c/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA540-R-98-035
OSWER9200.2-37P
PB98-963250
Superfund
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund
Fiscal Year 1997
Report to Congress
-------
'APR 3 0 2001
-------
EPA 54O-R-98-O35
OSWER 9200.2-37P
PB98-963250
Progress Toward
Implementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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 1986
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
51-013-78
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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 1997
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 1997 (FY97). As the Superfund
program completed its seventeenth year, the Agency had begun work at over 98 percent of the 1,405 sites on
the National Priorities List (NPL), and completed construction on 498 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.
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 41 remedial investigation/feasibility studies,
72 remedial designs (RDs), and 102 remedial actions (RAs). PRPs began 69 percent of the RDs and 69
percent of the RAs. Continuing its successful efforts to compel PRPs to undertake cleanup, EPA entered into
enforcement agreements worth almost $500 million in settlements and response work. The Agency and PRPs
have also now undertaken more than 4,490 removal actions, including 252 during FY97. 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.
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 five-year reviews under Section 121(c). This Report also satisfies
certain reporting requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5), the EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Foreword
(continued)
Toward 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 Administratof for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
IV
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
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 and Dottie Pipkin from the Community Involvement and Outreach Center; Kirby
Biggs and Randy Hippen of the State Tribal and Site Identification 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 and John Kingscott from the
Technology Innovation Office; and Becky Neer, from the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
Notice
Foreword
Acknowledgments m
Acronyms .
Executive Summary
J xm
Chapter 1: Site Evaluation Progress j
1.1 Site Evaluation Process ,
1.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Progress ....'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.............','.'....'.'. ['," '.' " .'.''." 2
1.2.1 CERCLIS Site Additions: Discoveries and Removals 2
1.2.2 Pre-CERCLIS Screening '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 2
1.2.3 Preliminary Assessments 2
1.2.4 Site Inspections, Expanded Site Inspections, HRS Packages 2
1.2.5 Site Inspection Prioritizations 3
1.2.6 Integrated Site Assessments 3
1.3 Archiving Sites '. -
1.3.1 Relationship Between NFRAP and Archiving '..'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 4
1.4 National Priorities List 4
1.4.1 National Priorities List Update 4
1.4.2 Relationship Between CERCLIS and NPL Update 5
1.4.3 Partial Deletions ; '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 6
1.5 Site Evaluation Support Activities 6
1.5.1 Brownfields Initiative '.'.'.'.'.'.'. 6
1.5.2 Lead Program Progress o
1.5.3 Radiation Program Progress o
1.5.4 Site Evaluation Regulation and Guidance " 9
Chapter 2: Emergency Response Progress jj
2.1 Removal Action Process ,,
2.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Progress ""'.".'.'.'."!.'!.'!.'!:!!!.'.'.'.'!.'!.'.'!.'.'.".'!.'! 13
2.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress 13
ChapterS: Remedial Progress 15
3.1 Remedial Process . 1 ~
3.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Remedial Progress '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. " 16
3.2.1 Construction Completions lg
3.2.2 New Remedial Activities 16
3.2.3 In Progress Remedial Activities 17
3.3 Remedial Selection _ 18
3.4 Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121(c) ''.'.'.'.'.'..,'.'.'. ]'.'.'............. 19
3.5 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program '"' 22
vn
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 4: Enforcement Progress 23
4.1 The Enforcement Process 23
4.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Superfund Enforcement Progress 24
4.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities 25
4.2.2 PRP Participation in Cleanup Activities 25
4.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements 25
4.3 Enforcement Initiatives 26
4.3.1 Orphan Share Compensation 27
4.3.2 Equitable Issuance of Unilateral Administrative Orders 27
4.3.3 Revised De Micromis Guidance 27
4.3.4 Allocation Pilots 28
4.3.5 Site-Specific Accounts 28
4.3.6 Improving PRP Oversight Administration 28
4.3.7 Issuance of Comfort/Status Letters 29
4.3.8 Ability to Pay Determinations 29
4.3.9 Penalty and Punitive Damage Claims for Noncompliance with Administrative Orders 29
4.3.10 Lenders and Fiduciary Liability Amendments 30
4.3.11 Successful Enforcement Accomplishments 30
Chapter 5: Federal Facility Cleanups 37
5.1 The Federal Facilities Program 37
5.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities Under CERCLA 37
5.1.2 EPA'sOversightRole 37
5.1.3 The Roles of States and Indian Tribes . 38
5.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Progress < 38
5.2.1 Status of Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 38
5.2.2 Status of Federal Facilities on the NPL 39
5.2.3 Ihteragency Agreements Under CERCLA Section 120 39
5.3 CERCLA Implementation at EPA Facilities 39
5.3.1 Requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) 39
5.3.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA Facilities Subject to Section 120
of CERCLA 40
Chapter 6: Resource Estimates 45
6.1 Source and Application of Resources 46
6.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup - 47
6.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Cleanup Effort 47
6.2 Resource Model Assumptions 47
6.2.1 Active NPL Sites 48
6.2.2 Sites Yet to Begin the Remedial Process 48
vm
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
6.2.3 Non-Site Costs 48
6.3 Estimated Resources to Complete Cleanup 49
6.4 Estimated Resources for Other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies 49
Chapter 7: Superfund Program Support Activities 51
7.1 Overview of Program Support Activities 51
7.1.1 Community Involvement 51
7.1.2 Public Information 54
7.1.3 EPA's Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 55
7.2 Minority Firm Contracting 57
7.2.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 58
7.2.2 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments to
Use Minority Contractors 59
Appendices
A Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial Actions at Sites on the
National Priorities List in Progress on September 30,1997 A-l
B Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30,1997 B-l
C List of Records of Decision C-l
D Report of the Inspector General D-l
E Summary of the Superfund Program [FY95-FY97] E-l
Tables and Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Superfund Activities xiv
Exhibit ES-2 Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year xv
Exhibit ES-3 Statutory Requirements for the Report xviii
ExhibitES-4 Fiscal Year 1997 Superfund Initiatives xx
Exhibit 1.4-1 Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1997 5
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 98 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites 16
Exhibit 3.2-2 Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program for Fiscal
Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1997 17
Exhibit 3.2-3 Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead for Fiscal
Year 1996 and Fiscal Year 1997 18
Exhibit 3.4-1 Sites at Which Five-Year Reviews Were Conducted During Fiscal Year 1997 .' 20
Exhibit3.5-l FY97 SITE Program Accomplishments 22
Exhibit 4.2-1 Cumulative Value of Response Settlements Reached With
Potentially Responsible Parties 24
IX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Contents
(continued)
Exhibit 4.2-2 Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
Started by PRPs 25
Exhibit 4.2-3 Cumulative Value of Cost Recovery Dollars Achieved and Collected 26
Exhibit 4.3-1 Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments 31
Exhibit 5.3-1 Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 41
Exhibit 6.1-1 EPA Superfund Obligations ; .."".... 46
Exhibit 6.3-1 Estimate of Total Trust Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites on the
National Priorities List 49
Exhibit 6.4-1 List of Departments and Agencies Receiving Trust Fund Monies 50
Exhibit 7.1-1 Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from Fiscal Year 1988
Through Fiscal Year 1997 53
Exhibit 7.2-1 Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1997 53
Exhibit 7.2-2 Services Provided by Minority Contractors 58
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acronyms
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
ATP Ability to Pay
CA Cooperative Agreement
CAG Community Advisory Group
CD Consent Decree
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Cleanup and Liability Act
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPCA Core Program Cooperative Agreement
CSI Common Sense Initiative
DNAP Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
DoD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Environmental Response Team
ESI Expanded Site Investigation
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FFRRO Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FS Feasibility Study
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
GSA General Services Administration
HMTRI Hazardous Materials Training and Research Institute
MRS Hazard Ranking System
HSRC Hazardous Substance Research Center
HUD Housing and Urban Development
IAG Jtateragency Agreement
LSW Lead Sites Workgroup
MARLAP Multi-Agency Radiation Laboratory Protocols
MDA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NEJAC National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
NEPPS National Environmental Performance Partnership System
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned
NJJEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Services
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRRB National Remedy Review Board
XI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Acronyms
(continued)
NTTS
OECA
OLM
O&M
OMB
ORIA
OSC
OSDBU
OSRE
OU
PA
PPA
PPG
PRP
RA
RCRA
RD
Rl/FS
ROD
RPM
SAGA
SACM
SARA
SHEMP
SI
SIP
SITE
SPIM
SSC
SSL
TAG
TOSC
TRW
UAO
USAGE
use
UST
VCP
VOC
National Technology Information Service
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Outyear Liability Model
Operation and Maintenance
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Operable Unit
Preliminary Assessment
Prospective Purchaser Agreement
Performance Partnership Grant
Potentially Responsible Party
Remedial Action
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Program
Site Inspection
Site Inspection Prioritization
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Superfund Program Implementation Manual
Superfund State Contract
Soil Screening Level
Technical Assistance Grant
Technical Outreach Services for Communities
Technical Review Workgroup
Unilateral Administrative Order
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Code
Underground Storage Tank
Voluntary Cleanup Program
Volatile Organic Compound
Xll
-------
Executive Summary
As the Superfund program entered its 17th year
in December 1997, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or "the Agency") continued
to accomplish 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 88 more National Priorities List
(NPL) sites in the construction completion category
during fiscal year 1997 (FY97): By the end of the
fiscal year, work had occurred at more than 98
percent of the 1,405 sites proposed to, listed on, or
deleted from the NPL, including a total of 498 sites
(35 percent) that have achieved .construction
completion.
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 68
percent of remedial designs (RDs) and 70 percent of
remedial actions (RAs) started during the fiscal year.
.. Since thejnception of the Superfund program, EPA
has reached agreements worth nearly^$123_5Jbillion_
for PRP responsejwork^atSuperfiindlsites, Including
$451 million achieved this year.
This report summarizes Superfund -FY97.
progress, highlighting _ ^accomplishments and_
initiatives to improve the program. Exhibit ES-1
presents a summary of FY97 accomplishments.
Exhibit ES-2 provides a comparison of FY97
accomplishments with those of previous years and
also provides cumulative program accomplishments.
FY97 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
FY97, there were more than 40,100 sites identified in
the CERCLA Information System {CERCLIS), the
Superfund inventory of potentially hazardous waste
sites. The assessment activities included
approximately 38,000 preliminary assessments and
18,275 site inspections. Based on these evaluations,
EPA has determined that 1,405 of the sites should be
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL.
During FY97, a total of 1,249 sites remained on the
NPL. These sites include 53 proposed to, 18 listed
on, and 32 deleted from the NPL during FY97. To
date, a total of 156 sites have been deleted from the
NPL.
The site assessment process also includes site
reevaluation. With over 41,200 sites appearing on
CERCLIS by the end of FY97, only about 3.5
percent of these sites have made it to the final NPL.
Motivated by the need to remove the perceived
stigma imposed on communities with nearby
CERCLIS-listed sites, the Agency has initiated the
removal of sites that are of no further concern to the
__Super£md jprogram. During FY97, the Agency
~ archived 30,450 sites and this effort is a major
program goal and future plans will further support
the archiving effort.
xm
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Exhibit ES-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Superfund Activities
Remedial Activities
Percentage of National Priorities List Sites Where Work Has Begun
Sites Classified as Construction Completions as of September 30, 1997
Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30, 1997
Records of Decision Signed1
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies in Progress on September 30, 1997
Remedial Design Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1 997
Remedial Action Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Remedial Actions in Progress on September 30, 1997
98%
498
815
168
41
56%
44%
808
72
31%
69%
299
102
31 %
69%
686
Removal Activities
Removal Action Starts2
Fund-Financed
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed
Removal Action Completions2
Fund-Financed . .
Potentially-Responsible Party-Financed
252
83%
17%
315
.73%
27%
Site Assessment Activities
CERGLIS Sites Added2 .- -
Preliminary Assessments Conducted2
Site Inspections Conducted2 ,
National Priorities List Sites to Date
Sites Proposed for Listing During Fiscal Year 1997
Final Sites Listed During Fiscal Year 1997
Sites Proposed for Deletion During Fiscal Year 1997
Sites Deleted During Fiscal Year 1997
,-,,,_, --; 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
164
59
67
N/A
500
420
330
1,405
53
18
23
32
($451 million)3
($335 million)
N/A
($316 million)
Accomplishments at Federal Facility Sites-
Records of Decision Signed
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility-Study-Starts2 '-
Remedial Design Starts2 ._.__..
Remedial Action,Starts2 .. . ., _ _
91
62
62
67
Records of decisionrsigned-for Fund-financed-and-potentially responsible party-financed -
-Numerical-values for accomplishments based on-information from CERGLIS 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 (as of September 30, 1997); Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; Office of Emergency and
" Remedial Response; Federal Register notices from December 23, 1996; April 1, 1997 arid September 25, 1997.
XIV
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
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 FY97 Total
290
240 298 276 315 3,939
25,200 27,600 30,000 31,900 33,600 34;200 36,400 37,500 38,300 39,000 39,600 500 40,100
20,200 4,000 2,900 2,200 1,600 1,300 1,900 1,100 900 813 781 420 38,114
6,400 1,300 1,200 1,700 1,900 1,900 1,300
700
600
584 359 330 18,273
964 1,194 1,254 1,236 1,245 1,275 1,320 1,355 1,375 1,387 1,405 1,405
70
175
160
100
61
90
126
170
110
88
2
60
134
130
120
68
12
70
159
110
120
61
13
30
187
84
110
68
25
36
41 1,777
Removal 810 230 320 260 290 270 340
Completions'-2
CERCLIS Sites'
PA
Completions''
SI Completions'
National 901
Priorities List
Sites3
Remedial 660 210 170 170 170
Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Starts1'2
Records of 199 77 152 136 149
Decision
Signed2
Remedial Design 120 110 120 180 130
Starts''2
Remedial Action 70 70 70 110 80
Starts1'2
Construction ~
Completions4
National 13 0 5-10 1
Priorities List
Deletions5
' Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS in FY80 through FY86 have been rounded.
2 Includes Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed activities; excludes federal facility activities and state-lead activities where no
Fund monies were spent.
3 The figures reported in this now represent the cumulative total of proposed, final, and deleted National Priorities List sites as of the end of each
fiscal year.
4 Adopted as measure of program progress by 1991 30-Day Study Task Force. FY91 value represents FY80 through FY91.
5 Total deletions include eight sites referred to other authorities in FY97. ;
156 168 1,818
74 72 1,460
116 102 1,178
64 88 498
34 32 156
Sources: CERCLIS (as of September 30, 1997); Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Federal Register notices through September 30, 1997.
The Agency announced the Brownfields Action
Agenda in January 1995 and it has grown to
encompass many aspects of site redevelopment.
During FY97, Brownfields pilots focused on
clarifying liability and cleanup issues, partnership
and outreach, and job development. By the end of
FY97,121 Brownfields pilots were awarded, ranging
in values of up to $200,000 each. These pilots
encourage federal, state, and local governments and
tribes to implement new strategies aimed at
increasing the level and efficiency of site assessment,
cleanup and redevelopment.
Emergency Response Progress
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, the Agency and
PRPs started nearly 252 removal actions and
completed 315 during FY97. More than 4,490
removal actions have been started and nearly 3,939
have been completed since the inception of the
Superfund program.
Through the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup.
Model (SACM) the Agency continued its efforts to
expand the use of removal authority for early actions
xv
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
to reduce risks more rapidly and expedite cleanup at
NPL sites. Early actions may include emergency,
time-critical, or non-time-critical removal responses
or quick remedial responses. Accelerated cleanups
are targeted with other initiatives as well, including
those on presumptive remedies, dense non-aqueous
phase liquid (DNAPL) contamination, and soil
screening levels.
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. As mentioned previously, by the
end of FY97, work had occurred at 98 percent of the
1,405 sites proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the
NPL, and construction activities had been completed
to place 498 NPL sites (35 percent) in the
construction completion category. During the year,
the Agency and PRPs started nearly 41 remedial
investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs), 72 RDs,
and 102 RAs. EPA also signed 168 records of
decision (RODs) for Fund-financed, PRP-financed
sites, and federal facility sites.
The efforts of the National Remedy Review
Board (NRRB) saved an estimated $6 million in
future cost reductions during FY97 alone. The
NRRB conducted eight of its 20 decisions completed
to date during FY97, with the intent of improving
national consistency and cost-effectiveness. In
addition, the Board performed an in-depth analysis of
its procedures, that resulted in the modification of
several of its key guidance documents. The Board
acts to ensure that decisions are in compliance with
regulations and guidance and continues to target high
cost sites and reassure technically sound decision
making.
As recommended by the 1993 Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force, EPA
continued several efforts to streamline remedial
activities and increase the consistency and efficiency
in Superfund cleanups. The Agency demonstrated
presumptive remedies developed for municipal
landfills and sites contaminated with volatile organic
compounds, while working to develop presumptive
remedies for wood-treatment, polychlorinated
biphenyl, manufactured-gas-plant, grain storage, and
polluted ground-water sites; released draft soil
screening levels (SSLs) for 100 chemicals commonly
found at Superfund sites; and implemented guidance
for addressing DNAPL contamination of ground
water.
In continuing 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.
Enforcement Progress
Enforcement progress for FY97 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 FY97, EPA reached agreements with
PRPs worth more than $451 million in PRP response
work. Through its FY97 cost recovery efforts, EPA
achieved $158 million in settlements and collected
more than $316 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 FY97, the Agency focused on increasing
the use of allocation tools such as providing orphan
share compensation, encouraging early settlements
with de minimis and "de micromis" parties, promoting
alternative dispute resolution and the equitable
issuance of unilateral administrative orders (UAOs),
adopting private party allocations, and creating
interest bearing site-specific special accounts,
fostering greater fairness for owners and prospective
purchasers of Superfund sites through Prospective
Purchaser Agreements (PPAs). Guidance on
improving the administration of PRP oversight was
implemented with the formation of a work group, that
identified 100 potential sites with capable and
cooperative PRPs, that may be eligible for reform.
This reform decreases the government's
administrative burden at these sites.
XVI
-------
FiscalYear1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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.
Activity during the fiscal year at federal facility
sites listed on the NPL, included starting
approximately 62 RFFSs, 62 RDs, 67 removals, and
90 RAs; and signing 91 RODs. Ongoing activities at
the end of FY97 included 494 RI/FSs, 74 RDs, and
169 RAs. At the end of FY97, of the 2,070 sites on
the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket, 25 are EPA-owned or operated facilities.
Superfund Program Support Activities
EPA took steps in FY97 to enhance community
involvement, environmental justice, and EPA's
partnership with states and Indian tribes. In its
community involvement efforts, EPA continued
measures to tailor activities to meet the specific
needs of individual communities and to identify ways
to enhance community involvement efforts. The
Agency also continued to provide technical outreach
to communities, hold national conferences on
community involvement, encourage community
advisory groups (CAGs) and facilitate community
access to technical assistance grants (TAGs). To aid
communities in obtaining technical assistance, EPA
awarded 9 TAGs during the fiscal year, bringing the
total number of TAGs awarded since FY88 to 198,
for a total worth of more than $13 million.
To support state and tribal involvement in the
Superfund response activities, EPA has awarded $10
million towards state voluntary cleanup programs
(VCP). States which enter VCPs may sign
Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with their
respective Regions which officially document the
effort between EPA and states to support voluntary
cleanup and the sustainable redevelopment of
Brownfields sites.
As required by CERCLA Section 105(f), the
Agency also engaged in efforts to encourage minority
firm participation in Superfund contracting. These
efforts are discussed in Section 7.2.
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 $17.6 billion in budget
authority (FY81 through FY97). This includes $1.7
billion for the pre-SARA period (FY81 through
FY86) and $15.9 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY97.
Estimates of the long-term resources required to
implement Superfund are based on the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM). The OLM estimate of the
cost of completing cleanup of current NPL sites is
more than $13.6 billion for FY98 and beyond,
bringing the total estimated cost for the program to
$31.3 billion.
Organization of this Report
Information prepared for this Report is assembled
in response to congressional requirements specified
in CERCLA 301(h)(l). Exhibit ES-3 is a guide to
the information required under CERCLA and its
location in the Report.
Fiscal Year 1997 Initiatives
Major initiatives in FY97 address enforcement,
economic redevelopment and Brownfields initiatives,
measuring program progress, federal facilities,
community outreach, environmental justice,
increased state and tribal involvement, and consistent
program implementation. Exhibit ES-4 provides
highlights of these and other initiatives undertaken
by the Agency in FY97.
xvn
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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 6
Detailed description of each
feasibility study (FS) at a facility
Status and estimated date of
completion of each FS
Notice of each FS which will not
meet a previously published
schedule for completion and the
new estimated date for
completion
An evaluation of newly developed
feasible and achievable permanent
treatment technologies
Progress made in reducing the
number of facilities subject to
review under CERCLA Section
121 (c}, which requires the report
to Congress to contain a list of
facilities for which a five-year
review is required, the results of
all such reviews, and any actions
taken as a result of such reviews
Chapter 7
Section 3.3
Appendix C
Appendix A
Appendix A
Section 3.5
Section 3.4
Initiatives to improve the Superfund
program
Site evaluation progress
Emergency response progress
Remedial progress
Enforcement progress
Federal facility cleanups
Resource estimates
Superfund program support 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 Technology Evaluation
Program
Annual update on progress being
made on sites subject to review
under CERCLA Section 121(c)
xvin
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
CERCLA Requirement
Report
Section
Report Content
301(h)(2)
105(f)
120(e)(5)
Report on the status of all
remedial and enforcement actions
undertaken during the fiscal year,
including a comparison to remedial
and enforcement actions
undertaken in prior fiscal years
Estimates of the amount of
resources, including the number of
work years or personnel, which
would be necessary for each
department, agency, or
instrumentality which is carrying
out any activities to complete the
implementation of all duties
vested in the department, agency,
or instrumentality ,
Review by the Inspector General
and submission of any report
related to EPA's activities for
reasonableness and accuracy
Brief description of the contracts
which have been awarded to
minority firms under Superfund
and the efforts made to encourage
the participation of such firms in
the Superfund program
Annual report to the Congress
concerning EPA progress in
implementing remedial activities at
its facilities
Section 3.2.2 Information on fiscal year remedial
activity starts (including PRP
involvement) with a comparison of
fiscal year activities to those of
previous years
Section 4.2 Information on fiscal year
enforcement activities with a
comparison of fiscal year activities to
those of previous years
Appendix A Information on the status of each
RI/FS and RA in progress at the end
of the fiscal year
Appendix B Information on the status of RDs in
progress at the end of the fiscal year
Sections 6.1 EPA resource estimates for
and 6.3 completion of CERCLA
implementation
Section 6.4 Other federal agency's and
department's estimates for
completion of CERCLA
implementation
Appendix D Review of the Inspector General on
this Report
Section 7.2 Information on minority contracting
awards by EPA, states, Indian tribes,
and other federal agencies using
Superfund monies. EPA efforts to
encourage increased minority
contractor participation in the
Superfund program
Section 5.3 Report on EPA progress in CERCLA
implementation at EPA-owned
facilities, including a state-by-state
report
xix
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Exhibit ES-4
Fiscal Year 1997 Superfund Initiatives
Superfund Initiative
Status
Economic Redevelopment
Reinventing Site Assessment
The purpose of reinventing the site assessment process is to lower costs,
aid economic development and environmental recovery, encourage more
efficient site cleanups, and to allow States to have more responsibility.
The site assessment process has been redesigned to focus more on
redevelopment of Brpwnfields, to heighten state and tribal programs'
expertise, and to address sites in CERCLIS and on the NPL. Some
priorities of the site assessment process include listing appropriate sites
on the NPL and evaluating non-CERCLIS sites in conjunction with the
Brownfields initiative.
Brownfields
Fiscal year 1997 saw the announcement of 121 Brownfields pilots.
Funding will be allocated to 25 new pilot recipients, 29 old recipients
(prior to 1996), and the State Cleanup Program. Additionally, funding
will be provided to implement outreach programs for existing pilot
recipients in order to foster stronger partnerships between tribes, states,
and federal, and local governments.
Archiving CERCLIS Sites
EPA continued archiving sites which are no longer of concern to the
Superfund program. Of over 41,000 sites placed into CERCLIS, only
about 5 percent of these have been determined as NPL sites.
Prospective Purchaser
Agreements
Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs) allow people to purchase
contaminated land for redevelopment while releasing them from potential
future liability. Four guidance documents on PPAs were issued to aid the
approval of future agreements. Sixty-eight PPAs existed by the end of
FY97.
Better Waste Management,
Restoration of Contaminated
Waste Sites, and Emergency
Response
By continuing to regulate waste management, the Agency reduces the
risk of human health exposures and environmental exposures. As a
result, there will be fewer "new" Superfund sites. EPA can greatly reduce
the effects of uncontrolled exposures on local communities and their
sensitive environments by restoring contaminated sites. The Agency can
minimize the risk caused by emergencies with rapid response and levying
PRP resources to fund responses to the maximum extent. These
measures are being taken to make each program more effective and
efficient.
Measuring Program Progress
Environmental Indicators
Environmental indicators serve as a visible, easily expressed means of
conveying the success of the Superfund program. Through the use of
indicators, the benefits of Superfund become apparent, especially in terms
of reduced threats to human health. EPA continued to develop two
environmental indicators to address human health risk reduction {Indicator
D), and ecological risk reduction (Indicator E) for implementation by the
end of FY97.
Construction Completions
The Agency has set a goal of 650 construction completions by the end of
the year 2000. Sites in the remedial design/remedial action stage will be
managed effectively to see that they are quickly brought through to
construction completeness. The Agency stresses the importance for
states and regions to work together to determine opportunities to
expedite construction completions and response actions.
xx
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund initiative
Status
Federal Facilities
Federal Facilities
Base Closures
A primary mission of Superfund is to make sure that federally-owned or
operated hazardous waste facilities are cleaned up as quickly as possible.
Regional attention is given to advance these sites to construction
completeness, whether it is by removal or remedial authority.
Currently, 113 military installations are scheduled for closure or
realignment. Twenty-one of these sites are on the NPL and others need
some amount of decontamination. The Agency will continue to assist the
DoD with the assessment, cleanup, and listing of appropriate sites on the
NPL. They will also ensure that the remedies at the 21 NPL sites meet
Superfund criteria.
Environmental Justice
Jobs Training Initiative
The Jobs Training Initiative strives to train and employee those residents
living near NPL sites through worker training the classroom and in the
field. A minority worker training program was begun and pilots were
started at five Superfund sites in hopes of increasing job opportunities in
communities with hazardous waste sites.
Community Involvement and Outreach
Superfund Ombudsman for
each Region
Ombudsman were established in each Region in 1 996 to resolve concerns
and provide guidance to stakeholders on Superfund and other
environmental issues. During 1 997, increased requests for assistance
from stakeholders in several Regions made the Superfund program more
responsive to community concerns.
Consistent Program Implementation
Worst Sites First
Guidance for Remedy
Selection
Innovative Technologies
EPA's highest priority and guiding principle is to remove imminent risk
from humans and the environment. When the Agency has decided that a
site does not pose an imminent risk, they will move on to other priorities.
Until that point, any site which poses an imminent risk to public health
and the environment is considered top priority.
The Agency continued developing guidance aimed at improving removal
cost and time savings on the subjects of soil screening, land-use, and
presumptive remedies. Soil screening guidance serves to work in
conjunction with SACM, and future plans call for the development of
ecological soil screening levels. EPA has estimated a 36 to 56 percent
time savings based on the use of the presumptive remedies guidance at
municipal landfills alone.
The innovative technologies which are being developed or implemented
include the use of presumptive remedies for the cleanup of municipal
landfills, a method for rapidly assessing the presence of dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) contamination, national soil acceptance
levels, and the continuation of Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM). These innovative technologies will be assessed at federal
facilities. In some instances, EPA is sharing the risks associated with
implementing innovative technologies by reimbursing up to 50 percent of
the costs of such technologies, if they should fail.
XXI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Superfuncl Initiative
Status
Effective Contract
Management
The Agency will continue to implement the suggestions of the task force
on Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy contracts as well as apply
the Long-Term Contracting Strategy. The Special Analytical Service
contract has been totally decentralized and new Regional Superfund
contracts are currently being managed. EPA pays particular attention to
conflicts of interest involving EPA contractors who also may be working
for another federal agency.
National Remedy Review
Board
In 1997, the National Remedy Review Board achieved both its objectives
of promoting cost effectiveness and creating national consistency
between Regions in remedy selection. Eight cleanup decisions were
reviewed, saving approximately $6 million in 1997 alone, bringing the
grand total of savings to over $31 million. A detailed analysis of Board
operating procedures has altered key strategies.
Technical Review Workgroup
on Lead
Consistency in risk assessments involving lead (Pb) has been improved
through the Technical Review Workgroup (TRW), which issues fact sheets
and issue papers on key parameters of risk assessment. The TRW has
examined the Integrated Exposure Uptake and Biokinetic (IEUBK) Lead
model to better determine the risks to people living near lead-
contaminated sites.
Enforcement
Enforcement Fairness/Reduce
Transaction Cost
The Agency promotes fair treatment of all PRPs and tries to reduce
private sector transaction costs associated with site cleanups. Six
initiatives were developed during the past year: Orphan Share
Compensation, "De Micromis Settlements," Alternative Dispute
Resolution, Equitable Issuance of UAOs, Adopting Private Party
Allocations, and Interest Bearing Site Specific Special Accounts. These
programs either reduce transaction costs paid by PRPs as part of the
settlement process, or ensure that PRPs only pay a fair portion of
response costs for the sites where they are involved.
Enforcement Rrst/Cost
Recovery
The Agency will continue to emphasize early initiation of PRP searches,
negotiations to bind PRPs into leading cleanup activities. Alternative
Dispute Resolutions, and monitoring compliance violations. In the past
few years, PRPs have lead the majority of new cleanup actions, which
has accelerated the pace of Superfund cleanups. Early involvement of
PRPs also keeps transaction and cleanup costs at a minimum.
Improved PRP Oversight
To help reduce project completion cost and time, a work group emerged
in FY97 to put a 1996 guidance into practice. This guidance aims to
reduce EPA oversight at sites where have PRPs are deemed "cooperative
and capable." Regional Offices are responsible for notifying the PRP's of
EPA's intentions and will meet with the PRPs to discuss the future of
their various oversight activities.
State and Tribal Involvement
Voluntary Clean-up Program
EPA distributed S10 million in support of voluntary cleanup programs
(VCP) in FY97. Guidance is pending consensus on certain critical
aspects.. In all, 11 Memoranda of Agreement have been signed, dictating
voluntary cleanup strategies and Brownfields redevelopment. The VCPs
are extremely popular, with 35 states choosing to adopt them.
xxn
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund Initiative
Status
Enhancement of State/Tribal
Role
The EPA is giving states and tribes an increased role in the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites. Current programs will be transferred to the States
and Tribes in order to support this goal. Tribes will be considered
independent entities from the states.
Performance Partnership
Grants (PPG)
Tribes and states may apply for a PPG in order to consolidate funds from
their categorical grants into one or more PPGs. NEPPS (National
Environmental Performance Partnership System) agreements will be
required for each PPG. These agreements are program commitments
describing the goals and objectives, results and benefits expected, plan of
action, and projections of program accomplishments. PPGs cannot
specifically contain Superfund resources. However, the EPA is working
towards increasing state flexibility with Superfund funding.
State/Tribal Programs: State
Remedy Selection
Under this pilot program, states and tribes are allowed to chose certain
remedies for some sites as long as the remedy is in compliance with the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). This program allows states and tribes
to completely oversee the remedy selection process with minimal EPA
supervision. The state/tribal program will be evaluated in 1997 to identify
opportunities to offer states and tribes an even greater role in the
Superfund program.
Source: Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 1997 (SPIM), Superfund Reforms Annual Report
FY1997.
xxin
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 1
Site Evaluation Progress
By the end of FY97, approximately 40,100
potential hazardous waste sites had been identified
and added to the Superfund inventory. Over 30,450
have been archived; the remainder await a final
decision to determine if further federal involvement
(NPL listing or archival) was necessary. To enhance
site evaluation, EPA continued implementing the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
Through SACM, EPA's Regions have been
encouraged to reduce repetitive tasks and costs by
combining activities where warranted by site
conditions between the site assessment and long-term
remediation program, and between the site
assessment and removal program. EPA has also
continued with ongoing efforts to address technical
complexities and improve site evaluation guidance
and to implement the Superfund administrative.
reforms such as the Brownfields Initiative.
1.1 Site Evaluation Process
The current 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 a discovery date in the
Agency's Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) database for those sites requiring further
federal Superfund attention. In the case of federal
facilities, sites are initially placed on the Federal
Facility Hazardous Waste Docket and added to
CERCLIS if site assessment work is required under
CERCLA.
EPA manages 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; consisting of a preliminary
assessment (PA) and a site inspection (SI). In some
instances, EPA may need to continue with a more
detailed investigation - an expanded site
investigation (ESI) - that may involve additional
sampling. Site screening and assessment decisions
are made at Superfund sites upon completion of each
site assessment action. These decisions may include:
No further remedial action planned (NFRAP);
Perform an early action to mitigate a threat;
Designate the site a high or low priority for
further evaluation;
Defer the site to the state or another authority
such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.(NRC) or Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Subtitle C;
Prepare the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
scoring package, or
Aggregate the site into an existing National
Priorities List (NPL) site.
Using the information from the PA, SI and ESI
(if performed), EPA prepares an HRS package to
evaluate the site's potential risk to human health and
the environment. This system uses information from
all the assessments conducted at the site to assign a
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
numeric score from 0 to 100. The HRS is the
primary screening tool for determining whether a site
is eligible for inclusion on the NPL, EPA's list of
sites that are priorities for further investigation and if
necessary, response action under CERCLA, 42 USC
96Ql,etseq.
1.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Progress
During FY97, EPA continued its progress in
identifying and assessing potential hazardous waste
sites while streamlining the process through
administrative reform efforts.
1.2.1 CERCLIS Site Additions: Discoveries
and Removals ____
EPA added more than 500 sites to CERCLIS
during FY97, bringing the total number of sites
under Superfund to approximately 40,100. Although
the number of new sites brought to the Agency's
attention has declined recently, EPA must address a
backlog of sites still needing assessment to identify
priority NPL candidates or to archive sites from
CERCLIS. By the end of FY 97, over 30,450 sites
had been archived (removed) from CERCLIS,
leaving approximately 10,700 sites still in the
CERCLIS inventory. EPA will continue to integrate
remedial and removal assessment activities, where
possible, to reduce costs and durations in an effort to
utilize resources most efficiently and effectively.
1.2.2 Pre-CERCLlS Screening
In 1997, EPA initiated pre-CERCLIS screening
.guidance to minimize the number of sites
unnecessarily entered into CERCLIS. The guidance
requests that the Regions determine if federal action
is necessary at the site before placing a site into
CERCLIS. Several regions are developing pre-
CERCLIS screening programs, based on HQ
guidance. The Agency may revise the pre-CERCLIS
screening policy or develop additional criteria based
on the results of the regional programs.
1.2.3 Preliminary Assessments
When notified of a potential hazardous waste
' site, EPA or the appropriate state or tribe will
conduct a preliminary assessment to determine 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
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 such as past state permitting
activities, local population statistics, or information
concerning the site's potential effect upon the
environment. PA activities enable the Agency or
state to determine whether further/no further study of
the site or removal assessment/action is necessary.
For federal sites, EPA reviews PA reports developed
by relevant federal agencies and determines whether
further/no further study is required under Superfund.
EPA, states, and tribes completed more than 420
PAs in FY97. Since the inception of Superfund,
EPA states, and tribes have completed PAs at nearly
39,000 sites. The Agency has determined no further
federal Superfund action is necessary at 46 percent of
these sites - the remainder have proceeded to the SI
stage for more extensive evaluation.
1.2.4 Site Inspections, Expanded Site
Inspections. HRS Packages
If the PA indicates that a potential threat to
human health or the environment, EPA or the states
will perform an site inspection to determine options
for cleanup and whether the site should be proposed
for listing on the NPL. The objective of a SI is to
gather, information to support a site decision
regarding the need for further federal Superfund
action. The SI is not a study of the full extent of
contamination at a site or a risk assessment, but is the
first investigation to collect and analyze waste and
environmental samples to support a site evaluation
according to the HRS. An SI investigates PA
hypotheses to target contamination and to determine
the types of hazardous substances present. The scope
of the site investigation is defined as the number of
critical hypotheses and questions remaining after the
PA and the number of pathways contributing to
further action recommendations. In some instances
such as installation of groundwater monitoring wells,
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA may need to continue with a more expanded
site investigation (ESI). The objective of the ESI is
to collect additional data as necessary to prepare an
HRS scoring package. The complexity of the site
and the need for special procedures will determine
the scope of the ESI.
For sites judged to be prospective candidates for
the NPL, the collected data will be used to calculate
a score using the Hazard Ranking System. 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 assist in
determining 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: groundwater,
surface water, soil, and air.
The Agency completed over 330 Sis, 80 ESIs,
and 46 HRS packages during FY 1997 and nearly
20,000 Sis, 700 ESIs, and 2,050 HRS package
completions since the inception of the Superfund
program. About 50 percent of those 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.
1.2.5 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.
SIPs were limited to 6,600 sites where an SI was
conducted prior to August 1, 1992, but were also
used to assist in identifying candidates for early
actions under SACM. EPA completed
approximately 200 SIPs in FY97. Most SIPs
completed have resulted in NFRAP decisions.
1.2.6 Integrated Site Assessments
''-. ':'%
Prior to the implementation of SACM, hazardous
waste sites could receive numerous similar,, but
sequential, assessments before any kind of cleanup
began. Many if not most of these assessments started
from scratch and did not take into consideration the
information and data generated by the studies that
preceded them. Resources were expended on the
process of executing separate contracts, mobilizing
sampling teams, designing sampling strategies,
modifying health and safety plans, etc. for different
but closely related assessment activities. The
potential for repetitive work was largely a result of
separate Superfund programs (e.g., removal and site
assessment) addressing the same site.
The overall goal of SACM is to make Superfund
cleanups more timely and efficient. One component
of this model, the integrated site assessment, is
designed to streamline the evaluation of selected sites
by merging assessments of their conditions and risks.
For example, under the integrated approach, any of
the site assessment steps may be combined with the
removal program's assessment; and the expanded
site inspection may be combined with the site
inspection, remedial investigation, or both. This
allows for accelerated cleanups and increased
efficiency in the Superfund process within the
framework of CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), while ensuring that
cleanups continue to be protective.
1.3 Archiving Sites '
In response to growing concerns about the
unintended stigma associated with sites listed in
CERCLIS, EPA introduced the CERCLIS archiving
effort in early 1995 as part of the Agency's second
round of administrative reforms on the Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative. This Brown-
fields Initiative encourages cities, states, and private
investors to clean up and redevelop contaminated or
formally contaminated sites. Sites chosen for archive
include sites where, following initial investigation,
no contamination was found, where contamination
was removed quickly without needing to be placed
on the NPL, where the contamination was not serious
enough to warrant further federal Superfund
attention, or where responsibility lies with the state or
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
other authority such as Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) for further assessment/
cleanup work.
By the end of FY97, EPA archived
approximately 30,450 of the 40,100 sites entered into
CERCLIS. EPA provided updated 'guidance
identifying types of sites eligible for archiving from
CERCLIS~in November 1996. In April 1997, EPA
developed a quick reference fact sheet, "Archival of
CERCLIS Sites;" and posted it on EPA's
Brownfields Internet homepage. An inventory of
CERCLIS and archived sites by state is also available
pji .the Internet.
1.3.1 Relationship Between NFRAP and
Archiving
At any point in the evaluation process, EPA may
determine that the Superfund evaluation of the site is
complete and that no further stepYto 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 remedial action
is planned or required. 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. Sites not considered
appropriate for the NPL might be addressed under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), state cleanup programs, or other authorities
such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
NFRAP decisions are separate from CERCLIS
archiving. NFRAP decisions are made from a site
assessment perspective only; they simply denote that
further Superfund remedial assessment work is not
required based on currently available information. In
addition, a NFRAP decision does not take into
account any other Superfund programmatic activity
that may be going on at the site such as a removal
action or cost recovery efforts. 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.
1.4 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 has
an HRS score, of 28.50 or higher, the Agency may
consider proposing the site to the NPL. If EPA
determines the NPL is the appropriate mechanism for
addressing site contamination, a proposed NPL
rulemaking is published in the Federal Register
which then initiates a public comment period.
Following review of comments, EPA may .finalize
the site on the NPL via a final NPL rulemaking (also
published in the Federal Register) or may remove
the site from NPL consideration. A site remains on
the NPL until no further CERCLA response action,
including long-term maintenance and monitoring
activities, is appropriate. When this condition is met,
EPA deletes the site from the NPL.
In an effort to maintain coordination with the
states in the NPL listing decision process, EPA
issued a memorandum in November 1996 that
outlines a process to continue to include state or
tribal input in NPL listing decisions. This
memorandum directs.the Regional Administrator to
solicit governor or tribal concurrence for placing a
site on the NPL. A follow-up memorandum was
issued in July 1997 to describe the process that will
be employed in cases where an EPA Regional Office
recommends proposing or placing a site on the NPL,
but the state or tribe opposes listing the site.
1.4.1 National Priorities List Update
At the end of FY97, there were 1,405 sites in
CERCLIS that have been proposed to, listed on, or
deleted from the NPL: 1,196 currently listed sites, 53
proposed sites, and 156 deleted sites where all
CERCLA cleanup goals have been achieved.
Exhibit 1.4-1 illustrates the historical 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 FY97, the sites proposed to, listed on, or deleted
from the NPL consisted of the following:
«... 1,238 non-federal sites: 1,048 currently listed
sites, 47 proposed sites, and 143 deleted sites;
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
"Exhibit 1.4-1
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1997
91 92
Fiscal Year
96
97
Sites Added
Total
1.2
99
802
0
798
101
888
300
1,187
7 0 33 43 30 18 18
1,185 1,183 1,197 1,226 1,232 1,211 1,249
This graph illustrates final NPL sites only and reflects the fact that EPA deleted 13 sites from FY80 to FY86, 4 sites in
FY88, 11 sites in FY89, 1-site in FY90, 9 sites in FY91, 2 sites in FY92, 11 sites in FY93, 13 sites in FY94, 25 sites in
~FY95r34~sites in FY96, and 31 sites in FY97. At these deleted sites, all CERCLA cleanup objectives were achieved. In
FY9s! 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, 1 997 was 1 ,405.
"2 The total number of sites listed final on the NPL from 1983 to 1986 was 703. .......
- SourceFedera/ Reg/'ster notices through September 30, 1997. _..-...- ., .. .
165 federal sites: 151 currently listed sites, 6
proposed sites, and 8 deleted sites.
Updatessto-the" NPL "during FY97 included
proposal of 20 sites (19 non-federal and 1 federal
facility site), final listing of 18 sites (16 non-federal
and 2 federal facility sites) and deletion of 31 sites
~(29 "non-federal sites and 2 federal facility sites).
-These proposals to and listings on-the NPL were
Included iif three proposed rules (NPL Proposals 21,
-227and23) and three final rules. The proposed rules
were published in the Federal Register on December
23,1996 (5 non-federal sites), April 1, 1997 (5 non-
federal and4-federal-facility-site) and September 25,
1997 (9 non-federal sites). The final rules were
published in the Federal Register on December 23,
1996 (7 non-federal sites), April 1, 1997 (3 non-
federal and 2 federal facility sites) and September 25,
1997 (6 non=federal sites). Twenty-three sites were
proposed for deletion during the fiscal year,
including 19 of the 32 sites that were deleted.
1.4.2 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 40,100 sites brought to
the'attention'of Superfundby the end of FY97,1,405
were either proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the
NPL."~£lthough the siteTon the NPL are a relatively
small subset of the inventory in CERCLIS
(approximately 3.4 percent), they generally are the
Triost complex and environmentally significant sites.
Under CERCLA, EPA can only use the Trust Fund
"for long-term remedial actions at NPL sites. Fund
money, however, can be used to conduct a removal
action at a site, whether or not it is on the NPL.
Chapter 4 of this report highlights progress in
remediating NPL sites, and Chapter 3 of this report
discusses removal actions at NPL and non-NPL sites.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
1.4.3 Partial Deletions
It has always been EPA's policy to delete
Superfund sites from the NPL when it determines
that no further cleanup response is warranted under
CERCLA. Deleting sites from the NPL can only be
done with state concurrence. Previously, only entire
sites could be deleted from the NPL. However,
deletion of entire sites does not accurately reflect
successful cleanup at individual portions of the sites.
Accordingly, EPA published the Partial Deletions
Policy on November 1, 1995 and it applies only to
NPL sites.
EPA adopted the Partial Deletions Policy, as part
of the Agency's Economic Redevelopment Initiative,
in recognition of the fact that the development
potential of property listed on the NPL could be
negatively affected. EPA believes that partial
deletions will facilitate the transfer, development, or
redevelopment of property determined to be no
longer contaminated allowing potential investors and
developers to undertake economic activity at a
cleaned up portion of real property that is part of a
site listed on the NPL. Four sites in FY 1997 were
either partially deleted or a notice of intent to
partially delete was issued. A total of nine sites have
been either partially deleted or a notice of intent to
partially delete was issued since implementation of
this administrative reform.
1.5 Site Evaluation Support Activities
EPA is managing a program designed to promote
redevelopment of abandoned and contaminated
properties, as well as addressing lead and radiation
contamination because these contaminants present
special hazards and problems. During FY97, EPA
continued its progress under these programs. Under
the Brownfields Initiative, EPA continued to work
with all stakeholders to prevent, assess, safely clean
up, 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 address technical
complexities associated with site assessment, risk
assessment, and cleanup technology evaluation for
sites contaminated with radionuclides. The Agency
also worked to enhance site evaluation guidance.
1.5.1 Brownfields Initiative
EPA is promoting redevelopment of abandoned
and potentially 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 (GAO\RCED-95-172,
June 1995) estimates 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, not a stumbling 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, tribes, local governments,
communities and other stakeholders interested in the
economic redevelopment to work together in a timely
manner to prevent, assess, safely cleanup and
sustainably reuse brownfields. EPA originally
addressed implementation of this Initiative through
the Brownfields Action Agenda. This first Action
Agenda included strategies that 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, tribes,
municipalities, and stakeholders; and, (4) promoting
community involvement by supporting job
development and training activities linked to
brownfield assessment, cleanup and redevelopment.
As the Brownfields Initiative has matured, the need
for continuation and expansion of the national
brownfields response has led to introduction of the
new Brownfields National Partnership Action
Agenda further linking environmental protection
with economic redevelopment and community
revitalization. The Brownfields National Partnership
Action Agenda is a two-year plan featuring
commitments from more than 25 organizations
including more than 15 federal agencies.
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
By the end.of FY 1997, EPA announced the
selection of 121 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.
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 awarded 23 grants to
eligible assessment pilot recipients for the
capitalization of revolving loan funds for the cleanup
of brownfields sites.
The Agency is beginning to see results from its
efforts such as the Brownfields pilot in Buffalo, NY.
After removing a former Republic Steel site from
CERCLIS, ATDM Corporation, partnering with
Village Farms of Buffalo, agreed to clean up a
portion of the site in 1997 for dedicated use as a 25-
acre hydroponic tomato farm. This new business
will employ approximately 300 workers in the
immediate area.
EPA has signed Memoranda of Understanding
(MOU) with other federal partners to coordinate
issues related to brownfields redevelopment and
leverage additional opportunities. EPA has signed
MOUs with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the Departments of Labor, and
the Department of the Interior.
A variety of guidances and other initiatives were
announced by the Agency affecting the liability
aspects of the Brownfields Action Agenda. In that
regard, the Agency conducted a survey of major
insurance underwriters, insurance providers, and
banks to determine the types of environmental
insurance products available. The survey also
gathered information on the need to develop further
incentives for the use of these types of risk transfer
mechanisms. Educating stakeholders about the
availability and use of environmental insurance
products further encourages redevelopment and reuse
of brownfields.
On August 5,1997, President Clinton signed the
Taxpayer Relief Act (HR 2014/PL 105-34), which
included a new tax incentive to spur the cleanup and
redevelopment of brownfields in distressed urban
and rural areas. The Brownfields Tax Incentive
builds on the momentum of the Clinton
Administration's Brownfields National Partnership
Action Agenda, announced in May 1997. The
National Partnership outlines a comprehensive
approach to the assessment, cleanup, and sustainable
reuse of brownfields, including specific
commitments from 15 federal agencies. The
Brownfields Tax Incentive will help bring thousands
of abandoned and under-used .industrial sites back
into productive use, providing the foundation for
neighborhood revitalization, job creation, and the
restoration of hope in our nation's cities and
distressed rural areas.
Each EPA Region has a Brownfields coordinator
position to oversee Brownfields pilots and initiate
other Brownfields activities. EPA continues to- be
advised and informed on environmental justice issues
relating to brownfields through the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC).
The NEJAC issued a final report, "Environmental
Justice, Urban Revitalization, and Brownfields: The
Search for Authentic Signs of Hope." The report
analyzed the findings from the public dialogues held
in June and July of 1995 on revitalization and
brownfields, and made recommendations.
Community-based recommendations from the report
are helping to shape the future course of the
Brownfields Initiative from pilot application to
determinations of future site redevelopment.
EPA is also working with the American Society
for Testing Materials (ASTM) to develop a standard
guide titled "The Process of Sustainable Brownfields
Redevelopment." The purpose of the efforts is to
identify the interrelationships between the financial,
regulatory, and community involvement aspects of
brownfields revitalization. EPA is working with
ASTM to involve environmental justice and
community representatives in workshops to develop
the standard.
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 (HMTRI) (funding is provided
through general appropriations) to expand
environmental training and curriculum development
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
to assist community colleges from Brownfields pilot
communities in developing environmental job
training programs. A workshop was held in San
Francisco, California in June 1997. To date,
HMTRI has worked with more than sixty community
colleges. 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 Services (NIEHS) are working to coordinate
minority worker training grant recipients with
brownfields pilot city activities.
1.5.2 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 provided advice on national
lead issues has been part of the Agency's
Administrative Reforms. During, 1997, efforts
continued to increase the involvement of site
managers and senior managers in their interactions
with the Lead Technical Review Workgroup.
Lead Technical Review Workgroup
The Lead Technical Review Workgroup
provides advice and recommendations on lead risk
assessment issues. This advice has included the
development of guidance documents and review of
individual risk assessments. While discussions with
individual site managers have taken place on a
regular basis, interactions with multiple site
managers to identify information needs and prioritize
activities was facilitated as a result of the formation
of the Lead Sites Workgroup (LSW), a group of site
managers that address lead issues from across
different EPA regions and Headquarters.
Coordination and information sharing were also
improved in 1997 through the exchange of
information with senior regional and headquarters
managers.
1.5.3 Radiation Program Progress
During fiscal year 1997, EPA made progress in
addressing technical complexities associated with
site assessment, risk assessment, and cleanup
technology evaluation for sites contaminated with
radionuclides. The following activity groups
included Risk Assessment, Technology Assessment,
Site Evaluation and Assistance, and Emergency
Response.
Risk Assessment
Work continued on two other documents
supporting fate and transport modeling: (1) a
technical support document on the selection of
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
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 the Multi-Agency
Radiation Laboratory Protocols Manual (MARLAP).
MARLAP will provide guidance for laboratories and
project planners 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.
Work continued on a remedial technology
selection decision support guidance for Regional
On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) 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.
Site Evaluation and Assistance
The Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA)
continued to provided technical assistance to the
Superfund program during FY97 through
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
headquarters staff and staff from both ORIA
laboratories. This assistance is given directly to
RPMs/OSCs in addressing NPL sites contaminated
with radioactive materials.
Emergency Response
EPA 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 and the Federal
Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
EPA continued working on the Radiological
Emergency Response Plan which will delineate when
a response is conducted under the National
Contingency Plan and the Federal Radiological
Emergency Response Plan. The EPA plan will also
designate which office has the lead for a particular
response activity.
1.5.4 Site Evaluation Regulation and
Guidance
EPA published the following site evaluation
guidances, regulations, and revisions pertaining to
site evaluation during FY97:
"Coordinating with the States on National Priorities
List Decisions," November 7,1996.
"Coordinating with the States on National Priorities
List Decisions" November 14, 1996. (Supersedes
November 7,1996). Outlines a process to continue
to include state input in NPL listing decisions.
"Coordinating with States on National Priorities List
Decisions Issues Resolution Process" July 25,
1997. A follow-up memorandum that describes the
process that will be employed in cases where a
Regional Office of the EPA recommends proposing
or placing a site on the NPL, but the state or tribes
opposes listing the site.
"Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed
Release and Observed Contamination," November
1996, OSWER 9285.7-14FS (Supersedes EPA July
1994).
"Cumulative Risk Assessment Guidance - Phase I
Planning and Scoping," July 1997, The practice of
risk assessment within the EPA is evolving away
from a focus on a single pollutant in one
environmental medium toward integrated
assessments involving suites of pollutants in several
media.
"Policy on the Issuance of Comfort/Status Letters"
November 1996. EPA often receives requests from
parties for some level of 'comfort' that if they
purchase, develop, or operate on brownfield
property, EPA will not pursue them for the costs to
clean up any contamination resulting from the
previous use. The majority of the concerns raised by
these parties can be addressed through the
dissemination of information known by EPA about
a specific property and an explanation of what the
information means to EPA.
"Notice of Availability of Final Draft Guidance for
Developing Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
Language Concerning State Voluntary Cleanup
Program" Federal Register (Volume 62, Number
174) September 9, 1997, EPA has been working
closely with states to develop partnerships to
encourage cleanups of non-NPL hazardous
substance-contaminated sites, such as brownfields.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Chapter 2
Emergency Response Progress
Throughout the 17-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 4,490
removal actions to address threats posed by the
release or threatened release of hazardous substances,
including 252 undertaken in FY97. During FY97,
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 1997
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 die 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
(0
c
.n
E
4,500
4,000
3,500-
3,000-
2,500-
2,000-
1,500-
1,000-
500-
0-
^
. '
^
**
*
Through FY97
l~~l PRP-Financed 1,038
CU Fund-Financed 3.452
Total 4,490
ss*
^L
^-33
m
<^-
j^T
4
.p,
^-
.*«»
1
w
*J-
^£3
i
^
^*
1
|
j>
f£Z.
PI
jji*
^^
ff
-
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Fiscal Year
i
i
.^£~
"V ^
95
1
|
fZZ
96
3.
-***:
f.
97
p
7*
Source: CERCLIS (as of September 30, 1997).
12
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
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 $2 million,
and the duration is limited to one year. Congress
established exemptions from these limitations for
specific circumstances. A removal action may
exceed the monetary and time limits if:
Continued response is required immediately to
prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency; there is
an immediate threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment; and such action cannot
otherwise be provided on a timely basis; or
Continued response action is otherwise
appropriate and consistent with the remedial
action (RA) to be taken.
2.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Progress
Since the inception of Superfund, the Agency
and PRPs have begun 4,490 removal actions at
National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL sites to
address threats to human health, welfare, or the
environment posed by releases or potential releases
of hazardous substances.
2.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress
Of the 4,490 removal actions undertaken by EPA
and PRPs under the Superfund program, 252 were
started in FY97 (see Exhibit 2.2-1). Of these 252
removal actions, PRPs financed 43 and EPA
financed 209. The removal actions started by PRPs
included 12 removal actions at NPL sites and 31
removal actions at non-NPL sites. EPA started 23
removal actions at NPL sites and 186 removal
actions at non-NPL sites. The 252 removal actions
begun by EPA and PRPs in FY97 compared to 267
started in FY96.
As shown in Exhibit 2.2-2, EPA and PRPs have
completed 3,939 removal actions under the
Superfund program, including 315 in FY97. Of the
315 removal actions completed during the fiscal year,
Exhibit 2.2-2
Cumulative Removal Action Completions
0)
o
4,000-1
3,500-
3,000-
2,500-
2,000-
1,500-
1,000-
500-
O-
f*
.^
**
^*
**
,-
,-
**
f,,
Through FY97
El PRP-Financed 894
I I Fund-Financed 3.045
Total 3,939
iS*^""?*
f=f%i
';* " "J^p*
,^A
^..-j;
^v^v_.
^
f£Z.
3
V$?
/
^
r^n
n
>
s*
^
^<
/
1
stt
jrfSS
-
f^
^
$
^
*'
1
P-
5"
**:*
«^
~
1
rfW
£
/** ""
^.
9
1
m
^
'i&*
>8S
'«?
,!(&,
-
-
,-*M
86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93
Fiscal Year
94 95 96 97
Source: CERCLIS (as of September 30,1998) and FY97 Superfund Senior Management
Reports.
13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
PRPs financed 85, including 23 at NPL sites and 62
at non-NPL sites. EPA financed 230 of the
completed removal actions, including 31 at NPL sites
and 199 at non-NPL sites. The 315 actions
completed by EPA and PRPs in FY97 compared
with 276 completed by EPA and PRPs in FY96.
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, but the
contaminants have not yet been transported to a
disposal facility are also defined as having ongoing
removals.
14
-------
Chapter 3
Remedial Progress
The Agency's progress during FY97 illustrated
its continuing commitment to accelerating and
completing cleanups at Superfund sites. The Agency
started more than 102 remedial actions (RAs) to
construct remedies, and completed construction
activities to place 88 sites in the construction
completion category. To date under the Superfund
program, the Agency has placed .a total of 498
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:
Status on all remedial actions undertaken in
FY97, as required by CERCLA Section
Remedies selected during FY97, as required by
CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(A);
FY97 results of five-year reviews under
CERCLA Section 121(c) at sites where
contamination remained after the initiation of the
RA, as required by CERCLA Section
301(h)(l)(E); and
FY97 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).
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 clean-up 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 clean-up alternatives;
The record of decision (ROD) to identify the
remedy selected, based on the results of the
RI/FS and public comment on the clean-up
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.
15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 199~j
Regional coordinators at EPA Headquarters assist
RPMs by reviewing remedial and enforcement
activities and by answering technical and policy
questions.
3.2 Fiscal Year 1997 Remedial Status
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 FY97, work had
occurred at 98 percent of the 1,405 NPL sites. In
addition, over 156 sites were deleted 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
FY97.
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 88 sites during FY97,
bringing the total number of sites in the construction
completion category to 498. More than 44 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 1,777 RI/FSs, 1,460 RDs, and 1,178
RAs since the inception of the Superfund program
through the end of the FY97.
Exhibit 3.2-1
Work Has Occurred at Over 85 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites
Proposed NPL Sites
Final NPL Sites
Subtotal
Deleted - Referred to
Another Authority
Deleted NPL Sites
Total*
53
1.196
1,249
8
148
1,405
"Includes 165 Federal Facilities
477
498
180
25
Source: CERCLIS (as of September 30, 1997).
16
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.2-2
Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program
for Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1997
1,178
Remedial Actions
1,460
Remedial Designs
1,777
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
p= c= r- r
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Number of Actions
Source: CERCLIS (as of September 30,1997).
D Fund-Financed
D PRP-Financed
The remedial activities started during FY97
reflect the Agency's continued emphasis on
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 41
RI/FSs during FY97, including 23 (56 percent)
financed by EPA and 18 (44 percent) financed by
PRPs. For comparison, in FY96 the Agency or PRPs
started 36 RI/FSs, including 26 (72 percent) financed
by EPA and 10 (28 percent) financed by PRPs.
RD Starts: The Agency or PRPs started 72 RDs
during FY97, including 22 (31 percent) financed by
EPA and 50 (69 percent) financed by PRPs. For
comparison, in FY96 the Agency or PRPs started 74
RDs, including 20 (27 percent) financed by EPA and
54 (73 percent) financed by PRPs.
RA Starts: The Agency or PRPs started 102 RAs
during FY97. EPA financed 32 (31 percent) "and
PRPs financed 70 (69 percent). For comparison, in
FY96, the Agency or PRPs started approximately
116 RAs, including 34 (29 percent) financed by EPA
and 82 (71 percent) financed by PRPs.
3.2.3 in Progress Remedial Activities
At the end of FY97, 1,793 RI/FS, RA, and RD
projects were in progress at 815 sites. For
comparison, 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 FY97 included
1,494 RI/FS and RA projects and 299 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 FY 97 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 FY97 is provided in Appendix B.
Of the 1,494 RI/FS and RA projects in progress
at the end of FY97, 55 percent were on schedule,
ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal year, or
had no previously published completion schedule,
17
-------
Progre
Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Exhibit 3.2-3
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites
by Lead for Fiscal Year 1996 and Fiscal Year 1997
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
FY96 FY97
20 .. 24
136 138
8 8
' 161 126
3 3
22 23
2 2
450 484
802 808
RDs
FY96 FY97
20 15
77 80
0 0
192 144
0 1
11 13
1 0
69 46
370 299
RAs
FY96 FY97
37 43
110 137
2 3
268 295
6 13
29 29
0 0
142 166
594 686
1 Includes remedial program-lead projects and enforcement program-lead projects.
2 Projects at which EPA employees, rather than contractors, perform the site cleanup work.
3 Projects where site cleanup work is financed and performed by the PRPs under state order, with EPA
oversight, . ______ - '
Sources: CERCLIS (as of September 30, 1997); Progress Toward Implementing Superfund Fiscal Year
1996.
and 45 percent were behind schedule. These projects
include 211 on schedule, 30 ahead of schedule, 299
started during the fiscal year, 279 that had no
previously published completion schedule, and 675
that were behind schedule. Exhibit 3.2-3 compares
the number of projects in progress at NPL sites at the
end of FY97 with the number in progress at the end
ofFY96,bylead.
PRPs were conducting 421 of the RI/FS and RA
projects in progress at the end of FY97, including
126 RI/FSs and 295 RAs. Of these 421
PRP-financed projects, 49 percent were on schedule,
ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal year, or
had no previously published completion schedule,
and 51 percent were behind schedule. Projects
include 58 on schedule, 4 ahead of schedule, 85
started during the fiscal year, 60 that had no
previously published completion schedule, and 214
that were behind schedule.
3.3 Remedial Selection
The Agency signed 168 RODs in FY97,
including 43 new and amended RODs for
PRP-financed sites, 34 RODs for Fund-financed
sites, and 91 RODs for federal facility sites. For
comparison, in FY96, 156 RODs were signed,
including 44 new and amended RODs for PRP-
financed sites, 31 RODs for Fund-financed sites, and
81 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
FY97 RODs, based on a careful analysis of
18
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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.
To fulfill the statutory requirement of CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l)(A) to provide an abstract of each
feasibility study (i.e., ROD), the National
Technology Information Service (NTIS) can provide
requested RODs. Appendix C provides detailed
information on how to make these ROD requests.
3.4 Facilities Subject to Review
Under CERCLA Section 121 (c)
Certain remedies, such as containment remedies,
allow hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants to remain on site if they do not pose a
threat to human health or the environment.
CERCLA Section 121(c), as amended by SARA,
requires that any post-SARA remedial action that
results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site be reviewed at
least every five years after the initiation of such
remedial action. Such reviews assure that human
health and the environment are being protected by
the selected remedial action. 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.
FY97 was the seventh year in which sites were
eligible for five-year review. Headquarters data
indicated that a total of 105 sites required five-year
reviews in FY97. A total of 76 five-year reviews
were completed in FY97, as illustrated in Exhibit
3.4-1. Thirty-two of the 76 reviews were due in prior
fiscal years. Seventeen reviews were completed
early and were due in later fiscal years. Headquarters
data initially suggested that four of the reviews were
not required. However, the Regions identified these
sites as requiring reviews and submitted reports.
Of the 76 sites that were reviewed during FY97,
62 required statutory reviews and 14 required policy
reviews. EPA determined that the remedies continue
to protect human health and the environment at 72 of
the 76 sites. Ongoing remedies are included among
those considered protective. For the four remaining
sites, the review reports either did not make a
protectiveness determination or stated that remedies
do not currently protect human health and the
environment. These four sites are addressed below:
1) The Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill stated that the
state ranking of the site with the designation of D
indicates protectiveness in accordance with state
regulations.
2) The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), White
Phosporus Dump Zone (WPDZ) report stated:
"Institutional controls in place at APG restrict
trespass of any kind. As the access controls have
been in existence for approximately eighty years, the
risk posed from human exposure remain low."
19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
3) The Enterprise Avenue Landfill report determined
that the site is not protective of human health and the
environment since post-deletion investigations
discovered contaminated soils and contaminated
shallow groundwater aquifers that put a deeper, sole-
source aquifer at risk. The EPA and the City of
Philadelphia are taking steps to make the remedy
protective.
4) The Saegertown Industrial Area report deemed
operable unit 1 not protective of human health and
the environment, but stated that operable unit 2 is
protective. The report noted that data being
generated by new monitoring wells will be evaluated
to determine if the selected remedy at operable unit
1 should be modified due to contamination west of
French Creek.
Exhibit 3.4-1
Sites at Which Five-Year Reviews
Region
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
NH
MA
NH
CT
ME
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
PR
NJ
MD
PA
VA
PA
PA
VA
DE
PA
'WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
PA
VA
Site Name
Auburn Road Landfill (2nd review) '
Hansoom Field/Hanscom Air Force Base *
Keefe Environmental Services (2nd review) 2
Kelldgg-Deering Well Field (2nd review) 2
Winthrop Landfill (2nd review) 2
Bog Creek Farm 3
Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision 3
Katonah Municipal Well 3
Lipari Landfill 3
Old Bethpage Landfill 3
Sinclair Refinery '
South Brunswick Landfill 3
Upjohn Facility 3
White Chemical Corp. 3
Aberdeen Proving Ground T WPDZ2
Ambler Asbestos Piles '
Avtex Fibers Inc. 3
Bendix Flight Systems Division 2
Brown's Battery Breaking '
Defense General Supply Center 2
Dover Air Force Base '
Enterprise Avenue *
Fike Chemical 3
Havertown PCP Site 3
Heleva Landfill (2nd review) 2
Hranica Landfill 2
ndustrial Lane 2
Publicker Industries *
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump 3
Saegertown Industrial Area 2
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds 3
Review Date
9/29/97
9/1 5/97
9/29/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/26/97
9/26/97
9/30/97
9/3/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/17/97
11/18/96
9/30/97
7/11/97
5/27/97
11/18/96
7/23/97
9/8/97
9/29/97
7/24/97
7/14/97
TO/28/96
7/3/97
8/26/97
4/1 6/97
6/10/97
10/2/96
9/12/97
8/6/97
9/30/97
Type
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
20
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Region
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 .
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
10
10
10
State
TN
TN
IMC
KY
IL
OH
MN
O.H
OH
Wl
Ml
IN
MN
Wl
Ml
IL
OH
Ml
IN
MN
Ml
IL
Wl
AR
NM .
KS
IA
MO
NE
KS
IA
MO .
MO
CO
UT
UT
UT
CA '
CA
WA
OR
WA
Site Name
Amnicola Dump 2
Lewisburg Dump 1
Martin Marietta-Sodyeco Inc. 3
Newport Dump (2nd review) 2
Acme Solvent Reclaiming Inc. (Morristown Road) 2
Alsco Anaconda 1
Arrowhead Refinery Co. 3
Bower's Landfill 3
E.H. Schilling Landfill 2
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field 3
Forest Waste Products 3
Main Street Well Field 2
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill '
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co. Inc. 3
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical 3
Outboard Marine Corp./Johnson 3
Pristine Inc. 3
Rose Township Dump 1
Seymour Recycling Corp 3
University of Minnesota 7
Velsicol Chemical Mich 4
Wauconda Sand & Gravel Co. 3
Wheeler Pit '
Mid-South Wood Products 3
' United Nuclear Corp. 3
Arkansas City Dump 3
E.I. DuPont Nemours (County Road X23) '
Fulbright Landfill 3
Hastings Groundwater Contamination 2
Johns' Sludge Pond (2nd review) 3
.Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. '
Solid State Circuits 2
Syntex Facility-Verona 3
Chemical Sales Co. OU1 .{2nd review) '
Monticello Mill Tailings (DOE) '
Monticello Radioactivity Contaminated Properties 3
Rose Park Sludge Pit (2nd review) '
Micro Storage/Intel Magnetics '
Synertek (Building #1 ) '
Fort Lewis Logistic Center (Includes Landfill #4) 1
Gould Inc. 1
Lakewood Site 1
Review Date
9/30/97
9/26/97
10/30/96
9/23/97
9/30/97
6/23/97
9/30/97
7/23/97
9/29/97
9/29/97
3/28/97
9/30/97
9/16/97
9/29/97
8/13/97
9/30/97
5/28/97
7/18/97
3/27/97
6/6/97
8/27/97
5/30/97
4/8/97
6/16/97
6/30/97
8/22/97
6/19/97
12/9/96
5/27/97
5/6/97
6/25/97
12/12/96
9/30/97
9/29/97
2/13/97
2/13/97
8/5/97
10/31/96
10/31/96
9/30/97
9/26/97
9/24/97
Type
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
Policy
Policy
Statutory
Statutory
Policy
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 7997
Region
10
10
10
State
WA
ID
WA
Site Name
Northside Landfill '
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co. 3
Silver Mountain Mine 1
Review Date
9/19/97
9/25/97
7/16/97
Type
Statutory
Statutory
Statutory
1} Due in FY97; 2) Early - due after FY97; 3) Late - due prior to FY97; 4) Review Not Previously Required.
Source: Five-Year Review Program Implementation and Management System (November 20, 1998).
3.5 Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program
The SITE program, which completed its 12th
year in FY97, was established in direct response to
legislative mandate under the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The
program is considered the pioneer and model
program for demonstrating and evaluating full-scale,
viable, innovative treatment technologies at
hazardous waste sites.
In response to a comprehensive program review,
in FY96 the SITE program shifted from a
technology-driven focus to a more integrated
approach driven by the needs of the waste
remediation community. The new goals of the
program are to interact with the user community,
understand its needs, integrate those needs with
EPA's research mission, and expeditiously address
those needs.
The next generation of SITE can be defined by
the following operating principles.
Matching the site needs with innovative
technology solutions: Sites will be solicited and
prioritized based on (1) the demonstration needs of
the user, and (2) the research focus areas identified
by EPA (such as groundwater treatment, in situ
treatment, and metals in soil treatment).
Conducting technology field demonstrations:
SITE will rapidly conduct field demonstrations of
high technical quality to verify performance of
remediation technologies. The resulting data and
reports are intended for use by site owners and
government decision-makers in selecting remediation
options. The data reports add credibility to
technology vendors for promoting their processes.
Information transfer: Information transfer
activities ensure that valuable technical information
is disseminated to increase awareness and promote
products evaluated under the program for use at site
cleanups. Information transfer activities consist of
technical networking, publications, electronic
distribution, Internet, and conference exhibits.
Program quality planning: Overall program
direction and strategies will be evaluated each year
based on responses from the user community.
Information gathered through networking with the
user community will be incorporated into the
program planning process.
Exhibit 3.5-1 displays three of the four
components of the program with the number of FY97
accomplishments. These components include the
demonstration program, emerging technology
program, and the characterization and monitoring
program. The fourth component, technology
transfer, involves publication and distribution of
SITE program results.
Exhibit 3.5-1
FY97 SITE Program Accomplishments
Demonstration Program
Emerging Technology
Program
Characterization and
Monitoring Program
FY97
Projects
9
7
6
Cumulative
Projects
95
66
37
Source: Technology Innovation Office.
22
-------
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.
FY97 accomplishments illustrate the continuing
success of EPA's Superfund enforcement efforts.
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 under CERCLA, and seeks to
initiate negotiations aimed at an agreement with the
PRPs 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 then
take over the site, and conduct the cleanup itself
using Superfund monies. The Agency later may
pursue PRPs to recover costs incurred. These steps
are important 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 form of a judicial
consent decree (CD) that is lodged by the
Department of Justice (DOJ). For other types of
response actions, the agreement will usually be
in the form of an administrative order on consent
(AOC) negotiated and signed by the EPA. Both
agreements are enforceable in a court of law.
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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 DOT 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. The Agency can then seek cost recovery
and treble damages. Where the PRP notifies
EPA in writing of its intent to comply with a
, UAO, EPA considers the PRP in compliance,
and may allow them to perform the cleanup.
Although UAOs in compliance are technically
not legal settlements, they are counted as such
programmatically because they result in PRPs
performing cleanup 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 1997 Superfund
Enforcement Progress
FY97 progress reflects the continuing success of
Superfund enforcement efforts in securing PRP
participation in Superfund cleanup and recovering
Trust Fund monies expended by EPA in its response
efforts.
Exhibit 4.2-1
Cumulative Value of Response Settlements
Reached With Potentially Responsible Parties
Cleanup Design and Through FY97
Construction (RD/RA) $8.98 Billion
F~l Other Response Actions S3.37 Billion
Total Response Settlements $ia.3S Billion
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Source: CERCLIS (as of September 30,1997).
24
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
4.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities
During FY97, the Agency reached 164
settlements (CDs, AOCs, CAs, or UAOs in
compliance) with PRPs for response activities worth
over $451 million. As shown in Exhibit 4.2-1, the
cumulative value of PRP response settlements
achieved under the Superfund program is almost
$ 12.35 billion.
Of the 164 response settlements achieved in
FY97,59 settlements worth over $335 million were
for RD/RA. These RD/RA settlements included 33
CDs referred to DOJ, 16 AOCs and consent
agreements, and 10 UAOs in compliance. These
RD/RA settlements include 47 RD/RA negotiations
started and 46 RD/RA negotiations completed by
EPA during the fiscal year.
In FY97, the Agency signed a total of 171
administrative orders on consent, and issued 67
unilateral administrative orders. The UAOs issued
and the AOCs signed include agreements for removal
actions, RD/RAs, RDs, and RI/FSs.
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 FY97, PRPs continued to finance and conduct
a high percentage of the remedial work undertaken at
Superfund sites: 70 percent of new RAs and 68
percent of new RDs.
4.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements
EPA and DOJ achieved 197 cost recovery
settlements worth nearly $158 million. These
included addressing past costs, valued at $200,000 or
more, at 191 sites. The cost recovery program has
Exhibit 4.2-2
Percentage of Remedial Designs
and Remedial Actions Started by PRPs
FY90
Remedial
Design Starts
FY92
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
Remedial
Action Starts
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Source: Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance.
25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
S
o
u
V
DC
M
CO
o
O
o
Q
D
S
a
Exhibit 4.2-3
Cumulative Value of Cost Recovery Dollars Achieved and Collected
4,000
88
89
90
91 92 93
Fiscal Year
94
95
96
97
Source: Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance.
achieved nearly $2.2 billion in cost recovery
settlements since the inception of Superfund. Exhibit
4.2-3 illustrates cost recovery settlements achieved
and collected to date.
EPA collected over $316 million from cost
recovery settlements, bankruptcy settlements, and
fines and penalties during the fiscal year for a total of
$1,756 million collected by EPA to date.
4.3 Enforcement Initiatives
During FY97, EPA continued to build upon
prior administrative reform successes. Currently,
more than 70 percent of long-term cleanup actions
are financed by potentially responsible parties
(PRPs). The enforcement reforms are designed to
make Superfund a fairer program, while reducing
transaction costs to promote effective and efficient
settlements.
Fairness. Continuing to ensure fairness in
enforcement was the primary objective of the reforms
and activities undertaken in FY97. EPA's Office of
Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) continued to
implement, evaluate, and learn from Administrative
Reforms that were initiated in prior fiscal years. First,
EPA issued "Addendum to the 'Interim CERCLA
Settlement Policy' Issued on December 5, 1994,"
which expanded the orphan share reform by allowing
for compromise of past costs to offset potential
orphan share at a site. Second, the Unilateral
Administrative Orders (UAOs) Reform has been
expanded over the fiscal year by expanding
documentation requirements for non-issuance of
UAOs by EPA staff. Third, de micromis parties will
be protected through the use of special waivers
written into settlement agreements. Fourth, nine
Superfund sites are allocation process pilots to
facilitate settlements between PRPs and the EPA.
Fifth, a policy on comfort/status letters was issued to
provide an administrative tool for facilitating
Brownfield redevelopment projects. Sixth, EPA
established an undue financial hardship standard to
determine a PRP's ability to pay (ATP) cleanup
costs. Seventh, an interim policy was issued on
26
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
settlement penalty and punitive damage claims for
noncompliance with administrative orders. Finally,
an interpretive policy statement was issued for the
Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit
Insurance Protection Act of 1996.
Reducing Transaction Costs. During FY97,
EPA continued to focus on identifying and
implementing procedures for reducing the time and
costs associated with Superfund enforcement. First,
EPA continued to update its guidances on special
accounts. Second, EPA developed a national work
group to improve oversite administration with
prompt and accurate billings at Superfund sites.
These enforcement initiatives are described in more
detail below.
4.3.1 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 the past, many incentives have been
provided to help PRPs settle claims and cleanup
contaminated sites. This reform continues to follow
the 1996 Interim Guidance which examined
alternative means of orphan share compensation. In
FY97, the "Addendum to the 'Interim CERCLA
Settlement Policy' Issued on Decembers, 1994" was
enacted to supplement 'Interim CERCLA Settlement
Policy' Issued on December 5,1994" was enacted to
supplement the reform.
The guidance establishes factors addressing
potential compromises of CERCLA cost recovery
claims based on the existence of a significant orphan
share. The size of the orphan share, the PRP's
cooperation with the government and other PRPs,
and the fairness to all parties must be considered to
compromise a claim. An orphan share may be
considered as an "inequity" or an "aggravating
factor" at sites with an insolvent or defunct party.
Regions will continue to use the "Interim CERCLA
Settlement Policy" when cost recovery settlements
are less than 100 percent of the response.
In FY97, EPA offered to compromise orphan
shares worth over $53 million to parties who agreed
to conduct cleanup at 20 Superfund sites. The range
of compensation was $38,524 to $15 million with an
average of $2.5 million per site.
EPA actions at the Operating Industries, Inc.
Landfill in Monterey Park, California demonstrate
the Agency's commitment to offering orphan share
compensation. The EPA offered $15 million to 270
PRPs in orphan share compensation associated with
this site. The total cost of the cleanup was estimated
at $217 million.
4.3.2 Equitable Issuance of Unilateral
Administrative Orders
It has 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. In FY97,
EPA continued to implement its reforms regarding
the issuance of UAOs. To ensure that UAOs are
implemented fairly and equitably, EPA issued
documentation requirements for regional
enforcement staff. These requirements explain why
; certain PRPs are not issued a unilateral order. In
FY97, two-thirds of UAOs (40 of 60) excluded
certain PRPs, however, most of these parties were
excluded for reasons consistent with existing policy.
EPA actions at the Spelter Smelter Site in
Spelter, West Virginia, demonstrate the Agency's
commitment in identifying UAO parties in a fair and
equitable manner. In EPA Region 3, two parties were
issued a UAO, however, three parties were excluded
due to financial hardship. Consistent with the new
reform, the Region documented specific reasons why
these parties were omitted from the UAO.
4.3.3 Revised De Micromis Guidance
For contributors of extremely small volumes of
waste ("de micromis parties") at Superfund sites,
transaction costs may exceed a party's proportional
share of response costs. In June 1996, EPA issued
the "Revised Guidance on CERCLA Settlements
with de Micromis Waste Contributors," modifying
and superseding the 1993 guidance on de micromis
settlements. The revised policy and associated model
settlement documents are designed to discourage
third party contribution litigation against de micromis
27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
parties and, where necessary, improve EPA's ability
to resolve their liability concerns quickly and fairly.
In FY97, EPA announced its plans to protect de
micromis parties from large party contributors
through the use of waivers in settlement agreements.
In FY97, EPA succeeded in reducing Superfund
liability for de micromis parties. In 40 percent of
RD/RA consent decrees executed in FY97,
defendants waived claims against de micromis
parties. 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 Cherokee Oil
Resources Site in Charlotte, North Carolina, EPA
entered into settlements with over 200 small volume
contributors. In addition to these settlements, major
contributors waived their rights to pursue over 1000
de micromis parties.
4.3.4 Allocation Pilots ~
In 1995, EPA originated pilots to help achieve
allocation costs between parties under Superfund.
Under the Pilots, a neutral allocator prepares an
allocation report that assigns responsibility to each
party involved at a site; parties may settle on their
allocated share with the EPA. EPA is responsible for
100 percent of the orphan share, which consists of
the snares of allocation parties who are insolvent or
defunct.
During FY97, twelve allocation pilots were
offered; three pilots declined from the allocation
process because settlement was possible outside of
the allocation process. The.nine remaining pilots are
at various stages of the allocation process.
4.3.5 Site-Specific 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. In FY96, the 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 benefits parties who enter
into settlements with the EPA at Superfund sites
because settlement payments designated for future
work will now both earn and retain interest, m FY97,
EPA updated and supplemented its special accounts
guidance with additional documentation
requirements to make it easier for Regional Finance
Offices to more accurately apply special account
monies to past and future response costs. EPA plans
to develop a financial guidance to supplement the
FY96 and FY97 program guidances. A guidance is
also planned on how to disburse special account
funds to parties conducting cleanup at Superfund
sites.
In FY97, Regions established 34 special
accounts with an aggregate balance of approximately
$75 million. As of the end of FY97, EPA had opened
a total of 93 accounts with an aggregate balance of
$405 million, including $353 million in principal and
$52 million in interest. The following examples
illustrate the success of this reform in making site-
specific accounts available for response actions at
Superfund sites:
Cherokee County Superfund Site in Kansas.
$2.25 million in special account funds will be
used to conduct future cleanup work at this site,
which entails groundwater and surface water
remediation, soil cleanup, and public water
supplies.
Jasper County Superfund Site in Missouri.
$5.9 million in special account funds will be
used to conduct future cleanup work at this site,
which may entail public water supplies and/or
individual water treatment units, surface water
remediation, and engineering controls.
4.3.6 Improving PRP Oversight
Administration
As the Superfund program has matured, parties
developed substantial expertise in performing
cleanup activities. Many of these parties perform
high quality cleanups and work closely and
cooperatively with EPA. On July 31,1996, EPA
issued a policy memorandum entitled "Reducing
Federal Oversight at Superfund Sites with
Cooperative and Capable Parties." The
memorandum set guidelines for determining PRP
cooperativeness and capability, which are extremely
28
-------
FiscalYear1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
important factors in determining whether to reduce
EPA cleanup oversight. EPA may reduce federal
oversight of remedial and non-time-critical removal
actions performed by PRPs at Superfund and non-
Superfund sites if guidelines are met.
In FY97, a national work group was established
to encourage Regions to improve oversight
administration at sites having capable and.
cooperative PRPs. The goal of the work group was to
establish and improve working relationships with
PRPs. The work group identified NPL sites with
capable and cooperative PRPs, and notified them of
EPA's proposal for improving oversight
administration.
4.3.7 Issuance of Comfort/Status Letters
Currently, the EPA is implementing its
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative,
which is designed to promote the reuse of
undeveloped, abandoned, industrial or commercial
facilities that are complicated by environmental
contamination. Comfort/status letters are intended to
provide EPA with an administrative tool that can be
used to remove the specter of future liability from
Brownfield redevelopment projects. These letters
offer a measure of "comfort" with respect to the
potential for federal cleanup liability under
CERCLA. Comfort/status letters allow parties with
an interest in a property to make an informed
decision regarding the likelihood of federal cleanup
action.
Sample comfort/status letters have been
developed for sites not listed in active CERCLIS
records, sites in the Superfund pre-remedial
evaluation process, sites with possible federal
interest, and sites where states are overseeing cleanup
under state authority.
4.3.8 Ability to Pay Determinations
The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE) developed a policy to help determine a
party's acceptable ability to pay in Superfund cases.
The policy consists of two phases: the "balance
sheet phase" and the "income and cash flow
statement phase." These phases have been combined
into a financial hardship standard to determine a
PRP's ability to pay Superfund cleanup costs. The
standard is intended to expedite settlement with
parties that have a limited ability to pay, thereby
reducing their transaction costs in a fair manner. In
FY97, ability to pay settlements were established for
19 settlements.
Ability to pay (ATP) settlements focus on the
interest accruing on Superfund trust fund monies and
on the PRPs financial well being. Settlements cannot
cause undue financial hardship to individuals
dependent on a PRP.
EPA has established seven criteria that must be
met in order for a claim of undue financial hardship
to be considered:
The PRP has demonstrated that paying the full
cost of cleanup will cause financial hardship;
The ATP candidate cannot be discharged from
site-related responsibilities;
The candidate must request an ATP settlement
from the EPA;
An ATP analysis must be performed to
determine a party's financial well-being;
Each person involved in an ATP settlement must
be defined under CERCLA;
The settlement should require that the ATP
candidate recover all expenses associated with
the site (i.e., insurance recoveries); and,
The settlement should resolve all of the ATP
candidate's liability expenses for response costs
at the site.
4.3.9 Penalty and Punitive Damage Claims
for Noncompliance with
Administrative Orders
In FY97, EPA issued an interim policy on
settlement penalty and punitive damage claims for
noncompliance with administrative orders. Under
CERCLA sections 106 (b)(l) and 107 (c)(3), civil
penalties may be assessed when EPA enforces an
administrative order. Punitive damages may also be
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
assessed when Superfund monies have been spent as
a result of noncompliance with an administrative
order. The goal of this policy is to help the Agency
gain experience with administrative order
compliance.
EPA created a penalty calculation that
incorporates harm, and equitable adjustment factors
from a "harm recalcitrance" matrix. Unlike existing.
policy, the degree of responsibility is incorporated
into the matrix by analyzing the PRPs involvement at
a site and their ability to finance an administrative
order. The penalty calculation and its supporting
matrix provide substantial incentive for historically
recalcitrant PRPs to comply with UAOs.
4.3.10 Lender and Fiduciary Liability
Amendments
The Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and
Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 1996 was
enacted in FY97. The act includes lender and
fiduciary liability amendments, amendments to the
creditor exemption in Subtitle I of RCRA, and
validates the portion of EPA's "CERCLA Lender
Liability Rule" that addresses involuntary
acquisitions by the government. EPA issued an
interpretative policy statement on CERCLA
provisions to guide implementation. Under this
policy, the amendments define key terms and list
activities that a lender may undertake without
forfeiting the exemption. This act also amends the
section of RCRA (9003 (h)(9)) that provides a
secured creditor exemption pertaining to
underground storage tanks (USTs).
4.3.11 Successful Enforcement
Accomplishments
Highlights of nine selected FY97
accomplishments throughout the enforcement
program are summarized in Exhibit 4.3-1.
30
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.3-1
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments
Davis Liquid Waste
Rhode Island (Region 1)
Settlement: Consent Decree (CD06) for PRP lead
RD/ RA at Operable Unit 3, and cost recovery for
RD/RA at Operable Unit 1 lodged on November 26,
1996 at the Federal District Court.
Estimated Value: $32,100,000
EPA reached a Consent Decree with 54 settling
parties to perform remedial activities at the Davis
Liquid Waste site in Smithfield, Rhode Island. The
Consent Decree was lodged with the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island in
November of 1996. Remedial Action costs were
estimated at $32,100,000.
The site was a disposal facility for hazardous
substances including paint and metal sludges, oily
wastes, solvents, acids, caustic pesticides, phenols,
halogens, metals, fly ash, and laboratory
Pharmaceuticals. Wastes that contaminated the
soil, surface water, and groundwater included
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), organics,
inorganics, metals, arsenic, benzene,
trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1-DCE. In 1977, this
hazardous waste disposal site was closed by court
order. In August of 1982, EPA awarded a
$336,182 Cooperative Agreement to Rhode Island
for a remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) to determine the extent of the contamination
and to identify alternatives for remedial action.
From 1985 to 1986, a removal action shipped 600
drums off site to an approved disposal facility. The
final cleanup remedy entails excavating 25,000
cubic yards of raw waste and contaminated soils for
on-site treatment using thermal desorption, and
treating on-site groundwater. In March 1997, the
settling parties began to perform the work described
in the Consent Decree.
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Barceloneta Landfill
Puerto Rico (Region 2)
Settlement: Consent Decree (CD01) for PRP lead
RD/RA and cost recovery for combined RI/FS at
Operable Unit 1 was referred on September 30,
1997.
Estimated Value: $ 11,830,485
The EPA reached a Consent Decree on September
30, 1997, for remedial activities at the Barceloneta
Landfill. Remedial Action costs were estimated at
$11,830,485.
Various heavy metal and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in sludges have been identified from
sampling at this site. There is also toluene in the
surface water and heavy metals in the water runoff.
In 1983, EPA sent notice letters to potentially
responsible parties. In 1988, an extensive study
began on the pollution problems at this site. An
Administrative Order on Consent was signed in
September of 1990 by parties who agreed to
complete the site remediation. A site investigation
and the Feasibility Study were completed in March
and September of 1995, respectively. On December
27, 1995, EPA issued a Proposed Plan which
described an alternative to capping the landfill. To
discuss this alternative, a public meeting was held
on January 18, 1996. A Record of Decision (ROD)
was signed in June 1996 requiring the capping of
three disposal areas with a low permeability cover
system. On September 30, 1997, a Consent Decree
(CD01) for RD/RA was signed.
Paoli Rail Yard
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: Consent Decree (CD06) for PRP lead
RD/RA at Operable Unit 2 and cost recovery for
.remedial community relations and a preliminary
assessment were lodged on July 28, 1997 at the
Federal District Court.
Estimated Value: $21,150,000
Amtrak, Conrail, and SEPTA are conducting cleanup
activities at the Paoli Rail Yard in Chester County,
Pennsylvania. The estimated cost of cleanup is
$21,150,000. This site consists of an electronic
train repair facility and a commuter rail station.
Samples taken from the site in 1984 indicated a
severe PCS problem.
In July 1992, EPA signed a final Record of Decision
(ROD) requiring excavation and treatment of soil
from the rail yard, nearby residential areas/ and
contaminated stream sediments. EPA issued an
order to conduct the cleanup of residential soils and
stream sediments on September 30, 1996. The
PRPs signed an action order to conduct Remedial
Design on April 17, 1997. The CD for Remedial
Action was lodged, but has not yet been entered.
Currently, EPA is planning to redevelop this site after
cleanup activities are complete.
32
-------
Fiscal Year 7997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
Virginia (Region 3)
Settlement: Consent Decree (CD02) was lodged
May 15, 1997 for PRP lead RD/RA at Operable Unit
3, and combined RI/FS and remedial community
relations at Operable Unit 1 at the Federal District
Court.
Estimated Value: $36,379,000
EPA reached a Consent Decree with a major PRP,
the Olin Corporation, to perform remedial activities
at the Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds in Saltville,
Virginia. The clean-up remedies' include modifying
the on-site treatment plant, collecting groundwater,
and long-term monitoring. The estimated value of
this Remedial Action is $36,379,000.
Mercury-contaminated wastewater and process
waste from soda ash manufacturing had been
disposed in two large ponds near the facility. A
preliminary investigation called for surface water
diversions, the construction of a treatment plant,
and future investigations. In June 1987, EPA issued
a ROD which documented interim measures at this
site to address immediate threats. The treatment
plant was completed in the summer of 1994. In
the fall of 1995, a remedy was selected to cap 75
acres of the site, install groundwater interceptor
trenches, and treat the groundwater. EPA also took
prompt action on off-site concerns. Two
Administrative Orders on Consent were established
with Olin and the EPA to address environmental
concerns. At Operable Unit 1, the treatment plant
continues to remove mercury from Pond 5
groundwater. At Operable Unit 3, additional
sampling was conducted to produce a Focused
Feasibility Study to evaluate alternatives for clean-
up. The work completed by Olin saved the trust
fund $1,500,000.
Union Carbide Corp.
Ohio (Region 5)
Settlement: Administrative Order fay the EPA signed
on March 4, 1997, for PRP Removal at Operable
Unit 1, and cost recovery for PRP Removal.
Estimated Value: $50,115,000
At the Union Carbide Corporation site in Ohio
cleanup activities are being conducted under an
Administrative Order signed on March 4, 1997. The
estimated cost of cleanup is $50,115,000.
The main contaminates at this active landfill are
dioxin and VOCs. Under Operable Unit 1, the sole
PRP, Union Carbide Corporation, is excavating
contaminated soil and placing it in a regulated onsite
facility. Treatment systems are also being installed
at the site for ground water remediation. Future
cleanup involves capping two or three areas of the
landfill. An eight month plan for soil cleanup, quality
assurance and groundwater design, and a soil vapor
extraction system were also developed throughout
fiscal year 1997.
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Marco of lota
Louisiana (Region 6)
Settlement: Administrative Order (03) was signed
on September 9, 1997, by the EPA, for removal
action cost recovery.
Estimated Value: $728,939
EPA reached an administrative cost recovery
settlement with 193 parties including de micromis
parties, de minimis parties, and other parties at the
Marco of lota site in lota, Louisiana.
This facility was closed in February 1992 when EPA
determined that it was operating as an unpermitted
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
site. Contaminants included acids, arsenic, white
phosphorus, flammable liquids, flammable gases,
and corrosives. The Region packaged, transported,
and disposed of the wastes because of the
immediate threat of the hazardous substances. An
Administrative Order was issued to resolve the
liabilities of the PRPs. The total value of the
settlement was estimated at $728,939.
Hayford Bridge Road Groundwater Site
Montana (Region 8)
Settlement: Administrative Order (04) by EPA on
September 23, 1997 for a PRP fund lead RA at
Operable Unit 1.
Estimated Value: $243,000
EPA reached a de minimis settlement with 22 PRPs
for PRP fund lead Remedial Action at the Hayford
Bridge Road Groundwater site in Charles, Montana.
Until 1973, the Findett Company, recycled PCBs,
oil, and chlorinated solvents. In 1973, they
converted the business to a custom chemical
manufacturer. PCBs, oils, and chlorinated solvents
have contaminated on-site soils, adjacent property
soils, and the groundwater. In 1988, EPA issued a
Record of Decision (ROD) that selected a ground
water pump and treat remedy. Remediation of the
on-site contamination is now being implemented.
Bioremediation will also occur. The contaminated
soils on adjacent properties will be handled in the
future as a Removal Action.
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
California (Region 9)
Settlement: Administrative Order (04) 'on September
17, 1997 for Remedial Design cost recovery at
Operable Unit 1.
Estimated Value: $1,042,297
EPA reached a de minimis settlement with 80 PRPs
for cost recovery for Remedial Design pertaining to
the Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co. located in San Jose,
California.
The site was used as a drum recycling operation.
Several investigations indicated heavy metals,
organics, and PCBs in the soil and groundwater. A
Consent Decree was signed in 1990 with 11 PRPs
to design, construct, and operate a groundwater
treatment system. In 1992, seven PRPs signed an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to remove
contaminated buildings, sumps, drums, debris, and
asbestos waste from the site. In 1996, the
remaining building debris and contaminated soil was
moved to a regulated off-site facility. On September
17, 1997, an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) was issued to recover EPA and State past
costs from the settling parties.
34
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Montrose Chemical Corp.
California (Region 9)
Settlement: Consent Decree (CD02) lodged on
March 25, 1997 in the Federal District Court for
cost recovery for RD/RA, combined RI/FS and
removal activities.
Estimated Value: $21,860,000
EPA reached a Consent Decree with the U.S.
Department of Justice, state and federal natural
resources trustees, and 155 municipalities to resolve
liability at the Palos Verdes Shelf, a section of the
Montrose Chemical Corp. site in Torrance,
California. The Consent Decree was lodged in the
Federal District Court on March 25, 1997. Remedial
action costs are estimated at $21,860,000.
The Montrose Chemical Corporation was a facility
that manufactured the pesticide DDT from 1947
until 1982. The wastewater from the DDT
production discharged into the Los Angeles sewer
system that empties into the Pacific Ocean. Wastes
that contaminated and affected the nearby aquifers,
wells, sewer systems, and soils included DDT,
monochlorobenzene (MCB), and VOCs. In 1983, an
Administrative Order was issued to study the nature
and extent of contamination. These studies were
expanded under additional orders in 1985, 1987,
and 1989. A joint feasibility study is being
conducted with the adjacent Del Amo facility to
construct a remedy for cleaning up the groundwater
contamination at both sites. On March 25, 1997, a
Consent Decree was lodged to resolve the liability of
settling parties with respect to natural resource
damages at the Palos Verdes Shelf and response
costs associated with the Montrose site. The
Consent Decree also provides the parties with
contribution protection. In late 1997, the
groundwater remedy was chosen. EPA also expects
to propose a cleanup action for the Palos Verdes
Shelf. Interim measures and a long-term remedial
phase are the focus of cleaning up the Montrose
Chemical Corp. site.
35
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
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. To ensure federal
facility compliance with CERCLA requirements,
EPA provides technical advice and assistance and
may take enforcement action when appropriate.
In addition to CERCLA, there is a range of
.authority and enforcement tools under state statutes
that apply to non-NPL federal facility sites. Indian
tribes also may be involved in federal agency
compliance with environmental regulations when
acting as either lead or support agencies for
Superfund response actions.
5.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities
Under CERCLA - .
Federal departments and agencies are responsible
for identifying and addressing hazardous waste sites
at the facilities that they own or operate. They are
required under CERCLA to comply with all
provisions of federal environmental statutes and
regulations and all applicable state and local
requirements during site cleanup.
5.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role
EPA oversees federal facility cleanup activities
and provides cleanup assistance to federal agencies.
EPA's responsibilities include:
listing sites on the NPL,
negotiating lAGs,
promoting community involvement through
site-specific advisory boards and. restoration
advisory boards,
selecting or assisting in the determination of
cleanup remedies,
concurring with cleanup remedies,
providing technical advice and assistance,
overseeing cleanup activities,
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Y
1997
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. Federal agencies use the
CERCLA cleanup process outlined in the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan at these sites, often under state or
EPA oversight. 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 1997 Progress
FFEO and FFRRO, in conjunction with other
EPA Headquarters offices, Regional offices, and
states, ensure federal department and agency
compliance with CERCLA and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requirements.
Progress in achieving federal facility compliance may
be measured by the status of federal facility sites on
the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket and on the NPL, and by the execution of
lAGs for federal facility sites.
5.2.1 Status of Facilities on the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket
Federal facilities where hazardous waste is
managed or from which hazardous substances have
been released are identified on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The docket
was established under CERCLA Section 120(c) and
functions as an important record in the Superfund
federal facilities program. Information submitted to
EPA on identified facilities is compiled and
maintained in the docket and then made available to
the public.
38
-------
Fiscal Year 7997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
The initial federal agency docket was published
in the Federal Register on February 12, 1988. At
that time, 1,095 federal facilities were listed on the
docket. The June 27, 1997, docket update listed a
total of 2,104 facilities. Of this total, the Department
of Defense (DoD) owned or operated 958 (46
percent) of the facilities and the Department of the
Interior (DOI) owned or operated 453 (22 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 FY97, there were 157
federal facility sites proposed to or listed on the NPL.
These sites included six proposed sites and 151 final
sites. In addition, eight sites were deleted from the
NPL.
Federal departments and agencies made
substantial progress during FY97 toward cleaning up
federal facility NPL sites. Activity at federal facility
NPL sites during the year included the start of
approximately 62 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), 62 remedial designs (RDs), and 67
remedial actions (RAs). During FY97, 91 records of
decision (RODs) were signed, and ongoing activities
included 494 RI/FSs, 74 RDs, and 169 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. 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 CERCLA Implementation at EPA
Facilities
Of the 2,070 sites on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket at the end of
FY97, 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 EPA cleanup progress at active facilities is
provided in Section 5.3.2.
5.3.1 Requirements of CERCLA Section
120(e)(5)
CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) requires an annual
report to Congress from each federal department,
agency, or instrumentality on its progress in
implementing Superfund at its facilities.
Specifically, the annual report to Congress is to
include, but need not be limited to, the following
items:
Section 120(e)(5)(A): A report on the progress
in reaching lAGs under CERCLA Section
120(e)(2);
39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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.
5.3.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA Facilities
Subject to Section 120 of CERCLA
At the end of FY97, the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket listed 25
EPA-owned or operated facilities, including three
that have been listed on the NPL (Electro Voice,
Michigan; Ottati & Goss, New Hampshire; and Old
Navy Dump/Manchester site, 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
5.3-1 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
FY97 are discussed in detail below. As required for
EPA-owned or operated NPL sites, the information
presented below for the Old Navy Dump/Manchester
NPL site provides a report on progress in meeting
CERCLA Section 120 requirements for reaching
lAGs, conducting Rl/FSs, and providing information
on the status of remedial activities.
New England Regional Laboratory,
Massachusetts
An underground oil storage tank was replaced at
the New England Regional Laboratory in October
1993. During excavation, the cavity left by the old
tank filled with water and developed a sheen. The
laboratory was given a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit exclusion and
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).
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
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
40
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.3-1
Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket1
State
EPA Facility
Known or Suspected
Problems
Project Status
MA New England Regional Laboratory
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)
No contamination
Electroplating waste
contamination
Ground water, 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
Pollution prevention plan
continues
Final remedial action report
approved for OU1, workplan for
OU2 submitted by PRP for EPA
approval
Thermal desorption chosen as
alternative remedy to
incineration for soil
contamination
Continuing investigations
Compliant filed by EPA for cost
recovery, site investigation
results in NFRAP
Completion of Proposed
Cleanup Plan, ROD signed
Source: Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and the Office of Administration and Resource
Management.
1 This list does not include the following 17 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, Casmalia Resources, 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.
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
land depression from the 1920s to the early 1950s.
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 in September of 1991. Final remedies were
selected for the lagoon area, onsite groundwater, and
dry well area soils (OU1). The remedial design was
completed in FY96 along with the excavation of
contaminated soil and construction of a clay cap. In
FY97, the soil ventilation and volatilization system
continued to operate in the drywell area and the final
remedial action report for OU1 was approved by
EPA. The PRP developed a workplan for additional
off-property investigation for OU2 to be approved by
EPA. More field work is planned for the Fall of
1998.
41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Ottati & .Goss Superfund Site, New
Hampshire
The Ottati & Goss Superfund site is not
considered a federal facility and may have been
placed on the docket in error. The 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. Alternatives to the incineration remedy
selected in the ROD for treatment of VOC and PCB-
contaminated soil were considered in FY97. An
alternative evaluation concluded that thermal
desorption would be more cost effective than
incineration. The remedy will use thermal desorption
for the remaining soil remediation.
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
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 1960s. Approximately 13,000
containers with capacities ranging from 1 quart to 55
gallons were discovered in varying stages of decay in
a field-on the approximately 3 acre property. EPA
performed a sampling assessment in July 1992
leading to a removal action in 1993 in which 26,330
gallons of paint and paint-related materials were
removed. In May 1995, a 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 1,120 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. EPA performed a site investigation in FY97
and the site was given a status of no further remedial
action planned (NFRAP). A complaint was filed
with the Eastern District Court of Virginia by EPA
on November 27, 1996 against Fine Petroleum
Company, Inc. for recovery of response costs.
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 ran 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
42
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
nearby Bremerton Naval Shipyard. Also, chemical-
residues from the Navy firefightmg 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 IAG for site cleanup
were initiated in July 1994 and were ongoing as of
the end of the fiscal year. Also during the year, the
Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) 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 Rl/FS was completed in December 1996.
The Proposed Cleanup Plan, which was started in
October 1994, was concluded in April 1997. The
ROD for the site was signed in.September 1997, by
the USAGE and EPA with the consent of the
Washington State Department of Ecology and
selected the same remedial actions recommended in
the Proposed Cleanup Plan.
43
-------
This page is 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 FY97.
Section 6.1 of this chapter includes annual
information on Trust Fund resources needed by EPA
and other federal departments and agencies through
FY97, and on the allocation of the resources for
FY97 and FY98. 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 FY98 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
FY97, 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 FY98 and beyond. This long-term effort has
been coordinated with the development of the FY98
budget. In conjunction with the revised National Oil
arid 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
45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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 provided Superfund with $17.6 billion
in budget authority (FY81 through FY97). This
estimate includes $1.8 billion for FY81 through
FY86 and $15.9 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY97. EPA spent FY97 resources on
the following activities:
EPA Response Activities (65 percent):
Response. activities include site assessment,
time-critical and non-time-critical removals,
long-term cleanup, actions, and program
implementation activities. Also included is
support provided by the Office of Water and the
Office of Indoor Air and Radiation.
Other Federal Agencies Response Activities
(11.2 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,
Exhibit 6.1-1
EPA Superfund Obligations
(in Millions)
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 (12.3 percent):
Enforcement activities include PRP negotiations,
litigation, and settlements and cost recovery
efforts.
Management and Support (9 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 (2.5 percent):
Research and development resources are used
for technical support and for developing and
evaluating faster, better and less expensive
methodologies and technologies in the areas of
site characterization, risk assessment,
monitoring, remedy selection and remedy design,
Program Area
Response Activities (Total)
EPA
Other Federal Agencies
Enforcement Activities
Management and Support
Research and Development
Total Superfund
FY96
Operating Plan
$1,202.7
1,054.7
148.0
141.1
125.6
20.5
$1,489.9
FY97
Operating Plan
$1,063.1
906.2
156.9
171.2
124.9
35
$1,394.2
Source: Senior Management Report FY97.
46
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
construction and operations.
Exhibit 6.1-1 presents a snapshot of the
allocation of Superfund resources for FY96 and
FY97 within these categories. The snapshot data is
from EPA's Senior Management Report.
6.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup
Site cleanup is the single largest category of
Superfund expenditures and is expected to remain so
in the future. To project EPA funding needs for
cleanup activities, several key estimations were
made, including:
The projected number and average cost of
studies, remedial designs (RDs), and remedial
actions (RAs) undertaken;
The extent and cost of removal activity; and
The proportion of direct cleanup actions
undertaken by PRPs.
6.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Cleanup
Effort
The most significant way PRPs contribute to the
hazardous substance cleanup effort is by conducting
and financing response actions (whether voluntarily
or under order). When PRPs finance site cleanup
efforts, potential EPA Superfund obligations for
those sites are dramatically reduced and the
remaining principal cost is PRP oversight. EPA
continues to develop and implement policies
designed to encourage PRP cleanups.
In addition to response actions actually
performed by PRPs, a portion of the costs of certain
Fund-financed response actions will be recovered
from PRPs through enforcement activities. Typically,
there are delays of several years between
expenditures from the Trust Fund and recovery of
costs.
6.2 Resource Model Assumptions
Estimating the cost of cleaning up current NPL
sites depends on a number of factors, many of which
will change as the program continues to mature. The
main factors are:
Changes in Superfund program policies and
procedures because of the revised NCP,
particularly the cleanup standards as required
under Section 121 of CERCLA;
Changes in the remedial program because of
revisions to the Hazard Ranking System, as
required under Section 105 of CERCLA;
The long period required to identify, develop,
select, and construct a remedy, and the need for
scheduling flexibility to maximize the impact of
enforcement activities;
The level of state Superfund program activity;
The level of PRP participation in the program;
Changes in cleanup approaches, such as
implementing more early actions in favor of
remedial actions; and
The nature of and demand for removal actions.
Based on these factors, EPA uses the Outyear
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
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
develop this estimate, the Agency has concentrated
on remedial and removal activities. These activities
are the major components of the Superfund program
and account for the majority of Fund expenditures by
the Agency.
6.2.1 Active NPL Sites
Remedial efforts are underway at most of the
sites on the current NPL. Remedial plans are being
developed for the remaining sites on the NPL,
leaving 55 sites on the existing NPL pending study at
theendofFY97.
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
48
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Proportion of sites addressed by each lead
category (Fund, PRP, state, and state
enforcement);
Number of sites that are owned and/or operated
by state or local governments; and
Number of sites that follow each of several
enforcement paths.
Choices among these variables generally affect
both cost and duration of the program. Increases in
PRP leads will ultimately result in lower Fund costs,
but related litigation will substantially extend the
amount of time required to reach deletion of a site
from the NPL.
6.3 Estimated Resources to Complete
Cleanup
As illustrated in Exhibit 6.3-1, EPA's estimate of
the total liability to complete cleanup of existing
NPL sites is $31.3 billion. This total includes the
OLM long-term estimate of $13.6 billion for FY98
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.
Program support and other non-site elements are
straightlined at the levels of the current request
year budget (FY98 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 RA cost factor is estimated at $7.4 million
per RA (in 1996 dollars) based on an analysis of The second element in fulfilling the requirements
RODs signed from 1992 through 1996. of Section 301(h)(l)(G) of CERCLA is providing an
Exhibit 6.3-1
Estimate of Total Trust Liability to Complete Cleanup
at Sites on the National Priorities List
(in Billions)
Total Allocations
FY97 and
FY98 and
Prior
Beyond
Total
$17.7
$13.6
$31.3
Source: Superfund. Budget Documentation and Outyear Liability Model
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
estimation of the resources needed by other federal
departments and agencies. The Superfund resource
needs of the other Executive Branch departments and
agencies are met through two sources: the Superfund
Trust Fund and the individual federal department's
or agency's budget.
Trust Fund monies are provided to other federal
departments and agencies through two mechanisms:
Ihteragency 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
50
-------
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 FY97.
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 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
51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
the establishment of Community Advisory Groups
(CAGs).
Fiscal Year 1997 Highlights
During FY97, EPA continued to improve the
vigorous community involvement efforts by
emphasizing the importance of public participation
through a variety of means. In particular, a
workgroup convened to put guidance into practice
that would reduce EPA oversight at sites where PRPs
are deemed "cooperative and capable." 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 continued support 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.
Guidance documents on Prospective Purchaser
Agreements (PPAs) were issued which help people
in purchasing contaminated land for redevelopment
while releasing them from future liability. Finally,
EPA introduced a minority worker training program
to the 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
CAGs are committees, task forces, or boards
made up of residents affected by a hazardous waste
site. CAGs enhance public participation in the
cleanup process by providing a public forum where
community representatives can discuss their diverse
interests, needs, and concerns about the cleanup.
Strong community initiative in forming and operating
CAGs, as well as technical expertise by CAG
members are important factors for successful CAGs.
During FY97, the Agency continued to support the
CAG program, providing information and other tools
to assist the communities in establishing CAGs and
actively participating in the decision-making process.
Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA
Section 117{e)
The TAG Program, authorized by CERCLA
Section 117(e), as amended by SARA, provides
eligible communities affected by NPL sites with
grant funds to hire independent technical advisors.
Only communities affected by sites listed on the NPL
or sites proposed to the NPL with response actions
underway are eligible for such funds. By allowing
communities to hire independent advisors, TAGs
enable communities to become more knowledgeable
about the technical and scientific aspects of a
Superfund sites. Communities are able to participate
in the decision making surrounding their sites using
52
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 rands 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
FY97 also played an important component in further
streamlining and improving 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 198
TAGs, which are worth more than $13 million to
support community involvement in Superfund
cleanup. This total includes 9 TAGs awarded during
FY97. 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 $3 million additional grant dollars
through waivers and deviations.
Exhibit 7.1-1
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded
from Fiscal Year 1988 Through Fiscal Year 1997
200
180
o 160
8
| 140
w 120-
J: 100-
o
1 80-
E
i eo-
40-
20-
o-
^
^
El F\si
DCur
M981
:al Year Awards
nulative Prior Award
s
(103)
(66)
(42)
«
^7f!^~]
(27)
20
.,7
P
x-^
15
27
P
^*
24
42
x^
-
,37
66
1
i
^s-
(189)
f178>
(151)
11
f£L
32
103
i
i
r
^x
16
3
^^
^^ff^y^
2b
151
i
'H
p
11
178
^
-
^iss'sm
*9i
189
P
?^
Fiscal Year
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Hazardous Site Control Division.
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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 FY97, EPA continued to participate in
the full implementation of the EPA-NTIS Superfund
partnership, a comprehensive interagency effort to
provide maximum public access to Superfund
documents. Through this partnership, the Agency
and NTIS conduct an outreach and marketing
program to inform the public about the availability of
Superfund documents from NTIS. This partnership
effort has provided the public with rapid delivery of
Superfund documents and has conserved EPA
resources.
The public can also access information about
Superfund through other information sources, such
as the Superfund Docket and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Superfund
Hotline. Further information on public information
services is provided below.
The National Technical Information Service
The Department of Commerce's NTIS serves as
a permanent archive and general source of federal
publications, including Superfund documents.
Before the EPA-NTIS partnership, EPA had fulfilled
requests for more than two million documents free of
charge. Due to resource constraints, however, free
document distribution was no longer possible To
fulfill its commitment to ensure that Superfund
documents are available to the public, EPA has
worked to maximize public access to and promote
the availability of Superfund documents through
NTIS.
The Agency's joint effort with NTIS provides
the public with ready access to the entire Superfund
collection. Using NTIS employees provided
considerable savings to the government and
facilitates access to the many production services
housed at the NTIS headquarters in Springfield,
Virginia.
NTIS also maintains a Superfund Order Desk
where users may purchase single copies of
documents or customized subscriptions for categories
of documents pertinent to their needs. Prepublication
documents are available at the Superfund Order Desk
prior to being formally printed and distributed.
The Superfund Docket
The Superfund Docket provides public access to
the materials that support proposed and final
regulations. In compliance with the Freedom of
Information Act, the public is allowed access to
docket materials following approval of the material
by the Office of General Counsel and announcement
of the proposed or final regulation in the Federal
Register.
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.
54
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
7.1.3 EPA's Partnership with States and
Indian Tribes
EPA continues to promote and maintain its
partnership with states, federally recognized Indian
tribes, commonwealths, territories, and political
subdivisions in the Superfund cleanup process.
(States, commonwealths, and territories will be
referred to as states for the purposes of this Report.)
Subpart F of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
provides mechanisms for ensuring meaningful state
and tribal involvement in implementing Superfund
response activities, as required by Sections 104 and
121(f) of CERGLA. 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 performance
partnership grants 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, FY97 highlights of EPA efforts
to promote involvement of states and Indian tribes in
Superfund response activities are provided.
Performance partnership grants (PPGs) allow
states and tribes to consolidate funds from then-
categorical grants into one or more PPGs. Each PPG
requires a National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) agreement which
describes goals and objectives and other items related
to program accomplishment. Although PPGs cannot
specifically designate Superfund resources, some
states use some of their PPG money to fund
Superfund programs.
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:
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, 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
55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
assurances that have been made with a state or Indian
tribe. The SSC 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
SSC 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.
Enforcement CAs support enforcement under
state law when PRPs are unwilling to pay
oversight costs.
Support agency cooperative agreements
(SACAs) allow states, tribes, and political
subdivisions that do not have lead-agency
responsibility to actively participate in response
activities at sites under their jurisdiction.
SACAs may assist the state, tribe, or political
subdivision in facilitating investigations,
response selection, and implementation through
the sharing of information and expertise. They
may not be used, however, to document
CERCLA assurances.
In addition to describing response CAs, 40 CFR
Part 35 Subpart O also specifies financial,
administrative, and other requirements with which a
state, tribe, or political subdivision must comply in
order to receive funds. A multi-site cooperative
agreement, which has the same requirements as the
other types of agreements, is a multi-purpose
agreement that has been used to consolidate funding
for various response activities at different sites.
Core Program Cooperative Agreements
Congress has expressed the intent to include
CERCLA funding to states and tribes for certain
basic, or core, activities that are not attributable to a
specific site but are necessary to implement
CERCLA response capabilities. The legislative
history of CERCLA Section 104(d), as amended,
demonstrates this intent to support the development
of Superfund infrastructure. Through CPCAs, EPA
offers states and tribes the opportunity to develop
comprehensive, self-sufficient Superfund programs.
56
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 $20 million to $22 million among the ten
Regional offices for CPCAs. Regions also may
provide additional funding if resources are available.
State and Tribal 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.
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.
Thirty sites in 11 states are serving as pilots for the
deferral program.
In FY97, the Superfund program was actively
involved in addressing hazardous waste problems on
Native American lands and hi 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 clean-
up programs, which fall under Core Program CAs,
encourage private parties to undertake protective
cleanups of contaminated sites. During FY97, EPA
awarded 43 States or Tribes approximately 9.4
million to help either develop State voluntary
cleanup programs or enhance existing voluntary
cleanup programs.
7.2 Minority Firm Contracting
Section 105(f) of CERCLA (P.L. .99-499)
requires EPA to annually consider minority
contractors for procurement opportunities when
awarding contracts for Superfund work. EPA
contracts include direct procurement awarded by the
Agency; indirect procurement that result from
Superfund financial assistance awards, i.e., contracts
and subcontracts emanating from cooperative
agreements awarded to the states and contracts from
interagency agreements with other federal agencies.
This section of the FY97 report has been
prepared by EPA's Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU),
which has the responsibility to ensure that the
Agency complies with Section 105(f) of CERCLA.
The requirements of the Administrative Provisions of
P.L. 102-389 directs the Agency to establish an 8
percent goal for disadvantaged businesses. All
programs funded by EPA are included in this
requirement. This report reflects EPA's
accomplishments.
EPA achieved its goal of reaching a 7.0 percent rate
for its combined direct contracting and indirect
contracting efforts with minority and other
disadvantaged businesses during FY97.
Additionally, EPA's Superfund program transfers
funds to other federal agencies by means of
interagency agreements (lAGs). In the conduct of
the transfer of funds, contracts and subcontracts were
awarded to minority firms.
During FY97, contracts worth $51,538,071 were
awarded to minority contractors to perform
Superfund work. As Exhibit 7.2-1 illustrates, EPA's
cooperative agreements with states resulted in
$871,604 to minority contractors. Other federal
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
Exhibit 7.2-1
Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1997
Type of Activity Total Dollars Obligated
Direct Procurement $510,897,183
Cooperative Agreements 33,714,294
Interagency Agreements2 1 95,946,471
Total $740,557,948
Minority Contractor Percentage of
Participation1 Total
$11,607,588 2.3
871,604 2.6
39,058,879 19.9
$51,538,071 7.0
'This does not include women's business enterprise participation data and there is no way to identify if such
entities are owned and controlled by minority women.
. 2This is the total dollar amount awarded. There is no way of extracting the subagreement dollars available for
minority contractor participation from the computer data system
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).
agencies awarded $39,058,879 in contracts,
subcontracts and purchase orders to minority
firms.with funds transferred from the Superfund
program via JAGs. Under the Agency's direct
federal agencies awarded $39,058,879 in contracts,
subcontracts and purchase orders to minority
firms.with funds transferred from the Superfund
program via lAGs. Under the Agency's direct
procurement program minority business enterprises
received $11,607,588 in Superfund contracts through
various contracting methods, i.e., Small Business
Administration (SBA) 8(a) awards, direct minority
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.
7.2.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified
Minority Firms
OSDBU conducted a number of outreach
activities during FY97, to increase the number of
qualified minority firms that would be available to
receive contract and subcontract opportunities
through the Superfund program. Some of the
activities include:
The National Association of Minority
Contractors and OSDBU conducted four training
sessions designed to help culturally
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: U.S. EPA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU).
58
-------
Fiscal Year 7997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
disadvantaged contractors become more successful in
winning Superfund direct prime contract and
subcontract awards. Sixty-nine attendees
participated in the training sessions held in Boston,
Massachusetts; Charleston, South Carolina; Seattle,
Washington and San Diego, California.
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 Superfund
contracting participation. Over 150 minority and
women-owned firms attended these sessions. In
addition to these seminars, directories were
distributed among prime contractors and
governmental agencies to assist them in
identifying qualified minority firms.
EPA became a planning participant in late FY97
to assist in the preparation of a 1998 National
Reservation Conference to be held in Denver,
Colorado. The Conference will be focused
toward Native American businesses and will
provide information on procurement
opportunities, including Superfund.
7.2.2 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal
Agencies and Departments to Use
Minority Contractors
OSDBU, continues to work with other federal
agencies to enhance the involvement of minority
contractors. Numerous conferences, workshops, and
seminars were held by other federal agencies to
encourage minority business participation in the
Superfund program. OSDBU has ensured that a
special condition is included in each interagency
agreement between EPA and any other agency or
department receiving Superfund monies. The special
condition ensures that agencies or departments
receiving Superfund money are aware of the
requirements of CERCLA Section 105(f) and P.L.
102-389. One of these special conditions requires
that departments or agencies undertaking Superfund
work submit an annual report to EPA on minority
contractor utilization.
59
-------
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, 1997
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 (Rl/FS) and
remedial action (RA) Tide I projects in progress at
the end of FY97. This appendix also provides
notice of RI/FSs and RAs that EPA presently
believes will not meet its previously published
schedule for completion, and includes new
estimated dates of completion, as required by
Section 301(h)(l)(C). These dates were previously
published in Appendix A of Progress Toward
Implementing .Superfund: Fiscal Year 1996. In
addition to meeting these statutory requirements,
this appendix lists new remedial projects that were
begun in and were in process at the end of FY97.
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 30,1997.
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 1997
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 FY97.
'Funding Start - The date on which funds
were allocated for the activity.
Previous Completion Schedule - For
projects ongoing at the end of FY96 that
continued into FY97, the quarter and fiscal
year of the planned completion date for the
activity. This column is blank for projects that
were begun in FY97.
Present Completion Schedule - The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion of
the activity.
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 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST
GU
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
SITE NAME
Anderson Air Force Base
Barkhamsted-New Hartford
Landfill
Beacon Heights Landfill
Durham Meadows
Laurel Park Inc. (once listed as
Laurel Park Landfill)
New London Submarine Base
Raymark Industries, Inc.
Solvents Recovery Service of New
England
Atlas Tack Corp.
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
LOCATION
YIGO
Barkhamsted
Beacon Falls
Durham
Naugatuck
Borough
New London
Stratford
South ing ton
Fairhaven
Ho I brook
' Tyngsborough
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
. 02
03
04
05'
06
01
02
01
02
04
05
07
08
01
02
03
01,,
02
01
02
03
04
03
04
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
MR
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/30/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
09/30/91
03/31/92
06/30/97
07/29/96
09/27/94
09/27/94
11/05/94
11/05/94
05/15/96
09/04/96
09/20/93
05/21/92
10/29/86
09/18/89
06/26/90
09/30/91
04/20/95
09/28/90
09/28/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
1
2001
2000
1998
2000
2002
2003
1997
1997
1999
1999
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1995
1995
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
4
1
4
2
4
1
2
4
1
1
3
4
2
4
3
4
4
3
2001
2000
1998
2000
2002
2003
1999
1998
2000
1998
2000
1999
2000
2001
1998
2000
2000
1993
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
1999
A-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AMD REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-SLSITE NAME lnrmnu
MA Fort Devens Fort Deyens
MA Groveland Welts Groveland
MA Hanscom Field/Hanscom Air Force Bedford
Base
MA Hocomonco Pond Westborough
MA Industri-Plex (Mark Philips Uoburn
Trust)
MA Iron Horse Park Billerica
MA Materials Technology Laboratory Uatertown
(USARMY)
MA Natick Laboratory Army Research, D&E Natick
Cntr
MA Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Bedford
Plant
MA New Bedford Site New Bedford
MA Norwood PCBs Norwood
flBLt
UNIT
01
02
06
07
08
09
11
01
02
01
03
02
01
02
02
01
03
01
02
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS .
RI
RA
RI/FS
'RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
' FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F*
PRP*
FUNDING
START
06/13/96
05/13/91
06/18/97
05/24/94
03/25/96
07/06/95
10/15/95
09/22/97
11/02/92
03/14/97
06/12/97
06/02/93
05/18/92
05/30/90
12/08/89
07/15/91
01/31/90
11/20/96
05/30/97
06/26/97
10/21/94
10/21/94
09/10/91
12/20/91
04/18/94
04/30/97
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE epuriwui- .
2 1998
2
4
3
4
4
1
3
4
1
4
2
1997
1998
1998
1998 .
1999
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
2 2008
2
2
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
4
3
4
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
1
1999
2000
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
2000
2000
1998
1999
2000
1998
2000
1999
2000
2000
1994
2000 .
1998
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rfi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
SITE NAME
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp
Edwards
PSC Resources
Re-Solve, Inc.
Salem Acres
Shpack Landfill
Si I resim Chemical Corp.
South Weymouth Naval Air
Station
Sullivan's Ledge .
Wells G&H
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Eastern Surplus
Loring Air Force Base
LOCATION
Ashland
Fa I mouth
Palmer
Dartmouth
Salem
Norton/Attleboro
Lowell
Weymouth
New Bedford
Woburn
Brunswick
Meddybemps
Limestone
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
03
05
06
08
09
10
11
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
07
01
01
02
05
08
10
12
13
15
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
MR
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
F
F
FF
FF*
FF
FF
FF
FF
- FF
FUNDING
START
02/18/93
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
02/01/93
03/02/93
11/30/91
03/05/97
07/10/96
03/28/96
09/24/90
03/08/94
01/17/97
06/09/97
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
06/22/90
OB/27/96
07/15/97
07/25/95
05/09/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/16/96
07/08/97
03/16/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
3
1
2
3
4
1
3
1
.4
2
2
2
1
4
3
1
3
4
4
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998 .
1998
1998
2000
1998
2000
1998
1998
1998
2001
1997
1998
1999
1999
1998
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
1
4
1
' 1
4
4
3
1
4
1
4
,2
1
4
2000
1998
1998 '
1999
1999
2001
2000
2000
2009
2000
1999
2000
1996
2000
2001
2002
2000
2000
1998
1999
1999
2001
1999
1999
1998
1999
2001
1996
A-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
»n °F REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REHEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30. 1997
OPER-
RG_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
HE
ME
HE
HE
HE
HE
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
SITE NAHE
O'Connor Co.
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Saco Municipal Landfill
Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Uinthrop Landfill
Beede Waste Oi I
Coakley Landfill '
Fletcher's Paint Works
Mottolo Pig Farm
New Hampshire Plating Co.
Ottati & Goss)
Pease Air Force Base
LOCATION
Augusta
Kittery
Saco
Saco
South Hope
Winthrop
P la i stow
North Hampton
Hilford
Raymond
Merrimack
Kingston
Portsmouth/Newington
HBLC
UNIT
01
03
01
02
04
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
04
04
07
10
11
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
.RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDUI F
07/30/96 1 1998
10/24/96
04/01/97
02/10/97
06/04/97
09/26/95 4 1998
02/18/93
04/05/95 4 1997
04/28/94 4 1997
09/27/96
01/25/96 4 1998
07/29/90 3 1997
09/10/92
06/24/93
07/14/92 2 1997
02/26/93
09/18/96 1 1998
12/17/96
12/30/96
12/30/96
. 01/02/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
cpucmii c
oLHcDULE
1 1999
1
2
3
1
2
4
4
4
4
1
4
3
3
4
4
1
1
4
1
4
1999
2001
1999
2001
1999
1998
2000
1998
1999
2000
1998
2001
2001
1998
1994
1999
1999
1998
1999
1997
1 NH Savage Municipal Water Supply
Mi I ford
01
RA
03/25/97
2001
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NH
NH
RI
RI
RI
RI
VT
VT
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Tibbets Road
Tinkham Garage
Central Landfill
Davisville Naval Construction Batt
Center
Newport Naval Education/Training
Center t
Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Bennington Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Burgess Brothers Landfill
A. 0. Polymer
American Cyanamid Co.
Asbestos Dump
Burnt Fly Bog
CPS/Madison Industries
Caldwell Trucking Co.
LOCATION
Barrington
Londonderry
Johnston
North Kingstown
Newport
South Kingstown
Bennington
Uoodford
Sparta Township
Bound Brook
Millington
Marlboro Township
Old Bridge
Township
Fairfield
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
04
07
03
04
05
01
01
01
02
01
02
04
05
01
03
03
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RA "
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
SE
SE
F
FF
S
PS
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/26/96
02/07/94
08/25/94
03/23/92
04/21/97
03/23/92
03/23/92
02/12/96
09/30/90
06/28/91
08/27/91
07/08/97
06/01/94
04/24/97
05/28/88
05/28/88
09/30/97 '
01/24/91
09/30/88
01/15/83
05/12/93
09/15/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
1
4
1
1
2
2
4
2000
1998
1997
1997
2000
1997
1997
1998
1997
2000
2001
1996
1998
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
4
2
2
2
3
2
4
4
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
2000
2006
1999
1998
2000
2002
2000
2000
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2000
1999
1998
2000
1998
2000
A-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Soperfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
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
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Chemsol, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (TOMS RIVER
CHEMICAL)
Cinnaminson Township (Block 702)
Ground Water Contamination
Combe Fill South Landfill
D'Imperio Property
DeRenewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ellis Property
Evor Phillips Leasing
Ewan Property
Fair Lawn Well Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
LOCATION
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Piscataway
Toms River
Cinnaminson
Township
Chester Township
Hamilton Township
Kingwood Township
Newark
Dover Township '
Evesham Township
Old Bridge
Township
Shamong Township
Fair Lawn
Atlantic City
flBLb
UNIT
02 .
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
02
07
11
12
13
ACTIVITY LEAn
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
F
PRP
F
S
S
PS
PS*
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START scucni" c
03/29/85 4
09/30/97
07/15/85 1
09/28/90 1
09/30/89
07/05/89 3
05/11/95
09/28/90 4
05/10/94 4
09/27/96
04/20/94 1
07/06/93 2
09/30/97
09/30/97
02/15/96 3
02/15/96 1
09/26/97
09/30/92 2
08/19/92 4
10/24/95 1
06/01/87 4
06/01/87
06/01/87
11/01/95
1997
1998
1997 .
1999
1996
1997
1997
1997
2000
1998
1996
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
onucm ii c
ouHEDULc
2 1999
3
1
4
1
3
1
2
4
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
1999
1999
1998
1998
1999
1997
1998
1998
1999
2001
2000
1999
2000
2000
1999
1999
2000
1995
1998
1998
1999
2000
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
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
Florence Land Reeontouring
Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Franklin Burn
'Fried Industries
Garden State Cleaners Co.
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Grand Street Mercury
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown
Plant)
Higgins Farm
Horseshoe Road
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Industrial Latex Corp.
Kin-Buc Landfill
King of Prussia
LOCATION
Florence Township
Pemberton
Township
Franklin Township
East Brunswick
Township
Minotola
Glen Ridge
Hoboken
Gibbstown
Franklin Township
Sayreville
Morganville
Wall ing ton
Borough
Edison Township
Wins low Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
00
03
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI
RA
LEAD
S
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
PS
F
F
S
F
S
F
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/29/89
06/19/91
10/01/92
09/30/92
05/27/97
09/30/97
09/24/96
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/30/92
09/30/97
07/02/86
03/17/95
09/23/96
09/29/94
.09/30/97
09/28/84
09/25/97
09/30/93
05/05/97
07/22/94
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
2
4
2
4
2
4
1
2
1
3
4
1
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1995
1998
1997
1997
1998
1995
1996
1995
4
2
2
4
3
1
1
4
2
4
2
3
1
2
2
. 1
4
4
4
'4
1
1998
1999
1999
1998
1998
1999
2000
1998
1997
2000
2000
2000
1999
2000
2000
1999
1998
2000
1999
1998
1995
A-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS Of REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Li pan' Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
Monitor Devices/Intercircuits,
Inc.
Montclair/West Orange Radium
Site
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Weapons Station
Picatinny Arsenal
Reich Farms
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Township Wells
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Roebling Steel Co.
Sayreville Landfill
LOCATION
Pitman
Maywood/Rochel le
Park
Wall Township
Montclair/West
Orange
Lakehurst
Colts Neck
Rockaway Township
Pleasant Plains
Rockaway Township
Rockaway
Rocky Hill
Borough
Florence
Sayreville
ftbLt
UNIT
02
01
02
01
01
02
03
26
03
04
05
06
02
03
04
02
03
03
02
02
05
01
02
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
F
PRP
FF
F
F
F
F
FF
FF .
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP*
PS
F
F
PS
PS
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/30/88 4 1999
09/21/87 4
07/21/90 4
03/12/92 4
09/15/89 4
03/30/90 2
09/30/92 4
09/25/89
09/27/90
09/27/90
09/27/90
09/27/90
04/19/93
01/04/93
01/10/95
09/25/95
09/30/92 1
09/27/95 1
03/13/96
08/06/97
09/30/95
02/13/96 3
11/26/91 1
1996
1996
1997
1998
1995
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
orucnili c
4 1999
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
3
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
2000
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
1999
2001
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
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
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Scientific Chemical Processing
Sheild Alloy Corp.
South Jersey Clothing Co.
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
U.S. Radium Corp.
<
Universal Oil Products (Chemical
Division)
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
UR Grace & Co. Inc. /Wayne interim
Storage Site
Uelsbach & General Gas Mantle
(Camden)
White Chemical Corp
Williams Property
American Thermostat Co.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(USDOE)
LOCATION
Carlstadt
Newfield Borough
Minotola
Pennsauken
South Kearny
Orange
East Rutherford
Vineland
Wayne Township
Camden and
Gloucester
City
Newark
Swainton
South Cairo
Upton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
0.1
02
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
02
03
04
05 .
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PS
F
F
PRP
S
S
F
F
F
F
PS
F
FF
F
PRP
F
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
START SCHEDULE
12/19/88 1
09/07/95
10/05/88 2
09/24/96
09/24/96
09/07/88 3
05/23/89 2
09/27/96
06/18/96
06/18/96
08/15/97
09/30/97
11/08/95
09/24/96
07/21/90 4
09/20/96
09/24/97
09/30/96
06/30/93 2
06/30/93 3
05/11/93 2
12/14/94 4
06/30/94 3
06/11/97
10/29/93 4
1996
1997
1997
1994
1996
1995
1999
1998
1998
1998
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
2
1
4
4
2
2
4
1
.1
2
1
3
1998
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1998
2000
2000
1998
1999
2000
1998
1998
1999
1995
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
A-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,'
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
ST SITE NAME
2 NY Circuitron Corp.
2 NY Claremont Polychemical
2 NY Cortese Landfill
2 NY Endicott Village Well Field
2 NY FMC Corp. (Dubli
2 NY Facet Enterprises, Inc.
2 NY Fulton Terminals
2 NY GCL Tie & Treating. Inc.
2 NY Genzale Plating Co.
2 NY Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
2 NY Griffiss Air Force Base
2 NY Hertel Landfill
2 NY Hooker (102nd Street)
2 NY Hooker (Hyde Park)
2 NY Hooker (South Area)
OPER-
LOCATION
age Disposal Port Jervis
' East Farmingdale
cal Old Bethpage
Vil. of Narrowsburg
11 Field Village of
Endicott
>ad Landfill) Town of Shelby
'nc. Elmira
Fulton
nc. Village of
Sidney
Franklin Square
Inc. Ho I brook
ase ROIIle
Plattekill
) Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
ABLt
UNIT
06
02
02
04
06
02
03
01
01.
02
01
03
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FF
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETK
START . SCHFnillP crucnmc
06/02/94 2
07/31/92 3
09/10/97
09/30/93
09/30/93
05/16/97
03/06/95 4
05/02/94 4
05/14/96 1
03/31/95 4
09/30/97
09/30/94
06/27/91
03/29/90 2
09/30/96
11/07/95 4
04/08/96 1
08/15/87 1
11/02/90 1
11/02/90 4
12/09/93 1
1997
1996
1996
1996
1998
1997
1998
1998
1995 v
1997
1998
1997
1999
3 1997
3 1996
1 2000
1 1999
4 1997
1 1999
4 1996
4 1998
4 1998
2 1999
2 1999
4 1997
4 1998
2 1994
1 1999
4 1998
4 1998
4 1997
1 2001
2 2000
1 2000
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON.SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
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
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Hudson River PCBs
Islip Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Li Tungsten Corp.
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Little Valley
Love Canal
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Mat ti ace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
Niagara County Refuse
Onondaga Lake
LOCATION
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Caledonia
Horseheads
Glen Cove
. Farmingdale
Little Valley
Niagara Falls
Clayville
Glen Cove
Uheatfield
Syracuse
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
01
02
01
01
02
01
03
01
01
01
02
05
07
02
03
04
06
01
01
01
01
02
03
05
06
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
S
F
PS
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
PS
F
F
F
PRP
PS
S
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/23/94 4 1996
09/28/84
07/25/90 1 1997
03/31/95 4 1996
03/29/91 1 1997
07/15/96
OB/26/92 3 1997
09/03/97
09/28/90 2 1996
01/24/97
05/08/97
09/27/96
01/14/97
02/09/87 3 1998
11/12/89
09/20/96
09/30/93 3 1998
06/30/93 4 1997
09/30/97
09/30/94
09/30/94
09/30/94 4 1998
03/16/92
08/10/90
10/20/95
06/26/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
3
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
1
4
3
1
4
4
4
1
4
4
2
2
1
2
1
1997
1992
2000
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
1999
1999
1998
1998
1997
2000
2001
2001
1998
2001
1997
1998
1997
A-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
,uf REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
SITE NAME
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Preferred Plating Corp.
Ramapo Landfill
Robintech, Inc. /National Pipe
Co.
Rowe Industries Ground Water
Contamination
Sarney Farm
Seneca Army Depot
Sinclair Refinery
Syosset Landfill
Tri-Cities Barrel Co., Inc.
LOCATION
Pittsburgh
Farmingdale
Ramapo
Town of Vestal
Noyack/Sag
Harbor
Amen i a
Romulus
Wellsville
Oyster Bay
Port Crane
UHBR
ABLE
UNIT
05
06
07
08
10
11
01
01
03
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09-
10
11
12
02
01
01
ACTIVITY 1 Pin
RI/FS FF
RI/FS FF
RI/FS FF
.RA FF
RA FF
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
. RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
FF
F
PS
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
OTABT
START
04/23/91
06/04/92
10/01/92
04/14/97
04/14/97
04/29/97
01/31/92
06/20/94
11/25/92
02/28/97
01/22/97
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
12/04/96
03/03/95
07/19/96
05/14/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1997
3 1997
2 1998
2
4
2
2
4
4
3
2
2
4
2
1
1
1
4
2008
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
2000
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
1996
1997
SCHEDULE
2 1999
2 2000
4 2000
4 1998
4 1OOR
2
2
4
*
2
4
3
2
1
1
4
4
1
. 1
4
1
1
1
1
4
3
1999
2001
1998
20
2002
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2001
2000
2001
1999
2001
2000
2003
1998
1998
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
VI
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
SITE NAME
Vestal Water Supply Well
1-1
Warwick Landfill
York Oil Co.
Fibers Public Supply Wells
GE Wiring Devices
Upjohn Facility
V&M/Albaladejo
Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells
Island Chemical Corp/V.I. Chemical
Corp
Army Creek Landfill (Delaware Sand
& Gravel Llangollen)
Chem-Solv, Inc.
Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfills
Delaware City PVC Plant (Stauffer
Chemical Co.)
Delaware Sand & Gravel -Llangollen/A
rmy Creek Landfill)
LOCATION
Vestal
Warwick
Warwick
jobos
juana Diaz
Barceloneta
Almirante Norte
Ward
Vega Alta
Christiansted
New Castle
County
Cheswold
Kent County
Delaware City
New Castle
County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
- RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
F
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
MR
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/94
09/30/94
08/25/95
05/21/92
09/28/95
02/22/96
04/19/89
02/11/92
09/30/96
09/18/92
09/29/94
07/23/91
05/28/97
09/30/90
09/30/90
09/29/89
06/30/95
12/12/95
07/24/96
PREVIOUS '
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
3
2
1
3
4
4
1
1
3
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
1994
1994
1996
1998
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
2
4
4
1
3
4
4
1
2
2
2
3
1999
2000
1997
1998
1999
2000
. 1999
1999
1999
1994
2000
2020
2010
1998
1999
2011
1999
1999
2005
A-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
r REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REHEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG ST
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 HD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
SITE IWff LOCATION
Dover Air Force Base Dover
Dover Gas Light Co. Oover
[Coppers Co., Inc. (Newport Newport
P Isnt )
NCR Corp. (Hillsboro Plant) Millsboro
Tybouts Corner Landfill Smyrna
Wildcat Landfill Dover
_ _
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Edgewood
Area)
-
Aberdeen Proving Grounds Aberdeen
(Michaelsvi lie Landfill)
Beltsvi lie Agricultural Research Beltsville
(USDA)
Central Chemical (Hagerstown) Hagerstown
MBLS
UNIT
02
13
15
16
01
01
01
oi
01
02
01
02
03
04
08
10
12
13
14
15
02
03
06
01
03
01
ACTIVITY i P«n
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
.MR
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FUNDING
STflRT
J inn 1
08/09/94
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
07/10/95
09/26/91
04/10/96
11/25/92
10/16/89
02/15/91
05/01/97
03/27/90
08/18/97
10/18/95
03/27/90
03/27/90
09/02/97
07/21/97
09/27/91
05/31/97
03/27/90
03/27/90
08/30/91
10/26/96
01/22/97
08/29/97
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
cpucnin c **«._.... _
oLnbUULE
4 1996
3 1998
1 1997
2 1997
2 1997
1 1998
4 1996
3 1997
3 1997
4 1998
1 2000
1 2005
SLHtUULt
4 2nnn
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
3
3
1
2
4
1
4
1
1
1
2
i
1998
1998
1999
1999
2016
2017
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1997
1997
1998
1999
2013
1999
2009
2000
2001
1999
1999
1OOO
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST' SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
3 MD Fort George G. Meade Odenton 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
07
08
3 MD Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Indian Head 02
Center 03
. 05
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
01/17/95
01/17/95
11/08/95
11/08/95
11/08/95
01/17/95
08/06/96
11/08/95
06/12/95
06/30/97
06/30/97
06/30/97
4
4
4
2
4
1
4
1
1
4
2
4
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
2001
3 MD Ordanance Products
3 MD Patuxent River Naval Air
Station
Cecil County
St. Mary's
County
01
RI/FS
09/25/96 3 1998
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
09
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
27
29
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FFi
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
02/18/97
1999
1
1
2
3
4
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
A-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
SI2nUL2L»fED1AL NAVIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
I\U
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Ol
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
31 It NAMt
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Souffiern Maryland Wood Treating
Spectron, Inc.
Aladdin Plating, Inc.
Austin Avenue Radiation
Site
Avcd Lyconting (Williamsport
Division)
Bally Ground Water Contamination
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berks Sand Pit
Boarhead Farms
Breslube-Penn, Inc
Brodhead Creek
Centre County Kepone
Commodore Semiconductor
Group
Crater Resources/Keystone
Coke/Alan Wood
LOCATION
Elkton
Hollywood
Elkton
Scott Township
Deleware County
Williamsport
Bally Borough
Bridgewater
Township
Longswamp
Township
Bridgeton
Township
Coraopolis
Stroudsburg
State College
Boro
Lower Providence
Townsh
Upper Merion
Township
UNIT
03
04
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
05
03
01
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY LEfln
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
F.
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
luni/inu UUnrLCIIUN
START ^PUPniiic
«j i nn i oV*nCUULC
05/18/95 2 1997
06/08/95
01/23/97 .
05/20/96 4 1998
01/28/96
12/13/94 1 1999
05/02/97
09/24/97
02/17/95 4 1997
06/23/94 4 1996
08/16/91
12/05/89 2 1997
09/18/96
05/04/94 1 1997
09/30/96
11/18/94 2 . 1997
09/07/94 3 1998
UUMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 ?01fi
1
4
1
4
3
1
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
1
1999
1999
2000
1997
1998
2004
2003
1999
2016
2004
1998
1999
1998
2000
1998
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON'SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
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
Croydon TCE
CryoChem, Inc.
Dorhey Road Landfill
Drake Chemical
Dublin TCE Site
East Mount Zion
Eastern Diversified Metals
Fischer & Porter Co.
Foote Mineral Co.
Havertown PCP
He leva Landfill
Heltertown Manufacturing
Co.
Henderson Road Site
Industrial Lane
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
LOCATION
Croydon
Woman
Upper Macungie
Township
Lock Haven
Dublin Borough
Springettsbury
Township
Hometown
Warminster
East White I and
Township
Haverford
North Whitehall
He Her town
Upper Merion
Township
Williams Township
Union Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
01
02
03
02
01
02
04
02.
01
01
02
03
05
02
04
02
02
03
04
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F*
PRP
F
PRP
PS
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/91
09/30/93
06/14/95
12/28/95
09/30/91
08/15/91
09/30/94
08/29/96
06/30/97
02/20/92
09/30/96
07/27/90
09/27/96
08/15/91
09/05/97
09/22/93
09/12/92
08/02/96
04/21/94
08/22/97
08/22/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
4
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
1
2
3
2005
1998
1998
1997 -
1998
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
4
4
2
3
1
1
4
1
. 4
2
1
4
2
1
4
4
4
4
2016
2008
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
2028
2026
2008
2018
1998
1999
2018
A-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
uF REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REHEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE NAME
3 PA Kimberton Site
3 PA Letterkenny Army Depot (Property
Disposal office Area)
3 PA Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
LOCATION
Kimberton
Borough
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
Franklin County
Chambersburg
3 PA Lord-Shope Landfill
3 PA Metropolitan Mirror and
Glass
3 PA Mill Creek Dump
3 PA Naval Air Development Center (8
waste centers)
3 PA Navy Ships Parts Control
Center
3 PA North Penn-Area 2 (Ametek, Inc.
Hunter Spring Division)
Girard Township
Frackville
Erie
Warminster
Township
Mechanicsburg
Hatfield
02
03
04
05
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
01
01
02
01
04
06
01
03
04
01
02
02
02
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI
RI/FS
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
'PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
02/26/93
02/03/89
08/31/94
08/31/94
05/01/97
09/08/93
02/03/89
02/03/89
07/31/94
07/31/94
07/31/94
07/31/94
07/20/94
09/19/94
02/01/92
05/04/92
01/15/95
09/13/96
09/20/90
05/19/97
02/11/97
09/03/97
06/30/88
07/08/93
07/08/93
01/31/93
3
3
3
1
1
3
4
2
1
3
2
3
1
3
3
2
1
1997
1997
1999 .
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
2005
1998
1997
1998
1999
1998
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
2
1
3
3
2
4
1
2
4
4
2
2014
1999
2000
2002
2002
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2002
1999
2024
1998
2007
1999
2000
1999
1999
1999
1998
2000
2001
1998
1998
2001
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS. ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
North Penn-Area 6 (J.U. Rex/Allied
Paint/Keystone hydra
Occidental Chemical Corp. /Firestone
Co.
Ohio River Park
Old City of York Landfill
Osborne Landfill
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Publicker Industries Inc.
Raymark
Rodale Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
Strasburg Landfill
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tysons Dump
Walsh Landfill
Uestinghouse Elevator Co. (Sharon
LOCATION
Lansdale
Lower Ppttsgrove
Twp.
Neville Island
Seven Valleys
Grove City
Palmerton
Philadelphia
Hatboro
Emmaus Borough
Newlin Township
Toby Hanna
Upper Her ion
Township
Honeybrook
Township
Sharon
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
01
03
01
01
01
04
03
03
01
04'
04
05
06
07
01
03
02
04
01
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PS
FUNDING
START
05/11/95
09./28/93
08/05/97
09/27/96
05/08/95
01/24/95
07/31/88
12/02/96
07/17/97
06/17/93
09/22/92
01/14/92
06/22/93
06/22/93
06/22/93
09/01/96
06/03/88
07/22/96
11/09/95
05/01/90
09/20/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1998
1998
1997
1998
2000
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
3
4
4
4
1
2
.4
4
2
4
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1999
1998
2029
1998
2027 *
2029
2000
1999
1998
2004
1999
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
2017
1999
2000
1999
Plant)
A-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST SITE NAME
PA Westinghouse Elevator Co.
Plant
PA Uhitmoyer Laboratories
PA William Dick Lagoons
PA Willow Grove Naval Air & Air Res.
Stn.
VA Abex Corporation
VA Avtex Fibers, Inc.
VA Buckingham County Landfill
VA C&R Battery Co., Inc.
VA Chisman Creek
VA Defense General Supply Center
LOCATION
Gettysburg
Jackson Township
West Cain
Township
Willow Grove
Portsmouth
Front Royal
Buckingham
Chesterfield
County
York County
Chesterfield
County
ABLE
UNIT
01
04
06
01
01
01
04
07
08
09
01
01
02
02
03
04
06
07
08
10
11
12
13
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
. RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
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
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
05/30/97
02/06/97
05/10/96 3
03/24/97
05/28/97
01/03/97
07/22/91 1
03/30/93 1
06/19/95 1
07/23/96
07/02/97
04/28/92 1
01/25/89
09/21/90 3
01/31/97
09/21/90 2
10/11/91 4
10/11/91 2
10/11/91 4
07/15/95
07/15/95
07/14/95
07/14/95
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
cpucniii c
4 2019
3
4
2
2
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
4
1
3
4
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
1999
2017
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
2000
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
3 VA Fort Eust is (US Army) Newport News 01
02
03
04
05
3 VA Greenwood Chemical Co. Newton 02
04
3 VA Langley Air Force Base/NASA Hampton 03
Langley Cntr . 05
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
37
42
44
47
49
50
3 VA Marine Corps Combat Development Quantico . 01
Command 02
03
04
05
06
07
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI
RI
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
. RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
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
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
04/30/96 2 1998
10/01/95
01/30/95
07/30/97
05/30/97
09/29/97
09/26/96
12/16/93 1 1998
11/01/96
06/17/96
05/26/97
06/17/96
12/31/95
08/05/96
03/10/97
08/05/96
08/05/96
08/05/96
08/05/96
05/26/97
06/17/96
10/17/96
06/17/96
06/17/96
06/17/96
09/13/97
10/01/96
08/31/95
12/01/96
12/31/96
12/31/96
12/31/96 1 1997
12/31/96
12/31/96
12/31/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1 '
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
2018
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2030
2000
2000 '
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
2000
1999
2000
1999
1998
2000
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
A-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
! REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REHEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE HAHF
3 VA Naval Surface Warfare -
Dahlgren
3 VA Naval Weapons Station -
Yorktown
3 VA Norfolk Naval Base (Sewells Pt
Cmpx)
3 VA Rinehart Tire Fire Dump
3 VA Saltville Waste Disposal
Ponds
3 VA Saunders Supply Co.
3 VA U.S. Titanium
3 WV Allegany Ballistics Laboratory
(USNAVY)
3 WV Fike Chemical
3 WV Sharon Steel Corp (Fairmont Coke
Works)
LOCATION
Dahlgren
Yorktown
Pt Nvl Norfolk
Frederick
County
Saltville
Chuckatuck
. Piney River
~ .
ry Mineral
Nitro
:oke Fairmont
4REP~ PREVIOUS PRESENT
MUIT Anrn/.Tv , FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY 1 Ffln QTADT onum,,,,-
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
02
06
07
08
09
10
04
01
02
03
04
01
01-
02
04
04
01
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF .
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
12/13/93 4 1997
12/13/93 3
12/13/93
10/10/96
10/10/96
10/10/96
12/13/93
07/25/94 2
02/05/96
07/03/96
10/23/96
01/13/97
07/31/97
07/07/97
09/29/89 1
08/26/94 1
06/17/94 1
09/15/88 3
09/25/96 2
08/18/94 3
12/20/94 1
12/20/94
09/30/94 2
09/17/97
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
4 199fl
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
1
3
1
1
4
3
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
4
2
1998
1998
2000
2000
2000
1999
1998
1998
2000
1999
2000
2001
1998
2002
1999
1999
2000
1999
1999
2001
1999
2000
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A .
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME
UV West Virginia Ordnance
AL Alabama Army Ammunition
Plant
AL Anniston Army Depot (Southeast
Industrial Area)
AL Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
AL 01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
AL Redstone Arsenal (USARMY/NASA)
AL stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
AL T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UMIT ACT I VI Tl
Point Pleasant 08
09
10
11
12
13
Childersburg 04
06
Anniston 01
01
02
Mclntosh 01
02
04
05
Mclntosh 02
03
Huntsville 01
Axis 01
01
01
02
02
04
Bucks 01
01
01
04
Montgomery 01
02
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
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
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
( LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP .
PRP
EP
FF
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
09/28/93
09/28/93
01/24/95
01/04/94
11/24/94
12/20/95
09/27/94
07/01/97
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
12/18/92
09/27/89
08/18/93
01/05/90
12/30/92
05/21/93
12/18/92
09/27/89
09/27/93
05/21/93
09/27/96
07/14/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
1
1
4
4
4
1
4
4
1
4
1
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1997
1998
2000
2000
2000
2019
1998
1998
2000
1997
2000
1998
1999
1999
1996
2000
1999
2010
2000
1998
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
1
1
1
4
4
1
4
1
2
4
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
4
1
4
1
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1997
1999
1999
1998
2000
2000
2019
1998
1998
2000
1998
2000
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
2000
2010
1999
2010
2000
1998
1997
A-25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF-REMEDIAL"INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
Airco Plating Co.
American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant)
B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
Cabot/Koppers
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Escambia Wood - Pensacola
Florida Petroleum Reprocessors
Florida Steel Corp.
Helena Chemical Co.
Homestead Air Force Base
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
LOCATION
Miami
Pensacola
Hialeah
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Cantonment
Pensacola
Fort Lauderdale
Indiantown
Tampa
Homestead
Jacksonville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
05
06
08
01
01
01
02
02
05
07
09
01
01
02
02 .
03
04
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA '
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS.
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
' FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F.
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
12/20/95
09/11/97
12/07/95
05/17/94
09/27/91
09/29/93
01/17/97
02/02/95
04/09/97
10/22/90
02/18/92
02/18/92
02/29/96
02/16/93
05/12/97
05/10/96
01/24/96
11/06/92
10/01/90
10/01/90
05/21/93
10/08/90
03/20/95
07/01/92
03/06/95
12/17/93
08/15/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
3
1
2
1
1
2
4
3
2
4
1
1
1
2
1997
1998 .
1995
1998
1998
1998
1997
2001
1997
1995
1997
1997
1996
2000
1998
1997
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
4
4
3
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
1
3
1998.
2002
1998
1998
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
2001
2000
1998
1998
1995
1998
1998
1998
1996
2000
1998
1998
2001
1999
-------
Progress Toward implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
FL Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal Tampa
(once listed as Timber Lake
Battery. Disposal)
FL MRI Corp (Tampa) Tampa
FL Madison County Sanitary Madison
Landfill
FL Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola
FL Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc. Medley
FL Petroleum Products Corp. Pembroke Park
FL Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water & Vero Beach
Sewer '
FL Sapp Battery Salvage Cottondale
FL Sherwood Medical Industries Deland
FL Southern Solvents, Inc. Tampa
OPER-
ABLE
UHIT
. 02
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
11
13
14 .
15
16
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
Rt/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
09/02/94
12/19/96
02/07/95
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
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
11/29/93
11/29/93
03/26/87
09/15/89
09/30/97
03/10/93
09/30/90
09/23/93
02/02/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
1
1
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
2000
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1996
1999
2000
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
3
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
1
1998
1999
1997
1998
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
1998
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
1999
2000
2010
1999
A-27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
SITE NAME
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Tower Chemical Co.
Whitehouse Oil Pits
Whiting Field Naval Air
Station
Zellwood Ground Water Contamination
Brunswick Wood Preserving
Cedartown Industries, Inc.
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Firestone Tire & Rubber
Co.
LCP Chemcials Georgia
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Marzonejnc. /Chevron Chemical
f*_
CO.
LOCATION
Tampa
Clermont
Whitehouse
Milton
Zellwood
Brunswick
Cedartown
Cedartown
Cedartown
Albany
Brunswick
Albany
Tifton
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01.
01
02
01
04
01
01
02
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
EP
F
PRP
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
12/12/92
03/22/94
04/15/94
11/27/95
11/27/95
11/27/95
09/21/92
02/24/97
11/16/95
11/04/94
06/29/95
06/28/96
07/06/95
12/12/96
12/30/94
09/15/92
09/09/96
06/30/97
04/15/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
1
1
2
3
3
2
4
4
4
1
2
4
3
1
2000
1997
1997
1998
1998
1998
1999
1997
1999
1999
1997-
1999
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
i
1
4
3
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
3
4
4
2000
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1998
GA Mathis Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road)
Kensington
01
RA
PRP 03/18/97
1 1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rfi
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
GA
GA
GA
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
SITE NAME
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Co.
Woolfolk Chemical Works,
Inc.
Airco
B.F. Goodrich
Brantley Landfill
Distler Brickyard
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone
Qurry
Green River Disposal, Inc.
National Electric Coil/Cooper
Industries
National Southwire Aluminum
Co.
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
LOCATION
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Calvert City
Calvert City
Calvert City
Uest Point
Olaton
Macco
Dayhoit
Hawesville
Paducah
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
03
04
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
07
08
10
11
13
15
16
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
. RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
12/31/91
08/02/94
11/29/95
10/03/96
04/24/90
04/24/90
04/24/90
09/29/95
09/29/95
06/24/97
09/28/88
03/31/97
04/29/96
02/25/93
09/29/97
12/12/94
04/10/89
08/12/93
07/09/93
03/29/95
04/27/93
06/28/93
09/13/95
11/14/96
08/02/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
4
4
4
1
3
2
4
2
4
3
4
3
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
2000
1998
1995
1997
2010
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
1
3
3
3
2
4
4
4
1
4
3
1
4
4
2
4
3
4
3
3
1
3
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
2000
2000
2028
1997
2000
2000
1999
1999
1997
1998
1997
2010
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
2001
A-29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
mf "EHEI"*'- INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
SJ_
KY
KY
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Red Penn Sanition Co. Landfill
Smith's Farm
Chemfax, Inc.
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Battery Tech
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Bypass 601 Ground Water
Contamination
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
Cape Fear Wood Preserving
Carolina Transformer Co.
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum
Storage
LOCATION
Peewee Valley
Brooks
Gulf port
Jacksonville
Aberdeen
Lexington
Haze I wood
Concord
Ons low County
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Cordova
OPER
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
--"
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
01
01
02
02
07
10
16
17
18
01
01
01
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
-
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
F
PRP
EP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRFSFNT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START Qpucnin c ««!.»..*... _
08/18/89 1 1998
03/13/96 3
09/07/94 4
.1-
09/30/96 1
11/25/96
11/25/96
11/25/96
11/25/96
11/25/96
11/25/96
09/09/94 3
09/30/96 3
09/29/97
03/20/95 1
06/08/94 3
04/13/92 1
. 02/21/97
04/07/97
02/21/97
09/29/94 2
. 09/30/97
06/28/94 1
1998
1999
2001
1997
2000
1999
1997
1998
2000
2000
aintuuLb
4 1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL. ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
4
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
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air
Station
Davis Park Road TCE Site
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
Flanders Filters Inc.
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen
Plant)
Harwell Road Septic Pit ,
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
RAM Leather Care Site
Reasor Chemical Company
LOCATION
Havelock
Gastinia
Statesvi lie
Washington
Aberdeen
Gas t on i a
Oxford
Belmont
Morrisville
Charlotte
Salisbury
Maco
Charlotte
Castle Hayne
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/03/97
03/20/96
07/12/95
08/03/95
09/30/96
09/30/97
02/12/96
02/22/96
08/22/97
09/11/96
06/20/95
06/22/95
09/25/89
06/27/90
09/23/94
09/05/97
08/09/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
1
3
1
1997
1997
1997
1997 '
1997
2000
1999
2001
1999
1999
2000
1996
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
4
3
4
4
4
2
3
4
3
2
1 .
1
2
3
1999
1998
1999
1998
1997
1999
1998
2000
1999
1999
2001
2030
1999
2000
1999
2001
1999
A-31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 3 W7
RG ST SITE UflHF
"
4 SC Aqua-Tech Environmental Inc (Groce
Labs)
4 SC Calhoun Park/Ansonborough
Home
4 SC Carolawn, Inc.
4 SC Elmore Waste Disposal
4 SC Geiger (C & M Oil)
4 SC Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
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 Medley Farm Drum Dump
4 SC Palmetto Wood Preserving
4 SC Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
4 SC Rochester Property
OPER-
PREVIOUS PRESENT
LOCATION
Greer
Charleston
Fort Lawn
. Greer
Rantoules
Fairfax
Beaufort
Florence
Charleston
Rock Hill
Cayce
Gaffney
Dixiana
Simpsonville
Travelers
Rest
nuuc
UNIT
01
01
01
01
Q1
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY 1 pan
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/26/95
01/22/93
05/12/93
09/30/96
01/19/94
01/19/94
05/28/97
04/18/96
02/29/88
03/25/96
12/13/90
09/30/96
09/30/93
09/25/89
02/15/96
11/14/94
COMPLETION COMPLETIl
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3 1998
2 1997
2 1998
2 1998
4 1998
1 1997
3 1997
3 1998
1 1997
2 1998
1 2000
1 1998
1 2000
3 1998
4 2008
4 2004
4 2001
4 1998
4 2009
4 1998
1 1998
4 2008
2 1999
2 1999
4 1999
3 2001
4 2003
4 2005
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
4 SC Rock Hill Chemical Co. ' Rock Hill 01
4 SC SCRDI Bluff Road Columbia 01
4 SC SCRDI Dixiana Cayce 01
4 SC Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile Pickens 01
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB 01
4 SC Savannah River Site (USDOE) Aiken 08
09
10
10
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
36
37
38
39
40
42
44
46
47
50
52
55
58
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/19/96
12/04/95
09/29/89
11/22/93
03/11/97
04/05/96
04/05/96
01/09/91
09/21/96
08/05/91
10/28/91
03/25/92
10/21/91
02/25/92
02/05/92
07/15/92
08/15/92
08/05/91
04/10/97
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
05/15/93
12/19/95
02/25/97
04/03/96
03/31/92
03/17/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
3
3
3
4
1
3
2
1
2
1
3
4
3
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
4
4
3
4
2
3
2006
1997
1997
1999
1999
1995
2000
1998
1999
2001
1998
1998
2000
1999
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
1
4
3
3
3
4
. 1
3
2
3
2
1
3
4
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
3
4
3
1
3
4
2002
2003
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1995
2000
1998
1999
2001
1998
1998
2000
1999
1997
1998
2000
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
2001
1999
1998
2000
A-33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supertax): Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS," FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 3 1997
ST SITE HAHE
SC Townsend Saw Chain Co.
~" _
4 TN Arlington Blending & Packaging
4 TN Carrier Air Conditioning
Co.
4 TN MaI lory Capacitor Co.
4 TN Memphis Defense Depot (DLA)
4 TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant
LOCATION
Pontiac
Arlington
ColUerville
Waynesboro
Memph i s
Milan
4 TN Murray-Ohio Dump
4 TN oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
Lawrenceburg
Oak Ridge
OPER-
ABLE FUNDING
UNIT
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
01
00
01
01
02
03
04
01
03
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
13
13
14
18
01
05
07
09
10
12
13
15
19
' 21
22
23
25
^^^^^^^^^_
RA
-^ _
RA
RA
RA
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
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA .
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
»j i nn i
06/21/95
12/12/94
11/03/94
06/08/93
02/09/94
03/10/94
05/09/94
11/15/93
10/01/89
09/04/96
10/01/89
09/04/96
09/04/96
09/04/96
09/04/96
10/01/89
11/26/91
08/13/96
02/18/97
05/29/97
07/16/96
03/31/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
02/21/97
01/03/90
06/09/90
09/14/90
10/25/86
08/28/92
12/28/90
01/14/91
10/25/86
Ol
3
3
2
3
3
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
3
3
4
.neuuLt
1996
1995
2027
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
S(
4
4
3
2
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
:HEDULE
1998
2027
1995
2027
1999
2000
2000
1998
2000
2000
2000
.2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
1998
1999
2005
2005
1998
1998
2001
1999
1999
1999
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST
4 TN
4 TN
4 TN
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
.5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
SITE NAME
Ross Metals Inc
Tennessee Products
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman
County)
Acme Solvent Reclaiming,
Inc.
Belpit Corp.
Byron Salvage Yard
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
DuPage County Landf ill/BlackWell
Forest Preserve)
Galesburg/Koppers Co.
Ilada Energy Co.
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
LOCATION
Rossville
Chattanooga
Toone
Morristown
Rockton
Byron
Pembroke Township
Uarrenville
. Galesburg
East Cape
Girardeau
Joilet
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
40
01
01
01
02
06
08
01
04
01
01
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
:LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
EP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
FF
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
10/01/95 3 1998
12/02/92
10/04/93 4 1999
09/23/93 4 1998
09/30/93 2 1999
12/02/92 4 1999
02/02/94 4 1999
03/31/94 4 1999
12/22/94 3 1999
10/03/96
08/14/95 3 1997
05/26/95 2 2027
04/25/97
09/29/94 1 2000
06/25/97
09/27/90 2 1998
12/29/89 1 1997
09/30/93 4 1997
03/01/96
05/05/95 2 1999
06/19/89 4 1997
06/09/89 4 1997
06/09/89 1 1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
2
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
4
2
2
1
4
1
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
2000
1999
2001
2005
1999
1999 '
2000
2001
1999
1998
1999
2027
2026
2000
1998
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
A-35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
SI5IUL2LREHEDIAL INW*TIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG_
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
SJ_
i
1L
a
IL
IL
IL
IL
. IL
It
IL
. IL
IL
IL
IL
SITE NAME
_ __
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant(Load-A
ssembly-Packing Area
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West
Branch of Dupage River)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler
Park)
Kerr-McGee (Residential
Areas)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat
Plant)
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
MIG/De'wane Landfill
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Ottawa Radiation Areas
Outboard Marine Corp.
Pagel's Pit
.
Parsons Casket Hardware
Co.
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
(USDOI)
LOCATION
Joliet
DuPage County
West Chicago
West Chicago/DuPage
Cnty
West Chicago
Lemont
Belvidere
Granite City
Ottawa
Waukegan
Rockford ;
Belvidere
Carterville
OPER-
fBLE FUNDING
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD ST/iPT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
m
01
01
02
01
02
02 "
01-
02
04
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
FF
PRP
FF
06/09/89
06/09/89
09/30/92
05/20/92
09/17/93
05/20/92
09/29/89
05/01/95
03/29/91
03/08/91
03/15/93
09/30/97
03/26/93
09/26/90
08/08/97
08/13/91
09/01/96
06/30/93
09/27/95
09/13/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
^SCHEDULE SCHPnillP
3 1997
4 1998 '
4 1997
4 1998
3 1997
4 1997
4 1999
4 1999
2 1998
4 1997
2 1997
1 1998
1 1997
1 1998
1 1998
4 1998
4 1998
3 2000
1 1999
4 2001
1 1999
4 1998
1 1999
4 1998
1 2000
1 2000
1 2000
4 1998
4 1998
1 2002
1 1999
1 1999
1 1999
1 2000
4 1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rfi
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IN
IN.
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Southeast Rockford Ground Water
Contamination
American Chemical Service,
Inc.
Cam-Or Inc
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglas Road/Uni royal. Inc.,
Landfill
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Lemon Land Landfill
MIDCO I Site
Neal's Landfill (Bloomington)
LOCATION
Savanna
Rockford
Griffith
Uestville
Kokomo
Hishawaka
LaPorte
Fort Wayne
Bloomington
Gary
Bloomington
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
04
03
01
01
01
00
01
02
03
04
05
05
06
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
Rl/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
S
PRP
PRP
F
F
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/29/89
10/31/91
02/07/96
04/10/96
06/06/96
06/30/97
07/01/97
05/25/90
08/26/91
03/27/92
03/27/92
03/27/92
06/23/97
03/27/92
09/30/97
09/27/96
09/30/95
07/21/97
09/20/90
05/08/95
07/22/93
08/13/96
07/07/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
4
2
4
2
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1997
1996
1997
1998
1989
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1999
2007
1999
1998
1998
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
1998
2000
2000
2000
2000
1998
1998
1998
1999
2001
5 IN Ninth Avenue Dump
Gary
02
RA
PRP
02/14/94 1 1997
1998
A-37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG_
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
SJ_
IN
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
Ml
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Northside Sanitary Landfill
Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Tri -State Plating
Albion-Sheridan Township
Landfill
Allied Paper, Inc. /Portage
Creek/Kalamazoo River
Bay City Middlegrounds
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Chem Central
Electrovoice
Forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
Ionia City Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
LOCATIOH
Zionsville
Indianapolis
Seymour
Columbus
~
Albion
Ka lama zoo
Bay City
Muskegon
Wyoming Township
Buchanan
Otisville
lit ira
U L 1 \*O
Ionia
Cadillac
Utica
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEfln
01 RA PRR
01
f\f
Ui
01
01
01
01
02
04
05
00
02
01
01
n*i
02
02.
01
02
01
01
RA
RA
RA
RA
"
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
Rl/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
S
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETII
§IMT SCHEDULE snHFnniP
09/30/94 2
09/30/94 4
09/13/96
08/17/87 3
03/29/91 2
'
09/04/97
12/28/90
12/28/90 3
12/28/90 4
12/28/90 1
06/18/97
03/31/90 1
08/18/94 3
05/24/96 4
09/15/92 3
03/26/96 1
06/02/95 1
01/29/86 4
03/03/95 2
09/30/92 4
1999
1998
1997
1999
1998
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
2020
1997
2 1999
1 1999
4 1998
~ 1 TTO
4 2010
2 1999
2 2020
3 logo
* 1 777
3 1999
2 1999
1 2000
2 1998
4 1998
3 1999
3 2000
3 1999
4 2000
1 1999
1 1999
4 2016
4 2001
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rfi
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
HI '
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
HI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Lower Ecorse Creek Dump
Motor Wheel, Inc.
North Bronson Industrial-
Area
Northernaire Plating
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
Peerless Plating Co.
Rockwell International Corp.
(Allegan Plant)
Shiawassee River
Sparta Landfill
Thermo- Chem, Inc.
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Michigan)
Verona Well Field
Wurtsmith Air Force Base
LOCATION
Uyandotte
Lansing
Bronson
CadiUac
Da I ton Township
Muskegon
Allegan
Howe 1 1
Sparta Township
Muskegon
St. Louis
Battle Creek
Isoco
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
02
01
02
03
01 .'
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
07
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA ,
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
F
PRP
S
PRP
, F
F
S
F
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
' START
09/25/97
06/27/97
09/16/96
03/03/95
09/25/91
09/28/92
04/04/95
09/23/96
03/31/88
06/19/87
09/23/93
10/27/94
10/27/94
10/27/94
09/21/87
02/14/97
12/28/94
01/03/95
06/01/88
09/26/94
06/24/94
01/03/95
03/15/93
12/14/94
08/04/94
06/30/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
4
4
2
3
2
4
2020
1997
1997
1999
1998
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
2
4
1
4
4
4
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
2
3
2
4
4
1998
1998
1998
2002
1999
1999
. 1999
2006
2000
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1998
1997
2018
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1996
2005
A-39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
mF REHEOIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 .
5
5
'5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Freeway Sanitary Landfill
Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply
Co.
Long Prairie Ground Water
Contamination
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bel I Lumber
& Pole Co.
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Perham Arsenic
St. Regis Paper Co.
Waite Park Wells
Allied Chemical & Ironton
Coke
A I sco Anaconda
Buckeye Reclamation
LOCATION
Hermantown
Burnsville
Brooklyn Center
Long Prairie
New Brighton
Fridley
New Brighton
Oak Grove
Township
Perham
Cass Lake
Uaite Park
Ironton
Gnadenhutten
St. Clairsville
AHLt
UNIT
01
01
03
02
03
01
03
03
01
02
03
07
02
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01 .
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
S
PS
PS
S
S
S
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/15/90
03/27/86
07/31/95
04/11/91
12/09/93
09/30/94
09/23/96
09/26/97
06/14/91
03/22/92
05/20/96
09/21/95
08/05/92
09/30/96
01/07/87
01/07/87
08/12/94
03/03/95
09/30/91
02/10/95
07/02/97
PREVIOUS
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
OpLICm II C nniip-nin _
Olj
4
1
' 1
1
3
4
4
4
1
4
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
'lltUULC
2000
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1999
1999
1998
1997
1996
1998
1997
1997
1997
1999
aineuuLt
4 2000
1
1
4
1
4
4
3
4
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
4
4
1
4
4
1996
2000
2002
1999
2001
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
1998
1999
1999
. 1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A.
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Dover Chemical Corp.
Feed Materials Production Center
(USDOE)
Fultz Landfill
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Nease Chemical
Ormet Corp.
Pristine, Inc.
Rickenbacker Air National Guard
(USAF)
Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial
Waste Disposal Co.Inc
Skinner Landfill
Van Dale Junkyard
Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base
LOCATION
Dover
Fernald
Jackson Township
Hiamisburg
Salem
Hannibal-
Reading
Lockbourne
Dayton
West Chester
Marietta
Dayton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
02
05
06
09
01
01
05
01
01
02
01
12
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
FF
FF
FF.
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
08/24/88
04/01/96
06/10/96
09/24/96
03/04/96
09/09/96
06/09/95
06/25/97
06/21/93
02/04/93
07/17/92
05/22/92
01/27/88
04/14/97
03/17/97
04/15/96
04/16/96
06/18/96
04/02/97
08/31/95
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
2
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1997
1998
2001
2006
2000
1997
2001
2008
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
4
1
2
4
1998
2005
2002
2006
2006
2006
2006
1998
2000
2003
2001
2006
1999
1998
1998
1999
1998
2000
2000
1998
WI Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
DePere
02
RA
08/05/91
1997
1 1999
A-41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL. INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
ST
UI
WI
UI
WI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
AR
AR
SITE NAME
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Del a van Municipal Well #4
Janesville Ash Beds
Janesville Old Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Master Disposal Service-
Landfill
Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil
Co.)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
National Presto Industries,
Inc.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Penta Hood Products
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Stoughton City Landfill
Uheeler Pit
Frit Industries
Midland Products
LOCATION
Dunn
Delavan
Janesville
Janesville
Menomonee
Falls
Brookfield
Milwaukee
Muskego
Eau Claire
Ashippin
Daniels
Sheboygan
Stoughton
La Prairie
Township
Walnut Ridge
Ola/Birta
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY" LEAD
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA '
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
S
FUNDING
START
03/30/95
09/28/90
09/09/96
09/09/96
03/31/97
03/29/94
05/19/95
09/26/97
11/12/93
05/12/94
09/20/90
03/01/94
04/11/86
09/27/97
05/21/92
09/08/83
06/29/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHPll i F
1
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
4
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
2000
1999
1999
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
1
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
1
2
4
2
4
4
1
1
2029
1999
2002
2002
1998
2027
2025
1998
1999
1999
2006
1998
1999
1998
2003
1998
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
AR
AR
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
NM
NM
Popile, Inc.
Vertac, Inc.
American Cregote Works, Inc
(Winnfield)
Combustion, Inc.
Gulf Coast Vaccuum Services
Gulf State Utilities-North Ryan
Street
Highway 71/72 Refinery
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
Madisonville Creosote Works
Old Inger Oil Refinery
PAB Oil & Chemical Service,
Inc.
Pet ro- Processors of Louisiana,
Inc.
AT & SF (Clovis)
AT&SF (Albuquerque)
El Dorado
Jacksonville
Winnfield
Denhara Springs
Abbeville
Lake Charles
Bossier
Doyline
Madisonville
Darrow
Abbeville
Scot landvi lie
Clovis
Albuquerque
01
02
03
05
01
01
01
01
01
00
00
01
. 03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
F
PRP*
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FF '
FF
F
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
09/27/94 1
09/26/94 4
07/30/97
07/30/97
09/28/93 2
10/25/88 3
06/02/97
02/10/97
02/10/97
08/08/97
06/26/97
09/22/94 2
09/30/93 4
04/01/97
01/17/97
04/25/86 2
06/09/97
11/09/92
12/17/92
06/30/87 4
08/07/89 4
06/06/94 2
1999
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1998
1997
1
4
4
4
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
2028
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
2006
1999
1999
1999
1999
.1999
1998
1998
1998
2005
1998
1999
2000
1999
2000
1998
A-43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
F REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REHEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
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
Cimarron Mining Corp.
Espanola Wells
Fruit Avenue Plume
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
Rinchem Co. Inc.
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
.
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Hardage/Criner
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
National Zinc Corp.
Oklahoma Refining Co. (Pesses
Chemical Co.)
RAB Valley Mood Preserving
Sand Springs Petrochemical
Complex
Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
LOCATION
Carrizozo
Espanola
Albuquerque
Prewitt
Albuquerque
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Oklahoma City
Criner
Oklahoma City
Bart lesvi lie
Cyril
Panama
Sand Springs
Ottawa County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAn
01 RA F*
n*\ _ .
02 .
01
01
01
01
05
06
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
KA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
"
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI
RI/FS
RA
F*
S
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
S
F
PRP
S
F
F
F
FUNDING
OTADT
O IHKI
08/13/91
12/20/91
09/09/96
09/09/96
01/16/95
10/01/95
04/24/92
06/18/95
09/12/89
09/30/97
01/04/93
05/15/95
03/16/95
11/06/95
02/15/95
03/15/94
07/28/97
09/27/94
09/16/94
05/24/96
03/20/95
08/25/94
09/22/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1998
2 1997
1 1998
1 1998 .
4 2002
4 1996
2 1997
1 1998
3 1997
4 1999
4 1999
4 1999
1 1997
4 1997
1 1998
1 1997
1 1998
PRESENT
1 COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1900
4
3
3
4
4
1
3
4
3
4
1
4
4
1
'4
1
4
4
1
1
4
1
1998 .
1999
1999
2002
1998
2003
2025
1999
1999
2010
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2003
1997
1998
2003
1999
2001
onn/.
-------
Progress Toward' Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
Tinker Air Force Base
ALCOA (Point Comfort )/Lavaca
Bay
Bailey Waste Disposal
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
French, Ltd.
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann
Energy.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
Lone Star Army Ammunition'
Plant .
Longhorn Army Ammunition
Plant
MOTCO, Inc.
North Calvacade Street
Odessa Chromium' #1
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Hiahwav)
Oklahoma City
Point Comfort
Bridge City
Friendswood
Crosby
Houston
Texarkana
Texarkana
Karnack
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
03
04
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
02
02
02
04
01
02
01
02
02
02
03
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
"FF*
FF*
PRP
MR
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
S
S
S
S
PRP
10/16/95
10/16/95
03/31/94
02/19/92
06/29/89
06/28/89
03/31/89
03/03/96
06/18/90
06/18/90
10/16/91
10/25/96
02/12/97
10/16/91
12/30/88
12/13/93
09/12/91
09/03/93
09/27/89
03/30/90
04/18/93
4
2
4
1
4
3
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
1997
1997
1998
1998 "
2002
1998
1999
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1997
1998
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
1
4
3
2
4
1
2
4
4
1
1
3
1
1
1998
1998
1999
1998
2002
1998
.1999
1999
1998
1998
2000
1998
1999
2000
1998
1998
2009
2000
1999
1998
1999
A-45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfuod: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
SImUDC2L»fEDIAL'INV£STIGATIONS' FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE HAHF
6 TX Pantex Plant (USDOE)
6 TX .Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc.
(Turtle Bayou)
6 TX Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
6 TX South Cavalcade Street
6 TX Sprague Road Ground Water
Plume
6 TX Tex-Tin Corp.
6 TX Texarkana Wood Preserving
Co. ,
6 TX United Creosoting Co.
7 IA Farmers' Mutual Cooperative
7 IA Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
7 IA Mason City Coal Gasification
Plant
7 IA Peoples Natural Gas Co.
7 IA Ralston Site
7 IA Red Oak City Landfill
7 IA Vogel Paint & Wax
LOCATION
Pantex Village
Liberty County
Houston
Houston
Odessa
Texas City
Texarkana
Conroe
Hospers
Middle town
Mason City
Dubuque
Cedar Rapids
Red Oak
Orange City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
04
02
01
00
01
01
02
03
03
03
03
00
01
03
01
01
01
01
01 .
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS.
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
FF
F
S
PRP
F
F
S
F
S
S
S
S
PS
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PREVIOUS -
FUNDING COMPLETION
START spucniiic
05/01/91
09/26/97
09/10/91 4
01/11/95 4
09/12/97
03/06/97
05/21/93 4
05/21/93
09/17/93 4
09/17/93 1
09/17/93 4
09/17/93 1
01/09/96
09/20/90 3
07/22/97
10/01/91 4
03/29/94 4
11/27/91 1
08/16/97
05/20/91 2
'IIL.1SUL.C
2004
1999
1999
2000
1999
2000
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETH
SCHEDULE
3 1999
4 1999
4 2004
3 2025
3 1999
1 1998
1 1999
1 1999
4 1999
4 1999
3 2005
4 1998
4 1999
4 1999
4 2000
1 1999
4 1998
4 2000
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 199?
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
7 IA
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
Waterloo Coal Gasification
PI and
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
Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe
Minerals
Ellisville Site
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
(Northwest Lagoon)
Waterloo
Wichita
Wichita Heights
Colby
Cherokee County
Johnson County
Junction City
Hutch inson
El Dorado
DeSoto
Desloge
Ellisville
Independence
01
01
01
01
07
07
01
01
02
03
04
02
01
02
01
01
02
02
03
04
01
OT
02
03
04
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PS
F
F
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PS
PS
' FF
PRP
PRP
MR
EP
MR
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
05/30/95
09/27/89
09/15/94
07/23/96
08/02/96
09/29/97
03/06/95
09/29/97
01/22/92
07/01/93
04/11/97
10/17/96
11/01/94
12/16/93
10/01/95
01/29/97
01/29/97
01/30/96
07/01/97
01/25/96
08/03/90
08/01/87
04/21/92
06/27/90
09/30/92
3
1
2
4
4
4
3
2
2
4
1
1
3
3
1999
1999 .
1999 "
1998
1998
1998
1997
1999
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1999
1
1
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
2000
2000
1998
1999
1999
2000
1999
1998
1997
1999
2002
2000
2005
1998
2008
1999
2001
1998
1998
1998
2003
2003
1998
1999
1999
A-47-
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
SI«nUL2L?EHEDIAL 'INSTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE HflHF
7 MO Lee Chemical
7 MO Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (Area
2: Fills 1 & 2)
7 MO Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
7 MO Shenandoah Stables (once listed as
Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
7 MO St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood
Interim Storage/Futura Coat
7 MO Syntex Facility
7 MO Times Beach Site
7 MO Valley Park TCE
7 MO Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
Liberty
Imperial
Jasper County
Moscow Mills
St. Louis
County
Verona
Times Beach
Valley Park
St. Charles
County
UPER
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
m
03
04
02
01
02
01-
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
05
06
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RI
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
MR
F
MR
F
F
PRP
MR
FF
FF
PRP
MR*
MR*
MR*
S .
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHFnillP crucniiic
12/30/92 4
09/24/96
04/24/90
08/02/91 3
08/02/96 4
04/01/97
08/01/95
08/26/96 1
06/26/90 1
06/26/90
09/30/89 3
09/30/94 2
03/15/96 1
06/30/97 2
04/17/97
04/10/95
09/04/95 4
10/26/95
04/08/96 4
01/01/96 4
04/23/97
07/12/95
07/31/95
09/05/95
04/08/96
12/21/96
10/24/91 1
05/18/95 4
1999
1997
2001
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
4
4
1
1
4
1
3
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1999
1998
1999
2000
2001
1999
1998
1998
2001
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
1998
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rfi
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
MO We I don Springs Ordnance St. Charles
Works County
MO Uestlake Landfill Bridgeton
NE 10th Street Site Columbus
NE Bruno Corop Association/Associated Bruno
Press Prop
NE Cleburn Street Well Grand Island
NE Cornhusker Army Ammunition Hall County
Plant
NE Hastings Ground Water Contamination Hastings
NE Nebraska Ordnance Plant Mead
(Former)
CO Air Force Plant PJKS Watertown
CO California Gulch Leadville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
01
01
03
04
05
01
02
03
04
05
09
12
13
14
14
15
16
19
01
03
01
00
05
06
07 '
08
09
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
FF
F
PRP
F
F
» FF
FF
PRP
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/30/96
03/03/93
12/14/94
02/23/95
05/17/94
09/15/97
09/15/97
06/13/97
08/11/97
12/01/94
09/28/95
08/12/96
09/30/93
09/27/95
08/31/90
07/25/96
06/15/86
09/30/91
07/19/95
02/11/91
03/22/85
06/12/96
02/08/95
02/07/89
12/18/92
08/29/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
08/26/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
4
3
4
2
2
3
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
2001
2001
2011
2007
1998
1999
1999
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
4
3
4
4
1
2
4
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
2008
2001
2001
2011
2007
1999
1998
2000
2000
1996
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
A-49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
n INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE HAHF
8 CO Central City - Clear Creek
LOCATION
Idaho Springs
8 CO Denver Radium Site
8 CO Eagle Mine
8 CO Lincoln Park
8 CO Lowry Landfill
8 CO Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Denver
Minturn/Redcliff
Canon City
Arapahoe County
Golden
8 CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Adams County
OPER-
ABLE
12
03
03
03
03
03
03
08
01
01
00
01
01
01
04
06
07
12
13
16
03-
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
FUNDING
ACTIVITY LEAD START
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RA
RA
RA .
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
PRP
F
S
S
S.
S
S
PRP
PS
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
08/26/94
09/26/96
09/29/93 4
09/29/93 4
09/29/93 4
09/29/93 4
09/29/93 4
03/31/93 1
09/01/88 2
03/11/92 1
01/17/95
08/22/96 4
03/12/97
04/22/97
06/08/90
04/19/91
06/08/90 4
05/08/92
05/15/92
09/24/91 4
12/09/96
12/09/96
12/09/96
12/09/96
12/09/96
12/09/96
12/09/96
12/09/96
08/19/97
09/05/97
09/26/97
03/13/96 2
12/09/96
12/09/96
1999
1999
1999 .
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1999
1997
~«
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
1
4
4
4
4IU.L/UI.&
2001
2007
1999
2000
2000
2000
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
2003
1999
1999
1999
2001
1998
2008
2008
2008
2000
1998
1998
1999
1998
2001
1998
2008
2008
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rfi
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST SITE NAME
CO Summitville Mine
-
MT Anaconda Co. Smelter
MT East Helena Site
MT Idaho Pole Co.
MT Libby Ground Water Contamination
MT Milltown Reservoir Sediments
MT Montana Pole and Treating
MT Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
SD Ellsworth Air Force Base
LOCATION
Rio Grande
County
Anaconda
East Helena
Bozeman
Libby
Milltown
Butte
Silver Bow/Deer
Lodge
Rapid City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
04 .
15
26
26
26
27
00
00
00
01
01
02
03
07
01
02
01
01
02
02
03
01
04
07
12
11
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F*
F
S
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
FE
FF
FUNDING
START
12/09/96
12/09/96
01/01/90
11/15/91
04/14/94
05/01/94
03/31/95
05/11/93
06/07/95
09/11/97
06/07/95
07/11/96
06/07/95
09/21/94
05/19/94
03/31/92
12/30/88
06/29/95
08/22/96
10/18/89
02/02/90
07/07/95
04/18/96
06/30/92
04/09/97
05/18/94
04/29/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
1
1
1
4
3
2
1
4
4
1999
1997
1998
1997 .
1998
2001
1999
2003
1997
1997
1998
1998
2002
2007
1999
1997
1998
2014
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
3
2
3
1
1
4
4
4
1
2
1
2
4
2008
2000
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
2001
1999
1998
1999
1999
2000
2002
1998
2002
2007
2010
1999
1999
2014
2002
2022
2002
1999
A-51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
F REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBItlTY STUDIES
AND REHEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE NAME
8 UT Hill Air Force Base
8 UT Kennecott (North Zone)
8 UT Kennecott (South 2one>
8 UT Hidvale Slag
8 UT Monticello Mill Tailings
(USDOE)
8 UT Honticello Radioactively
Contaminated Properties
8 UT Murray Smelter
8 UT Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 &
3)
8 UT Richardson Flat Tailings
8 UT Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings/Smelters)
8 UT Tooele Army Depot (North
Area)
LOCATION
Ogden
Magna
Copperton
Midvale
Monticello
Monticello
Murray City
& Salt Lake
City
Summit County
Midvale
Tooele
' _
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAP
01
02
03
05
07
08
01
08
00
02
02
01
02
02
03
02
00
01
01
01
02
02
04
09
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
' RA
FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FE
S
PRP
S
S
S
FF
FF
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEnm F
06/28/91 3
09/30/96 4
12/23/96
08/13/91 4
11/05/96
05/03/95 1
09/22/93 4
06/16/97
09/22/93 1
67/29/94 2
09/05/97
06/07/97
05/13/94 3
09/20/96 1
05/31/91 1
11/09/90 4
01/18/94
04/03/95 1
09/29/89 1
05/18/95 4
09/29/95 2
09/20/94 4
07/15/93 3
01/02/92 3
1998
1997
1997
1999 ,
1996
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1996
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
1
4
2
3
4
3
4
1
4
4
2
A
2
1
4
3
1
1
4
2
2
1999
1999
1998
1999
1998
2002
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
WY
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
.CA
SITE NAME
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Apache Powder Co.
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area
Luke Air Force Base
N i neteenth Avenue Landf i 1 1
Quality Printed Circuits
Williams Air Force Base
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
Aerojet General Corp.
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Barstou Marine Corps Logistics
LOCATION
Cheyenne
St. David
Hassayampa
Scot t sda 1 e/Tmpe/Phnx
Glendale
Phoenix
Phoenix
Chandler
Yuma
Rancho Cordova
Fresno County
Barstow
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
03
06
07
10
01
01
02
02
03
05
06
06
07
07
01
02
01
01
02
04
05
01
01
01
07
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
Rl/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
PS
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
11/01/96
03/21/97
03/09/94
03/23/94
01/01/94
02/05/97
01/22/96
06/30/92
06/27/97
03/14/88
03/29/96
02/08/94
07/11/94
09/26/90
05/31/95
09/27/90
04/10/95
05/11/95
06/18/97
12/30/92
07/31/95
09/01/93
09/30/91
09/08/88
06/22/94
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
3
4
3
1
1
3
1
4
2
1998
2000'
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
1998
1997
1999
1999
1997
PRESENT
' COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
2000
2000
2000.
2000
2000
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998 .
1999
2003.
1999
2000
Base (Nebo Area)
A-53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
«nF REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RB ST SITE NAME
9 CA Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
9 CA Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base
9 CA Castle Air Force Base
9 CA Concord Naval Weapons Station
9 CA Cooper Drum Co.
9 CA Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill
9 CA Del Amo Facility
9 CA Edwards Air Force Base
9 CA El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station
LOCATION
Arvin
San Diego
County
Merced
Concord
South Gate
Salinas
Los Angeles
Kern County
El Toro
OPER-
ABLE . FUNDING
UNIT ACTIVITY IP«n CTHDT
01
02
03
01
04
05
05
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
03
05
07
08
09
10
11
00
01
03
04
05
08
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
. RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
F
F*
FF
FF
FF
' FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
EP
MR
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
09/27/96
09/30/92
09/28/90
07/21/89
12/16/92
03/01/97
06/02/97
02/02/95
11/21/94
02/14/95
08/12/93
09/18/93
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
07/16/96
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1999
3
1
2
1
4
4
1
1
2
4
4
2
1
2
4
3
1
2
1
4
2
1
1
1998
1998
1998 "
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999 .
1998
1998
2004
1997
1999
2001
1999
2003
2002
2002
2003
1997
1999
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
cpucniii c
1 1000
3
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
1
4
4
1
2
4
3
1
2
1
4
4
3
2
4
2
1999
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
2002
2002
2000
2004
1998
1999
2001
1999
2003
2002
2002
2003
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
2000
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
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
SITE NAME
Fairchild Semiconductor/Camera &
(South San Jose Plant)
Fort Ord
Frontier Fertilizer
GBF, Inc., Dump
George Air Force Base
Hunter's Point Annex
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(NASA)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
LOCATION
South San
Jose
Marina
Davis
Antioch
Victorville
San Francisco
Mountain View
Redding.
Weed
Mountain View
Pasadena .
Orovi I le
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
07
01
01
02
03
03
04
05
06
01
02
03
05
06
01
03
01
01
02
03.
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF*
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
12/11/96
04/04/95
09/29/95
05/17/97
05/31/97
08/02/93
07/28/93
09/21/90
04/29/96
09/28/90
10/01/90
01/22/91
09/28/90
12/11/96
04/17/95
08/23/94
09/18/96
09/29/96
08/04/95
07/16/92
07/31/96
12/23/92
07/07/93
04/29/94
09/17/93
09/17/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
4
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
4
1
1
1998
1998
1997
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1998
2000
1999
2000
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
4
2
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
2
3
2
2
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
2030
2030
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
2000
1999
1998
2000.
1999
2030
2030
1999
2002
2002
1998
1999
1999
2000
1999
2000
1998
2000
A-55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
F REHEDIAL' INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REHEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST SITE NAME
CA LEHR/Old Compus Landfille
(USDOE)
CA Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
CA Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
CA Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
CA Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
CA March Air Force Base
CA Mare Island Naval Shipyard
CA Mather Air Force Base (AC & U
Disposal Site)
CA McClellan Air Force Base (Ground
Water Contamination)
CA McColl
CA McCormic and Baxter Creosoting
Co.
LOCATION
Davis
Livermore
Livermore
San Jose
Oroville
Riverside
Vellejo
Sacramento
Sacramento
Fullerton
Stockton
HBLt
UNIT
.01
00
P6
01
01
01
01
03
04
00
01
01
03
04
01
04
05
06
07
08
09
. 01
01
02
03
ACTIVITY lR«n
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF.
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
F
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
CTApT CPUCIMII E:
09/30/94 4 .1997
06/29/92
06/30/92
08/05/92 1
07/04/96 1
12/28/92
09/27/90 1
08/06/91
01/24/92 3
10/23/90
07/21/97
09/15/97
06/21/94 3
09/19/95 1
05/11/95 2
07/21/89
08/21/90
11/23/92
09/27/96
01/13/93
07/21/89
06/11/84 4
06/30/92 2
03/24/93
09/28/94 2
2000 '
1998
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1991
1997
1997
PRESENT
CO
MPLETII
SCHbUULE
4 2002
1
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
4
4
2001
2000
2003
1998
1998
1999
1998
2000
1998
2000
2000
1999
1998
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1998
1999
1998
1998
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
Mont rose Chemical Corp.
National Semiconductor Corp.
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Ralph Gray Trucking Co.
Raytheon Corp.
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area
1)
San Fernando Valley (Area
2)
San Fernando Valley (Area
LOCATION
Modesto
Sunnyvale
Torrance
Santa Clara
San Bernadino
Westminster
Mountain View
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Los Angeles/Glendale
Glendale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
05
06
07
03
01
01
02
03
02
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
01
03
03
03
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PS
. F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
S
FUNDING
START
03/21/91
08/19/97
08/01/97
08/08/89
08/08/89
08/14/97
09/11/91
09/18/95
09/05/96
02/09/94
06/19/93
12/11/96
02/28/95
06/24/96
06/26/96
. 02/16/90
08/16/85
02/18/94
02/18/94
11/22/93
11/22/93
09/30/97
08/16/85
08/16/85
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
1
4
.1
2
2
1997
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
2
1
4
4
4
2
4
1
2
2
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
3
1998
1998
2000
1999
1999
1998 .
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
2030
2030
1999
.1999
1999
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
2000
2000
3)
A-57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
nPrnM INVESTIGAT'°NS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
San Fernando Valley (Area
4)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
Selma Treating Co.
Sharpe Army Depot
South Bay Asbestos Area (Alviso
Dumping Area)
South Bay Basin
Stoker Company
Stringfellow
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
LOCATION
Los Angeles
El Monte
Selma
Lathrop
Alviso
Silicon Valley
Imperial
Glen Avon
Heights
Clear Lake
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT .ACTIVITY LEAP
01
02
00
01
05
01
02
01
01
01
01
05
01
02
03
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
PRP
F
F
S
F*
F*
EP*
FUNDING
START
08/16/85
09/28/92.
06/13/84
03/16/95
07/25/95
07/22/92
09/29/92
05/30/95
10/15/93
01/28/87
05/01/92
10/01/90
09/28/90
11/18/91
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
4
1
3
3
3
1997
2000
1998
1998
1998
1997
1998
1991
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
4
2
1
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
2000
1998
2000
1999
2000
1999
2014
1999
1998
1998
2000
2002
2000
2000
2000
9 CA T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Thompson-Haywood Chem
9 CA Tracy Defense Depot
9 CA Travis Air Force Base
9 CA Treasure Island Naval Station-
Fresno
Tracy
Solano County
San Francisco
01
02
02
03
04
01
02
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
02/06/87 4 1997
04/01/94
06/10/95
06/10/95
07/12/91
07/12/91
1997
1998
4
4
4
1
4
1998
08/12/93 4 1997 4 1998
1999
2003
2003
1999
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 HI
9 HI
9 HI
9 NV
10 AK
10 AK
SITE NAME
Tustin Marine Corpe Air
Station
United Heckathorn Co.
Uatkins-Johnson Co. (Stewart
Division)
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
(Sunnyvale Plant)
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
Tustin
R i chmond
Scotts Valley
Sunnyvale
Honolulu County
Pearl Harbor
Oahu
Lyon/Churchill
County
Adak
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03 '
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
04
01
02
02
01
02
03
04
05
07
ACTIVITY LEAD
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/30/95
07/15/96
07/23/96
07/16/91
03/19/97
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
06/01/97
09/30/96
09/28/90
05/06/96
11/07/95
10/22/95
06/08/96
06/08/96
06/08/96
08/05/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
2
4
1997 .
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
2000
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
2002
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
A-59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
OPER-
RG ST SITE NAME
10 AK Elmendorf Air Force Base
10 AK Fort Richardson (USARMY)
10 AK Fort Wainright
10 AK Ketch ikan Pulp Company
10 ID Blackbird Mine
10 ID Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
10 ID Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Greater Anchorage 01
Borough 02
05
08
Anchorage 03
04
Fairbanks N Star 02
Borough 03
04
05
Ketch ikan 01
02
Lerahi County 01
Smelterville 01
02
Idaho Falls 02
03
07
10
11
13
15
16
18
20
21
25
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
' LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
. FUNDING
START
05/22/95
05/05/95
07/15/96
08/11/93
03/06/96
09/12/96
03/31/97
05/30/96
06/23/97
01/17/95
07/21/97
09/19/95
11/18/94
09/27/94
04/13/95
02/11/94
10/10/95
03/17/95
04/02/97
06/17/97
11/14/96
11/15/95
11/06/95
12/07/94
08/15/95
03/22/96
12/01/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
4
2
1
3
1
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
2
1997
1998
1998
2000
2000
2002
1998
1997
1998
1999
1998
1999
1999
2001
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
4
4
4
4
2
1
4
4
2
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
4
2
4
1
1
1
3
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
2001
2000
2002
1996
1999
1999
2000
2000
2000
2002
2003
2000
1999
1999
2001
10 ID Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (Soda Soda Springs
Springs Plant)
01
RA
PRP 07/17/97
1 2010
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL 'INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
ID Mountain Home Airforce Base Mountain Home
ID Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Pocatello
Co.
OR Fremont Nat. Forest Uranium Mines Lakeview
(USDA)
OR Gould, Inc. Portland
OR McCormick & Baxter Creos. Co. Portland
(Portland)
OR Teledyne Wah Chang ' Albany
OR Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) Hermiston
UA Bangor Naval Submarine Base SHverdale
WA Bangor Ordnance Disposal Bremerton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
02
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
03
01
02
03
04
06
07
01
02
05
06'
07
08
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
PRP
FF
PRP
S
PRP
F
S
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
. FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
06/18/96
08/23/96
04/24/95
03/02/92
06/01/96
09/29/95
08/08/96
09/24/97
06/23/97
09/29/97
02/15/94
06/20/94
09/14/95
11/06/95
11/06/95
06/21/96
06/17/96
09/13/94
12/01/95
04/16/96
02/04/93
04/04/97
03/05/93
05/01/97
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
1998
1999
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1997
1999
1999
1997
1997
1997
1999
1998
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
4
4
2
3
4
2
4
4
4
1
1
4
1
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
1998
1999
1999
2001
1999
1999
1999
2000
1998
1999
1998
1998
2026
2001
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
10 UA Boomsnub/Airco
Vancover
01
RI/FS
03/27/95 1 1998
1999
A-61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST SITE NAME
10 " WA Colbert Landfill
Flats
Area)
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
11 Colbert 01
ay, Near Shore/Tide Pierce County 01
04
05
06
07
09
11
19
22
'orce Base (4 Waste Spokane County 02
03
04
sties Center Tillicum 01
02
03
a (USDOE) Benton County 02
03
04 .
07
08
09
13
17
27
28
a (USDOE) Benton County 01
02
11
12
13
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
. RA
RA
RA
RI
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
RA
MR
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF*
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/28/89
06/30/89
11/12/91
01/16/90
12/17/93
04/11/91
07/31/92
06/25/93
10/04/94
12/21/93
03/07/94
09/17/96
05/31/95
01/15/92
02/01/96
01/11/96
06/14/96
11/25/96
07/15/96
09/23/97
10/12/90
10/12/90
06/30/93
08/17/95
04/20/95
05/24/93
05/15/89
08/31/92
01/31/94
03/31/97
08/26/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
RCHFDIIIF
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
2-
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
4
2
2
4
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1998
1997
2001
1997
1997
1998
1999
1997
1999
1997
1997
1997
1999
1997
1997
2001
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1998
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
4
1995
2000
2000
1999
2000
1999
1998
2000
2002
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
2003
2001
2001
2003
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
2001
2000
2004
'2001
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
UA
WA
SITE NAME
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Jackson Park Housing Complex
(USNAVY)
Naval Undersea Uarfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
Northwest Transformer (South
Harkness St.)
Pacific Sound Resources
Palermo Well Field Ground Water
Contain.
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex
(USNAVY)
Queen City Farms
Tulalip Landfill
Vancouver Water Station #1
Contamination
Vancouver Water Station #4
Contamination
Wycoff Co. /Eagle Harbor
LOCATION
Benton County
Seattle
Kitsap County
Keyport
Everson
Seattle
Tumwater
Bremerton
'Maple Valley
Marysville
Vancouver
Vancouver
Bainbridge
Island
OPER-
. ABLE
UNIT
01
03
01
08
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
04
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
04
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FF
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
F*
FUNDING
START
07/07/97
03/31/95
08/26/97
09/07/88
07/01/95
07/01/95
07/17/90
09/30/92
09/29/94
05/18/95
06/05/97
01/26/94
06/18/97
07/27/95
08/12/93
09/16/97
04/02/92
07/07/95
09/16/92
04/25/97
02/15/95
07/03/96
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
3
4
1
2
2
1
3
3
4
1
1
1997
1997 '
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
1998
1999
1997
1998
1999
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
2
2
2
4
2
1
3
3
4
3
1
2
4
4
2
2001
2000
1999
1999
1998
1999
1998.
2002
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
A-63
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30, 1997
This appendix lists the remedial designs in
progress at the end of FY97 and their estimated
completion schedule. Activities at multiple
operable units, as well as first and subsequent
activities, are listed.
RG- EPA region in which the site is located.
ST State in which the site is located.
Site Name - Name of the site, as listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Location - Location of the site, as listed on
- the NPL.
Operable Unit - Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring; a
single site may include more than one operable
unit.
Lead - The entity leading the activity, as
follows:
EP: Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;
F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;
FE: EPA enforcement program-lead;
FF: Federal facility-lead;
MR: Mixed funding; monies from both the
Fund and potentially responsible parties
(PRPs);
PRP: PRP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the
PRP under a state order (may include federal
financing or federal oversight under an
enforcement document);
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include
federal financing).
Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS) database, O
(other), SN (state-lead and financed, no Fund
money), and SR (state-ordered PRP response
activities), are excluded from this status report
because they do not include federal financing.
Funding Start - The date on which funds
were allocated for the activity.
Present Completion Schedule - The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion date
for the activity.
B-l
-------
Progress Toward implementing Superfund: Fiscal' Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
1
1
; 1
1
1
i
i-
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA-
MA
MA
MA
ME
NH
NH
NH
NH
RI
RI
.SITE NAME
Linemaster Switch Corp.
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
Iron Horse Park
Nyanza Chemical Haste Dump
Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp
Edwards
Silresim Chemical Corp. .
Sullivan's Ledge
Wells G&H
O'Connor Co.
Dover Municipal Landfill
Ottati & Goss
Savage Municipal Water Supply
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
Central Landfill
Davis Liquid Waste
LOCATION
i
Woodstock t
Canterbury '
Tyngsboro.ugh
Billerica .
Ashland .
Falmouth
Lowell
New Bedford
Woburn
Augusta
' Dover
Kingston
Milford
Somersworth .
Johnston
Smithf ield
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT .
01
01
03 .
02
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
01
02
04
02
01
01
01
02
03
LEAD
PRP
' F
F
PRP
F
F '
FF-
F
PRP
F* '
PRP
PRP.
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
11/03/94
12/13/96
07/31/92
01/06/94
04/08/92
07/27/93
09/25/95
01/26/95
04/05/93
01/31/97
03/31/91
01/22/92
03/16/89
09/20/90
04/28/94
11/08/95
05/23/96
05/23/96
07/11/88
11/26/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
3
1
2
4
2
3
3
4
3
2000
1999
1996
1999
2000
1998
1998
1996
1999
2000
2001
2001
1996
1999'
1999
1999
1997
2000
2003
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfgnd: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF 'REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
RI
VT
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
.NJ
SITE NAME
Picillo Farm
Parker Landfill
Asbestos Dump
Brook Industrial Park
Cinnaminsori Township (Block 702)
Ground Water Contamination
Combe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.
DeRenewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ellis Property
Fried Industries -
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Global Sanitary Landfill
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown Plant)
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
JIS Landfill
LOCATION
Coventry *
Lyndon
Mil I ing ton
Bound Brook
Cinnaminson
Township
Chester Township
Beverly
King wood Township
Newark
Dover Township
Evesham Township
East Brunswick '
Township
Glen Ridge
Old Bridge
Township
Gibbstown
Morganville
Jamesburg/S.
Brunswick
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02 '
03
01
01
01
02
01
03
01
03
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP*
. PRP
F
F
F
, F
PRP
S
F
F
F
PRP
F
S
F
F
PS
PS
S
S
PS .
FUNDING
START
01/25/95
12/03/96
09/30/92
08/25/97
08/28/97
09/02/97
07/09/91
06/26/87
09/27/94
04/28/95
09/30/89
12/14/89
07/06/93
09/30/93 .
09/30/94
09/26/90
11/15/93
10/29/96
09/30/91
03/31/93
06/17/97
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
4
3
4
1
4
2
2
2
3
1998
1998
1998
2000
1999
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999
2000
1999
2000
1998
1998
1998
1999
2000
1999
1999
1999
B-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 '
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Meta 1 tec/Aerosystems
Monte lair/West Orange Radium
Site
Myers Property
NL Industries
Naval Weapons Station
PJP Landfill
Pepe Field
Price Landfill
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Township Wells
Roebling Steel Co.
Sharkey Landfill
Sheild Alloy Corp.
U.S. Radium Corp.
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
Woodland Route 532 Dump
Woodland Route 72 Dump
LOCATION
Franklin Borough
Montclair/West
Orange
Franklin Township
' -Pedricktown
Colts Neck
Jersey City
Boonton
Pleasantville
Rockaway Township
Rockaway
Florence
Parsippany/Troy
Hills
Newfield Borough
Orange
Vineland
Wall Township
Woodland Township
Woodland Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
s
01
01
01
01
01
02-
02
01
03
04
04
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
02
02
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PS
F-
S
PRP
PS
F
F'
F
.PRP
PS
F
F
F
.F
F
PS
PS
FUNDING
START
03/29/91
09/26/90
05/12/92
06/10/96
' 08/29/97
06/02/97
09/30/91
07/01/95
07/14/94
03/13/96
09/25/91
06/17/97
06/17/97
10/18/94
10/22/96
09/30/93
09/29/95
09/30/89
10/02/89
06/28/91
08/30/90
08/31/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
2
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
2
2
1999
1999
1998
2000
1998
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
2000
1998
1999
2001
1997
1998
1997
1999
1999
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
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
Batavia Landfill
Byron Barrel & Drum
Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Claremont Pol/chemical
Colesvi lie Municipal Landfill
Cortese Landfill
GCL Tie & Treating Inc.
General Motors (Central Foundry
Division)'
Hertel Landfill
Hooker (South Area)
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Niagra Mohawk Power Corp. (Saratoga
Springs Plant)
Olean Well Field
Pfol Brothers Landfill
Port Washington- Landfill
LOCATION
>
Batavia
Byron
Port Jervis
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesvi lie
Vil. of Narrowsburg
Village of
Sidney
Massena
Plattekill
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Saratoga Springs
Olean
Cheektowaga
Port Washington
' OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02 '
02
01
05
02
03
02
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
04
LEAD
PRP .
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP .
PRP
F
PS
PRP
FUNDING '
START
10/27/95
09/25/90
09/25/90
09/25/90
02/05/96
09/30/92
04/01/91
09/28/95
05/17/95
01/01/96
03/15/94
03/15/94
11/23/92
12/15/94
12/28/94
.11/06/96
09/30/96
10/17/94
08/02/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1 '
' 1
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
2
4
2
4
2
3
1999
2000
2000
2000
1998
' 2000
2000
2001
1999
1998
1999
1999
2001
1999
1996
1999
1998
1999
1999
B-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
PR
VI
DE
DE
DE
DE
MD
MD
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Rowe Industries Ground Water
Contamination
Sidney Landfill
Solvent Savers
Juncos Landfill
Tutu Wellfield
Dover Air Force Base =
Dover Gas Light Co.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.(Newpo
rt Pigment plant LdF
Standard Chlorine of Delaware,
Inc.
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
Area)
Bush Valley Landfill
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang
Bally Ground Water Contamination
LOCATION
Noyack/Sag »
Harbor
Sidney
Lincklaen
Juncos
Tutu
Dover
Dover
Newport
Delaware City
Edgewood
Abingdon
Exton
Bally Borough
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
0.1
02
00
01
02
' 03
01
01
01 ,
05
10
11
1.2
01
02
04
06
07
08
01 .
09
11
01
01
02
02
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
' F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/26/94
05/09/97
05/09/97
07/02/91
07/02/91
07/29/91
07/02/91
12/21/92
09/30/97
09/30/97
09/26/95
09/26/95
09/26/95
09/26/95
06/16/95
06/16/95
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
05/31/94
07/01/96
04/04/97
11/14/96
09/26/97
08/12/96
08/22/96
07/18/91
PRESENT
. COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
4
3
3
3
1
2
4
3
2
1998
1999
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
1998
2000
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
2000
1999
1998
1999
2000
1998
1998
' 2000
1999
1998
1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
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
Bell Landfill
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Brown's Battery Breaking
Centre County Kepone
Commodore Semiconductor Group
Cross ley Farm
CryoChem, Inc.
Hunterstown Road
MW Manufacturing
North Penn-Area 6 (J.W. Rex/Allied
Paint/Keystone hydra
Novak Sanitary Landfill :
Ohio River Park
Paoli Rail Yard
Rect icon/Allied Steel Corp.
Saegerton Industrial Area
Shriver's Corner
LOCATION
Terry Township*
Denver
Sh'oemakersville-
State College
Boro
Lower Providence
Townsh
Hereford Township
Uorman
Straban Township
Valley Township
Lansdale
South Whitehall
. Twp
Neville Island
Paoli
East Coventry
Two.
i «f.
Saegertown
Straban Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
02
01
03
. 01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F*
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP '
PRP.
. PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
02/11/97
09/11/96
06/03/96
03/14/97
10/01/93
09/30/97
12/31/91
09/12/94
06/01/93
09/19/96
07/30/95
09/23/97
04/29/97
05/11/94
05/11/94
05/11/94
TO/ 18/93
08/08/97
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
4
2
3
2
2
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
1999
B-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
Uhitmoyer Laboratories
William Dick Lagoons
Arrowhead Associates/Scovill
Corp.
Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.
:H & H Inc. /Burn Pit
L.A. Clarke & Son
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
Agrico Chemical Co.
Anodyne, Inc. '
Cabot/Koppers
Cecil Field NavalAir Station
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving
LOCATION
Jackson Township
West Cain
Township
Montross
Portsmouth
Farringtdn
Spotsylvania
County
Saltville
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
Axis
Bucks
Pensacola
North Miami
Beach
Gainesville
Jacksonville
Whitehouse
OPER-
ABLE
.UNIT
03
05
02
03
01
02
01
02
04
03
03
02
03
01
01
03
02
03
02
01
01
07
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP '
FF
F
FUNDING
START
03/05/92
03/05/92
07/10/95
07/10/95
01/03/97
01/03/97
02/20/97
10/04/96
03/03/90
07/29/97
05/31/96
09/30/96
09/30/96
07/26/96
11/20/92
03/08/94
09/25/96
03/08/94
04/03/97
08/12/94
04/12/91
01/23/97
09/28/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
1
2
4
4
4
2
1
4
4
4
4
3
*
2
4
1999
1998
2000
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
1999
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1998
1998
2000
20
1998
1994
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rfi
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
. FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
KY
KY
NC
NC
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Co.
Helena Chemical Co.
Homestead Air Force Base '
Peak Oi I Co. /Bay Drum Co.
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Tower Chemical Co.
Uhitehouse Oil Pits
Ze 1 1 wood Ground Water Contamination
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Co.
Uoolfolk Chemical Works, Inc.
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
General Electric Co/Shepherd
LOCATION
t
Tampa
Homestead
Tampa
Tampa
Tampa
Clermont
Whitehouse
Ze I I wood
Albany
Fort Valley
Hillsboro
Paducah
Aberdeen
Ons low County
Washington
East Flat
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
06
'. 01
02
03
02
01
. 01
01
01
: 01
02
02
02
01
05
03
13
01
01
LEAD
F
PRP
FF.
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP .
F
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF.
PRP
FF
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/25/97
12/26/96
06/27/95
12/07/95
12/07/95
12/07/95
11/30/94
05/17/96
11/20/87
09/30/97
06/26/85
04/27/93
07/26/96
' 06/19/97
09/29/95
04/18/96
07/03/97
08/25/94
08/27/97
02/23/94
09/30/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
2
2
2
4
2
1
3
4
2
4
4
4
1
1
2
3
2
4
1999
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1998
1999
2010
1999
1993
1996
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
B-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5-
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Farm
National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
North Belmont PCE Site
North Carolina State University
(Lot 86,^ Farm Unit #1)
Potter's Septic Tank Service
Pits
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
Townsend Saw Chain Co.
NL industries/.Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Pagel's Pit
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
'American Chemical Service,
Inc.
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Galen Meyer's Dump/Drum Salvage
Himco, Inc., Dump.
Lakeland Disposal Service,
LOCATION
Rock >
Salisbury
North Belmont
Raleigh
Maco
Aiken
Pontiac
Granite City
.Rockford .
Woodstock
Griffith
Elkhart
Osceola
Elkhart
Claypool
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
01
01
01
16
17 '
29
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
00
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF*
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/29/95
09/29/95
09/05/97
09/25/97
06/21/96
07/03/97
07/30/97
02/16/95
05/02/97
12/31/95
12/14/92
09/02/94
09/30/94
06/14/95
04/01/97
04/13/95
05/25/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
3
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
1
2
3
1
4
3
1
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1996
1998
1999
2000
1999
1999
2000
1998
1999
1999
Inc.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
Rn
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
UI
SITE NAME
Neal's Dump (Spencer)
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Duel 1 & Gardner Landfill
K & L Avenue Landfill
Metamora Landfill
Spartan chemical Co.
Torch Lake
Ritari Post & Pole
Allied Chemical S Ironton Coke
Feed Materials Production Center
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
Industrial Excess Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
LOCATION
Spencer >
Sauit Sainte
Marie
Da I ton Township
Oshtemo Township
Metamora
Wyoming
Houghton County
Sebeka
I ronton
Fernald
Ashtabula
Uniontown .
Reading
DePere
OPER-
ABLE
UNI-T
01
01
01
01 '
02
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
' 05
06
01
01
01
05
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP.
S
F
S
PRP
FF '
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
FUNDING
START
08/22/85
05/10/93
07/29/94
09/18/92
04/26/91
09/28/93
09/01/94
11/14/94
07/23/93
04/25/95
08/07/95
09/24/96
02/07/95
03/29/96
09/19/94
03/22/89
09/29/89
09/29/89
12/10/94
09/30/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
4
4
1
2
4
. 4
1
4
4
4
1998
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998V
1999
1999
1998
2005
2003
2002
2005
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
and Zinc Shops
5 WI City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Dunn
01
PRP
04/23/93
1 1999
B-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
5'
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
UI
WI
AR
AR
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
KS
KS
MO
HO
MO
MO
MO
SITE. NAME
Moss-American (Kerr-Mc'Gee Oil
Co.)
Refuse Hideaway Landfill
Popile, Inc.
South 8th Street Landfill
Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
Air Force Plant #4 (General
Dynamics)
Crystal Chemical Co.
RSR Corp.
Sheridan Disposal Service
Mid-America Tanning Co.
29th & Mead Ground Water Contaminat
ion
Cherokee County (Tar Creek,
Cherokee County)
Bee Cee Manufacturing 'Co.
Missouri Electric Works
Quality Plating
Valley Park TCE
Weldon Springs Ordnance Works
LOCATION
Milwaukee i
Middleton
El Dorado
Jacksonville
Ottawa County
Fort Worth
Houston
Dallas
Hempstead
. Sergeant Bluff
' Wichita
Cherokee dounty
Maiden
Cape Girardeau.
Sikeston
Valley Park
St.. Charles
County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
03
04
05
01
02
01 -
02
07
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FF
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
S
MR
S
PS
FF
FUNDING
START
08/31/95
04/08/97
02/19/92
03/01/96
03/14/96
08/07/97
03/31/92
07/15/93
05/10/93
05/10/93
12/29/89
03/29/90
05/08/97
05/18/94
04/17/97
08/02/96
09/26/94
08/02/96
05/16/96
04/04/94
. 1
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 '
- 2
1
4
2
1
4
2
3
-.2
4
4
4
4
4
4
.1
4
4
3
1999
1999
1999
1998 '
1999
1999 .
1998
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999.
1998
1998
1998
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
' STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
NE
NE
NE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
MT
UT
UT
UT
UT
SITE NAME
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former)
Sherwood Medical Co.
Central City Clear Creek
Chemical Sales Co.
Eagle Mine
Lowry Landfill
i
Rocky Mountain Arsenal'
Summitville Mine
Anaconda Co. Smelter
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Hill Air Force Base
Midvale Slag
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Ogden Defense Depot
LOCATION
Hastings *
Mead
Norfolk
Idaho Springs
Commerce City
Minturn/Redcliff
Arapahoe County
Adams County
Rio Grande
County
Anaconda
Silver Bow/Deer
Lodge
Ogden
Midvale
Monticello
Ogden
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
02
03
04
01
01 ,
03
03
03
04
.16
03
06
02
01
01
02
04
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF-
PRP
PRP
S
F
PRP
PRP .
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
'FUNDING
START
04/27/93
10/01/92
05/06/97
11/07/96
11/07/96
09/30/91
05/09/94
06/08/94
02/19/97
06/12/96
05/16/97
09/19/97
03/15/95
09/19/97
03/06/97
06/19/97
11/14/95
01/12/93
01/26/97
05/12/92
03/29/96
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
3
4
3
2
4
1
2
2
2
4
1999
2000
1998
1998
1998
2000
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
2008
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1997
B-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
8-
8
9
9
.9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
WY
WY
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
.CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME ' -
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
Williams Air Force Base
Castle Air Force Base
Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill
George Air Force Base
Industrial Waste Processing
Iron Mountain Mine .
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
March Air Force Base
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
LOCATION
Laramie (
Cheyenne
Goodyear
. Chandler
Merced
Fresno
Victorville
Fresno .
Redding
Weed
Orovi I le
Livermore
San Jose
Riverside
Modesto
Sunnyvale
San Bernadino
OPER-.
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
.01
03
05
01
03 .
01
01
02
03
03
01
01
02
01
02
.01
01
01
02.
LEAD
PRP
FF
PRP
FF
.FF
PRP
FF
PS'
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
. PRP
PRP
. FF
F
FF
F
FF
F
F
FUNDING
START
02/15/87
02/21/96
01/04/91
06/18/96
04/14/97
12/17/93
05/22/95
02/05/96
. 09/21/92
01/27/93
09/21/94
08/19/91
02/21/92
02/21/92.
09/26/95
03/25/95
06/20/96
09/23/97
08/19/97
09/24/93
04/17/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1993
1998
1998 .
1998
1998
1998
2000
2001
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1999
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
9 CA Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Monterey Park
03
PRP
04/01/92
1 1999
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
10 AK
10 ID
10 ID
10 OR
10 OR
10 WA
10 UA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
SITE NAME .
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area 2)
Sharpe Army Depot
United Heckathorn Co.
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Waste Disposal, Inc.
Fort Wainright
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Idaho National Engineering Lab .
(USDOE)
McCormick & Baxter Creos. Co.
(Portland)
Teledyne Wah Chang
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Harbor Island (Lead)
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
LOCATION
Sacramento ' .
Los Angeles/Glendale
Lathrop
Richmond
Turlock
Santa Fe Springs
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Smelterville
Idaho Falls
Portland
Albany
Bremerton
Pierce County
Vancouver
Seattle
Keyport
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
, 02
18
02
03
01
02
01
12
13
17
20
01
01
07
09
02
LEAD
FF
PRP
FF '
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
F
FF
S
S
PRP
FF
PS
PRP
PRP.
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
12/23/92
05/01/94
03/05/96
07/19/96
06/25/92
03/29/95
09/27/94
09/26/97
07/01/97
05/06/96
03/29/93
09/24/93
06/01/96
06/01/96
04/07/97
04/01/97
06/30/89
05/18/94
06/22/94
04/14/97
07/11/96
03/23/88
08/06/96
07/16/97
06/30/97
03/13/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
1
4
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
2
4
1
4
1
4
1
1998
1998-
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
1999
2000
1999
2000
1998
1996
2001
1999
2001
2003
1999
1998
1999
1999
1998
B-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1997
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
RG
10
ST SITE NAME
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
WA Wycoff Co. /Eagle Harbor
LOCATION
i
Bainbridge
Island
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
FUNDING
LEAD START
F 04/10/95
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1999
-------
Appendix C
List of Records of
Decision
This appendix provides a specific list of FY97 records of decision (RODs) signed from October 1,1996
through September 30,1997. 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 Auburn Road Landfill*
Cheshire Ground Water Contamination
Davis (GSR) Landfill
Davisville Naval Construction Batt Cent
Fort Devens
Fort Devens
Fort Devens-Sudbury Training Annex
Gallup's Quarry
Loring Air Force Base
New London Submarine Base
Pease Air Force Base
2 Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
Federal Aviation Admin. Tech. Center
Federal Aviation Admin. Tech. Center
Global Sanitary Landfill
Grand Street Mercury Site
Haviland Complex*
Higgins Disposal
Janssen Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Naval Air Engineering Center'
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Security Group Activity
Naval Security Group Activity
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A)
STATE
NH
CT
Rl
Rl
MA
MA
MA
CT
ME
CT
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
PR
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
PR
PR
NJ
DATE
12/19/96
12/31/96
9/29/97
9/29/97
10/17/96
9/29/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
"6/16/97
9/18/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
2/13/97
7/21/97
9/29/97
9/30/97
8/01/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
3/31/97
7/07/97
7/07/97
7/07/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/25/97
C-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION SITE
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A)
Pittsburgh Air Force Base
Plattsburgh Air Force Base
Pollution Abatement Services
Preferred Plating Corp.*
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond
Robintech, Inc./National Pipe Co.
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
3 Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area)
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood Area)
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Michaelsville LF)
Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (USNAVY)
Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (USNAVY)
Avco Lycoming (Williamsport Division)
Berks Landfill
Crossley Farm
Dover Air Force Base
Dover Air Force Base
Dover Air Force Base
Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting and Refinery
Marine Corps Combat Development Command
Naval Air Development Center (8 Areas)
Naval Surface Warfare - Dahlgren
Naval Surface Warfare - Dahlgren
Naval Weapons Station - Yorktown
North Penn - Area 1 2
Recticon/Allied Steel Corp.*
Tobyhanna Army Depot
4 Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Arlington Blending & Packaging*
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co.*
Escambia Wood - Pensacola
Fcx, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co.*
Munisport Landfill*
Newsom Brothers/Old Reichhold Chemicals
North Belmont PCE Site .
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Sherwood Medical Industries
Townsend Saw Chain Co.
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation
US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation
US DOE Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant
US DOE Savannah River Site
STATE
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
MD
MD
MD
WV
WV
PA
PA
PA
DE
DE
DE
PA
VA
PA
VA
VA
VA
PA
PA
PA
NC
TN
NC
FL
FL
NC
GA
FL
MS
NC
FL
FL
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
KY
SC
DATE
9/25/97
3/25/97
3/25/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
7/25/97
9/30/97
9/23/97
9/24/97
9/23/97
2/1 2/97
5/29/97
1 2/30/96
7/22/97
6/30/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/29/97
9/30/97
4/1 6/97
9/30/97
8/29/97
9/30/97
9/1 6/97
7/24/97
10/09/96
9/25/97
2/1 2/97
12/18/96
6/18/97
9/05/97
8/08/97
9/24/97
9/1 5/97
9/1 8/97
1 2/1 9/96
1/23/97
7/10/97
9/02/97
9/23/97
9/24/97
9/29/97
3/27/97
C-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1997
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION SITE
US DOE Savannah River Site
/US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site
US DOE Savannah River Site
USA Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
USA Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
USAF Homestead AFB*
USMC Camp Lejeune
USMC Camp Lejeune
USMC Camp Lejeune
USMC Logistics Base 555
USMC Logistics Base 555
USN Air Station Cecil Field
5 Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke*
Arcanum Iron & Metal*
Bendix Corp./Allied Automotive
Clare Water Supply*
Fields Brook
Fields Brook
J & L Landfill
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage Dist Lagon
Marion (Bragg) Dump
Organic Chem Inc.
Parsons Chemical Works Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chem. (Indianapolis Plant)
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover Plant)
Roto-Finish Co.
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard Nat.
Scrap Processing Company, Inc.
South Point PLT
Tippecanoe San Landfill
Tomah Armory
Tomah Municipal San Landfill
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.*
6 Agriculture Street Landfill
Bailey Waste Disposal*
Brio Refining, Inc.*
Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant
National Zinc Corp.
RSR Corp.
RSR Corp.
South Cavalcade Street*
Southern Shipbuilding
Tar Creek (Ottawa County)
STATE
SC
sc
SC
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
AL
AL
FL
NC
NC
NC
GA
GA
FL
OH
OH
Ml
Ml
OH
OH
Ml
Wl
IN
Ml
Ml
IN
OH
Ml
IL
Wl
OH
IN
Wl
Wl
OH
LA
TX
TX
LA
OK
TX
TX
TX
LA
OK
DATE
3/27/97
3/27/97
3/27/97
3/27/97
3/27/97
5/14/97
5/14/97
9/30/97
3/27/97
3/27/97
8/18/97
10/09/96
5/1 5/97
5/1 5/97
9/02/97
9/02/97
9/30/97
9/04/97
6/1 8/97
9/30/97
5/1 5/97
6/30/97
9/29/97
9/30/97
3/31/97
9/30/97
2/05/97
9/30/97
6/30/97
3/31/97
3/31/97
2/1 9/97
9/30/97
9/26/97
9/30/97
9/23/97
9/25/97
6/27/97
9/02/97
12/16/96
7/02/97
3/04/97
10/02/96
4/03/97
9/30/97
6/27/97
9/1 5/97
8/27/97
C-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
REGION SITE
7 Bee Gee Manufacturing Co.
Cherokee County
Des Moines TCE
Fort Riley
Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former)
8 California Gulch
Ellsworth Air Force Base
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Hill Air Force Base
Hill Air Force Base
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
9 Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base
Castle Air Force Base
Del Amo Facility
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
Fort Ord
Fort Ord
Iron Mountain Mine
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Site 300)
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
Norton Air Force Base
Schofield Barracks
Tucson International Airport Area
Western Pacific Railroad Co.
1 0 Boomsnub/Airco
East Multnomah County Ground Water
East Multnomah County Ground Water
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Fort Richardson (USARMY)
Fort Wainwright
Fort Wainwright
Gould, Inc.*
Hanford 100-area (USDOE)*
Hanford 200-area (USDOE)*
Hanford 200-area (USDOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Monsanto Chemical Co. (Soda Springs)
Old Navy Dump/Manchester Laboratory
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex
* Amended RODs
STATE
MO
KS
IA
KS
NE
CO
SD
WY
WY
UT
UT
CO
CO
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
HI
AZ
CA
WA
OR
OR
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
OR
WA
WA
WA
WA
ID
WA
WA
WA
DATE
9/30/97
8/20/97
12/13/96
9/29/97
4/07/97
8/08/97
4/28/97
11/21/96
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
3/1 2/97
6/03/97
6/03/97
9/30/97
5/21/97
9/05/97
9/29/97
9/29/97
1/17/97
1/17/97
9/30/97
1/29/97
9/26/97
8/19/97
6/25/97
2/07/97
9/30/97
9/30/97
9/29/97
12/31/96
12/31/96
12/04/96
1 2/05/96
9/1 5/97
3/31/97
6/27/97
6/05/97
4/04/97 .
9/25/97
2/24/97
11/27/96
4/30/97
9/30/97
1 2/1 3/96
1/24/97
C-4
-------
Appendix D
Report of the
Inspector General
D-l
-------
^0£ I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JANUARY 27,1999
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDTTM
SUBJECT:
TO:
Review of the Superfund Atmual Report to Congress
for Fiscal Year 1997
Audit Report E1SFF9-11-0007-9100084
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Purpose. 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 1 of each year, a report on its progress in
implementing Superfund during the prior fiscal year.
We have completed our mandated review of the fiscal year 1997 Annual Report to Congress '
(Annual Report), Progress Toward Implementing Superfbnd In accordance with Section 301
(h)(2), we reviewed the Annual Report for reasonableness and accuracy. This report becomes
part of the Annual Report.
After conducting a limited scope review, we determined that the fiscal year 1997 Annual Report
was reasonable and accurate. Therefore, we are closing this report on issuance. Accordingly no
written response to the report is necessary.
Scope and Methodology
EPA Head(iuarters' Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. We began our review on
November 9, 1998, and completed field work on January 6, 1999. 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.
-------
Objectives
The overall objective of our review was to determine whether the Agency's fiscal year 1997
Annual Report was reasonable and accurate, as required by the statute. Sub-objectives we
pursued to meet our overall objective were to determine whether:
1) the Annual Report presented consistent accomplishment information within the report,
between this report and prior reports, and with supporting documentation;
2) construction completion accomplishments, one of the. Agency's main indicators of site
progress, were supported by source documentation; and
3) five-year reviews, which determine whether selected remedies continue to protect human
health and the. environment, were supported by the Agency's tracking system.
With respect to the first sub-objective, we reviewed a judgmental sample of key accomplishment
data in the Annual Report's executive summary exhibits ("Summary of Fiscal Year 1997
Superfund Activities" and "Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year") and compared the data
in the exhibits to the data within the text of the Annual Report itself. We,also compared the data
in the fiscal year 1997 report and prior Annual Reports to identify apparent inconsistencies.
For the second sub-objective, we determined whether Superfund site construction completion
data for fiscal year 1997 was supported by source documentation. 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 used earlier work performed by our office in this area to support construction
completions for the first half of fiscal year 1997. For the latter half of the fiscal year, we reviewed
source documents to determine whether supporting documentation existed for the remaining
construction completions.
We addressed the third sub-objective by comparing five-year review data presented in the fiscal
year 1997 Annual Report against information in the Agency's Five-Year Review Tracking
System. We did not conduct a review of the controls over the automated tracking system.
Results of the Review
Based on our limited scope review, we believe the Annual Report for fiscal year 1997 is accurate
and reasonable. Below are the review results individually addressing each of our three specific
sub-objectives. .
-------
Concerning our first sub-objective, we identified inconsistencies: (1) within the Agency's draft
report, (2) between that report and prior years' reports, and (3) with supporting documentation.
We communicated our concerns, which we considered minor, to OERR staff who made the
necessary corrections.
Concerning our second sub-objective, 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.)
For the third sub-objective, we identified minor discrepancies between the data in the draft fiscal
'year 1997 Actual Report and the automated tracking system. We therefore expanded our scope
to include five-year review data for fiscal 1995 and 1996 because the Agency had not issued the
Annual Reports for those years and our prior review did not involve verification of such data. We
found that the Annual Reports for fiscal 1995 and 1996 understated the number of five-year
reviews completed. We communicated our concerns to OERR who made the necessary
corrections for each fiscal year. .-
Conclusion
Prior to issuance of the final Agency Annual Report, OERR took the necessary actions to correct
and clarify information identified during our limited scope review. Therefore, as of the date of
this report, we believe the fiscal year 1997 Annual Report is reasonable and accurate.
'* "" "^.^ **. -- >_J~> T> * "^^JLji^g.
Nikki L. Tinsley /O
-------
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 1997
promoting economic redevelopment by archiving
sites from CERCLIS determined to be of no
further federal Superfund interest and awarding
Brownfields pilots;
reducing the cost and duration of cleanup
through additional groundwater and land use
guidances; and
initiating a voluntary cleanup program to speed
the cleanup of non-NPL sites.
Rounds
compensating settlors for a portion of orphan
shares, thereby reducing the responsibility of
cooperative parties for shares attributable to
insolvent parties;
increasing the number of protected small
contributors;
reducing oversight of cooperative parties
performing remedies and decreasing transaction
costs;
establishing a National Remedy Review Board to
review proposed'cleanup actions and help reduce
cleanup costs;
initiating remedy "Rules of Thumb" to produce
time and cost savings;
allowing economic redevelopment with the
partial deletion of some sites; and
fostering consistency among Regions for faster,
fairer cleanups, reasonable risk assessments, and
reduced PRP oversight.
Brownfields Initiative
EPA also promoted the redevelopment of
abandoned and contaminated properties once used
for industrial and commercial purposes
("brownfields"). EPA believes that environmental
cleanup is a building block to economic
redevelopment and must go hand-in-hand with
bringing life and economic vitality back to
communities.
The FY95 Brownfields Economic Re-
development Initiative is a comprehensive approach
to empower state and local governments,
communities, and other stakeholders interested in
economic redevelopment to work together in a timely
manner to prevent, assess, safely cleanup, and
sustainably reuse brownfields. In 1995, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that there are
450,000 brownfields sites in the United States.
EPA addressed implementation of the initiative
through the Brownfields Action Agenda and the
subsequently established Brownfields National
Partnership Action Agenda. The Agendas comprise
a collection of bold strategies:
implementing Brownfields pilot programs in
cities, counties, towns, and Tribes across the
country;
clarifying liability and other issues of concern
for lending institutions, municipalities,
prospective purchasers, developers, property
owners, and others;
establishing partnerships with other EPA
programs, federal agencies, states, cities,
stockholders, and organizations;
promoting community involvement by
supporting job development and training
activities linked to brownfield assessment,
cleanup, and redevelopment; and
linking environmental protection with economic
redevelopment and community revitalization.
By the end of FY97, EPA had announced the
selection of 121 Brownfields Pilots to be funded
through cooperative agreements worth up to
$200,000 each for a two-year period. These pilots
are either funded through Headquarters or the 10
Regional offices. The pilots are intended to provide
redevelopment models, direct efforts toward
removing regulatory barriers, and coordinate public
and private efforts at the federal, state, and local
levels.
E-2
-------
lscal Year 1997
jperfund Program Reorganization
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
lesponse (OERR) was reorganized in FY96 from a
lerarchical, four division structure to a matrix
Iganization with 14 centers of expertise. The
f organization had several distinct purposes:
to accelerate site cleanup;
promote teamwork;
empower states; and
provide better customer service.
^authorization Activities
I EPA continued to work with Congress on
Ireauthorization issues. CERCLA was last amended
[in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and
[Reauthorization Act (SARA).
. The major Superfund program areas include:
I Site Evaluation, Emergency Response, Remedial
I 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.
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
The NCPAvas modified so that CERCLIS sites
needing no ftlfther EPA-financed response actions
could be placed in a separate "archived" database.
During FY95-FY97, EPA also proceeded with
ongoing efforts to address technical complexities and
improve site evaluation guidance.
During the 1995-1997 time period, EPA has
undertaken projects to address, brownfields issues by
establishing the Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative in FY95. This initiative is
directed toward empowering states, local
governments, communities, and others to work
together to assess and safely cleanup brownfields
sites.
Emergency Response
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats. EPA and.
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) started nearly
830 removal actions and completed more than 889
removal actions during FY95-FY97. Through the
end of FY97, more than 4,490 removal actions have
been started and nearly 3,939 have been completed
since the inception of the Superfund program.
-The removal authority for "early actions," has
been expanded to reduce immediate risks and
expedite cleanup at NPL sites. The expansion was a
key element of SACM. Early actions may include
emergency, time-critical, or non-time critical removal
responses or quick remedial responses.
Under the reportable quantities (RQ) regulatory
requirements, EPA proposed an . expanded
exemptions rule (60 FR 40042) under which
exemptions may be granted for releases of naturally
occurring radionuclides associated with land
disturbance due to certain mining activities.
EPA also issued guidance during FY96 that
provides answers to common removals/RQ
adjustment questions and concerns of the regulated
community and general public. Additional guidance
was completed on the removal response to radiation
sites.
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
[sea/ Year 1997 .
Ijperfund Program Reorganization
I EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
lesponse (OERR) was reorganized in FY96 from a
erarchical, four division structure to a matrix
Irganization with 14 centers of expertise. The
(organization had several distinct purposes:
I to accelerate site cleanup;
I promote teamwork;
I empower states; and
I provide better customer service.
Reauthorization Activities
I EPA continued to work with Congress on
Ireauthorization. issues. CERCLA was last amended
In 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and
JReauthorization Act (SARA).
I The major Superfund program areas include:
I Site Evaluation, Emergency Response, Remedial
I Progress, Enforcement Progress, Federal Facility
[cleanups, Resource Estimates, and Superfund
I Program Support Activities.
I Site Evaluation
I Over FY95-FY97, EPA's progress in identifying
I 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.
fomenting SUPERFUND
The NCP was modified so that CERCLIS sites
needing no ftitther EPA-financed response actions
could be placed in a separate "archived" database.
During FY95-FY97, EPA also proceeded with
ongoing efforts to address technical complexities and
improve site evaluation guidance.
During the 1995-1997 time period. EPA has
undertaken projects to address, brownfields issues by
establishing the Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative in FY95. This initiative is
directed toward empowering states, local
governments, communities, and others to work
together to assess and safely cleanup brownfields
sites.
Emergency Response
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, EPA and.
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) started nearly
830 removal actions and completed more than 889
removal actions during FY95-FY97. Through the
end of FY97, more than 4,490 removal actions have
been started and nearly 3,939 have been completed
since the inception of the Superfund program.
-The removal authority for "early actions," has
been expanded to reduce immediate risks and
expedite cleanup at NPL sites. The expansion was a
key element of SACM. Early actions may include
emergency, time-critical, or non-time critical removal
responses or quick remedial responses,
Under the reportable quantities (RQ) regulatory
requirements, EPA proposed an . expanded
exemptions rule (60 FR 40042) under which
exemptions may be granted for releases of naturally
occurring radionuclides associated with land
disturbance due to certain mining activities.
EPA also issued guidance during FY96 that
provides answers to common removals/RQ
adjustment questions and concerns of the regulated
community and general public. Additional guidance
was completed on the removal response to radiation
sites.
E-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
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-fmanced sites.
Two components of the remedial program with
significant activity during FY95-FY97 were the five-
year review program and the Superfund- Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. A total of
146 five-year reviews, required by CERCLA Section
121(c), were carried our during this period. These
reviews assure that human health and the
environment are being protected by the selected
remedial action. The SITE Program demonstrates
and evaluates full-scale, innovative hazardous waste
treatment technologies. In FY96, the program
shifted from a technology-driven focus to one that
was more integrated, driven by the needs of the waste
remediation community. EPA's technology transfer
and interagency coordination efforts have long been
recognized leaders in the technology innovation
arena, and., are continually enhanced through
conferences, demonstrations, and reference
publications.
Enforcement Progress
Accomplishments during 1995-1997 reflect
EPA's continuing commitment to maximizing PRP
involvement in financing and conducting cleanup
and recovery of Superfund monies expended for
response actions. Over the three-year period, EPA
has achieved enforcement agreements worth
approximately $2.2 billion in PRP response work.
Through its cost recovery effort, EPA achieved
approximately $769 million in cost recovery
settlements and collected more than $822 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures in FY95-
FY97. By the end of FY97, EPA had collected a
total of over $1.7 billion in cost recovery settlements,
bankruptcy settlements, fines and penalties.
EPA has been working toward improving the
efficiency and fairness of Superfund enforcement.
Transaction costs have been reduced through SACM,
three rounds of administrative reforms, and
promotion of an "enforcement first" initiative to
secure increased PRP financial involvement. The
reforms of FY95 encouraged de minimis settlements
and de micromis settlements. Other approaches to
promote fairness and flexibility in settlements were
continued, and guidance documents were issued in
FY95, detailing specific approaches to enforcement
fairness.
Federal Facility Cleanups
Federal departments and agencies are largely
responsible for implementing CERCLA at federal
facility sites. To ensure federal facility compliance
with CERCLA requirements, EPA provides advice
and assistance, oversees activities, and takes
enforcement action where appropriate. For sites that
are on the NPL, EPA must concur with the selected
remedy. The June ..27, 1997 Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket listed a total
of 2,104 federal facilities sites. Of the sites on the
docket, 157 were proposed to or listed on the NPL,
including 151 final and six proposed sites.
Throughout 1995-1997, the closure of military
bases was an important issue. Major achievements
in FY95 led EPA and the Department of Defense
(DoD) to determine which installations to include in
the Fast Track Cleanup Program of the Base
Realignment and Closure Act (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
-------
pea/ Year 1997
le enactment of CERCLA in 1980, Congress has
Irovided Superfund with $17.7 million in budget
|uthority(FY81 through FY97).
I Estimates of the long-term resources required to
Inplement Superfund are based on the Outyear
liability Model (OLM). The OLM provides long-
lange forecasts, with flexibility to refine these
forecasts, and can be adjusted to accommodate many
Irogram-related variables. To calculate a cost
Istimate, the OLM reviews active NPL sites, sites yet
lo begin the remedial process, non-site costs, and
actors related to remedial action costs. The OLM
lost estimate of completing cleanup of current NPL
lites is more than $13.6 billion for FY97 and beyond,
Iringing the total estimated cost of the program to
K31.3 billion.
Euperfund Program Support
I Throughout 1995-1997, EPA has taken measures
lo 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
Istates and Indian tribes, and increase minority
[contractor utilization.
I In its community involvement efforts, EPA
Itailors activities to the specific needs of individual
I communities and identifies ways to enhance
I community involvement efforts. EPA emphasized the
I importance of effective community involvement with
I guidance that encourages the Regions to establish
I community advisory groups (CAGs) in FY96. EPA
I also continued to provide technical outreach to
I communities, hold national conferences on
I community involvement, offer training and
I workshops, and facilitate community access to
I technical assistance grants (TAGs). To aid
I communities in obtaining technical assistance, EPA
I awarded 46 TAGs during FY95-FY97, bringing the
I total number of TAGs awarded since FY88 to 198,
I for a total value of more than $13 million.
I To enhance public access to Superfund
I information, EPA continued its partnership with the
I National Technical Information Service (NTIS), to
I provide Superfund document distribution services.
I EPA has fulfilled requests for more than two million
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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
-------
This page intentionally left blank
------- |