Allied-Paper, line. /Portage
Creek/Kalamazop River
Bendix Corp. /All fed Automotive
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Chem Central
LOCATION
Gary
Marion
Bloomington
Gary
Zionsvi lie
Indianapolis
Seymour
Lafayette
Columbus
Michigan City
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Muskegon
Detroit
Wyoming Township
UNIT
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PS
PS
PS
PRP
F
S
PRP
PRP
START
08/23/93
01/16/90
07/07/88
08/13/96
02/14/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
08/17/87
03/08/90
03/29/91
09/12/96
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
wwi ir L.L. i i wtl
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
2
3
4
1996
1989
1997
1999
1997
1997
1999
1998
1997
1997
1999
1996
2000
1996
1996
1996
uunruci lun
SCHPnill P
1
2
2
4
1
2
4
3
3
2
3
3
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
3
1997
1997
1989
1998
1997
1999
1998
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1997
1997
1999
1996
2000
1997
1997
1997
A-34
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
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
Ml
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Clare Water Supply
Electrovoice
1
forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
Ionia City Landf i 11
J & L Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Metal Working Shop
North Bronson Industrial
Area i
i
i
Northernaire Plating
Novaco Industries
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
LOCATION
Clare
Buchanan
Otisvil le
Utica
Ionia
Rochester
Hills
Cadillac
Utica
Lake Ann
Bronson
Cadillac
Temperance
Dal ton Township
Grandvi I le
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
EP
S
PRP
F
F
F
f
PRP*
F
FUNDING
START
10/03/95
11/08/95
05/24/96
09/15/92
03/26/96
06/02/95
01/29/86
05/19/96
07/12/94
03/03/95
09/30/92
11/15/90
06/24/87
03/03/95
04/23/92
09/25/91
09/28/92
03/29/95
02/09/94
04/22/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
2
2
4
3
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
1997
1999
1996
1996
2020
1996
1992
1996
2020
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
3
1
1
4
1
2
2
4
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
1
1
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
2020
1997
1992
1997
2020
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
5 MI Parsons Chemical Works,
Inc.
Grand Ledge
01
RI/FS
09/29/89 1 1996
1 1997
A-35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
F REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REHEDIAL ACTIOMS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST
5 HI
5 HI
5 MI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
5 HI
SITE NAME
Peerless Plating Co.
Petoskey Municipal Well
Field
Rasmussen's Dump
Rockwell International Corp.
(Allegan Plant)
Roto-Finish Co., Inc.
SCA Independent Landfill
Shiawassee River
Sparta Landfill
Spartan Chemical Co.
Sturgis Hunicipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo- Chem, Inc.
Verona Well Field
Wurtsmith Air Force Base
LOCATION
Huskegon
Petoskey
Green Oak
Township
'Allegan
Kalamazoo
Huskegon Heights
Howe 1 1
Sparta Township
Wyoming
Sturgis
Hancelona
Township
Huskegon
Battle Creek
Isoco
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT am IM TV i c«n
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
RA F
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
S
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PS
S
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COHPLETII
START SCHFDIII F
09/23/96
10/05/90 3
03/16/95 1
03/31/88 1
12/18/87 3
10/20/93 1
06/19/87 4
09/23/93 1
02/16/94 1
05/12/93 1
01/29/86 3
10/16/95
10/27/94
10/27/94
09/21/87 2
04/12/95 2
12/28/94 2
01/03/95 2
09/26/94
06/24/94
01/03/95
03/15/93
12/14/94
08/04/94
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1998
1998
2000
1993
1998
1996
1996
1997
SCHEDULE
1 1999
1 1998
1 1997
1 1998
1 1997
1 1997
1 1997
1 1998
1 1998
1 2000
3 1993
1 1997
4 1998
4 1997
1 1998
1 1997
2 1997
2 1997
4 1996
4 1996
2 1997
3 1997
2 1997
4 1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
°F REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS^ SEPTEMBER S 1996
ST SITE
5. MN Agate Lake Scrapyard
5 MN Arrowhead Refinery Co.
5 MN Freeway Sanitary Landfill
5 MM Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply
Co.
5 MN Long Prairie Ground Water
Contamination
5 MN MacGillis & Gibbs Co./Bel I Lumber
& Pole Co.
5 MN Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
' Plant
5 MN New Brighton/Arden Hills
5 MN Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
5 MN Perham Arsenic
5 MN Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
5 MN St. Regis Paper Co.
OPER-
ARI P
_ LOCATION
Fairview Township
Hermantown
Burnsvi I le
Brooklyn Center
Long Prairie
New Brighton
Fridley
New Brighton
Oak Grove
Township
Perham
St. Louis
P-ark
Cass Lake
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
UNIT ACTIVITY IPAH «« COMPLETI°N COMPLETH
ACTIVITY LEAI? START SCHEDULE sr.HFmnr:
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
03
'01
02
03
01
02
03
07
02
01
04
05
01
03
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
PS
S
PRP
F
PS
PS
S
S
S
S
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
07/08/94 1
08/15/90 4
04/20/95 2
01/24/96
03/27/86 1
07/31/95
04/11/91 3
04/11/91 3
12/09/93 2
09/30/94 4
06/12/96
09/23/96
06/14/91 4
03/22/92 2
05/20/96
09/21/95
08/05/92 4
09/30/96
04/01/91 4
05/09/96
04/30/85
04/30/85
2000
2000
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1999
1996
1999
1999
1 2000
4 2000
1 1997
1 1997
1 1996
1 1997
1 1997
1 1997
3 1997
4 1998
1 1998
4 1997
4 1999
1 1999
4 1998
2 1997
3 1996
3 1998
4 1999
2 1997
4 1997
3 1997
A-37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Uaite Park Wells
Allied Chemical & Ironton
Coke
A I sco Anaconda
Big D Campground
Buckeye Reclamation
Dover Chemical Corp.
Feed Materials Production Center
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
Miami County Incinerator
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Nease Chemical
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover
n i _n 4- \
LOCATION
Waite Park
Ironton
Gnadenhutten
Kingsvi I le
St. Clairsville
Dover
Fernald
Ashtabula
Troy
Miamisburg
Salem
Dover
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
03
04
06
02
03
04
01
01
02
05
06
09
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS '
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
. FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/12/94
03/03/95
03/03/95
09/30/91
05/11/94
02/10/95
08/24/88
04/01/96
04/09/90
03/04/96
06/09/95
03/22/89
09/26/89
01/10/93
04/01/96
06/24/96
06/21/93
02/04/93
07/17/92
05/22/92
01/27/88
03/29/89
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
1
4
3
2
1
4
1
3
4
1
1
,2
4
2026
1996
1996
2016
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
2000
1997
2001
2008
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
1997
2026
1997
1997
2016
1999
1997
1998
1996
2001
2006
1997
1999
1997
1997
1998
2000
1997
2001
2008
1998
1997
5 OH Rickenbacker Air National Guard
(USAF)
Lockbourne
01
RI/FS
FF
04/15/96
1 1997
A-38
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST SITE NAME
OH Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial
Uaste Disposal Co.Inc
OH Skinner Landfill
OH South Point Plant
OH United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
OH Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base
OH Zanesville Well Field
WI Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
WI City Disposal Corp. Landfill
WI Delavan Municipal Well #4
WI Hunts Disposal
WI Janesville Ash Beds
WI Janesville Old Landfill
LOCATION
Dayton
West Chester
South Point
Troy
Dayton
Zanesvi I le
DePere
Dunn
Delavan
Caledonia
Janesvi I le
Janesvi 1 le
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
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
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F.F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
04/16/96
06/18/96
03/31/87
09/17/92
10/03/94
07/10/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
03/16/93
12/12/94
06/28/94
01/10/94
07/28/93
12/12/94
08/31/95
10/24/95
08/05/91
03/30/95
09/28/90
07/06/95
06/17/96
06/17/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
1
1
'2
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1997
1998
1997
1998
1996
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
3
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
A-39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Soperfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
RG ST S1TF
5 UI Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District
5 WI Master Disposal Service
Landfill
5 WI Moss -American (Kerr-McGee Oil
Co.)
5 WI National Presto Industries
Inc.
5 WI Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.
Inc. '
5 WI Penta Wood Products
5 WI Ripon City Landfill
5 WI Scrap Processing Co., Inc.
5 WI Sheboygan Harbor & River
5 WI Tomah Armory
5 WI Tomah Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
5 WI Wheeler Pit
1
6 . AR Frit Industries
6 AR Midland Products
6 AR Popile, Inc.
OPER-
ARIF
_. LOCATION
Blooming Grove
Brookf ield
Milwaukee
Eau Claire
Ashippin
Daniels
Ripon
Medford
Sheboygan
Tomah
Tomah
La Prairie
Township
~«M« «^__
Walnut Ridge
Ola/Birta
El Dorado
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
UNIT ACTIVITY rPSn CT«T COMPLETI°N COMPLETIl
~ fiEIiy-U! LEAD START SCHFmiic SCHEDULE
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
00
01
01
01
01
. 01
.-
01
01
01
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
-'
RA
RA
RA
PRP 09/24/92 2
PRP 03/29/94 2
F 05/19/95 1
PRP 11/12/93 2
F 09/30/91 4
F 05/12/94 3
F 09/20/90 1
F 03/01/94
PS 05/13/96
F 05/11/92 1
PRP 04/11/86 3
PRP* 05/27/93 4
PRP 01/11/94 1
PRP 05/21/92 1
PRP 09/08/83 4
S 06/29/90 4
F 09/27/94 1
1996
1996
2000
1999
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1998
^HnB^
1995
1998
1999
'_
4 1996
1 1997
1 2000
2 1999
1 1997
1 1999
1 1997
2 1997
1 1997
2 1997
3 1997
1 1997
3 1997
1 1998
" !
1 1997
4 1998
1 1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
AR
AR
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
NM
NM
SITE NAME
South 8th Street Landfill
Vertac, Inc.
Agriculture Street Landfill
American Cresote Works, Inc
(Winnf ield)
Bayou Bonfouca
Bayou D ' Inde
Cleve Reber
Combustion, Inc.
L incoln Creosote
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
Old. Citgo Refinery (Bossier
City)
Old Inger Oi I Refinery
Petro-Processors of Louisiana,
Inc.
Southern Shipbuilding
AT & SF (Clovis)
Cimarron Mining Corp.
LOCATION
Jacksonvi 1 le
Jacksonvi 1 le
New Orleand
Uinnf ield
Slidell
Sulphur
Sorrento
Dentiam Springs
Bossier City
Doyl ine
Bossier
Darrow
Scotlandville
Slidell
Clovis
Carrizozo
UNIT
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
PS
PRP
FF
FF
F
S
PRP-
F
PRP
PRP
EP
EP
START
06/29/92
09/26/94
03/14/95
08/15/96
09/28/93
02/04/91
03/09/95
04/10/92
10/25/88
05/22/96
01/31/89
09/30/93
09/22/94
04/25/86
06/30/87
09/14/95
08/07/89
06/06/94
08/13/91
12/20/91
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
4
1
2
2
4
4
2
4
4
2
2
2
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1999
1998
1998
1996
1996
1996
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
3
1
4
4
2
2
4
2
4
2
1
2
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1999
1998 .
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
A-41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SITE NAME
Espanola Wells-
Fruit Avenue Plume
Lee Acres Landfill (USDOI)
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Rinchem Co. Inc.
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth Street Abandoned
Refinery
Hardage/Criner
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
National Zinc Corp.
Rab Valley Wood Preserving
Sand Springs Petrochemical
Complex
Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
LOCATION
Espanola
Albuquerque
Farmington
Prewitt
Albuquerque
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Criner
Oklahoma City
Bartlesvi I le
Panama
Sand Springs
Ottawa County
ABLb
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
06
01
02
02
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
02
ACTIVITY IFAH
RI/FS '
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
S
S
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
F
PRP
S
F
F
F
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START ^PHPnin c «««-*.. _
09/09/96
09/09/96
02/25/92 1 1996
01/16/95 4 1996
05/07/96
10/01/95
06/18/95 1 1997
09/12/89 2 1996
07/17/95 4 1996
07/17/95 4 1996
05/15/95
03/16/95
03/15/94 4 1997
01/01/95
09/27/94 4 1996
09/16/94 4 1996
05/24/96
08/25/94 4 1996
08/25/94 4 1997
03/20/95
aintuuLt
1 1998
1 1998
1 1997
4 2002
1 1998
4 1996
2 1997
1 1998
1 1998
1 1997
3 1997
4 1999
4 1999
1 1997
1 1997
4 1997
1 1998
1 1997
1 1998
1 1997
-------
ST SITE MAMP
6 OK Tinker Air Force Base
6 TX Air Force Plant #4 (General
Dynamics)
6 TX Bailey Uaste Disposal
6 TX Brio Refining Co., inc.
6 TX French, Ltd.
'6 TX Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann
Energy
6 TX Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
6 TX Lone Star Army Ammunition
Plant
6 TX Longhorn Army Ammunition
Plant
6 TX HOTCO, Inc.
6 TX North Calvacade Street
6 TX Odessa Chromium #1
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
SI1TUS °F REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIFS
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESs'oN SEPTEMBER 3u 1996
6 TX ALCOA (Point Comfort VLavaca
_ LOCATION
.
Oklahoma City
Point Comfort
Fort Worth
Bridge City
Friendswood
Crosby
Houston
Texarkana
Texarkana
Karnack
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
-
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
01
02
04
05
06
01
02
01
02
n?
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
DA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
MR
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
S
S
FUNDING
START
10/16/95
10/16/95
"
03/31/94
08/20/90
02/19/92
06/29/89
06/28/89
03/31/89
04/29/96
06/18/90
06/18/90
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
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
_. SCHEDULE
' ^__^
2 1997
2 1996 .
3 1997
4 1998
3 1998
4 1999
1 1997
1 1997
1 1996
2 1997
2 1997
2 1997
1 1997
1 1997
1 1997
4 1999
1 1998 '
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1997
2 1997
-
4 1998
4 1996
1 1998
4 2002
3 1998
4 1999
2 1997
1 1998
1 1998
1 1997
2 1997
2 1997
2 1997
1 1997
1 1998
1 1998
4 1999
1 1998
09/27/89
1998
1998
A-43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
SITE NAME
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Highway)
RSR Corp.
Sikes Disposal Pits
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
South Cavalcade Street
Texarkana Uood Preserving
Co.
United Creosoting Co.
Des Moines TCE (once listed as
DICO)
Fairfield Coajl Gasification
Plant '
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Mason City Coal Gasification
Plant
Peoples Natural Gas Co.
Ralston Site
Vogel Paint & Wax
LOCATION
Odessa
Dal las
Crosby
Houston
Houston
Texarkana
Conroe
Des Moines
Fairfield
Middletown
Mason City
Dubuque
Cedar Rapids
Orange City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
03
05
01
02
01
01
03
03
02
02
04
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
S
PRP
F
F
S
S
PRP
S
S
S
F
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
FUNDING
START
03/30/90
04/18/93
07/17/93
05/10/93
05/04/89
09/10/91
01/11/95
05/21/93
09/17/93
09/17/93
10/26/94
10/26/94
10/26/94
.07/20/92
09/20/90
02/01/96
10/01/91
03/29/94
11/27/91
05/20/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
3
4
3
2
1997
1998
1996
1996
1996
2004
1999
1999
2000
1999
1996
1995
2001
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
4
4
1
2
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
2004
1999
1999
2000
1999
1997
1997
1997
2001
1998
1997
1999
1998
1998
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
IA
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
SITE NAME
Waterloo Coal Gasification
Pland
29th & Mead Ground Water
Contamination
57th and North Broadway Streets
Site
Ace Services
Cherokee County (Tar Creek,
Cherokee County)
Doepke Disposal (Holliday)
Fort Riley
Obee Road
Pester Refinery Co.
Sunflower Army Ammunition
Plant
Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
(Northwest Lagoon)
LOCATION
Waterloo
Wichita
Whi chita
Colby
Cherokee County
Johnson County
Junction City
Hutch inson
El Dorado
DeSoto
Maiden
Cape Girardeau
Independence
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
03
07
01
03
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PS
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
FF
PS*
PS
PS
FF
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
05/30/95
09/27/89
09/15/94
07/23/96
05/07/90
08/02/96
03/06/95
07/01/93
09/30/94
11/01/94
12/16/93
10/01/95
09/03/93
02/10/93
08/01/87
04/21/92
06/27/90
09/30/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
1
4
1
3
1998
1997
1999
1995
1998
1996
.2000
1997
1996
1995
1996
1999
1996
1998
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
4
1
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
1999
1999
1999
1998
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1999
1997
1998
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1999
MO Lee Chemical
Liberty
01
RA
PS
12/31/92
1999
1999
A-45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
SITE NAME
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Shenandoah Stables (once listed as
Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood
Interim Storage/Futura Coat
Syntex Facility
Times Beach Site
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
We I don Springs Ordnance
Works
West lake Landfill
Bruno Co-op Association/Associated
Press Prop
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
LOCATION
Jasper County
Moscow Mills
St. Louis
County
Verona
Times, Beach
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
Bridge ton
Bruno
Hall County
Hastings
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
05
06
02
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
12
U
14
15
16
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
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'
LEAD
MR
F
MR
FF*
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
FF
F
F
FF
FF*
PRP
FF*
FUNDING
START
08/02/91
08/02/96
08/26/96
06/26/90
09/30/89
09/30/94
03/15/96
04/08/96
09/04/95
01/01/96
10/24/91
05/18/95
06/30/96
03/03/93
12/14/94
05/17/94
12/01/94
09/28/95
08/12/96
09/30/93
08/31/90
06/15/86
09/30/91
07/19/95
02/11/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
1
4
1
4
4
4
3
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1998
1996
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
3
4
1
1
3
2
1
4
4
4
1
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
2
1997
2001
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
2001
2001
2011
2007
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
7 NE Nebraska Ordnance Plant Mead 01
(Former) 02
03
7 NE Ogallala Ground Hater Contamination Ogallala 01
8 CO ASARCO, Inc. (Globe Plant) Denver 01
8 CO Air Force Plant PJKS Uatertown 01
8 CO Broderick Wood Products Denver 02
8 CO California Gulch Leadville 00
00
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
12
8 CO Central City -'Clear Creek Idaho Springs 03
03
03
03
8 CO Denver Radium Site Denver 08
8 CO Eagle Mine Minturn/Redcliff 01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
' LEAD
FF
FF*
FF*
F
PRP
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
S
S
S
PRP
PS
F
FUNDING
START
06/12/96
08/18/92
02/08/95
09/29/94
05/01/94
02/07/89
05/01/95
12/18/92.
06/04/92
04/07/87
08/26/94
05/05/95
08/29/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
09/15/94
08/28/94
04/08/93
09/30/92
09/29/93
09/29/93
09/29/93
03/31/93
09/01/88
09/01/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
4
3
4
4
4
1
4
2
3
2
4
3
2
4
4
3
2
2
4
4
3
1996
1998
1997
1999
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
3
3
1
4
2
4
4
3
3
1
4
2
4
2
2
3
4
2
4
1
4
4
4
1
2
4
1998
1997
1999
1997
2003
1999
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1999
1997
1997.
1997
8 CO Lincoln Park
Canon City
01
FS
03/11/92 4 1996
1 1997
A-47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
r REHED'AL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30. 1996
RG ST SITE MflHF
8 CO Lowry Landfill
8 CO Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
8 CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal
8 CO Smuggler Mountain
8 CO Summitville
8 CO Summitville Mine
8 MT Anaconda Co. Smelter
8 MT East Helena Site
LOCATION
Arapahoe County
Golden
Adams County
Pitkin County
Summitville
Rio Grande
County
Anaconda
East Helena
?REp~ PREVIOUS PRESENT
UNIT APTIWITV ,c.n or"01"0 COMPLETI°N COMPLETION
mi ACTJVITY LEAD START srmrnm c «TIIFnilir
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
07
11
15
16
04
15
26
26
26
28
02
01
00
00
m
01
02
03
04
07
14
01
02
03
RA
RA
RA
RI
FS
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
MR
F
F
F
F
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
01/31/96
08/22/96
06/17/96
02/06/90 2
02/06/90
04/12/90 4
07/10/91 4
06/08/90 1
06/08/90 1
05/27/92 4
09/24/91 4
03/13/96
01/01/90 2
11/15/91 4
04/14/94 2
05/01/94 4
02/05/93 3
04/14/95 2
07/11/96
05/11/93 4
06/07/95 2
06/07/95 4
06/07/95 4
09/21/94 1
07/30/96
05/19/94 3 '
09/28/88 3
03/31/92 3
06/23/87 1
06/27/87 1
1996
1995
1999
1996
1997
1999
1999
1998
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1998
1997
1999
2003
1996
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
2
4
3
4
4
. 4
4
4
4
1
4
2
4
1
1
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
1
4
2
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1994
1996
1999
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
1996
1996
2003
1998
2001
1999
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1998
1997
1998
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 3J 1996
OF
RG ST SITE NAME AB
8 MT Idaho Pole Co. Bozeman 01
n 1
01
8 MT Libby Ground Water Contamination Libby 02
8 MT Mi I Itown Reservoir Sediments Milltown 02
02
03
8 MT Montana Pole and Treating Butte Q1
8 MT Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Si I ver Bow/Deer 03
Lodge 04
08
1 2
8 ND Arsemc Trioxide Site ( Southeastern Ol"
ND
8 ND Mi not Landfill u . . '
Mi not ni
8 SD Ellsworth Air Force Base Rapid City 02
03
nc
U5
07
: os
no
08
11
- - 12
8 UT H, 1 1 Air Force Base Ogden ~
n/
UH
05
06
08
'ER-
ILE
JIT ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
FS
RI
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PREVIOUS PRESENT -
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
tMP. START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
PRP 06/29/95 1 1997 1 ?nn?
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FE
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
08/22/96
10/18/89 ' 4
02/02/90 1
02/02/90 4
07/07/95 2
04/18/96
09/03/96
06/30/92 2
06/30/92 1
05/18/94 1
06/25/93
01/23/96
...
05/14/96
08/19/96
06/11/96
06/07/96
04/05/93 2
08/19/96
02/03/94 1
06/05/96
06/28/91 2
09/30/96
09/14/95 3
08/13/91 3
09/10/92 1
05/03/95 1
1999
1997
1996
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1996
1997
1999
1
4
3
3
2
1
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
4
3
4
3
4
3
1
2007
1999
1997
1997
1998
2014
1998
1998
1999
1998
1997
1OOA
i vyo
1997
1997
1997
1007
1 f r 1
1997
1007
1 77 I
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1999
A-49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Soperfond: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
SITE NAME
Kennecott (South Zone)
Midvale Slag
Monticello Mi 11 Tailings
(USDOE)
Monticello Radioactively
Contaminated Properties
Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek
Plant
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 &
3)
Richardson Flat Tailings
Sandy Smelter Site
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tai lings/Smelters)
Tooele Army Depot (North
Area)
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Copperton 00
01
02
Midvale 01
Monticello 01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
- Monticello 01
02
03
05
Salt Lake 01
City
Salt Lake 01
City 03
Summit County 01
Sandy 00
01
Midvale 01
02
02
Tooele 01
01
02
03
04
07
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
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
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
S
F
PRP
F
F
S
S
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/22/93
09/22/93
07/29/94
09/07/95
06/22/92
08/04/95
09/08/95
06/02/95
05/13/94
07/28/96
09/20/96
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
07/25/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
3
4
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1996
1996
1997
1996
1994
1998
1997
1997
1997
1999
1996
1997
1996
1997
1995
1995
1997
1996
1997
1995
1998
1998
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
2
1
4
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
3
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
1998
1996
1998
1997
1994
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1999
1996
1997
1997
1997
1995
1995
1997
1996
1997
1995
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
A-50
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY'STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST SITE NAME
8 UT Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
8 UT Wasatch Chemical Co.
8 WY F.E. Warren Air Force Base
9 A2 Hassayampa Landfill
9 . AZ Indian Bend Wash Area
9 AZ Luke Air Force Base
9 AZ Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
9 AZ Tucson International Airport
Area
9 AZ Williams Air Force Base
LOCATION
Salt Lake
City
Salt Lake
City
Cheyenne
Hassayampa
Scottsdale/Tmpe/Phnx
Glendale
Phoenix
Tucson
Chandler
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
08
09
01
01
01
02
06
07
08
09
10
01
03
05
06
06
07
07
01
02
01
01
02
02
04
05
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
PRP
PRP'
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
PS
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/19/93
01/02/92
07/23/94
09/18/95
10/11/94
01/06/94
03/09/94
03/23/94
01/01/94
01/01/94
01/01/94
01/22/96
03/14/88
03/29/96
02/08/94
07/11/94
05/31/95
09/26/90
09/27/90
04/10/95
05/11/95
06/12/96
12/11/90
12/31/92
07/31/95
09/01/93
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE enuemii ir
1 1998
1 2001
2 1996
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
4
4
3
4
3
1
4
1
3
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1995
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1996
1998
1996
OUHCUUL-E;
1 1997
3 1998
4 199A
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
3
1
1
3
1996
1997
1997
1998
2000
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
A-51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
.CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
Aerojet General Corp.
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics
Base (Nebo Area)
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base
Castle Air Force Base
Concord Naval Weapons Station
Cooper Drum Co.
Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill
Del Amo Facility
Edwards Air Force Base
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Yuma 01
02
Rancho Cordova 01
Fresno County 01
Barstow 01
02
03
Arvin 01
02
San Diego 02
County 03
Merced 01
03
04
05
Concord 01
02
03
South Gate 01
Salinas 01
Los Angeles 01
02
Kern County 01
02
03
05
07
08
09
10
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
. RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
' FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
EP
MR
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/30/91
09/30/91
09/08/88
06/22/94
'09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/27/96
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/21/89
11/12/93
12/16/92
07/21/89
02/02/95
11/21/94
02/14/95
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
07/16/96
07/16/96
07/16/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
4
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
4
1997
1997
1999
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1996
1999
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
2004
1997
1999
2001
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
2
4
2
4
1
3
3
1
2
4
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
4
2
4
2
1
2
4
3
1
2
1999
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1997
1998
1998
1999
1998
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
1998
1998
1997
2004
1997
1999
2001
1999
2003
2002
2002
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST SITE NAME . LOCATION
9 CA El Toro Marine Corps Air El Toro
Station
9 CA Fai rchi Id Semiconductor/Camera & South San
(South San Jose Plant) Jose
9 CA Fort Ord Marina..
9 CA Frontier Fertilizer Davis
9 CA GBF, Inc., Du[np Antioch
9 CA George Air Force Base Victorville
|
9 CA Hewlett Packard (620-640 Page Mill Palo Alto
Rd.)
9 CA Hunter's Point Annex San Francisco
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVIT
11
01
02
03
04
05
02
01
02
04
04
04
04
04
06
00
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
05
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
< LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
. FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PS
FF
FF
FF
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
07/16/96
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
04/04/95
07/23/90
09/29/95
09/02/94
06/26/95
06/26/95
07/05/95
07/26/95
08/01/95
08/02/93
08/02/93
07/28/93
04/30/96
09/21/90
08/27/91
01/23/95
09/28/90
09/28/90
10/01/90
01/22/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
3
4
2
4
4
3
3
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
2
3
1
4
3
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1999
1996
1997
1998
1997
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
4
3
1
3
1
1
3
2003
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
A-53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING
Klj
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
SI
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Industrial Waste Processing
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(NASA)
,'
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
LEHR/Old Compus Landfille
(USDOE)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (AC & W
Disposal Site)
LOCATION
Fresno
Mountain View
Redding
Weed
Mountain View
Pasadena
Orovi I le
Davis
Livermore
L ivermore
San Jose
Riverside
Sacramento
UNIT
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
04
05
06
01
01
01
04
02
03
04
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
f LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
. FF
FF
FF
FF
START
05/12/93
04/17/95
08/23/94
04/21/94
08/04/95
07/16/92
07/31/96
12/23/92
07/07/93
04/29/94
09/17/96
09/30/94
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
08/05/92
07/04/96
09/27/90
01/24/92
06/17/96
06/21/94
09/19/95
1
2
1
3
4
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
4
2
1
1
3
1
1
1997
1998
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
2000
1997
1997
1996
1998
\t\J\
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
1
1
1
3
4
3
1
riruu i fun
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
2000
1999
2000
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
2000
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
-------
Progress Toward Indenting Superfund: Fiscal rear 1996
APPENDIX A
gG ST SITF^
9 CA McClellan Air Force Base (Ground
Water Contamination)
9 CA McColt
9 CA McCormic and Baxter Creosoting
Co.
9 CA Modesto Ground Water Contamination
9 CA Moffett Naval Air Station
9 CA Montrose Chemical Corp.
9 CA National Semiconductor Corp.
9 CA Newmark Ground Water Contamination
9 CA Operating Industries Inc
Landfill
9 CA Ralph Gray Trucking Co.
9 CA Raytheon Corp.
9 CA Riverbank Army Armiunition
Plant
OPER-
ARI F
LOCATION
Sacramento
Ful lerton
Stockton
Modesto
Sunnyva I e
Torrance
Santa Clara
San Bernadino
Monterey Park
Westminster
Mountain View
Riverbank
.,":; ENDING
ffll ACTIVITY LEAD START
01
04
05
06
08
09
m
U 1
04
01
03
01
01
06
01
03
m
U 1
01
02
03
01
04
02
n?
Uc
01
RA
RI/FS
RI/F.S
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
PRP
F
F
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PS
F
F
F
f
PRP
F
PRP
cr
05/11/95
07/21/89
08/21/90
11/23/92
01/13/93
07/21/89
06/11/84
02/04/94
06/30/92
09/28/94
03/21/91
08/08/89
08/08/89
10/10/86
10/28/85
09/11/91
09/18/95
09/05/96
02/09/94
09/15/89
05/11/89
06/19/93
02/28/95
1 n i 1 T ir\r
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETIi
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2 1998
1 2001
1 2001
3 1996
2 1997
2 1997
4 1991
2 1996
2 1997
2 1997
3 1996
4 1996
2 1997
4 1996
2 1996
4 1997
1 1997
1 1997
1 1997
1 1997
1 1998
2 1998
1 2001
1 2001
1 1999
1 1999
1 1999
4 1991
1 1997
2 1997
2 1997
1 1997
1 1997
1 1998
1 1998
3 1997
1 1998
2 1998
2 1999
3 1998
1 1997
1 1997
4 1997
1 1998
A-55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
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
SITE NAME
Sacramento Array Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area
1)
San Fernando Valley (Area
4)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
1)
Selma Treating Co.
Sharpe Army Depot
South Bay Asbestos Area (Alviso
Dumping Area)
South Bay Basin
Stoker Company
Stringfellow
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Thompson- Haywood Chem
Tracy Defense Depot
LOCATION
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
El Monte
Selma
Lathrop
Alviso
Si I icon Valley
Imperial
Glen Avon
Heights
Clear Lake
Fresno
Tracy
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
05
01
03
02
00
01
05
01
01
01
01
01
05
01
02
03
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
PRP
- PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
F
F
S
EP
F
EP
PS
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
02/16/90
04/08/94
02/18/94
11/22/93
09/28/92
06/13/84
03/16/95
07/25/95
07/22/92
05/30/95
10/15/93
01/28/87
05/01/92
10/01/90
09/28/90
11/18/91
09/28/90
02/06/87
06/27/91
08/12/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
1
2
t,
1
3
4
4
3
1
4
4
1
4
1
4
1
1
4
2005
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1991
1996
1997
1996
1998
1996
1996
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
1
3
3
3
4
1
4
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
2000
1998
1998
1998
1997
1998
1991
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
A-56
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 HI
9 HI
9 HI
9 NV
10 AK
10 AK
OPER-
ABLE
SITE NAME
Travis Air Force Base
Watkins-Johnson Co. (Stewart
Division)
Western Pacific Railroad
Co.
Del Monte Corp. (Oahu Plantation)
Pearl Harbor Naval Complex
Schofield Barracks
Carson River Mercury Site (Trust
Territories PC)
Adak Naval Air Station
Eielson Air Force Base
LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY
Solano County 01
02
03
Scotts Valley 01
Oroville 01
Honolulu County 01
Pearl Harbor 01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
Oahu 02
03
04
L yon/Church i 11 ' 01
County 02
Adak 01
02
Fairbanks N Star 01
Borough 02
Rl/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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
. RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
04/01/94
06/10/95
07/16/91
03/15/94
09/28/95
09/30/93
04/26/95
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
08/01/95
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/30/96
09/28/90
04/29/96
05/06/96
11/07/95
10/22/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
,1
1997
1996
.1998
1996
1997
1997
1999
1997
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
1996
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
4
2
4
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
A-57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS OH SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION '
10 AK Elmendorf Air Force Base Greater Anchorage
Borough
10 AK Fort Richardson (USARMY) Anchorage
10 AK Fort Uai.nright Fairbanks N Star
Borough
_
10 ID Blackbird Mine |_emhi County
10 ID Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Smelterville
10 ID Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination Pocatello
10 ID Idaho National Engineering Lab Idaho Falls
(USDOE}
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
01
02
03
01
02
05
01
01
02
01 .
03
06
07
08
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
,;RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
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
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
04/17/96
06/28/96
04/06/93
11/16/95
07/08/96
01/18/94
08/05/93
11/29/94
08/03/95
03/06/96
08/10/94
11/01/93
01/17/95
11/18/94
09/27/94
04/13/95
05/30/91
10/10/95
04/01/95
03/17/95
07/15/96
11/15/95
11/06/95
11/06/95
12/07/94
02/26/96
08/15/95
03/22/96
07/15/96
12/01/93
06/13/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDUI F
1
4
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
4
1
1
.1
1
2
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1998
2002
2000
1996
1997
1998
1997
1999
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
4
1
4
4
1
4
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
2
4
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
2000
2000
2002
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
1997
2001
1997
A-58
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
RG ST
10 ID
10 ID
10 ID
10 OR
10 'OR
10 OR
10 OR
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
SITE NAME LOCATION .
Monsanto Chemcial Co. (Soda Soda Springs
Springs Plant)
Mountain Home Airforce Base Mountain Home
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Pocatello
Co.
Fremont Nat. Forest Uranium Mines Lakeview
(USDA)
Gould, Inc. Portland
McCormick & Baxter Creos. Co. Portland
(Portland)
t
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) Hermiston
Bangor Naval Submarine Base Silverdale
Bangor Ordnance Disposal Bremerton
Boomsnub/Airco Vancover
Colbert Landfill Colbert
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Pierce County
Flats
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
06
07
01
02
05
07
01
01
02
01
04
05
06
07
08
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
PRP
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
S
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
MR
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
03/19/91 2 1996
06/18/96
08/23/96
10/17/94 2
03/02/92 4
06/01/96
09/29/95
08/08/96
02/15/94 1
06/20/94 3
09/14/95
11/06/95
11/06/95
06/21/96
06/17/96
09/13/94 4
12/01/95
02/04/93 4
03/05/93 2
03/27/95 1
03/27/95
08/28/89 4
11/12/91 1
01/16/90 2
12/17/93 2
04/11/91 2
09/30/89 4
1997
1998
1997
1998
1999
1995
1996
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
cpuphi M ~c
1 1997
1
2
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1998
1999
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1999
1999
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
A-59
-------
Progress Toward Inpletnenting Supcrfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
OPER-
RG SJ SITE NAME
10 UA Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Uaste
Area)
10 WA Fort Lewis Logistics Center
10 WA Hanford 100- Area (USDOE)
10 WA Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
10 WA Harbor Island (Lead)
10 WA Jackson Park Housing Complex
(USNAVY)
10 WA Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
(Ault Field)
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
09
11
19
22
Spokane County 02
03
Tillicum 01
02
03
Benton County 04
08
09
11
12
13
Benton County 01
02
11
12
13
Seattle 07
08
Kitsap County 01
02
Whidbey Island 01
02
03
05
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
FS
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/31/92
06/25/93
10/04/94
12/21/93
03/07/94
09/17/96
01/15/92
02/01/96
01/11/96
07/15/96
10/12/90
10/12/90
05/24/93
10/28/93
06/30/93
05/15/89
08/31/92
01/31/94
04/28/93
08/26/96
09/07/88
09/07/88
07/01/95
07/01/95
08/15/94
01/10/95
04/14/95
08/26/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1997
4
4
4
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
4
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
crucnill p
oincuuLC
4 1997
2
2
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
1
4
2
3
1
1
1
4
1998
1997
2001
1997
1997
1998
1999
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
2001
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
10 WA Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
Keyport
01
RI/FS
FF
07/17/90 1 1996
1997
A-60
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG ST
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA -
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
SITE NAME
Northwest Transformer (South
Harkness St.)
Old Navy Domp/Manchester Lab
(USEPA/NOAA)
Pacific Sound Resources
Port Hadlock Detachment
(USNAVY)
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex
(USNAVY)
Queen City Farms
Spokane Junkyard/Associated
Properties
Tulalip Landf i 11
Vancouver Water Station #4
Contamination
Wycoff Co. /Eagle Harbor
LOCATION
Everson
Manchester
Seattle
India I Island
Bremerton
Maple Valley
Spokane
Marysvi I le
Vancouver
Bainbridge
Island
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
02
04
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
PRP
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/30/92
10/18/94
09/29/94
'05/18'/95
06/12/96
10/31/92
01/26/94
07/31/94
10/09/92
07/27/95
06/30/95
08/12/93
04/02/92
07/07/95
09/16/92
12/15/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDUI F
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
3
1
199"7
1997
1998'
1998
1996
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
2000
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHFnin F
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
4
3
4
1
1
1
1997
1997
1998
1999
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1998
1999
1998
2000
A-61
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30, 1996
This appendix lists the remedial designs in
progress at the end of FY96 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 - Jhe 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 9/30/96. This
information was compiled from CERCLIS on
11/15/96.
B-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
JG ST
1 CT
1 CT
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 ME
1 NH
1 NH
1 NH
1 NH
1 NH
1 RI
1 RI
2 NJ
SITE NAME
Linemaster Switch Corp.
New London Submarine Base
Nyanza Chemical Uaste Dump
Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp
Edwards
Sullivan's Ledge
Wells G&H
Loring Air Force Base
Auburn Road Landfill
Dover Municipal Landfill
Pease Air Force Base
Savage Municipal Water Supply
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
Central Landfill
Picillo Farm
A. 0. Polymer
LOCATION
Woodstock
New London
Ashland
Falmouth
New Bedford
Woburn
Limestone
Londonderry
Dover
Portsmouth/Newington
Milford
Somersworth
Johnston
Coventry
Sparta Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
03
02
01
04
05
06
07
10
01
02
01
01
02
02
LEAD
PRP
FF
F
F
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
FUNDING
START
11/03/94
09/26/95
04/08/92
07/27/93
09/25/95
03/15/91
04/05/93
04/27/90
09/27/96
09/30/90
01/22/92
09/26/95
06/26/95
09/18/95
09/26/95
08/09/95
09/30/93
04/28/94
11/08/95
05/23/96
01/25/95
04/20/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
4
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
1996
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
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
Asbestos Dump
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Combe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
DeRenewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ellis Property
Evor Phi Heps Leasing
Ewan Property
Fried Industries
GEMS Landfill
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Global Sanitary Landfill
LOCATION
Mi llington
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Chester Township
Beverly
Kingwood Township
Newark
Dover Township
Evesham Township
Old Bridge
Township
Shamong Township
East Brunswick
Township
Gloucester
Township
Glen Ridge
Old Bridge
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
03
01
LEAD
F
F
PRP
S
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
S
S
SE
PRP
F
S
F
PS
FUNDING
START
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
09/30/94
05/22/86
09/26/90
11/15/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
1
4
2
4
4
4
3
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
4
1996
1996
1997
1994
1997
1997
1995
1998
1996
1997
1996
1997
1995
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
B-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
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
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Meta I tec/Aerosystems
Montclair/Uest Orange Radium
Site
Montgomery Township Housing
Development
Myers Property
Radiation Technology Inc.
Reich Farms
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Township Uells
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Roebling Steel Co.
Sharkey Landfill
U.S. Radium Corp.
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Ualdick Aerospace Devices,
LOCATION
Morganville
Franklin Borough
Montclair/West
Orange
Montgomery
Township
Franklin Township
Rockaway Township
Pleasant Plains
Rockaway Township
Rockaway
Rocky Hill
Borough
Florence
Parsippany/Troy
Hills
Orange
Vineland
Wall Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
03
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
02
02
FUNDING
LEAD START
S 09/30/91
S 03/31/93
F 03/29/91
F 09/26/90
S 03/24/89
PRP 05/12/92
S 08/31/94'
PRP 04/05/90
PRP 07/14/94
PS 04/20/94
S 03/24/89
F 09/25/91
PRP 10/18/94
F 09/30/93
F 09/29/95
F 09/30/89
F 10/02/89
F 06/28/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
4
1
4
2
4
2
4
1
1
1996
1995
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1994
1997
1996
1997
1998
1997
1996
1997
1997
Inc.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Woodland Route 532 Dump
Woodland Route 72 Dump
Batavia Landfill
Byron Barrel & Drum
Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychenical
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Cortese Landfill
GCL Tie & Treating Inc.
Genzale Plating Co.
Havi land Complex
Hertel Landfill
Hooker (South Area)
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Matt i ace Petrochemical Co.,
LOCATION
Woodland Township
Woodland Township
Batavia
Byron
Port Jervis
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesville
Vi 1 . of Narrowsburg
Village of
Sidney
Franklin Square
Town of Hyde
Park
Plattekill
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Horseheads
Clayville
Glen Cove
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
03.
01
01
01
01
02
01
04
LEAD
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PS
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP .
PRP
PS
F
FUNDING
START
08/30/90
08/31/91
10/27/95
09/25/90
02/05/96
02/01/95
09/30/92
04/01/91
09/29/95
05/17/95
05/17/95
09/25/91
09/30/93
11/23/92
12/15/94
12/28/94
08/29/91
11/12/89
09/30/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
1
3
1
4
1
1
3
2
4
1
4
4
4
3
3
1
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1994
1997
1996
1997
1996
1996
1996
1997
Inc.
2 NY Niagara County Refuse
Wheatfield
01
PRP
01/17/95
1 1997
B-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
. 3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
MD
MD
PA
SITE NAME
Pfol 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
Dover Air Force Base
Dover Gas Light Co.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.(Newpo
rt Pigment plant LdF
Halby Chemical Co.
Standard Chlorine of Delaware,
Inc.
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Wood I awn County Landfill
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang
LOCATION
Cheektowaga
Port Washington
Town of Vestal
Noyack/Sag
Harbor
Lincklaen
Oyster Bay
Oyster Bay
Juana Diaz
Juncos
Dover
Dover
Newport
New Castle
Delaware City
Hollywood
Wood I awn
Exton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
05
07
01
03
04
05
06
07
08
01
01
03
01
01
LEAD
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
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
09/26/95
09/24/96
06/16/95
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
03/16/92 .
07/01/96
09/29/95
01/03/95
08/12/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
4
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
3
1
3
2
1
4
1
1
3
3
2
2
3
1996
1997
1996
1997
1998
1996
1999
1996
1995
1997
1998
1998
1997
2000
1998
1999
1998
1998
1997
1998
1997
1998
.1998 .
-------
Progress. Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
Rfi
3
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
PA
SITE NAME
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Blosenski Landfill
Brown's Battery Breaking
Butz Landfill
C & D Recycling
Commodore Semiconductor Group
CryoChem, Inc.
Douglassvi lie Disposal
Eastern Diversified Metals
Havertown PCP
He leva Landfill
Hunterstown Road
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Lindane Dump
MU Manufacturing
North Penn-Area 6 (J.U. Rex/Allied
LOCATION
Denver
West Cain
Township
Shoemakersvi lie
Stroudsburg
Foster Township
Lower Providence
Townsh
Worman
Douglassvi lie
Hometown
Haverford
North Whitehall
Straban Township
Union Township
L i ndane
Valley Township
Lansdale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
03
02
01
01
02
03
05
03
02
03
01
03
04
01
01
01
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
08/22/96
09/11/96
02/23/94
06/03/96
09/29/92
11/10/94
10/01/93
12/31/91
06/28/96
08/31/93
04/10/92
. 06/21/94
09/12/94
03/11/92
03/11/92
09/24/93
06/01/93
09/19/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
1
3
4
3
1
3
2
1
3
4
1
1
1
4
4
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
Paint/Keystone hydra
B-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
- STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IH PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
*
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
SITE NAME ,
Novak Sanitary Landfill
Occidental Chemical Corp. /Firestone
Co.
Rect icon/All ied Steel Corp.
Revere Chemical Co.
Saegerton Industrial Area
Stanley Kessler
Tonolli Corp.
Tysons Dump
Uestinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
Whitmoyer Laboratories
Uilliam Dick Lagoons
Abex Corporation
Arrowhead Associates/Scovi 11
LOCATION
South Whitehall
Tup
Lower Pottsgrove
Tup.
East Coventry
Two.
1 1*|^.
Nockamixon
Township
Saegertown
King of Prussia
Nesquehoning
Upper Her ion
Township
Gettysburg
Jackson Township
West Cain
Township
Portsmouth
Hontross
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
02
04.
01
01
01
04
01
03
05
01
02
03
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/30/95
06/23/94
05/11/94
05/11/94
05/11/94
01/13/95
01/13/95
10/18/93
10/31/95
12/21/93
08/15/96
03/16/93
03/05/92
03/05/92
09/17/92
07/10/95
07/10/95
01/04/96
09/07/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
1
4
1
3
2
1
3
4
4
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1999
1997
1998
1998
Corp.
3 VA Buckingham County Landfill
Buckingham
01
PRP
10/30/95
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
UV
At
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
Defense General Supply Center
Greenwood Chemical Co.
L.A. Clarke & Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood
Preservation Division)
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Pldnt)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant)
Anodyne, Inc.
LOCATION
Chesterfield
County
Newton
Spotsylvania
County
Richmond
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
Saraland
Axis
Bucks
Pensacola
North Miami
Beach
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
02
04
01
01
06
03
01
02
03
01
01
01
03
02
03
02
01
LEAD
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
. PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
12/30/95
02/20/92
03/03/90
05/02/94
08/06/90
01/11/94
05/31/96
09/30/96
09/30/96
09/30/96
08/30/95
11/16/93
11/20/92
03/08/94
09/25/96
03/08/94
04/18/94
08/12/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
4
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
1
1
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
B-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
Rfi
4
l>
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
KY
KY
SITE NAME
Homestead Air Force Base
Peak Oil Co. /Bay Drum Co.
Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Hater &
Sewer
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Zellwood Ground Water Contamination
Hercules 009 Landfill
Marzone Inc. /Chevron Chemical
Co.
Mathis Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road)
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
Brantley Landfill
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone
Qurry
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
LOCATION
Homestead
Tampa
Vero Beach
Tampa
Tampa
Zellwood
Brunswick
Tifton
Kensington
Houston County
Fort Valley
Calvert City
Olaton
Hillsboro
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
06
01
02
03
01
" 02
03
01
02
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
LEAD
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/28/95
06/27/95
12/07/95
12/07/95
12/07/95
12/11/95
11/30/94
11/30/94
05/17/96
07/26/96
10/07/93
08/14/96
10/14/93
08/01/91
03/14/96
06/28/94
05/08/95
10/19/95
04/18/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
3
4
4
3
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
B-10
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
KY
KY
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SITE NAME
National Electric Coil/Cooper
Industries
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contaminati
on
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
General Electirc Co/Shepherd
Farm
National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
Potter's Septic Tank Service
Pits
Beaunit Corp. (Circular Knit and
Dye)
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
Sangarao Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
LOCATION
Dayhoit
Paducah
Aberdeen
Concord
Washington
East Flat
Rock
Salisbury
Maco
Fountain Inn
Fairfax
BeaCifort
Columbia
Pickens
Aiken
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
03
04
02
01
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
29
PRESENT
LEAD
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
06/04/96
12/28/95
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/25/94
08/24/93
10/06/94
02/23/94
09/30/96
09/29/95
09/29/95
06/21/96
09/20/96
06/23/94
08/09/94
09/30/96
06/30/92
02/16/95
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
4
3
4
1
1
4
4
3
4
4
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
B-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
Rfi
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
TN
TN
TN
TN
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Memphis Defense Depot (DLA)
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman
County)
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc.
Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 &
3 '
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)
Continental Steel Corp.
Himco, Inc., Dump
Lakeland Disposal Service,
Inc.
Meal's Dump (Spencer)
LOCATION
Memph i s
Milan
Oak Ridge
Toone
Morristown
Quincy
Granite City
Rockford
South Elgin
Woodstock
Griffith
Elkhart
Kokomo
Elkhart
Claypool
Spencer
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
05
06
07
OS
26
02
04
08
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
05
01
01
01
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
S
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/02/96
07/22/96
07/22/96
07/22/96
07/22/96
02/21/96
01/16/96
11/18/91
11/18/91
03/31/96
12/31/95
12/14/92
02/02/94
09/02/94
09/30/94
06/14/95
09/03/96
04/13/95
05/25/94
08/22/85
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
2
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
B-12
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
Rfi
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
MN
SITE NAME
Albion- Sheridan Township Landfill
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Chem Central
Duel 1 & Gardner Landfill
Ionia City Landfill
K & L Avenue Landfill
Metamora Landfill
Motor Wheel, Inc.
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
Spartan Chemical Co.
. Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Torch Lake
MacGHlis & Gibbs Co. /Bell Lumber
LOCATION
Albion
Grand Rapids
Sault Sainte
Marie
Wyoming Township
Dalton Township
Ionia
Oshtemo Township
Metamora
Lansing
Dalton Township
Wyoming
Sturgis
Mancelona
Township
Muskegon
Houghton County
New Brighton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
03
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
S
S
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
12/11/95
02/23/93
05/10/93
04/07/92
07/29/94
09/13/90
0.9/18/92 '
04/26/91
08/19/95
05/16/92
06/05/90
09/28/93
09/21/93
03/09/93
09/30/92
10/27/94
09/01/94
03/31/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
4
3
1
4
4
4
1
3
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
1991
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
& Pole Co.
B-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
UI
UI
UI
SITE NAME
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Ritari Post & Pole
St. Regis Paper Co.
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Feed Materials Production Center
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Ormet Corp.
Powell Road Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Van Dale Junkyard
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
LOCATION
New Brighton
Sebeka
Cass Lake
Ironton
Fernald
Ash tabu I a
Jackson Township
Union town
Hannibal
Dayton
Reading
Marietta
DePere
Dunn
Menomonee
Falls
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
07
01
01
01
02
01
02
04
05
06
01
01
01
01
01
01
05
05
01
01
01
01
LEAD
FF
S
S
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF .
FF
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PS
FUNDING
START
09/30/93
11/14/94
11/14/94
04/28/95
07/23/93
04/25/95
08/07/95
02/07/95
03/29/96
09/19/94
03/22/89
06/24/92
09/29/89
09/29/89
12/20/95
06/21/94
10/29/91
12/10/94
09/23/94
09/30/96
04/23/93
04/04/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
1
i
3
1
1
2
4
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
3
2
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
2005
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
5 UI Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil
Co.)
Milwaukee
01
PRP
07/15/91
2 1997
B-14
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
WI
WI
AR
AR
AR
LA
LA
LA
LA
NM
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
SITE NAME
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
Popile, Inc.
South 8th Street Landfill
Vertac, Inc.
American Cresote Works, Inc
(Winnfield)
Gulf Coast Vaccuum Services
Old Citgo Refinery (Bossier
City)
PAB Oil & Chemical Service,
Inc.
Cleveland Mill
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
Crystal Chemical Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Petro-Chemicat Systems, Inc.
(Turtle Bayou)
RSR Corp.
LOCATION
Muskego
Stoughton
El Dorado
Jacksonvi I le
Jacksonville
Winnfield
Abbeville
Bossier
Abbeville
Silver City
Oklahoma City
Ottawa County
Houston
Texarkana
Karnack
Liberty County
Dallas
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
05
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01 .
02
02
03
03
04
05
LEAD
PRP
F
f
PRP*
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP*
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
06/26/95
09/28/92
02/19/92
01/26/96
04/19/94
02/19/92
05/24/94
09/22/94
11/17/94
01/19/95
06/21/93
03/14/96
03/31/92
03/31/93
03/31/95
09/25/92
09/25/92
07/15/93 '
05/10/93
05/10/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
3
3
1
2
3
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1995
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
6 TX Sheridan Disposal Service
Hempslead
01
PRP
12/29/89
1 1998
B-15
-------
Progress Toward Inplementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
ST
TX
KS
KS
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
NE
CO
CO
SITE NAME
Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
29th & Mead Ground Water Contaminat
ion
Cherokee County (Tar Creek,
Cherokee County)
Fort Riley
Strother Field Industrial Park
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Quality Plating
Valley Park -TCE
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Array)
We I don Springs Ordnance Works
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
ASARCO, Inc. (Globe Plant)
Chemical Sales Co.
LOCATION
Texarkana
Wichita
Cherokee County
Junction City
Cowley County
Jasper County
Sikeston
Valley Park
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
Hall County
Hastings
Denver
Commerce City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
02
07
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
04
LEAD
PRP
S
S
PRP
F
FF
PS
F
S
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/29/90
03/06/91
01/21/93
05/18/94
08/01/96
04/01/95
12/18/94
08/03/96
08/02/96
05/16/96
05/15/95
09/30/94
04/04/94
12/01/94
04/27/93
10/01/92
07/01/93
04/08/94
05/09/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
4
1
3
2
4
2
1
2
4
4
3
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
2000
2002
1996
1997
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UY
UY
SITE NAME
Eagle Mine
Lowry Landf i 11
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Summitvi lie
Summitvi lie Mine
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Hill Air Force Base
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Monticello Radioactively Contaminat
ed Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
LOCATION
Minturn/Redcliff
Arapahoe County
Adams County
Summitvi lie
Rio Grande
County
Silver Bow/Deer
Lodge
Ogden
Monticello
Monticello
Ogden
Salt Lake
City
Laramie
Cheyenne
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
27
28
01
04
01
07
03
01
02
04
04
01
01
01
03
03
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP-
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
06/08/94
11/17/95
06/10/96
06/24/96
09/24/93
02/05/93
08/29/96
03/15/95
05/06/96
04/22/96
03/14/96
01/12/93
05/12/92
03/17/95
03/29/96
09/18/95
02/15/87
08/15/96
02/21/96
04/29/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
2
3
1
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
1
2
2
2
1996
1997
1997
1997
1994
1996
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
1993
1997
1998
1998
9 AZ Apache Powder Co.
St. David
01
PRP
03/22/95
1997
B-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
Williams Air Force Base
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
Fairchild Semiconductor/Camera &
(South San Jose Plant)
Fort Ord
Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (AC & W
Disposal Site)
McColl
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
LOCATION
Goodyear
Chandler
Arvin
South San
Jose
Marina
Fresno
Mountain View
Redding
Weed
Livermore
Livermore
San Jose
Riverside
Sacramento
Fullerton
San Bernadino
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
01
01
02
03
03
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP
FF
F
' PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
01/04/91
06/18/96
04/19/94
01/02/91
09/29/95
09/15/94
09/15/94
12/17/93
05/14/91
09/21/92
01/27/93
09/21/94
08/19/91
08/19/91
09/26/95
08/05/92
03/25/95
06/20/96
06/21/96
08/31/93
09/24/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
3
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
B-18
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AK
AK
ID
ID
OR
UA
SITE NAME
Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Raytheon Corp.
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
Sacramento Army
Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area 2)
Sharpe Army Depot
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Uaste Disposal,
Inc.
Eielson Air Force Base
Fort Wainright
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
McCormick & Baxter Creos. Co.
(Portland)
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
LOCATION
Monterey Park '
Mountain View
Riverbank
Sacramento
Los Angeles/Glendale
Lathrop
Turlock
Santa Fe Springs
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Smelterville
Idaho Falls
Portland
Silverdale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
01
01
01
03
02
01
01
01
03
04
05
07
03
04
02
01
18
01
01
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
FF
F
PRP
PRP
FF
'FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
S
FF
FUNDING
04/17/95
04/01/92
05/14/91
03/23/94
03/13/95
05/01/94
03/05/96
06/25/92
03/29/95
09/27/94
10/20/95
10/20/95
10/20/95
09/30/96
05/06/96
09/24/96
03/29/93
12/22/95
09/24/93
06/01/96
09/28/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
3
3
1
3
1
4
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
4
4
1
4
2
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1999
1997
1998
1997
1996
B-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS OH SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
RG
10
10
10
10
10
ST
UA
WA
UA
WA
WA
SITE NAME
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Naval Air Station, Uhidbey Island
LOCATION
Pierce County
Vancouver
Benton County
Seattle
Whidbey Island
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
12
13
20
01
01
02
01
05
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
05/18/94
06/22/94
07/11/96
03/23/88
07/17/96
07/17/96
08/06/96
07/31/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 2001
3 1999
3 1998
1 1998
1 1997
1 1997
3 1997
1 1997
(Ault Field)
10 WA Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
Keyport
02
FF
03/31/95
1997
-------
Appendix C
List of Records of
Decision
This appendix provides a specific list of FY96 records of decision (RODs) signed from October 1, 1995
through September 30, 1996. 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 in 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 Fort Devens - Sudbury Training Annex
Fort Devens South Post Impact
Loring Air Force Base OU14
Loring Air Force Base OU3
Loring Air Force Base-OU4
Loring Air Force Base OUs 9&11
Material Technology Laboratory (U.S. Army), Area 1
Material Technology Laboratory Site
Norwood PCBS
2 American Cyanamid Company OU2
American Cyanamid Company OU6
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Carroll and Dubies Sewage Disposal
Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center OU6
Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center OUS
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown Plant)
Hopkins Farm Site
Kauffman and Minteer, Inc.
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield
Little Valley Site
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Site
Naval Air Engineering Station, Area C OU18
Naval Air Engineering Station, Area H OU19
Naval Security Group Activity (Site 6- Former Pest Control Shop)
STATE
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
ME
MA
MA
MA
DATE
9/30/96
7/15/96
3/31/96
9/27/96
9/30/96
9/27/96
6/28/96
9/26/96
5/17/96
NJ
NJ
PR
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
PR
7/12/96
7/12/96
7/5/96
3/25/96
9/30/96
9/20/96
9/20/96
1/22/96
9/27/96
9/27/96
9/30/96
9/30/96
7/13/96
2/20/96
2/20/96
9/20/96
C-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1996
REGION SITE
Clean Well Field Site
Roebling Steel Company
Shieldalloy Corporation
Syosset Landfill
Tutu Wellfield Site
3 Aberdeen Proving Ground OU3
Aberdeen Proving Ground OU7
Aberdeen Proving Ground OU1 1
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Carroll Island Edgewood Area OU9
Austin Avenue Radiation Site
Berkley Products Company
Butler Mine Tunnel Site
Dover Air Force. Base, (Landfill D-10 Golfcourse) (Site LF-18) Area 9
Limestone Road
Middletown Airfield Site
Ohio River Park
Patuxent River Naval Air Station
Publicker Industries, Inc.
Rentokil, Inc. (VA Wood Preserving Division)
Revere Chemical Site
River Road Landfill/Waste Management
Saunders Supply Company
Tobyhanna Army Depot OU3
Tobyhanna Army Depot OU2
Tyler Refrigeration Pit
Tyson Dump
4 American Creosote Works (Jackson Plant)
Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division)
PCX, Inc.
Helena Chemical Company
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Memphis Defense Depot
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
National Electric Coil Co./Coopers Industries
NC State University
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) OU27
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) OU26
Savannah River Site (USDOE) OU18
Savannah River Site (USDOE), Burma Rd Rubble Pit OU32
Stauffer Chemical Company
T.H. Agricultural and Nutrition Site
Tri-City Disposal Company
USMC Camp Lejeune OU5
USMC Camp Lejeune OU9
USN Naval Air Station Cecil Field OU1
USN Naval Air Station Cecil Field OU2
STATE
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
VI
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
DE
MD
PA
PA
MD
PA
VA
PA
PA
VA
PA
PA
DE
PA
TN
FL
NC
FL
GA
TN
TN
KY
NC
TN
TN
SC
SC
FL
GA
KY
NC
NC
FL
FL
DATE
9/30/96
9/30/96
9/17/96
3/28/96
8/5/96
4/1/96
9/27/96
9/27/96
9/30/96
9/27/96
6/28/96
7/15/96
9/24/96
6/28/96
9/17/96
9/27/96
7/29/96
12/28/95
8/27/96
6/20/96
1 2/29/95
9/27/97
7/12/96
9/27/96
5/10/96
7/20/96
9/30/96
5/22/96
9/30/96
5/7/96
9/27/96
5/1/96
10/2/95
4/26/96
9/30/96
12/28/95
2/21/96
6/1 8/96
6/18/96
12/1/95
4/26/96
3/29/96
12/5/95
8/23/96
10/2/95
6/24/96
C-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION
5
6
7
8
SITE
USN Naval Air Station Cecil Field OU7
Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator Dump and Landfill Site
Better Brite Chrome and Zinc Shops
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglas Road/Uniroyal, Inc.
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE) OU5
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE) OU3
Kohler Company Landfill
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Lauer 1 Sanitary Landfill (Boundary Road)
Lower Ecorse Creek Dump
Metamora Landfill Site
National Presto Industries, Inc.
Parson's Casket Hardware Co.
Reilly Tar and Chemical
Ripon City Landfill
Sturgis Municipal Well Field
Tomah Fairgrounds Landfill Site
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Yeoman Creek Landfill
Air Force Plant # 4 (General Dynamics)
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Monroe Auto Pit (Finch Road Landfill)
RSR Corporation
Vertac
Cherokee County
Cleburn Street Well Site
Fort Riley (Southwest Funston Landfill)
Mid'America Tanning Company
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt Site
Weldon Springs Former Ordnance Works
Anaconda Company Smelter
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU10
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU12
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU1
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU2
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU3
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU4.
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU5
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU6
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU7
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU8
STATE
FL
FL
Wi
Ml
IN
IN
OH
OH
WI
MN
Wl
Ml
Ml
Wl
IL
IN
Wl
Ml
Wl
OH
IL
TX
TX
AR
TX
AR
KS
NE
KS
IA
MO
MO
MT
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DATE
7/17/96
5/14/96
9/24/96
9/27/96
8/16/96
5/3/96
1/31/96
9/24/96
6/26/96
11/21/95
3/11/96
7/17/96
8/28/96
5/15/96
9/30/96
9/27/96
3/27/96
9/10/96
9/26/96
9/30/96
9/30/96
8/26/96
2/14/96
9/30/96
2/28/96
9/17/96
7/29/96
6/7/96
1/19/96
7/29/96
8/1/96
9/26/96
9/30/96
5/10/96
5/10/96
5/10/96
5/10/96'
6/7/96
5/10/96
6/7/96
10/18/95
6/7/96
6/7/96
C-3
-------
Fiscal Year 1996
REGION S1TE
Ellsworth Air Force Base OU9
F.E. Warren Air Force Base OUS
F.E. Warren Air Force Base OUS
Hill Air Force Base
Petrochem/Ekotek Inc.
Rocky Mountain Aresenal OUS
Rocky Mountain Aresenal OU4
Silver Bow/Butte Creek OU1
Silver Bow/Butte Creek OU7
9 Camp Pendleton Marine
Fresno Municipal Sanitary
Koppers Company, Inc.
March Air Force Base
March Air Force Base
McColl
Moffett Naval Air Station
Operating Industries, Inc., Landfill
Schofield Army Barracks OU1
Schofield Army Barracks OU4
Sharpe Army Depot
Treasure Island Naval Station
United Heckathorn OU1
Williams Air Force Base OU2
Williams Air Force Base OUS
1 0 Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Complex
Eielson Air Force Base
Fairchild Air Force Base
Fort Wainwright OUS
Fort Wainwright OU 4
Hanford 100 Area (USDOE) OU21
Hanford 100 Area (USDOE) OUs 2&7
Hanford 300 Area (USDOE) OUs 1 &2
Harbor Island (LEAD)
McCormick and Baxter Creosoting Company
Naval Air Station. Whidbey Island - Ault Field
Standard Steel and Metal Salvage Yard
Tulalip Landfill Site
Union Pacific Railroad Tie Treatment
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory OU24
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory OU26
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
STATE
SD
WY
WY
UT
UT
CO
CO
MT
MT
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
HI
HI
CA
CA
CA
AZ
AZ
WA
ID
AK
WA
AK
AK
WA
WA
WA
WA
OR
WA
AK
WA
OR
ID
ID
WA
DATE
5/10/96
1/22/96
3/13/96
9/30/96
9/27/96
6/11/96
12/19/95
' 11/29/96
1 2/22/95
1 2/7/95
9/30/96
8/29/96
6/20/96
6/21/96
5/15/96
6/28/96
9/30/96
1/24/96
9/26/96
3/5/96
11/28/95
1 0/26/95
8/16/96
6/18/96
4/1 6/96
9/9/96
9/30/96
12/20/95
4/9/96
9/24/96
2/2/96
3/26/96
7/17/96
1/25/96
3/29/96
7/10/96
7/16/96
3/1/96
3/27/96
12/1/95
1/9/96
12/8/95
C-4
-------
Appendix D
Report of the
Inspector General
D-l
-------
,to sr,,.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 22 i998
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 E1SFF7-11 -0022- 9100024
Nikki L. Tinsley
Acting Inspector General
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
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 S ARC 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*evcl»d/R»cvcl»bJ« « Printed with Veoetabte OK Based Inks on 100% Recycted Paper (40% Pos»consumer>
-------
Purpose. .Scope and Methodolog
°"Lreview at EPA Headquarters' Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
m the office of Solid Waste.and Emergency Response (OSWER). and in Regions 7
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 tms report for a complete discussion of the scope and methodology of our review.
Objectives
°f °Ur reViCW W3S t0 determine whether ^e Agency's fiscal years 1995 and
were reasonable and accurate, as required by the statute. Subjective*
Annual ,
we pursued m order to meet our overall objective were to determine whether
2)
3)
4)
the Annual Reports presented consistent accomplishment information within each report
between the two reports and with supporting documentation. '
the necessary statutory requirements were met.
internal controls over data entry and reporting were adequate.
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 of
our tour 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. urucaiea
Concerning our second sub-objective, we noted that the draft Annual Reports did not include
stotutonly reqiured 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 of
Ae 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 http://wv.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 our 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 and 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 time.
-------
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:~-1
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 decreases.
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
information 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 Annual Reports.
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 construction
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-
action Records of Decision, or deletion notices. These are documents the Agency would sign to
confirm that the criteria for a construction completion has been met. We reviewed earlier work
performed 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 1996
promoting economic redevelopment by archiving
sites from CERCLIS determined to be of no
farther federal Superfund interest and awarding
Brovvnfields 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.
Round 3
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
abandoned and
for industrial
("brownfields").
cleanup is a
redevelopment
bringing life
communities.
promoted the redevelopment of
contaminated properties once used
and commercial purposes
EPA believes that environmental
building block to economic
and must go hand-in-hand with
and economic vitality back to
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 1996
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund Program Reorganization
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (QERR) 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-fmanced 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 1996
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 S ACM,
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
(Dob) to determine which installations to include in
the Fast Track Cleanup Program of the Base
Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) 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 1996
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
Progress Toward Implementinci SUPERFUND
^ I I.IL
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-
FY97, 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
-------
------- |