United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Superfund
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9200.2-17
EPA540-R-94-016
PB94-963234
February 1994
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund
Fiscal Year 1991
Report To Congress
-------
Publication 9200.2-17
February 1994
4
Progress Toward
Implementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
REPORT TO
CONGRESS
Required by
Section 30 l(h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
as amended by the Superfimd Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
U S. Environ r V i Protection Agency
Region 5, l.:ir " ., L-12J)
77 West Jac!. , "oulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60GU4-3590
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
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 Policy and Analysis Staff in the Office of Program Management, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response at (202) 260-2182. 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) 487-4650.
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Foreword
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continued its progress in protecting public health,
welfare, and the environment through the Superfund program in fiscal year 1991 (FY91). As it completed
the eleventh year of the program, the Agency reported clean-up work progress or completion at 93 percent
of the 1,207 sites on the National Priorities List. The FY91 accomplishments reflect activities initiated by
the 30-Day Task Force and continued success in implementing A Management Review of the Superfund
Program (the FY89 90-Day Study). EPA is pleased to submit this report documenting the fiscal year's
achievements.
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. As a result of emphasis on remedial
construction, the Agency achieved remedial program records with a total of 196 records of decisions signed,
and 161 remedial designs and 104 remedial actions started by EPA and potentially responsible parties during
the fiscal year. This represents an increase of more than 26 percent for each of these remedial activities over
FY90. In addition, nine sites were deleted from the National Priorities List during FY91, which is nearly one-
fourth of all sites deleted over the past 11 years.
EPA has continued its increasingly successful efforts to compel potentially responsible parties to clean
up hazardous waste sites. Potentially responsible parties began 113, or 70 percent, of the 161 remedial designs
started in FY91, compared to 76, or 59 percent, of the 128 remedial designs started in FY90. EPA entered
into 263 enforcement agreements with a potential value of $1.4 billion; this is the second consecutive year
in which Superfund enforcement agreements averaged over $ 1 billion. The Agency started its 2,000th Fund-
financed removal action, one of 341 removals started during the fiscal year that were funded by potentially
responsible parties or the Superfund Trust Fund. 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, the report contains
information Congress specifically requested in Section 301(h) of CERCLA, including an abstract of each
record of decision that was signed in FY91; a report on the status of remedial actions, including 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 our efforts to encourage their increased participation, as required by Section 105(f).
111
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Foreword
(continued)
The report fulfills the requirement of Section 301(h)(l)(E) for an annual update on progress being made at
sites subject to review under Section 121 (c). Appendix D consists of a matrix that charts the progress of EPA
and other government organizations in meeting Superfund-related statutory requirements. This report also
satisfies other reporting requirements of Section 121(c); the EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress
Toward Implementing CERCLA at EPA Facilities as Required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) is included as
Appendix E. The EPA Inspector General's report on the reasonableness and accuracy of the information in
this report, as required by Section 301(h)(2), is included as Appendix F.
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Elliott Laws
Assistant Admimi
Emergency Response
br Solid Waste and
IV
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acknowledgments
The 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: Jim Fary (project manager), Linda Garczysnki, Rafael Gonzalez, Justin Karp, James Maas, Jim
McMaster, Caroline Previ, Robin Richardson, Michelle Whitehead, and Ed Ziomkoski, from the Office of
Program Management; Henry L. Longest, II, and Betti VanEpps, from the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response; Barbara Hostage, Dave Lopez, and Esther Williford, from the Emergency Response Division;
George Alderson, Hugo Fleischman, Joan Griffith, Diana Hammer, Carol Jacobson, Bill Ross, and Melissa
Shapiro, from the Hazardous Site Control Division; Barbara Bach, Susan Griffin, Lisa Matthews, Delores
Rodgers, Chuck Sands, and Suzanne Wells, from the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division; Scott Blair, Pat
Kennedy, and Jim Woolford, from the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; and Meg Kelly, from the
Technology Innovation Office.
Additional key contributions from other Environmental Protection Agency offices were provided by:
Howard Wilson, Office of Administration and Resources Management; Stacey Greendlinger and Tony
Wolbarst, Office of Air and Radiation; Sherry Milan, Linda Rutsch, and Augusta Wills, Office of
Enforcement; Lee Tyner, Office of General Counsel; Stuart Miles-McLean, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation; Steven James, John Martin, Richard Nalesnik, and Louis Swaby, Office of Research and
Development; and George Mori and Becky Neer, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
Contributions from other federal agencies and departments were provided by: Dr. William Cibulas, Jose
Irizarry, and Dr. Ralph O'Connor, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Keith Frye,
Department of Energy; Lt. Col. Steve Walker, Department of Defense; and Mary Morton, Department of
Interior.
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
Notice ................................................ . ............................................ . [[[ ğ
Foreword ................. . ........................................... . [[[ iğ
Acknowledgements ..... , [[[ v
Executive Summary ..................................... , ..... .' ........ .- .................................................. - ............ xiii
Introduction .......................... . ...... , ........... . ............................ ..............................................
Chapter 1: Major Program Accomplishments ................. , [[[ 1
J.I Remedial and Enforcement Accomplishments ................................. , .......................................... 1
1.1.1 The Remedial Process [[[ 2
1.1.2 The Enforcement Process ............... , [[[ 3
1.1.3 FY91 Accomplishments [[[ . ............................ 4
1.1.4 Status of Ongoing Remedial and Enforcement Activities ................................... ........ 4
1.1.5 Remedy Selection ..... .............. . ........................ , [[[ ....5
1.2 Remedial Initiatives .............................................. - ............ . ................. . .................................... 7
1.2.1 Options for Accelerating Cleanup; 30-Day Study Task Force Recommendations .... ...... 8
1.2.2 Risk Assessment and Management in Superfund: 30-Day Study Task Force
Recommendations... [[[ 15
1.2.3 ARCS Task Force Initiatives [[[ 15
1.2.4 Other Initiatives ............................. [[[ 17
1.3 Enforcement Achievements [[[ 18
1.3.1 PRP Activity ................................ , [[[ 20
1.3.2 Use of Enforcement Measures ........ ... [[[ 21
1.3.3 Success in Reaching and Enforcing Agreements with PRPs .... ..................................... 22
1.3.4 Enforcement Initiatives [[[ 27
1.4 Removal Activities ............................................ . [[[ 29
1.4.1 Status Report on Removal Actions ................................ . .............................................. 29
1.4.2 The Removal Action Process [[[ 29
1.4.3 Addressing Immediate Threats [[[ . ............................... 31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 3: Estimate of Resources Required to Implement Superfund 43
3.1 Source and Application of Superfund Resources 44
3.1.1 Sources 44
3.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Clean-Up Effort 45
3.2 Estimated Resources to Complete Current NPL Sites 45
3.2.1 Estimated Cost to Complete Current NPL Sites 46
3.2.2 Program Element Assumptions Represented in the Model 47
3.3 Estimates of Resources Necessary for Other Executive Branch Departments
and Agencies to Complete Superfund Implementation 48
Chapter 4: Federal Facilities Program 57
4.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities under CERCLA 57
4.1.1 Facility Responsibilities 57
4.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role 57
4.1.3 The Role of States and Indian Tribes 58
4.2 Federal Facilities Program Implementation 58
4.2.1 Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 58
4.2.2 Progress towards Cleaning Up Federal Facilities on the NPL 59
4.2.3 Federal Facility Agreements under CERCLA Section 120 59
4.2.4 Report to Congress on EPA Responsibility under CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) 60
4.3 Federal Facilities Program Initiatives 60
4.3.1 Segregating Federal Facilities on the NPL 61
4.3.2 Other Initiatives 61
Chapter 5: Other Statutory Requirements for the Report 65
5.1 Use and Development of Treatment Technologies 65
5.1.1 The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program 67
5.1.2 Superfund Research Grants 71
5.1.3 Technical Assistance, Expert Advice, and Information Transfer 72
5.1.4 Research, Development, Demonstration, and Evaluation of New Technologies 73
5.2 Minority Firm Participation in Superfund Contracting 73,
5.2.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 74
5.2.2 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments
to Use Minority Contractors 74
5.3 Report on Facilities Subject to Review under CERCLA Section 121(c) 75
5.3.1 Five-Year Review 75
5.3.2 Deletions from the NPL 75
vin
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 6: Program Implementation and Support Activities 77
6.1 Community Relations and Public Information 77
6.1.1 Community Relations 77
6.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants under CERCLA Section 117(e) 78
6.1.3 A Coordinated Approach to Public Information 80
6.2 EPA Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 80
6.2.1 Response Agreements and the Core Program 81
6.2.2 Partnership with Indian Tribes 83
6.2.3 Other EPA Partnership Developments 83
6.3 Actions Undertaken to Improve Program Efficiency 84
6.3.1 Long-Term Contracting Strategy 84
6.3.2 Remedy Selection Process 85
Appendices
Appendix A Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial
Actions at sites on the National Priorities List in Progress
on September 30, 1991 87
Appendix B Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30, 1991 147
Appendix C Record of Decision Abstracts 169
Appendix D Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related
Statutory Requirements 453
Appendix E EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress toward Implementing
CERCLA at EPA Facilities as Required by CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5) 479
Appendix F Report of the EPA Inspector General 483
Appendix G List of Sources 491
IX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Contents
(continued)
Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Fiscal Year 1991 Superfund Program Activities xv
Exhibit ES-1 (continued) Summary of Fiscal Year 1991 Superfund Program Activities xvi
Exhibit ES-2 Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year xvii
Exhibit 1.0-1 Status of Work at National Priorities List Sites as of September 30,1991 .. 2
Exhibit 1.1-1 Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts 5
Exhibit 1.1-2 Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Design Starts 6
Exhibit 1.1-3 Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Action Starts 7
Exhibit 1.1-4 Potentially Responsible Party Involvement as a Percentage
of Superfund Remedial Activity Starts 8
Exhibit 1.1-5 Value of Potentially Responsible Party Settlements for
Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991 9
Exhibit 1.1-6 Ongoing Projects at National Priorities List Sites by Lead
for Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991 10
Exhibit 1.1-7 Summary of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1991
Records of Decision 11
Exhibit 1.1-8 Percentage Distribution of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1991
Records of Decision 12
Exhibit 1.3-1 Increase in Remedial Design and Remedial Action Starts
Being Performed by Potentially Responsible Parties
since Enactment of SARA 19
Exhibit 1.3-2 Post-SARA Cost Recovery Collections 20
Exhibit 1.3-3 Value of Costs Sought through Cost Recovery Referrals
for Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991 21
Exhibit 1.4-1 Removal Action Starts and Completions by Fiscal Year 30
Exhibit 2.3-1 Final National Priorities List Sites for
Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991 36
Exhibit 3.1-1 EPA Superfund Operating Plan and Budget Estimates
(Dollars in Millions) 45
Exhibit 3.2-1 Estimate of Total Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites
on the National Priorities List (Dollars in Millions) 46
Exhibit 3.3-1 CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal
Departments and Agencies (Dollars in Millions) 55
Exhibit 3.3-1 (continued) CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal
Departments and Agencies (Dollars in Millions) 56
Exhibit 4.2-1 Number of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket 59
Exhibit 4.2-2 Distribution of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 60
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
Exhibit 5.1-1 Use of Established and Innovative Treatment Technologies
by Fiscal Year 66
Exhibit 5.1-2 Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technology Program 69
Exhibit 5.1-3 Innovative Technologies in the Demonstration Program 69
Exhibit 5.2-1 Minority Contract Utilization during Fiscal Year 1991 73
Exhibit 5.2-2 Amount of Money Awarded to Minority Firms
through Direct Procurement 74
Exhibit 6.1-1 Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded
during Fiscal Year 1988 through Fiscal Year 1991 79
Exhibit 6.2-1 Number and Value of Core Program Cooperative Agreements
Awarded during Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991 82
XI
-------
Executive Summary
As the Superfund program reached its ten-year
anniversary in December 1990, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or "the
Agency") continued to achieve the requirements of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA) for protecting public health,
welfare, and the environment. To expedite hazardous
site cleanups, the Agency embarked upon many new
initiatives resulting from internal and external review
of the Superfund program, as well as public response
to the program.
Two major studies conducted by EPA task forces
provided an in-depth evaluation of the program and
recommendations for improvements. The 30-Day
Study Task Force focused on identifying options for
accelerating the rate of cleanups and evaluating the
assumptions used in assessing and managing risk at
Superfund sites. A second task force convened to
assess and improve management of the Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contracts.
In addition, the Agency continued initiatives
begun during FY89 pursuant to the Management
Review of the Superfund Program (the 90-Day Study).
The study outlined a Superfund strategy involving:
the use of "enforcement first" to compel potentially
responsible party (PRP) response; controlling acute
threats immediately; addressing the worst problems
at the worst sites first; and developing new
technologies for more effective cleanups. FY90
efforts to implement the 90-Day Study formed a
solid basis for Superfund progress achieved during
FY91.
This report identifies the Agency's
accomplishments during the ten years of the program,
highlighting accomplishments of FY91. The
statistics which support accomplishments cited in
this report frequently include data that are over 10
years old. Overtime, definitions of accomplishment
categories have been refined to reflect changes and
priorities as the program has evolved and data have
been continuously reviewed to improve quality.
Computer select logic has been revised to
accommodate these definitional changes. The effect
of these changes is some adjustments to previously
reported numbers. For the 10-year period, FY80 to
FY90, remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/
FS) starts and remedial design (RD) starts have each
had a net increase of approximately 10 percent.
Removal completions reported for the same period
increased almost 4 percent, while records of decision
(RODs) reported decreased 1 percent. We continue
to make every effort to present the most accurate and
up-to-date picture of progress toward implementing
Superfund. We believe that the statistical data cited
in this report are the most accurate we can provide.
Remedial and Enforcement Program
Accomplishments
The Agency's accomplishments in remedial and
enforcement activities reflect continuing
implementation of the recommendations of the 90-
Day Study, as well as ongoing implementation of the
more recent 30-Day Study. The principal goal of the
30-Day Study is to accelerate the rate of cleanups at
all sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). By the
Xlll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
end of FY91, construction to implement clean-up
remedies was completed at 61 sites including 38
sites deleted from the NPL. Action had been taken
at 93 percent of the 1,207 sites on the NPL.
The acceleration toward construction completion
has lead to a dramatic increase in later-stage remedial
activities [RODs signed and RDs and remedial actions
(RAs) started]. This increase also reflects the
Agency's response commitment to meeting statutory
targets for RA starts. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes
FY91 program accomplishments; Exhibit ES-2
provides a comparison of FY91 accomplishments
with previous years.
During FY91,104 RAs were started, a 32 percent
increase over RA starts in FY90.
A total of 161 RDs were started in FY91, a 26
percent increase over RD starts in FY90.
A total of 196 RODs were signed, including 175
RODs financed by Superfund and 21 financed
by other federal agencies at federal facility sites.
Seventy-four remedial investigations/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs) were begun in FY91,
representing a decrease of approximately 55
percent fromFY90. This reduction in the number
of RI/FS starts is a result of the Agency's
decision to maximize the number of RAs and
construction completions.
EPA's FY91 enforcement achievements directly
reflect the success of the Agency's commitment
to "enforcement first." The Agency achieved
263 total enforcement agreements with PRPs,
valued at $1.4 billion in estimated value of
response work. Settlements have averaged $1
billion annually for the past two years.
Program Initiatives
In the wake of success in improving the Superfund
program through implementing recommendations
of the 90-Day Study Task Force, the EPA
Administrator ordered the formation of task forces
throughout the program to study and make further
recommendations to improve the program. During
the fiscal year, the Agency launched several
significant initiatives to enhance Superfund progress
based on these recommendations.
The 30-Day Study
The 30-Day Task Force was tasked with
recommending methods for accelerating cleanup
and managing risks at Superfund sites. Key
recommendations of the 30-Day Study Task Force
include:
Setting Aggressive Clean-Up Targets:EPA proposed
the commitment of additional resources to complete
remedial construction at Superfund sites. Targets for
construction completion at sites on the NPL are:
130 total site completions by the end of 1992;
200 total site completions by the end of 1993;
and
650 total site completions by the year 2000.
To formulate policies necessary to achieve these
targets,EPAestablishedaworkgroupof Headquarters
and regional representatives.
Streamlining the Superfund Process: EPA examined
each stage of the Superfund process to identify
opportunities for accelerating cleanups. The 30-Day
Study Task Force recommended improvements in
each phase of remedial activity.
Elevating Site-Specific Issues: In cases where a
delay requires resolution of an issue involving a
state, the Department of Justice, or another agency,
EPA will expedite action by elevating the issue to
upper federal and state management levels.
Accelerating Private-Party Cleanups: EPA
developed a final policy statement intended to
accelerate private party cleanup by limiting
"midstream" private party takeovers. Policy will
also be issued to stress accelerated cleanups by
emphasizing start of RD prior to entry of a consent
decree.
Communicating Superfund Success: EPA is
developing a strategy to increase public awareness of
Superfund accomplishments by broadening the scope
of public information and outreach to encompass all
aspects of the program.
xiv
-------
Exhibit ES-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1991 Superfund Program Activities
REMEDIAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Percentage of National Priorities List Sites Where Work Has Begun
Sites Where All Construction Work to Implement Cleanup Was Completed by September 30, 1991
Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30,1991
Records of Decision Signed1
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts
Fund-financed
Potentially Responsible Party-financed
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies in Progress on September 30, 1991
Remedial Design Starts
Fund-financed
Potentially Responsible Party-financed
Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1991
Remedial Action Starts
Fund-financed
Potentially Responsible Party-financed
Remedial Actions in Progress on September 30, 1991
REMEDIAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Removal Completions
Fund-financed
Potentially Responsible Party-financed
Removal Starts
Fund-financed
Potentially Responsible Party-financed
11ncludes all records of decision by the Agency, including federal facility records of decision.
93%
61
912
196
74
22
52
889
161
48
113
374
104
39
65
307
265
210
55
341
238
103
CO
2
Sources: CERCLIS; EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; EPA Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Federal Register notices through September 30, 1991.
a.
i
i
I
-------
Exhibit ES-1 (continued)
Summary of Fiscal Year 1991 Superfund Program Activities
!
i
1
I
CO
§
SITE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES1
National Priorities List2Sites to Date
Sites Proposed for Listing during FY91
Final Sites Listed during FY91
Sites Proposed for Deletion during FY91
Sites Deleted during FY91
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Settlements for All Potentially Responsible Party Response Activities
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Settlements *
Unilateral Administrative Orders Issued (all actions)
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Unilateral Administrative Orders in Compliance
Cost Recovery Dollars Collected
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES SITES
Records of Decision Signed
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts
Remedial Design Starts
Remedial Action Starts
1 Information on all site assessment accomplishments is not included in this report because of an ongoing OIG investigation, it will be included in the FY92 report.
2 Includes proposed and listed sites. Does not include 38 deleted sites.
3 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 which potentially
responsible parties have stated their intention to comply.
263
101
137
30
N/A
1,207
23
7
1
9
($1.4 billion)
($1.12 billion)
N/A
($286 million)
($83.4 million)
21
115
23
15
Sources: CERCLIS; EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; EPA Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Federal Register notices through September 30,1991.
(O
(O
-------
Exhibit ES-2
Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year1-2
FY80-86 pYQy
Total
Removal Completions
National Priorities List Sites5
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Starts
Records of Decision Signed
Remedial Design Starts
Remedial Action Starts
National Priorities List Deletions
81 1 232
888 951
656 210
199 77
124 109
70 67
13 0
FY88
320
1,177
174
152
116
70
4
FY89 FY90 FY91
255
1,226 1,
172
136
175
110
11
294 265
207 1 ,207
166 74
149 175
128 161
79 104
1 9
1 Information on site assessment accomplishments Is not included in this report because of an ongoing OIQ investigation; it will be included in the FY92 report.
2 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xlli in the Executive Summary of this report.
3 Includes only activities where Fund monies were spent.
4 Includes activities conducted by federal facilities and states where no Superfund resources were used.
5 The figures reported in this row represent the cumulative total of proposed and final National Priorities List sites as of the end of each fiscal year. At the end of FY91 , 22 sites
Fourteen sites previously proposed for listing were removed from consideration for listing.
Total3 Total4
2,177 2,215
1 ,207 1 ,207
1,452 1,891
888 944
813 886
500 555
38 38
were proposed for listing.
Sources: CERCLIS; EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Federal Register notices through September 30, 1991.
JO
<0
1
I
I
CO
I
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SegregatingFederalFacilitiesontheNationalPriorities
List: To indicate that cleanup of federal facilities on
the NPL is not EPA's responsibility, the 30-Day
Study Task Force recommended that federal facilities
be listed on the NPL within a distinct category. In
February 1992, Update 12 to the NPL was published
with new language clearly distinguishing the roles of
EPA and other federal agencies.
Reviewing Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Policies: To promote more consistent and expeditious
risk assessments in the Superfund program, the
Agency developed the Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund, and performed quality assurance
review of site-specific risk assessment. Additionally,
an Agency workgroup was established to identify
and prioritize significant risk management issues,
and facilitate the soundness and Regional consistency
of risk management decisions.
Establishing a Superfund Revitalization Team: A
National Superfund Director was appointed to
implement the recommendations contained in the
30-Day Study. Responsibilities of the Director
include overseeing all Superfund procurement and
budgeting, and implementing measures to improve
clean-up contracting and accelerate cleanups. At the
end of FY91, a 20 to 30 member "trouble-shooting
team" was being assembled to improve management
and accountability of the Superfund program.
The Alternative Remedial Contracting
Strategy Study
In response to published allegations concerning
mismanagement of the Alternative Remedial
Contracting Strategy (ARCS), the Administrator
formed a task force to examine the ARCS contract
management. At the close of FY91, the Agency had
begun implementing recommendations made by the
task force. Major recommendations for improving
the program included:
Setting a national goal of keeping program
management costs to 20 percent or less of total
contract expenditures;
Issuing guidance that allows for broader use of
ARCS contractors, reduces ARCS construction
capacity by approximately $2 billion, and
balances the use of ARCS contracts with the
continuing remedial role of the Army Corps of
Engineers;
Taking corrective actions in the administration
of contract controls, specifically in the area of
work assignment management, invoice review,
technical performance management, and
independent government cost estimates;
Requesting the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) to allocate funding for audits of the ARCS
contractors;
Using award fees to affect contractor
performance; and
Reviewing and updating procedures for
coordinating activities with other agencies, states,
regions, and contractors.
Remedial Initiatives
The Agency undertook several initiatives during
the fiscal year to address technical problems that
have been identified in dealing with site
contamination. EPA began promoting the
development and implementation of comprehensive
state ground-water protection programs. To facilitate
these programs, EPA provided national guidance
and awarded increasing shares of grants to states
demonstrating effective programs.
Similarly, EPA continued its efforts during FY91
to determine the treatability of contaminated soil and
debris. EPA evaluated over 120 unpublished studies
dealing with contaminated soil, and expects to
generate further studies. EPA also created a
technology transfer database that will enable EPA,
state, local, and private parties to gain access to soil
treatment records of various technologies.
Enforcement Initiatives
In response to Agency task force
recommendations, the enforcement program has
established initiatives to study recommendations
aimed at accelerating completion of site cleanups.
An additional focus of the enforcement program
xvm
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
during FY91 was the equitable allocation of response
costs at Superfund sites. Significant EPA initiatives
concerning this issue include:
Taking a variety of steps to encourage more de
minimis settlements, thus reducing transaction
costs.
Issuing a Policy Toward Owners of Residential
Property at Superfund Sites, reinforcing EPA
practice not to pursue enforcement actions that
require owners of residential property to
undertake response actions or pay response costs,
unless the owner's activities lead to a release, or
potential threat of release, of hazardous
substances.
Other enforcement initiatives taken during the
fiscal year included overall efforts to target and
reduce lead exposure at Superfund sites, and
publication of a final guidance on the policy and
procedures governing the compilation of
administrative records supporting the selection of
remedial actions.
Removal Program Activities
EPA has taken appropriate actions to reduce
immediate threats to human health and the
environment at hazardous waste sites through removal
actions. Superfund's emergency response program
reached a significant milestone in FY91: the 2,000th
Fund-financed removal action start. To date, EPA
and PRPs have completed 2,177 removal actions at
both NPL and non-NPL sites.
In FY91, the role of PRPs in funding removal
efforts continued to expand. Of the 341 removal
actions begun in FY91,103 were financed by PRPs,
compared with 95 in FY90. PRP funds also were
used to finance 5 5 of the removal action completions.
Under the removal program, EPA manages the
Emergency Response Team (ERT). Over the ten
years of its existence, the team has been available to
regional On-Scene Coordinators and Remedial
Project Managers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to
support removal and remedial actions at sites. During
FY91, the ERT responded on-scene to 104 removal
actions, 61 remedial actions, six oil spills, and six
international actions. In addition, ERT provided 213
training courses in health and safety and other
technical aspects of response.
Site Assessment
The Agency continued its progress in assessing
potentially threatening sites in FY91. Due to an
ongoing investigation by EPA's OIG, specific
numerical totals for site assessment accomplishments
are not included in this report. These
accomplishments will be reported in the FY92 report.
During FY91, EPA began using the revised
hazard ranking system (HRS). The revised HRS
allows the Agency to rank hazardous sites more
comprehensively, taking into account population
risk and the potential for drinking water
contamination, direct human contact, ecosystem
destruction, damage affecting the food chain, and air
contamination. To prepare EPA staff to work with
the revised system, EPA conducted five HRS/Site
Assessment Orientation Sessions in which it trained
over 500 people. In addition, 241 people were
trained at five HRS Package Preparation Sessions.
Using the revised HRS in FY91, EPA proposed
23 sites for the NPL. The Agency also listed seven
proposed sites and deleted nine sites. At the end of
the fiscal year, there were 22 proposed and 1,185
final NPL sites, bringing the total number of proposed
and final sites to 1,207.
The contract laboratory program (CLP) is the
Agency's major vehicle for obtaining laboratory
chemical analyses of samples that are taken from
Superfund sites and used in site assessment. In
FY91, EPA implemented a series of improvements
to the CLP.
The Agency also examined particular technical
issues concerning both site and risk assessment. For
instance, in an effort to better address problems
associated with lead and radionuclide contamination
commonly found at Superfund sites and in the urban
environment, EPA has undertaken three initiatives:
xix
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
(1) developing risk assessment procedures and tools,
such as the EPA Uptake Biokinetic Model; (2)
studying the effects of lead in residential soil or dust;
and (3) developing guidance and technology directed
toward the study of radionuclide contamination.
Federal Facility Compliance with
Superfund Requirements
Also during FY91, the Agency increased its
oversight of federal facility compliance with
CERCLA requirements. In addition to the remedial
projects carried on directly by EPA or PRPs under
the Superfund program, other federal executive
agencies and departments continued clean-up
activities in compliance with CERCLA.
During FY91, three federal facilities were
proposed for listing on the NPL, although none were
finalized. Clean-up progress at federal sites included
starting 115 RI/FSs, 23 RDs, and 15 RAs and
signing 21 records of decisions.
EPA entered into 24 interagency agreements
(lAGs) to accomplish required hazardous waste
cleanups at federal facilities during FY91, bringing
the total number of LAGs entered since the beginning
of Superfund to 85. To assist the public in
understanding that EPA is not the lead agency for all
sites on the NPL, EPA began segregating federal
facilities from other sites on the published lists of
NPL sites.
Estimate of Resources Necessary to
Implement Superfund
Since the enactment of CERCLA in 1980,
Congress has provided Superfund with $10.7 billion
in budget authority. This total includes $8.9 billion
for the post-SARA period, FY87 through FY92,
with an FY92 operating plan and budget estimate of
$ 1.6 billion. The FY93 President's budget requests
total resources of $1.75 billion targeted for:
Site cleanup, which uses approximately 62
percent of Superfund resources;
General support, which uses 25 percent of
Superfund resources; and
Enforcement, which uses 13 percent of Superfund
resources.
EPA's estimate of long-term resource needs is
based on the Outyear Liability Model (OLM). The
OLM estimate of the cost to complete cleanup of
current NPL sites is $16.5 billion for FY94 and
beyond.
Use and Development of Treatment
Technology
To promote the application of innovative clean-
up technologies, EPA implemented a wide-ranging
communication program, including:
A Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) newsletter, a periodic technical journal,
and site-specific status reports on treatment
success.
An "expert" conference attended by 750
representatives involved in innovative hazardous
waste treatment technologies, andperiodic
meetings of the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable.
Technical assistance to EPA laboratories, On-
Scene Coordinators, Remedial Project Managers,
and Regional and state personnel.
A new database clearinghouse (VISITT)
containing on-line cost and performance
information on innovative treatment
technologies.
xx
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Through the SITE program, EPA accepted 13
technologies into the emerging technologies program
and 23 technologies into the demonstration program,
and completed seven new technology demonstrations.
In addition, the Agency awarded 10 grants for
Superfund-related research and development and
nine contracts for small business innovation research.
Minority Firm Participation in Superfund
Contracting
During FY91, EPA, other federal agencies, and
states awarded contracts valued at approximately
$31.9 million to minority firms to perform Superfund
work. Of this total, $16.9 million was awarded
through Small Business Administration 8(a)
contracts, $11.2 million through minority
subcontracts, $1.6 million through minority prime
contracts, and the remaining through cooperative
agreements and interagency agreements.
Report on Facilities Subject to Review
Under CERCLA Section 121(c)
As required by CERCLA, EPA will conduct
five-year reviews at all sites where, after completion
of remedial activities, hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain above clean-up
goals. To address this requirement, EPA issued a
directive defining the scope of five-year reviews and
examined the differences between statutory and policy
reviews. Additionally, EPA examined its policy
requiring five-year reviews prior to deleting sites
from the NPL, and published notification whereby
EPA no longer delays NPL site deletion until a five-
year review is conducted. FY91 was the first year in
which a site became eligible for the five-year review;
accordingly, on June 21,1991, the Agency issued its
first five-year review report.
Public Participation
Three new directives issued early in the fiscal
year, combined with FY90 guidance directives that
had been issued in response to the 90-Day Study, laid
the groundwork for expanded public involvement in
Superfund. Accordingly, regions have enhanced
two-way communication between the public and
EPA throughout the year.
To continue facilitating public understanding
and involvement in the Superfund process, EPA
awarded 26 technical assistance grants (TAGs) to
community groups in eight Regions. This brings the
total number of TAGs nationwide to 69.
The Agency continued its five-year program to
standardize and manage the extensive Superfund
document collection and incorporate it into public
information and outreach activities. To make
Superfund publications more readily available to the
public, EPA worked closely with the National
Technical Information Service to consolidate current
and historical publication collections and to expedite
purchases of Superfund publications.
EPA Partnership with States and Indian
Tribes
EPA, states, and Indian tribes continued to
cooperate in the Superfund clean-up process during
FY91. For example, in September of 1991, EPA,
Region 6, and several federally-recognized Indian
tribal governments signed Superfund agreements.
During FY91, EPA awarded 46 new core program
cooperative agreements to states and Indian tribes.
To ensure the continuing involvement of states and
tribes, EPA and the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials hosted
a conference to initiate the exchange of information.
xxi
-------
-------
Introduction
Approach of the Report
This report documents the Agency's progress
toward implementing Superfund during FY91.
EPA's achievements during the fiscal year are
characterized by increased clean-up work at NPL
sites.
Accordingly, this report emphasizes the
Agency's clean-up accomplishments and the steps
the Agency took to continue accelerating the cleanup
of sites. A key step in this effort is the Agency's
implementation of the 90-Day Study and the more
recent 30-Day Study strategies. In addition, the
report highlights the expanding role that potentially
responsible parties and federal facilities are taking in
hazardous site cleanups, and the increased efforts the
Agency has made toward developing and using
innovative treatment technologies. Impacts of the
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy Task
Force recommendations on FY91 activities are also
described throughout the report.
This report identifies the Agency's
accomplishments under the program, highlighting
accomplishments of FY91. The statistics which
support accomplishments cited in this report
frequently include data that are over 10 years old.
Overtime, definitions of accomplishment categories
have been refined to reflect changes and priorities as
the program has evolved and data have been
continuously reviewed to improve quality. Computer
select logic has been revised to accommodate these
definitional changes. The effect of these changes is
some adjustments to previously reported numbers.
For the 10-year period, FY80 to FY90, remedial
investigation/feasibility study starts and remedial
design starts have each had a net increase of
approximately 10 percent. Removal completions
reported for the same period increased almost 4
percent, while records of decision reported decreased
1 percent. We continue to make every effort to
present the most accurate and up-to-date picture of
progress toward implementing Superfund. We believe
that the statistical data cited in this report are the most
accurate we can provide.
The sources of information illustrated in the
report's exhibits are referenced, accordingly, in each
exhibit. The primary source of data included in this
report is the CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS). Unless otherwise noted, CERCLIS
data retrieved on October 18, 1991, were used in
preparing this report; this information covered
Superfund activity status through September 30,
1991.
Organization of the Report
Throughout the report, for purposes of brevity
and consistency, when the acronym "CERCLA"
appears, it refers to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
Chapter 1, Major Program Accomplishments,
describes remedial and enforcement processes and
activities, summarizes the removal program
accomplishments, and reports the initiatives
undertaken to improve these phases of the Superfund
program during the fiscal year.
Chapter 2, Response Initiatives, documents
progress at the early stages of the remedial process,
including assessing and inspecting sites, listing of
sites on the National Priorities List (NPL), use of the
XXlll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
revised hazard ranking system, and improvements to
the contract laboratory program. The chapter also
describes specialized site assessment programs,
guidance documents, and related rulemakings.
Chapter 3, Estimate of Resources Required to
Implement Superfund, discusses resources required
to complete implementation of the program for the
sites currently on the NPL.
Chapter 4, Federal Facilities Program, is a new
chapter that focuses on the increased role federal
agencies are taking in cleaning up hazardous sites.
The chapter describes federal facility responsibilities
under Superfund, intra- and interagency initiatives
within the federal government to accelerate cleanups
at federal facilities, and the establishment of an
Agency strategy for addressing federal facility
compliance with environmental laws.
Chapter 5, Other Statutory Requirements for the
report, contains a detailed discussion of the use and
development of permanent clean-up technologies,
including the increased activities in the newly formed
Technology Innovation Office and continuing
activities of the Office of Research and Development.
The chapter also contains information on minority
firm participation in Superfund contracting, and
reports the Agency's policy for five-year review of
sites where hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain above targeted clean-up goals
following completion of all remedial activities.
Chapter6, Program Implementation andSupport
Activities, addresses progress in all other program
activities, including community involvement in the
Superfund process, technical assistance grants under
CERCLA Section 117(e), and EPA partnership with
states and Indian tribes. The final section includes a
discussion of steps taken to improve the efficiency of
the Superfund program.
Appendix A illustrates the status of remedial
investigations/feasibility studies and remedial actions
in progress on September 30, 1991. Appendix B
illustrates the status of remedial designs in progress
at the end of FY91. Abstracts of all records of
decision signed in FY91 are provided in Appendix
C. Appendix D contains an update on the Agency's
progress in meeting the statutory requirements
imposed by SARA. Appendix D lists all relevant
administrative and program implementation (rather
than site-specific) requirements by statutory section,
describes the mandated activity, indicates whether
the requirement has been met, and provides a report
on the status of an activity that has not been completed.
Appendix E serves as the Agency' s annual report
to Congress on progress toward implementing
CERCLA at EPA facilities, as required by CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5). The final report of the EPA
Inspector General on the required review of this
FY91 report to Congress is contained in Appendix F.
A bibliography and list of sources used in compiling
the report are provided in Appendix G.
Statutory Requirements for the Report
In addition to providing an overview of the
Agency' s FY91 progress in implementing CERCLA,
this report includes the following information
specifically required by CERCLA Sections
301(h)(l)(A) through (G), 105(f), and 301(h)(2):
In response to the requirement of CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l)(A) to include a detailed
summary of each feasibility study, Appendix C
contains an abstract of each record of decision
signed during FY91.
The status and estimated date of completion of
each feasibility study and remedial action,
required by CERCLA Sections 301(h)(l)(B)
and (F), are provided in Appendix A. Additional
requirements of Section 301(h)(l)(F) to provide
the status of actions and a comparison of FY91
enforcement actions with those undertaken in
previous years are included in Section 1.1.4.
Appendix A also provides information required
by CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(C) concerning
remedial actions that will not meet previously
published schedules.
xxiv
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
The evaluation of newly developed technologies
required by CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(D) is
described in Section 5.1 of this report.
Section 5.3 contains information that complies
with the requirements of CERCLA Section 121 (c)
to report to Congress.
The resource estimates for completion of
CERCLA implementation, required by CERCLA
Section 301 (h)( 1 )(G), are included in Chapter 3.
Section 5.2 satisfies the CERCLA Section 105(f)
requirement that EPA describe the participation
of minority firms in contracts carried out under
CERCLA.
The report of the review conducted under
CERCLA Section 301(h)(2) by the EPA
Inspector General on the reasonableness and
accuracy of this report to Congress is found in
Appendix F.
xxv
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Major Program
Accomplishments
The success of the Superfund program over the
past year demonstrates that the agenda set by the
Management Review of the Superfund Program (the
90-Day Study) is producing positive results. By the
end of the fiscal year, action had been taken at 93
percent of the 1,207 sites on the National Priorities
List (NPL). Construction had been completed at 61
sites, including 38 sites that had been deleted from
the NPL. The Agency deleted nine sites from the
NPL in FY91, nearly a quarter of the total sites
deleted to date. Exhibit 1.0-1 shows the status of
clean-up activity at all current and deleted NPL sites.
The enforcement program achieved 263 total
enforcement settlements in FY91, worth an estimated
$1.4 billion. The estimated value of enforcement
settlements has averaged over $1 billion for each of
the past two years.
The removal program began its 2,000th Fund-
financed removal action during FY91, one of 341
Fund- or PRP-financed removal actions started in
FY91. The Agency and PRPs also completed 265
removal actions during the fiscal year.
During the fiscal year, the agenda established by
the 90-Day Study was reinforced by the Agency's
30-Day Study. Recommendations set forth in the 30-
Day Study aim to accelerate the rate of clean-up
activities at NPL sites. Another FY91
accomplishment was the establishment of the
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS)
Task Force to evaluate the management of ARCS
contracts and recommend ways to achieve the most
efficient use of the contracts for site cleanups.
In addition to describing fiscal year remedial,
enforcement, and removal accomplishments, this
chapter reports on progress toward meeting statutory
deadlines imposed by SARA.
1.1 REMEDIAL AND ENFORCEMENT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The accomplishments of Superfund remedial
and enforcement programs during FY91 reflect
implementation of the recommendations of the 90-
Day Study and the more recently released 30-Day
Study. A key recommendation of the 90-Day Study
proposed the establishment of a site remediation
timeline. This recommendation was implemented
during the fiscal year, and has assured greater regional
accountability for the duration of site cleanups. The
timeline establishes goals for managers to use in
planning site remediation and tracking delays in the
remedial process.
In response to an Office of Inspector General
(OIG) review of enforcement contracting practices,
a number of strategies have been implemented to
reduce delays associated with "post-settlement"
activities. One example is the issuance of the
publication entitled PRP Compliance Monitoring
and Tracking Requirements. EPA is also increasing
the use of total quality management efforts within
Headquarters and the regions to improve productivity
under enforcement contracts.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 1.0-1
Status of Work at National Priorities List Sites as of September 30,1991
Construction Completed
Construction Underway
Design Underway
Remedy Selected
Study Underway
, Evaluation for Immediate
/ Threat Complete'
~^ Removal Only
TOTAL Past and Current NPL Sites2
61 (4.9%)
355 (28.5%)
183(14.7%)
123 (9.9%)
436 (35.0%)
70 (5.6%)
17(1.4%)
1,245
p Action not begun at 15 proposed sites (1 2%) or at 55 Imal sites (4 4%) ol the total 1,245 sites
1 Includes 1,207 sites on the NPL and 38 sites deleted from the NPL as of September 30,1991
Sources: CERCLIS; Federal Register notices through September 30,1991
With increased emphasis on the completion of
construction to implement site remedies, the Agency
recognizes the need to carefully balance the mix of
targets and resources each fiscal year, and to provide
adequate resources for those activities critical to
accelerating the pace of cleanups. (See Chapter 3,
Estimate of Resources Required to Implement
Superfund.)
1.1.1 The Remedial Process
The "remedial process" refers to cleanup of our
nation's most hazardous waste sites. It is the second
of a two-phase process. The first phase is the pre-
remedial or site assessment phase, which consists of
the following activities:
Discovery or identification of a potential site;
Preliminary assessment non-sampling research
and review of waste handling operations and
potential threat to human health and environment
to determine whether further action is necessary;
and
Site inspection (SI) sampling investigation to
collect analytical data to support a hazard ranking
system score for possible listing on the NPL.
The data collected during the SI also may indicate
the need for a removal action at the site.
If a site is listed on the NPL after the SI, it is
eligible for Superfund Trust Fund financing for
remedial actions. The remedial phase includes
the following key components.
The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/
FS), used to determine the type andextent of
contamination and to evaluate and develop
remedial clean-up alternatives;
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 1
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
ARCS Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
BOAT Best Demonstrated Available Technology
CD Consent Decree
CERCLIS CERCLA Information Center
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
DOI Department of Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
ERT Emergency Response Team
NPL National Priorities List
OARM Office of Administration and Resources
Management
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OIG Office of Inspector General
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SI Site Inspection
SSDMS Superfund Soil Data Management System
TCE Trichloroethylene
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
The record of decision (ROD) identifying the
remedy selected, based on the results of the RI/
FS and public comment on the clean-up
alternatives;
The remedial design (RD) phase used to develop
plans and specifications needed for the
construction of the selected remedy;
The remedial action (RA) phase implementing
the selected remedy, including construction and
completion of construction; and,
Operation and maintenance conducted for long-
term response actions to maintain the
effectiveness or integrity of the remedy.
A Remedial Project Manager (RPM) oversees
all remedial and enforcement activities. To ensure
that remediation is protective of human health and
the environment, the RPM must be certain that the
RA will attain all applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). ARARs are those
substantive requirements of federal and more
stringent state environmental laws that legally apply
to the hazardous waste site cleanups. Regional
coordinators at EPA Headquarters assist RPMs, as
necessary, by reviewing program activities and
answering technical or policy questions.
1.1.2 The Enforcement Process
A major goal of the Superfund enforcement
program is to compel potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) to remediate hazardous waste sites. The
Superfund enforcement program uses the CERCLA
provisions, as amended by SARA, to maximize PRP
involvement in the clean-up process. This
enforcement process includes the following steps.
EPA attempts to identify PRPs as early as
possible. EPA then notifies these parties of their
potential liability for clean-up costs at the site.
In the course of determining response work to be
done, the Agency negotiates with PRPs to
perform the work at a site.
If PRPs are willing and capable of doing the
work, the Agency enters into an enforcement
agreement. The enforcement agreement may be
a consent decree (CD) entered in court, or may be
an administrative order on consent (AOC) issued
out of court by an administrative law judge and
signed by EPA and the PRPs. Both of these
agreements are enforceable in a federal court.
Undereither agreement, EPAoversees the PRPs'
work. PRPs who do settle may seek contribution
toward the cleanup from non-settling PRPs
through third-party litigation.
If a settlement is not reached, CERCLA Section
106 provides EPA with the authority to issue a
unilateral administrative order (UAO) requiring
the PRPs to conduct the cleanup, or, through the
Department of Justice (DOJ), litigate against the
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
PRPs to compel them to perform the work. If the
Agency issues a UAO and the PRPs do not
respond, the Agency has the option of filing a
lawsuit to compel the performance specified in
the order.
If PRPs do not perform the response action and
EPA undertakes the work using Trust-fund
monies, EPA, through DOJ, will file suit, when
practicable, to recover money it spent to clean up
the site. The Agency also may seek treble
damages. Any money recovered is returned to
the Superfund Trust Fund.
1.1.3 FY91 Accomplishments
The remedial and enforcement accomplishments
for FY91 reflect the Agency's efforts to respond to
SARA's statutory requirements for RA starts,
complete construction of clean-up remedies at sites,
and to compel PRPs to undertake clean-up activities.
During FY91, there was a dramatic increase in later-
stage remedial planning and construction activities
(RDs and RAs); earlier-stage remedial study activities
(RI/FSs) declined, reflecting the Agency's
determination to maximize the number of clean-up
actions and construction completions. DuringFY91:
PRPs financed 52 RI/FS starts, and the Agency
financed 22 RI/FS starts, for a total of 74 RI/FS
starts;
PRPs financed 113 RD starts and the Agency
financed 48 RD starts, for a total of 161 RD
starts, a 26 percent increase over the total of 128
RD starts in FY90; and
PRPs financed 65 RA starts, and the Agency
financed 39 RA starts, for a total of 104 RA
starts, a 32 percent increase over the total of 79
RA starts in FY90.
Exhibits 1.1-1, 1.1-2, and 1.1-3 illustrate historical
RI/FS, RD, and RA accomplishments. Exhibit 1.1-
4 illustrates the percentage of PRP response for each
fiscal year since the enactment of SARA.
PRP response actions have increased significantly
since the enactment of SARA, which provided the
Agency with additional means of enforcement. During
FY91:
The Agency achieved a total of 263 enforcement
settlements with PRPs, worth an estimated $1.4
billion in response work. Of this total, 101 RD/
RA settlements (CDs, UAOs in compliance, or
AOCs) were achieved for an estimated value of
$1.12 billion.
The Agency issued a total of 137 UAOs and
entered into 132 AOCs and 119 CDs requiring
PRPs to perform cleanup work.
Exhibit 1.1-5 illustrates the increase in estimated
dollar value of settlements with PRPs since the
enactment of SARA.
In addition, other federal agencies or departments
and states assumed the lead for response activities.
These accomplishments are discussed in Chapters 4
and 6, respectively.
1.1.4 Status of Ongoing Remedial
and Enforcement Activities
On September 30, 1991, 1,196 RA and RI/FS
projects were ongoing at 750 NPL sites compared
with 1,095 RI/FSs and RAs at 776 NPL sites at the
end of FY90. FY91 projects include 889 RI/FSs and
307 RAs. These projects are listed in Appendix A,
along with their completion status, as required by
CERCLA Sections 301(h)(l)(B), (C), and (F). In
addition, there were 374 RDs in progress at the end
of the fiscal year, compared with 340 RDs at the end
ofFY90. All RDs in progress are listed in AppendixB.
Of the 1,196 RI/FS and RA projects ongoing at
the end of the FY91, 193 were on schedule. In
addition, 41 projects were ahead of schedule and 291
projects were begun during the fiscal year. Projects
behind schedule totaled 591 and 80 projects had no
previously published estimate of completion.
PRPs were conducting 465 of the ongoing RI/
FS and RA projects, including 318 RI/FSs and 147
RAs. Of these 465 PRP-financed projects, 70 were
on schedule and 15 were ahead of schedule.
Additionally, 252 were behind schedule and 105
were started during the fiscal year. There were 23
projects which had no previously published estimate
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.1-1
Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts1
1800-
1600
1400-
w 120°
§ 1000
a
g 800-
k
0)
.0 600-
3
Z 400-
200-
o-
. IB H
H H
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
FY Fund-lead H 130 98 83 86 22
FYPRP-lead H 80 76 89 80 52
FY TOTAL 210 174 172 166 74
TOTAL for Previous . .
Fiscal Years LJ 656 866 1,040 1,212 1,378
CUMULATIVE
TOTAL2 866 1,040 1,212 1,378 1,452
1 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xiii in the Executive Summary of this report.
2 Cumulative total includes pre-SARA RI/FS starts; there were 656 cumulative RI/FS starts, 145 of which were PRP-lead,
and 511 of which were Fund-lead.
Source: CERCLIS.
of completion. States and federal facilities also
undertook or assumed the "lead" for ongoing remedial
activities. Exhibit 1.1-6 identifies the number of
ongoing projects at NPL sites by lead.
The status of ongoing RI/FSs and RAs is based
on a comparison of each project' s planned completion
date in the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS)
at the end of FY90 with the planned completion
schedule in CERCLIS at the end of FY91. An initial
completion schedule is required to be included when
aremedial activity is entered into CERCLIS. Minimal
site-specific information is available when initially
determining a completion date, and regions usually
rely on standard planning assumptions (e.g., 12
quarters for an RI/FS). As work continues, schedules
are adjusted to reflect actual site conditions.
1.1.5 Remedy Selection
The Agency signed 196RODsinFY91, including
175 RODs financed by the Trust Fund (162 new
RODs and 13 amendments) and 21 RODs financed
by other federal agencies at federal facility sites. The
Agency selected a variety of remedial methods,
based on a careful analysis of characteristics unique
to each site and the proximity of the site to people and
sensitive environments. (Wetlands and endangered
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 1.1-2
Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Design Starts1
1000 -
900 -
800 -
ğ 700 -
1
g- 600 -
5 500 -
| 400 -
3
Z 300 -
200 -
100 '
o-
mmm
vHsS^aBSaseS
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
FY Fund-lead 79 80 63 52 48
FY PRP-lead H 30 36 112 76 113
FYTOTAL 109 116 175 128 161
TOTAL for Previous
Fiscal Years LJ 124 233 349 524 652
CUMULATIVE
TOTAL2 233 349 524 652 813
1 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xiii in the Executive Summary of this report.
2 In pre-SARA years, there were 124 cumulative RO starts; 39 ol which were PRP-lead and 65 of which were Fund-lead.
Source: CERCLIS.
wildlife are examples of environmental resources
that are taken into consideration when evaluating
remedies). The ROD documents the results of all
studies performed on the site, lists the remedy
selected, and identifies each remedial alternative that
the Agency considered. The ROD is written after
completion of the RI/FS and after the public has had
the chance to comment on the remedial alternatives
being considered.
Congress, upon the passage of SARA, sentEPA
a clear message to give preference to treatment rather
than containment remedies. Exhibit 1.1-7 lists the
number and types of source control treatment and
containment remedies selected during FY91. It also
identifies the number of occurrences of remedies for
contaminated ground water. Exhibit 1.1-8 represents
this same information as a percentage comparison
for the fiscal year.
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.1-3
Fiscal Year and Cumulative Remedial Action Starts1
500-
400-
o
§ 300 -
5
| 200-
100-
o-
M|^H
IB
m
fl
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
FY Fund-Lead H 41 48 58 35 39
FYPRP-Lead H 26 22 52 44 65
FYTOTAL 67 70 110 79 104
TOTAL for Previous
Fiscal Years I I 70 137 207 317 396
CUMULATIVE
TOTAL2 137 207 317 396 500
1 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xiii in the Executive Summary of this report.
2 Cumulative total includes pre-SARA RA starts; there were 70 cumulative RA starts, 1 8 of which were PRP-lead, and 52
of which were Fund-lead.
Source: CERCLIS.
1.2 REMEDIAL INITIATIVES
During the fiscal year, the Agency launched
significant initiatives, including: (1) the 30-Day
Study to identify options for accelerating the rate of
cleanups and evaluate the assumptions used in
assessing and managing risk at Superfund sites; and
(2) the ARCS Task Force to assess and improve
management of the ARCS contracts. EPA also
implemented initiatives to evaluate and develop
strategies for solving certain technical problems
involved with site cleanups.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
as a
Exhibit 1.1 -4
Potentially Responsible Party Involvement
Percentage of Super-fund Remedial Activity Starts1
M
0>
~
-
.
{1
o e
RI/FSs
RDs
RAs
n
FY87
38%
28%
39%
FY88
44%
31%
31%
FY89
52%
64%
47%
FY90
48%
59%
56%
FY91
70%
70%
63%
1 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xiii in the Executive Summary of this report.
Source CERCLIS.
1.2.1 Options for Accelerating
Cleanup: 30-Day Study Task
Force Recommendations
The 30-Day Study Task Force outlined a five-
point strategy:
Setting aggressive clean-up targets;
Streamlining the Superfund process;
Elevating to upper management site-specific
issues that cause delays;
Accelerating the pace of private party cleanups;
and,
Refocusing the debate on Superfund progress.
The following subsections contain a brief
summary of each of the five task force
recommendations.
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.1-5
Value of Potentially Responsible Party
Settlements for Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 19911
S1500M
$1200M
$900M -
$600M
$300M -
$1500M
12.0
$338.6
$208.1
$690.6
$363.1
$922.0
$272.0
$290.0
$120.0
Number of Settlements/
Compelled Cleanups
FY87
133
FY88
234
FY89
247
FY90
285
FY91
263
Cleanup Design and
Construction (RD/RA)
Other Response Actions
Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xin in the Executive Summary of this report.
Source. CERCLIS
Setting Aggressive Clean-up Targets
The first recommendation of the 30-Day Study
Task Force was to aggressively pursue completion
of construction at sites. Construction is complete at
a site when the lead agency has completely constructed
the means for implementing the remedies selected
for every operable unit at the site. It does not
necessarily mean that all cleanup has been
accomplished. For example, at a site with ground-
water contamination, where the selected remedy is
"pump and treat," construction is complete when the
lead agency finishes constructing the pump and treat
system. Cleanup at the site, however, is accomplished
when the quality of the ground water attains or
exceeds all required performance criteria and action
levels.
At the time of the 30-Day Study, the Agency had
completed construction at 61 sites. In response to the
-------
Exhibit 1.1-6
Ongoing Projects at National Priorities List Sites by Lead for Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991
Fund-financedstate-lead
Fund-financedfederal-lead1
Fund-financedEPA
performs work at site2
PRP-financed and PRP-lead
Mixed Fundingmonies from
Fund and PRPs
PRP-financedstate order
and EPA oversight3
State Enforcement
Federal Facility
Other
Total
RI/FSs
87 88 89 90 91
89 70 65 54 42
215 218 224 203 181
16 19
195 205 242 260 253
29 60 75 65
32 10 1 - -
25 27 73 212 329
43 - 16
5604 563 669 836 889
RDs
87 88 89 90 91
32 30 30 29 22
59 85 105 117 121
1 1
28 39 97 155 186
45
7 15 15
9 18 22
122 158 253 340 374
RAs
87 88 89 90 91
24 25 39 37 29
30 60 97 104 103
24 37 69 94 133
3 6
5 13 14
8 20
79 132 221 259 307
1 Includes remedial program lead projects and enforcement program lead projects.
2 Projects at which EPA employees, rather than contractors, perform site clean-up work.
3 Projects where site clean-up work is financed and performed by the PRPs under state order, with EPA oversight.
4 The report to Congress on Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1987 reported thai 563 RI/FSs were ongoing at the end of the fiscal year. After further data analysis,
this number has been changed to 560.
1
I
3
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.1-7
Summary of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1991 Records of Decision
Source Control Remediation
Treatment Technology1
Thermal Destruction/Incineration
Immobilization
In situ Vacuum/Vapor Extraction
Soil Washing
Thermal Desorption
Bioremediation2
To Be Determined/Unspecified Treatment
In situ Vitrification
Dechlorination
Soil Flushing
Volatilization/Aeration
Solvent Extraction
TOTAL
Other Treatment
Decontamination
Recovery/Recycling
Surface Water Treatment
NAPLs Treatment
TOTAL
Containment Only
On-site
Off-site
TOTAL
Other Actions (e.g., Institutional Controls, Relocation)
Contaminated Groundwater Remediation
Active Restoration
Physical/Chemical
Biological
To Be Determined/Unspecified Treatment
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
TOTAL
Alternate Water Supply
Natural Attenuation
Leachate Treatment
Containment3
Other Actions (Institutional Controls)
No Further Action
Note:
Total Number of Occurences
24
35
34
2
10
8
19
1
3
7
2
1
146
21
11
12
11
55
27
8
35
Total Number of Occurences
223
7
25
15
270
17
7
17
1
2
9
Based on 196 FY91 RODs, including 21 federal facility RODs and 13 ROD ammendments. Includes 137 final and 44 interim action RODS,
nine no action RODs, and six RODs with both a final and interim component; more than one remedy may be associated with a ROD.
1 Includes primary and contingent treatment technologies. Data reflects occurrences of technologies as selected in the 141 RODs that addressed
source control; more than one technology may be associated with a ROD
^ Includes in situ and ex situ processes.
3 Includes management of migration
Source: EPA Hazardous Site Control Division.
11
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 1.1-8
Percentage Distribution of Remedies Selected
in Fiscal Year 1991 Records of Decision3 b
No action
(9 RODS)
Other'
(2 RODs)
Ground water
remedy only6
(46 RODs)
Containment as
a primary component
(34 RODs)
Treatment with
and without on-site and off-site
containment of residuals ""
(71 RODs)
SOURCE
CONTROL
(141 RODS)
a
Treatment as a principal
component and containment of
separate areas c
(34 RODs)
. Many sites require more than one type of action to mitigate threats identified.
Based on 196 FY 1991 RODs, including 21 federal facility RODs and 13 ROD amendments.
c Includes treatment trains for source.
0 Many treatments yield a residual that may require further management.
6 Includes containment, institutional controls, restoration, and alternate water supply remedies.
' Includes institutional controls, monitoring, or relocation remedies.
Source EPA Hazardous Site Control Division.
task force recommendations, the Agency will
implement actions necessary to reach the following
specific targets: 130 construction completions by the
end of 1992; 200 completions by the end of 1993;
and at least 650 completions by the year 2000. These
goals will be accomplished by setting targets for
each region and assigning more personnel to direct
site work. Progress will be monitored through a
tracking system and periodic meetings with the
regions.
Streamlining the Superfund Process
To accelerate sites through the remedial process
to construction completion, the 30-Day Study Task
Force recommended standardizing remedy selection
and shortening the RD phase of the Superfund process.
Each recommendation is explained below.
Standardizing Remedy Selection: The 30-Day Study
Task Force proposed investigation of the following
approaches for standardizing the Superfund remedy-
selection process to accelerate the planning phase.
12
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Presumptive Remedy Selection: By analyzing
past program experience, the Agency will
associate sites with the types of remedies that
have been historically selected for such sites.
This information will be used to develop a
presumptive remedy for a specific type of site.
Using this approach, the presumptive remedy
could be identified early in the planning process
to allow ample opportunities for public comment,
and EPA considerations regarding site-specific
technical information that might challenge the
identified presumptive remedy.
Technology-Based Standards: By developing
and using technology-based standards, the
Agency would be taking advantage of the body
of historical knowledge that the program has
collected on various clean-up technologies.
Under this approach, historical program
experience would be analyzed to identify site
characteristics that indicate that certain
technologies may be appropriate for use at a site.
Specified technological applications could then
be identified early in the planning process for
sites exhibiting similar characteristics.
Standardized Soil Clean-up Levels: The current
process of establishing different soil clean-up
levels for each Superfund site is complex and
time-consuming. It is necessary however, because
states and the federal government have
established few soil cleanup standards for specific
pollutants. Under the approach recommended in
the 30-Day Study, the Agency will evaluate the
feasibility of developing methods and standards
for determining soil clean-up levels based on
land use, pollutant, and soil type. By developing
such methods and standards, the Agency could
begin incorporating them into the remedy
selection process, thereby shortening the remedy
selection process.
Efforts to standardize the remedy selection
process are being conducted by staff-level Agency
workgroups. These workgroups are overseen by the
Standardization of Remedy Selection Steering
Committee. The workgroups will evaluate the
feasibility of the three standardization options and
set long and short-term priorities. The steering
committee will report progress and recommendations
of the workgroups to senior Agency management.
ShorteningtheRemedialDesignPhase:TheAgency
will initiate a pilot study to develop strategies for
shortening the RD phase of the clean-up process.
One method the Agency will explore to shorten the
RD phase is to increase the flexibility of existing
Superfund contracts, including the Emergency
Response Cleanup Services contracts, the ARCS
contracts, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's
pre-placed construction contracts.
Shortening the RD phase will allow construction
of the remedy to begin earlier in the process. Currently,
the RD phase follows the signing of the ROD and
precedes the RA or construction. Under the new
plan, construction activities would begin immediately
after the ROD is signed. The 30-Day Study Task
Force suggested that this approach may be appropriate
for sites with high degrees of uncertainty, in which
time spent in design would not substantially reduce
the level of uncertainty. For example, RDs may not
be necessary or helpful at large-scale excavations
where contamination boundaries are not defined, or
at abandoned industrial facilities that must be
dismantled and decontaminated.
To implement this approach, a workgroup
consisting of representatives fromEPAHeadquarters,
regions, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
develop criteria and projects for the pilot study,
evaluate the results of the study, and make final
recommendations.
Elevating Site-Specific Issues That Cause
Delays
The 30-Day Study Task Force found that issues
arising among EPA, DOJ, the states, and other
parties can be a significant source of delay in finalizing
RODs, settlements, and RDs, and in starting and
completing RAs. The task force recommended
alleviating the delays by developing an enhanced
communication strategy amongtheparties. Emphasis
13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
would be placed on early elevation of site-specific
issues to EPA, state, and DOJ upper management.
The strategy will include discussions in EPA meetings
with state representatives, monthly EPA/DOJ
meetings, and regular contact between EPA and DOJ
on case-specific issues.
Accelerating Private Party Cleanups
In examining ways to streamline clean-up
activities, the 30-Day Study Task Force recognized
two significant sources of delay in private party
cleanups: (1) mid-stream takeovers by private parties,
and (2) long lapses in time between the date that
private parties enter into a clean-up agreement and
the date that the CD for the agreement is entered in
court and site work actually begins. The 30-Day
Study Task Force recommended several initiatives
to reduce these delays. These initiatives are detailed
below.
Limiting "Mid-Stream" Takeovers by Private Parties:
The lead responsibility for cleaning up a site can
change from EPA to private parties, or vice versa.
Lead changes from EPA to private parties may result
in significant delays when they occur during adiscrete
phase of cleanup, or "mid-stream." Causes for the
delay include the need to negotiate an enforceable
order, changes in contractors and funding
mechanisms, and demobilization/re-mobilization in
the field.
The 30-Day Study Task Force recommended
issuing a national policy precluding changes in site
lead at "mid-stream." PRPs would be allowed to
assume the lead only at the start of new clean-up
phases (i.e., start of an RI/FS, or RD/RA).
Beginning Remedial Design Before Entry of Consent
Decree: There can be significant delays from the time
a private party signs the CD for settlement to the time
the CD is entered into court. PRPs often are unwilling
to start design or construction at a site because the
settlement is not yet a binding, enforceable document.
Reasons for delays in entering CDs in court may
include other parties taking legal action to block the
entry of the CD or the Agency receiving substantial
comments on the CD that require EPA and DOJ to
spend a substantial amount of time and resources
responding to them.
The 30-Day Study Task Force recommended
that the Agency adopt a national policy of encouraging
PRPs to start RDs before entry of the CD. Earlier
PRP design work would provide significant time
savings while CDs were negotiated.
Refocusing the Debate on Superfund
Progress
The 30-Day Study Task Force identified a need
to improve public awareness of Superfund
accomplishments, and clarify EPA's responsibilities
at NPL sites. In order to accomplish these goals, the
task force recommended that the Agency: (1) define
and better develop information on the success of
Superfund, especially as it relates to protection of
public health and the environment; and (2) segregate
federal facilities on the NPL more effectively.
Expanding Superfund's Measures of Success: The
30-Day Study Task Force recommended developing
a communications strategy that would identify and
publicize alternative measures of success, rather
than merely identifying the number of sites deleted
from the NPL. Suggested activities include
developing state-specific Superfund information
packages, analyzing cross-cutting risk and public
health impacts of the entire program, and routinely
announcing removal and remedial starts and
completions.
More Effectively Segregating Federal Facilities on the
NPL: Although the common public perception is that
EPA is responsible for cleaning up all the sites on the
NPL, other federal agencies are responsible for
implementing Superfund policies at federal facility
sites. In the future, EPA expects the number of
federal facilities on the NPL to increase at a faster
rate than the non-federal facility portion. Accordingly,
the task force recommended that EPA clearly
distinguish federal facility sites on the NPL from
other sites, and that the corresponding roles of EPA
and other agencies be more clearly distinguished. To
implement this recommendation, the 30-Day Study
Task Force proposed evaluating options for making
such distinctions, developing a strategy, and
14
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
distinguishing federal facilities more clearly in the
next NPL update.
1.2.2 Risk Assessment and
Management in Superfund:
30-Day Study Task Force
Recommendations
The 30-Day Study Task Force examined two
aspects of "risk" in Superfund decision-making:
Risk assessment, which is the scientific process
for evaluating the nature and magnitude of threats
to human health and the environment as a result
of exposure to contaminants at a site both before
and after remediation; and
Risk management, which involves the technical
decisions and policies used for deciding which
actions to take to mitigate the risks, and for
determining appropriate clean-up levels that
remedies must achieve.
The 30-Day Study Task Force examined exposure
assumptions used in Superfund risk assessment.
Although the task force found, with minorexceptions,
that the exposure assumptions were consistent with
other EPA programs, it also identified issues about
exposure assumptions that warrant further study.
The Task Force recommended an interagency
effort to seek internal and external review of Superfund
risk assessment guidance and policies by
representatives of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), the Risk Assessment Council,
the Science Advisory Board, industry, and
environmental groups. The task force also
recommended review of regional interpretation and
application of risk assessment policies, and
identification of areas in which modification may be
warranted. The final recommendation of the task
force was the development of a public outreach plan
to increase public understanding of Superfund risk
assessment policies and procedures.
In evaluating risk management issues, theSODay
Study Task Force recognized the potential for regional
variation in implementing the policies used to guide
the interpretation and application of risk assessments
at Superfund sites. To promote consistency in risk
management decision-making, the 30-Day Study
mandated the establishment of the National Superfund
Risk Management Workgroup. The goal of the
workgroup is to increase national consistency in risk
management decisions made in the Superfund
remedy-selection process.
The Risk Management Workgroup will identify,
prioritize, analyze, and develop strategies for
developing policy and guidance on significant risk
management issues. Issues being addressed include:
Land-use assumptions for site remediation;
Ground-water remediation timeframes; and
Coordination of ARARs and risk-based
concentrations in setting remediation levels.
1.2.3 ARCS Task Force initiatives
In FY91, the EPA Administrator ordered the
formation of a task force to examine and make
recommendations to improve ARCS.
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
EPA's implementation of ARCS represents the
second generation of contracts designed to support
implementation of the Superfund remedial program.
After Superfund was reauthorized by SARA hi 1986,
EPA determined that its ability to contract for and
manage clean-up services needed improvement. In
an effort to expand the number of contractors available
to perform cleanup, improve the technical capabilities
of these contractors, and shift management to the
field, the Agency developed a strategy pursuing
long-term contract support. ARCS involves 23 firms
holding 45 contracts potentially worth $6.6 billion
over ten years. The contractors perform RI/FSs,
RDs, RAs, and other support; they have the capacity
to work 15 million hours with a subcontractor pool
of $4.2 billion.
The ARCS Task Force
The ARCS Task Force, composed of senior
EPA Headquarters and regional managers and
15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
analysts, was formed in response to published
allegations concerning mismanagement of the ARCS
contracts. The ARCS Task Force evaluated ARCS
program activities and addressed the following three
questions:
Are allegations of waste by ARCS contractors
fair and accurate? For example, are contractors
charging EPA for inappropriate and unnecessary
administrative expenses, or for opening and
operating field offices before clean-up work is
assigned?
Are problems being caused by ineffective
contractor oversight, and has EPA taken the
necessary steps to ensure that all problems are
corrected?
Is ARCS still an appropriate approach to
Superfund contracting in light of the fact that
responsible parties are cleaning up more sites
than was anticipated? If not, should EPA change
the number, size, or length of ARCS contracts?
In response to these questions, the task force
produced the following findings and
recommendations:
Program Management: The ARCS Task Force
found that program management costs were as
high as 70 percent at the start of the ARCS
program, but, as the contracts have matured,
management costs have dropped to 30 percent.
The task force recommended that for the duration
of the ARCS contracts, the Agency should set a
national goal for program management costs of
20 percent or less of total contract expenditures.
The FY92 appropriations language established a
goal of 15 percent of total contract expenditures
for program management costs. The Agency is
committed to achieving this 15 percent goal.
ARCS Capacity and Utilization: The ARCS
Task Force found that actual use of ARCS
contracts has been less than expected, due to the
Agency' s success in compelling PRPs to pay for
cleanup of over 60 percent of remedial activities
at NPL sites and in the decision to have the Army
Corps of Engineers manage large clean-up efforts.
The Agency has issued guidance that will allow
for broader use of ARCS contractors and plans to
reduce ARCS construction capacity by
approximately $2 billion. EPA is also working
to balance the use of ARCS contracts with the
continuing role of the Army Corps of Engineers
in the remedial program.
ARCS Contract Controls: The ARCS Task
Force discovered weaknesses in the
administration of contract controls. The ARCS
Task Force recommended that the Agency take
corrective actions, specifically in the area of
work assignment management, invoice review,
technical performance management, and
independent government cost estimates.
Furthermore, the task force recommended that
the Agency increase its controls on government-
owned equipment, and strengthen the regions'
abilities to administer ARCS.
ARCS Financial Audits and Reviews: The ARCS
Task Force found that no financial audits had
been conducted by the OIG on ARCS contracts.
The EPA Administrator has requested that the
OIG allocate funding for audits of the ARCS
contractors.
Award Fee Process: The ARCS Task Force
concluded that award fees should be used to
affect contractor performance. The task force
emphasized that unsatisfactory performance must
not be rewarded, and good past performance,
including lower program management costs,
should be rewarded with more work in FY92.
EPA. Management Processes and Organizations:
The ARCS Task Force found that, because the
scope and complexity of EPA's mission have
increased dramatically over the past few years,
the Agency must review and update the manner
in which it coordinates activities with other
agencies, states, regions, and contractors. The
task force recommended that EPA establish a
Superfund Acquisition Manager to oversee
Superfund acquisition decisions and activities.
Finally, the task force suggested that the Agency
employ total quality management concepts
16
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
throughout ARCS, and establish a coordinated
approach to the interaction between EPA
Headquarters and regions.
Acting upon the findings of the ARCS Task
Force report, EPA established a steering committee
to develop an implementation plan for the ARCS
Task Force recommendations, to distribute
responsibility for implementing the
recommendations, and to develop activity milestones.
The steering committee, which was composed of
representatives of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of
Administration and Resources Management
(OARM), and the regions, completed the
implementation plan at the end of FY91. The plan
includes detailed work plans for each of the 32
recommendations made by the ARCS Task Force.
1.2.4 Other Initiatives
The Agency also undertook several initiatives
during the fiscal year to address technical problems
that have been identified in dealing with site
contamination. These initiatives will result in new
policies on ground water and on the treatability of
contaminated soil and debris.
Ground Water
In July 1991, the Agency-wide Ground Water
Task Force issued a report entitled, Protecting the
Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the
1990s. The report stresses EPA's commitment to
preventing adverse effects to human health and the
environment and to protecting the environmental
integrity of the nation's ground-water resources.
EPA's strategy for meeting this commitment is
based on the following three principles:
Ground water should be protected, through
pollution prevention means such as source and
siting controls, wellhead protection, and aquifer
recharge protection, to ensure that standards for
drinking water and hydrologically connected
surface waters are attained.
Ground-water remediation activities must be
prioritized to limit the risk of adverse effects to
human health first, and then to restore sources of
drinking and hydrologically connected surface
water.
States should continue to maintain primary
responsibilityforcoordinatingand implementing
ground-waterprotection programs that are linked
to federal and local activities.
EPA began promoting the development and
implementation of comprehensive state ground-water
protection programs designed to provide protection
and a framework for coordinating activities under
federal, state, and local statutes and ordinances. To
facilitate state programs, EPA is providing national
guidance toward achieving comprehensive programs,
and awarding increasing shares of follow-on grants
to states demonstrating effective programs.
The Data Management Subcommittee of the
Groundwater Task Force issued its report, Ground-
Water Data Collection, Accessibility, and Utilization,
on October 25,1990. The report details methods for
effectively managing ground-water data. The
subcommittee presented a number of options for
improving ground-water data management, ranging
from improved information capture to enhancement
of automation and data retrieval systems.
ORD is focusing its attention on serving
remediation programs requiring increasingly
sophisticated technology in response to the growing
awareness of the seriousness of ground-water
contamination. One example of the Agency's
commitment is its current research on the behaviors
of one group of contaminants in particular: dense,
non-aqueous phase liquids, or DNAPLS. This group
of contaminants, which includes such toxins as
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, is not only difficult to
detect, but difficult to remove once they are
discovered.
OSWER undertook several initiatives in FY91
to improve its ability to address DNAPL
contamination.
In a survey conducted by ORD and the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),
analysts are assessing the pervasiveness of
DNAPL contamination at Superfund sites,
17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
evaluating ground-water containment systems,
and developing guidance on DNAPL site
characterization through the Subsurface Clean-
up and Mobilization Process, or SCAMP.
OS WER sponsored two workshops during FY91
involving representatives from EPA, the U.S.
Geological Survey, engineering firms, other
industries, and university researchers. At these
workshops, professionals with experience in
DNAPL contamination presented papers and
participated in discussions concerningthe options
for characterization and remediation of DNAPL
sites.
The Agency conducted a study of 24 sites where
ground-water remediation is underway. The
results of the study demonstrated that ground-
water extraction systems are able to remove
some mass of some types of contaminants;
however, the amount of removal actually
achieved was uncertain. The study showed that
hydraulic containment of contamination plumes
may be achieved through use of ground-water
extraction systems. In addition, the study also
suggested that initial, rapid decreases in
contaminant concentrations at the start-up of an
extraction system tend to level off or decrease
over time. This may be a result of the type of
monitoring data collected as much as a reflection
of an actual phenomenon of ground-water
extraction systems. The ,.study recommended
that monitoring systems be installed at all
contaminated ground-water sites; that the
potential presence of DNAPLs be determined at
all sites exhibiting ground-water contamination;
and that ground-water remediation be treated as
an ongoing process, requiring persistent
evaluation of system design, remediation time
frames, and data collection needs.
Contaminated Soil and Debris
EPA has undertaken an initiative to determine
the treatability of contaminated soil and debris and to
develop the best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) for treating contaminated soil and debris.
The BDAT will form the basis for the land disposal
restrictions applicable to contaminated soil and debris.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) sets specific standards for disposal levels of
contaminants. In 1986, the Agency determined that
existing treatment methods for soils and debris could
not achieve the standards required by RCRA for land
disposal. Subsequently, a review of the literature
indicated a lack of data to demonstrate how great the
deviation from RCRA standards would be.
In 1989, as an interim measure, EPA published
a treatability variance procedure to allow for the
treatment and placement of treated soils. In the
meantime, to establish a BDAT standard, EPA began
a comprehensive data-gathering process from
unpublished literature, and implemented research
studies on state-of-the-art methods of treatment.
These efforts have had a significant impact on
the Agency's progress in determining BOATS for
remediating contaminated soil. First, EPA has
identified over 120 unpublished studies that deal
with contaminated soil. EPA research, conducted
jointly by OERR, the Office of Solid Waste, and
ORD, is expected to generate further studies to fill
gaps in existing treatability studies on contaminated
soil.
Second, EPA created a technology transfer
database, the Superfund soil data management system
(SSDMS), that will enable EPA, state, local, and
private parties to access soil treatment records for
various technologies. The Agency believes SSDMS
has a significant impact on remedy selection at
Superfund sites by allowing a quick, direct review of
similar sites and technologies. This will eliminate
long and costly preliminary work by a responsible
party or EPA contractor, thereby decreasing the time
required to make treatment and disposal decisions.
1.3 ENFORCEMENT ACHIEVEMENTS
The enforcement program exceeded FY91
program targets for all major enforcement measures,
including RD/RA negotiation starts, RD/RA
negotiation completions, UAOs issued for RD/RA
18
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.3-1
Increase in Remedial Design and Remedial Action Starts
Being Performed by Potentially Responsible Parties since Enactment of SARA
Remedial Design Starts
Responsible
Party 1
Remedial Action Starts
Responsible
Party
Share
39%
Responsible
Party
FY91
s
6,
Responsible
Party
Share
Note-
Federal facilities not included.
Source: CERCLIS
work, RD/RA settlements, and pre-remedial cost
recovery referrals. Exhibit 1.3-1 shows the increase
in the percentage of new RDs and RAs for which
PRPs are responsible since the passage of SARA.
Exhibit 1.3-2 illustrates cost recovery collections
and demonstrates that over $350 million has been
returned to the Trust Fund, including over $320
million collected since the passage of SARA.
The Superfund enforcement program initiated
148 RD/RA negotiation starts in FY91, compared to
98 in FY90. The RD/RA negotiation completion rate
for FY91 was also higher than in FY90; in FY90
there were 115 RD/RA negotiation completions, and
in FY91 there were 132.
In FY91, the Agency issued a record number of
137 UAOs, and entered into 132 AOCs and 119 CDs.
Of these, the Agency reached 101 RD/RA settlements
(71 CDs and 30 UAOs for RD/RA in compliance,
including one AOC for RD work) with an estimated
response value of $1.12 billion. This FY91 total
exceeds the FY90 total of 97 RD/RA settlements (60
CDs, and 37 UAOs for RD/RA in compliance) with
response work estimated at approximately $ 1 billion.
In comparison to FY90, more UAOs were issued this
fiscal year for RD/RA work, regions issued 48
UAOs for RD/RA work in FY91, compared to 44
UAOs issued for RD/RA work in FY90.
19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 1.3-2
Post-SARA Cost Recovery Collections1-2
400M -
350M -
|
1 3COM -I
"> 250M -
1
O 200M -
150M -
<5 100M -
I
50M
$359.1 M
$275.7M
S170.8M
S104.3M
S48.7M
_L
FY87
FY88
Amount Collected During Fiscal Year
FY89 FY90 FY91
Amount Collected During Previous Fiscal Years
1 In pre-SARA years, $29.8 million was collected through cost recovery.
2 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xiii in the Executive Summary of this report.
Source. September 1991 U.S. Treasury Report.
The regions referred 73 Section 107 cost recovery
cases (each valued at $200,000 or more) to DOJ and
EPA Headquarters. Section 107 pre-remedial action
cost recovery referrals accounted for 70 of these
cases; remedial action cost recovery referrals
accounted for three of these referrals. The regions
also referred six cost recovery actions (each valued
at less than $200,000) compared to three in FY90.
The value of cost recovery referrals for each year
since SARA is illustrated in Exhibit 1.3-3. The
Agency is seeking $164.8 million in FY91 referrals.
Also, the regions reached 40 administrative cost
recovery settlements worth an estimated $20.4
million; in all, the cost recovery program collected
$83.4 million from a variety of sources, such as
settlements or bankruptcies.
1.3.1 PRP Activity
Successful Superfund enforcement is reflected
in the increasing percentage of remedial projects that
are PRP-conducted and/or financed. These numbers
directly reflect the Agency's commitment to
"enforcement first," making polluters pay for
hazardous waste cleanup. In FY91, PRP-financed
20
-------
Ftecal HMT 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.3-3
Value of Costs Sought through Cost Recovery Referrals
for Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991 ^
$184.5 M
FY87 FY88
Value of Fiscal Year Referrals
FY89
FY90
FY91
1 DoHar figures represent the value of costs sought in cost recovery cases. Future costs, which may be substantial, are not included.
2 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xiii in the Executive Summary of this report.
Source: CERCUS.
activities accounted for 70 percent of the 74 total RI/
FS starts, 70 percent of the 161 total RD starts, and
63 percent of the 104 total RA starts started by EPA
or PRPs.
1.3.2 Use of Enforcement Measures
During the fiscal year, regions continued to use
enforcement tools and techniques to obtain judicial
and administrative settlements, including the model
CD for RD/RA settlements, mixed funding
settlements, de minimis settlements, administrative
orders (UAOs and AOCs), stipulated/statutory
penalties, and referrals to DOJ of Section 107 cases,
Section 104(e) cases, penalty cases, treble damage
cases, and non-setttor/non-complier cases. States are
also heavily involved in the enforcement process.
Accelerated enforcement is creating the need
for greater interagency coordination, and greater
intra-Agency cooperation. EPA offices involved in
the heightened intra-Agency coordination include
the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, ORD,
OARM, Office of Enforcement, Office of General
Counsel, Regional Waste Management Divisions,
Offices of Regional Counsel, and OERR.
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Superfund enforcement goals are to:
Accelerate the use of CERCLA and SARA
authorities to expedite PRP settlements and site
cleanups;
Continue to set aggressive PRP-lead clean-up
targets;
Identify and elevate to upper management
problems among EPA, DOJ, and states that
cause site-specific clean-up delays;
Communicate Superfund enforcement program
successes and accomplishments; and,
Maximize cost recovery to the Trust Fund by
working toward the "management by objective"
goal of recovering $300 million in costs in
FY93.
In FY91, EPA continued the emphasis on the
use of de minimis settlements under CERCLA Section
122(g). Under this statutory provision, the Agency
settles with parties who contributed waste at a site
that is minimal in terms of volume or toxicity. There
were 13 de minimis settlements in the past fiscal
year. In June 1991, EPA organized and co-hosted a
national conference among PRPs, public interest
groups, Congressional staff, and other interested
parties to discuss ways to increase and facilitate the
number of de minimis settlements. From this
conference the Agency developed a number of
initiatives designed to encourage de minimis
settlements and thus reduce transaction costs. (These
specific actions are outlined in Section 1.3.4 of this
report.)
1.3.3 Success in Reaching and
Enforcing Agreements with
PRPs
The Agency entered into a number of major
agreements with PRPs and established several major
enforcement precedents during FY91. Examples of
significant CDs, UAOs issued, de minimis settlements
and other important enforcement actions are described
below.
Consent Decrees for RD/RA
Coakley Landfill, New Hampshire (Region 1): A CD
was signed by the City of Portsmouth, New
Hampshire and 30 other parties on September 30,
1991, and referred to DOJ for filing with the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Under the terms of the agreement, the parties will
pay for and perform 100 percent of the cleanup of
contaminated soil and ground water at the 27-acre
landfill. The total estimated value of the settlement
is $21.2 million. The parties to the settlement have
also agreed to pay approximately $500,000 towards
past Agency costs.
Laurel Park Site, Connecticut (Region 1): On March
28,1991, EPA Region 1 referred to DOJ a CD for a
$21.7 million RD/RA settlement whereby 19 PRPs
will perform cleanup at the site and reimburse EPA
and the State of Connecticut for past and future
response costs. In addition, to expedite cleanup,
EPA negotiated an agreement for the PRPs to begin
administrative RD activities prior to the CD being
lodged with the court. Concurrent with the settlement
referral, a Section 107 cost recovery action was filed
against four non-settling PRPs.
New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts (Region 1):
EPA and DOJ have reached an agreement with the
AVX Corporation to pay for a portion of cleanup at
the New Bedford Harbor Site. On September 10,
1991, the CD was referred to DOJ and was
subsequently filed by DOJ with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on September
25, 1991. The agreement specifies that AVX will
make a cash-out payment of $50 million to EPA and
the State of Massachusetts.
Lone Pine Landfill, New Jersey (Region 2): On
March 29,1991, EPA referred to DOJ an agreement
with 128 parties to clean up contaminated ground
water and soils at the Lone Pine Landfill in Freehold,
New Jersey. The CD was subsequently filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of New
22
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Jersey on July 3, 1991. Through the agreement, the
parties will perform the cleanup, valued at
approximately $10.3 million, which includes annual
monitoring fees. In addition, the parties will reimburse
EPA $560,000 for past costs. The parties will clean
up ground-water contamination to meet drinking
water standards and to curtail the migration of
contaminants toward the nearby Manasquan River.
Marathon Battery Company Site, New York
(Region 2): A successful agreement was reached by
EPA, the Marathon Battery Company and the United
States Army on September 27,1991 (date of referral
to DOJ). This agreement was subsequently filed
with the U.S. District Court in New York on
September 30, 1991. Through the agreement, the
parties will pay for 70 percent of the cleanup of an 11 -
acre portion of the site which is currently underway.
The parties agreed to a cash-out settlement, valued at
$10.3 million.
Myers Property, New Jersey (Region 2): In FY91,
EPA successfully reached an agreement with
Atochem North America, Inc., for the cleanup of the
Myers Property site in Hunterdon County, New
Jersey. On September 17,1991, the CD was referred
to DOJ and subsequently filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on December 13,
1991. The party will perform and pay for 100 percent
of the cleanup, valued at $46 million, and will
reimburse EPA $2.7 million for past clean-up costs
incurred at the site. This represents approximately 84
percent of EPA's total past costs at the Myers site.
Soil and ground water at the 7-acre site are
contaminated with benzene, dioxin, pesticides, and
heavy metals.
62nd Street Dump, Florida (Region4): EPAreached
an agreement with six parties to perform and pay for
the cleanup of the 5-acre 62nd Street Dump site in
Tampa, Florida. On August 22, 1991, the CD was
referred to DOJ and subsequently filed with the U.S.
District Court in Tampa on January 22,1992. Under
the terms of the CD, the parties agreed to perform and
pay for 100 percent of the cleanup of ground water
and soil contamination, valued at $ 18.3 million. The
primary contaminants at the site include heavy metals
such as cadmium, chromium, and lead.
Metamora Landfill, Michigan (Region 5): EPA
reached a large settlement with 35 parties to clean up
contaminated soils and ground water at the 160-acre
Metamora Landfill site in Lapeer County, Michigan.
On May 20,1991, the CD was referred to DOJ and
subsequently filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan on July 18, 1991.
Through the agreement, the parties will perform and
pay for 100 percent of the remaining cleanup at an
estimated present worth value of $50 million. The
landfill accepted municipal and industrial wastes
between 1955 and 1980, during which time as many
as 35,000 chemical drums may have been buried.
The primary contaminants of concern are volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, 1,2-
dichloroethane, and trichloroethylene (TCE); and
heavy metals including barium, arsenic, lead and
chromium.
Moss-American Kerr-McGee Oil Site, Wisconsin
(Region 5): EPA reached an agreement with the Kerr
McGee Chemical Corporation to clean up the 88-
acre site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The CD was
referred to DO Jon August 13,1991 and subsequently
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on December 30,1991. Through
the terms of the agreement, the party will perform
and pay for 100 percent of the cleanup, valued at $26
million. Soils, ground water and surface waters and
sediments of the Little Menomonee River, which
runs through the former wood-preserving facility,
are contaminated with polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons and VOCs.
U.S. DOI Sangamo Crab Orchard, Illinois (Region 5):
EPA and DOJ have reached an agreement with
Schlumberger Industries and the Department of the
Interior (DOI) to clean up a portion of the Sangamo/
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge. The CD
was referred to DOJ on May 14, 1991, and DOJ
subsequently filed the CD on September 30,1991, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois. EPA has divided the site into five operable
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
units with their own individual cleanup plans. This
agreement addresses the clean-up of soils and
sediments contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenols (PCBs) at operable unit two. Schlumberger
will perform and pay for 100 percent of the cleanup
of PCB-contaminated soils at the site and will recover
approximately 35 percent of the costs from DOI. The
projected cost of this work is $25 million.
Schlumberger must also pay EPA for future oversight
costs related to the cleanup of PCB-contaminated
sites.
Arkwood Site, Arkansas (Region 6): EPA reached a
successful agreement with Mass Merchandisers, Inc.,
to clean up the 15-acre Arkwood site, a former wood-
treating facility in Boone County, Arkansas. The CD
was referred to DOJ on May 30, 1991, and was
subsequently filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arkansas on December 17,1991. The
estimated value of the total cleanup is $12 million,
which includes $10.3 million for the response costs.
The primary contaminants affecting soil, sludge,
debris, ground water, and surface water include
pentachlorophenol (PCP) and creosote. The party
will take various measures to clean up and mitigate
contamination at the site.
Indian Bend Wash Area, Arizona (Region 9): EPA
successfully reached an agreement with four parties,
including the municipality of Scottsdale, Arizona to
clean up contaminated ground water at a portion of
the site, which covers 8 square miles. The CD was
referred to DOJ on July 3, 1991, and subsequently
filed with the U.S. District Court in Arizona on
November 25, 1991. Through the terms of the CD,
the parties will perform and pay for 100 percent of
the cleanup, valued at approximately $17 million.
Koppers (Oroville Plant), California (Region 9): EPA
reached a successful agreement with Beazer East,
Inc., to perform and pay for the entire cleanup of the
200-acre Koppers Superfund site in Oroville,
California. On March 1,1991, EPA referred the CD
to DOJ. The CD was subsequently filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California
on June 12, 1991. Through the terms of the CD,
Beazer East will pay for work valued at approximately
$60 million, which includes annual monitoring fees.
In addition, the defendant will reimburse EPA
$750,000 for past costs incurred at the site. Ground
water and soils at the former wood treatment facility
are contaminated with PCP, a wood preservative,
dioxin, and heavy metals. The party began the clean-
up design phase, and some on-site construction has
begun at the site.
Operating Industries, Incorporated, California
(Region 9): In FY91, EPA signed two partial CDs
with settling parties. Through these CDs, the settling
parties will perform and pay for various phases of
cleanup at the 190-acre landfill, located 10 miles east
of Los Angeles. On September 27, 1991, EPA and
178 responsible parties signed a partial CD for $122
million, and referred the CD to DOJ. The CD was
subsequently filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on December 3,
1991. In addition, the parties to a second partial CD
will reimburse EPA up to $ 18 million for past costs
incurred at the site. In combination, these settlements
represent the largest private party settlement ever
reached with EPA at a single Superfund site. The site
operated as a municipal and industrial waste disposal
facility from the 1950s until 1984. Overthe life ofthe
landfill, industrial, residential, commercial, liquid,
and hazardous wastes were mixed together. The
primary contaminants present include methane and
VOCs, such as benzene, vinyl chloride,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), TCE, and toluene.
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area, Arizona (Region 9):
EPA reached a successful agreement with Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company and Loral Defense Systems
to clean up contaminated soils and deep ground
water at a portion of the Phoenix-Goodyear Airport
Area site in Goodyear, Arizona. EPA referred the CD
to DOJ on February 7,1991, and the agreement was
filed on May 7,1991, with the U.S. District Courtfor
the District of Arizona. Through the terms of the
agreement, the PRPs will perform and pay for 100
percent ofthe cleanup at the southern portion ofthe
35 square-mile site, valued at approximately $23.5
million. In addition, the PRPs will reimburse EPA
$1.5 million for past costs incurred at the site, and
pay all future monitoring costs. Soil and ground-
24
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
water contamination resulted from past industrial
activities at the site. The primary contaminant is
TCE, a volatile organic compound.
San Fernando Valley (Burbank Well Field Unit),
California (Region 9): EPA successfully reached an
agreement with three PRPs, including Lockheed and
the municipality of Burbank, California, to address
ground-water contamination at the Burbank Well
Field Unit site in the San Fernando Valley of
California. The CD was signed by the parties on
March 28, 1991, and filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on August
22,1991. Under the terms of the CD, the parties will
conduct an interim remedial action, involving the
design, construction and maintenance (for 20 years)
of a ground-water extraction and treatment system at
one portion of the site. The present value of the
cleanup is $65 million. In addition, responsible
parties will reimburse EPA approximately $2.5
million for past costs incurred at the site, and pay
EPA for future costs.
Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tide Flats (Asarco
Smelter Site) (CD10), Washington (Region 10): EPA and
DOJ successfully reached an agreement with Asarco,
Incorporated to clean up the Asarco Smelter site in
Tacoma, Washington. The site is part of the
Commencement Bay Nearshore Tide Flats Superfund
site. The CD (CD 10) was referred to DOJ on
September 16, 1991. Under the terms of the
agreement, Asarco will perform and pay for 100
percent of the remedy, amounting to approximately
$12 million. Asarco also agreed to pay $333,000 in
past clean-up costs. The remedy, designed to address
arsenic and other hazardous substances contaminating
the smelter site, involves three phases: demolition of
the smelter stack and other site buildings; off-site
disposal of the demolition debris; and collection and
on-site treatment of surface water.
Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tide Flats (Tacoma
Tar Pits) (CD19), Washington (Region 10): EPA and
DOJ have successfully reached two agreements with
two parties, Washington Natural Gas (WNG) and
Burlington Northern/Union Pacific Railroads (UPR).
The agreements were referred to DOJ on September
27,1991, and filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington on October 4,1991.
Under the terms of one of the agreements, WNG will
clean the contaminated soil and ground water at the
site. The other agreement requires UPR to provide
access to property owned by the railroads, and
implement future controls and monitoring on those
properties to protect the cleanup. These settlements
represent a portion of the total clean-up costs,
estimated at $20 million. There are four other
agreements with 18 other parties. The total amount
of the cleanup will be paid for through these six
agreements.
Commencement Bay South Tacoma Channel
(Tacoma Landfill) (CD3), Washington (Region 10): EPA
and the Washington Department of Ecology reached
an agreement with the City of Tacoma to perform
and pay for the cleanup of the Tacoma Landfill. The
remedy at the site, which is part of the Commencement
Bay South Tacoma Channel Superfund site, involves
capping and closure of the landfill and installation of
a ground-water treatment system. Initially, EPA and
the Washington Department of Ecology had reached
an agreement with the City of Tacoma, the only PRP,
in the fall of 1989. The judge, however, declined to
approve the original CD. EPA and the Department of
Ecology renegotiated a revised agreement with the
city. The revised CD, valued at $30 million, was
referred to DOJ on March 22,1991, and lodged with
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on March 25,1991. The CD was entered
by the court on May 17, 1991.
Unilateral Administrative Orders for RD/
RA
Cinnaminson Landfill, New Jersey (Region 2): On
June 28,1991, EPA Region 2 issued a UAO for RD/
RA to Sanitary Landfill, Inc., a subsidiary of Waste
Management, Inc. The first operable unit of work
that the company will perform under the order,
including ground-water extraction and treatment, is
valued at $20 million. In addition, the respondent has
reimbursed EPA approximately $3.2 million in past
costs.
King of Prussia, New Jersey (Region 2): EPA issued
a UAO to five responsible parties on April 15,1991,
25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
after the parties declined to sign a CD. The UAO
requires the PRPs to perform the remedy selected in
the September 1990 ROD. The remedy, estimated at
$17 million, involves excavating and treating soil,
sediment, and ground water contaminated with
VOCs, including benzene, and metals including
chromium and lead. The UAO also required the
PRPs to perform additional analysis and sampling to
determine whether the 10-acre abandoned waste
disposal and recycling facility can be linked to
contaminants in the surface water and sediment of
the nearby Great Egg Harbor River. The five PRPs
are in compliance with the order.
Solvent Savers, New York (Region 2): EPA issued
a UAO on May 29,1991, requiring five responsible
parties to pay for the cleanup of the site, an estimated
$29 million. Under the order, the parties will pay for:
the excavation of soil that is contaminated by a
variety of pollutants, treatability studies, treatment
by one of several extraction methods, and the pumping
and treating of ground water.
Osbome Landfill, Pennsylvania (Region 3): A UAO
was issued to Cooper Industries and General Electric
on March 29, 1991, for the first phase of cleanup of
this former coal mine that also served as a receptacle
for hazardous waste. The estimated cost to carry out
the cleanup is $19.4 million. Remedial plans are
complicated by the now-abandoned mining system
that is currently in place, and include building a
containment wall around the site, capping wastes,
and the pumping and treating of ground water.
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke, Ohio (Region 5): A
UAO was issued to Allied Signal mandating the
company to perform $50 million worth of clean-up
activities at this former chemical manufacturing and
disposal site. The order represents 100 percent of the
cost of the second phase of cleanup; Allied Signal
also paid for and performed the first phase of work.
Clean-up activities pursuant to the latest order,
finalized on July 1, 1991, will include in situ
vitrification and prepared pad bioremediation,
ground-water extraction and treatment, and on-site
incineration.
Waste Disposal Engineering, Inc., Minnesota (Region 5):
On August 30,1991, EPA issued a UAO to 25 PRPs
to clean up ground water and surface water at the 50-
acre Waste Disposal Engineering site in South
Andover, Minnesota. The present worth value of the
settlement is $ 15 million. The parties are currently in
compliance with the UAO. Solvents, heavy metals,
and pesticides contaminated surface and ground
water at the site. The primary contaminants of concern
include heavy metals (arsenic, chromium, and lead),
VOCs (PCE, TCE, and toluene), and other organic
compounds,
Cleve Reber, Louisiana (Region 6): EPA issued a
UAO on February 6,1991, requiring the PRPs to pay
for and implement the RD/RA. The PRPs are in
compliance with the order and will undertake the $40
million remedy which involves excavation and on-
site incineration of buried drums and sludges, drainage
and backfilling of on-site ponds, capping the portion
of the site that was used for disposal of hazardous
waste, and ground-water monitoring.
J.H. Baxter Site, California (Region 9): On August
16,1991, EPA Region 9 issued a UAO to six parties,
four of whom complied, to clean up contaminated
soil, sediment, and ground water at the 33-acre J.H.
Baxter facility in Weed, California. The four
cooperating parties include: J.H. Baxter (the owner
operator), Roseburg Forest Products, Beazer East,
Inc., and the International Paper Company. The
parties are paying for and performing 100 percent of
the cleanup, which has a present value of
approximately $40 million. The primary
contaminants of concern include polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, dioxin, and arsenic.
Fairchild (Intel and Raytheon) Semiconductor Sites,
California (Region 9): On November 29, 1990, EPA
Region 9 issued a UAO to nine parties to perform soil
cleanup at their respective properties and to monitor
on-site ground water at the Mountain View, California
site. Through the terms of the UAO, these nine
parties will perform and pay for soil cleanup at their
respective properties, and will conduct routine
monitoring of a ground-water clean-up system, which
will be designed and constructed by a separate group
of parties, pursuant to a FY92 CD. The estimated
value of the cleanup under the UAO is approximately
$35 million. The site encompasses four Superfund
sites (Fairchild, Intel, Raytheon, and Moffett Naval
26
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Air Station), and is located south of the San Francisco
Bay. These sites served as facilities for various uses,
including semiconductor manufacturing. Ground
water and soils are contaminated with over 70
chemicals, including VOCs (PCE, TCE,
trichloroethane, vinyl chloride, toluene, and xylene),
and organics (phenols). These chemicals have formed
a plume of contaminated ground water, which is
migrating toward the San Francisco Bay.
Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, Oregon (Region 10):
On February 14,1991, EPA Region lOissuedaUAO
to the Teledyne Wah Chang Corporation to clean up
contaminated wastewater sludges at the Millersburg,
Oregon site. The cleanup is presently valued at $ 10.6
million, and the party is paying for and performing
100 percent of the work. Wah Chang Corporation
began operating a U.S. Bureau of Mines zirconium
metal sponge pilot plant under contract with the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission in 1956. As a result of
this practice, on-site sludge ponds are contaminated
with heavy metals, organic compounds, and trace
levels of radionuclides. Clean-up work is well
underway at the site and, by the end of FY92,
remedial actions should be completed.
De Minimis Settlements
Landfill and Resource Recovery, Rhode Island
(Region 1): A de minimis settlement was negotiated
with 50 PRPs on March 29,1991. The settlement for
$2.9 million was reached through an AOC and
covers 100 percent of past costs and partial future
oversight costs. The past costs address the work
performed by EPA for the Rl/FS at the site. The
remedy at the site involves upgrading the existing
landfill enclosure to protect ground water and
wetlands, implementing wetlands recovery
operations, and collecting and treating landfill gas to
reduce risks to public health from inhalation.
Union Chemical, Maine (Region 1): On June 12,
1991, EPA Region 1 referred to DOJ an AOC for de
minimis settlement. DOJ approved the AOC by
which 270 de minimis parties agreed to pay $3
million toward the cost of cleanup at the site. The
remedy at the site included soil and ground-water
treatment, demolition of on-site facilities, and off-
site soil monitoring and analyses.
Wayne Waste Oil, Indiana (Region 5): On August
13,1991, EPA reached a de minimis settlement with
158 parties. There are a total of 186 parties who have
settled with EPA. The overall settlement requires the
parties to perform and pay for 100 percent of the
clean-up costs, amounting to $ 10 million; reimburse
EPA for any future costs to monitor the cleanup; and
pay DOI for natural resources damage claims.
Coal Creek, Washington (Region 10): In FY91,
EPA successfully reached an agreement with 27 de
minimis parties who collectively contributed less
than 2 percent of the waste to the site. Each de
minimis party will pay a fixed amount of money into
a clean-up trust account established by the major
parties. There are a total of 86 PRPs, including four
federal agencies, which have entered into an
agreement with EPA to implement and pay for the
selected site remedy which involves on-site
incineration, on-site containment, and monitoring.
The total amount of the settlement, including the de
minimis portion, is $10.2 million. The agreement
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on June 4,1991.
1.3.4 Enforcement initiatives
In response to the recommendations of the 30-
Day Study, the enforcementprogramis implementing
actions to accelerate completion of site cleanups.
Limiting Mid-Stream Takeovers During Remediation:
Increased PRP lead in remedial activities benefits the
overall clean-up program, but the remedial process
can be delayed as much as six to nine months when
PRPs assume the lead from EPA. In order to eliminate
or decrease the delay, EPA issued a directive in
November 1992 limiting project lead transfers to
private parties during discrete phases of the remedial
process (such as during the RI/FS, RD, or RA). The
directive recommends regions to informPRPs during
negotiations that requests for mid-stream takeovers
will be considered only in unusual circumstances,
thus encouraging PRPs to agree more readily to
conduct remedial work from the start. The directive
also allows for lead changes between discrete phases
of remediation if they do not cause significant delay.
27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
This policy does not apply to EPA takeovers of PRP
work, and it does not alter the Agency' s "enforcement
first" agenda nor discourage PRPs from conducting
remedial work.
Beginning Remedial Design Before Entry of Consent
Decree: The Agency is revising guidelines to expedite
cleanup and encourage the initiation of RD work
before the entry of a CD in court. For example, in the
$21.7 million settlement for the Laurel Park
Superfund site, the PRPs agreed to begin RD activities
prior to the lodging of the CD with the court.
Equitable Cost Allocation Initiatives
Equitable allocation of response costs at
Superfund sites was a main focus of the enforcement
program in FY91. The significant initiatives are
described below.
De Minimis Initiative: The Agency is taking a
variety of steps to encourage more de minimi's
settlements, and thus reduce transaction costs:
Guidelines are being developed to promote
settlements with de minimis parties early in the
remedial process. The guidance will address the
use of preliminary waste information and remedy
cost estimates. The guidelines will also address
the use of premiums and re-openers to reduce the
risks associated with early settlement.
Resources to the regions will be reallocated or
increased to encourage more de minimis
settlements; a training program will be established
to develop regional experts; and a Headquarters
team will be created to provide resources to
facilitate settlements.
The Agency is developing a database for de
minimis settlements. The information will be
used to compare specific provisions from the
settlements and to develop consistent language
for future settlements.
The Agency is developing a de micromis
settlement policy, which will provide settlement
options for parties whose proportional liability
share is extremely small. The aim of the de
micromis policy is to decrease transaction costs.
The Agency is working with the National
Enforcement Investigation Center to develop a
center of expertise on methods to increase the
use of Agency-conducted non-binding allocations
of responsibility.
Residential Homeowner Policy: In July 1991,
EPA issued the Policy Toward Owners ofResidential
Property at Superfund Sites. The policy formalizes
EPA's practice of not taking enforcement actions
that require owners of residential property to
undertake response actions or pay response costs,
unless the owner's activity directly contributed to a
release, orpotential release, of hazardous substances.
The policy is not applicable when an owner of
residential property fails to cooperate with a federal
or state response action or if the resident is using the
property in a manner not consistent with residential
use.
Municipal Liability: In July 1991, EPA announced
anumber of activities concerning municipal liability.
The goal of these activities is to address concerns that
have arisen from the increase in third-party law suits
that have been filed against municipalities solely on
the basis of generation or transportation of municipal
solid waste. These activities include:
Developing national guidelines for allocating
costs for municipal solid waste; and
Developing a model settlement document for
municipalities involved in the generation or
transportation of municipal solid waste to
Superfund sites.
The model settlement document will enable
municipalities to defend against third-party lawsuits
by entering into early settlements with EPA that
resolve their potential liability and provide statutory
contribution protection.
Other FY91 Enforcement Initiatives
Superfund Lead Initiative: In FY91, EPA initiated
an overall enforcement effort to target lead, a highly
28
-------
Fiscal Yea-1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
toxic metal, and reduce lead exposure from Superfund
sites. As part of the initiative, EPA and DOJ filed six
complaints and lodged two CDs. Together, the six
complaints request reimbursement of approximately
$10 million spent on clean-up actions at six sites
where lead was a contaminant of concern. These
clean-up actions substantially reduced the
environmental threat of lead in ground water, surface
and subsurface soils, and aided in eliminating the
threat of airborne lead contamination.
Final Guidance on the Administrative Record: In
December 1990, EPA released the final guidance on
the policy and procedures governing the compilation
of administrative records supporting the selection of
remedial actions.
1.4 REMOVAL ACTIVITIES
Throughout the 10-year history of Superfund,
the removal program has been extremely successful
in preventing or minimizing risk to human health
and the environment. To date, EPA and PRPs have
started 2,664 removal actions at both NPL and non-
NPL sites. Removal actions are taken in response to
a release or a threat of a release of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant that presents a
near-term threat to human health or the environment.
Under oversight of an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC),
a removal action is generally short-term in nature,
addresses the most immediate threats, and complies
with ARARs to the extent practicable, given the
exigencies of the situation. Chemical spills or fires,
and illegal disposal of toxic materials (midnight
dumping) are examples of situations that might
warrant a removal action.
The sites where EPA conducts removal actions
may or may not be on or proposed for the NPL.
Specific activities undertaken during a response may
include treatment, excavation, pumping, incineration,
barrier installation, provision of an alternate water
supply, temporary relocation of residents, or some
combination of these activities. As part of the removal
actions taken over the course of Superfund, the
program has supplied more than 450,000 people
with alternative water supplies, and relocated
approximately 30,000 people to protect them from
harm.
1.4.1 Status Report on Removal
Actions
The Agency and PRPs began a total of 341
removal actions during FY91 and completed 265
removal actions. Exhibit 1.4-1 compares the number
of removal action starts and completions during
FY91 to those of previous fiscal years.
The involvement of PRPs in funding removal
efforts grew during the fiscal year. Of the 341
removal actions begun in FY91,103 were financed
by PRPs compared with 95 in FY90. Of these 103
removal action starts conducted by PRPs in FY91,
29 were at NPL sites and 74 were at non-NPL sites.
PRP funds were used to complete 55 of the total 265
removal action completions in FY91. EPA financed
removal action starts at 238 sites, while completing
210 removals.
Those removal actions that have begun but have
not yet reached the completion stage are considered
"on-going." On-going removals are actions that
have been in progress less than 12 months, and
actions that have been granted exemptions from the
one-year removal action duration limit. Also, in
cases where a removal action has taken place but the
contaminants have yet to be transported to a disposal
facility, the action is considered on-going.
1.4.2 The Removal Action Process
To ensure that the most serious risks to public
health and the environment are addressed, the removal
program identifies three types of removal actions
with respect to response time. Removal actions are
classified as "emergencies" if action at the site
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 1.4-1
Removal Action Starts and Completions by Fiscal Year1'2
400-i REMOVAL ACTION STARTS
TOTAL 2,664
300 -
200 -
100 -
FY Fund
FYPRP
TOTAL
FY87
260
67
327
FY88
228
116
344
FY89
223
101
324
FY90
256
95
351
FY91
238
103
341
Fund-financed (2,010)
PRP-financed (654)
400 i
300 -
200 -
100 -
REMOVAL ACTION COMPLETIONS
TOTAL 2,177
FY87
FYFund 191
FY PRP 41
TOTAL 232
FY88 FY89
229 177
91 78
320 255
Fund-financed (1,712)
FY90 FY91
207 210
87 55
294 265
PRP-financed (465)
1 From 1980 through 1986, the total number of removal action starts was 977 (805 Fund-financed and 172 PRP-financed) and the
total number of removal action completions was 811 (698 Fund-financed and 113 PRP-financed).
2 Historical numbers have been updated. See explanation on page xiii in the Executive Summary of this report.
Source. CERCLIS.
30
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
within hours is necessary. "Time-critical" removal
actions are based on a site evaluation by the lead
agency where it is determined that the action must
begin within six months. A planning period of more
than six months is available before clean-up activities
must begin in the case of "non-time-critical" removal
actions. The lead agency will undertake an
engineering evaluation/cost analysis for non-time-
critical removals. During FY91, 58 Fund-financed
removal actions were determined to be emergency
actions. Fund-financed time-critical and non-time-
critical removals numbered 180.
When there is notification of a release that may
require a removal action, the Agency undertakes a
removal site evaluation to determine the source and
nature of the release, the threat to public health, and
whether the party is undertaking a proper response.
The Agency reviews the results of the removal site
evaluation and a number of other factors to determine
the appropriate extent of a removal. At any point in
this process, EPA may refer the action to the site
assessment program or determine that no action is
necessary. When it is determined that a removal
action is required, an appropriate response is taken to
minimize or eliminate the threat.
The Agency must prepare an action memorandum
that states the authority for undertaking the removal
action, and describes both the action(s) to be taken
and the rationale for the selected action(s). EPA also
must establish an administrative record that consists
of the documents forming the basis for the selected
removal action.
Community Participation in Removal
Actions
The removal process provides ample
opportunities for public participation. An official
spokesperson must be appointed to keep the public
abreast of the progress of a given removal action. All
emergency, time-critical, and non-time-critical
actions require the administrative record to be made
available for public comment. If the removal action
is expected to continue beyond 120 days, the lead
agency must involve local officials and other parties
in the process.
The On-Scene Coordinator
The OSC is designated to organize and direct
removal actions. The OSC is responsible for preparing
a final report describing the situation at the site as the
removal developed, the response actions that took
place at the site, and any problems that occurred
during the response.
Removal Action Statutory Limits
Removal actions are intended to be short-term,
relatively inexpensive responses to releases or threats
of releases that pose a danger to human health and the
environment. Consequently, Congress included
limitations in CERCLA on the cost and duration of
removal actions of $2 million and one year,
respectively. Congress established exemptions,
however, under specific circumstances to these cost
and duration limits. For example, removal actions
may exceed the limits if: (1) continued response is
required immediately to prevent, limit, or mitigate
an emergency; if there is an immediate risk to public
health, welfare, or the environment; and if such
action cannot otherwise be provided on a timely
basis; or (2) continued response action is otherwise
appropriate and consistent with the remedial action
to be taken. During FY91, EPA granted 15 requests
for exemption/ceiling increases for removal actions
that exceeded the $2 million limitation. Additionally,
EPA granted four exemptions for removals to continue
longer than one year.
1.4.3 Addressing Immediate Threats
Since the creation of Superfund in 1980, EPA
has taken appropriate actions to reduce immediate
threats to human health and the environment at
hazardous waste sites. Superfund's emergency
response program reached a significant milestone in
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
FY91: the 2,000th Fund-financed removal action
start. EPA reached the 1,000 mark in 1987; this new
milestone comes only four years later. In addition,
since 1980, PRPs have initiated 654 removal actions.
Two-thirds of these actions have occurred in the last
five years.
The 2,000th Fund-financed removal action start
took place at the Industrial Fuel and Asphalt site, an
inactive refinery and asphalt facility located in
Hammond, Indiana. The threats posed by the site
included oil migrating into a wetlands area, leaking
transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), drums filled with various chemicals, and a
pile of asbestos. As part of the removal action, EPA
staged and sampled 300 drums, neutralized 40 drums
containing acids and caustics, removed leaking
transformers, excavated 500 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soil, and removed 250 cubic feet of
asbestos.
1.4.4 Superfund Removal Procedures
Manual
The Superfund Removal Procedures Manual
covers all removal action procedural and
administrative requirements for the program. The
manual is used by OSCs, other removal personnel,
the remedial program staff, and enforcement
personnel, as well as by other federal and state
agencies. In FY90, EPA began restructuring the
manual into a series often stand-alone volumes, each
addressing separate topics of importance to Superfund
removal actions. In FY91, EPA completed the
second volume of the series, Guidance on the
Consideration ofARARs During Removal Actions.
Several others volumes of the manual are nearing
completion.
1.4.5 Emergency Response Team
Under the removal program, EPA manages the
Emergency Response Team (ERT) as required by
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. The ERT consists of EPA experts
in emergency response, hazard assessment, health
and safety, air monitoring, alternative and innovative
technology, site investigation, ecological damage
assessment, clean-up contractor management, and
oil and chemical spill control. Over the ten years of
its existence, the team has been available to OSCs
and RPMs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to support
removal and remedial actions at sites. During FY91,
the ERT responded on-scene to 104 removal actions,
61 remedial actions, six oil spills, and six international
actions.
In addition to its response support actions, ERT
provides introductory and intermediate level training
courses in health and safety and other technical
aspects of response. During FY91, a total of 213
training courses were offered nationwide.
32
-------
Chapter 2
Response Initiatives
The Agency continued its progress in assessing
potentially threatening sites. EPA also began
implementing the revised hazard ranking system
(HRS); undertaking new initiatives in the contract
laboratory program (CLP); and developing
specialized programs addressing major environmental
concerns such as lead and radionuclide contamination.
The Agency also issued guidance documents and
rulemakings.
2.1 SITE ASSESSMENT
The site assessment phase of the Superfund
process begins when EPA is notified of a potentially
threatening site or incident. The Agency records
basic information about the site in the inventory of
potential sites maintained in the CERCLA
InformationSystem(CERCLIS)andwilltrackfurther
actions and decisions regarding the site in CERCLIS.
For sites where there is an immediate threat, EPA
will proceed directly to conducting a removal action
to address the threat. For other sites, a two-stage
assessment will be conducted, consisting of a
preliminary assessment (PA) to determine whether a
potential threat exists and a site inspection (SI) to
determine the relative threat posed and evaluate the
site for possible listing on the National Priorities List
(NPL). At any time during this two-stage assessment
process, EPA may determine that there is an
immediate threat at the site and conduct a removal
action, or that Superfund activities have been
accomplished. Superfund activities have been
accomplished when further action is not required at
the site or the site is deferred for action under other
authority.
Notification of the appropriate government
authorities and assessment of the situation are among
the crucial elements in the timely response to a
potentially threatening site or incident. EPA is
notified of potential hazardous waste sites in a variety
of ways, including information provided by states
and handlers of hazardous materials, and reports
from concerned citizens. For example, an individual
may report concerns about a particular site, or local
law enforcement officials may submit a formal report
to EPA. Facility managers may also notify EPA of
a release, as required by CERCLA Section 103.
Section 103 specifies that a person in charge of a
vessel or facility, such as a facility manager, must
immediately report any release of a hazardous
substance that is equal to or greater than the reportable
quantity (RQ) for that substance to the National
Response Center (NRC). The NRC operates a 24-
hour hotline to allow for immediate notification.
CERCLA imposes penalties for failure to comply
with this requirement.
EPA will assess the potential threat posed by
sites through a PA. The PA may include either an on-
site or off-site reconnaissance, with EPA or the state
reviewing existing site-specific data for early
determination of the need for further action. The
information may include past state permitting
activities, local population statistics, and the site's
potential effect upon the environment. This
information review enables the Agency to determine
whether further study of a site is necessary, a removal
assessment or action is needed, or all necessary
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 2
AOB Analytical Operations Branch
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CARD CLP Analytical Results Database
CADRE Computer Aided Data Review and Evaluation
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
MRS Hazard Ranking System
NPL National Priorities List
NRC National Response Center
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OIG Office of the Inspector General
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORP Office of Radiation Programs
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA Preliminary Assessment
PE Performance Evaluation
QTM Quick Turnaround Method
RQ Reportable Quantity
SAB Site Assessment Branch
SAS Special Analytical Services
SI Site Inspection
TIB Toxics Integration Branch
UBK Uptake Biokinetic Model
Superfund evaluation of the site has been
accomplished.
If the PA indicates that an actual or potential
contamination problem exists, EPA will perform a
more extensive study, the site investigation (SI).
The purpose of the SI is to determine whether a site
is appropriate for listing on the NPL, which is EPA's
list of sites having highest remediation priority. The
SI usually includes collection and analysis of
environmental and waste samples to determine: (1)
the substances present at the site; (2) their
concentrations; (3) whether they are being released
or there is a potential for their release; and (4)
whether the hazardous substances identified are
attributable to the site. These data and other available
information are used to calculate a score using the
HRS, which measures the relative hazard a site
poses to human health and the environment and
determines whether placement on the NPL is
warranted.
At the end of FY91, the inventory of sites in
CERCLIS was approximately 34,000 sites. EPA has
completed site assessment program activities at the
majority of these sites. Due to an ongoing
investigation by EPA's Office of Inspector General
(OIG), however, specific numerical totals for site
assessment accomplishments are not included in this
report. These accomplishments will be reported in
the FY92 report.
2.2 REVISED HAZARD RANKING
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
During FY91, EPA began using the revised
HRS. The HRS is the scoring system used to assess
the relative threat associated with the release or
potential release of hazardous substances from a
waste site. EPA uses this score as the primary
criterion in determining whether a site should be
placed on the NPL.
EPA revised the HRS in FY90 to make it more
comprehensive and accurate, and to ensure that the
regions uniformly interpret and score sites proposed
to the NPL. The revisions to the HRS more accurately
portray the degree of relative risk to both human
health and the environment. The key changes address,
to the extent possible:
Population at risk;
Potential for drinking water contamination;
Potential direct human contact;
Potential ecosystem destruction;
Damage that may affect the food chain; and
Actual or potential contamination of air.
To prepare EPA staff to work with the revised
system, EPA conducted five HRS/Site Assessment
Orientation Sessions in which more than 500 people
were trained. These sessions consisted of an overview
of the site assessment program and the revised HRS.
In addition, 241 people were trained at five HRS
Package Preparation Sessions. These sessions
provided an in-depth review of the new HRS and
hands-on training in scoring sites. To supply the
regions with a readily available training course for
new personnel, the Agency has begun developing a
video on the site assessment program and the
revised HRS.
34
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
2.3 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
UPDATE
from the NPL. At the end of FY91, construction had
been completed at 61 sites; 38 of these have been
deleted from the NPL.
The NPL is the list of sites to which EPA gives
highest priority for remediation. Ranking of the
potential hazard of sites, through revised HRS scoring,
identifies candidate sites. If a site scores 28.50 or
higher on a scale of 100, the Agency proposes the site
for listing on the NPL, solicits public comments,
and, based on public comments, announces final
listing of the site on the NPL. When all clean-up
goals are attained, and no further response action is
appropriate, EPA will delete a site from the NPL.
The Agency's former policy, prior to December
1991, required a five-year review prior to deletion if
hazardous substances remained on site above health-
based levels.
As a result of site proposals to the NPL, final
listings, and deletions during the fiscal year, there
were 22 proposed and 1,185 final NPL sites at the
end of FY91. During FY91, EPA proposed 23 sites
for the NPL and listed one of these sites. Six sites
that had been previously proposed were also listed,
for a total of seven final listings. Also in FY91, nine
sites were deleted from the NPL. The resulting total
of proposed and final sites on the NPL is 1,207.
Exhibit 2.3-1 illustrates the historical number of
final sites on the NPL since SARA was promulgated
in 1986.
To improve communication of progress in
cleaning up NPL sites, the 30-Day Study Task Force
recommended tracking construction completions as
a target of performance in cleaning up NPL sites.
The construction completion category includes sites
where all phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed and EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required. Sites in this
category may be currently undergoing long-term
pumping and treating of ground water, operation and
maintenance, or monitoring to ensure that the
completed clean-up actions continue to protect human
health and the environment. Only after all clean-up
goals are attained, however, may a site be deleted
2.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CERCLIS AND NPL DATA
CERCLIS is used to track sites that may be listed
on the NPL and to catalog administrative
information, such as the PA or SI completion date.
Of the approximately 34,000 sites in CERCLIS at
the end of FY91, 1,207 were either proposed to the
NPL or on the final NPL. Although the sites on the
NPL are a relatively small subset of the inventory in
CERCLIS, they generally comprise the most complex
and environmentally compelling cases. Only at NPL
sites can EPA use the Superfund Trust Fund for a
long-term cleanup, although Fund money can be
used to undertake removal actions whether or not a
site is on the NPL.
2.5 CONTRACT LABORATORY
PROGRAM INITIATIVES
In order to accurately assess hazards present at a
site, extensive sampling is necessary. During the
remedial phase of Superfund, in particular the SI,
samples must be extracted from sites and analyzed.
The CLP is the Agency' s major vehicle for obtaining
laboratory chemical analyses of samples from
Superfund sites. These samples are delivered from
sites to laboratories participating in the CLP. Sample
results are later forwarded to the appropriate regions.
During FY91, EPA undertook a series of
improvements in the CLP that enable the Agency to
expand the diversity of routine and special analytical
services to meet regional needs more adequately.
Expanded Automated Data Processing
To provide technically sound and legally
defensible data, EPA enhanced anumber of previously
35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 2.3-1
Final National Priorities List Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991
1200 -
jg 1000 -
V)
"5 800 -
1
E 600 -
3
5 400 -
200 -
n J
m
Sites Added
TOTAL1
FY87
Previously Listed
99
802
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
Sites Added
0
798
101
888
300
1,187
7
1,185
1 This graph illustrates final NPL sites only and reflects the fact that EPA deleted 13 sites from the NPL from FY80 to FY86, four sites in FY88,
11 sites in FY89, one site in FY90, and nine sites in FY91. The total of final and proposed NPL sites as of September 30,1991, was 1207.
Note: The total number of sites listed on the NPL from 1983 to 1986 was 703.
Sources: Federal Register notices through September 30,1991.
developed data programs in FY91. These programs
establish organizational procedures that create a
degree of uniformity among the data exchanged
between the EPA regions and Headquarters. The
CLP Analytical Results Database (CARD) was
developed to provide an automated means of
accessing CLP data. During the fiscal year, the
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) Analytical Operations Branch (AOB)
undertook measures to improve CLP data validity in
CARD, reducing the CLP data entry error rate to 38
percent.
To expedite review of CLP organic routine
analytical services data processes, technicians
developed the Computer Aided Data Review and
Evaluation (CADRE) program. The use of CADRE
software ensures that CLP data is of known and
documented quality. With CADRE, the Agency is
able to reduce a data reviewer's workload by as much
as 70 percent.
Superfund analytical services performed by
laboratories procured through means other than the
CLP are tracked by the non-CLP Superfund
Analytical Services Tracking System. This system
provides the regions with a consistent means of
tracking critical information regarding the magnitude,
type, and quality of non-CLP analytical services
used in support of Superfund. In FY91, a kickoff
meeting was held to facilitate regional
implementation efforts and nine regions implemented
the system. The regions provide periodic updates to
EPA Headquarters, where information is compiled
36
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
into a national database. Until the system was
developed, such information was not contained in a
centralized location.
Special Analytical Services Basic
Ordering Agreement
In FY91, a contract vehicle to support additional
administrative and organizational requirements for
analytical testing laboratories was implemented by
the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. Analytical
testing laboratories provide special analytical services
(SAS) to the regions. The contract between a
laboratory and EPA requires a standardized reporting
format for the submission of all original data.
Standardized formats are critical for documenting
data that may be used as evidence in enforcement
activities.
Quick Turnaround Analytical Service
The FY91 implementation of the quick
turnaround method (QTM) analytical service
significantly improved data validation methods used
in the CLP. QTM is a pilot program designed to
provide a rapid turnaround of data from the analysis
of samples. Producing data of known and documented
quality, the service is used for screening, monitoring,
and other site assessment activities. Using QTM
enables a laboratory to provide EPA clients with
validated sample results within forty-eight hours of
the sample's receipt at the laboratory. Previous
methods required six to eight weeks. During the
fiscal year, the Agency issued national guidance
along with a schedule for implementing QTM pilot
programs in interested regions, and two regions held
QTM orientation.
Low Detection Levels in Drinking Waters
In FY91, EPA began formalizing protocols to
provide the regions with analyses of drinking water
samples. The protocols, which are based on EPA's
previously developed 500-series methods, establish
a consistent reporting format. EPA is currently
testing the performance of these methods using
actual field samples.
Transportation Contract Awards
In FY91, EPA awarded sample transportation
contracts to provide for establishing, maintaining,
and monitoring shipping accounts for the
transportation of sample coolers, sample data, and
other items. To expedite the flow of materials and
information, certain standards have been set for
transport; for example, laboratories are required to
return coolers to the originating sampling office
within 14 days of sample receipt. In addition,
monthly summary reports are prepared to ensure that
the contracts are running effectively.
Task Force Initiatives
An Agency-wide task force conducted a Federal
Managers Financial Integrity Act review of the CLP
in FY91. The purpose of the review was to assess the
management controls of the CLP to determine if
significant weaknesses existed and if user needs
were being met. The task force found the program to
be vulnerable to waste, loss, unauthorized use, or
misappropria-tion. Specific recommendations issued
by the task force included completing an Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
internal control review, eliminating duplicate and
unnecessary paperwork, and establishing a national
reporting system. Improvements to the program
were begun in FY91 in response to the study.
OERR Initiatives
On September 18,1991, the OIG issued an audit
report reviewing the adequacy of selected EPA
Headquarters and regional operational CLP controls.
OIG found that EPA needs to take a number of
actions to improve its overall management of the
CLP. First, auditors discovered that EPA had failed
to obtain and safeguard all original documentation
generated when samples from Superfund sites were
analyzed by contract laboratories. Second, the Agency
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
did not have a policy or minimum standards to
ensure oversight of data review contractors or to
instruct regions in the use of performance evaluation
(PE) samples. Finally, weak controls of the SAS
program resulted in Agency payments to contractors
for laboratory results although the data were not used
or did not comply with all terms of the contract.
In response to the findings and recommendations
contained in the OIG's report, OERR has worked to
eliminate identified problems. The Agency will
develop a plan to recover missing documentation
files by the end of FY93. The Agency also is drafting
guidance on the use of PE samples, and developing
a priority workplan for implementing guidance for
overseeing contractor's validation of data. Steps are
being taken to improve SAS operations and contract
laboratory adherence to SAS procedures.
2.6 THE LEAD PROGRAM
Lead is one of the most frequently found toxic
substances at Superfund sites. Lead is also a major
contaminant and health threat to children in urban
areas that are not associated with Superfund sites.
EPA has undertaken two initiatives in an effort to
better address the effects of lead contamination: the
Uptake Biokinetic (UBK) Model and the Three City
Lead Study.
The Uptake Biokinetic Model
Currently, EPA recommends an interim soil
clean-up level for lead of 500 to 1,000 parts per
million (ppm) for Superfund sites characterized as
residential. To aid regional risk managers in
establishing permanent lead clean-up levels for soil,
EPA's Toxics Integration Branch (TIB) continues to
develop risk assessment procedures and tools such
as the UBK Model. This model estimates the lead
level in blood in persons exposed to the contaminant
through air, soil, dust, drinking water, diet, and
paint. The UBK Model uses site-specific data or, if
no such data are available, default values based on
national averages.
EPA is developing a site-specific guidance
manual and a sampling strategies and protocols
manual to assist risk assessors and managers in
deciding when to use site-specific data in the model
and in identifying the most appropriate method for
collecting data. EPA is validating the UBK model
by studying data from Superfund sites contaminated
with lead from mining and smelting activities. Other
validation studies will be conducted using urban and
battery recycling sites.
In FY92, the EPA Science Advisory Board will
review the appropriateness of using the model to
assess total lead exposure at Superfund sites. A soil
lead clean-up level for Superfund sites with lead
contamination also will be developed. EPA plans to
complete the final Soil Lead Directive, a guidance
manual on the UBK Model, and the Lead Sampling
Manual in FY92.
Three City Lead Study
EPA has initiated aproject in Baltimore, Boston,
and Cincinnati to determine whether a reduction of
lead in residential soil and/or dust (interior house
dust and exterior soil dust) will result in a decrease
of blood-lead levels in children exposed to the
contaminant. The Maryland Department of the
Environment, the City of Boston, and the University
of Cincinnati are conducting the project, with
technical assistance from EPA, the Centers for
Disease Control, the Department of Agriculture, and
several academic institutions.
The study areas within each city were not
randomly selected. Each area was chosen on the
basis of several factors, including the age of housing,
the reported incidence of lead poisoning, the expected
turnover rate in residents, and the potential for
neighborhood involvement in the project. Biological
and environmental sampling results reflect this
"targeting." Because the study areas were targeted
for high-lead levels, the baseline data are not
representative of the three cities.
38
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
In 1991, all three cities completed baseline
sampling of blood, hand dust, soil, interior house
dust, paint, and water. Cincinnati also sampled
exterior street dust. Soil removal activities were
completed in all three cities, as well as post-removal
sampling of lead contamination. Boston has
completed analyses of its samples, and Baltimore
and Cincinnati are nearing sample analysis
completion.
An interim project report, entitled the Three City
Study, released July 26,1991, contains descriptions
of project designs, protocols for sampling and
analyses, removal methods, problems encountered,
and baseline data. Because final data are not yet
available, the interim report does not include findings.
2.7 THE RADIATION PROGRAM
During the fiscal year, EPA undertook several
initiatives in an effort to address the many complex
and unique issues associated with radionuclide site
assessment, risk assessment, and remedial technology
development.
Superfund Program Guidance
The Analytical Operations Branch (AOB) of
OERR began working with ORP during the fiscal
year to develop procedures, protocols, and other
documentation required for incorporating
radioanalytical services into the CLP in order to
ensure that the samples collected and analyzed during
the SI result in data of known and legally defensible
quality. As a first step in this project, AOB and ORP
have reviewed past records from EPA regions
requesting radionuclide sample analyses and have
begun compiling a list of laboratories offering
radioanalytical services. In the past, most
radionuclide evaluations were performed under non-
CLP programs.
The Site Assessment Branch (SAB) of OERR
initiated several joint projects with the Office of
Radiation Programs (ORP) of the Office of Air and
Radiation to develop supplemental policy and
technical guidance in support of the Superfund site
assessment program. ORP began revising the
Agency's radiation field standard operation
procedures, which provide guidance for
characterizing mixed waste sites during all phases of
the Superfund process.
Risk Assessment
TIB and ORP participated in severaljointprojects
to develop supplemental radionuclide guidance to
support the risk assessment program in FY91. In
support of the Superfund Human Health Evaluation
Manual, ORP prepared supplemental guidance on
radionuclide issues relevant to the health manual.
ORP also assisted TIB in addressing the principles
and concepts of radionuclide protection, standardized
exposure scenarios, and evaluation of clean-up
technologies for contaminated sites.
During FY91, ORP began developing the
Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment Manual.
The exposure manual will provide, in a single
reference document, ORP's current rationale and
procedures for conducting radionuclide fate and
transport modeling, receptor exposure assessment,
and risk characterization. Part I of the exposure
manual will cover exposure assessments and Part II
will describe risk assessment methods.
Starting in FY91, ORP began revision of the
radiation Site Inspection Manual to incorporate
additional field standard operating procedures and
guidance for characterizing mixed waste sites. The
manual will provide guidance on how to characterize
radionuclide sites during all phases of the Superfund
process, including Sis, remedial investigations,
remedial actions, and closure sampling and analyses.
It will also provide guidance for determining when
removal actions may be warranted, as well as basic
monitoring procedures to ensure worker protection
and public health. Examples of hypothetical
radionuclide sites will be provided to illustrate key
elements of site characterization.
39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Technology Development
During FY91, OSWER, ORP, and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) initiated or
continued work on several projects concerning the
development, testing, and evaluation of remediation
technologies for radiation sites.
Based on the results achieved in laboratory- and
bench-scale tests, ORP designed, assembled, and
conducted preliminary tests of the Volume Reduction/
Chemical Extraction soil washing system at EPA's
National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
in Montgomery, Alabama. The current system,
designed to remove radium from soil, is intended to
have a throughput capacity of 2 to 5 tons per hour.
Plans are being made to refine the system and
possibly expand its current application to the
remediation of soils contaminated with other
radionuclides besides radium.
Also during FY91, ORP began preparing a soil
characterization protocol designed to investigate the
suitability of various radionuclide-contaminated soils
for physical or chemical separation processes. The
protocol will combine radiochemical and petrographic
analysis of soil fractions, focusing on the contaminant
waste and its particle size distribution.
Regional Assistance
Regional requests for technical assistance from
EPA Headquarters to support remedial activities at
Superfund sites contaminated with radionuclides
nationwide became more frequent during FY91 as
compared to previous years. ORP provided technical
assistance to Region 4 during the review of remedial
investigation/feasibility study documents from the
Department of Energy for the Oak Ridge Reservation,
the Savannah River Plant, and the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant. Reviewers of these documents
considered compliance with applicable, or relevant
and appropriate requirements; sampling and analysis
of radioactive contamination and mixed waste;
proposing dose and risk assessments for the public
and workers; and site characterization. In addition,
at the request of Region 4, ORP performed an
independent baseline risk assessment for the
Superfund Maxey Flats low-level radioactive waste
disposal site in Kentucky.
ORP assisted Region 6 and the State of New
Mexico with information on an evaluation of the
proposed radionuclide and mixed waste incinerators
located at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. For
Region 7, ORP provided technical support on issues
concerning the remediation of the Rocky Flats
Superfund site in Colorado. In particular, ORP
recommended an appropriate gastrointestinal
absorption value for plutonium for use in the baseline
radionuclide risk assessment and in the development
of remediation goals.
ORP continued to assist Region 9 with the
assessment of possible releases of radiation at the
Norton Air Force Base in California. ORP also
provided guidance and acted in an oversight role for
radionuclide sampling and analysis activities at the
Santa Susana Field Laboratory. ORP provided
assistance to Region 10 on a variety of remedial
activities associated with the Hanford Superfund
sites in Washington.
2.8 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND
RULEMAKINGS
OERR, ORP, and ORD published a number of
significant Superfund proposed rulemakings and
guidance documents.
Reportable Quantity Adjustments for Petroleum
Refinery Treatment: This rule proposes to adjust
the RQs for waste stream sludges from petroleum
refinery separation processes. The Agency is
reviewing public comments concerning the
proposed rule.
Hazardous Waste Management Systems;
Reportable Quantity Adjustment, Coke By-
Products Waste Listings: This proposed rule
would designate certain hazardous wastes as
CERCLA hazardous substances and adjust their
40
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
RQs. Also, EPA is proposing a series of
exclusions to the definition of solid waste in
order to facilitate the recycling of coke by-
product wastes.
Addition of 22 Sites to the NPL: This rule
proposes 22 sites, located in 15 states, to the
NPL. These are the first sites proposed under the
revised HRS, which became effective during
FY91.
Guidance for Performing Preliminary
Assessments Under CERCLA: This guidance
contains instructions on conducting a PA and
reporting the results. Topics addressed within
the document include PA evaluation and scoring,
as well as instructions for using standard PA
scoresheets. The guidance will assist PA
investigators in conducting high-quality,
nationally consistent assessments.
PA-Score Software User's Manual and Tutorial:
The PA score software package was designed to
computerize the scoring system for the PA,
provide a user-friendly menu screen system, and
provide a useful tool for PA scenario scoring.
The user's manual introduces the software
package and provides an initial step-by-step
lesson and printing instructions.
Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes
During Site Inspections: General regulatory
background and options for management of
investigation-derived wastes are presented in
this guidance. Investigation-derived wastes are
generated during Superfund Sis, and include
soil, water, and equipment. The document will
assist EPA Headquarters staff, state
environmental agencies, potentially responsible
parties, and others involved in Superfund site
assessment work by proposing methods for waste
management.
Sampler's Guide to the Contract
Laboratory Program: This guidance is designed
to clarify sampling procedures necessary to
submit samples for CLP analysis, serving as a
reference document to promote consistent
procedures across the regions and to ensure
proper adherence to CLP requirements.
Users's Guide to the Contract Laboratory
Program: This document acquaints regions and
states with the range of CLP services and
applications, including adescription of analytical
services provided and the use of these services,
an index of auxiliary support services, and a list
detailing program quality assurance.
Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default
Exposure Factors: This document is a
supplement to the Risk Assessment Guidance/or
Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A) for reducing unwarranted variability in
the exposure assumptions used by regional
Superfund staff to characterize human population
exposures in baseline risk assessments.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Pan B):
This document provides a guide for developing
risk-based preliminary remediation goals at
Superfund sites.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part C):
This guidance is intended for use in evaluating
long-term (residual) risks and short-term (during
clean-up activities) risks at Superfund sites.
41
-------
-------
Chapter 3
Estimate of Resources
Required to Implement
Superfund
Section 301 (h)( 1 )(G) of CERCLA requires EPA
to estimate the resources needed by the federal
government to complete Superfund implementation.
The Agency interprets this requirement as the cost of
completing cleanup at sites currently on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Much of this work will occur
after FY93. This chapter includes annual information
through FY93. An estimate of the long-term costs of
cleaning up sites on the existing NPL is included in
Section 3.2, together with an overview of the
estimating method used. The estimate is divided
between resources needed by EPA and those needed
by other federal departments and agencies.
The resource estimate in this chapter is based
primarily on the responsibilities and duties assigned
to EPA and other federal departments and agencies
by Executive Order 12580. Computing such an
estimate entailed making assumptions about the size
and scope of the Superfund program; the nature and
number of response actions; participation by states
and private parties; and the increasing 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, the estimating method uses
many assumptions about which activities will be
necessary to clean up and delete sites from the NPL.
In developing the resource estimate, EPA has
considered several sources of information:
EPA Superfund budgets and budget estimates
for FY88 through FY93, including budget
requests from other federal departments and
agencies;
Data submitted to EPA by other federal
departments and agencies under an approved
General Services Administration (GSA)
Interagency Report Control Number, issued on
Februarys, 1988, as required under the provisions
of 41CFR Part 201-45.6;
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 FY92, FY93 (the President's Budget), and beyond.
The Agency also is working to identify data
requirements, improve data quality, develop cost
estimating methods, and collect additional
information. This long-term effort has been
43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 3
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DOJ Departement of Justice
DOT Department of Transportation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GSA General Services Administration
HMTUSA Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform
Safety Act
IAG Interagency Agreement
MARAD Maritime Administration
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priorities List
OLM Outyear Liability Model
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RRT Regional Response Team
RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
USCG United States Coast Guard
USDA Department of Agriculture
VA Veterans Administration
coordinated with the development of the FY93
budget. In conjunction with the revised National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) and its policies affecting program
direction and scope, EPA is moving closer to a more
complete cost estimate of implementing CERCLA.
The initial results of this effort are presented in
Section 3.2 of this chapter.
EPA's ability to project the federal resource
requirement for CERCLA implementation improves
each year as more experience is gained. The Agency
is working to identify data requirements, improve
data quality, develop cost estimating methods, and
collect additional information for better projections
next year. Improved coordination with other federal
departments and agencies and additional data on the
implementation of the federal facilities requirement
of Section 120 also will increase the accuracy of
future resource estimates.
3.1 SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF
SUPERFUND RESOURCES
Since the enactment of CERCLA in 1980,
Congress has provided Superfund with $10.7 billion
in budget authority (FY81 through FY92 enacted).
This includes $1.8 billion for FY81 through FY86,
and $8.9 billion for the post-SARA period, FY87
through FY92.TheFY93President'sbudget allocates
total resources of $1.75 billion targeted for the
following activities:
Site Cleanup: Site cleanup uses approximately
62 percent of Superfund resources, including
engineering studies and design work, and
funding/oversight of short- and long-term
construction actions.
Support: Support uses 25 percent of Superfund
resources. The support category is largely
response support for site/program analysis, other
federal agencies, and EPA Headquarters and
regional intramural (salary and expenses)
resources. Administrative management of the
program, as well as research and development,
also are components of the support category.
Enforcement: Enforcement uses 13 percent of
Superfund resources. Enforcement activities,
including potentially responsible party (PRP)
negotiations, PRP settlements, and cost recovery
efforts, are captured in this category.
Exhibit 3.1-1 presents a snapshot of total
Superfund resources for FY92 and FY93 and their
uses.
3.1.1 Sources
Site cleanup is the single largest category of
Superfund expenditures and is expected to remain so
44
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
in the future. To project EPA funding needs for these
activities, several key estimations were made,
including:
Theprojectednumberandaveragecostofstudies,
remedial designs, and remedial actions (RAs)
undertaken;
The extent and cost of removal activity; and
The proportion of direct clean-up actions taken
by PRPs.
3.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Clean-
Up Effort
The most significant way PRPs contribute to the
hazardous substance clean-up effort is by undertaking
and financing remedial activities (whether voluntarily
or under order). When PRPs finance site clean-up
efforts, potential EPA Superfund obligations for
those sites are dramatically reduced; the principal
remaining cost is PRP oversight. EPA continues to
develop and implement policies designed to
encourage PRP cleanups.
In addition to remedial and removal actions
actually undertaken by PRPs, a portion of the costs
of certain Fund-financed response actions will be
recovered from PRPs through enforcement activities.
Typically, there are significant delays between
expenditures from the Trust Fund and recovery of
costs.
3.2 ESTIMATED RESOURCES TO
COMPLETE CURRENT NPL SITES
Estimating the cost of cleaning up existing NPL
sites depends on a number of factors, many of which
will change as the program continues to mature. The
most important of these factors are:
Changes in Superfund program policies and
procedures because of the revised NCP,
particularly the clean-up 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;
and
The nature of and demand for removal actions.
The estimate is basedonEPA's Outyear Liability
Model (OLM), which estimates the long-term
resource needs of Superfund. The OLM provides
meaningful long-range forecasts with the flexibility
to refine them. The Model can be adjusted for a large
Exhibit 3.1-1
EPA Superfund Operating Plan and Budget Estimates
(Dollars in Millions)
Program Area
Site Cleanup
Site Enforcement
Site Support (total)
EPA
Other Federal Agencies
TOTAL SUPERFUND
FY92
Operating Plan
892.5
216.5
491.2
374.9
116.3
1,600.2
FY93
Budget Request
1,079.1
225.1
445.9
381.3
64.6
1,750.1
Source: EPA Superfund Budget Documentation.
45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
number of program-related variables. These variables
can be individually adjusted to reflect real or
anticipated changes in the program.
The OLM uses three distinct methods, each
based on the status of a site in the remediation
process:
Active NPL sites;
NPL sites where the remedial process has not yet
begun; and
Non-site related activities.
To estimate the resources EPA will need to
complete the cleanup of existing NPL sites, the
Agency has concentrated on the remedial and removal
programs. These programs are the major components
of the Superfund program and account forthe majority
of Fund expenditures by the Agency. Section 3.2.2
describes these and other key OLM features.
3.2.1 Estimated Cost to Complete
Current NPL Sites
The OLM estimate of the cost to complete
cleanup of the current NPL is $ 16.5 billion for FY94
and beyond (Exhibit 3.2-1). Major assumptions
shaping this estimate include:
The OLM estimates only the cost of the existing
NPL (1,207 proposed and listed and 38 deleted
sites as of September 30, 1991);
Removal activities at sites on the NPL remain at
current levels;
RA cost factors (choice of technology, site size,
and technology cost) continue to follow the
patterns identified in FY87 through FY91;
Program support and other non-site related
elements are straightlined with FY93 levels;
Approximately 35 percent of all new RI/FS
starts will be fund-lead (i.e., the Trust Fund will
pay at least 90 percent of the cost); and
For non-federal facilities, PRPs will take the
lead on 70 percent of RAs. Oversight is
significantly less expensive than cleanup;
therefore, Fund costs drop dramatically when
PRPs assume financial responsibility for more
cleanups.
The OLM does not generate a resource estimate
for the federal facility program. Resource and
programmatic assumptions have not been
included in the OLM for federal facilities.
Assumptions about the future reflect both
planning assumptions taken from the Superfund
Program Management Manual and historical
performance averages, both of which are revised
periodically. The increase in the OLM estimate from
$27.2 billion in FY90 to $28.9 billion in FY91 is a
result of growth in the RA cost estimate. EPA's
analysis of FY91 records of decision (RODs) revealed
that larger projects are being addressed; accordingly,
the RA cost estimate increased from $ 12.2 million to
$13.2 million.
EPA will continue to monitor developments that
affect program costs. Changes will be incorporated
Exhibit 3.2-1
Estimate of Total Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites
on the National Priorities List (Dollars in Millions)
Program Area
FY91 and Prior
FY92 Operating Plan
FY93 Budget Request
FY94 and Beyond
TOTAL
Total Allocations
9,144.9
1,600.2
1,750.1
16,450.0
28,945.2
Cumulative Allocations
9,144.9
10,745.1
12,495.2
28,945.2
28,945.2
Source EPA Superfund Budget Documentation and Out/ear Liability Model
46
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
into the Model as they occur, improving depiction of
future programmatic direction and refining previous
analysis. OLM estimates will vary over time and
subsequent editions of this report will most likely
contain different estimates.
3.2.2 Program Element Assumptions
Represented in the Model
To provide a better estimate of the cost of the
program and the flexibility needed to estimate the
costs of future initiatives, the Model includes many
variables representing specific program elements.
Currently Active Sites
Remedial efforts are underway at most of the
sites on the existing NPL. Remedial plans are being
developed for the remaining sites on the NPL, leaving
only 87 sites on the existing NPL that were inactive
attheendofFY91.
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 for the existing NPL.
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.
Sites Yet To Begin the Remedial Process
The OLM uses the same general approach for all
sites yet to begin the remedial process. Cleaning up
an NPL site involves a number of different activities,
occurring overtime and in predictable arrangements.
For sites yet to begin the remedial process, the OLM
must first approximate the activities that will be
involved once the site begins remediation.
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-related activities, both
remedial and enforcement. In the approach, tradeoffs
such as avoiding clean-up 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.
Non-Site Related Costs
Although non-site related activities comprise a
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 current
request year budget.
Aside from the number of sites requiring cleanup
and the cost of individual cleanups, the assumption
of managerial and/or financial responsibility for a
site (what is referred to as the site "lead") 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, including:
Level of emphasis on the enforcement program;
Willingness of states to assume financial
responsibility; and
Cost-sharing arrangements between Superfund
and the states and 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
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
lead and cost sharing scenarios. Related site variables
include:
Proportion of sites addressed by each lead
category (Fund, PRP, state, state enforcement,
and federal facility);
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-lead will ultimately result in lower Fund costs,
but related litigation will substantially extend the
amount of time required to reach deletion.
Factors Related to RA Costs
The method of estimating RA costs is based on
analysis of RODs signed between FY87 and FY91.
A statistical analysis of RA cost estimates contained
in these RODs identified seven distinct cost patterns
based on the choice of remedial technology. For each
technology type there is a unique average cost and
expected treatment volume. These factors, together
with the expected usage of each technology, are the
factors that control the RA cost module of the OLM.
Adjustments within the RA cost module make it
possible to estimate the fiscal impact of:
Policies affecting the selection of technological
approach (e.g., using more treatment and less
containment);
Changes in the contaminants found on site (e.g.,
if remaining sites have higher levels of heavy
metals than prior sites, incineration would be
less effective);
Changes in technology costs; and
Changes in site size.
3.3 ESTIMATES OF RESOURCES
NECESSARY FOR OTHER
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES TO
COMPLETE SUPERFUND
IMPLEMENTATION
The second element in fulfilling the requirements
of Section 301 (h)( 1)(G) of CERCLA for the report is
an estimation of the resources needed by other
federal departments and agencies. The Superfund-
related resource needs of the other executive branch
departments and agencies for Superfund are met
through two sources; the Superfund Trust Fund and
the individual federal department or agency budgets.
The Superfund Trust Fund
Interagency Budget: EPA provides Trust Fund
monies to other federal departments and agencies
that support EPA's Superfund efforts. This is
accomplished through an interagency budget
under Executive Order 12580.
Site-Specific Agreements: EPA also provides
funds to other federal departments and agencies
from the Trust Fund through site-specific
agreements.
Individual Federal Department or Agency
Budgets
CERCLA-Specific Funds: Funds are budgeted
by individual departments and agencies
specifically for Superfund activities and
support, as part of the President's annual
budget submission.
General Funds: These funds are used for
CERCLA activities and support by the individual
departments and agencies, but are obtained
through existing or special appropriations.
48
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.3-1 (located at the end of this chapter)
summarizes reported expenditures of other federal
departments and agencies. The following information
was provided by the respective departments and
agencies to supplement resource needs.
Department of Agriculture
Congress appropriated $2 million in FY88, $5
million in FY89, $20 million in FY90, $25 million
in FY91, $26 million in FY92, and $16 million in
FY93 for hazardous waste management activities of
the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Because
hazardous waste management activities are performed
under both CERCLA and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), currently, USDA split
the monies between the two programs 75/25
(CERCLA/RCRA). USDA intends to dedicate its
Superfund effort to planning and RA efforts at
abandoned mines for the U.S. Forest Service and to
various activities by the Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Forest Service, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Farmers Home
Administration, Soil Conservation Service, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, and the Commodity
Credit Corporation.
Department of Commerce
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) carries out many of the
responsibilities of the Department of Commerce
under CERCLA. NOAA's CERCLA program goals
are to: (1) work with EPA and other agencies to
identify, evaluate, and mitigate the adverse effects of
hazardous substances on, and risks to, natural
resources in coastal areas, and (2) strengthen and
accelerate technologies used in planning for and
responding to hazardous substance releases.
NOAA's CERCLA program goals are addressed
through a regional network of Scientific Support
Coordinators, who work with On-Scene Coordinators
to mitigate the effects of releases into coastal areas,
and Coastal Resource Coordinators, who work with
EPA to mitigate the effects of releases from hazardous
waste sites.
NOAA acts on behalf of the Secretary of
Commerce as a federal trustee for natural resources
in coastal and marine areas affected by hazardous
substance releases. NOAA, through Coastal Resource
Coordinators, works with EPA to evaluate natural
resource concerns at coastal hazardous waste sites
and to ensure coordination among state and federal
natural resource trustees. When threats to natural
resources cannot be addressed through CERCLA
remedial actions, NOAA may seek to repair natural
resource damages through its Damage Assessment
and Restoration Program. This program is funded
separately from CERCLA.
The Department of Commerce also undertakes
site-specific clean-up actions at facilities under its
control.
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DOD) has the
authority and responsibility under CERCLA to clean
up contamination associated with past activities.
Beginning in 1984, DOD increased its emphasis on
hazardous waste cleanup by establishing the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). Under
this program, DOD identifies, investigates, and cleans
up contamination and other environmental damage
for which DOD is responsible. One element of
DERP, the installation restoration program, follows
the procedures of the NCP in cleaning up
contamination from past activities. By the end of
FY91, DOD identified more than 17,000 sites on
more than 1,800 installations with the potential for
contamination. DOD is committed to cleaning up
currently identified contaminated sites and plans to
spend approximately $1.56 billion during FY92 to
continue this effort.
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Department of Energy
The Department of Energy (DOE) is involved in
conducting remedial activities at 17 DOE facilities
listed on the NPL. Prior to FY91, DOE executed
seven CERCLA section 120 interagency agreements
(lAGs) with EPA and states that addressed
environmental issues at eight of DOE's NPL sites.
These eight sites include: the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory-Main Site; the Hanford Site;
the Monticello Mill Site and Vicinity Properties, the
Ross Complex (Bonneville Power Administration),
the Fernald Environmental Management Project
(formerly known as Feed Materials Production
Center), the St. Louis Site (including the St. Louis
Airport Site, Latty Avenue Properties and Vicinity
Properties), and the Mound Plant. During the calendar
year for 1991, DOE executed four CERCLA section
120 agreements with EPA and the states. These
agreements were reached for the Rocky Flats Plant,
the Maywood Site, the Wayne Site, and Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory. Additionally,
changes to two existing CERCLA section 120 lAGs
were undertaken in 1991. These activities included
an amended Federal Facility Consent Agreement for
the Fernald Environmental Management Project and
a "major change" for the tri-party agreement for the
Hanford Site.
Department of Health and Human
Services
Agency for Toxic Substarices and Disease Registry:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) is a part of the Public Health
Service within the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. ATSDR's mission is to prevent or
mitigate adverse human health effects and diminished
quality of life resulting from exposure to hazardous
substances. ATSDR is charged under CERCLA
with various responsibilities, including: emergency
response; public health assessments, toxicological
profiles, health studies, surveillance and registries;
and health education.
ATSDR's emergency response staff are
responsible for providing health related technical
support to federal, state, and local responders during
emergencies caused by the release of hazardous
substances. ATSDR Emergency Response
Coordinators have immediate access to a wide variety
of professional expertise including chemists,
toxicologists, environmental scientists, and medical
professionals.
During FY91, ATSDR participated in 10
simulated hazardous substances emergencies, many
of which involved an average of 60 participants and
400 observers from federal, state, and local agencies
and organizations. ATSDR also supported, through
cooperative agreements, emergency response
activities in five state health departments. As a result
of ATSDR activities in this area, the capability of
participating states to respond to an emergency
involving hazardous substances has been significantly
improved. In addition, ATSDR provided
approximately 900 health consultations to EPA
regional and state/local officials.
Public health assessments are required, under
CERCLA, to be developed within one year from the
date a site is proposed for the NPL. EPA and other
agencies use the assessments to determine the extent
of danger to public health from a release or threatened
release of a hazardous substance. They also serve as
an information resource for federal, state, and local
environmental and health officials and the public.
During 1991, ATSDR prepared a total of 162 public
health assessments.
Additionally, in 1991, ATSDR determined that
the identification of adverse human health conditions
related to populations living near Superfund sites
would provide direction for program activities in
support of the ATSDR public health assessments.
The ATSDR priority health conditions are birth
defects, reproductive disorders, cancer (selected
sites), kidney dysfunction, liver dysfunction, lung
and respiratory diseases, and neurotoxic disorders.
During 1991, ATSDR published the top 275
substances of concern at hazardous waste sites.
ATSDR also reranked all of the substances on the
NPL hazardous substance list; added 25 new
hazardous substances to the list; developed and
distributed 19 toxicological profiles on 26 substances;
and identified 202 priority data needs for 38 of the
most hazardous substances.
ATSDR, in conjunction with states, has
conducted, or is conducting, approximately 100
50
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
human health studies. These studies evaluate persons
living at or near hazardous waste sites across the
United States. Work was in progress on 49 sites in
FY91. Of five ATSDR studies completed, three
studies concentrated on exposure to lead and other
heavy metals, and other important public health
issues.
ATSDR offers funding and assistance to state
health departments to be used for the development of
educational materials and activities in environmental
medicine for health care professionals. In FY91,
ATSDR trained approximately 4,000 health
professionals through these cooperative agreements.
ATSDR also developed 15 case studies in
environmental medicine in FY91 and distributed
copies of them to 45,000 health professionals.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:
The accomplishments achieved by the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
in FY91 are as follows:
Worker Training Program: NIEHS received
$20 million from FY91 appropriations to support
grants aimed towards occupational safety for
workers that perform dangerous jobs and manage
hazardous substance emergencies. Between 1987
and 1991, the first four years of the worker
training program, NIEHS supported 16 primary
grantees representing a consortium of over 60
different organizations and local government
units. This includes 11 primary grantees
comprised of 44 cooperating institutions funded
by NIEHS in 1991. The program has trained
200,000 workers across the country in 7,000
classroom and hands-on training courses, which
have accounted for almost four million contact
hours of actual training.
Super/and Basic Research Program: The
Superfund basic research program of NIEHS
supports a range of research addressing broad
public health concerns, in particular, the release
of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes
into the environment originating from
uncontrolled waste disposal sites.
NIEHS conducts research in the development of
advanced techniques for the detection and evaluation
of the effects of hazardous substances on human
health. The research of the multidisciplinary program
is designed to provide a broader and more detailed
body of scientific information to be used by state,
local, and federal agencies as well as private
organizations and industry in making decisions related
to the management of hazardous materials.
In 1991, there were 11 research programs
encompassing 98 individual research projects, which
address a variety of legislative areas. The following
are examples of ongoing research projects supported
by the NIEHS:
- - University of California at Berkeley: Steam
injection, which is a means of accelerating liquid
waste removal while minimizing the volume of
waste fluids, provides a rapid way of removing
volatile solvents from soil. Researchers are now
exploring the prospects of using the injection
technique together with bioremediation as an
effective way of cleaning up hazardous waste
sites. Aspects of the project have been adopted
by the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation program at EPA.
- - State University of New York at Albany:
Research is being conducted that focuses on
human monitoring of dietary exposure to
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from
hazardous waste. Researchers defined a study
population of 10,000 Mohawk Indians living
along a stretch of the St. Lawrence River that has
significant levels of PCBs in water, sediment,
and biota from upstream industries. Studies have
shown that most of the women have been exposed
to high levels of PCBs from eating fish. This
finding is the first time that a point source of
PCB exposure has been linked to a biological
marker of dose in humans.
- - University of Washington: Physio-logical
pharmocokinetic models are being used to
describe absorption, distribution, and fate of low
level exposures to humans from chemicals
associated with Superfund sites. The blood-to-
air partition coefficient, which reflects the
solubility of contaminants in blood, is one of the
more important factors that influence the rate of
51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
absorption. Experiments have shown that this
coefficient is dependent on contaminant
concentration in the air at low levels of exposure
common at Superfund sites. The study of the
relationship between hazardous substances in
the environment and their effects on human
health is in its infancy. The Superfund basic
research program represents auniquely integrated
series of studies designed to produce important,
immediate, and practical results in the toxic
waste field.
Department of the Interior
Each of the nine bureaus and four territorial
elements of the Department of the Interior (DOI)
provides support to the Superfund program, mostly
assisting the National Response Team and Regional
Response Teams (RRTs). DOI's role in the program
focuses on three general areas:
Response management, including RRT
assistance activities, incident-specific activities,
and NPL site remedial response activities;
Emergency response preparedness, including
RRT participation, regional RRT workgroups,
and RRT support; and
Trust resources/damage assessment, including
coordination of natural resource trustee concerns,
natural resource damage assessment briefings,
and settlements of trustee resources.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible
for all judicial litigation brought under CERCLA.
To that end, DOJ is responsible for conducting civil
judicial litigation under CERCLA, representing EPA
in bankruptcy proceedings, prosecuting criminal
violations, conducting defensive and appellate
litigation, and participating as amicus curiae on
behalf of EPA as required to support effective
implementation of the statute. In addition, the DOJ
provides support on the negotiation of consent decrees
under Sections 106, 107, and 122 of CERCLA,
processes consent decrees in accordance with
approved interagency procedures, prepares and
disseminates reports on litigative activities, andkeeps
EPA informed on other CERCLA actions consistent
with the national program.
The enforcement efforts of DOJ play a crucial
role in the overall Superfund program. Successful
judicial enforcement actions to recover clean-up
costs revitalize the Superfund Trust Fund, and
enforcement actions to compel responsible parties to
perform cleanups are an integral part of EPA's
enforcement strategy.
Civil litigation efforts in supportof the Superfund
program have been extraordinarily successful. Since
1980, DOJ, together with the enforcement arms of
EPA, have achieved over 1,500 settlements with
responsible parties valued at over $5 billion. Over $3
billion of that figure was recovered in the last three
years. In FY91 alone, DOJ filed 154 judicial
complaints (the highest in history), recovered $83.4
million through cost recovery actions, and forced
defendants to undertake various clean-up activities
valued at $820 million. The number of active
CERCLA cases being litigated has risen from 159
cases with 523 defendants in FY87 to 480 cases with
3,098 defendants in FY91.
Superfund money provides DOJ with the
necessary attorneys, expert witnesses, and litigation
support vital to the enforcement component of the
CERCLA process.
Department of Labor
Funds appropriated under general interagency
agreements allow the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to provide EPA with
technical assistance in the area of worker safety.
SARA Section 126 requires OSHA to issue standards
for employees engaged in hazardous waste operations.
Programs operated by OSHA or states with OSHA-
approved plans protect workers at Superfund sites,
implement worker safety programs at Superfund
sites, and support the National and Regional Response
Teams.
OSHA performs laboratory analyses of samples
collected at Superfund site inspections and maintains
and calibrates technical equipment used for these
inspections. OSHA's analytical laboratory also
maintains a computerized system for tracking
52
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
hazardous waste inspection activity. As a member of
the National Response Team and the associated
Regional Response Teams, OSHA assists the teams
in meeting their annual workplans and performs
technical assistance site visits.
Department of Transportation
The Department of Transportation (DOT) uses
funding from its budget to support CERCLA-related
activities as carried out by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), the Maritime Administration (MARAD),
and the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA). The primary funding areas
in support of CERCLA requirements include
pollution abatement related to the operation of DOT
facilities; response actions for any release or
threatened release of hazardous substances within
the coastal zone, Great Lakes waters, ports, and
harbors; emergency response training; and technical
support.
Federal Aviation Administration: CERCLA activities
of the FAA involve pollution abatement. Activities
focus on hazardous waste cleanup at regional facilities
and other clean-up efforts.
United States Coast Guard: The USCG supports
the Superfund program by providing On-Scene
Coordinators who respond to any release or threatened
release of hazardous substances in the coastal zone.
USCG also undertakes pollution abatement activities
related to the operation of its own facilities.
Maritime Administration: MARAD's activities in
support of CERCLA involve testing and cleanup for
hydrocarbons in storage tank facilities at Kings Point
and other locations.
Research and Special Programs Administration:
RSPA activities in support of CERCLA and
Superfund requirements include hazardous waste
rulemaking and technical support, emergency
response training, hazardous materials/hazardous
substances incident reporting, and emergency
preparedness curriculum development. In addition,
RSPA is responsible for implementing a grant
program for the states established by the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
(HMTUSA) of 1990. The HMTUSA program will
support SARA-required emergency planning and
training for accidents and incidents involving
hazardous materials.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The enactment of SARA in 1986 caused many of
the voluntary preparedness and planning activities of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to become ineligible for funding under the
Superfund budget after September 30, 1987. To
continue the ongoing Superfund assistance to state
and local governments and to support efforts to
implement Title III of SARA, FEMA consolidated
funding requests under two separate authorizations
of appropriation.
Funding for Superfund activities was requested
under the Superfund interagency budget. The
remainder of FEMA' s hazardous materials activities,
including Title III, was incorporated into FEMA's
own operating budget (under its technological hazards
budget). No additional funds have been requested
under Section 301(h)(l)(G) to carry out Superfund
activities after FY87.
General Services Administration
Resources for environmental studies and
corrective projects are included in the GSA budget
and can be used for CERCLA studies/corrective
projects, if necessary.
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA's) environmental
compliance and restoration program was initiated in
FY88 to ensure compliance with mandatory statutory
environmental requirements. NASA's program
provides the means to conduct environmental
compliance, site cleanups, and restoration measures
at NASA field installations, government-owned
industrial plants, and other locations where NASA is
required to contribute to clean-up costs. CERCLA-
related activities are being addressed as part of the
program. Currently, NASA does not own any sites
listed on the NPL. However, NASA performs studies,
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
assessments, and RAs addressed under CERCLA
clean-up authorities. As ongoing studies and
assessments continue, additional cleanups and RAs
are expected to be initiated.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Prior to FY89, funding had not been budgeted
for Superfund cleanups. In FY91 and subsequent
years, the Veterans Administration (VA) will be
budgeting $2 million to meet projected costs. At the
present time, the VA is a PRP at a small number of
sites throughout the U.S. (Baldwin, Florida, and
Holden, Missouri).
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) does
not own any NPL sites; consequently, funds are not
needed for Superfund cleanup. TVA has been
notified, however, that it has been designated as a
PRP in two Superfund sites; issues at these two sites
have not been fully resolved. At this time, TVA
cannot determine in which fiscal year these issues
will be resolved nor how much cleanup will cost.
54
-------
L/l
Exhibit 3.3-1
CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal Departments and Agencies
(Dollars in Millions)
Federal Departments and
Agencies
Defense
Energy
Health and Human Resources
ATSDR
NIEHS
Justice
Transportation
NASA
Interior
Agriculture
Commerce (NOAA)
Veterans Affairs
FEMA
FEMA Relocation
Tennessee Valley Authority
Labor (OSHA)
General Services Administration
TOTAL
FY88 Actual
(Dollars)
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
402.8
87.0
43.0
28.9
16.4
3.0 7.8
1.7
1.1 9.6
1.5
2.4 1.7
..
2.0
..
..
0.4
0.3
97.2 512.4
FY89 Actual
(Dollars)
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
502.5
112.8
44.5
21 .9
25.1
4.9 5.8
1.4
1.1 24.7
3.5
2.3 1.0
5.0
1.7 1.0
-
-
.04
-
101.54 657.7
FY90 Actual
(Dollars)
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
601.3
431.6
45.2
36.3
25.8
4.8 11.4
5.5
1.2
10.0
2.1 3.6
12.0
1.7 1.4
5.9
..
1.0
124.0 1,076.8
FY91 Actual
(Dollars)
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
1,062.5
1 ,000.0
48.5
41.9
25.8
4.8
7.3
1.2
..
2.2
..
1.8
-
-
0.7
-
126.9 2,069.8
f
Source: EPA Office of Program Management.
i
I
2
§
-------
Exhibit 3.3-1 (continued)
CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal Departments and Agencies
(Dollars in Millions)
Federal Departments
and Agencies
Defense
Energy
Health and Human Services
ATSDR
NIEHS
Justice
Transportation
NASA
Interior
Agriculture
Commerce (NOAA)
Veterans Affairs
FEMA
FEMA Relocation
Tennessee Valley Authority
Labor (OSHA)
General Services Administration
Total
FY92 Operating Plan
(Dollars)
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
1,562.4
1,393.3
54.5
51.1
32.3
4.8 28.0
11.0
1.2
19.8
2.2 5.6
2.0
1.8 1.8
..
4.3
0.7
..
148.6 3,028.2
FY93 Budget Request
(Dollars)
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
1,513.2
1,796.1
42.0
11.9
32.3
4.8 14.9
14.6
1.2
12.0
2.2
..
1.8
--
--
0.7
--
96.9 3,350.8
FY88-FY93 Total
(Dollars)
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
5,644.7
4,820.8
277.7
192.0
157.7
27.1 67.9
41.5
7.0 34.3
46.8
13.4 11.9
19.0
10.8 4.2
5.9
4.3
3.5
0.3
695.1 10,695.7
(A
(A
I
(/>
J
2
Source: EPA Office of Program Management.
-------
Chapter 4
Federal Facilities
Program
The increased role federal agencies and
departments have taken in cleaning up hazardous
waste sites at federal facilities contributed to
Superfund progress in FY91. Departments and
agencies of the federal government manage a vast
array of industrial activities at 27,000 installations.
Federal facility clean-up activities present unique
management problems from the standpoint of
compliance with federal environmental statutes.
Although federal facilities are only a small percentage
of the regulated community, most federal installations
are larger and more complex than their private
industrial counterparts. During FY91, a total of 15
federal agencies reported a combined budget of
approximately $2.9 billion to be devoted to
environmental programs in air, water, drinking water,
pesticides, Superfund, and other areas. This amount
is almost double the FY90 total of $ 1.5 billion.
4.1 FEDERAL FACILITY
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER
CERCLA
Federal facilities must comply with CERCLA
requirements to the same extent as private facilities.
Federal agencies and departments responsible for
facilities, therefore, must conduct preliminary
assessments (PAs) and site inspections (Sis), in
addition to performing clean-up actions. To ensure
federal facility compliance with CERCLA
requirements, EPA not only provides advice and
assistance, but also takes enforcement action when
appropriate.
States may also have jurisdiction at federal
facilities. Under state statutes, states may exercise a
range of authority and enforcement tools under
CERCLA in addressing federal facility violations.
Violations may also be addressed by Indian tribes
who may act as either a lead or support agency during
each phase of a Superfund response.
4.1.1 Facility Responsibilities
Federal departments or agencies have the
responsibility for identifying and addressing
hazardous waste sites at facilities they own oroperate.
They are required under CERCLA to comply with all
provisions of federal environmental statutes and
regulations, as well as all applicable state and local
requirements. Federal facilities track their compliance
status to generate the information to meet such
requirements.
EPA is committed to enforcing compliance with
CERCLA.
4.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role
EPA works through its Office of Federal Facilities
Enforcement (OFFE) in the Office of Enforcement
to assist federal agencies with cleanup. EPA
responsibilities include assisting and ultimately
concurring in remedy selection, providing technical
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 4
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
IAG Interagency Agreement
NACEP National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy
and Technology
NPL National Priorities List
OFFE Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA Preliminary Assessment
RA Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
SI Site Inspection
TIO Technology Innovation Office
advice and assistance, reviewing federal agency
pollution and abatement plans, and resolving disputes
regarding noncompliance. To meet these
responsibilities, the Agency relies on personnel from
EPA Headquarters, the regional offices, and the
states. To track the status of federal facilities, EPA
uses a number of information systems. The Facility
Index System, for example, provides an inventory of
federal facilities subject to environmental regulations.
4.1.3 The Role of States and Indian
Tribes
Although in a more limited capacity than that of
the Agency, both states and Indian tribes have been
given authority to assist in federal facility cleanup.
States are encouraged to negotiate settlements where
possible by encouraging violators to enter into
cooperative agreements. EPA retains parallel legal
authority and responsibility to enforce federal law,
but the Agency intervenes only when a state fails to
take timely and appropriate action, when a state
requests that EPA take the lead, or when other
limiting circumstances warrant EPA response.
EPA is committed to ensuring meaningful
involvement of tribes in compliance enforcement.
Involved Indian tribes must be federally recognized,
have a tribal governing body that is currently
performing governmental functions to promote
health, safety, and welfare of the affected population,
and have jurisdiction over a site either listed in the
CERCLA Information System or proposed or listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL).
4.2 FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
OFFE, in conjunction with various other
Headquarter offices, regional offices, and states,
ensures federal department and agency compliance
with CERCLA and RCRA requirements. In order to
track the compliance status of federal facilities,
OFFE maintains the Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket. The fiscal year has
shown an increase in the number of federal facility
sites listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket and the NPL. Also, several
interagency agreements were negotiated in an effort
to facilitate cleanup.
4.2.1 Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Federal facilities that have areas contaminated
with hazardous substances are identified on the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket, which was established under CERCLA
Section 120(c). The docket documents the federal
facilities Superfund program. Information submitted
to EPA on identified facilities is compiled and
maintained in the docket, where this information is
made available to the public.
On February 12,1988, the initial federal agency
docket was published in the Federal Register. At
that time, 1,095 federal facilities were listed. Exhibit
4.2-1 shows the increase in the number of sites on the
docket since its first publication. During FY91,334
sites were added and 28 were removed. (Facilities
are removed from the docket for such reasons as
incorrect reporting of hazardous waste activity or
transfer from federal ownership.) The most recent
58
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
FY91 update of the docket, listing 1,602 federal
facilities, was published in the Federal Register on
September 27,1991. Of these sites, the Department
of Defense (DOD) owns and/or operates 764 (48
percent) and the Department of the Interior (DOI)
owns and/or operates 374 (23 percent). The remainder
are distributed among 17 other federal departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities. A breakdown of the
facilities on the docket is illustrated in Exhibit 4.2-2.
4.2.2 Progress towards Cleaning Up
Federal Facilities on the NPL
At the end of FY90, 116 federal facilities were
listed on the NPL. During FY91, three facilities
were proposed for listing on the NPL, although none
were made final. Federal departments and agencies
made substantial progress during FY91 towards
cleaning up federal facility sites listed on the NPL.
Activity at federal facility sites included starting 115
remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs)
and signing 21 records of decision (RODs). The
federal government began 23 remedial designs and
15 remedial actions (RAs) at federal facility sites. In
FY91,22 removal actions were begun and 18 removal
actions were completed at NPL and non-NPL federal
facility sites.
4.2.3 Federal Facility Agreements
under CERCLA Section 120
To accomplish required hazardous waste
cleanups, EPA negotiated 24 interagency agreements
(lAGs) under CERCLA in FY91. Through FY91,
a total of 85 lAGs, covering 94 NPL sites, have been
signed with other federal agencies. EPA has also
signed 70 federal facility compliance agreements,
issued two unilateral administrative orders, and issued
16 administrative consent orders with other federal
agencies under statutes other than CERCLA.
Agreements between EPA and the responsible federal
department or agency document some or all of the
Exhibit 4.2-1
Number of Federal Facilities on the
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
2/12/88
11/16/88
12/15/89
8/22/90
9/27/91
1,095
1,170
1,268
1,602
Dates are those on which updates were
published in the Federal Register.
Source. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
phases of remedial activity to be undertaken at a
federal facility from the RI/FS through the
implementation of the RA. As a matter of policy,
EPA includes states as signatories to these
agreements.
lAGs formalize the procedure and timing for
submittal and review of documents and include a
schedule for all remedial activities, in accordance
with the requirements of CERCLA 120(e). They
also establish a mechanism to resolve any disputes
between the signatories. Furthermore, EPA can assess
stipulated penalties under these agreements.
LAGs must comply with the public participation
requirements of CERCLA Section 117 and are
enforceable by the states and citizens through citizen
suits. Additionally, CERCLA authorizes courts to
impose penalties against federal agencies and
departments in suits brought by states or citizens for
failure to comply with lAGs.
59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 4.2-2
Distribution of Federal Facilities on the
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
Department of Defense
Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
Department of Agriculture
Department of Transportation
Tennessee Valley Authority
Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Justice
United States Postal Service
Civil Corp of Engineers
General Services Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Commerce
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Department of the Treasury
Department of Health and Human
Services
Central Intelligence Agency
Department of Labor
Small Business Administration
TOTAL
764
374
90
77
62
35
32
32
30
24
19
18
15
15
6
5
2
1
1
1,602
(48%)
(23%)
(6%)
(5%)
(4%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
d%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0.4%)
(0.3%)
(0.1%)
(0.06%)
(0.06%)
Note Percentages total less than 100% due to rounding
Source Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
4.2.4 Report to Congress on EPA
Responsibility under CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5)
CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) requires each federal
department and agency to furnish an annual report to
Congress on progress toward implementing
CERCLA at its facilities. The report must include
information on progress toward entering into lAGs,
cost estimates for the work proposed in each IAG,
public comments on lAGs, a description of any
instances in which no agreement could be reached,
progress of RI/FSs and RAs initiated at federal
facilities on the NPL, and progress in remedial
activities at sites not listed on the NPL.
Of the 1,602 sites on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, 18 are
EPA-owned. None of these EPA-owned sites are
listed on the NPL. Remedial progress at these
facilities is described in an EPA annual report, as
required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5). The report
is provided in Appendix E of this document.
4.3 FEDERAL FACILITIES PROGRAM
INITIATIVES
EPA recognizes that the efficient approach to
preventing pollution problems at federal installations
is through educational outreach before problems
occur. The Agency has continued to seek fundamental
change in the behavior and understanding of federal
personnel regarding responsibilities in the
environmental arena. To promote this change, EPA
has coordinated a number of important interagency
educational and outreach efforts. During FY91,
EPA continued to host the successful EPA/Federal
Agency Roundtable, where representatives of
approximately 50 federal agencies meet monthly to
exchange information. The Roundtable provides a
forum for an exchange of technological information
and allows EPA's environmental media experts to
discuss existing or proposed approaches and
regulations affecting compliance by other federal
agencies.
EPA also continued a high-level dialogue with
the Department of Energy (DOE) and DOD to
improve protection of the environment at installations
under their control. This was accomplished through
the efforts of a steering committee consisting of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Environment at DOD, the Director of the Office of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
at DOE, and the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Federal Facilities Enforcement at EPA. Under the
direction of the steering committee, seven
60
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
workgroups consisting of experts from each of the
three agencies dealt with identified issues.
4.3.1 Segregating Federal Facilities
on the NPL
The July 1991 30-Day Study included a
recommendation to segregate federal facilities from
other sites on the NPL. This recommendation was
put into effect in Update 12 of the NPL, published in
February 1992. The update contains language that
distinguishes more clearly the roles of EPA and other
federal departments and agencies.
Segregation of federal facilities will assist the
public in understanding that EPA is not the lead
agency for all sites on the NPL. Also, distinguishing
federal facilities from sites in the general Superfund
section of the NPL will allow a more objective
assessment of progress at sites on the non-federal
portion of the NPL. Regardless of the segregation,
EPA's responsibility for overseeing federal facility
compliance with CERCLA will remain unchanged.
4.3.2 Other Initiatives
In order to facilitate federal facility cleanup,
OFFE initiated numerous actions in FY91.
Accomplishments include establishing a leadership
council, coordinating technology development,
accelerating facility cleanup, successfully using
enforcement measures, and forming a military base
closure workgroup.
Leadership Council
To lead nationwide federal agency efforts in
cleaning up federal facilities, EPA established a
Federal Facilities Cleanup Leadership Council
consisting of members representing EPA
Headquarters, regional program offices, and offices
of regional counsel. The council met for the first
time during FY91, focusing on policy matters related
to cleanup at federal facilities. The council will serve
as a forum for developing national policy and
guidance; addressing technical, enforcement, and
strategic planning issues; and developing a team
approach toward making the federal facility clean-up
program a model of success.
Also in FY91, OFFE began a pivotal national
dialogue on federal facility environmental
management. The participants in this effort met
several times during FY91 and will continue to
address key issues during FY92. This multi-party
group includes representatives from DOD, DOE,
EPA, state and tribal governments, and environmental
and public interest groups. The group has focused on
developing a consensus concerning priority setting
for the cleanup of federal facilities.
Technology Development
OFFE and the Technology Innovation Office
(TIO) of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) began coordinating a number
of projects to increase the use of innovative
technologies at federal facilities. Federal facilities
offer unique opportunities for both the development
and application of innovative approaches to hazardous
waste remediation.
In April of 1991, the National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT) recommended that EPAfostertechnology
innovation for environmental purposes. Consistent
with NACEPT's recommendation, the Assistant
Administrator for OSWER issued a policy directive
entitled Furthering Innovative TreatmentTechnology
Use on June 10,1991. EPA believes this policy will
encourage responsible parties to explore more
effective and less costly technologies to solve the
considerable environmental challenge presented.
Additionally, the policy acknowledges the Agency' s
responsibility to lead the effort by promoting the use
of innovative technologies under Superfund
programs. The policy directive consisted of seven
potential initiatives directed at increasing field
applications for site remediation.
The Agency is exploring the use of federal
facilities both for site-specific technology
61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
demonstrations and as test locations for evaluation
of more widely applicable technologies. OFFE and
TIO are in the process of developing policies,
guidance, and procedures to enhance the use of
innovative technologies to remediate federal facilities.
Both DOD and DOE have expressed significant
interest in developing innovative technologies for
use at their facilities and in collaborating with EPA
on these efforts. OFFE and TIO anticipate
establishing a workgroup consisting of EPA
Headquarters and regional representatives to develop
appropriate methods for using federal facilities in
this way. This workgroup would work in coordination
with the Federal Facilities Cleanup Leadership
Council.
Accelerated Cleanup
Through several management and operational
reviews, the federal facilities program has identified
opportunities to expedite cleanups and is working to
explore these opportunities in ongoing programs.
One such effort is the guide, The Rood to ROD,
prepared jointly by EPA Region 3 and DOD in
FY91. This practical guide was prepared for
implementation at the Regional Project Manager
level.
Another effort is the joint management review
by EPA, DOD, and South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control of the response
programs at the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base. The
study was initiated in FY91 and will continue to
operate until the site moves into the RA phase. EPA
Headquarters and regions have also initiated
formation of several workgroups to review conditions
that are unique at federal facilities and to develop
recommendations that can be translated into national
program direction.
Enforcement
EPA encourages compliance at federal facilities
through a vigorous enforcement and outreach
program. Nationwide, over 820 inspections were
conducted at federal facilities during FY91. The
cornerstone of the enforcement program, involving
the 116 federal facilities listed on the NPL, is the
negotiation of an enforceable IAG under CERCLA
at each facility. Each IAG includes specific schedules
for cleanup of hazardous waste at the sites located on
the installation.
EPA took several precedent-setting actions in
federal facility enforcement during FY91. One of
the most significant of these resulted from a stipulated
penalty dispute at DOE's Fernald facility. This was
the first time a stipulated penalty dispute under a
CERCLA IAG was elevated to the EPA Administrator
for resolution. The May 1991 dispute settlement
provided that DOE pay $100,000 in fines and spend
$150,000 on additional environmental projects at
Fernald. This settlement received national attention
from the federal regulatory community.
On September 13, 1991, EPA signed an IAG
under CERCLA Section 120 with DOI, the U.S.
Army, and the State of Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency. The agreement provides for
remedial action at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge and is the first between DOI and EPA pursuant
to CERCLA Section 120. Furthermore, it is one of
the first CERCLA Section 120 agreements to include
more than one other federal agency as a potentially
responsible party. It is also the first CERCLA
Section 120 agreement to provide for private party
participation in remedial activities pursuant to
Sections 120(e)(6) and 122 of CERCLA.
To address enforcement policy matters in FY91,
EPA established the Federal Facilities Enforcement
Steering Committee, composed of senior Agency
personnel from Headquarters and regional offices.
The purpose of the steering committee is to function
as a "Board of Directors" for federal facility
enforcement policy issues.
Military Base Closure
OFFE worked extensively in FY91 on
environmental issues associated with the closure of
domestic military installations. OFFE represented
EPA on the Defense Environmental Response Task
Force, an interagency group charged with reporting
to Congress on two categories of issues relating to
response actions at bases that are being closed or
realigned under the Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1988. The task force considered possible
ways of improving interagency coordination within
62
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
existing laws, regulations, and administrative policies.
It also addressed methods for consolidating and
streamlining the practices, policies, and
administrative procedures of relevant federal and
state agencies. The Defense Environmental Response
Task Force submitted a report to Congress on
November 12, 1991.
A second significant OFFE initiative was the
formation of the Base Closure Workgroup. The
workgroup is currently developing approaches to a
number of issues, including identification of property
parcels to be transferred on closing bases and
scheduling of RI/FS activities to meet
Congressionally-mandated deadlines. The
workgroup reflects EPA's commitment to working
with the states and DOD to redevelop closing bases
in an environmentally sound and timely manner.
63
-------
-------
Chapter 5
Other
Statutory Requirements
for the Report
In addition to reporting on program progress,
CERCLA requires EPA to submit annual reports to
Congress on several other activities: (1) research on
and development of treatment technologies; (2)
minority firm participation in Superfundcontracting;
and (3) five-year reviews of sites where contamination
remains after remedial action (RA) is completed.
Progress in these areas is described in detail in this
chapter.
5.1 USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Ensuring that a broad range of proven, cost-
effective treatment technologies is available for use
at Superfund sites involves two distinct efforts:
expanding the pool of proven, innovative treatment
technologies, and eliminating institutional barriers
to the commercialization and availability of proven,
technically sound technologies.
To promote the application of clean-up
technologies, EPA emphasizes the role of the
Technology Innovation Office (TIO) in encouraging
innovation. TIO uses booklets, journals, databases,
and conferences to alert project managers, engineers,
academics, contractors, and other interested parties
to the availability of new technologies.
The Office of Research and Development (ORD)
contributes to the development of treatment
technologies by awarding grants and contracts issued
through its Office of Exploratory Research (OER).
ORD also invites, as part of the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program, technology
developers to demonstrate their new, innovative
technologies on wastes from current National
Priorities List (NPL) sites. In addition, ORD initiates
information transfer activities, including seminars,
bulletins, and computer systems, and supplies
technical assistance to the federal, state, and public
sectors in evaluating potentially applicable
treatments.
The selection and use at Superfund sites of
innovative treatment technologies increased
dramatically between 1987 and 1989. In FY90, the
number dropped slightly, but increased again in
FY91. Exhibit 5.1 -1 compares the selection and use
of established and innovative technologies, by fiscal
year, since EPA began collecting this data in 1983.
Use of Treatment Technologies
Formed in March 1990, TIO has been tasked
with promoting the application of innovative
treatment technologies to site cleanup. EPA
understands that not all innovative technologies will
be successful but believes that the benefits of
65
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Exhibit 5.1-1
Use of Established and Innovative Treatment Technologies by Fiscal Year
8"
"5
I
c
Q)
3
70
60 -
50
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86
Established Treatment Technologies
FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91
Innovative Treatment Technologies
Source: EPA Technology Innovation Office.
developing new technologies will outweigh any
resulting costs. Accordingly, on June 10, 1991, the
Agency reinforced TIO's mission in a directive,
Furthering Use of Innovative TreatmentTechnologies
in OSWER Programs.
In the directive, the Agency stated that "[EPA]
must invest the necessary resources and take the
risks now to develop the technologies necessary to
fulfill the long-term needs of our hazardous waste
clean-up programs." The directive encourages
selection of innovative treatment technologies by
On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs). TIO accomplishes its technology-
promoting mission through a wide-ranging
communication program, including publications and
databases, forums and conferences, and technical
assistance.
Publications and Databases
A SITE newsletter, written for OSCs and RPMs,
is published five times per year. The newsletter
focuses on applying innovative technologies in
the field and on providing methods for exchanging
information among field personnel.
A journal, Tech Trends, describes the successes
and problems associated with field applications
of innovative technology.
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-
Annual Status Report is a booklet produced by
TIO that lists every site where innovative
technology is used and provides technical
background information. The report also enables
technology vendors to evaluate the market for
innovative technologies in Superfund for the
next several years.
The Vendor Information System on Innovative
Treatment Technologies (VISITT) is a new
database containing on-line information on the
cost and performance of innovative technologies.
This database provides an innovative technology
information clearinghouse for manufacturers,
66
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 5
ATP Aerobic Thermal Processor
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Clearinghouse
CA Cooperative Agreement
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
IAG Interagency Agreement
ICMA International City Management Association
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
NAMC National Association of Minority Contractors
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
OER Office of Exploratory Research
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OSDBU Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OWPE Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
RA Remedial Action
RFP Request for Proposal
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SBIR Small Business Innovative Research
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TSB Technical Support Branch
VISITT Vendor Information System on Innovative
Treatment Technologies
WBE Women's Business Enterprise
engineering firms, and state and federal project
managers.
Forums and Conferences
TIO and the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) of ORD hold annual
international forums on innovative hazardous
waste treatment technologies. The third forum
was held in June 1991, in Dallas, Texas.
Approximately 750 representatives of various
government agencies, industries, and academia
attended the 37 presentations. Of these
presentations, half were given by vendors in the
SITE program, and the remainder by international
vendors.
The Federal Remediation Technologies
Roundtable is a forum for the exchange of
information among federal departments and
agencies using innovative remediation
technologies.
Technical Assistance
The Superfund Technical Assistance Response
Team provides specialized assistance to EPA
regional and state site managers by directing
them to recent research information, providing
assistance on characterizing waste, and designing
treatability studies.
Two forums, one for engineers and one for
personnel working with ground-water issues,
provide a link between laboratories conducting
SuperfundanalysesandEPAregions. Theforums
were created to answer technical questions from
laboratories, OSCs, and RPMs.
EPA laboratories receive immediate technical
support from contractors through a TIO-
sponsored contract.
Development of Treatment Technologies
During FY91, OER awarded 10 grants for
Superfund-related research and development. OER's
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
solicited proposals for research and development
and awarded nine contracts. Additionally, seven
new technology demonstrations were completed
through the SITE program. The SITE program also
accepted 13 technologies into the emerging
technologies program and 23 technologies into the
demonstration program.
5.1.1 The Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program
CERCLA requires that, when selecting a remedy
for a site, EPA give preference to treatment remedies
that reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
waste at the site. In 1986, to help meet this
requirement, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and ORD created
the SITE program. The goal of the program is the
67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
development, demonstration, and subsequent
application of new and innovative treatment
technologies in the cleanup of Superfund sites across
the country.
Now in its sixth year, the SITE program is an
integral component of the Agency's research into
alternative clean-up technologies. SITE emphasizes
the development of a variety of technologies that
differ in the treatment techniques they employ.
Technologies employing biological treatment,
physical and chemical treatment, and thermal
treatment all have been shown to be effective remedies
in certain situations. These technologies have
therefore been accepted into the SITE program.
Operating primarily through cooperative
agreements (CAs) between the Agency and
technology developers, the program allows for the
bench- and pilot-scale testing and the subsequent
refinement and larger-scale demonstration of
innovative remediation technologies. The SITE
program collects and evaluates performance data on
various technologies and assesses potential
technology applications. RREL is responsible for
planning and managing EPA's research,
development, and demonstration programs, including
the SITE program. Vendors of completed SITE
demonstration projects confirm the success of RREL
and the SITE program, citing an increase in use of
their technologies.
The SITE program is divided into four operational
areas: emerging technologies, demonstrations,
monitoring/measuremer.'i, and technology transfer.
The emerging technologies program provides a
framework to encourage the bench- and pilot-scale
testing and evaluation of technologies that have
already been proven at the conceptual stage.
Technologies are solicited in annual requests for
proposals (RFPs), and accepted technology
developers enter into either a one- or two-year CA
with EPA. The intent of this program is that,
following bench- or pilot-testing, technologies will
advance to the more rigorous testing of the
demonstration program; three technologies from
ORD's first emerging technologies program
solicitation (November 1987) currently are in the
demonstration program. In response to the FY90
solicitation, 13 new technologies were accepted into
the emerging technologies program in FY91, bringing
the total number of technologies in the program to
44. Exhibit 5.1-2 provides a percentage breakdown
by treatment technique of the technologies currently
being tested in the emerging technologies program.
In the demonstration program, engineering
performance, reliability, and cost data about specific
innovative technologies are generated during a
technology demonstration. The demonstration allows
prospective users to evaluate the technology's
applicability for use on specific wastes from specific
Superfund sites. Technologies are selected for the
SITE demonstration program through annual RFPs.
ORD issued an RFP for the demonstration program
in January 1991, and subsequently accepted 23
technologies into the SITE program for future
demonstration. The program currently has 63
participating developers working on 76 technology
projects. Exhibit 5.1-3 provides a percentage
breakdown by treatment technique of the technologies
currently in the demonstration program.
Seven developers completed project
demonstrations in FY91, bringing to 34 the total
number of technology and monitoring demonstrations
that have been conducted over the past five years
under the SITE demonstration program. The
demonstrations completed in FY91 are summarized
below.
Dehydro-Tech Corporation has continued to
develop the Carver-Greenfield process for
extraction of oily waste. The process separates
hazardous materials from their constituent solid,
oil, and water parts. The demonstration was
completed in August of 1991. Petroleum wastes
from the PAB Oil and Chemical Service, Inc.,
Superfund site in Abbeville, Louisiana, were
sent to EPA's research facility in Edison, New
Jersey, for the SITE demonstration. Preliminary
results indicate a successful separation of oily
drilling muds into their constituent parts.
ECOVA Corporations's slurry-phase
bioremediation (bioslurry) reactor is designed to
biodegrade creosote-contaminated material by
employing aerobic bacteria that use the
68
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.1-2
Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technology Program
Solidification/Stabilization
2 (5%)
Physical/Chemical (P/C)
21 (48%)
Thermal Destruction
7(16%)
Biological
10(23%)
Materials Handling
4 (9%)
Source: SITE: Technology Profiles, EPA, ORD, RREL
Exhibit 5.1-3
Innovative Technologies in the Demonstration Program
Physical/Chemical (P/C)
24 (32%)
Materials Handling
3 (4%)
Solidification/Stabilization
11 (14%)
Thermal Destruction
8(11%)
Thermal Desorption
13(17%)
Biological
15(20%)
P/C Radioactive
2 (3%)
Source. SITE. Technology Profiles, EPA, ORD, RREL
69
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
contaminants as their carbon source. The SITE
demonstration of the reactor was conducted in
September 1991 on waste obtained from the
Burlington Northern Superfund site in Brainerd,
Minnesota. Initial treatability results indicated
an overall contaminant reduction of 93.4 percent.
Horseheod Resources Development Company,
Inc., produces a flame reactor, a patented,
hydrocarbon-fueled flash smelting system that
treats metal-containing residues and wastes. The
reactor processes wastes with a hot reducing gas
produced by the combustion of solid or gaseous
hydrocarbon fuels in oxygen-enriched air.
Currently the prototype flame reactor technology
system operates with a capacity of 1.5 to 3.0 tons
per hour in a stationary mode at the developer's
facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania. The SITE
demonstration test ran from March 18 to 22,
1991, on secondary lead soda slag from the
National Smelting and Refining Company
Superfund site in Atlanta, Georgia. The test was
conducted at the Monaca facility under a research
development and demonstration permit subject
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
All effluent slag passed the toxicity characteristic
leachate procedure (TCLP) limits criteria.
Retech, Inc., developed plasma arc vitrification,
a process that occurs in a plasma centrifugal
furnace using a thermal treatment process in
which heat from a transferred arc plasma creates
a molten bath that detoxifies the feed material.
Organic contaminants vaporize and react at
temperatures of 2,000°F to 2,500°F to form
innocuous products. Solids melt and are vitrified
in the molten bath at2,800°Fto 3,000°F. Metals
are retained in this phase. When cooled, this
phase is a non-leachable, glassy residue that
meets the TCLP limits criteria. The SITE
demonstration was conducted in July 1991, at a
Department of Energy (DOE) research facility.
The furnace processed approximately 4,000
pounds of waste. All feed and effluent streams
were sampled to assess the performance of this
technology.
Silicate Technology Corporation's (STC's)
technology for treating hazardous waste uses
silicate compounds to solidify and stabilize
organic and inorganic constituents in
contaminated soils, sludges, and ground water.
STC's organic chemical fixation/solidification
technology involves bonding organic
contaminants into the layers of an aluminosilicate
compound. STC's inorganic chemical fixation/
solidification technology involves forming
insoluble chemical compounds that reduce the
overall reagent addition compared to generic
cementitious processes.
Under the SITE demonstration program, the
technology was demonstrated in November 1990
at the Selma Pressure Treating (SPT) wood
preserving Superfund site in Selma, California.
The SPT site was contaminated with organics,
mainly pentachlorophenol (PCP) and inorganics,
mainly arsenic, chromium, and copper. Results
indicate that STC's technology can treat PCP.
Extract and leachate concentrations of PCP were
reduced by approximately 97 percent. The
technology immobilized the arsenic, chromium,
and copper.
SoilTech, Inc., produces an aerobic thermal
processor (ATP) that thermally desorbs
hydrocarbons. The ATP heats and mixes
contaminated soils, sludges, and liquids in a
special rotary kiln that uses indirect heat for
processing. The unit desorbs, collects, and
recondenses hydrocarbons from solids. The unit
also can be used in conjunction with a
dehalogenation process to destroy halogenated
hydrocarbons through a thermal and chemical
process.
In May of 1991, the first SITE demonstration
of this technology used a full-scale unit on soils
70
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) at the Wide Beach Development
Superfund site in Brant, New York. The SoilTech
ATP unit removed more than 99 percent of the
PCBs in the contaminated soil at the Wide Beach
Development site, resulting in PCB levels below
the desired clean-up concentration of two parts
per million. A second demonstration, scheduled
for January 1992, will use a full-scale unit at the
Outboard Marine Corporation Superfund site in
Waukegan, Illinois.
WASTECH, Inc., produces a solidification and
stabilization technology that applies proprietary
bonding agents to soils, sludge, and liquid waste
contaminated with organics and inorganics. The
waste and reagent mixture is then mixed with
cementitious materials, forming a stabilizing
matrix. The specific reagents used are selected
based on the particular waste being treated. The
resultant material is anonleaching, high-strength
monolith.
A field demonstration at Robins Air Force
Base in Macon, Georgia, was completed in
August 1991. The WASTECH technology was
used to treat high-level organic and inorganic
waste from an industrial sludge pit. The
technology is now being commercially applied
to treat hazardous waste contaminated with
various organics and inorganics.
5.1.2 Superfund Research Grants
Various sources of funding are available for
Superfund-related research. OER administers two
significant funding programs: the Research Grants
Program and the SBIR Program.
The Research Grants Program provides funding
for research in environmental projects related to
health, engineering, physics, chemistry (with separate
categories for air and water), biology, and Superfund.
Researchers submit applications in response to an
annual solicitation. Examples of environmental
engineering grants include:
The study of soil flushing as a method of
remediating heavy metals from contaminated
soils at Superfund sites and of the method's
applicability as a viable, cost-effective method
(State University of New York at Buffalo);
The use of phytoremediation to reclaim soils
contaminated with low to moderate amounts of
chromium and lead (Rutgers University); and
The development of a cost-effective process for
removing toxic heavy metal ions from very
dilute aqueous waste streams using porous-
magnetic chitosan beads (a natural, renewable,
and abundant biopolymer) (Oregon State
University).
OER research grants generally last two to three years
at an average annual funding level of $108,000 per
grant.
SBIR funds high-risk research that EPA
anticipates will result in public benefit. The program
operates in two phases: Phase I projects are funded
up to $50,000 for six months to determine whether
the proposed research concept appears technically
feasible; Phase II projects involve a more substantive
research effort and a higher cost commitment for the
most promising projects to emerge from Phase I.
During FY91, SBIR received 367 Phase I proposals
and awarded atotal of 31 grants. Additionally, SBIR
received 30Phase II proposals and awarded atotal 14
grants.
Of the total grants awarded in FY91,10 were for
research related to Superfund; OER classifies
Superfund-related research grants according to solid
and hazardous waste disposal, mitigation of
environmental pollution problems at Superfund sites,
and air pollution control. OER awarded two Phase
II grants for research related to Superfund in the area
of solid and hazardous waste disposal.
71
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
5.1.3 Technical Assistance, Expert
Advice, and Information
Transfer
Many of the treatment technologies for Superfund
sites are new and complex, and information
concerning the performance capability, cost, and
availability of these technologies is limited. This
lack of available information stems in part from the
fact that many of these technologies have not been
tested on a pilot-scale with actual waste. Testing,
dissemination of test results, and the sharing of
technology-related information will increase the
visibility of innovative treatment technologies and
provide RPMs and OSCs with a screening tool in the
remedy selection process.
Management demands on RPMs allow them
little time to study the available information on
treatment technologies. Consequently, they may not
have the information to determine whether a new,
innovative technology is appropriate for use at a
specific site. To provide greater technical assistance
to the regions for the evaluation of treatment
technologies, ORD initiated two specific
organizational changes:
ORD's RREL formed the Technical Support
Branch (TSB) to coordinate technical support
activities. TSB works closely with designated
technology teams in providing site-specific
technical guidance. Such guidance was offered
at Superfund sites in FY91.
Under TSB, RREL established the Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team to provide
technical support to RPMs throughout the
remedial process for sites with particularly
complex problems.
Throughout FY91, ORD was involved in
numerous information transfer activities. The
Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Clearinghouse (ATTIC) integrates hazardous waste
data in a centralized, searchable source that may be
accessed by federal, state, and other public sector
officials. Among other services, ATTIC provides
database searches, expert contact lists, and
underground storage tank case-histories.
ORD continued its treatability assistance program
to perform and oversee treatability studies on new
technologies, and to perform treatability study support
activities. Results of the treatability assistance
program and other transfer activities include the
following:
Publishing the Guide to Conducting Treatability
Studies Under CERCLA, and initiating five
technology-specific treatability study guides;
Publishing the Inventory of Treatability Study
Vendors',
Publishing technical guidance documents on the
cleanup of lead battery and wood preserver sites;
Presenting seminars on the issues of explosive
wastes and lead-contaminated soils;
Publishing a number of bulletins for engineers
on site remediation technologies;
Developing a computer-assisted site evalu-
ation system to display and evaluate site
contamination data; and
Providing the regions with a course on treatment
technology screening.
The Agency's Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE) also administered an outreach
effort to provide information to local government
managers at sites where counties or municipalities
may be involved in or affected by cleanup of hazardous
waste. OWPE awarded two grants in September
1991 to the International City Management
Association (ICMA) and to the Vermont Law School.
The ICMA grant involves the dissemination of
information regarding the Superfund process to
local government officials. The grant specifically
involves producing an information kit, supporting
a peer exchange program, and establishing a
document center for distribution of instructive
materials.
The Vermont Law School grant complements
the ICMA grant by providing legal support for
the development of the information kit.
72
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
5.1.4 Research, Development,
Demonstration, and Evaluation
of New Technologies
ORD has continued efforts to respond to
recommendations in the 90-Day Study. Specific
activities include:
Participating in jointly funded activities with
DOE and Department of Defense (DOD) to
enhance the emerging technologies program;
Working closely with EPA Regions 2 and 5 in
evaluating thermal desorption technologies at
the Wide Beach Superfund site and the Anderson
Development Company Superfund site;
Working closely with Region 5 on a bilateral
agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany
for a technology demonstration exchange; and
Initiating several projects and conducting two
technology demonstrations at DOE and DOD
sites.
5.2 MINORITY FIRM PARTICIPATION IN
SUPERFUND CONTRACTING
Section 105(f) of CERCLA requires EPA to
consider the availability of minority contractors
when awarding contracts for Superfund work.
"Contracts," as defined by EPA, include both direct
procurements awarded by the Agency, and
procurements resulting from Superfund financial
assistance awards to states under CAs.
EPA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (OSDBU) is responsible for
ensuring that the Agency complies with Section
105(f). EPA satisfies Section 105(f) through direct
procurements via contracts and subcontracts,
including the Small Business Administration's
Section 8(a) procurements to minority contractors.
Additionally, otherfederal agencies, states, or Indian
tribes may award contracts and subcontracts to
minority firms with funds transferred to the agencies,
states, or Indian tribes from Superfund through
interagency agreements (lAGs) or CAs.
During FY91, EPA and other federal agencies
awarded contracts worth $31,862,422 to minority
contractors to perform Superfund construction, field
support, and professional services. This represents
3.96 percent of the total dollars obligated to finance
Superfund work during the fiscal year. Exhibit
5.2-1 illustrates that EPA awarded most of the contract
dollars ($29,700,000) to minority contractors through
direct procurements. Contracts and subcontracts
worth an additional $ 1,216,266 were awarded under
EPA/state CAs. Other federal agencies awarded
$946,156 worth of contracts and subcontracts to
minority firms with funds transferred from the
Superfund program through lAGs. The
Exhibit 5.2-1
Minority Contract Utilization during Fiscal Year 1991
Type of Activity
Direct Procurement
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements
TOTAL
Total Dollars Obligated
$475,284,136
$86,783,621
$243,507,157
$805,574,914
Minority Contractor
Participation*
$29,700,000
$1,216,266
$946,156
$31,862,422
Percentage of Total
Dollars
6.25
1.40
0.39
3.96
"This does not include Women's Business Entecpnse participation data.
Source. EPA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
73
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
($31,862,422) total does not include a $300,000
grant that EPA awarded to the National Association
of Minority Contractors (NAMC), a non-profit
organization, for Superfund training.
Exhibit 5.2-2 illustrates the amount of money
that EPA awarded to minority contractors through
each type of direct procurement. Small Business
Administration 8(a) contracts accounted for the
largest share of the total value of contracts that EPA
directly procured. Subcontracts awarded to minority
firms by EPA prime contractors accounted for the
next largest share.
5.2.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified
Minority Firms
OSDBUconductedanumber of activities during
the fiscal year to identify qualified minority firms
and inform them of opportunities available in the
Superfund program.
In cooperation with NAMC, OSDBU conducted
training sessions designed to assist minority
contractors in becoming eligible to compete for
Superfund contracts. A total of 151 participants,
representing 101 firms, took part in the training
sessions. The Agency added the represented
firms to its previous listing of qualified minority
firms.
EPA hosted the Superfund Marketing Trade Fair
in May 1991 to provide minority firms the
opportunity to meet individually with Superfund
prime contractors and responsible state officials;
44 participants from FY90 training sessions
attended the fair.
OSDBU, in cooperation with New Jersey,
Colorado, Texas, and Illinois, hosted minority
business enterprise (MBE) and women' s business
enterprise (WBE) workshops that were designed
to familiarize minority and women business
owners with the opportunities available in
Exhibit 5.2-2
Amount of Money Awarded to Minority
Firms through Direct Procurement
Type of Contracts
Small Business Administration 8(a)
Contracts
Minority Prime Contracts
Minority Subcontracts
TOTAL
Total Dollars
(in millions)
$16.90
$1.60
$11.20
$29.70
Source: EPA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
Superfund and other EPA programs; a total of
1,000 people attended the workshops.
EPA hosted its mid-year MBE/WBE workshop
in November 1990 and its annual MBE/WBE
workshop in April 1991. During both workshops,
EPA emphasized the need for improving minority
contractor utilization in the Superfund program.
This includes the new minimum 8 percent goal
as required by the administrative provisions of
P.L. 101-507.
5.2.2 Efforts to Encourage Other
Federal Agencies and
Departments to Use Minority
Contractors
OSDBU, in cooperation with the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response and the Grants
Administration Division, included special conditions
in each IAG between EPA and any agency or
department receiving Superfund monies. These
conditions ensure that agencies or departments
receiving Superfund money are aware of the
CERCLA Section 105(f) requirement to ensure the
availability of minority contractors when awarding
74
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
contracts for Superfund work. Another condition
requires that departments or agencies undertaking
Superfund work submit an annual report to EPA on
minority contractor utilization.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a
policy statement for the Corps to ensure the maximum
practicable opportunity for the utilization of minority
firms in the Superfund program under lAGs with the
Corps.
5.3 REPORT ON FACILITIES SUBJECT
TO REVIEW UNDER CERCLA
SECTION 121(c)
Certain selected remedies permit hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants to remain on
site if they do not threaten human health or the
environment. CERCLA Section 12 l(c) requires that
EPA review sites where the Agency selected such a
remedy no less often than every five years after
initiation of the RA to ensure that the remedy fully
protects human health and the environment.
CERCLA Section 121(c) also requires that a report
be submitted to Congress that lists the facilities for
which periodic reviews are required, the results of all
of the reviews, and any action taken as a result of the
reviews. FY91 was the first year in which a site
became eligible for the five-year review.
5.3.1 Five-Year Review
On May 23,1991, the Agency issued a directive
entitled Structure and Components of Five-Year
Reviews. The guidance defines the scope of five-
year reviews and identifies two types of reviews:
statutory reviews (required by CERCLA and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP)) and policy reviews (those
that EPA will implement as a matter of policy). In
August 1991, EPA issued a fact sheet on five-year
review guidance to reinforce the earlier policy.
On June 21, 1991, EPA Region 7 approved the
first Five-Year Review Report. The report covered
a policy review of the remedy at the Johns' Sludge
Pond site in Wichita, Kansas. On the basis of the
review, EPA determined that the RA "continues to
protect public health, welfare, and the environment"
at the site. Subsequently, Region 7 published in the
Federal Register a notice of intent to delete the
Johns' Sludge Pond site from the NPL.
5.3.2 Deletions from the NPL
The FY89 90-Day Study recommended that
EPA adopt a policy under which no site will be
deleted from the NPL until the Agency has conducted
at least one five-year review to verify that the
implemented remedy remains protective of human
health and the environment. In March 1990, EPA
published this policy in the preamble to the NCP. In
late 1991, the Agency re-examined the deletion
policy due to public confusion over EPA's decision
to retain on the NPL sites that were otherwise
eligible for deletion.
On December 4, 1991, EPA published in the
Federal Register a notice of change in policy
regarding five-year review and deletion from the
NPL. Effective as of the date of the notice, EPA will
no longer wait to delete a site from the NPL until after
it conducts one five-year review. The notice clarifies
that:
Five-year review and the deletion process are not
linked by statute.
The NCP specifies that deleted sites are eligible
for further Fund-financed RAs should future
conditions warrant.
EPA remains committed to conducting five-
year reviews of eligible sites and may publish a
"monitoring list" of sites at which it potentially
will conduct reviews.
75
-------
-------
Chapter 6
Program Implementation
and Support Activities
In addition to its more direct clean-up activities,
EPA undertook activities in FY91 to support progress
in the program, including efforts to improve
community relations and enhance public access to
Superfund information, strengthen EPA'spartnership
with states and Indian tribes, and improve program
efficiency. Through the implementation of
community relations directives and the issuance of
26 technical assistance grants (TAGs) in eight regions,
EPA assisted citizens in preparing to take part in the
clean-up process. Also, EPA facilitated involvement
by Indian tribes and states in the Superfund clean-up
process through implementation of Subpart F of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) and the administrative
requirements of 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O. In
addition, the Agency continued its efforts to improve
program efficiency by initiating activities to revise
its long-term contracting strategy and improve the
remedy selection process.
6.1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Effective and timely community relations and
the distribution of information to the public are
significant components of the Superfund program's
success. The 30-Day Study Task Force recognized
this and recommended that the Agency more
aggressively report its accomplishments to the public.
Toward this end, the Task Force suggested that EPA
identify alternative measures of reporting its success
and develop a communication strategy for announcing
every remedial action (RA) start and completion.
These recommendations affirmed the Superfund
program's belief in the importance of community
participation in the clean-up process and spurred the
program to improve its already active community
relations program during FY91.
6.1.1 Community Relations
Superfund's community relations program is
based on a commitment to inform citizens who are
affected by Superfund sites about those sites and
involve them in the Superfund clean-up process. All
public involvement efforts are guided by the
program's three goals:
To give the public an opportunity to comment on
and provide input to technical decisions;
To inform the public of planned or ongoing
actions; and
To focus and resolve conflict.
EPA has learned important lessons concerning
public involvement from efforts to achieve these
goals.
There are no formulas for approaching a
community. Each community is unique and
requires a specific communication strategy
designed toward its particular need.
77
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 6
CA Cooperative Agreement
CPCA Core Program Cooperative Agreement
IFR Interim Final Rule
LAN Local Area Network
NCR National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
NTIS National Technical Information System
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RA Remedial Action
ROD Record of Decision
RD Remedial Design
SACA Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
SSC Superfund State Contract
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
Generally, the best way to reach concerned
citizens is through informal activities.
Experience shows that even the most carefully
planned community involvement effort does not
guarantee positive results.
The best guideline for involving the public in
site decisions is early, often, and always. EPA
must begin outreach activities early in the process,
meet with citizens on a regular basis, and always
listen to citizens' concerns. Such a proactive
outreach program has proven to facilitate, rather
than impede, site cleanup. This is especially
important as EPA moves to streamline and
accelerate cleanups in the wake of the 30-Day
Study.
In FY91, EPA concentrated on implementing
the recommendations of the 30-Day Study and the
FY89 90-Day Study. Toward this end, EPA issued
a number of guidance directives early in the fiscal
year covering issues such as developing innovative
techniques for increasing public involvement,
minimizing problems caused by staff turnover,
incorporating citizen concerns into site
decisionmaking, and discussing site findings and
decisions with the public as they occur.
The policy, embodied in these directives, of
enhanced community involvement in the Superfund
process is gradually fostering an increase in public
confidence, based on mutual trust and respect at the
community level. For example, EPA voluntarily
missed the record of decision (ROD) deadline for the
Union Chemical Co., Inc., Superfund site to allow
the residents of Hope, Maine, additional time to
comment on EPA's proposed site remedy. The
Agency nearly tripled the 30-day public comment
period to meet citizen needs.
Likewise, EPA Headquarters community
relations staff has recommended the greater use of
informal "open houses" to facilitate communication
between EPA and local citizens. In one example, an
open house addressed and, to a great extent, resolved
intense community opposition to an incinerator at a
site in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
In addition to issuing directives geared toward
implementing the recommendations of the 30-Day
Study and the 90-Day study, EPA developed new
community relations policy guidance with respect to
remedial designs (RDs), RAs, removals, TAGs,
enforcement, and risk communication. The Agency
plans to publish each type of guidance as a separate
chapter of the upcoming edition of Community
Relations in Superfund: A Handbook.
6.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants
under CERCLA Section 117(e)
CERCLASection 117(e), as amended by SARA,
authorizes EPA to award TAGs. TAGs are available
to local groups affected by sites proposed for or listed
on the National Priorities List and by sites where
preliminary site work has begun. Using TAGs, local
groups employ technical advisors to increase their
understanding of conditions at hazardous waste sites
and the Superfund clean-up process. The TAG
program helps citizens become more knowledgeable
about the technical and scientific aspects of a
Superfund site and thus better prepared to participate
effectively in the clean-up process.
In FY91, EPA awarded 26 TAGs to community
groups in eight regions. This brings the total number
78
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 6.1-1
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded
during Fiscal Year 1988 through Fiscal Year 1991
30 -|
25 -
20
5 15
1
3
2 10-1
5-
26 TAGS
23 TAGS
4 TAGs
16 TAGS
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
Source EPA Hazardous Site Control Division.
of TAGs nationwide to 69, including 16 TAGs
awarded in FY90,23 TAGs awarded in FY89, and 4
TAGs awarded in FY88. Exhibit6.1-l illustrates the
number of TAGs awarded from FY 88 through FY91.
To ensure that all eligible groups have equal
access to technical assistance and an equal opportunity
to compete for the single TAG available for a
Superfund site, EPA has established a formal process
for evaluating applications. The maximum TAG
available is $50,000 per site. Under the current
program, the community contributes 20 percent of
the total cost of the TAG project. EPA waives the
community contribution requirement if the applicant
demonstrates financial need. Potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) and certain other groups and
organizations (for example, groups promoting a
single interest to the exclusion of other interests) are
not eligible to receive TAGs.
Day-to-day TAG program operations are
conducted under EPA's interim final rule (IFR) for
the TAG program and an amended IFR. The final
rule developed during FY91 incorporates suggested
changes for improvement. These suggestions came,
in part, from public comment received on the amended
IFR. Additional changes were derived from the
program experience EPA has gained in the two years
since the promulgation of the amendment in 1989.
In brief, improvements in the TAG final rule include:
Allowing additional activities to be funded under
the TAG award;
Simplifyingthe procedures forprocuring TAGs;
and
At complex sites, increasing the amount of funds
available and allowing grants to be renewed.
79
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
6.1.3 A Coordinated Approach to
Public Information
FY91 marked the fourth year of EPA's five-year
program to standardize and manage the extensive
Superfund document collection and incorporate it
into public information and outreach activities. Major
accomplishments during the fiscal year include:
Refining Superfund document production to
ensure consistency in content and appearance;
Issuing a comprehensive Compendium of
Superfund Publications that describes the entire
collection, both current and historical;
Incorporating the entire Superfund publication
collection into the National Technical
Information System (NTIS); and
Creating a "Superfund Order Desk" at NTIS to
expedite order processing and develop several
types of customized subscription services to
meet public user needs.
The National Technical Information
Service
Underthe Department of Commerce, NTIS serves
as a permanent archive and general source of federal
publications, including Superfund documents. Over
the past five years, however, the Superfund program
itself has provided interested parties with over two
million documents free of charge. Unfortunately,
due to resource constraints, this approach is no
longer possible.
EPA nevertheless remains committed to ensuring
that its documents will continue to be available to the
public. Consequently, the Agency and NTIS have
embarked on an ambitious joint project that will
bring the entire Superfund collection within quick
and easy access to all users external to the Agency.
NTIS has established a Superfund Order Desk where
users may order single copies or customized
subscriptions for documents most pertinent to users'
needs.
Pre-publication documents will continue to be
available at the desk prior to completion of formal
printing and distribution. A joint outreach and
marketing effort during FY92 will bring information
about this unique activity to all regular users. The
program is committed to high quality and quick
access, and will be monitored throughout FY92 and
FY93 by an interagency Quality Action Team under
the Agency's total quality management program.
The Superfund Docket
The Superfund Docket provides public access to
the materials that support proposed and final rules,
and receives and compiles public comments during
the rulemaking process. The public is allowed
access to docket materials following approval by the
Office of General Counsel and announcement in the
Federal Register. The docket also maintains viewing
copies of RODs and a limited stock of Federal
Register copies containing Superfund regulatory
information.
Other Information Sources
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline provides
information to the public and EPA personnel
concerning hazardous waste regulations andpolicies.
The hotline is a comprehensive source of general
information about ongoing issues in the Superfund
program. EPA also maintains the Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection in EPA Headquarters and
regional libraries. The collection contains documents
ranging from RODs to commercially produced books
on hazardous waste and Superfund.
6.2 EPA PARTNERSHIP WITH STATES
AND INDIAN TRIBES
EPA continues to promote and maintain its
partnership with states and Indian tribes in the
Superfund clean-up process. Subpart F of the NCP
and the administrative requirements in 40 CFR Part
35, Subpart O provide mechanisms for ensuring
meaningful state and Indian tribe involvement in
implementingSuperfundresponseactivities. Subpart
O describes EPA's authority to transfer funds and
responsibilities to states and Indian tribes so that
80
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
they may undertake response actions in accordance
with the NCP. It also describes the assurances
required from states and Indian tribes under CERCLA
Section 104.
FY91 activities included a conference where
states exchanged information on state Superfund
programs, and EPA conducted seminars that provided
information on proper administration of response
agreements. EPA also developed computer systems
to facilitate communication between state, Indian
tribe, and federal officials and to allow users access
to relevant information on NCP requirements.
Under authority of Subpart O, states took the
lead on several clean-up projects during FY91. States
supervised the initiation of eight remedial
investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs), nine RDs,
and seven RAs. This includes all state-lead activities,
including those financed by states, the Trust Fund, or
PRPs.
6.2.1 Response Agreements and the
Core Program
Response agreements provide states, Indian
tribes, and political subdivisions with the opportunity
to participate in response activities at sites under
their jurisdiction. The core program assists states in
developing their overall response capabilities.
Response Agreements
Certain prerequisites are common to all response
agreements. States and Indian tribes must
demonstrate the ability to track costs in accordance
with EPA financial and administrative standards.
For remedial (long-term) action to occur, states must
provide the Agency with certain other assurances.
These include demonstrating the capability to perform
operation and maintenance, providing a cost-sharing
match, demonstrating 20-year waste capacity, and
providing for off-site disposal.
Superfund State Contracts (SSCs): SSCs are
required when EPA assumes the lead for remedial
activities. These contracts between EPA and a state
specify the process for collection of cost-share
payments from states and/or political subdivisions
as required by CERCLA Section 104. The cost share
is generally 10 percent of the cost of the RA and is not
applied to planning activities such as the RI/FS and
RD. SSCs also are required when a political
subdivision assumes the lead for remedial activities.
The parties to this type of SSC include EPA, the
state, and the political subdivision. The SSC must be
in place before EPA can transfer cooperative
agreement (CA) funds to the political subdivision.
SSCs also serve as the documents by which states
provide EPA with required assurances.
Lead Agency Cooperative Agreements: Lead agency
CAs facilitate the implementation of the NCP by
allowing states, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions (with appropriate hazardous waste
management capability and sufficient resources) to
assume lead agency responsibility for many response
activities. As the lead agency, EPA provides the
state, Indian tribe, or political subdivision with
Superfund Trust Fund monies to directly plan and
manage studies, RDs, and clean-up activities at
specified sites within their jurisdictions. For an RA,
a state-lead CA documents the state cost share (cash
or in-kind services) and Section 104 assurances.
Support Agency Cooperative Agreements (SACAs):
SACAs facilitate the implementation of the NCP by
allowing states, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions that do not have the capabilities required
to assume lead agency responsibility to actively
participate in response activities at sites under their
jurisdiction. As a support agency, the state, Indian
tribe, or political subdivision may assist the lead
agency through the sharing of information and
expertise, while benefitting from the experience of
participating in a Superfund response action.
Enforcement Cooperative Agreements: Enforcement
CA funds may be used by a state to undertake PRP
searches, issue notice letters for negotiation activities,
undertake administrative and judicial enforcement
actions, and oversee PRPs at EPA or state enforcement
response actions.
To be eligible for enforcement CA funding
under Subpart O, states must submit the following to
EPA:
A letter from the state Attorney General certifying
that the state has the capabilities to pursue
enforcement actions;
81
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
A copy of the statute that authorizes the state to
undertake enforcement actions; and
Any further documentation required by EPA to
establish the capability to undertake the
enforcement response.
Indian tribes must satisfy similar requirements.
The Core Program
The legislative history of SARA Section 104(d)
indicates the intent of Congress to increase the scope
of CERCLA funding to include certain basic, or
core, activities of states and Indian tribes not
attributable to a specific site, yet important to the
overall improvement of response capabilities. During
the initial years of the federal Superfund program,
before the formal establishment of a core program,
CA funds were tied to specific activities at specific
sites.
The core program was formally initiated as a
pilot program in FY87 with awards in three EPA
regions. Such annually awarded initial core program
cooperative agreements (CPCAs) have a single
budget and scope of work designed to enhance state
program activities. During FY91, EPA awarded a
total of 46 CPCAs. The distribution and value of
these agreements over past fiscal years is displayed
in Exhibit 6.2-1.
Subpart O modified the restrictions on CPCAs
by removing the funding cap, allowing a budget
period of up to three years, and emphasizing the
development of state program capabilities. EPA
typically budgets and distributes $10 to $12 million
in CPCAs annually among the ten regional offices.
Regions have the discretion to provide additional
funding from certain other funding categories if
monies are available. Ten states negotiated core
programs with multi-year budget periods in FY91.
Exhibit 6.2-1
Number and Value of Core Program Cooperative Agreements Awarded
during Fiscal Year 1987 through Fiscal Year 1991
25 -|
20 -
0)
jo 15 -
i
5
(0
§
= 10
5-
45 CPCAs
43 CPCAs
36 CPCAs
3 CPCAs
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
46 CPCAs
FY91
Source EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, State and Local Coordination Branch.
82
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
The core program offers states the opportunity to
develop comprehensive, self-sufficient state
Superfund programs. Approval of the budget request
and scope of work is dependent on the developmental
needs of a state's program, the demonstrated progress
of a state in meeting previous core objectives, and the
availability of funds. States are required to provide
a 10-percent cost share for core program awards.
EPA intends the core program to help lay the
groundwork for the implementation of an integrated
EPA-state/tribe approach for meeting Superfund
goals. The program is approaching its sixth year of
implementation and EPA is reviewing its
effectiveness to identify potential improvements in
the program.
6.2.2 Partnership with Indian Tribes
In FY91, the Superfund program was involved
in actively addressing hazardous waste problems on
Native American lands and in assisting tribes in
assuming regulatory and program management
responsibilities. The Superfund program continued
to promote involvement by interested Indian tribes
through site-specific CAs, CPCAs, and Superfund
memoranda of agreement.
Highlights of FY91 tribal involvement include
the following activities:
EPA Region 6 and a consortium of federally
recognized Indian tribal governments (the
nineteen sovereign pueblos of New Mexico)
signed a Superfund memorandum of agreement.
The Pueblo Consortium of New Mexico received
a $350,000 CPCA to support program planning,
EPA-state/tribe interagency coordination,
development of the tribe' s 20-year waste capacity
assurance plan, and CERCLA-related clerical
and administrative support.
The Navajo nation received a $250,000 CPCA
to support Navajo Superfund activities. The
Navajo nation also received more than $400,000
for site assessment activities.
TheSt.RegisMohawkswereawardeda$125,000
CPCA for FY90 and FY91 to support Superfund
activities at the General Motors Superfund site
in Massena, New York.
The Cherokee nation of Oklahoma was awarded
a $200,000 CPCA for FY90 and FY91 and a
$ 150,000 multi-site CA to conduct pre-remedial
site work.
As an ongoing activity, representatives from the
Agency' s Superfund program participate in the EPA/
Indian Tribe Workgroup. This workgroup works
with the EPA National Indian Program Coordinator
to address environmental issues affecting Native
Americans.
6.2.3 Other EPA Partnership
Developments
During FY91, the Agency was involved in a
number of additional partnership activities, some of
which directly respond to recommendations of the
30-Day Study and the 90-Day Study for improving
the Superfund process.
State Superfund Programs
The Agency co-sponsored the State Superfund
Programs Conference during FY90 with the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials. One goal of the conference
was to initiate an exchange of information among
states about state Superfund programs. The
conference included panel discussions on state
program issues, demonstrations of training tools for
state programs, and workgroup sessions on topics
relating to state Superfund programs. Session topics
included: establishing and enhancing state programs:
statutes and regulatory authorities; state program
resources; clean-up technologies; state management
issues; and state clean-up policies. During FY91,
EPA produced a post-conference document entitled
State Superfund Programs: The Managers Challenge
for the 1990s, which compiles the findings arising
83
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
from the conference. The Agency is planning another
co-sponsored conference for mid-FY92.
Response Agreement Training
The Agency continued to offer a Response
Agreements Seminar to provide EPA and state staff
with the skills and information needed to administer
CAs and SSCs. The three-day seminar provides
information on CAs and SSCs, their purposes and
applications. The seminar identifies steps necessary
to complete a response agreement, explains state
assurances, assists state project officers in calculating
a state's cost share, and describes techniques for
managing response agreements. The Agency
conducted two seminars during FY91 and plans to
conduct two additional seminars during FY92.
Information Systems Development
The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) completed the development of several
distinct information systems during FY91. The
EPA/state mailing system, a comprehensive directory
of state and federal officials, was produced as a
stand-alone software package adaptable for local
area network (LAN) use. Accompanied by a hard
copy booklet, this system lists key technical,
administrative, and legal personnel in the Superfund
program and can produce summary reports and
labels for all system entries.
Through additional EPA automated systems,
users can locate, retrieve, and copy information
about the NCP and 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O. These
systems are available on diskette in industry-standard
WordPerfect format and can also be used in a LAN
environment.
6.3 ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN TO
IMPROVE PROGRAM EFFICIENCY
In FY91, EPA initiated a number of activities to
improve the efficiency of Superfund. These activities
included revising the long-term contracting strategy
and initiating an effort to improve the remedy
selection process.
6.3.1 Long-Term Contracting Strategy
In response to recommendations in the 90-Day
Study, EPA developed the Superfund long-term
contracting strategy to analyze long-term contracting
needs and identify methods for meeting future
workforce demands, using both technical contractors
and in-house expertise. During FY91, EPA developed
the folio wing approach to monitor the implementation
of the long-term contracting strategy.
Formed an advisory committee to provide
oversight and direction and to inform upper
management of important issues that arise during
the strategy's implementation;
Designated leads to develop and manage a
national plan for each new contract component;
and
Appointed regional liaisons to represent the
program and administrative organizations in
each region and to develop plans for tailoring
each region's implementation of the long-term
contracting strategy to its needs.
EPA developed national plans for each new
contract component and formed workgroups to
begin the procurement process. By the end of
84
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
FY91, each region had begun developing plans
to meet its individual needs. Implementation of
the strategy will continue over a five-year period.
6.3.2 Remedy Selection Process
In an effort to improve the remedy selection
process, OERR and the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement initiated an effort to test and implement
findings in the study published in October 1990,
Improving Remedy Selection: An Explicit and
Interactive Process for the Superfund Program. The
study identified and evaluated problems based on
comments from approximately 100 individuals
representing all sectors of the Superfund community.
The study provided EPA with specific
recommendations for:
Establishing protective clean-up levels;
Clarifying Superfund statutory criteria for
cleanups; and
Improving consistency and interaction in remedy
selection.
EPA has taken the initiative in implementing
these recommendations, the recommendations of
the 30-Day Study to accelerate, streamline, and
standardize the clean-up process, and the related
recommendations of the 90-Day Study. As a result,
the Superfund program is cleaning up the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites more efficiently than
ever.
85
-------
-------
Appendix A
Status of Remedial
Investigations, Feasibility
Studies, and Remedial Actions
at Sites on the National
Priorities List in Progress on
September 30,1991
Appendix A satisfies the combined statutory
requirements of CERCLA Sections 301(h)(l)(B)
and (F). Accordingly, this appendix reports the
status and estimated completion date of all remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and remedial
action (RA) Title I projects in progress at the end of
FY91. 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 1990.
In addition to meeting these statutory requirements,
this appendix lists new remedial projects that were
begun in FY91 and were in process at the end of
FY91. 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).
LocationLocation 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, 1991.
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);
87
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
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 FY91.
Funding StartThe date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
Previous Completion ScheduleForprojects
ongoing at the end of FY90 that continued into
FY91, the quarter and fiscal year of the planned
completion date for the activity, as of 9/30/90.
This column is blank for projects that were
begun in FY91.
Present Completion Schedule The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion of the
activity, as of 9/30/91. This information was
compiled from CERCLIS on 10/18/91.
Status Status of the project with respect to
previous (FY90) and present (FY91) published
completion schedules, as follows:
On-schedule projects are designated by a zero
(0).
Projects that are behind schedule are designated
by a numeral indicating the number of quarters
that the project is behind schedule and a minus
sign (e.g., -4).
Projects that are ahead of schedule are designated
by a numeral indicating the number of quarters
that the project is ahead of schedule (e.g., 4).
Projects for which EPA has not estimated a
completion date are designated by an asterisk
(*).
Projects that were begun in FY91 are described
as new in the status column.
Projects described as DNE (date newly entered)
have funding starts in previous fiscal years and
no date in the Previous Completion Schedule.
These sites, for numerous reasons, were not
entered into CERCLIS during the fiscal year of
the funding start, or a change in the status of the
site or activity now requires that the activity be
published in the FY91 Report. For example,
several activities with the status of DNE were
state enforcement-lead or state-lead and financed
before FY91, and therefore did not fall under the
requirements ofCERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(B).
DuringFY91, a lead change resulted in Fund
money being used in the clean-up activities;
therefore, they are now included in this appendix.
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.
88
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
SITE NAME
Barkhamsted-New Hartford
Landfill
Kellogg-Deering Well Field
Lineaaster Switch Corp.
Old South ing ton Landfill
Revere Textile Prints Corp.
Solvents Recovery Service of New
England
Yauorski Waste Lagoon
Atlas Tack Corp.
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
Fort Devens
Fort Devens - Sudbury Training
Annex
Industri-Plex (Mark Philips
Trust)
LOCATION
Barkhamsted
Norwalk
Woodstock
South ington
Sterl ing
South ington
Canterbury
Fairhaven
Holbrook
Tyngsborough
Fort Devens
Fort Devens
Woburn
UNIT
01
03
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
03
03
01
02
01
02
03
02
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
LEAD
PRP
EP*
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
START
09/30/91
05/16/90
07/10/89
09/29/87
09/18/89
01/07/86
10/29/86
08/12/88
05/03/90
04/08/91
09/18/89
09/05/89
06/26/90
09/30/91
09/28/90
05/13/91
05/13/91
05/13/91
05/13/91
05/13/91
05/30/90
12/08/89
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
1
1
92
91
92
91
93
93
92
91
91
92
91
97
91
92
92
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
2
3
4
4
4
2
3
1
2
3
2
4
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
93
93
93
93
92
94
94
93
92
92
93
92
97
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
93
93
STATUS
new
-6
-7
-5
-3
-6
-6
4
-2
-2
-1
-3
0
new
-8
new
new
new
new
new
-4
-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
SITE NAME :
Iron Horse Park
New Bedford Site
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp
Edwards
PSC Resources
Plymouth Harbor/Cannon Engineering
Corp. /Cordage)
Salem Acres
Shpack Landfill
Wells G&H
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Loring Air Force Base
LOCATION
Billerica
New Bedford
Ashland
Falmouth
Palmer
Plymouth
Salem
Norton/Attleboro
Woburn
Brunswick
Limestone
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
01
02
01
03
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
07
ACTIVITY
HA
RI/FS
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/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/15/91
01/31/90
02/15/85
09/10/91
12/31/87
05/21/87
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
09/30/87
09/04/87
06/15/87
09/24/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
02/22/88
02/22/88
06/22/90
02/22/88
01/30/91
01/30/91
05/09/91
05/09/91
05/09/91
01/30/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
4
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
92
91
92
91
91
91
91
93
93
92
92
92
92
92
SCHEDULE
4
3
2
1
4
4
2
4
3
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
3
4
2
2
2
1
3
4
4
1
4
3
3
95
93
92
93
92
92
94
92
92
93
93
93
94
94
92
92
92
93
93
93
92
92
93
92
93
94
94
93
94
95
STATUS
new
-6
-3
new
-3
-4
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-3
-4
-2
-2
-3
-3
-1
-1
-2
-2
new
new
new
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
ME
ME
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
SITE NAME
Pi nette's Salvage Yard
Uinthrop Landfill
Coakley Landfill
Fletcher's Paint Works
Hoi ton Circle Ground Water
Contamination
Keefe Environmental Services
Pease Air Force Base
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
Tibbets Road
Central Landfill
Davis (GSR) Landfill
Davis Liquid Waste
Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Picillo Farm
LOCATION
Washburn
Uinthrop
North Hampton
Milford
Londonderry
Epping
Portsmouth/Newi ngton
Somersworth
Barrington
Johnston
Glocester
Smithfield
Lincoln/Cumberland
Coventry
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
08
09
10
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
07
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
07/10/90
11/19/86
09/27/90
07/29/90
09/05/89
07/09/90
12/21/90
12/21/90
04/17/91
04/17/91
05/21/91
04/28/89
08/31/89
04/03/87
09/27/90
04/27/88
05/29/87
11/09/87
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
2
1
3
4
2
3
92
92
92
92
92
91
91
92
92
93
91
92
92
1
3
1
3
3
2
4
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
4
4
4
3
2
3
4
96
96
98
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
92
94
94
95
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
STATUS
new
new
new
0
0
-3
-5
-3
-6
new
new
new
new
new
-5
-2
-7
0
-6
-5
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
so
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
STATUS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
RI
RI
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Western Sand I Gravel
Bennington Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Burgess Brothers Landfill
Darling Hill DuĞp
Parker Sanitary Landfill
Pine Street Canal
Tansitor Electronics, Inc.
Asbestos Dump
Bog Creek Farm
Bridgeport Rental & Oil
Services
Brook Industrial Park
Burnt Fly Bog
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.
(once listed as Chemical Leaman
South Kingstown
Burrillville
Bennington
Uoodford
Lyndon
Lyndon
Burlington
Bennington
Millington
Howell Township
Bridgeport
Bound Brook
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Edison Township
Bridgeport
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
02
01
02
01
01
03
01
01
02
02
03
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
S
S
F
F
F
F
F
09/30/90
09/25/87
06/28/91
08/27/91
09/29/89
08/10/90
06/27/88
09/12/90
01/24/91
09/27/91
04/19/88
09/29/88
04/12/89
12/07/83
09/30/88
05/31/90
09/28/90
03/29/85
07/15/85
03/15/90
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
3
4
t
3
4
3
3
1
4
93
91
92
92
92
93
93
93
92
92
92
90
91
91
92
92
3
4
3
1
3
4
3
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
4
1
2
1
1
93
91
93
94
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
91
93
92
92
93
-2
-3
new
new
0
-4
-2
-1
new
new
0
0
-1
-4
-4
-4
-6
-3
0
-1
Tank Liners, Inc.)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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 :
Chemsol, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (once listed as
Tons River Chemical)
CoMbe Fill North Landfill
Conbe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Corp.
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
Delilah Road
Denzer t Schafer X-Ray Co.
Ellis Property
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
Florence Land Recontouring
Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Fried Industries
LOCATION
Piscataway
Tons River
Mount Olive
Township
Chester Township
Beverly
Saddle Brook
Township
Egg Harbor
Township
Bayville
Eveshan Township
Atlantic County
Florence Township
Penberton
Township
East Brunswick
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
03
04
07
08
09
10
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
F
S
S
F
PRP
S
S
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
FF
FE
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
07/05/89
06/30/90
09/30/88
09/28/90
04/14/88
04/29/88
03/30/84
06/26/87
09/26/84
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
09/29/89
06/19/91
06/28/85
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
1
1
4
2
1
4
4
1
4
4.
4
1
93
92
92
92
92
92
91
92
92
90
90
92
92
1
4
4
1
1
3
2
4
1
4
3
3
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
94
92
92
93
95
92
93
91
93
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
94
93
93
STATUS
-2
-3
DNE
-4
-9
-1
-5
0
-1
-3
-7
7
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
-5
new
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REHEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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
GEMS Landfill
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Global Sanitary Landfill
Helen Kramer Landfill
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown
Plant)
Higgins Disposal
Higgins Farm
Hopkins Farm
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Industrial-Latex Corp.
Jackson Township Landfill
Kauffman & Hinteer, Inc.
Kin-Buc Landfill
Lipari Landfill
Lodi Municipal Well
LOCATION
Gloucester
Township
Glen Ridge
Old Bridge
Township
Mantua Township
Gibbstown
Kingston
Franklin Township
Plumstead
Township
Morganville
Wai ting ton
Borough
Jackson Township
Jobstown
Edison Township
Pitman
Lodi
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PS
F
F
S
F
PS
PS
F
F
F
PS
F
S
F
PS
F
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
06/05/89
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/18/90
09/23/88
07/02/86
07/02/86
05/17/90
07/17/89
09/29/90
02/03/87
07/23/91
09/28/84
09/20/88
08/21/88
04/11/89
02/14/89
09/30/88
06/19/87
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
4
1
4
3
1
4
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
93
98
93
93
91
93
93
92
91
91
92
93
93
92
92
92
3
4
1
4
4
2
3
2
4
1
4
3
4
3
1
4
4
4
3
93
98
93
91
93
93
93
93
92
93
92
92
93
92
93
93
92
99
92
STATUS
0
0
0
ONE
0
-7
-2
2
-3
-8
-6
new
DNE
-2
1
-3
-2
-31
-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
8 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Lone Pine Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
Meta I tec/Aerosystems
Monroe Township Landfill
Monte lair/West Orange Radium
Site
NL Industries
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site
A)
Pica tinny Arsenal
Pohatcong Valley Ground Water
Contamination
Radiation Technology Inc.
Renora, Inc.
Scientific Chemical Processing
LOCATION
Freehold Township
Maywood/Rochelle
Park
Franklin Borough
Monroe Township
Montclair/West
Orange
Pedricktown
Lakehurst
Colts Neck
Rockaway Township
Warren County
Rockaway Township
Edison Township
Carlstadt
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
03
04
04
05
06
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PS
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/13/89
09/21/87
07/21/90
03/29/91
12/01/86
09/15/89
03/30/90
04/25/86
04/15/91
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/30/91
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/27/90
09/27/90
12/15/90
09/30/88
07/24/86
09/06/88
08/25/90
08/16/91
12/19/88
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
3
4
4
1
4
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
93
92
92
91
93
98
93
92
92
92
92
92
93
92
93
91
92
2
1
4
1
1
4
1
2
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
1
4
2
4
1
94
93
94
93
93
98
93
93
94
91
91
95
92
92
93
94
91
93
93
91
93
92
93
STATUS
-5
-2
-8
-5
0
0
0
-5
new
2
4
new
-1
0
0
DNE
new
-4
2
-3
DNE
new
-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
ON
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
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Shieldalloy Corp.
SMope Oil & Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
U.S. Radium Corp.
Universal Oil Products (Chemical
Division)
Ventron/Velsicol
UR Grace fc Co. Inc. /Wayne Interim
Storage Site
Ualdick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
White Chemical Corp
Wilson Farm
Witco Chemical Corp. (Oakland
Plant)
Action Anodizing, Plating, &
Polishing Corp.
American Thermostat Co.
Anchor Chemicals
Batavia Landfill
LOCATION
Newfield Borough
Pemsauken
South Kearny
Orange
East Rutherford
Wood Ridge
Borough
Wayne Township
Wall Township
Newark
Plumstead
Township
Oakland
Copiague
South Cairo
Hicksville
Batavia
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
Rl/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PS
PRP
S
F
PS
PS
FF
F
F
PS
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
START
10/05/88
09/07/88
05/23/89
09/28/84
05/28/86
09/26/84
07/21/90
09/30/91
09/27/91
02/03/87
08/25/89
07/17/89
06/28/91
09/27/91
06/02/89
08/09/84
SCHEDULE
1
2
2
1
2
1
4
2
2
1
1
3
92
92
92
93
92
93
93
91
92
92
92
92
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
1
4
1
4
2
1
4
4
3
2
4
2
4
93
96
93
93
92
93
94
93
93
92
92
92
93
92
93
92
STATUS
-4
-16
-3
0
-2
0
-4
new
new
-6
-2
-2
new
new
-5
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
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
BioClinical Laboratories,
Inc.
Brewster Well Field
Carrol & Duties Sewage Disposal
Clothier Disposal
Cortese Landfill
Endicott Village Well Field
FNC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Subdivision
General Motors (Central Foundry
Division)
Genzale Plating Co.
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
Griffiss Air Force Base
LOCATION
Boheaia
Putnan County
Port Jervis
Town of Granby
Vil. of Narrowsburg
Village of
Endicott
Town of Shelby
ElĞira
Niagara Falls
Massena
Franklin Square
Holbrook
Rone
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP*
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
START
03/31/88
09/23/87
09/26/89
02/08/90
06/25/91
09/28/90
09/21/88
09/19/88
02/09/88
05/22/86
03/23/90
12/17/90
09/25/91
06/27/91
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
4
3
1
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
91
91
92
92
92
91
92
92
91
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
3
4
1
2
4
1
3
4
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
92
91
92
93
91
93
92
92
93
92
91
92
93
93
93
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
STATUS
-2
-3
-2
-4
new
-3
-5
-3
-2
-3
-1
new
new
-5
-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
oo
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 (Hyde Park)
Hooker Chemical (South Area)
Hooker Chenical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Hudson River PCBs
Islip Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Johnstown City Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Katonah Municipal Well
Kenmark Textile Corp.
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Love Canal
LOCATION
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Town of Johnstown
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Town of Bedford
Farmingdale
Horseheads
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
07
08
09
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
PRP
F
S
S
F
START
08/15/87
11/02/90
11/02/90
09/21/88
10/13/89
09/28/90
09/28/84
07/25/90
11/15/87
10/03/88
03/29/91
03/26/91
03/14/90
07/31/91
09/30/88
09/28/90
08/08/91
09/28/90
02/09/87
06/26/87
06/28/91
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
1
2
3
2
93
92
91
92
92
93
92
90
92
93
92
91
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
3
2
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
4
4
4
93
97
95
92
92
92
92
93
92
93
93
93
92
93
90
93
93
93
92
91
92
STATUS
0
new
new
-3
-7
0
DNE
-6
DNE
0
new
new
0
new
0
-4
new
0
-1
-2
new
2 NY Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Clayville
02
RI/FS
PS
11/12/89 1 93
1 93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Marathon Battery Corp.
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
Niagara County Refuse
Niagra Mohawk Power Corp.
(Saratoga Springs Plant)
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Clean Well Field
Pas ley Solvents I Chemicals,
Inc.
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Pollution Abatement Services
Preferred Plating Corp.
LOCATION
Malta
Cold Springs
Glen Cove
Wheatfield
Saratoga Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Olean
Hempstead
Pittsburgh
Oswego
Famingdale
UNIT
01
01
02
03
03
03
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
03
02
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
PRP
FE
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
F
PRP
START
11/10/89
06/28/91
06/28/91
08/30/89
09/27/91
06/28/91
03/25/91
03/30/89
09/27/89
07/27/89
06/01/90
11/19/90
01/27/88
09/23/87
06/25/91
08/19/88
04/23/91
09/28/90
04/09/90
09/27/90
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
93
91
92
92
91
91
92
91
92
92
92
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
4
4
1
2
1
3
3
93
94
94
91
94
92
92
93
93
92
92
93
92
93
93
92
92
93
92
92
STATUS1
.1
new
new
0
new
new
new
-3
ONE
-1
-4
new
-5
-7
new
-3
new
-1
-2
-2
2 NY Radium Chemical Co., Inc.
New York City
01
RA
06/29/90 3 92
92
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
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
SITE NAME
Ramapo Landfill
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/Pond
Robintech, Inc. /National Pipe
Co.
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
Rowe Industries Ground Water
Contamination
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Sea I and Restoration, Inc.
Seneca Army Depot
Sidney Landfill
Sinclair Refinery
Syosset Landfill
Tri -Cities Barrel Co., Inc.
Tronic Plating Co., Inc.
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 (once
LOCATION
Ramapo
Sidney Center
Town of Vestal
Cor t I and
Noyack/Sag
Harbor
Deer Park
Lisbon
Romulus
Sidney
Wellsville
Oyster Bay
Port Crane
Farmingdale
Vestal
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
r
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
04/11/88
07/22/87
10/08/87
01/04/90
09/30/88
05/17/91
04/26/90
06/29/90
03/19/90
04/29/91
09/19/89
02/21/90
09/26/90
11/15/90
03/30/90
06/07/88
09/30/87
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
1
4
2
4
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
4
92
92
91
92
91
92
92
93
91
93
93
93
90
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
2
1
4
1
1
4
1
3
92
93
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
94
93
91
92
93
93
93
92
STATUS
0
-4
-1
-3
-4
new
-3
DNE
-4
new
0
-2
4
new
-3
0
-7
listed with Well 4-2 as one
site)
2 NY Volney Municipal Landfill
Town of Volney
02
RI/FS
PRP 09/28/90 1 93
1 93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
NY
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
SITE NAME
Wide Beach Development
Barceloneta Landfill
GE Wiring Devices
Juncos Landfill
RCA Del Caribe
Upjohn Facility
Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells
Army Creek Landfill (once listed
as Delaware Sand & Gravel-Llangolle
n Army Creek Landfills)
Chem-Solv, Inc.
Delaware City PVC Plant (Stauffer
Chemical Co.)
Dover Air Force Base
Dover Gas Light Co.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours t Co.
(Newport Pigment Plant Landfill)
Kent County Landfill (Houston)
(Coppers Co., Inc. (Newport
t I __.^Ğ
LOCATION
Brant
Florida Afuera
Juana Diaz
Juncos
Barceloneta
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
New Castle
County
Cheswold
Delaware City
Dover
Dover
Newport
Houston
Newport
UNIT
02
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
02
03
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
MR*
MR
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
START
06/13/91
09/28/90
05/30/91
11/30/90
03/31/88
04/19/09
10/23/90
09/28/90
07/23/91
09/27/88
03/31/88
09/29/89
06/29/90
06/29/90
07/06/90
08/12/88
09/27/91
09/26/91
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
1
1
1
2
4
3
1
3
1
93
92
92
91
93
92
91
90
91
92
92
92
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
4
2
4
3
4
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
93
95
92
92
92
92
92
93
92
93
93
STATUS
new
0
new
new
-5
-5
-8
0
new
-1
-5
-6
-2
-3
-3
-3
new
new
Plant)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
S
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
DE
DE
DE
DE
HD
MD
HD
MD
MD
MD
SITE NAME LOCATION
Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Delaware City
Inc.
Sussex County Landfill No. Laurel
5
Tyler Refrigeration Pit Smyrna
Wildcat Landfill Dover
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgeuood Edgewood
Area)
Aberdeen Proving Grounds Aberdeen
(Michaelsville Landfill)
Anne Arundel County Landfill Glen Burnie
Bush Valley Landfill Abingdon
Kane & Lombard Street Drums Baltimore
Limestone Road Cumberland
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
02
02
ACTIVITY
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/FS
LEAD
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
FE*
S
PRP
FUNDING
START
11/30/87
03/29/91
03/28/91
10/16/89
06/18/91
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
12/05/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
08/29/91
09/01/90
06/15/90
12/28/88
02/28/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
4
4
2
4
4
1
1
4
2
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
1
93
92
90
92
93
90
90
94
93
92
92
92
93
93
92
93
92
92
92
92
93
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
4
3
1
4
3
3
1
3
1
2
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
93
93
93
93
93
92
96
93
93
91
93
94
92
93
93
94
92
94
93
91
93
93
93
93
93
93
STATUS
0
new
new
-2
new
-7
-13
1
-9
-4
2
-4
0
-5
-5
new
4
-2
-4
8
-2
new
-2
-2
-2
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
s
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Uoodlawn County Landfill
A.l.U. Frank/Mid-County
Mustang
AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
Aladdin Plating, Inc.
Bell Landfill
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Berks Landfill
Blosenski Landfill
Boarhead Farms
Brown's Battery Breaking
Bruin Lagoon
Butler Mine Tunnel
Butz Landfill
C & D Recycling
LOCATION
Elkton
Uoodlawn
Exton
Glen Rock
Scott Township
Terry Township
Bridgewater
Township
Denver
Spring Township
West Cain
Township
Bridgeton
Township
Shoemakersvi I le
Bruin Borough
Pittston
Stroudsburg
Foster Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
EP
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/19/90
12/28/88
09/14/90
03/01/89
09/29/88
05/16/90
02/11/91
08/13/91
03/12/90
06/26/91
09/11/91
12/05/89
09/29/88
06/28/88
03/30/87
12/30/88
08/31/87
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
1
4
4
1
1
1
91
92
92
92
91
91
92
91
92
91
92
92
91
1
2
4
4
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
4
2
3
4
2
2
92
93
93
94
92
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
92
92
92
92
STATUS
-3
-3
-5
-8
-3
-3
new
new
-1
new
-8
-4
ONE
-3
-3
-1
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME :
Centre County Kepone
Commodore Semiconductor
Group
Croydon TCE
Douglassville Disposal
Dublin TCE Site
Elizabethtown Landfill
Havertown PCP
Henderson Road
Hunterstown Road
Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting and
Refining Inc.
Lackawanna Refuse
Letterkermy Army Depot (Property
Disposal Office Area)
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
LOCATION
State College
Bora
Lower Providence
Twp.
Croydon
Douglassville
Dublin Borough
Elizabethtown
Haverford
Upper Nerion
Township
Straban Township
Maitland
Old Forge
Borough
Franklin County
Chambersburg
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
03
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
11/07/88
07/29/88
09/25/91
06/08/89
08/15/91
09/28/90
08/03/90
07/27/90
08/05/91
03/15/91
04/29/91
12/31/90
03/10/87
08/28/90
06/02/87
02/03/89
02/03/89
06/30/90
02/03/89
02/03/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
4
4
3
3
1
3
4
4
3
4
4
92
91
91
92
91
92
93
91
90
91
90
91
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
4
2
4
1
3
4
3
4
4
3
2
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
92
93
93
94
91
93
93
92
91
93
93
91
94
STATUS
-5
-3
new
-7
new
-2
-2
DNE
new
new
new
new
-4
0
-4
-3
-9
DNE
-3
-10
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
§ 3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Lindane Dump
MU Manufacturing (once listed as
Domino Salvage Yard)
Malvern TCE
NcAdoo Associates
Metal Banks
Mill Creek Dump
Movers Landfill
Naval Air Development Center (8
Waste Areas)
North Pern-Area 1 (Gentle
Cleaners/Granite Knitting Mills,
Inc.)
North Peon-Area 12 (Transicoil,
Inc.)
North Perm-Area 2 (Ametek, Inc.
Hunter Spring Division)
North Pern-Area 5 (American
Electronics Laboratories)
North Pern-Area 6 (J.U. Rex/Allied
LOCATION
Harrison Township
Valley Township
Malvern
McAdoo Borough
Philadelphia
Erie
Eagleville
Warminster
Township
Souderton
Worcester
Hatfield
Montgomery
Township
Lansdale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PS
F
F
PRP
MR
PRP
F
F
FF
F
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/29/87
03/06/87
01/10/90
12/16/88
01/10/91
05/29/91
06/30/89
09/29/88
09/20/90
06/30/88
06/26/89
06/30/88
06/30/88
06/30/88
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
2
2
4
2
3
4
3
2
3
4
4
92
91
91
91
92
92
91
92
92
92
92
92
2
3
2
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
1
2
1
1
92
92
92
93
92
93
92
93
92
93
93
93
92
95
STATUS
-1
-5
-4
-5
new
new
-2
-4
-3
-5
-3
-3
3
-9
3 PA
Paint/Keystone Hydraulics
Manufacturing Co., Inc.)
North Pern-Area 7 (Spra-Fin,
Inc.)
North Wales
01 RI/FS
06/30/88 4 92
3 93
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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
Novak Sanitary Landfill
Occidental Chemical Corp./Firestone
Tire and Rubber Co.
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Paoli Rail Yard
Publicker Industries Inc.
Rect icon/Allied Steel Corp.
Revere Chemical Co.
River Road Landfill (Waste
Management, Inc.)
Route 940 Drum Dump (Pocono
Summit)
Saegerton Industrial Area
Sal ford Quarry
Shriver's Corner
Stanley Kessler
Strasburg Landfill
Tobyhanna Army Depot
LOCATION
South Whitehall
Twp
Lower Pottsgrove
Palmerton
Paoli
Philadelphia
East Coventry
Twp.
Nockamixon
Township
Hermitage
Pocono Summit
Saegertown
Sal ford Township
Straban Township
King of Prussia
Newlin Township
Tobyhanna
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
03
04
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
F
FF
FUNDING
START
12/30/88
12/28/89
07/31/88
09/24/85
08/12/88
OS/27/87
09/21/89
03/29/90
12/16/88
05/05/90
04/21/90
01/31/90
03/22/88
03/10/87
01/07/91
02/15/89
09/27/90
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
91
92
95
92
93
92
91
92
91
92
92
92
92
92
91
91
91
1
1
4
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
1
1
93
93
99
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
93
STATUS
-5
-3
-19
-5
0
-1
-7
-4
-8
-4
-1
-3
-6
-3
-8
-3
-6
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
o
-4
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
SITE NAME
Tonolli Corp.
Tysons Dump
Walsh Landfill
Uestinghouse Elevator Co.
Plant
Westinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
(Sharon Plant)
York County Solid Waste and Refuse
Authority Landfill
Abex Corporation
Atlantic Wood Industries,
Inc.
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
Buckingham County Landfill
Culpeper Wood Preservers,
Inc.
Defense General Supply Center
LOCATION
Nesquehoning
Upper Her ion
Township
Honeybrook
Township
Gettysburg
Sharon
Hopewell Township
Portsmouth
Portsmouth
Front Royal
Buckingham
Culpeper
Chesterfield
County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
01
01
01
02
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI
FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/19/89
06/03/88
10/01/88
09/11/89
05/01/90
03/10/87
09/20/88
11/30/87
10/10/89
07/23/87
07/23/87
07/23/87
03/04/91
09/27/90
03/04/91
07/22/91
01/31/91
09/28/90
08/15/87
09/21/90
09/21/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
4
4
1
92
92
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
91
91
91
92
90
91
92
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
4
4
2
2
1
1
4
92
93
93
93
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
93
92
93
92
94
93
94
92
92
93
STATUS
-1
-4
-2
-3
-2
-3
-1
-1
-1
-4
-7
-7
new
DNE
new
new
new
-9
-5
-1
-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
o
30
Rfi
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
UV
WV
WV
SITE NAME
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
Greenwood Chemical Co.
H & H Inc., Burn Pit
L.A. Clarke & Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood
Preserving Division)
Rinehart Tire Fire Dump
Saltville Waste Disposal
Ponds
Suffolk City Landfill
Fike Chemical, Inc.
Follansbee Site
Leetown Pesticide
Ordnance Works Disposal
Areas
LOCATION
Salem
Newtown
Farrington
Spotsylvania
County
Richmond
Frederick
County
Saltville
Suffolk
Nitro
Follansbee
Leetown
Morgantown
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
02
03
01
02
03
01
01
03
03
04
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI
FS
RA
RI/FS
Rl/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI
FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
F
f
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/29/89
08/29/89
09/30/91
05/20/91
06/30/88
09/08/89
08/07/90
09/06/89
12/31/87
09/29/89
09/28/88
09/28/88
09/28/88
09/28/88
05/17/91
09/15/88
09/15/88
06/30/89
01/11/89
04/12/90
04/12/90
04/12/90
09/27/90
06/03/88
06/04/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
2
4
4
2
4
2
92
92
91
90
92
92
92
91
91
92
93
92
91
91
91
92
91
92
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
4
3
4
2
1
4
1
3
4
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
92
92
92
93
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
95
92
93
93
92
92
98
94
97
92
93
STATUS
-4
-4
new
new
-7
-5
2
-3
-2
-5
-3
DNE
ONE
DNE
new
-3
-2
-3
-5
-1
-29
DNE
-19
-1
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
SG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
a
FL
F'_
SITE NAME
Alabama Army Ammunition
Plant
Amis ton Army Depot (Southeast
Industrial Area)
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne
Plant)
T.H. Agriculture i Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
Triana/Tennessee River (one*
listed as friana (Redstone)
Arsenal)
Agrico Chemical Co.
Airco Plating Co.
American Creosote Works, inc.
LOCATION
Childersburg
Anniston
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
Saraland
Bucks
Axis
Montgomery
Limestone/Morgan
Pertsacola
Miami
Pensacola
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
03
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
03
01
01
31
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
R2/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
ai/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
FUNDING
START
11/19/90
03/15/90
12/12/90
09/28/89
01/02/87
01/02/87
OS/30/86
09/18/89
05/08/90
07/02/90
09/27/89
01/05/90
12/19/90
09/27/89
01/05/90
12/19/90
33/26/91
11/20/86
09/29/89
11/14/90
11/28/39
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
2
4
3
3
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
3
90
93
91
91
91
91
93
93
97
94
97
94
92
91
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
3
4
3
4
2
2
1
2
4
3
2
4
3
3
1
2
3
2
91
92
93
93
91
93
91
93
93
93
92
94
93
92
94
93
93
92
92
93
92
STATUS
new
-8
new
0
-2
-7
-1
-7
-1
0
19
0
new
19
0
new
new
ONE
-1
netj
-3
{Pensacola Plant) (once listed as
American Creosote Works)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME
FL Anodyne, Inc.
FL B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
FL Beulah Landfill
FL Brown Wood Preserving
FL Cecil Field Naval Air Station
FL Chemform, Inc.
FL Florida Steel Corp.
FL Gold Coast Oil Corp.
FL Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
(once listed as Harris Corp. /Genera
I Development Utilities)
FL Hollingsworth Solderless
Terminal
FL Homestead Air Force Base
LOCATION
North Miami
Beach
Hialeah
Pensacola
Live Oak
Jacksonvi I le
Pompano Beach
Indian town
Miami
Palm Bay
Fort Lauderdale
Homestead
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
08
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PS
EP*
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
03/26/90 4 92
09/13/89 3 92
09/16/91
04/07/89
12/12/89 1 93
10/22/90
10/22/90
10/22/90
10/19/89 3 92
09/14/87
08/13/90 4 91
02/06/89 1 92
01/30/90 1 92
06/28/90 3 92
02/07/89
12/10/87 1 92
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
4
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
1
2
4
92
92
93
92
93
93
94
93
92
92
92
92
92
95
93
93
92
92
93
93
93
94
94
94
STATUS
0
0
new
ONE
-2
new
new
new
-1
ONE
-3
-2
-2
-12
DNE
-4
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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
Jacksonville Naval Air Station
Madison County Sanitary
Landfill
Miami Drum Services (Part of
Biscayne Aquifer)
Northwest 58th Street Landfill
(Part of Biscayne Aquifer)
Peak Oil Co. /Bay Drum Co.
Pensacola Naval Air Station
Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.
Petroleum Products Corp.
Pioneer Sand Co.
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Sapp Battery Salvage
Sherwood Medical Industries
LOCATION
Jacksonville
Madison
Miami
Hialeah
Tampa
Pensacola
Medley
Pembroke Park
Warrington
Tampa
Cottondale
Del and
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
OS
06
07
08
09
10
11
01
02
01
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
10/08/90
06/11/90 2 92
09/30/88 3 92
03/22/90 1 93
02/10/89 1 92
12/28/89
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
10/15/90
06/24/91
03/26/87 2 91
09/15/89 4 92
03/23/90 3 92
02/10/89 1 92
09/30/90 1 93
04/30/87 1 92
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
1
3
4
4
93
92
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
95
94
92
92
92
92
93
92
STATUS
new
-1
-4
0
-4
DNE
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-6
2
2
-2
-3
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
ro
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
SITE NAME
Standard Auto Bumper Corp.
Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
Tower Chemical Co.
Whitehouse Oil Pits
Wilson Concepts of Florida,
Inc.
Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator
Dump
Uoodbury Chemical Co. (Princeton
Plant)
Yellow Water Road Dump
Ze 1 1 wood Ground Water Contamination
Cedartown Industries, Inc.
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Firestone Tire ft Rubber Co.
(Albany Plant)
Hercules 009 Landfill
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Marzone Inc. /Chevron Chemical
Co.
LOCATION
Hialeah
Brandon
Clermont
Whitehouse
Pompano Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Princeton
Baldwin
Zellwood
Cedartown
Cedartown
Cedartown
Albany
Brunswi etc
Albany
Tifton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
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
LEAD
F
EP*
PRP
F
F
EP*
PRP
EP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
11/15/88 1 92
03/12/91 2 92
06/01/89 1 92
09/27/90 4 94
02/15/89
07/23/91 3 92
09/27/91
06/05/90 2 92
01/28/91
09/30/91
03/08/90 4 92
03/30/90 4 92
09/16/91
07/09/90 2 93
07/15/88 4 91
07/23/91
07/23/91
09/28/90 2 93
09/28/90
4
4
4
4
1
3
2
3
4
1
4
1
2
4
4
2
2
2
3
92
92
93
94
92
92
94
92
92
93
92
93
94
92'
92
94
94
93
92
STATUS
-3
2
-7
0
ONE
0
new
-1
new
new
0
-1
new
2
-4
new
new
0
ONE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
MS
MS
Ha this Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road)
Powersville Site
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/Sludge Lagoon) (once listed as
Robins Air Force Base)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Albany Plant)
Uoolfolk Chemical Works,
Inc.
Cat dwelt Lace Leather Co.,
Inc.
Distler Brickyard
Distler Farm
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone
Quarry
General Tire & Rubber Co.
(Mayfield Landfill)
Green River Disposal, Inc.
Red Penn Sanition Co. Landfill
Flowood Site
Newson Brothers/Old Reichold
Chemicals, Inc.
Kensington
Peach County
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Auburn
West Point
Jefferson
County
Olaton
Mayfield
Maceo
Peewee Valley
Flowood
Columbia
01
01
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
EP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
11/02/88 4
01/08/91
01/08/91
09/28/90 1
05/06/91
07/06/90 4
04/24/90 1
03/29/90 1
09/28/88 2
09/28/88 2
09/20/89 1.
12/20/89 4
05/22/90 1
08/18/89 1
08/09/91
09/20/91
05/15/91
91
92
94
93
92
91
91
92
91
93
92
3
2
3
3
3
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
3
2
1
92
93
92
93
92
92
93
93
96
95
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
-3
new
new
-6
new
8
0
-4
-22
-18
-7
-4
0
-4
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Inplementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBEI 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
Rfi
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
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Bypass 601 Ground Water
Contamination
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber
Operations)
Chemtronics, Inc.
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen
Plant)
JFD Electronics/Channel
Master
(Coppers Co., Inc (Morrisville
Plant)
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco,
Inc.
National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
New Hanover County Airport Burn
LOCATION
Jacksonville
Haze 1 wood
Concord
Ons 1 on County
Shelby
Swannanoa
Statesville
Washington
Aberdeen
Oxford
Morrisville
Charlotte
Salisbury
Wi Imington
UNIT
01
01
02
02
03
04
OS
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
START
09/25/89
06/20/90
09/21/90
12/29/89
02/15/90
06/28/90
10/04/90
10/24/88
09/24/90
06/10/91
11/29/90
09/05/90
12/16/88
09/25/89
03/14/89
09/25/89
06/27/90
03/16/90
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
92
92
92
93
99
95
99
92
92
92
92
99
99
92
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
3
2
4
2
4
4
4
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
92
92
93
92
93
93
94
99
95
99
93
93
92
92
92
99
99
92
STATUS
-2
0
-1
DNE
ONE
0
new
0
0
0
new
-4
-1
-2
-2
0
0
-2
Pit
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SITE NAME
North Carolina State University
(Lot 86, Farm Unit *1>
Potter's Septic Tank Service
Pits
Elmore Waste Disposal
Golden Strip Septic Tank
Service
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
(Coppers Co., Inc (Florence
Plant)
Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
Rock Hill Chemical Co.
SCRDI Dixiana
Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile
Creek/Lake Hartwell PCS
Contamination
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
LOCATION
Raleigh
Maco
Greer
Simps onvi lie
Fairfax
Beaufort
Florence
Rock Hill
Dixiana
Simps onvi lie
Rock Hill
Cayce
Pickens
At ken
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FE
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
START
04/18/87
09/29/88
09/15/89
06/30/88
03/31/89
01/13/88
0?,/29/88
12/13/90
03/25/90
09/25/89
09/30/91
09/25/91
09/29/89
08/31/90
09/25/89
11/06/89
11/06/89
12/29/89
02/28/90
02/28/90
07/06/90
08/06/90
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
4
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
93
91
91
91
91
91
91
90
93
94
92
90
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
4
3
3
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
4
4
4
1
2
93
92
93
91
92
92
92
93
97
93
93
93
94
93
91
92
92
92
92
93
94
93
STATUS
0
-3
-5
-2
-4
-4
-5
new
-28
0
new
new
0
-4
-4
5
2
1
4
0
0
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG ST SITE NAME
4 SC Tounsend Saw Chain Co.
4 TN American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Jackson Plant)
4 TN Carrier Air Conditioning
Co.
4 TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant
4 TN Murray-Ohio Dump
4 TN Murray-Ohio Manufacturing Co.
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
09
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Pontiac 01
Jackson 01
02
Collierville 01
Milan 02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
Lawrenceburg 01
Lawrenceburg 01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/06/90
12/06/90
01/09/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
06/07/91
07/01/91
07/01/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
07/01/91
08/05/91
08/30/91
06/12/89
12/29/89
09/29/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
07/23/90
03/06/90
03/30/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 93
1 92
4 91
1 92
2 92
1 93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
2 92
2 92
SCHEDULE
2
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
93
92
94
92
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
92
94
94
STATUS
0
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
0
-9
-1
-7
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
1
-7
-7
(Horseshoe Bend Dump)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG ST SITE NAME : LOCATION
4 TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) Oak Ridge
4 TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) Oak Ridge
4 TN Wrigley Charcoal Plant Wrigley
5 IL Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 & Quincy
5 IL Beloit Corp. Rockton
5 IL Betvidere Municipal Landfill Belvidere
5 IL Byron Salvage Yard Byron
5 IL Central Illinois Public Service Taylorville
p/ğ
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
15
20
22
23
24
03
01
01
01
04
01
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY LEAD
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/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PS*
PS
PRP
EP
PS
FUNDING
START
12/29/89
12/29/89
03/31/90
03/31/90
03/31/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
01/03/90
01/03/90
06/09/90
09/14/90
09/18/90
09/18/90
05/22/90
07/16/90
09/06/90
09/07/90
12/28/90
12/28/90
01/14/91
02/15/89
09/12/90
09/27/90
03/28/90
12/29/89
09/12/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4 91
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
4
91
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
93
93
93
93
92
92
92
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
1
1
2
4
4
3
1
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
3
1
2
91
91
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
94
92
92
92
93
94
93
93
93
93
91
93
93
92
93
93
STATUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
6
2
0
ONE
ONE
new
new
new
DNE
0
0
-1
-2
-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
oo
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
SITE NAME
DuPage County Landfill/Blackwell
Forest Preserve)
H.O.D. Landfill
Ilada Energy Co.
Interstate Pollution Control,
Inc.
Johns-Manville Corp.
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Load-Assembly-Packing Area)
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West
Branch of Dupage River)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler
Park)
Kerr-McGee (Residential
Areas)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat
Plant)
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
LOCATION
Uarrenvi I le
Antioch
East Cape
Girardeau
Rockford
Uaukegan
Joliet
Joi let
DuPage County
West Chicago
West Chicago/OuPage
County
West Chicago
LaSalle
Lemon t
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
F
FE
F
F
S
PRP
START
09/29/89
08/20/90
06/19/89
09/27/90
10/21/88
08/08/90
08/08/90
06/09/89
06/09/89
11/18/83
11/18/83
11/18/83
11/18/83
04/11/89
09/29/89
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
3
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
92
92
92
93
91
93
92
92
92
92
93
92
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
STATUS
-1
-4
-3
0
-3
DNE
DNE
0
DNE
-5
-5
-5
-5
0
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
MIG/Dewane Landfill
Outboard Marine Corp.
Pagel's Pit
Parsons Casket Hardware
Co.
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
(USDOI )
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Southeast Rockford Ground Water
Contamination
Tri -County Landfill Co. /Waste
Management of Illinois,
Inc.
Velsicol Chemical (Illinois)
Wauconda Sand & Gravel
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
American Chemical Service,
Inc.
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
LOCATION
Belvidere
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
Carterville
Savanna
Rockford
South Elgin
Marshall
Wauconda
Woodstock
Griffith
Columbus
Elkhart
UNIT
01
03
02
01
03
04
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
START SCHEDULE
03/29/91
06/27/91
08/13/91
09/29/88 1 92
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/29/89
09/29/89
07/10/89 2 92
07/17/91
04/22/88 3 92
03/29/91
09/30/91
09/29/89 1 93
06/29/88 3 92
09/15/87 1 92
10/01/90
SCHEDULE
2
3
2
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
3
4
1
2
3
2
4
94
93
93
93
95
95
92
93
93
93
92
94
93
93
92
92
93
STATUS
new
new
new
-4
new
new
ONE
ONE
-4
new
0
new
new
-1
0
-1
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
ro
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglas Road/Uni royal, Inc.,
Landfill
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Galen Meyer's Dump/Drum
Salvage
Himco Dump
Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill) (once
listed as Lake Sandy Jo)
Lakeland Disposal Service,
Inc.
Marion (Bragg) Dump
Neat's Landfill (Bloomington)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Prestolite Battery Division
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Souths ide Sanitary Landfill
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill,
LOCATION
Kokomo
Mishawaka
Fort Wayne
Osceola
Elkhart
Gary
Claypool
Marion
Bloomington
Gary
Vincennes
Indianapolis
Seymour
Indianapolis
Lafayette
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
S
S
PS
PRP
S
F
F
PRP
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/25/90
08/26/91
08/24/89
09/20/90
04/11/89
09/21/89
09/28/87
03/30/89
08/07/89
07/07/88
12/11/90
07/16/91
12/23/88
03/31/87
08/17/87
09/08/89
09/29/89
03/08/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
1
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
4
4
92
93
93
92
92
93
92
89
92
92
94
95
92
92
3
4
1
4
2
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
4
93
93
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
89
93
93
93
92
94
95
93
93
STATUS
-3
new
0
0
-3
-2
DNE
-2
-4
0
new
new
-3
-1
0
0
-1
-4
Inc.
-------
Progrtss Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Ytar 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME ;
Tri -State Plating
Uasta, Inc. Landfill
Whitaford Salas I Service
Inc./NatlonaLeasa
Adam's Plating
Alii ad Paper, Inc. /Per tag*
Creek/Kalamazoo River
American Anodco, Inc.
Auto Ion Chemicals, Inc.
Bendix Corp. /Allied Automotive
Bofers Nobel, Inc.
Burrows Sanitation
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Charlevoix Municipal Well
Clare Water Supply
Duel 1 & Gardner Landfill
Electrovoice
LOCATION
Columbus
Michigan City
South Band
Lansing
Kalamazoo
Ionia
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Muskegon
Hartford
Grand Rapids
Sault Saint a
Maria
Charlevoix
Clare
Da I ton Township
Buchanan
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
F
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
03/29/91
03/31/87 2
09/29/89 3
09/28/88 1
12/28/90
10/23/87 3
06/01/90 1
02/13/89 1
03/31/90
06/20/91
04/22/87 1
09/27/88 2
05/03/91
05/03/91
03/07/91
09/27/85
04/08/87 1
10/08/87 1
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
2
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
95
92
93
94
93
92
92
93
93
94
93
92
93
93
92
92
92
92
STATUS
new
-1
-3
-8
new
0
-1
-4
DNE
new
4
0
new
new
new
DNE
0
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AMD REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBEr 30, 1991
to
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Grand Traverse Overall Supply
Co.
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Hi -Mi 1 1 Manufacturing Co.
J & L Landfill
Mason County Landfill
Metal Working Shop
Metamora Landfill
North Bronson Industrial
Area
Northernaire Plating
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
Packaging Corp. of America
Parsons Chemical Works,
Inc.
Peerless Plating Co.
Petoskey Municipal Well
LOCATION
Greilickville
Grand Rapids
Highland
Rochester
Hills
Pere Marquette
Township
Lake Ann
Metamora
Bronson
Cadillac
Grandville
Da I ton Township
Filer City
Grand Ledge
Muskegon
Petoskey
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
03
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
F
EP*
S
S
S
S
F
F
F
PRP
S
F
S*
FUNDING
START
04/09/87
09/12/88
09/23/88
04/24/89
06/29/90
09/28/88
11/15/90
02/17/88
09/29/89
06/24/87
06/23/87
04/22/88
09/25/91
09/14/90
05/02/85
09/29/89
07/10/89
10/05/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
92
92
92
92
92
92
94
92
92
92
91
93
92
93
92
91
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
3
1
1
92
92
93
92
92
95
92
93
92
93
92
93
95
93
93
93
93
93
STATUS
-1
-1
-3
-1
-1
-13
9
-1
0
-3
-2
0
new
DNE
-4
-2
-2
-8
Field
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
to
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
SITE NAME
Rockwell International Corp.
(Allegan Plant)
Roto-Finish Co., Inc.
Shiawassee River
South Macomb Disposal Authority
(Landfill #9 & 9A)
Spiegelberg Landfill
Tar Lake
Torch Lake
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Burlington Northern ( Bra i nerd/
Baxter Plant)
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
Freeway Sanitary Landfill
Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply
Co.
Koch Refining Co. /N- Ren
Corp.
LOCATION
Allegan
Kalamazoo
Howell
Macomb Township
Green Oak
Township
Mancelona
Township
Houghton County
Howard Township
Battle Creek
Hermantown
Brai nerd/Baxter
Cannon Falls
Burnsville
Brooklyn Center
Pine Bend
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
S
FE
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
S
PS
PS
PS
PS
START
06/07/88
12/18/87
06/19/87
09/24/87
05/30/89
01/29/86
09/28/88
09/25/91
05/30/85
08/15/90
03/31/87
03/29/90
03/27/86
12/31/88
10/15/85
10/15/85
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
4
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
92
92
92
91
90
92
92
91
91
94
91
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
4
3
1
2
4
2
3
1
4
1
4
4
4
94
93
93
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
94
92
92
91
91
91
STATUS
-8
-4
-4
0
-8
0
-1
new
-4
-4
0
ONE
ONE
-2
DNE
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
to
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
STATUS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
NN
Koppers Coke
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Kurt Manufacturing Co.
LaGrand Sanitary Landfill
Lehillier/Mankato Site
Long Prairie Ground Water
Contamination
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bel I Limber
& Pole Co.
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Nutting Truck & Caster Co.
Olmsted County Sanitary
Landfill
Perham Arsenic Site
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill (once
listed as Pine Bend Sanitary
Landfill/Crosby American
Demolition Landfill)
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (St.
Louis Park Plant)
St. Paul
Bemidji
Fridley
LaGrand Township
Lehillier/Mankato
Long Prairie
New Brighton
Fridley
New Brighton
Faribault
Oronoco
Perham
Dakota County
St. Louis
Park
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
07
09
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
03
04
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
PRP
S
PS
S
S
S
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PS
F*
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
06/29/87
03/26/90
12/15/86
06/30/87
03/31/88
04/11/91
09/29/87
09/28/90
06/14/91
03/28/91
06/28/88
06/21/89
04/26/84
12/20/89
05/01/91
04/15/85
04/15/85
04/15/85
09/30/87
09/04/86
04/01/91
1
1
4
2
4
2
4
4
3
1
4
3
92
92
99
92
99
91
91
90
92
93
99
91
3
3
4
3
4
1
3
4
4
1
2
2
1
2
4
4
1
3
4
1
1
92
93
99
92
99
94
92
91
99
95
94
92
92
93
93
91
92
92
99
92
93
-2
-6
0
-1
0
new
-5
0
new
new
DNE
6
ONE
-3
-3
DNE
DNE
DNE
0
-2
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME :
Ritari Post & Pole
South Andover Site (once listed as
Andovers Sites)
St. Augusta Sanitary Landfi I l/Engen
Dump (once listed as St. Augusta
Sanitary Landfi U/St. Cloud
Dump)
St. Louis River Site
Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base
(Small Arms Range Landfill)
Waite Park Wells
Washington County Landfill
A I sco Anaconda
Big D Campground
Bowers Landfill
Feed Materials Production Center
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
LOCATION
Sebeka
Andover
St. Augusta
Township
St. Louis
County
Minneapolis
Waite Park
Lake Elmo
Gnadenhutten
Kingsville
Circleville
Fernald
Ashtabula
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
02
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
S
F
F
PS
PS
PS*
FF
PS
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/30/87
09/28/90
06/19/91
02/15/91
09/30/85
04/15/91
11/06/89
09/20/89
10/24/84
06/24/91
09/30/91
08/15/89
06/03/91
09/05/91
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
03/22/89
09/26/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
4
92
91
95
92
92
99
92
92
90
90
90
90
93
99
SCHEDULE
4 92
1
1
2
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
92
92
93
95
92
92
92
99
91
92
92
96
92
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
STATUS
-3
-1
new
new
0
-3
DNE
0
0
new
new
-2
new
new
-9
-14
-14
-14
-14
o
24
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
N)
Rfi
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. (once ' isted
as Poplar Oil Co.)
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Nease Chemical
New Lyme Landfill
Ormet Corp.
Powell Road Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover
Plant)
Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial
Waste Disposal Co., Inc.)
Skinner Landfill
South Point Plant
Van Dale Junkyard
Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base
Zanesville Well Field
LOCATION
Jackson Township
Uniontown
Jefferson
Township
Miamisburg
Salem
New Lyme
Hannibal
Dayton
Reading
Dover
Dayton
West Chester
South Point
Marietta
Dayton
Zanesville
UNIT
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F*
FF
PRP
START
09/24/84
09/14/89
08/17/89
06/27/91
08/06/90
01/27/88
04/11/88
03/27/87
11/12/87
08/20/91
03/29/89
12/16/87
12/20/88
03/31/87
08/18/90
03/21/91
08/03/88
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
4
91
90
91
92
92
91
92
91
92
92
91
91
92
90
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
4
3
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
2
4
3
4
3
91
91
91
92
95
93
92
91
92
92
93
93
92
91
92
93
91
STATUS
-2
-3
-2
new
-12
-2
-5
1
-4
new
-4
-4
-3
-1
-2
new
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
to
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
WI
UI
WI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
UI
SITE NAME
Better Brtte Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Delavan Municipal Uell #4
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Janesville Ash Beds
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Lemberger Landfill, Inc.
(Lemberger Fly Ash Landfill)
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
N.U. Mauthe Co., Inc.
National Presto Industries,
Inc.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Schmalz Dump
LOCATION
DePere
Dim
Delavan
Stoughton
Uilliamstown
Janesville
Kohler
Menomonee
Falls
Uhitelaw
Franklin Township
Muskego
Applet on
Eau Claire
Ashippin
Harrison
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
S
F
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
08/05/91
05/22/87
09/28/90
08/14/91
07/27/87
09/28/90
09/30/86
09/30/85
08/01/90
06/26/87
06/30/87
04/23/91
08/14/87
08/14/87
09/30/88
04/03/91
09/30/91
09/20/90
09/29/88
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
1
3
93
92
92
92
93
90
92
93
91
91
92
92
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
4
4
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
93
97
93
93
94
92
93
90
93
93
91
91
93
92
92
93
92
95
93
93
STATUS
0
new
-2
-1
new
-1
-1
0
-4
0
0
0
new
-1
DNE
-3
new
new
DNE
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
to
oo _. .
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
WI
WI
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Spick ter Landfill
Gurley Pit
Industrial Waste Control
Midland Products
Monroe Auto Equipment Co.
(Paragould Pit)
Vertac, Inc.
Bayou Bonfouca
Bayou Sorrel Site
Cleve Reber
Combustion, Inc.
D.L. Mud, Inc.
Dutchtoun Treatment Plant
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
Old Inger Oi I Refinery
Sheboygan
Spencer
Edmondson
Fort Smith
Ola/Birta
Paragould
Jacksonville
Slidell
Bayou Sorrel
Sorrento
Denham Springs
Abbeville
Ascension
Parish
Abbeville
Doyline
Darrow
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
05
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
f
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
S
S
04/11/86
07/07/88
03/29/89
07/25/89
06/29/90
06/28/91
07/12/89
07/12/89
06/30/89
02/04/91
07/11/88
04/10/91
10/25/88
06/20/90
08/07/89
06/27/90
09/27/90
01/31/89
01/31/89
04/25/86
04/09/90
4
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
92
92
92
92
96
92
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
94
91
1
2
4
3
2
4
2
1
1
4
3
1
2
1
2
4
3
4
2
2
1
93
93
93
92
96
93
93
93
92
94
92
97
93
93
94
92
92
92
93
94
92
-1
-3
-7
-1
0
new
-4
-6
1
new
-1
new
-4
-3
-7
-2
ONE
-2
-4
0
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
LA
LA
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SITE NAME
PAB Oil & Chemical Service,
Inc.
Pet ro- Processors of Louisiana,
Inc.
AT & SF (Clovis)
Cal West Metals (USSBA)
Ci macron Mining Corp.
Cleveland Mill
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
Compass Industries (Avery
Drive)
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth Street Abandoned
Refinery
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Tinker Air Force Base (Soldier
Creek/Building 3001)
LOCATION
Abbeville
Scotlandville
Clovis
Lemitar
Carrizozo
Silver City
Prewitt
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Tulsa
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma city
Cyril
Oklahoma City
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
EP
EP
EP
S*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
F
FF
FF
START
06/27/90
06/30/87
08/07/89
08/03/90
08/13/91
08/13/91
03/29/90
07/03/89
10/04/90
12/28/89
09/12/89
06/30/89
12/29/89
12/29/89
07/28/89
03/31/89
05/16/91
06/10/91
12/09/88
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
1
92
92
92
92
92
91
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
3
3
2
4
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
2
93
97
95
92
94
95
93
92
92
94
97
93
92
92
92
92
93
93
93
STATUS
-2
20
-12
0
new
new
-4
-4
new
-12
-21
-4
0
0
-1
-1
new
new
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBEr 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
SITE NAME
Air Force Plant *4 (General
Dynamics)
Bio-Ecology Systems, Inc.
Brio Refining, Inc.
Crystal City Airport
French, Ltd.
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann
Energy
Highlands Acid Pit
Kopppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
Lone Star Army Ammunition
Plant
Motco, Inc.
North Calvacade Street
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Highway)
Pesses Chemical Co.
Sikes Disposal Pits
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
LOCATION
Fort Worth
Grand Prairie
Friends wood
Crystal City
Crosby
Houston
Highlands
Texarkana
Texarkana
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
Fort Worth
Crosby
Houston
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
S
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
S
S
PRP
FF
MR
S
S
S
S
S
PRP
S
START
08/20/90
05/12/86
06/29/89
12/29/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
03/31/89
09/24/84
05/13/91
06/18/90
12/30/88
09/12/91
09/27/89
03/30/90
06/27/90
05/04/89
06/12/91
09/10/91
SCHEDULE
4 91
2 92
4 96
2 92
2 95
3 92
3 91
1 94
4 95
1 96
2 97
SCHEDULE
1
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
4
2
4
3
95
93
97
92
96
98
94
92
92
93
94
96
94
94
93
97
92
94
STATUS
-13
-4
-2
0
-6
DNE
DNE
0
new
-8
0
new
7
8
DNE
0
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfincl: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
SITE NAME
Tex-Tin Corp.
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Co.
Des Moines TCE (once listed as
DICO)
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Red Oak City Landfill
Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal
29th & Mead Ground Water
Contamination
Arkansas City Dump
Cherokee County (Tar Creek)
Fort Riley
Hydro Flex Inc.
Obee Road
Pester Refinery Co.
Strother Field Industrial
Park
LOCATION
Texas City
Texarkana
Des Moines
Hiddletown
Red Oak
Keokuk
Wichita
Arkansas City
Cherokee County
Junction City
Topeka
Hut chins on
El Dorado
Cow ley County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PS
PS
PS
PS
FUNDING
START
03/30/90
03/28/91
09/30/87
08/08/89
09/22/88
09/20/90
12/04/89
10/18/90
09/27/89
06/14/91
09/10/91
07/13/89
05/07/90
05/07/90
08/23/90
09/26/89
03/27/90
04/19/90
03/28/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
4
2
4
1
2
3
3
1
1
4
1
4
93
91
92
91
93
92
92
92
92
92
93
92
92
92
93
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
3
3
2
4
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
93
93
92
92
92
95
92
93
92
92
93
93
93
93
95
92
93
92
93
STATUS
-2
new
-4
-2
-3
-8
0
new
-3
new
new
-4
-2
-2
-8
-2
-3
-3
0
7 MO Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.
Maiden
01
RI/FS
12/29/88 2 92
1 93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
to
RG
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
SITE NAME
Fulbright Landfill
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
(Northwest Lagoon)
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (once
listed as Area 2: Fills 1 &
2)
North-U Drive Well Contamination
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Quality Plating
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood
Interim storage/ Future Coatings
Co.
Syntex Facility
Times Beach Site
Valley Park TCE
Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance
Works
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits
(USDOE/Army) (once listed as
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army))
LOCATION
Springfield
Cape Girardeau
Independence
Imperial
Springfield
Jasper County
Sikeston
Republic
St. Louis
County
Verona
Times Beach
Valley Park
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
02
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F
F
S
F
PRP
S
PS
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PS
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
06/15/90
09/25/91
08/01/87
06/27/90
06/27/90
06/30/88
05/10/83
09/27/85
04/24/90
08/02/91
12/30/88
09/27/91
06/26/90
11/28/89
09/16/91
09/18/91
03/14/83
12/31/87
02/16/90
08/22/86
06/03/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
4
4
1
3
1
4
91
94
92
92
91
91
92
93
92
94
91
92
93
92
1
2
4
3
3
1
1
4
2
2
3
4
4
2
4
3
1
4
1
2
3
92
93
94
93
93
92
92
92
94
94
93
93
94
92
93
95
92
93
93
93
92
STATUS
-^
new
0
-3
-3
-4
-4
-3
-3
new
-3
new
0
DNE
new
new
-4
-5
0
-2
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS Of REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OJ
u>
RG
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
ST
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
SITE NAME
10th Street Site
Cleburn Street Well
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Nebraska Ordnance Plant
(Former)
Sherwood Medical Co.
Waverly Groundwater Contamination
Air Force Plant PJKS
Broderick Wood Products
California Gulch
Central City - Clear Creek
Denver Radium Site
LOCATION
Columbus
Grand Island
Hall County
Hastings
Mead
Norfolk
Waverly
Watertown
Denver
Leadville
Idaho Springs
Denver
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
00
01
02
06
08
12
13
14
16
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
02
02
02
06
08
09
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
FS
LEAD
F
F
FF
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
F
F
F
F
S*
F
FUNDING
START
12/08/89
09/16/91
03/15/90
03/22/85
10/15/86
09/26/89
12/29/88
09/30/91
08/31/90
01/03/91
06/15/86
02/11/91
09/26/91
03/21/91
12/11/90
02/07/89
09/25/89
01/16/89
09/04/90
04/07/87
04/07/87
03/29/89
04/02/91
03/30/89
03/30/89
06/24/88
09/10/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
3
3
3
4
1
4
1
1
4
2
4
4
4
2
92
93
91
91
93
92
93
92
91
92
93
92
94
92
91
91
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
2
1
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
92
93
94
99
91
91
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
93
94
92
92
92
93
93
93
91
92
92
92
91
92
STATUS
1
new
-7
DNE
-1
-1
0
new
-5
new
-1
new
-4
new
new
DNE
-7
0
0
-3
DNE
12
new
0
-4
-2
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
8 CO Eagle Mine Minturn/Redcliff 01
01
8 CO Lowry Landfill Arapahoe County 01
02
03
04
06
8 CO Marshall Landfill Boulder County 01
01
8 CO Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) Golden 01
01
02
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
11
8 CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal Adams County 02
03
04
05
14
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI
RI
RA
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
PS
FE
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
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
FUNDING
START
09/01/88
09/25/90
12/07/88
10/23/89
10/23/89
03/25/91
09/27/89
09/16/89
09/30/91
01/15/90
02/06/90
04/12/90
05/13/91
07/10/91
06/08/90
04/05/91
04/19/91
06/08/90
06/08/90
06/08/90
10/27/87
02/15/85
02/15/85
09/10/91
07/10/90
08/05/91
01/02/91
12/11/90
11/30/90
04/15/91
06/05/90
03/21/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
1
3
1
2
3
1
1
94
93
94
94
93
91
92
95
95
95
96
96
91
93
92
93
92
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
1
4
1
4
3
4
4
1
3
1
4
2
3
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
94
92
93
93
93
93
93
91
93
92
95
95
92
99
95
99
99
96
96
97
91
93
92
92
93
92
93
92
93
93
92
93
STATUS
0
ONE
-1
2
1
new
-1
-3
new
0
0
0
new
new
0
new
new
0
0
DNE
-3
0
0
new
0
new
new
new
new
new
0
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
CO
CO
CO
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
ND
ND
SD
SITE NAME
Sand Creek Industrial
Smuggler Mountain
Woodbury Chemical Co.
Anaconda Co. Smelter
East Helena Site (once listed as
East Helena Smelter)
Idaho Pole Co.
Libby Ground Water Contamination
Mi 1 1 town Reservoir Sediments
Montana Pole and Treating
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area (once
listed as Silver Bow Creek)
Arsenic Trioxide Site
Mi not Landfill
Ellsworth Air Force Base
LOCATION
Commerce City
Pitkin County
Commerce City
Anaconda
East Helena
Bozeman
Libby
Mi 1 1 town
Butte
Silver Bow/Deer
Lodge
Southeastern
ND
Mi not
Rapid City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
06
01
01
01
02
14
02
03
01
02
02
02
01
03
05
07
12
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
S
PRP*
FF
FUNDING
START
09/25/90
04/07/91
12/29/89
09/27/90
09/28/90
03/29/91
06/28/91
06/28/91
09/28/88
06/23/87
06/27/87
09/25/87
10/18/89
02/02/90
02/02/90
04/24/90
05/04/90
05/27/88
08/02/91
01/15/91
08/11/89
09/28/90
04/13/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
92
92
92
91
93
91
93
92
93
94
94
93
94
93
93
92
SCHEDULE
3 93
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
93
93
93
91
93
92
92
93
93
93
92
95
94
94
93
94
93
93
92
94
93
93
STATUS
-4
new
-2
-2
-3
new
new
new
0
-7
0
0
-8
0
0
-1
o
0
new
new
-4
-4
ONE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
ON
Rfi
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
RT
SD
SD
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
SITE NAME
Uhitewood Creek
Williams Pipe Line Co. Disposal
Pit
Hill Air Force Base
Midvale Slag
Monticello Mill Tailings
(USDOE)
Monticello Radioactively
Contaminated Properties
Monticello Radioactively
Contaminated Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 &
3)
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings) (once listed as Sharon
Steel Corp. (Midvale Smelter))
Tooele Army Depot (North
Area)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
LOCATION
Whitewood
Sioux Falls
Ogden
Midvale
Monticello
Monticello
Monticello
Ogden
Salt Lake
City
Midvale
Tooele
Salt Lake
City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
05
01
02
01
03
01
01
02
01
03
04
02
01
01
02
01
05
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F*
FE
PRP*
F
FF
FF
PRP
FUND INC
START
09/13/91
04/25/91
06/28/91
06/28/91
07/25/91
08/13/91
08/07/89
09/10/91
08/19/91
05/31/91
09/06/84
03/12/91
11/09/90
09/29/89
11/05/90
09/29/89
03/26/91
12/31/84
12/31/84
08/21/91
08/16/90
09/16/91
08/10/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
2
1
2
3
2
4
3
2
2
2
4
92
91
91
92
93
94
92
92
92
92
91
91
92
,. SCHEDULE
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
4
2
4
1
4
2
4
4
1
3
1
4
93
93
94
94
92
95
93
95
92
98
94
91
96
92
93
92
92
92
92
92
94
93
93
STATUS
new
new
-8
-10
-5
-14
-1
new
new
new
0
new
new
-2
-1
-1
0
-6
-6
new
DNE
new
-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
u>
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Apache Powder Co.
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area
Luke Air Force Base
Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street
Plant)
Tucson International Airport
Area
Williams Air Force Base
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc.
Aerojet General Corp.
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics
Base (Nebo Area)
LOCATION
St. David
Hassayampa
Scottsdate/Tempe/
Phoenix
Glendale
Phoenix
Tucson
Chandler
Yuma
Sunnyvale
Rancho Cordova
Fresno County
Barstow
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
03
07
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
EP
FF
FF
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
10/05/89
02/19/88
03/14/88
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/27/90
08/15/90
06/20/89
09/12/91
12/11/90
09/21/90
09/21/90
09/30/91
09/30/91
04/19/89
09/08/88
10/16/89
09/28/90
09/28/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
1
4
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
2
4
4
3
3
93
92
92
92
93
93
92
92
93
92
91
94
90
93
93
2
4
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
93
92
93
93
95
94
92
92
93
94
94
93
95
95
91
96
91
93
94
STATUS
0
-3
-2
2
-5
-2
0
-2
new
new
-2
-1
new
new
-2
-8
-4
-1
-2
9 CA Beckman Instruments (Porterville Porterville
Plant)
9 CA Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin Arvin
Plant)
01 RA PRP 12/19/90 2 93 new
01 RI/FS EP 05/03/90 1 93 3 93 -2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBE 30, 1991
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
SITE NAME :
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base
Castle Air Force Base
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Del Norte Pesticide Storage
Edwards Air Force Base
El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station
Fort Ord
Fresno Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
George Air Force Base
LOCATION
San Diego
County
Merced
Coalinga
Crescent City
Kern County
El Toro
Marina
Fresno
Victorville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
01
03
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
04
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/21/89
05/29/91
10/16/89
09/26/89
09/26/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/23/90
07/23/90
07/23/90
09/20/90
09/21/90
09/21/90
09/21/90
08/27/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
4
4
4
4
2
3
1
1
2
4
1
4
4
4
3
4
94
93
93
93
90
92
92
93
93
93
95
92
92
92
95
92
92
2
3
3
3
1
4
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
1
1
1
3
94
94
95
95
93
91
92
99
96
93
94
94
97
93
93
93
95
93
94
94
STATUS
0
-3
-7
-7
new
-4
0
-28
-14
-3
-4
DNE
-6
-6
-4
-3
3
-2
-5
new
9 CA Hewlett Packard (620-640 Page Mill
Rd.)
9 CA Hexcel Corp.
9 CA Iron Mountain Mine
Palo Alto
01
RI/FS
PS
03/16/89 4 91
93
-6
Livermore
Redding
01
01
02
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
PS
PRP
f
05/16/90
03/29/90
03/28/87
2
1
2
92
92
93
2
3
3
93
92
92
-4
-2
3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Lawrence Liver-more National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
Lousiana-Pacif ic Corp.
MGM Brakes
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (once listed
as Mather Air Force Base (AC & W
Disposal Site)
McClellan Air Force Base (Ground
Water Contamination)
McColl
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
LOCATION
Mountain View
Liver-more
Richmond
San Jose
Oroville
Cloverdale
Riverside
Sacramento
Sacramento
Fullerton
Modesto
Sunnyvale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
04
01
01
02
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI
RA
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
LEAD
PRP
FF
PS
F
PRP
EP*
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
12/21/88
11/02/88
09/20/83
02/17/88
07/10/91
02/08/88
01/29/91
09/27/90
09/27/90
08/06/91
06/06/91
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
10/01/90
06/11/84
02/03/86
09/27/90
03/21/91
08/08/89
08/08/89
09/12/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
2
1
4
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
4
3
4
2
1
92
92
92
90
95
92
92
93
96
94
96
96
90
91
93
93
94
3
3
1
1
4
4
3
1
4
3
1
4
3
4
1
1
4
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
1
92
92
93
93
92
91
93
97
94
95
94
93
92
99
95
93
97
99
91
94
95
93
97
94
93
STATUS
-2
-1
ONE
-4
new
-4
new
-5
-9
new
-6
0
DNE
-14
-3
13
-6
new
-4
-10
-8
new
-17
0
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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
Monolithic Memories
Mont rose Chemical Corp.
National Semiconductor Corp.
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Norton Air Force Base
Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
Riverbank Army Ammunition
Plant
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area
1)
San Fernando Valley (Area
2)
LOCATION
Sunnyvale
Torrance
Santa Clara
San Bernadino
San Bernardino
Monterey Park
Fillmore
Malaga
Riverbank
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Los Angeles/Glendalt
OPER-
ABLE
UM1T
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
04
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
01
02
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PS
PRP
PS
F
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
S
S
FUNDING
START
04/19/89
10/10/86
04/19/89
06/28/90
06/29/89
06/29/89
09/15/89
07/18/91
05/11/89
11/15/89
07/19/90
06/23/89
04/05/90
12/16/88
02/16/90
12/16/88
12/16/88
11/13/90
08/16/85
08/16/85
09/06/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
1
3
4
4
4
1
4
4
1
91
92
91
92
95
92
93
94
92
91
91
92
96
99
91
92
93
93
92
4
1
4
1
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
1
91
93
91
93
95
92
93
94
94
92
92
92
93
96
99
91
92
93
93
93
93
STATUS
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0
new
0
-1
-5
-7
-4
0
0
0
-3
new
0
0
-4
9 CA San Fernando Valley (Area
3)
Glendale
01
RI/FS
08/16/85
93
93
-------
Progress Toward ImplamentIng Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
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 :
San Fernando Valley (Area
4)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
1)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
2)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
3)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
4)
Sharpe Army Depot
Stringfellou
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(once listed as Thompson- Haywood
Chemical Co.)
TRW Microwave, Inc. (Building
825}
Tracy Defense Depot
Travis Air Force Base
LOCATION
Los Angeles
El Monte
Baldwin Park
Area
Alhambra
La Puente
Lathrop
Glen Avon
Heights
Clear Lake
Fresno
Sunnyvale
Tracy
Solano County
UNIT
01
01
02
01
03
05
01
01
03
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
S
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
S
EP
EP
PS
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
START
08/16/85
06/13/84
04/01/87
06/13/84
08/01/87
04/01/87
06/13/84
06/13/84
04/01/87
03/16/89
03/16/89
08/07/84
09/28/90
09/28/90
02/06/87
04/19/89
06/27/91
06/27/91
09/28/90
09/28/90
SCHEDULE
4
4
3
4
1
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
1
2
1
1
93
93
91
93
92
91
93
93
91
93
91
92
92
92
92
91
93
93
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
3
2
2
93
99
92
99
92
92
99
99
92
93
93
93
94
94
93
91
94
93
94
94
STATUS
0
-24
-5
-24
3
5
-24
-24
-5
0
-5
-5
5
-5
-4
-2
new
new
-5
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
HI
NV
AK
AK
AK
ID
ID
SITE NAME
Treasure Island Naval Station -
Hunters Point Annex
United Heckathorn Co.
Waste Disposal, Inc.
Uatkins-Johnson Co. (Stewart
Division)
Vestinghouse Electric Corp.
(Sunnyvale Plant)
Schofield Barracks
Carson River Mercury Site
Alaska Battery Enterprises
Eielson Air Force Base
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Arrcom (Drexler Enterprises)
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
LOCATION
San Francisco
Richmond
Santa Fe Springs
Scotts Valley
Sunnyvale
Oahu
Lyon/Churchill
County
Fairbanks
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Greater Anchorage
Borough
Rathdrum
Smelterville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
05
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
07
08
09
01
01
02
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
START SCHEDULE
09/28/90 4 93
09/28/90 4 93
09/28/90 4 93
10/01/90
01/22/91
09/26/91
12/22/87 4 90
07/16/91
08/24/88 1 92
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/28/90
05/04/90 4 92
06/17/91
05/21/91
06/17/91
06/17/91
09/30/91
05/01/87 4 91
05/13/87 2 93
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
2
4
3
2
4
1
2
4
3
4
1
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
93
92
95
95
96
93
93
93
95
92
93
92
92
92
STATUS
-4
-1
-2
new
new
new
-10
new
0
new
new
new
DNE
-1
new
new
new
new
new
-4
3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
ID
ID
ID
ID
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
UA
UA
SITE NAME
Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Monsanto Chemcial Co. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling
Co.
Allied Plating, Inc.
Joseph Forests Products
Martin-Marietta Aluminum
Co.
Teledyne Uah Chang
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
United Chrome Products,
Inc.
American Crossarm & Conduit
Co.
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
LOCATION
Pocatello
Soda Springs
Soda Springs
Pocatello
Portland
Joseph
The Dalles
Albany
Hermiston
Cor vail is
Chehalis
Silverdale
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
START
05/30/91
09/20/90
03/19/91
09/22/89
09/24/87
09/21/89
05/15/90
05/05/87
07/12/91
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
09/24/87
07/12/89
02/16/90
02/16/90
06/29/90
07/30/90
09/02/90
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
4
3
2
3
1
4
2
3
3
3
3
94
92
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
93
93
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
1
94
94
94
93
92
92
92
93
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
93
92
94
93
93
94
STATUS
new
-3
new
-7
-4
0
0
-4
new
-2
ONE
ONE
ONE
DNE
DNE
0
-1
-2
-6
-1
-1
-2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILIT STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBt 30, 1991
RG
10
10
ST
UA
WA
SHE NAME
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Bonneville Power Administration
LOCATION
Bremerton
Vancouver
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
01/29/90
05/15/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 91
2 92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 92
1 93
STATUS
-2
-3
Ross Complex (USDOE)
10 UA Colbert Landfill
10 UA Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Colbert
Pierce County
10 UA Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel
10 UA Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Uaste
Areas)
10 UA Fort Lewis (Landfill No.5)
10 UA Fort Lewis Logistics Center
10 UA Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
Tacoma
Spokane County
Tacoma
Tillicum
Benton County
01
01
02
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
MR
08/28/89 4 93
FF
FF
01/29/90
02/08/91
91
4 93
02
04
05
05
05
05
06
01
02
03
01
02
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
F
PS
PS
PS
PS
FE
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
09/10/86
09/27/89
01/16/90
09/30/89
06/30/89
11/16/90
01/23/91
07/19/90
10/15/90
07/20/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
4
92
92
94
94
95
92
92
92
3
4
1
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
1
4
93
92
94
94
95
93
92
92
93
92
93
93
4 92
1 94
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
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
06/30/89
05/15/89
06/30/89
10/27/89
04/09/90
04/09/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
10/12/90
10/12/90
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
93
92
93
93
94
95
94
95
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
93
94
93
93
94
95
94
95
93
95
-6
-3
3
-3
0
new
new
-3
new
-3
-1
ONE
-4
new
0
-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
UA
SITE NAME
Hanford 200- Area (USDOE)
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Lakewood Site
McChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/
Treatment Area)
Naval Air Station, Uhidbey Island
(Ault Field)
Naval Air Station, Uhidbey Island
(Seaplane Base)
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Uaste Area)
Queen City Farms
Silver Mountain Mine
Uestern Processing Co.,
Inc.
Uycoff Co. /Eagle Harbor
LOCATION
Benton County
Benton County
Seattle
Lakewood
Tacoma
Uhidbey Island
Uhidbey Island
Keyport
Maple Valley
Loomis
Kent
Bainbridge
Island
UNIT
01
01
02
01
03
07
08
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
F
START
05/15/89
05/15/89
09/27/89
09/07/88
09/14/90
09/07/88
05/11/90
09/24/87
10/23/89
10/16/90
06/30/91
01/02/91
07/17/90
05/06/88
06/15/91
07/06/87
09/03/87
SCHEDULE
2
1
3
2
1
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
94
93
94
92
93
92
92
92
92
92
90
92
SCHEDULE
2
3
2
4
1
4
2
4
4
4
4
3
2
1
4
1
3
94
95
96
92
93
93
93
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
92
92
STATUS
0
10
-7
-2
0
ONE
ONE
-3
-1
0
new
new
-5
-3
new
-5
-2
-------
-------
Appendix B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30,1991
This appendix lists the remedial designs in
progress at the end of FY91 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).
LocationLocation 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 StartThe date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
Present Completion Schedule The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion date
for the activity, as of 9/30/91. This information
was compiled from CERCLIS on 10/18/91.
147
-------
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
CT
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
ME
SITE NAME
Beacon Heights Landfill
Kellogg-Deering Well Field
Laurel Park Inc. (once listed as
Laurel Park Landfill)
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
Grove I and Wells
Hocomonco Pond
Industri-Plex (once listed as Mark
Phillip Trust)
New Bedford Site
Norwood PCBs
Re-Solve, Inc.
Rose Disposal Pit
Sullivan's Ledge
W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Acton
Plant)
Wells G&H
O'Connor Co.
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Winthrop Landfill
LOCATION
Beacon Falls
Norwalk
Naugatuck
Borough
Ho I brook
Tyngsborough
Groveland
Uestborough
Woburn
New Bedford
Norwood
Dartmouth
Lanesboro
New Bedford
Acton
Woburn
Augusta
Washburn
Saco
Winthrop
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
02
04
04
02
02
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
MR
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/02/87
03/14/91
04/24/91
09/24/91
09/30/88
03/18/91
08/07/87
09/22/88
06/28/90
09/28/90
03/30/89
03/30/89
08/16/89
03/15/91
05/18/90
04/27/90
12/14/90
09/13/89
09/29/89
08/18/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
3
4
1
2
3
1
2
1
4
2
92
93
93
93
93
92
93
92
92
94
93
93
93
94
94
93
93
93
92
92
-------
Ul
o
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
RI
RI
RI
VT
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Auburn Road Landfill
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
(once listed as Kearsage Metallurgy
cal Corp.)
Ottati & Goss/K ings ton Steel Drum
(once listed as Ottati & Goss)
South Municipal Water Supply
Well
Tinkham Garage
Davis Liquid Waste
Landfill & Resource Recover/, Inc.
(L&RR)
Stamina Mills, Inc. (once listed
as Forestdale - Stamina Mills,
Inc.)
Old Springfield Landfill
Asbestos Dump
Burnt Fly Bog
Cal dwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Control
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (once listed as
LOCATION
Londonderry
Conway
Kingston
Peterborough
Londonderry
Smithfield
North Smithfield
North Smithfield
Springfield
MHlington
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Elizabeth
Edison Township
Toms River
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
02
02
03
04
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
F
PRP*
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/90
09/30/90
09/27/91
03/15/89
09/20/90
09/20/90
09/04/90
09/23/88
09/23/88
07/11/88
11/16/90
07/16/91
09/29/89
10/20/89
09/29/89
04/22/87
05/31/91
10/23/90
09/30/89
06/01/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
4
4
3
3
3
1
2
93
93
93
93
93
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
92
93
92
93
93
92
93
Toms River Chemical)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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
Cinnaminson Township (Block 702)
Ground Water Contamination
Combe Fill South Landfill
D'Imperio Property
De Renewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
Ewan Property
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
GEMS Landfill
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Goose Farm
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Kin-Buc Landfill
King of Prussia
Lang Property
LOCATION
Cinnaminson
Township
Chester Township
Hamilton Township
King wood Township
Newark
Shamong Township
Atlantic County
Pemberton
Township
Gloucester
Township
Glen Ridge
PI instead
Township
Morganvi I le
Edison Township
Wins low Township
Pemberton
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
S
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
S
F
F
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
07/09/91
06/26/87
06/26/87
04/10/86
09/30/89
12/14/89
10/13/89
10/31/89
03/31/91
06/04/91
05/22/86
05/25/89
09/26/90
01/09/88
09/30/91
09/30/88
05/02/91
03/20/87
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
3
1
1
4
1
4
4
4
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
93
91
93
92
93
93
92
93
92
92
91
93
93
92
93
93
93
92
2 NJ Lipari Landfill
Pitman
03
09/29/88
2 92
-------
Nğ
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
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
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Mannheim Avenue Ounp
Meta I tec/Aerosys terns
Montclair/West Orange Radium
Site
Montgomery Township Housing
Development
Nascolite Corp.
Pepe Field
Price Landfill
Reich Farms
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Roebling Steel Co.
Sharkey Landfill
Tabernacle Drum Dump
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Ualdick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
Williams Property
American Thermostat Co.
Byron Barrel & Drum
LOCATION
Galloway Township
Franklin Borough
Monte lair/West
Orange
Montgomery
Township
Mi 1 1 vi lie
Boonton
Pleasantville
Pleasant Plains
Rocky Hill
Borough
Florence
Parsippany/Troy
Hills
Tabernacle
Township
Vineland
Wall Township
Swainton
South Cairo
Byron
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
03
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP
F
F
F
F
S
PRP*
F
S
S
PRP
S
F
S
PRP
F
F
F
F
S
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/14/91
01/06/88
03/29/91
05/25/89
09/26/90
03/24/89
01/16/91
09/27/91
03/29/90
06/26/87
04/05/90
03/24/89
09/25/91
03/31/87
11/29/89
09/30/89
10/02/89
01/13/88
06/28/91
09/30/88
09/30/90
09/21/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
4
1
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
4
3
1
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
92
92
93
93
93
92
93
93
92
93
92
92
93
-------
in
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
2
2
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
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychenical
Colesvi lie Municipal Landfill
Conklin Dumps
Fulton Terminals
Genzale Plating Co.
Ha vi I and Complex
Hooker Chemcial/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Hooker Chemical (South Area)
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Marathon Battery Corp.
Mat ti ace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
SMS Instruments, Inc.
LOCATION
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesvi lie
Conklin
Fulton
Franklin Square
Town of Hyde
Park
Hicksville
Niagara Falls
Horseheads
Clayville
Cold Springs
Glen Cove
North Sea
Port Washington
Farmingdal*
Deer Park
OPER- .
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
F
F
PS
PS
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PS*
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
06/24/91
09/28/90
04/01/91
04/02/91
11/28/90
09/25/91
04/29/88
09/29/90
07/16/91
12/01/86
09/21/90
05/31/91
09/28/90
08/29/91
11/12/89
06/26/87
09/30/89
09/30/88
09/30/91
09/26/90
09/28/90
03/28/90
09/30/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
3
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
2
4
4
1
2
93
93
93
93
93
93
91
92
92
93
95
94
91
93
93
92
92
92
93
92
93
92
92
-------
Ul
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
DE
HO
HO
MO
SITE NAME
Sarney Farm
Sinclair Refinery
Solvent Savers
Syosset Landfill
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 (once
listed with Well 4-2 as one
site)
Volney Municipal Landfill
GE Wiring Devices
Upjohn Facility
Vega Alta Public Supply Wells
Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill
(once listed as Delaware Sand &
Gravel -LLangollen Army Creek
Landfills)
Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc.
New Castle Spill (once listed as
TRIS Spill)
Tybouts Corner Landfill
Limestone Road
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
LOCATION
Amenta
Wellsville
Lincklaen
Oyster Bay
Vestal
Town of Volney
Juana Diaz
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
New Castle
County
ICirkwood
New Castle
County
New Castle
County
Cumberland
Elkton
Hollywood
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FE
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
03/29/91
07/18/89
07/02/91
04/11/91
03/28/91
04/18/91
09/28/90
09/30/88
05/09/89
05/09/89
04/27/89
08/26/88
08/26/88
09/14/87
10/17/90
04/19/89
04/13/90
01/05/89
09/22/88
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
2
4
1
3
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
91
93
92
92
93
92
92
93
93
93
92
92
-------
C/l
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
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
Ambler Asbestos Piles
Bally Ground Water Contamination
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Blosenski Landfill
Brown's Battery Breaking
Craig Farm Drum
CryoChem, Inc.
Dorney Road Landfill
Douglassville Disposal
Drake Chemical
East Mount Zion
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
He leva Landfill
Henderson Road
Hranica Landfill
Kifflberton Site
LOCATION
Ambler
Bally Borough
Bridgewater
Township
West Cain
Township
Shoemakersville
Parker
Worman
Upper Macungie
Township
Douglassville
Lock Haven
Springettsbury
Township
Weisenberg
Township
North Whitehall
Township
Upper Her ion
Township
Buffalo Township
Kimberton
Borough
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
03
03
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
r
f
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/21/91
09/12/90
09/25/91
04/19/90
02/14/90
12/31/90
09/26/90
02/22/90
12/28/90
09/26/91
09/27/89
01/03/89
01/03/89
01/09/91
06/20/89
06/20/89
09/28/88
02/27/89
08/26/91
11/01/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
4
2
4
1
3
1
2
2
2
4
1
2
92
92
93
93
92
92
93
92
92
93
92
92
92
93
92
92
92
92
93
92
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
AL
SITE NAME
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
Lord-Shope Landfill
NU Manufacturing (once listed as
Domino Salvage Yard)
Mill Creek Dump
Osborne Landfill
Palmer-ton Zinc Pile
Raymark
Walsh Landfill
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
C&R Battery Co., Inc.
Greenwood Chemical Co.
L.A. Clarke & Son
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
U.S. Titanium
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
Anniston Army Depot (Southeast
LOCATION
Chambersburg
Girard Township
Valley Township
Erie
Grove City
Palmer ton
Hatboro
Honeybrook
Township
Front Royal
Chesterfield
County
Newtown
Spotsylvania
County
Saltville
Piney River
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
Anniston
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
03
01
01
02
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
01
01
02
02
LEAD
FF
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F*
F
PRP
F*
f*
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/25/91
08/19/91
09/30/90
03/23/87
08/12/91
11/02/88
06/10/91
06/10/91
01/26/89
09/26/90
01/08/91
08/26/89
09/27/90
06/29/90
03/03/90
07/27/88
12/04/90
08/06/90
04/15/91
09/26/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
4
2
1
2
4
2
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
4
92
92
93
91
93
94
92
92
93
92
92
93
92
92
93
93
93
93
92
92
Industrial Area)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Perdido Ground Water Contamination
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeNoyne
Plant)
American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant) (once listed as
American Creosote Works)
Cabot/Koppers
City Industries, Inc.
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving
Co.
Dubose Oil Products Co.
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal
(once listed as Timber Lake
Battery Disposal)
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sherwood Medical Industries
Sixty-Second Street Dump
Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
WMtehouse Oil Pits
Yellow Water Road Dump
LOCATION
Leeds
Perdido
Bucks
Axis
Pensacola
Gainesville
Orlando
Uhitehouse
Cantonment
Tampa
Cottondale
Plant City
Deland
Tampa
Brandon
Whitehouae
Baldwin
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/91
06/20/89
04/25/90
04/25/90
09/25/89
09/27/91
04/12/91
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/19/91
05/23/91
06/30/90
09/28/90
03/27/91
08/22/91
10/18/90
06/26/85
03/22/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
4
1
1
3
2
2
1
4
93
92
93
93
92
93
93
92
92
93
92
92
92
92
93
92
93
92
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
GA
GA
ICY
icr
ICY
ICY
MS
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
TN
TN
SITE NAME
ZeUwood Ground Water Contamination
Monsanto Corp. (Augusta Plant)
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
*4/Sludge Lagoon) (once listed as
Robins Air Force Base)
Airco
B.F. Goodrich
Howe Valley Landfill
Smith's Farm
Newson Brothers/Old Reichhold
Chemicals, Inc.
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump
Jadco- Hughes Facility
Carol awn, Inc.
Geiger (C & H Oil)
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Uamchem, Inc.
Lewisburg Dump
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
LOCATION
ZeUwood
Augusta
Houston County
Calvert City
Calvert City
Howe Valley
Brooks
Columbia
Aberdeen
Belmont
Fort Lawn
Rantoules
Dixiana
Burton
Lewi sburg
Oak Ridge
OPER- .
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
04
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
04
LEAD
F
F
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
09/28/90
03/28/91
08/01/91
01/05/89
01/05/89
06/03/91
05/04/90
05/12/89
03/21/90
01/31/91
07/16/91
09/18/89
07/31/90
02/08/89
01/31/89
09/05/91
06/28/91
09/30/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
1
3
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
4
91
92
93
92
93
93
93
92
92
93
92
93
92
92
92
92
93
92
92
5 IL Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
(Pembroke)
Pembroke Township
01
PRP
03/13/90
3 93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
SJ
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI)
Envirochem Corp.
MIDCO I
MIDCO II
Neal's Dump (Spencer)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Northside Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Wayne Waste Oil
Anderson Development Co.
Auto Ion Chemicals, Inc.
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Cliff/Dow Dump
Forest Waste Products
Hedblum Industries
Ionia City Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Metamora Landfill
LOCATION
Granite City
Carterville
Zionsville
Gary
Gary
Spencer
Gary
Zionsville
Columbia City
Adrian
Kalamazoo
Muskegon
Marquette
Otisville
Oscoda
Ionia
Cadillac
Utfca
Metamora
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
LEAD
F
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/08/91
05/02/91
05/14/91
09/25/89
09/28/90
09/30/89
06/15/90
08/22/85
09/20/89
03/12/90
08/13/91
09/10/91
08/28/90
09/27/90
09/27/89
06/27/88
03/22/90
09/13/90
05/16/90
08/18/89,
04/26/91
04/26/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 93
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
4
3
1
93
94
92
91
91
93
93
93
94
93
92
93
93
93
92
93
92
92
93
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
Nt
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Northernaire Plating
Novaco Industries
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
Rose Township Dump
Spiegelberg Landfill
Springfield Township Dump
Verona Well Field
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
South Andover Site (once listed as
Andovers Sites)
St. Louis River Site
University of Minnesota (Rosemount
Research Center)
Waste Disposal Engineering
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Arcanum Iron & Metal
LOCATION
Cadillac
Temperance
Da I ton Township
Rose Township
Green Oak
Township
Davisburg
Battle Creek
Hermantown
Cannon Falls
Bemidji
Oak Grove
Towsnship
Andover
St. Louis
County
Rosemount
Andover
Ironton
Drake County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
03
02
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP
F
F
, F
PRP
PRP
F
S
PRP
PRP
S
S
PRP
F
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
05/16/90
03/16/87
06/05/90
02/28/91
07/18/89
08/22/91
03/15/91
09/29/89
03/26/90
09/06/91
09/06/91
06/28/91
05/02/91
05/23/89
03/26/91
06/29/90
08/30/91
03/09/89
08/13/91
03/20/87
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
2
92
93
91
92
92
93
93
92
92
93
92
93
92
92
92
92
92
93
93
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
WI
WI
WI
UI
WI
Ul
WI
WI
SITE NAME
Big 0 Campground
Bowers Landfill
Coshocton Landfill
E.H. Schilling Landfill
Fields Brook
Industrial Excess Landfill
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. (once listed
as Poplar Oil Co.)
Pristine, Inc.
Summit National
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Algoma Municipal Landfill
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Fadrowski Drun Disposal
Janesville Ash Beds
Janesvtlle Old Landfill
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill
LOCATION
Kingsville
Circleville
Franklin Township
Hamilton Township
Ashtabula
Un foot own
Jefferson
Township
Reading
Deerfield
Township
Troy
Algoma
DePere
Eau Claire
Franklin
Janesville
Janesville
Srookfield
Cleveland
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
31
01
01
2
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/02/90
10/04/89
02/23/90
09/28/90
03/22/89
09/29/89
07/27/90
08/20/91
06/11/91
04/10/89
08/25/91
08/05/91
09/29/88
09/27/91
07/12/91
07/12/91
08/13/91
08/11/89
98/11/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
3
3
3
2
4
4
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
92
92
93
92
93
93
92
92
93
93
93
92
94
93
93
93
93
92
93
5 WI Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil Co.)
MiIwaukee
01
PRP
07/15/91
1 93
-------
ro
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
UI
WI
Ul
UI
UI
AR
NN
OK
OK
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
SITE NAME
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Schnalz Dump
Wausau Ground Uater Contamination
Wheeler Pit
Gurley Pit
South Valley
Hardage/Criner (once listed as
Criner/Hardage Waste Disposal)
Sand Springs Petrochemical
Complex
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
Tinker Air Force Base (Soldier
Creek/Building 3001)
Bailey Waste Disposal
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
Dixie Oil Processors, Inc.
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann
Energy
MOTCO, Inc.
North Calvacade Street
LOCATION
Ashippin
Onalaska
Harrison
Wausau
La Prairie
Township
Edmonson
Albuquerque
Criner
Sand Springs
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Bridge City
Friends wood
Friends wood
Houston
La Marque
Houston
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
05
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
LEAD
F
F
. F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
f
FF
MR
PRP
PRP
S
MR
S
FUNDING
START
09/26/90
02/28/91
09/30/91
01/25/88
05/10/90
05/21/91
06/22/87
09/01/89
09/09/90
10/03/88
03/21/91
11/30/90
03/31/89
06/29/89
06/30/89
04/07/87
06/11/90
03/28/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
4
2
3
1
3
3
2
4
1
2
2
4
2
4
1
93
92
92
90
92
92
92
92
93
94
92
93
92
93
92
92
92
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
SITE NAME
Sheridan Disposal Service
Sol Lynn/ Industrial Transformers
South Cavalcade Street
Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
United Creosoting Co.
Fairfield Coal Gasification
Plant
Midwest Manufacturing/North
Farm
Northwestern States Portland
Cement Co.
Cherokee County (once listed as
Tar Creek, Cherokee County)
Doepke Disposal ( Ho 1 1 i day)
Ellisville Site
Kern- Pest Laboratories
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (once
listed as Area 2: Fills 1 &
2)
Shenandoah Stables (once listed as
Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits
(USDOE/Anny) (once listed as
LOCATION
Hempstead
Houston
Houston
Texarkana
Conroe
Fairfield
Kel logg
Mason City
Cherokee County
Johnson County
Ellisville
Cape Girardeau
Imperial
Moscow Mills
Republic
St. Charles
County
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
05
05
01
02
02
01
02
01
02
LEAD
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
S
S
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
F
PRP*
EP*
F
EP
EP
PS
FF
FUNDING
START
12/29/89
03/29/90
03/31/89
07/30/90
03/06/91
03/30/90
04/23/91
08/21/91
08/21/91
05/21/91
07/30/90
07/30/90
10/24/90
10/02/90
09/10/91
05/01/91
05/01/91
05/31/91
08/09/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
1
4
2
1
4
2
2
1
4
4
2
1
2
2
2
4
4
93
93
92
93
93
92
92
92
92
92
92
91
93
93
92
92
92
92
91
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Aray))
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
MO
NE
NE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
SO
UT
UT
SITE NAME
Wheeling Disposal Service Co.
Landfill
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
Broderick Wood Products
California Gulch
Central City - Clear Creek
Chemical Sales Co.
Denver Radium Site
Eagle Mine
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
Sand Creek Industrial
East Helena Site (once listed as
East Helena Smelter
Whitewood Creek
Hill Air Force Base
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
LOCATION
Amazonia
Hastings
Lindsay
Denver
Leadville
Idaho Springs
Denver
Denver
Minturn/Redcliff
Golden
Adams County
Commerce City
East Helena
Whitewood
Ogden
Monticello
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
04
07
07
09
01
01
01
01
03
03
06
01
02
16
21
25
26
OS
01
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
S
S
F
F
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/11/91
09/27/90
09/28/90
04/01/90
04/01/90
12/14/88
09/30/91
09/29/88
04/25/89
06/15/88
09/30/91
09/20/91
04/07/91
05/20/88
01/25/91
04/04/90
06/28/91
06/20/90
09/03/91
03/29/91
09/11/90
03/26/91
09/30/91
05/02/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
3
1
2
4
3
1
2
2
4
3
3
4
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
3
93
93
93
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
94
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
-------
ON
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UY
WY
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Monticello Radioactively Contaminat
ed Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 &
3)
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings) (once listed as Sharon
Steel Corp. (Midvale Smelter))
Wasatch Chemical Co. (Lot 6)
Baxter/Union Pacific Tie Treating
Mystery Bridge Rd/U.S. Highway
20
Indian Bend Wash Area
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp.
(Mountain View) (once listed as
LOCATION
Monticello
Ogden
Salt Lake
City
Midvale
Salt Lake
City
Laramie
Evansvi I le
Scottsdale/Tempe/
Phoenix
Phoenix
Goodyear
Tucson
Coalinga
Mountain View
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
02
LEAD
FF
FE
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/26/90
09/29/89
12/21/90
06/28/91
12/31/90
09/30/91
02/15/87
06/27/91
06/27/91
10/03/88
09/28/90
01/04/91
01/30/91
01/04/91
05/07/91
01/07/89
05/02/88
01/02/91
01/02/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 92
2 °£
4
3
3
1
1
3
4
3
2
4
1
4
4
1
3
2
1
92
94
92
93
93
92
92
92
93
92
92
92
92
93
92
93
93
Corp. (Mountain View Plant)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
WA
UA
SITE NAME
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp.
(South San Jose Plant) (once
listed as Fairchild Camera I
Instrument Corp. (South San
Jose
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
J.H. Baxter & Co.
(Coppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
Raytheon Corp.
Selma Treating Co.
South Bay Asbestos Area (once
listed as Alviso Dumping Area)
Stringfellow
Synertek, Inc. (Building 1)
Colbert Landfill
Comnencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
LOCATION
South San
Jose
Mountain View
Weed
Oroville
Oroville
Mountain View
Selma
Alviso
Glen Avon
Heights
Santa Clara
Colbert
Pierce County
OPER- .
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
05
01
01
01
01
03
05
05
05
05
05
05
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PS
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
FUNDING
START
01/02/91
05/14/91
05/14/91
08/19/91
10/01/90
09/26/91
05/14/91
05/14/91
09/21/89
09/29/90
09/14/89
09/30/89
06/28/91
03/23/89
09/28/90
03/29/91
02/03/89
09/30/89
09/30/89
08/22/90
06/28/91
01/30/91
06/30/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
4
3
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
4
93
93
93
92
92
92
93
93
92
92
92
94
92
93
92
92
92
96
94
93
93
93
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1991
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
SITE NAME
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel
FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Norths ide Landfill
Silver Mountain Mine
LOCATION
Tacoma
Yakima
Tillicum
Vancouver
Spokane
Loomi s
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
11/13/89
08/23/91
06/30/91
03/23/88
02/11/91
05/01/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
1
2
1
92
93
92
93
92
92
-------
-------
Appendix C
Record of
Decision Abstracts
This appendix provides detailed descriptions of
FY91 feasibility studies, as required by CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l)(A). These descriptions are based
on records of decision (RODs) signed from October
1, 1990, through September 30, 1991. EPA signed
196 RODs in FY91, including 21 federal facilities
and 13 ROD amendments.
Each abstract provides background information
on the Superfund site, including the date on which
EPA signed the ROD, former user of the site, type of
operation, contaminants of concern, and previous
clean-up actions. Each abstract also includes a
description of the remedial alternative selected in the
ROD and provides information on the use of
alternative or resource recovery treatment
technologies and on the performance standards or
goals for the site. All sites abstracted in the appendix
are listed alphabetically according to the site name
and are grouped by EPA region.
Table of Contents
Region 1 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont 171
Region 2 New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands 189
Region 3 Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia 233
Region 4 Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina,Tennessee 277
Region 5 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin 313
Region 6 Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas 375
Region 7 Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska 379
Region 8 Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming 395
Region 9 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam 409
Region 10 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 443
169
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Acronyms Referenced in Record of Decision Abstracts
ACL
ACM
AOC
AOP
APEG
ARAR
ATSDR
BAT
BEST
BHC
BLM
BND
CAA
CWA
DANC
DCA
DCE
DDT
DNAPL
DNT
DOD
DOI
EP
ESD
FFS
GPAL
HI
HLSC
IAG
IRA
IRM
ISAL
IWTP
LAA
LDR
LNAPL
LTTD
MCL
MCLG
MDL
MTCA
Alternate Concentration Limit NAPL
Asbestos-Containing Material NCP
Administrative Order on Consent
Advanced Oxidation Process NESHAP
Alkaline Polyethylene Glycol
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate NPDES
Requirements
Agency for Toxic Substances and O&M
Disease Registry OU
Best Available Technology OSHA
Basic Extraction Sludge Technology PACT
Benzenehexachloride PAH
Bureau of Land Management PAL
Benzolated-napthoylated PCB
diethylaminoethy! PCE
Clean Air Act PCP
Clean Water Act PMCL
Decontaminating Agent Non-Corrosive POTW
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene PRP
1,1,1 -Trichloro-2,2-bis(p- PVC
chlorophenyl)ethane RA
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid RD
Dinitrotoluene RDX
Department of Defense RI/FS
Department of Interior
Extraction Procedure RCRA
Explanation of Significant Differences
Focused Feasability Study ROD
Ground-Water Protection Achievement SDWA
Level SI
Hazard Index SVOC
Human Life Cycle Safe Concentration TCA
Interagency Agreement TCDD
Interim Response Action TCE
Initial Remedial Measure TCLP
Interim Soil Action Level
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant TEM
Lower Alluvial Aquifier THF
Land Disposal Restriction TNB
Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid TNT
Low Temperature Thermal Desorption TSCA
Maximum Contaminant Level UAA
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal UAO
Method Detection Limit UST
Model Toxic Control Act UV
VOC
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan
National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Operations and Maintenence
Operable Unit
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
Preventive Action Limit
Polychlorinated biphenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Pentachlorophenol
Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
Potentially Responsible Party
Polyvinyl chloride
Remedial Action
Remedial Design
Research Department Explosive
Remedial Investigation/Feasability
Study
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
Record of Decision
Safe Drinking Water Act
Site Investigation
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin
Trichloroethylene
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
Transmission Electron Microscopy
Tetrahydrofuran
Trinitrobenzene
Trinitrotoluene
Toxic Substances Control Act
Upper Alluvial Aquifier
Unilateral Administrative Order
Underground Storage Tank
Ultraviolet
Volatile Organic Compound
170
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 1
A51-002-1
REGION 1
Site
Dover Municipal Landfill
Groveland Wells
Iron Horse Park
Mottolo Pig Farm
Nyanza Chemical
Savage Municipal Water Supply
Silresim Chemical
Sullivan's Ledge
Union Chemical
Western Sand & Gravel
State
NH
MA
MA
NH
MA
NH
MA
MA
ME
RI
Page
172
174
176
177
178
180
181
183
185
187
171
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
DOVER MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, NH
September 10, 1991
The 55-acre Dover Municipal Landfill site is
an inactive landfill in Dover, Strafford County,
New Hampshire. Land use in the area is rural-
residential and recreational. The site overlies
both an upper and a lower aquifer that are
separated by impermeable clay. Significant
nearby surface water bodies include the Bellamy
reservoir, located 2,000 feet south of the site,
which supplies drinking water for local
municipalities; and the Calderwood well, which
supplies drinking water for the City of Dover,
and is located approximately 0.5 miles north of
the landfill; and the Cocheco River, which runs
approximately 500 feet east of the landfill. A
portion of the site lies within the 100-year
floodplain of the Cocheco River, and four
wetland systems are in the vicinity of the site.
From 1960 until 1979, the landfill accepted
municipal and industrial wastes including
drummed materials and liquid waste. Landfill
disposal practices included trenching, burning,
and fill and cover methods. Between 1980 and
1982, the facility was capped and closed, and a
drainage channel was excavated around the
landfill to intercept leachate. In 1981, VOC
contamination was found in private residential
wells screened in the tipper aquifer in the
vicinity of the landfill. Further analyses
identified two contaminant plumes, one
migrating to the south and the other moving to
the east. This ROD addresses both source
control and management of migration of
contaminated ground water, as a final remedy.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, sludge, debris, and ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and vinyl chloride; other organics; and
metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and consolidating approximately
300 cubic yards of sediment from the drainage
channel, and depositing the material into the
landfill prior to capping; recontouring and
capping the landfill with a multi-media cap
including installing a passive venting system for
methane gas; ground-water pumping and on-site
treatment of the southern plume ground water
and leachate using aeration for VOC removal,
carbon adsorption to remove other organics, and
flocculation, coagulation, and precipitation,
followed by discharge of the treated water on-
site to surface water or off site to the Dover
POTW; disposing of residual sludge off site;
constructing a clean ground-water diversion
system upgradient of the site; natural attenuation
of the eastern plume ground water; constructing
a surface water run-on/run-off diversion system;
conducting long-term ground-water monitoring;
and implementing institutional controls,
including deed and ground-water use
restrictions. If it is determined that the selected
ground-water treatment remedy for the southern
plume is not effective, a contingency remedy
that utilizes precipitation and air stripping will
be implemented. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $24,155,700, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $157,680 for 10 years
and an annual cost for ground-water monitoring
of $721,600 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Sediment in areas where arsenic levels are
above 50 mg/kg will be excavated and
consolidated under the landfill cap. Ground-
water interim clean-up goals are based on the
more stringent of federal MCLs or non-zero
MCLGs, EPA health advisories, state standards,
or reference doses, and include arsenic 50 ag/1
(RCRA MCL) or background, whichever is
higher, benzene 5 wg/1 (MCL), PCE 5 wg/1
(MCL), and TCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL). The final
172
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ground-water clean-up levels will be determined Institutional Controls
as a result of a risk assessment performed on
residual ground water after all interim clean-up Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
levels have been met. be implemented at the site.
173
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
GROVELAND WELLS, MA
September 30, 1991
The 850-acre Groveland Wells site is a
municipal well field in Groveland,
Massachusetts. Land use in the area is
residential, industrial, and commercial. The site
is bounded to the north by the Merrimack River;
to the west by the Haverhill Municipal Landfill,
which is another Superfund site; and to the south
and east by mixed land use areas. The site is
underlain by a surficial unconsolidated aquifer,
which is a source of ground water for the well
field, and a deeper bedrock aquifer. Both a
current and a former municipal water supply
well are located within the site boundaries.
Johnson Creek, including its associated
wetlands, flows across the site, and portions of
the site lie within the 100-year floodplain of the
Merrimack River. In 1979, elevated levels of
TCE were discovered in the on-site water supply
wells, resulting in the closure of the wells,
development of alternate water supplies, and
investigations by EPA. An IRM by EPA in
1985 provided an alternate water supply by
installing a carbon adsorption unit on one of the
on-site water supply wells. EPA investigations
identified three likely sources of contamination:
the A.W. Chesterton Company, currently being
remediated under RCRA corrective action and
closure activities; the Haverhill Municipal
Landfill, which has been addressed as a separate
CERCLA action; and the Valley Manufactured
Products Company (Valley), a screw machine
products manufacturer and finisher. From 1963
to 1974, Valley operations involved the release
of up to 3,000 gallons of waste oil and solvents,
including TCE, to the soil either from an
underground disposal storage tank leak, or from
spills or leaks from underground disposal
systems. A 1988 ROD provided for removal of
source contamination from the Valley property
using vacuum extraction, and installation of a
ground-water recovery, treatment, and
reinjection system to treat VOC-contaminated
ground water beneath the property. The state
also required Valley to install a ground-water
pump and treatment system using air stripping to
intercept the plume at Mill Pond, an on-site
man-made water body. This ROD addresses
management of migration of contamination in
the surficial and bedrock aquifers extending
from the valley site, as a final remedy. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, and toluene; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and treatment of ground water using an
inorganics removal system consisting of
equalization/aeration, flocculation, coagulation,
sedimentation, and filtration; disposing of the
resulting sludge off site; further treating ground
water using ultraviolet light and oxidation to
remove VOCs; discharging the treated water on
site to Johnson Creek; monitoring ground water,
surface water, and sediment; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $8,900,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $333,000 for
30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Interim ground-water clean-up levels are
based on the more stringent of federal MCLs or
non-zero MCLGs, or state MCLs.
Chemical-specific ground-water goals include
benzene 5 Ğg/l (MCL), PCE 5 wg/1 (MCL),
TCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), toluene 1 mg/1 (MCL),
arsenic 50 wg/1 (MCL), and chromium 50 wg/1
(MCL). The clean-up level for lead, 15 wg/1, is
based on EPA Superfund policy. When all
174
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
interim levels are met, a risk assessment will be Institutional Controls
performed on residual ground-water
contamination to determine final clean-up levels. Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented at the site.
175
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
IRON HORSE PARK, MA
June 27, 1991
The 552-acre Iron Horse Park site is an
active industrial complex and railyard with a
long history of activities that have resulted in
contamination of soil, ground water, and surface
water in North Billerica, Massachusetts. The
site includes open storage areas, landfills, and
lagoons. This ROD addresses the on-site
60-acre landfill, known as the Shaffer Landfill,
that was used for disposal of residential and
commercial solid waste from 1946 until its
closure in 1986. The Shaffer Landfill is
surrounded by wetlands and lies within the
100-year floodplain of Middlesex Canal and
Content Brook, which border the site to the east
and south, respectively. Land use outside the
surrounding wetlands areas is predominantly
industrial and residential. As a result of State
investigations in 1980, EPA identified on-site
contamination in ground water, surface water,
and soil; and the presence of asbestos. In 1984,
EPA, under its removal authority, covered an
on-site asbestos-contaminated landfill. After
further investigation, EPA divided the site into
OUs to facilitate remediation. A 1988 ROD
addressed the B&M Lagoon site as OU1, which
includes the contaminated waste lagoons located
on another portion of this site. This ROD
addresses OU2, final remediation of the Shaffer
Landfill, including leachate and ground water.
A future ROD will address surface water
contamination as part of OUS. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the landfill
materials, ground water, and air are VOCs
including benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes;
other organics including PAHs; and metals
including arsenic and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
reconstructing the 60-acre existing landfill cap;
maintaining the cap, the existing surface
drainage system, and the existing landfill gas
collection/flare system; constructing, operating,
and maintaining a leachate collection system;
treating and disposing of leachate off site;
monitoring ground water, surface water, and the
gas collection/flare system; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed and ground-
water use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $12,553,524, which
includes a present worth O&M cost of
$3,541,426 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Interim chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and
include arsenic 50 Mg/1 (MCL), benzene 5 wg/1
(MCL), and TCE 5 Mg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be imposed on the property to prevent the use of
the aquifer as a drinking water source and to
ensure site activities will not compromise the
integrity of the landfill cap.
176
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MOTTOLO PIG FARM, NH
March 29, 1991
The 50-acre Mottolo Pig Farm site is in
Raymond, New Hampshire. Surrounding land
is primarily rural residential and undeveloped.
The site includes a wooded area, an inactive
piggery area comprised of several structures, a
building drum disposal area, and wetlands. An
on-site brook (brook A) originating in the
wetlands discharges into the Exeter River. Prior
to 1975, a piggery operation was located on site.
From 1975 to 1979, the owner disposed of
1,600 drums and pails containing hazardous
wastes in a disposal area north of the piggery
building, and subsequently filled in the area. In
1979, the state identified on-site buried drums
some of which were crushed and leaking.
Consequently in 1980, EPA began excavation
and staging of these drums. From 1981 to
1982, EPA removed and characterized drummed
waste, then transported the waste off site along
with 160 cubic yards of contaminated soil, drum
parts, and plastic sheeting. The area was then
regraded and seeded. This ROD addresses
contaminated on-site soil, debris, and the
associated ground-water plume. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs including
TCE, toluene, vinyl chloride and xylenes; and
metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing a ground-water interceptor trench
upgradient of the former drum disposal area to
reduce migration of contaminants and facilitate
treatment of contaminated soil; capping the drum
disposal and southern boundary areas with
temporary waterproof caps to improve treatment
efficiency; treating approximately 3,400-4,000
cubic yards of VOC-contaminated soil at these
areas using in-situ vacuum extraction and
activated carbon to control off-gases, followed
by on-site or off-site carbon regeneration and
disposal; allowing the contaminated ground-
water plume to be restored through natural
attenuation; monitoring ground water and
surface water; and implementing institutional
controls including deed and ground-water use
restrictions, and site access restrictions such as
fencing. The present worth cost for this RA is
$690,000, which includes a present worth O&M
cost of $280,000.
Performance Standards Or Goals
Soil clean-up levels were established to
protect ground water from soil leachate.
Ground-water interim clean-up levels were based
on federal SDWA MCLs and MCLGs, or state
health advisory levels. The estimated time
frame for the restoration of the overburdened
ground water affected by the drum disposal area
soil and the bedrock ground water affected by
the southern boundary soil to acceptable levels
by natural attenuation is 6 years and 2 years,
respectively.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented on site.
177
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
NYANZA CHEMICAL, MA
September 23, 1991
The 35-acre Nyanza Chemical site is a
former dye manufacturing facility in Ashland,
Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Land
adjacent to the site is used for industrial,
residential, commercial, and recreational
purposes. Wetlands are located to the north and
east; woodlands lie to the south, southeast, and
west; and the Sudbury River is 700 feet north of
the site. The site overlies an unconsolidated
glacial aquifer, which has been affected by site
activities. The study area for this ground-water
OU is larger than the site and consists of up to
395 acres. From 1917 to 1978, the property
was occupied by several companies involved in
manufacturing textile dyes, dye intermediates,
inorganic collodial solids, and acrylic polymers.
Starting in 1917, several types of waste was
disposed of in various on-site locations including
Megunko Hill, an unsecured landfill/disposal
area in the southern portion of the site, and
wetlands areas to the east and northwest. Waste
included process wastewater, chemical sludge,
solid process waste in drums, solvent recovery
distillation residue in drums, off-specification
products, and unrecyclable process chemicals
including phenol, nitrobenzene, and mercuric
sulfate. The dye waste stream and wastewater
were discharged to an on-site concrete "vault" or
settling basin adjacent to the main processing
building. The liquid occasionally overflowed
through a pipe into the wetlands and to surface
water. In the 1960s or 1970s, the vault was
removed from service, and subsequently was
filled in with sludge and covered over with fill.
In 1970, a state investigation linked the site to
mercury contamination in the nearby Sudbury
River. A 1985 ROD addressed soil and wetland
excavation at nine localized areas of
contamination; solidification of water-bearing
excavated sludge, sediment, and soil; and
placement, capping, and consolidation of those
materials left in place on Megunko Hill, as
OU1. In addition, a diversion trench was
constructed on the side of Megunko Hill to
divert surface water flow, and lower the ground-
water table around Megunko Hill. In 1985, the
state constructed fencing along a road
embankment, placed one foot of clean fill over
an area to prevent direct contact, and culverted
surface water through a neighboring property
under an IRM. In 1987, under an EPA removal
action, 655 tons of soil adjacent to the vault
were removed, 309 tons were incinerated, and
356 tons of soil were transported off site to an
approved landfill. In 1988, EPA solidified on-
site 2,000 tons of sludge from the vault and
disposed of the sludge at an off-site RCRA
landfill facility. This ROD addresses
management of migration as OU2, and
constitutes an interim remedy designed to treat
the highest ground-water contamination and to
collect additional data achieving cleanup
objectives. A subsequent ROD will address
uncontrolled wastewater discharges to the
Sudbury River and its tributaries. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE,
and toluene; other organics; and metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected interim RA for this site
includes constructing extraction wells at the
northern border of the site; constructing a
ground-water treatment plant that utilizes
precipitation and filtration to remove inorganics,
and ultraviolet oxidation or biological treatment
as well as carbon adsorption to remove organics,
pumping and treating ground water, with on-site
discharge of treated water to surface water;
performing pump tests in the eastern portion of
the plume to determine the need for future
ground-water remediation; installing additional
deep bedrock wells to fully define depth and
location of contamination; inspecting the
178
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Megunko Road water line; monitoring ground Performance Standards or Goals
water and surface water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground- Ground-water clean-up levels will be
water use restrictions, as well as site access identified in a subsequent ROD.
restrictions. The estimated present worth cost Institutional Controls
for this RA is $7,440,000, which includes an
estimated O&M cost of $2,180,000 over 5 Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
years be implemented at the site.
179
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SAVAGE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY, NH
September 27, 1991
The Savage Municipal Water Supply site is
located in Milford, New Hampshire. The site
and surrounding properties encompass the
Savage Municipal Well, four major industrial
facilities, and two fish hatcheries. Land use
includes residential, agricultural, heavy and light
industrial, and commercial areas. The site is
located within the 100 year floodplain of the
Souhegan River, which is the principal stream
flowing through the site. From the 1940s to the
1980s, process and waste waters from the
industrial facilities were released untreated to the
ground water or to the surface waters flowing
through the site. In 1983, the state identified
concentrations of several VOCs that were above
drinking water standards in water from the
Savage Municipal Well and water drawn from
the well supplying a nearby trailer park. At the
state's request, EPA conducted a removal action
in 1983. This included temporarily supplying
bottled water to affected residences in the trailer
park, and connecting the residences to the
existing municipal water supply system. This
ROD addresses potential risks to future use of
the aquifer caused by ground water
contamination at the site, within a 6,000- by
2,500-foot contaminated ground-water plume.
This ground-water plume was divided into two
zones: the concentrated plume, which contains
the highest concentrations of contaminants; and
the extended plume, which has the remainder of
the contaminated ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCA,
and TCE; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes on-site
pumping and treatment of the concentrated and
extended plume areas using air stripping and
ultraviolet oxidation; discharging the treated
ground water on site; use of natural attenuation
to aid in contaminated ground-water remediation
until clean-up levels are met; implementing
ground water, surface water, and sediment
monitoring programs during remediation; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed and ground-water use restrictions. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$15,500,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $1,400,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards Or Goals
Interim ground-water clean-up levels for
carcinogenic compounds have been set at the
more stringent of MCLs, non-zero MCLGs, or
an excess cancer risk of 10~6. Clean-up levels
for non-carcinogenic compounds have been set
at the non-zero MCLG or an HI=1. Ground-
water clean-up levels include benzene 5 wg/I
(MCL), PCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL), TCE 5 wg/1 (MCL),
arsenic 50 wg/1 (MCL), chromium 100 wg/1
(MCL), and lead 15 wg/1 (action). Final
protective clean-up levels will be developed after
interim levels have been attained or the remedy
is otherwise deemed protective.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to restrict the use of
contaminated ground water.
180
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SILRESIM CHEMICAL, MA
September 19, 1991
The 4.5-acre Silresim Chemical site is a
former chemical waste reclamation facility in
Lowell, Massachusetts. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial, although residential
areas are located to the south, east, and
northeast with the closest residences
approximately 300 to 500 feet from the site.
The nearby residences obtain their drinking
water from a municipal water supply. From
1971 to 1977, Silresim Chemical Corporation
(SCC) used the site for a chemical waste
reclamation facility. The facility's primary
operations included recycling and reclaiming
various chemicals and consolidating waste for
off-site disposal. The facility handled
approximately three million gallons of waste per
year including halogenated solvents, oily waste,
alcohols, metal sludge, and plating and pesticide
wastes. From 1977 to 1978, SCC abandoned
the facility, leaving approximately one million
gallons of hazardous waste on site in bulk tanks
and nearly 30,000 decaying drums. State
investigations revealed evidence of numerous
spills, leakage of drums, discharges to nearby
sewers, and run-off to adjacent property. A
number of EPA and state investigations revealed
contamination of soil and ground water. From
1978 to 1982, the state constructed a fence,
removed liquid waste in on-site drums and
tanks, and constructed berms and
absorbent-filled trenches. From 1983 to 1984,
EPA removed all on-site structures, extended the
fence, and placed a clay cap over the site. This
ROD addresses both on-site and off-site soil and
ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including dioxin, PAHs, PCBs, and phenols; and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
constructing additional perimeter fencing;
placing a low-permeability temporary cover over
areas of contaminated off-site soil; extending and
repairing the existing cap as required;
conducting in situ vacuum/vapor extraction of
approximately 137,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil; excavating and stabilizing any
soil with residual contamination after treatment
with vapor extraction, followed by on-site
disposal; backfilling excavated areas with clean
fill; installing a RCRA Subtitle C cap over the
stabilized soil; pumping and pretreatment of
ground water using a phase separation tank to
separate NAPLs, followed by chemical addition,
flocculation, precipitation, and filtration to
remove metals; off-site disposal of NAPLs and
residuals from the metals removal process;
treating residual ground water using air stripping
of heated influent, thermal oxidation, and
aqueous phase carbon adsorption, followed by
off-site discharge of the treated ground water to
the municipal sewer system or on-site discharge
to surface water; conducting long-term soil,
surface water, and ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed, ground-water, and land use restrictions
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$22,300,000, which includes a present worth
O&M cost of $9,263,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific unsaturated soil clean-up
goals are based on teachability modeling and
include among others benzene 4 wg/kg, dioxin 1
wg/kg, PAHs 10,000 wg/kg, PCBs 2,300 Kg/kg,
phenol 5,300 Mg/kg, toluene 2,700 wg/kg,
181
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
TCE 6 Kg/kg, and xylenes 22,000 Mg/kg.
Chemical-specific surficial soil clean-up goalsare
based on risk assessments, background levels,
and EPA policy and include among others
arsenic 21,000 Mg/kg (background), benzene
15,000 wg/kg (risk), dioxin 1 Mg/kg (policy),
lead 500,000 ug/kg (policy), PAHs (total)
29,000 Mg/kg (background), PCBs 1,000 Mg/kg
(policy), and TCE 40,000 Mg/kg (risk).
Chemical-specific interim ground-water clean-up
goals are based on MCLs, MCLGs, PMCLs,
reference doses, and EPA policy and include
among others arsenic 50 Mg/1 (MCL), benzene
5 Mg/1 (MCL), chromium 100 Mg/1 (MCLG),
dioxin 5xlO'8 Mg/1 (PMCL), lead 15 Mg/I
(policy), PAHs 0.2 Mg/1 (PMCL), PCBs 0.5 Ğg/l
(MCL), phenol 21,000 Mg/1 (reference dose),
TCE 5 Mg/1 (MCL), toluene 1,000 Mg/1
(MCLG), and xylenes 10,000 Mg/1 (MCLG).
EPA will conduct a risk assessment of residual
ground water contamination to determine final
ground-water clean-up goals.
Institutional Controls
Deed, ground-water, and land use
restrictions will be implemented to prevent
potential use of the site.
182
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SULLIVAN'S LEDGE, MA
September 27, 1991
The Sullivan's Ledge site consists of a
12-acre former quarry site/disposal area and
14.5 acres of downgradient wetlands areas in
New Bedford, Bristol County, Massachusetts.
Land use in the area is predominantly municipal.
The downgradient portion of the site, which is
the focus of this ROD, includes two wetlands
areas: a 13-acre wooded wetland called Middle
Marsh bordering an unnamed stream and a
1.5-acre wetland area 400 feet upstream from
Middle Marsh called the "adjacent wetlands".
In addition, the site includes portions of golf
course fairways and associated floodplains and
watershed areas. The entire site lies within the
25- and 100-year floodplains of a tributary of the
unnamed stream to the south and the
Apponagansett Swamp to the north. Prior to
1930, 12 acres of the site were used as a granite
quarry. From the 1930s to 1970s, the City of
New Bedford acquired the property and used the
quarry pits and nearby areas for disposal of
hazardous materials including electrical
transformers and capacitors, fuel oil, volatile
liquids, and other industrial waste. From 1988
to 1990, several EPA investigations identified
contamination by PCBs and PAHs in surface and
subsurface sediment, soil, and biota; and VOCs
and inorganics in ground water. Contamination
has resulted in part from contaminated sediment
migrating from the disposal area via the
unnamed stream and deposition in Middle Marsh
during stream flooding. A 1989 ROD for OU1
addressed source control of the disposal area and
the unnamed stream. This ROD addresses the
Middle Marsh as OU2. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and surface water are VOCs including
toluene; other organics including PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides, and phenols; and metals including
lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and dewatering approximately 5,200
cubic yards of contaminated sediment and soil
from portions of Middle Marsh and the adjacent
wetlands; solidifying/stabilizing the excavated
materials as needed to comply with RCRA LDR
rules; treating water extracted from excavated
materials using carbon adsorption, followed by
on-site discharge to the unnamed stream; on-site
disposal of the excavated materials beneath the
cap that will be constructed over portions of the
disposal area as part of OU1; restoring affected
wetlands; conducting long-term environmental
monitoring; and implementing institutional
controls to prevent future residential use of
Middle Marsh and the adjacent wetlands. If the
disposal area in OU1 has already been capped
when materials from OU2 are excavated, and
ready for disposal, a contingency remedy will be
implemented. This contingency remedy includes
treating the excavated soil/sediment using
solvent extraction, and treating the extracted oil
containing PCBs and other organic chemicals off
site using incineration; treating residual water
using carbon adsorption; disposing of the treated
sediment/soil at Middle Marsh; restoring
affected wetlands; conducting long-term
environmental monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls to prevent future residential
use of Middle Marsh and the adjacent wetlands.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,800,000, which includes a present worth
O&M cost of $164,000. The estimated present
worth cost for the contingent remedy is
$7,780,000, which includes a present worth
O&M cost of $164,000.
183
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil, sediment, and surface water clean-up
goals are based on an excess lifetime cancer risk
of 104 to 106 and an HI=1. The sediment/soil
clean-up level for aquatic areas in Middle Marsh
is the interim mean sediment quality criterion of
20 ug of total PCBs per gram of carbon (wg/Gc).
This will result in interstitial water
concentrations equal to or lower than the PCB
ambient water quality criteria of 0.014 wg/1.
The sediment/soil clean-up level for non-aquatic
areas in Middle Marsh and for the adjacent
wetland is total PCBs 15 mg/kg. This will
protect mammals from chronic adverse effects
from wetland/terrestial exposure to contaminated
sediment/soil.
Institutional Controls
Land use or deed restrictions will be
implemented to ensure that Middle Marsh and
the adjacent wetland are limited to recreation
and conservation purposes.
184
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
UNION CHEMICAL, ME
December 27, 1990
The 12.5-acre Union Chemical (UCC) site
is an inactive paint stripping, solvent
manufacturing, and recycling facility in Hope,
Knox County, Maine. Land use in the area is
residential, and a pond is located approximately
300 feet northeast of the site. The site is
bounded on the east and southeast by Quiggle
Brook, which flows southward for five miles
before discharging into Crawford Pond, a
drinking water source. A floodplain and a
wetland area exist along Quiggle Brook at the
eastern edge of the site, and another wetland has
been identified to the south. Site operations,
which began in 1967, included formulating
patented solvents for paint stripping and coating.
These products were manufactured and utilized
on the premises in several on-site buildings.
Later operations also included recycling of used
stripping compounds and solvents from other
businesses on a small scale until 1982, when a
fluid-bed incinerator was acquired. In 1979,
state investigations identified the presence of on-
site ground-water contamination. Subsequent
private studies in 1981 confirmed the presence
of contaminated ground water in the area
between the facilities and Quiggle Brook. The
state issued several violations to the owner
between 1979 and 1984, and eventually closed
the plant in late 1984. At that time
approximately 2,000 to 2,500 55-gallon drums
and 30 liquid storage tanks were identified on
site. In 1984, the state and EPA removed the
55-gallon drums and all but two of the liquid
storage tanks. This ROD addresses remediation
of on-site soil, debris, sludge, ground water, and
facilities, and provides for further evaluation of
contaminated off-site soil. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water, are VOCs including
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including dioxin; metals including arsenic and
lead; and other inorganics including asbestos.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
decontaminating all on-site facilities including
the still building, production facilities, welding
shop, incinerator complex, concrete pads, the
church, all associated equipment, tanks,
aboveground drums, and buried pipes using high
pressure steam cleaning or another
decontamination technique; collecting and testing
all wastewater resulting from decontamination
operations, draining all contaminated water from
sumps, and treating on site, if necessary, using
UV light/oxidation or equivalent treatment
technology; crushing and treating all concrete
from the warehouse pad, structures, floor, and
sumps by low temperature thermal desorption or
an equivalent desorption treatment; backfilling
the treated concrete on site, if it meets LDR
standards, or removing it off site for disposal at
a RCRA facility; removing and containing
asbestos from the still building, followed by off-
site disposal; treating any other RCRA
hazardous waste including dioxin/lead scrubber
ash, liquids, and sludge from the on-site
equipment, prior to off-site disposal by
solidification/stabilization; demolishing the on-
site facilities and associated components;
sampling the debris and removing it off site to
either a RCRA facility or permitted landfill
depending on testing results; excavating
approximately 10,500 cubic yards of soil from
the unsaturated and saturated zones; treating the
contaminated soil on site using low temperature
soil aeration or equivalent thermal desorption
technique; conducting treatability studies prior to
full-scale treatment of contaminated soil; treating
saturated soil and soil gases between the
facilities and Quiggle Brook areas that exceed
clean-up levels using vacuum extraction;
controlling air emissions of organics using vapor
phase carbon adsorption; incinerating or
185
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
thermally regenerating the residual carbon off
site; treating fumes and other paniculate matter
collected by the thermal aeration process;
treating soil which does not achieve site-specific
clean-up levels using another approved
technology, or obtaining a RCRA Treatability
Variance; redepositing the treated material on
site with the other treated soil; filling excavated
areas with clean fill; mixing nutrients with soil
prior to redepositing, and grading and
revegetating the area; constructing additional
vacuum enhanced extraction and monitoring
wells; pumping and treating ground water on site
using UV light/oxidation or an equivalent
destruction technology, followed by liquid phase
carbon adsorption or an equivalent treatment
technology prior to on-site discharge to Quiggle
Brook; pretreating ground water, if necessary, to
remove inorganics or solids; monitoring air and
ground water; sampling off-site soil, and
collecting meteorological site information to
define whether off-site soil contamination was
the result of UCC operations; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions, and site access restrictions
such as fencing.
The present worth cost for this RA ranges
from $9,724,000 to $10,654,000, which includes
an O&M cost ranging from $3,828,000 to
$4,757,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up levels are based on an excess
lifetime cancer risk level of less than 10"6 and an
HI< 1. Chemical-specific levels for soil include
TCE 100 Ğg/kg individually, and xylenes
100 mg/kg. Ground-water clean-up standards
have been set based on federal MCLs, MCLGs,
proposed MCLs, or state maximum exposure
guidelines including TCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL), total
xylenes 10,000 wg/1 (PMCLG), and toluene
2,000 Mg/1 (PMCL).
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including deed and
ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented on site and off site.
186
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
WESTERN SAND & GRAVEL, Rl
April 16, 1991
The 20-acre Western Sand & Gravel site is
a former liquid waste disposal site on the
boundary of Burrillville and North Smithfield,
Rhode Island. Land use in the area is primarily
semi-rural. Tarklin Brook, which lies within a
wetland immediately to the west of the disposal
area, discharges to a reservoir north of the site.
Residential areas to the west and north of the
site have private wells and use treated ground
water as a source of drinking water. From 1975
to 1979, approximately 12 acres of the site were
used for the disposal of liquid waste including
hazardous substances and sewage. The waste
was dumped into 12 unlined lagoons and pits,
and subsequently infiltrated through the porous
soil and into the ground water. As a result of a
fire in one of the pits in 1977, local officials
ordered the owner to remove chemicals from the
site. After the owner failed to comply, a cease
and desist order was issued in 1979, and waste
was no longer accepted. In 1980, at the request
of the state, EPA removed approximately 60,000
gallons of VOC-contaminated liquid waste from
the lagoons. In 1982, the state began a ground-
water recirculation system to control the spread
of contaminants in the ground water. RAs for
the site have been divided into three OUs,
addressed by three RODs. A 1984 ROD
provided for installation of water filters in
affected residences, and subsequent provision for
a permanent alternate water supply (OU1). A
1985 ROD addressed OU2, which provided site
closure activities, including capping
contaminated soil areas with a RCRA-approved
cap, phaseout of the ground-water recirculation
system with removal and off-site disposal of the
associated equipment, evaluation of alternatives
for ground-water treatment, ground-water
monitoring, and implementing site access
restrictions such as fencing. This ROD
addresses contaminated ground water, which
discharges into Tarklin Brook and the reservoir,
as OUS. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, vinyl chloride,
and xylenes; other organics; and metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes natural
attenuation of ground water; implementing a site
monitoring program for sediment, ground water,
and surface water; and implementing
institutional controls to restrict consumption of
ground water. A comparison of current and
historical data indicates that the magnitude and
extent of contamination has decreased
significantly and will continue to decrease with
time as the integrity of the cap is maintained.
Ground water is expected to achieve interim
clean-up levels within 24 to 28 years. However,
if this cleanup is proceeding at an unacceptable
rate, active restoration including pumping and
treatment by sedimentation, filtration, air
stripping, and carbon adsorption, followed by
on-site discharge to Tarklin Brook will be
implemented as a contingency remedy. There
are three additional scenarios that individually
may trigger active restoration. These include
determining that Tarklin Brook is endangered,
that a threat exists from contamination of the
bedrock, or that institutional controls cannot be
implemented effectively. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $1,123,952
($4,039,227 with active restoration), which
includes an annual O&M cost of $1,041,452
($2,990,151 with active restoration) for 24 to 28
years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Interim ground-water clean-up goals are
based on SDWA MCLs and MCLGs, a lO"6
excess cancer risk level and a HI=1, or
practical quantification limits. Once all
187
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ARAR-based interim levels have been achieved,
a risk analysis will be performed to develop a
cumulative risk assessment. The cumulative risk
of residual levels must attain a 10~* to 10"6 risk
range for carcinogens and an HI=1 for
non-carcinogens before these levels will be
considered as the final clean-up levels for any
action. Chemical-specific interim goals for
ground water include benzene 5 Mg/1 (MCL),
PCE 5 Kg/1 (MCL), TCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL), toluene
1 mg/1 (MCL), vinyl chloride 2 wg/1 (MCL),
xylenes 10 mg/1 (PMCL), and lead 5 Mg/1
(PMCL).
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including regulatory
restrictions, acquisition of affected properties or
ground-water rights, and other restrictions on
property transactions may be implemented, as
needed, to reduce the risk to public health from
consumption of ground water.
188
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 2
AS1-002-2
REGION 2
Site
A.O. Polymer
Applied Environmental Services
Asbestos Dump
C&J Disposal
Chemsol
Circuitron
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Conklin Dumps
Curcio Scrap Metal
Endicott Village Well Field
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Fort Dix Landfill (Federal Facility)
Frontera Creek
State
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NY
PR
NJ
PR
Page
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
203
204
189
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Site State Page
Garden State Cleaners NJ 205
General Motors/Central Foundry Division NY 206
Genzale Plating NY 208
Global Landfill NJ 209
Hertel Landfill NY 210
Juncos Landfill PR 212
Love Canal (93rd Street) (Amendment) NY 213
Mattiace Petrochemical NY 214
Nascolite NJ 216
Naval Air Engineering Center (OU1) (Federal Facility) NJ 217
Naval Air Engineering Center (OU2) (Federal Facility) NJ 218
Naval Air Engineering Center (OU3) (Federal Facility) NJ 219
Naval Air Engineering Center (OU4) (Federal Facility) NJ 220
NL Industries NJ 221
Rockaway Borough Wellfield NJ 222
Roebling Steel NJ 223
Sinclair Refinery NY 225
South Jersey Clothing NJ 226
Swope Oil & Chemical NJ 227
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill NJ 228
Waldick Aerospace Devices NJ 229
Warwick Landfill NY 230
White Chemical NJ 231
190
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
A.O. POLYMER, NJ
June 28, 1991
The 4-acre A.O. Polymer site is an active
resin manufacturer in Sparta, Sussex County,
New Jersey. Land use in the area is semi-rural,
and the facility is surrounded by wetlands. The
A.O. Polymer site is 1.5 miles from Sparta High
School, which has an on-site well, and 500 feet
southeast of the Wallkill River, a ground-water
discharge area. The ground water in the area is
a current or potential source of drinking water.
From the early 1960s to 1978, Mohawk
Industries operated as a resin production facility
and also reclaimed electronic component
cleaning fluids. In 1978, the A.O. Polymer
Corporation purchased the site, and on-site resin
manufacturing operations continued to utilize the
same storage vessels and laboratories previously
owned by Mohawk Industries. State
investigations in 1978 identified VOC-
contamination in local drinking water, and in
1979 the affected residences were connected to
the public water supply. Further, state
investigations in 1978 identified improper waste
handling and storage practices including disposal
of liquid waste into unlined lagoons; improper
storage of over 800 deteriorating drums; and
buried, crushed, and open drums containing
VOCs and organic compounds. In 1980 and
1981, the state excavated and removed 120 cubic
yards of crushed drums and debris, 1,700 cubic
yards .of associated contaminated soil, and 1,150
surface drums. In 1982, state investigations
confirmed that these disposal practices had
resulted in the contamination of potable ground
water. This ROD addresses soil contamination
in the former waste lagoon area and the
contaminated ground-water plume, and provides
a final remedy for the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
TCE, toluene, and xylenes; and other organics
including PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and phenols.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating contaminated soil on site using vapor
extraction, with control of off-gas emissions
using activated carbon; treating minimal amounts
of liquid condensate with an on-site ground-
water treatment unit, or disposing of liquid
condensate off site along with the spent carbon;
on-site pumping and treatment of ground water
using activated sludge hi conjunction with a
powdered activated carbon treatment, followed
by filtration and a carbon polishing treatment;
reinjecting the treated ground water on site with
a contingency for on-site discharge to surface
water, if necessary; and disposing of residual
sludges off site. An ARAR waiver may be
necessary if on-site discharge standards to
surface water cannot be met. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $4,577,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of
$218,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up levels are based on state soil
action levels including total VOCs 1 mg/kg and
total organics 10 mg/kg. Ground water will be
remediated to meet the more restrictive of state
or federal MCLs.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
191
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, NY
June 24, 1991
The 3.2-acre Applied Environmental
Services site is a former petroleum, gasoline,
and solvent chemical facility in Glenwood
Landing, Nassau County, New York. The site
is surrounded by industrial, commercial, and
residential properties. A tidal wetlands area of
Hempstead Harbor is located to the west of the
site. From 1939 to 1972, Texaco Oil Company
and, subsequently, Phillips Petroleum used the
site for bulk storage of petroleum products.
From 1974 to 1980, Mattiace Petrochemical
Company leased part of the property, and stored
and distributed chemical solvents on site.
Numerous spills and releases have occurred on
site, including a tank truck spill in 1978, which
released 3,000 gallons of toluene that soaked
into the sandy soil and spilled into the adjacent
harbor. From 1980 to 1984, a new tenant,
Applied Environmental Services, blended
various chemical waste materials on site and
operated a hazardous waste storage facility at the
site. EPA and state investigations in 1984
identified VOCs, metals, and organics in soil,
sediment, ground water, surface water, and air.
Consequently, in 1984, the current site owner,
Shore Realty, was required to remove 255 of
the 410 drums containing hazardous waste that
were stored on the property. In 1986 due to the
imminent danger posed by the site, the state
removed approximately 700,000 gallons of
hazardous waste including PCBs from the
facility. This ROD addresses contamination of
soil, ground water, sediment, surface water, and
air as a final remedy. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sediment, ground
water, surface water, and air are VOCs
including TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics including PCBs and PAHs; metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and oils.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating contaminated soil using in situ vacuum
extraction; on-site pumping and treatment of
contaminated ground water using air stripping,
followed by reinjecting the treated ground water
along with nutrients and a chemical source of
oxygen to promote in situ aerobic biodegradation
of contaminants in ground water and soil;
treating air emissions from the vacuum
extraction and air stripping processes by
catalytic oxidation prior to release to the
atmosphere; and monitoring soil, sediment,
ground water, surface water, and air. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,507,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $970,000 for 4 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up goals are based on risk-based
criteria. Ground-water clean-up goals are based
on state standards. Chemical-specific goals for
ground water include arsenic 25 Ğg/l, chromium
50 Kg/1, lead 25 itg/1, TCE 5 Ğg/l, toluene 5
Ğg/l, and xylenes 15 wg/1. For all other media,
clean-up goals are based on applicable standards
for sediment, surface water, and air.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
192
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ASBESTOS DUMP, NJ
September 27, 1991
The Asbestos Dump site is composed of four
asbestos disposal areas in Meyersville, Passaic
Township, New Jersey. This ROD addresses
two of the four properties: the 30-acre New
Vernon Road site and the 12-acre White Bridge
Road site. These properties are bordered by the
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and
tracts of wooded and wetland areas. Land use
in the area is primarily recreational and
residential. From 1968 to 1971, asbestos-
containing material generated by the National
Gypsum Company was disposed of on the New
Vernon Road property in a large depression and
hi other areas of the property. From 1970 to
1975, asbestos material was disposed of on the
White Bridge Road property in what is now a
horse-riding track and in other property areas.
In a 1990 investigation, EPA identified high
levels of asbestos contamination in soil at both
properties. Based on this investigation, ATSDR
issued a public health advisory, and EPA
conducted an immediate removal action at both
sites, which included air and soil sampling for
asbestos, covering areas of visible asbestos
contamination with geotextile fabric, removing
any asbestos-containing material located on the
ground surface for off-site disposal, and
restricting site access. A 1988 ROD addressed
another site property, the Millington site, as
OU1, and provided for constructing slope
protection/stabilization measures and surface
water diversion channels along and on top of the
asbestos mound and installing security fences
and a soil cover. This ROD addresses the
asbestos-contaminated soil on both the New
Vernon Road and White Bridge Road properties,
as OU2. A subsequent ROD will address the
fourth property, the Dietzman Tract, as OU3.
The primary contaminant of concern affecting
the soil is asbestos, an inorganic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating approximately 37,000 cubic yards of
asbestos-contaminated soil using in situ
solidification/stabilization and covering the
solidified material with. six inches of soil;
conducting confirmatory sampling of soil,
sediment, ground water, and surface water;
implementing an air monitoring program; and
implementing institutional controls. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$5,700,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $43,400.
Performance Standards or Goals
The chemical-specific clean-up level for soil
at both sites is the TEM detection limit of 0.5
percent asbestos.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
restrict future surface and subsurface activities
that could affect the integrity of the treated
waste.
193
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
C&J DISPOSAL, NY
March 29, 1991
The C&J Disposal site is a former industrial
waste disposal area in the Town of Eaton,
Madison County, New York. Land use in the
area is rural and residential. Surface drainage
flows toward a small pond located in a wetland
area 100 feet from the disposal area, and
ultimately drains into Woodman Pond. Located
3,000 feet to the south of the site, Woodman
Pond serves as a backup drinking water source
for the nearby village of Hamilton. Currently,
12 area residences use ground water as a source
of drinking water. In 1976, C&J Leasing
dumped paint sludge, liquid industrial waste, and
75 to 100 drums into an on-site disposal trench.
The trench was subsequently covered with fill,
burying the waste and drums. In 1989, C&J
Leasing conducted an unauthorized site
excavation, which left two large holes and three
stockpiles of soil and waste material in the
trench, as well as scattered crushed drums, cans,
and plastic scrap material. It is believed that
many buried drums were removed off site
during this excavation. EPA believes that on-
site contaminants are primarily adsorbed or
bound in the 1,250 cubic yards of waste material
and soil and are not presently migrating into the
ground water. This ROD addresses on-site
contaminated soil and debris, and provides a
final remedy for the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris are VOCs including benzene, toluene,
TCE, and xylenes; other organics including
PAHs and phenols; and metals including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
dewatering the trench and treating the water
before recharge, if necessary; excavating
approximately 1,250 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and debris from the disposal
trench, followed by off-site treatment or
disposal; transporting drummed waste generated
during the field investigation to an off-site
RCRA facility for treatment and/or disposal;
backfilling the trench; revegetating the site; and
monitoring ground water for one year. If all or
a portion of the soil and debris is classified as
RCRA hazardous waste and requires incineration
to meet LDR regulations, and the waste is
managed prior to May 8, 1992, the soil and
debris will be disposed of off site without
treatment under a national capacity variance. If
the waste requires treatment other than
incineration under LDR regulations, the
necessary treatment will be conducted off site
under a treatability variance. That portion of the
soil and debris not classified as RCRA
hazardous waste will be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle-D facility. After May 8, 1992, this
ROD provides for a contingency remedy, which
includes off-site thermal treatment of organic
waste, and treatment and disposal of inorganic
waste in accordance with LDR requirements.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA,
assuming off-site disposal without treatment, is
$672,400, which includes an annual O&M cost
of $86,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Removal of contaminated soil and debris
will ensure that federal and state regulations for
ground and surface waters are not exceeded.
Clean-up criteria will be based on background
levels found in off-site and native soil samples.
There were no chemical-specific ARARs
provided for soil.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
194
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CHEMSOL, NJ
September 20, 1991
The 40-acre Chemsol site is a former solvent
recovery and waste reprocessing facility in
Piscataway Township, Middlesex County, New
Jersey. Land use in the area is predominantly
commercial and residential, with an on-site
marshy area that may be considered a wetland.
The site overlies a bedrock aquifer that is used
as a regional drinking water source. In addition,
three streams that discharge to nearby Bound
Brook are located on site. From the 1950s until
1964, Chemsol, Inc., recovered and reprocessed
solvents and materials received from various
companies through activities such as mixing,
blending, and distillation. The site was closed in
1964 after a series of industrial accidents,
explosions, and fires. In 1978, the site was
purchased by Tang Realty Corporation. In
1984, as a result of previous accidents, the state
required Tang Realty to investigate site
contamination and to develop a remedial plan.
In 1988, Tang Realty removed 3,700 cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated soil and discovered
several thousand small (less than 1 gallon)
containers of unidentified waste. In October
1991, the drums were removed and disposed off
site. Between 1980 and 1990, sampling of
residential wells indicated the presence of
organic contaminants and PCBs. As a result,
the township extended municipal water service to
the affected area. This ROD provides an
interim remedy to restrict the off-site migration
of highly contaminated ground water.
Subsequent actions will address ground-water
contamination at a depth of greater than 130
feet, off-site ground-water contamination, and
air and soil contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, toluene, and
xylenes; other organics including pesticides and
phenols; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes installing a ground-water collection
trench, which will extend from the surface of the
site down to approximately 10 to 15 feet below
the surface; installing three ground-water
extraction wells to a depth of 130 feet;
constructing an on-site treatment plant and
treating contaminated ground water using air
stripping, biological filtration, and activated
carbon adsorption; treating and disposing sludge
generated by the treatment processes off site;
discharging the treated ground water on site via
an above-ground pipe to the stream flowing
along the eastern property boundary; and
conducting ground water and surface water
monitoring to measure the potential migration of
hazardous substances from the site. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$7,700,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $915,000 for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on the more stringent of state or
federal standards and include arsenic 0.50 Ğg/l
(state), benzene 1 Hg/1 (state), chromium 50 wg/1
(state), lead 15 wg/1 (federal), phenols 4,000 Mg/1
(federal), toluene 1,000 Ğg/l (federal), and
xylenes 44 Ğg/l (state).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
195
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CIRCUITRON, NY
March 29, 1991
The 1-acre Circuitron site is a former
electronic circuit board manufacturing facility in
East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York.
Surrounding land use is industrial. A
23,500-square-foot building and a paved parking
area account for 95 percent of the site, and the
remaining portion is a small unpaved area
behind the building. From 1961 to 1986, circuit
board manufacturing operations including metal
plating were conducted on site. Several on-site
areas were used for discharge of
process-generated waste including one authorized
and two unauthorized leaching pools located
beneath the parking area, two cesspools, and
storm drains. At least two unauthorized
leaching pools are located beneath the floor of
the plating room. In 1984 and 1985, Circuitron
agreed to remediate all leaching pools and storm
drains, remove all hazardous materials from the
site, and conduct ground-water monitoring.
However, before abandoning the premises in
1986, Circuitron remediated only one
unauthorized leaching pool under the building
and installed monitoring wells. In 1989, EPA
removed 20 waste drums and contaminated
debris from inside the building and three
above-ground tanks from the rear of the
building, and emptied two USTs. Further EPA
site investigations from 1988 to 1990 have
characterized contaminants and contaminated
media. This ROD addresses contaminated on-
site soil and sediment. Ground-water
remediation will be addressed in a subsequent
ROD. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, and debris are
VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene,
and xylenes; other organics including PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating highly VOC-contaminated soil in the
southwest corner of the site using in situ vapor
extraction; treating emissions using carbon
adsorption and disposing of any spent carbon
residuals off site; excavating contaminated soil,
sediment, and debris from the leaching pools,
cesspools, and storm drains inside and outside of
the building; incinerating the excavated material
off site, with off-site disposal of any residuals;
decontaminating the building by vacuuming,
incinerating, and disposing of 53 cubic yards of
sediment, accumulated dust, and debris off site;
replacing the concrete floor overlying the
excavated leaching pits under the building; and
repaying the parking area. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $685,675,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $3,850
for 4 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Performance standards for in situ soil vapor
extraction are based on leachability modeling,
and include 1,1,1-TCA 1 mg/kg and TCE 1.5
mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
196
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, NY
March 29, 1991
The 35-acre Colesville Municipal Landfill
site is a former municipal and industrial landfill
in Colesville, Broome County, New York.
Land use in the area is rural, and wetlands and
woodlands are present in the vicinity of the site.
Many of the 1,921 residents living within 3
miles of the site use ground water from shallow
and deep aquifers and springs as their drinking
water. From 1969 until its closure in 1984, the
landfill accepted primarily municipal solid waste,
although some drummed industrial waste was
accepted from 1973 to 1975. The majority of
the 468,000 cubic yards of waste was disposed
within three trenches at the site, and the drums
were either buried intact, punctured, or crushed.
In 1983 and 1984, private investigations
identified that upper portions of the ground
water beneath the site and in the vicinity of the
site were being contaminated by the landfill.
The county provided temporary water supplies
and carbon filters to affected residences, and
conducted well monitoring. This ROD provides
a final remedy for the landfill waste and soil,
leachate seeps, associated contaminated
sediment, 'and ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCA, TCE; and metals
including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes cutting
and regrading the sides and surface of the
landfill; constructing lined leachate collection
trenches; installing a multi-media cap over the
existing landfill; installing a gravel gas venting
layer in the landfill, with a filter fabric layer
placed over the gravel; seeding and mulching the
top soil layer of the landfill; pumping and
treatment of the contaminated ground water
beneath and downgradient of the landfill using
air stripping and metals treatment, and
discharging the treated water on site to surface
water after disinfection by a UV treatment, if
required; constructing a water supply system for
present and future affected residences, and
providing temporary water supplies and carbon
filtration units to affected residences until
construction is completed; conducting long-term
ground-water monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions
and site access restrictions such as fencing, as
necessary. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $5,135,000, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $250,000 for 4 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on the more stringent of state or
federal MCLs including benzene 5 wg/1 (state),
PCE 5 Mg/1 (state), TCE 5 Ğg/l (state), toluene
5 wg/1 (state), and xylenes 5 wg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented, if
necessary, to prevent the installation of drinking
water wells at the site and restrict activities
which could affect the integrity of the cap.
197
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CONKLIN DUMPS, NY
March 29, 1991
The 8.5-acre Conklin Dumps site is an
inactive municipal landfill in Conklin, New
York. Land use in the area is rural. The site
consists of two municipal landfills referred to as
the upper and the lower landfills. The lower
landfill is adjacent to the 100-year floodplain of
the Susquehanna River, and is bordered by
wetlands. Portions of the landfill were
operational between 1964 and 1975, and
approximately 80,000 cubic meters of waste
material were disposed of on site during this
time. In 1985, private investigations identified
the presence of leachate seeps from the site and
low levels of contaminants in ground water.
This first ROD addresses containment of landfill
leachate and remediation of contaminated ground
water as a final remedy. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the leachate
and ground water is chloroethane, a VOC.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes cutting
and regrading the landfill; installing a gravel gas
venting layer and multi-media cap over the
landfill material; installing a leachate collection
system and leachate collection trenches or toe
drains at the upper landfill, and discharging
leachate off site to a POTW with or without
pretreatment; allowing natural degradation to
reduce the contamination in ground water;
monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed, land, and
ground-water use restrictions, and site access
restrictions such as fencing. If the POTW is not
available, the leachate will be treated on site
using air stripping, followed by discharging the
treated effluent on site to surface water. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,352,078, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $86,669 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Natural degradation is expected to reduce
the concentration of chloroethane to below the
state level of 5 ug/1 within 7 to 9 years.
Leachate treatment levels were not specified, but
will meet NPDES requirements.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented as
necessary. Restrictions include measures to
prevent the installation of drinking water wells
and to maintain the integrity of the cap.
198
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CURCIO SCRAP METAL, NJ
June 28, 1991
The 1-acre Curcio Scrap Metal site
encompasses two active scrap metal recycling
businesses and associated warehouses in Saddle
Brook Township, Bergen County, New Jersey.
Land use around the site is mixed industrial and
residential. Surface water drainage from the site
empties into Schroeder's Brook, located a few
hundred feet from the property, which drains
into a nearby lake. The site is situated above
the Brunswick Formation, which is a sole source
aquifer. This formation supplies potable water
to the public and private wells in the area.
Since 1975, Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc. (CSMI)
and Cirello Iron and Steel Company (CISC)
have recycled scrap metals products on site. In
1982, the state identified cut electrical
transformers stored on site, and pools of black
oily fluid, which had collected on the ground
under and near the transformers. Samples taken
from this area and from on-site soil in 1984
revealed contamination by VOCs, organics, and
metals. In 1985, the state discovered an oil spill
in a nearby pond approximately 200 feet from
the property. The state determined that CISC
was responsible for the spill of approximately
200 gallons of hydraulic fluid on the property
and directed CISC to remove contaminated soil.
CISC reportedly removed the bulk of the soil
and stored it in another on-site area. EPA
issued an AOC to the PRPs on May 27, 1988.
Remedial investigation activities were initiated in
1989 by the PRPs under the terms of this order.
In 1989, CISC caused a spill of
PCB-contaminated oil into on-site soil, and the
state required CISC to excavate and drum the
resulting contaminated soil. During the RI/FS,
PCBs, vinyl chloride, and other contaminants
were detected in the on-site ground water. This
ROD provides a final remedy for the first OU,
the approximately 1,800 cubic yards of
contaminated on-site soil. Future RODs will
address other ground water and surface water
contamination. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are PCBs and metals
including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating, incinerating, and disposing of 1,800
cubic yards of PCB- and metal-contaminated soil
above action levels at an off-site RCRA/TSCA
incineration facility, along with disposal of any
resulting ash. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $7,500,000. There are no O&M
costs associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
All soil contaminated in excess of soil action
levels for metals and greater than PCB 1 mg/kg
will be excavated and treated off site.
Chemical-specific goals for soil are based on
state soil action levels, and include
lead 250 mg/kg to 1000 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
199
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ENDICOTT VILLAGE WELL FIELD, NY
March 29, 1991
The Endicott Village Well Field site consists
of a municipal well, the Ranney Well, and its
zone of influence, and is located in Endicott,
Broome County, New York. Ground water
pumped from the well serves as the primary
drinking water source for the area. Land use in
the area of concern includes a golf course, a
sewage treatment plant, an airport, a few
industrial tracts, two inactive landfills, and the
Endicott Landfill. The Endicott Landfill
accepted municipal and industrial waste from the
late 1950s until 1975, and has been used to
compost sludge from the on-site sewage
treatment plant since 1982. In 1981, EPA
detected VOC contamination in the Ranney
Well, which was confirmed by subsequent state
and local investigations from 1984 to 1987.
Consequently, in 1983 local authorities installed
a diffused aeration air stripping unit on the
Ranney Well, and in 1984 installed a purge well
to intercept VOCs before impacting the Ranney
Well. A 1987 ROD provided for installation of
a packed column air stripper to treat water from
the Ranney Well. In 1988, EPA identified the
materials in the Endicott Landfill as the probable
source of ground-water contamination, and
determined that the purge well did not
adequately prevent the movement of
contaminated ground water to the Ranney Well.
This ROD addresses management of migration
of the contaminant plume as an interim remedy.
Final restoration of the aquifer and remediation
of source material will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
upgrading the existing purge well system by
installing an additional purge well between the
landfill and the Ranney Well; pumping ground
water from the purge well and discharging the
water on site to the sewage treatment plant, or
treating the water prior to discharge, based on
the results of purge well testing; and monitoring
purge well water. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA, assuming that no treatment will
be required, is $376,000, which includes an
estimated annual O&M cost of $24,000 for 30
years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not provided.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
200
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS, PR
September 30, 1991
The 540-acre Fibers Public Supply Wells
site is in Guayama, Puerto Rico. The site
includes an active pharmaceutical plant (AWPI);
two former manufacturing facilities, one of
which encompasses two former settlement
lagoons and a soil disposal area; and five public
supply wells. Land use in the area is mixed
agricultural and light industrial. The site
overlies a class II aquifer. In addition, the
Caribbean Sea is located two miles south of the
site. From 1966 to 1976, Fibers International
Corporation (FIC) manufactured nylon fibers on
site. From 1976 to 1980, Chevron Chemical
Company (CCCPR) expanded the operations of
the FIC plant to include the production of
polypropylene fibers. Both FIC and CCCPR
operations used organic solvents and degreasing
solvents in their on-site processes. Wastewater
containing these solvents was directed through
the process sewer system to two settling lagoons
for preliminary treatment, before being piped to
an off-site biological treatment system. FIC
lined the lagoons in 1969 to reduce the seepage
of treatment wastewater. In 1978, CCCPR
installed an on-site system for treating process
and sanitary wastewater, and the treated effluent
was directed to the settling lagoons before off-
site discharge to the sea. CCCPR ceased on-site
operations in 1980. State and private site
investigations in 1983 revealed the presence of
elevated levels of organics and inorganics in soil
and ground water. Between 1984 and 1985,
AWPI remodeled the facilities, and in 1985
began pharmaceutical manufacturing operations.
Also in 1985, AWPI excavated portions of the
settling lagoons and enlarged the stormwater
retention pond to encompass the lagoon area.
AWPI excavated 2,500 cubic yards of the lagoon
sludge and asbestos-contaminated liner material,
and deposited the material at an on-site soil
disposal area. This ROD addresses a final
remedy for source contamination in the soil
disposal area and ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs including
PCE and TCE; other organics; metals including
chromium and lead; and other inorganics
including asbestos.
Selected Remedial Action
. The selected RA for this site includes
excavating 9,010 cubic yards of contaminated
material from the soil disposal area and
transporting the soil off site to a landfill
authorized to accept asbestos; conducting soil
sampling; controlling dust during remediation to
prevent exposure and to protect workers and the
local community during the transportation of
ACM; restoring and covering the excavated area
with six inches of fill and six inches of top soil,
followed by revegetating the area; on-site
pumping and treatment of the 200-acre
contaminated ground water plume from five
recovery wells using filtration and air stripping,
and discharging the treated water on site to a
nearby irrigation canal to recharge the aquifer;
and installing monitoring wells near the coastline
to monitor potential salt water encroachment.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$6,686,591, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $270,868 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil goals for asbestos are based on
NESHAPs under the CAA, which consider that
materials containing asbestos in concentrations
exceeding 1 percent be regarded as ACM.
Ground-water clean-up goals are based on state
and federal MCLs. Goals for soil include
asbestos one percent by volume. Chemical-
specific ground-water goals include PCE 0.005
mg/1 (MCL) and TCE 0.005 mg/1 (MCL). EPA
201
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
may invoke an ARAR waiver for ground water Institutional Controls
if the remediation program indicates that
reaching MCLs in the aquifer is technically Not provided.
impracticable.
202
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
FORT DIX LANDFILL, NJ
Federal Facility
September 24, 1991
The 126-acre Fort Dix Landfill site is an
inactive landfill located in the southwest section
of the U.S. Army Fort Dix Military
Reservation, Pemberton Township, Burlington
County, New Jersey. The site is surrounded by
military housing developments, a hardwood
swamp, and a densely vegetated hardwood
forest. The site is bordered by Cannon Run
Stream, located on the east side of the landfill,
and an unnamed stream located northwest of the
landfill. From 1950 until its closure hi 1984,
the site was used and operated by the Fort Dix
Military Reservation to dispose of various wastes
including household waste from the military
base, paints, thinners, demolition debris, ash,
and solvents. From 1968 to 1984, McGuire Air
Force Base also used the landfill for waste
disposal. Landfilling operations consisted of
excavating a series of parallel trenches and
filling with waste materials. Waste disposal
began at the northern portion of the landfill in
1950 and proceeded in a southerly direction to
the southern boundary of the landfill. In
addition to the landfill, during 1982 the Army
used a pit in the southwestern area of the site to
dispose of mess hall grease and degreasing
agents. A 1982 state investigation revealed
ground-water contamination beneath the site that
had resulted from landfill leachate. This ROD
addresses final source control at the site;
however, if additional investigations reveal
significant increases in unacceptable risk to
human health and the environment, then
additional RAs will be proposed. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris are VOCs including benzene and toluene;
other organics including PAHs; and metals
including chromium and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
capping the 50-acre southern portion of the
landfill with a clay or geomembrane cap;
developing a soil erosion and sediment control
plan; long-term ground water, surface water,
and air monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls including deed, land, and
ground-water use restrictions, and site access
restrictions such as fencing. The estimated
capital cost for this RA is $12,600,000, with an
annual O&M cost of $218,900 for the first 2
years and $199,900 for years 3 to 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including land use,
ground-water use, and deed restrictions will be
implemented at the site.
203
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
FRONTERA CREEK, PR
September 30, 1991
The Frontera Creek site is composed of 13
industrial facilities and 200 acres of associated
lagoons within the municipality of Humaco,
Puerto Rico. The site includes Frontera Creek,
the industrial properties adjacent to the creek,
the Frontera lagoons, and the Ciudad Cristiana
housing development located adjacent to the
creek. Land surrounding the site consists of
mixed residential and industrial areas, and a
wildlife refuge. From 1971 to 1981, several
industries within the site including Technicon
Electronics used mercury in manufacturing
processes and discharged wastewater directly
into Frontera Creek. The Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
fined Technicon in 1978 for these processes,
resulting in the cessation of its mercury
discharges to the creek. During investigations in
1986, EPA identified mercury in surface soil
and sediment on Technicon property associated
with the storage, use, or discharge of mercury-
containing compounds. This ROD addresses
contaminated soil and sediment on the Technicon
property and provides a final remedy for the
site. The primary contaminant of concern
affecting the soil and sediment is mercury.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating 180 cubic yards of soil and 370 cubic
yards of sediment contaminated with mercury;
dewatering and containing the excavated
material, followed by disposing of the material
off site at a RCRA Subtitle D or C waste
facility; pretreating wastewater generated from
dewatering, followed by on-site discharge to
Technicon's wastewater treatment plant or off
site to a local POTW; performing confirmatory
soil sampling in the remediated areas to verify
that mercury concentrations in residual and on-
site materials do not exceed the clean-up levels;
and regrading and revegetating the remediated
areas. The estimated present worth cost for this
RA ranges from $562,000 to $730,000, based
on whether the waste is disposed of as a solid or
hazardous waste, respectively. There are no
O&M costs associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels for the soil and sediment on
site were established based on a site-specific risk
assessment and an HI=1, and include mercury
35 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
204
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
GARDEN STATE CLEANERS, NJ
September 26, 1991
The 3,000-square-foot Garden State Cleaners
(GSC) site is an active dry cleaning operation in
Minotola, Bueno Borough, Atlantic County,
New Jersey. Land use in the area is residential
and commercial, and local residents obtain
drinking water from the Borough municipal
water supply system. From 1966 to the present,
dry cleaning activities using PCE were
conducted at the GSC site, and until 1985, waste
was discharged through pipes directly into the
ground. An adjacent Superfund site, the
1.2-acre South Jersey Clothing Company (SJCC)
facility, has manufactured and dry cleaned
military clothing using PCE and TCE since 1940
and also discharged wastewater on site. SJCC
also stored solvents and VOC-contaminated
wastewater on site in leaking drums and tanks.
In 1981, SJCC reportedly removed thirty-three
55-gallon drums of contaminated soil from the
facility. In 1984, state investigations showed
elevated levels of PCE in ground water adjacent
to and downgradient from the GSC and SJCC
facilities, and elevated levels of PCE and TCE
in on-site soil. SJCC installed a ground-water
pump and treatment system under a state order
in 1985, and in 1989, began installing a limited
soil vapor extraction system near a TCE storage
tank that ruptured in a 1979 fire. This project
was abandoned with the start of EPA's RI.
Because the GSC and SJCC sites are in
proximity to one another and have similar
contamination, the sites will be remediated
concurrently. This ROD addresses remediation
of contaminated soil and ground water at both
the GSC and SJCC sites, as a final remedy. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating on site approximately 1,600 cubic yards
of contaminated soil using in situ vapor
extraction; treating the contaminated wastewater
from the vapor extraction processes on site using
an air stripping column; treating air emissions
using carbon adsorption units; pumping and on-
site treatment of contaminated ground water
using air stripping and carbon adsorption;
reinjecting the treated ground-water upgradient
from the site; regenerating spent activated
carbon from both treatment processes off site;
conducting long-term ground-water monitoring;
and implementing temporary institutional
controls. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA at the GSC site is $5,451,000, which
includes an estimated annual O&M cost of
$249,500 for 70 years. The estimated present
worth cost for the RA at the GSC and SJCC
sites is $11,169,000, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $542,000 for 70 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Federal and state agencies have agreed to
jointly establish ISAL clean-up goals of 1,000
Ğg/kg for PCE and TCE, given the
predominance of the two compounds at the site.
Ground-water remediation goals are based on the
more stringent of SDWA federal and state
MCLs, and include PCE 1 wg/1 (state) and TCE
1 Mg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Temporary institutional controls will be
implemented on site while the need for
providing home treatment units for individual
residents is evaluated.
205
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
GENERAL MOTORS/CENTRAL FOUNDRY DIVISION, NY
December 17, 1990
The 270-acre General Motors/Central
Foundry Division site is an active aluminum
casting plant in Massena, St. Lawrence County,
New York. The site is bordered by the St.
Lawrence River to the north, the St. Regis River
Mohawk Indian Reservation (which includes
Turtle Creek) to the east, the Raquette River to
the south, and a manufacturing facility to the
west. Surrounding land use is mixed residential
and industrial. The site overlies a surficial
alluvial aquifer and is adjacent to wetlands, both
of which have been contaminated. Additional
on-site features of concern include the unlined
north and east disposal areas and the industrial
landfill, which contain contaminated soil, debris,
sludge; four unlined industrial lagoons, which
contain contaminated liquids, sludge, and soil;
the rivers and creek which contains contaminated
sediment; contaminated soil on the St. Regis
Mohawk Reservation and on General Motors
property; and contaminated associated wetlands.
From 1959 to 1980, hydraulic fluids containing
PCBs were used in the on-site aluminum casting
operations. During the 1960s, PCB oil-laden
wastewater was routinely discharged to one of
the four industrial lagoons resulting in sludge
buildup. Wastewater was discharged to the St.
Lawrence River. During the mid-1970s, the
migration of water and sludge through a
breached berm surrounding the east disposal area
resulted in PCB contamination on the St. Regis
Reservation and in Turtle Creek. Further
contamination stemmed from the placement of
PCB-contaminated soil on the bank of the
Raquette River, as well as from discharge of
surface water run-off from the site to the
Raquette River. In 1976, a wastewater
treatment system, which included a lagoon for
solids settling was installed resulting in which
created PCB-laden sludge buildup in the on-site
lagoon. PCB-laden sludge from the lagoon was
periodically removed to the east and north
disposal areas and the industrial landfill. Solid
industrial waste was disposed of in the industrial
landfill as well. Investigations by General
Motors from 1985 to 1989 confirmed and
characterized on-site and off-site contamination
in soil, sediment, sludge, and ground water. As
a result, in 1988 an interim cap was placed over
the industrial landfill. This ROD provides a
final remedy for all site areas and media except
the east disposal area and the industrial landfill,
which will be addressed in a subsequent ROD.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, sludge, debris, ground water,
and surface water are PCBs, and to a much
lesser degree, VOCs including TCE; and other
organics including PAHs, and phenols.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
dredging and excavating approximately 62,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediment
from PCB "hot spots" in the St. Lawrence and
Raquette rivers, Turtle Creek, and associated
wetlands and riverbanks; excavating
approximately 142,000 cubic yards of sludge,
soil, and debris from the north disposal area and
the four industrial lagoons (two of the four of
the lagoons are inactive and will be remediated
currently, the two active lagoons will be
remediated after they are taken out of service);
excavating approximately 49,000 cubic yards of
soil from the reservation and General Motors
property; dewatering and treating dredged and
excavated material using bioremediation, another
equivalent treatment, or incineration based on
treatability test results; disposing of residuals
and material with low-level contamination on
site, placing a vegetated cap over the residuals;
pumping and on-site treatment of contaminated
ground water; discharging the treated water on
site to surface water; implementing interim
surface run-off controls at the east disposal area;
and monitoring sediment, ground water, and
206
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
surfacewater. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $78,000,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $464,000 for years 0
through 8, $197,000 for years 9 and 10,
$464,000 for years 11 through 13, and $197,000
for years 14 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Excavation levels for PCB-contaminated
materials are based on TSCA requirements and
St. Regis Mohawk PCB clean-up requirements,
and include 1 mg/kg (TSCA) for sediment in the
St. Lawrence and Raquette Rivers, 1 mg/kg (St.
Regis) for soil on the St. Regis Reservation,
0.1 mg/kg (St. Regis) for sediment in Turtle
Creek, and 10 mg/kg (TSCA) for on-site soil
and sludge on the General Motors facility.
PCB-contaminated material will be treated to a
level of 10 mg/kg or less. Phenols in on-site
solids will be remediated to a level of SO mg/kg.
Ground-water clean-up standards are based on
state standards, and include TCE 5 wg/1,
PCBs 0.1 ug/1, and phenols 1 ug/1.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
207
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
GENZALE PLATING, NY
March 29, 1991
The Genzale Plating site is an electroplating
facility, which occupies a 24,000-square-foot
area in Franklin Square, Nassau County, New
York. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential, with a wetlands area located
approximately 3 miles southeast of the site. The
site overlies a Class II aquifer, which is tapped
by three water supply wells within 1.5 miles of
the site. Since 1915, the Genzale Plating
Company, Inc. operated an electroplating facility
on site. Records indicate that copper, silver,
zinc, cadmium, nickel, and chromium
compounds, as well as acids and cleaners, were
used during plating processes. Wastewater
generated from the electroplating operations was
discharged to four subsurface leaching pits.
Following a 1981 county inspection, the owner
was required to discontinue on-site contaminant
discharge to the leaching pits. Testing of the
wastewater samples from the pits indicated
heavy metal concentrations in excess of state
discharge standards. In 1982, 36 cubic yards of
contaminated material were excavated; but the
entire excavation was never completed. In April
1983, a state investigation determined that on-
site contaminants presented a potential public
health threat because the site is in close
proximity to public water supply wells. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs including PCE
and TCE; other organics including PAHs; and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected interim RA for this site
includes treating soil using in situ vacuum
extraction and vapor phase carbon adsorption to
control emissions, followed by excavating 1,600
cubic yards of the treated soil and 480 cubic
yards of topsoil and material from the leaching
pits, followed by off-site treatment and disposal;
backfilling the excavated areas with clean soil;
pumping and treatment of ground water using
precipitation to remove metals, followed by air
stripping, with reinjection on-site and off-site
disposal of treatment residuals. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $6,358,700,
which includes an annual O&M cost of
$223,800.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals include
TCE 1 mg/kg. Ground-water treatment will be
designed to reduce the metals concentrations in
the treated ground water below the federal and
state ground-water standards.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
208
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
GLOBAL LANDFILL, NJ
September 11, 1991
The 57.5-acre Global Landfill is an inactive
solid waste disposal facility in Old Bridge
Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey. The
facility is bordered by wetlands to the northeast,
southeast, and southwest, and a former sand
borrow pit and wooded area to the northwest.
Land use in the area is primarily residential.
On-site features include a 51-acre landfill, a
6.5-acre northwest landfill extension, and an
inactive 1.7-acre leachate collection pond.
Municipal water supply wells are located
approximately one mile north of the landfill.
From 1968 until its closure in 1984, the Global
Landfill site was used for non-hazardous solid
waste disposal. As a result of a slope failure in
1984, landfill waste was exposed, the dyke was
breached, and the waste spilled into an adjacent
wetlands area. Subsequently, the state ordered
all on-site disposal operations to cease. From
1988 to 1991, EPA and state site investigations
identified 63 buried 55-gallon drums containing
hazardous wastes including VOCs, organics, and
metals within both the waste mound and
northwest extension. This ROD addresses OU1,
the landfill waste. A second ROD will address
possible off-site ground-water and surface water
contamination, and wetland areas, as OU2. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and sediment are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
capping the landfill with a synthetic and clay
cap; constructing a soil stabilization berm;
constructing and operating a gas management
system, and stormwater and leachate collection
systems; pumping leachate and condensate from
the gas collection system to a holding tank, and
subsequently transporting the waste off site for
treatment and disposal (this constitutes an
interim remedy for the leachate); disposing of
sludge off site at a RCRA facility; implementing
a monitoring program to ensure the effectiveness
of the remedy; mitigating any affected wetlands;
and implementing site access restrictions such as
fencing. On-site leachate treatment that would
replace the off-site leachate treatment and
disposal provided for in this ROD, may be
initiated as part of the ground-water remedy in
the next ROD, which addresses OU2, as part of
the preferred leachate management alternative.
This may include treatment using powdered
activated carbon, nitrification and denitrification,
and UV disinfection, followed by discharging
the treated effluent on site to the Cheesequake
Creek. The estimated present worth cost of this
RA is $30,353,200, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $865,100 based on on-site
treatment of leachate.
Performance Standards or Goals
A waiver of New Jersey's hazardous waste
landfill closure regulations will be required on
the basis of technical impracticality due to the
large volume of waste to be removed. The
remedy will meet the appropriate federal and
state guidelines and requirements for subsurface
gas and leachate management systems and
surface water systems. No chemical-specific
standards were provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
209
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
HERTEL LANDFILL, NY
September 27, 1991
The 80-acre Hertel Landfill site consists of
a 13-acre former municipal landfill and adjacent
land in Plattekill, Ulster County, New York.
Land use in the area is predominantly
residential, with wetland areas adjacent to the
site. The site overlies two natural aquifers.
From 1963 to 1975, Hertel Enterprises used the
site for the disposal of municipal solid waste. In
1975, the landfill was purchased by Dutchess
Sanitation Services, which had been hauling and
disposing of refuse from Dutchess County in the
Hertel Landfill since 1970. It is estimated that
240,000 cubic yards of waste were disposed on
site during landfill operations. In 1976, the site
was shut down for a variety of violations,
including illegal dumping of industrial waste and
violating a town ordinance prohibiting the
disposal of non-local waste. As a result of these
improper disposal practices, a number of state
investigations were conducted, which identified
contamination by various organic compounds
and metals in the on-site soil and ground water.
This ROD addresses soil contaminated by
landfill waste, and ground water contaminated
by landfill leachate. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris,
and ground water are VOCs including benzene,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics including
phenols; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
regrading and compacting the landfill mound to
provide a stable foundation for cap placement;
constructing a 13-acre multi-layer cap over the
landfill with an associated gas venting system;
sampling soil along the western portion of the
disposal area to determine the need to extend the
cap or to consolidate the soil beneath the cap;
monitoring air to ensure that air emissions
resulting from the cap construction meet
ARARs; ground-water pumping and treatment
using an innovative treatment system consisting
of precipitation and membrane microfiltration to
remove metals and solids, and an ultraviolet
light and hydrogen peroxide oxidation system to
remove organics; performing a treatability study
to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
innovative technology; implementing a
contingency remedy consisting of precipitation,
clarification, and filtration to remove metals and
suspended solids, and carbon absorption to
remove organic compounds, if the treatability
study indicates that the selected innovative
ground-water treatment technology is not
effective; discharging the treated water on site,
and disposing of treatment residuals in
accordance with RCRA LDRs; evaluating and
mitigating affected wetlands; conducting ground-
water monitoring to observe flow patterns above
and below the landfill; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions,
and site access restrictions such as fencing.' The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$8,207,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $267,000 for years 0 through 12,
$162,800 for years 13 through 17, and $31,000
for years 18 through 30. The present worth cost
for the contingency remedy is $8,774,000, with
the same O&M costs.
Performance Standards or Goals
Capping will prevent direct contact exposure
to contaminated soil, and will result in risks that
are less than EPA's target levels of 10"* for
carcinogenic risks and an HI=1. Ground-water
clean-up goals are based on federal and state
standards, and include total xylenes 5 wg/1
(state).
210
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
ensure that future use of the site property will
maintain the integrity of the cap.
211
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
JUNCOS LANDFILL, PR
September 24, 1991
The approximately 20-acre Juncos Landfill
site is an inactive municipal waste landfill in the
City of Juncos, Puerto Rico. Land use in the
area is predominantly residential, with a housing
development located along the northern border
of the site. Two unnamed tributaries are located
outside the eastern and western borders of the
site and flow to the Rio Gurabo. Municipal
waste, including broken and/or intact mercury
thermometers, was disposed of at the site from
1957 to 1977, and in 1981, the site was closed.
Several EPA investigations revealed the presence
of mercury and VOCs in the soil, off-site
leachate, and air. In 1984, under an
Administrative Order, EPA required the PRP to
place a soil cover over some portions of the
landfill where wastes were exposed, and to
assess risks posed by potential mercury
contamination. This ROD is the first of two
OUs and addresses contaminated soil and
soil/leachate. A future ROD will provide for
remediation of potential ground-water
contamination as a result of migrating leachate,
as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and debris are VOCs; other
organics including phenol; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
constructing a single barrier cap over the landfill
to reduce surface infiltration, prevent direct
contact, limit gas emissions, and control erosion;
installing a passive landfill gas venting system,
which could be converted to an active system if
monitoring shows this is needed; clearing and
grubbing existing vegetation on the landfill area,
and regrading the landfill; installing, if
necessary, a leachate control system composed
of a leachate storage system prior to off-site
treatment of leachate; providing for erosion
control appurtenances including drainage
channels, and stilling and sediment basins;
conducting long-term monitoring of air,
sediment, surface water, and leachate; relocating
families living in homes located along the
immediate north face of the landfill during the
construction phase; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions,
and site access restrictions including fencing.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,420,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $176,100.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
preclude future development and ensure the
integrity of the cap.
212
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
LOVE CANAL (93rd STREET), NY
Amendment
May 15, 1991
The Love Canal site is an inactive hazardous
waste site located in Niagara Falls, New York.
The 19-acre 93rd Street School site, one of
several OUs for the Love Canal Superfund site,
is the focus of this ROD. This subsite is located
less than one mile northwest of the Love Canal
disposal area and is within the Love Canal
emergency declaration area. Site features
include the 93rd Street School and adjacent
vacant land, and the site is bordered by
Bergholtz Creek to the north and residential
properties to the east, west, and south. From
1942 to 1953, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics
Corporation (now Occidental Chemical
Corporation) disposed of over 21,000 tons of
various chemicals including dioxin-tainted
trichlorophenols at the Love Canal site. In
1950, after the site was deeded to the City of
Niagara Falls Board of Education, the 93rd
Street School was built. In 1954, a second
school, the 99th Street School, was built
adjacent to the mid-portion of the canal. Before
construction of the 93rd Street School, a
drainage swale had crossed the site. In 1954,
the site was graded to its present contours with
approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill materials
including fill from the 99th Street School. The
fill material is reported to contain fly ash and
BHC (a pesticide) waste. During the mid-1970s,
contaminated leachate migrated to the surface of
the canal, to some residential basements adjacent
to the canal, and through sewers to area creeks.
Those homes have been demolished, and the
sewers and creeks in the Love Canal emergency
declaration area have been remediated. In 1980,
the 93rd Street School was closed because of
public health concerns related to the potentially
contaminated fill material. Investigations
conducted hi 1988 revealed the presence of
VOCs, other organics, and metals in the soil.
During previous investigations, it was
determined that low level contamination present
in the ground water compared to the ground-
water quality in the area and did not pose an
exposure threat to the concerned population. A
1988 ROD addressed source control through
excavating and solidifying/stabilizing the
excavated material, placing the material into the
same unit, and capping with a low permeability
soil cover. The RA was not implemented and
has been devaluated hi light of the Niagara Falls
Board of Education's 1989 plan to restore the
93rd Street School as an educational facility and
to address objections to reopening the school if
contaminated soil remains on site. This ROD
amends the 1988 ROD, and addresses final
remediation of on-site contaminated soil through
excavation and off-site disposal. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil are
VOCs including toluene and xylenes; other
organics including PAHs and pesticides; and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
excavating and disposing of off site 7,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soil from hot spot areas;
backfilling excavated areas with site soil of
lower contamination; and capping and regrading
the area with fill material. The estimated
present worth cost for this amended RA is
$2,250,000, which does not include O&M costs.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil action levels were not provided.
Ground-water clean-up goals were waived due to
technical impracticability.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
213
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICALS, NY
June 27, 1991
The 2-acre Mattiace Petrochemicals site is
an inactive liquid storage and redistribution
facility in Glen Cove, Nassau County, New
York. Surrounding land use is primarily
industrial. Glen Cove Creek, a potential
wetland area, is located south of the site. The
site overlies a system of three unconsolidated
sedimentary aquifers, of which the surficial
Upper Glacial Aquifer has been affected by on-
site contamination. From the mid-1960s to
1986, organic solvents were stored, blended, and
repackaged on site. On-site features involved
with the operation included a metal Quonset hut,
a concrete fire shed, a leaching pond, a partially
covered concrete loading dock, and
32 underground and 24 above-ground storage
tanks. Drums were reconditioned on site, and
the resulting water/solvent mixtures were
discharged to above-ground tanks or to an on-
site leaching pond. A solvent water separator
was used to collect overflow from the
above-ground tanks for discharge to the leaching
pond. There is evidence, however, that
overflow from these tanks may have been
discharged directly into the soil. In 1988, EPA
characterized and disposed of 100,000 gallons of
hazardous liquids off site from approximately 24
above-ground and 32 USTs. In 1989, a second
EPA investigation identified approximately 25
buried drums and numerous other containers that
were leaking contaminated material into the
surrounding soil and ground water. A 1990
ROD provided for removal of on-site buried
drums containing sludge, as well as the
associated highly contaminated soil as OU2. In
1989, EPA characterized on-site contamination,
and discovered a layer of "free product" floating
on top of contaminated ground water and
contaminated sediment in Glen Cove Creek.
This ROD addresses remediation of on-site
source materials, as well as management of
migration of contaminated shallow ground water.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes;
other organics including PAHs, pesticides, and
phenols; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and treating off site 208 cubic yards
of pesticide-contaminated "hot spot" soil,
possibly by incineration, followed by off-site
disposal of residuals; backfilling excavated areas
with clean soil; treating 17,141 cubic yards of
contaminated soil using in situ vacuum
extraction, followed by activated carbon to
control off-gases, as needed; decontaminating
and demolishing the Quonset hut, 24
above-ground tanks, 32 underground tanks, and
1,360 cubic yards of concrete and asphalt,
followed by off-site disposal; removing 15,000
gallons of "free product" using ground-water
extraction wells and a skimmer pump, followed
by off-site treatment and disposal; pumping and
treatment of ground water using precipitation
and clarification as pretreatment to remove
metals, and air stripping to remove organics,
and reinjecting the treated water on site; treating
air effluent from the air stripper using thermal
treatment; treating water effluent from the air
stripper using carbon adsorption, and
regenerating spent carbon off site; performing
treatability studies; conducting a soil gas survey
to monitor off-gas migration; and monitoring
ground water, Glen Cove Creek sediment, and
surface water. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $15,930,592, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $692,997 for 30 years.
214
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals levels are the more stringent of federal MCLs or
state standards, and include PCE 5 ug/l (state),
Soil clean-up goals are based on achieving TCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), and xylenes 5 Ğg/l (state).
an excess lifetime cancer risk of 10"6.
Chemical-specific goals for soil include PCE Institutional Controls
0.6 mg/kg, TCE 0.07 mg/kg, and
xylenes 259 mg/kg. Ground-water clean-up Not provided.
215
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
NASCOLITE, NJ
June 28, 1991
The 17.5-acre Nascolite site is an inactive
acrylic and plexiglass sheet manufacturing plant
in Millville, Cumberland County, New Jersey.
The site lies within the New Jersey coastal plain
and overlies clay, silt, sand, and gravel layers.
The majority of the site is wooded, with a
wetland located in the southwestern portion.
Land use is both industrial and residential, with
homes located 1,500 feet to the east and
southeast of the site. Site features include six
buildings, which served as the production
facility, laboratory, and company offices; and a
drainage ditch. From 1953 to 1980, site
operations included reclaiming scrap material
through depolymerization and distillation
processes. Residues from these operations were
discharged to the buried on-site tanks, and
wastewater was discharged to the on-site
drainage ditch. Decay of the structures and
asbestos fibers within the buildings pose a threat
to site workers. In 1980, although the state
ordered the plant to stop discharging wastewater
into the on-site drainage ditch, well water
monitoring conducted during 1981 identified
VOC-contamination in these wells. In 1984, the
state identified over one hundred 55-gallon
drums and several USTs buried on site. In
1987, the state ordered Nascolite to remove
some of the drums, and later during 1987 and
1988, EPA removed the remaining drums off
site. Perforations found in one of the excavated
tanks indicated the likelihood that VOCs and
lead had leaked into and contaminated on-site
soil, which was confirmed by subsequent
sampling. Also in 1987, EPA assumed the lead
for the site, cleaned and cut the waste material
storage tanks into scrap metal, and removed 20
cubic yards of soil and 30 cubic yards of
asbestos insulation. In addition, the waste in
tanks and drums was sampled, bulked into 1,825
gallons of corrosive/ignitable liquid and 134
cubic yards of solidified solvent sludge, and
emoved off site. A 1988 ROD addressed on-site
ground-water contamination and provided for
pumping and treatment of ground water,
provision of an alternate water supply to affected
residences, and additional site studies. This
ROD addresses contaminated on-site soil,
sediment, and buildings. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and debris is the inorganic
contaminant lead; and VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating, treating, and stabilizing 8,000 cubic
yards of unsaturated and wetlands soil containing
lead above 500 wg/kg; backfilling excavation pits
using the treated soil; transporting wetland
sediment not amenable to stabilization off site;
restoring any affected wetlands; conducting
asbestos abatement, followed by off-site
disposal; demolishing site structures in
accordance with asbestos regulations, followed
by decontamination, on-site treatment, recycling,
or off-site disposal of associated debris; and
implementing institutional controls. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,165,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $31,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
All unsaturated soil contaminated with lead
above the action level of 500 wg/kg will be
excavated and stabilized on site.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
ensure that the solidification mass is not
disturbed.
216
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER (OU1), NJ
Federal Facility
February 4, 1991
The 7,400-acre Naval Air Engineering
Center (NAEC) site is an active air base in
Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean
County, New Jersey. Activities conducted on
site include program research, engineering,
development testing and evaluation, and various
warfare support services. Land use in the area
includes residential, woodland, vast wetland, and
associated floodplain areas. Approximately
65,400 residents of the townships are serviced
by several municipal supply wells located within
one mile of the site to the southeast and north.
From 1916 to 1919, the Eddystone Chemical
Company conducted chemical artillery testing on
site. In 1921, the U.S. Navy took control of the
site and conducted operations involving the use,
handling, storage, and on-site disposal of
hazardous substances in various on-site
buildings. Site features within OU1 include a
barrel storage area and fuel station (site 10), a
fire training area with unlined lagoons and an
oil/water separator (site 16), and an on-site fuel
farm with inactive dry wells that were removed
in 1982 (site 17). Preliminary investigations in
1983 by the U.S. Navy identified 44 on-site
areas of possible soil and ground-water
contamination, and determined that the primary
sources of soil and ground-water contamination
in OU1 (composed of sites 10, 16, and 17) were
leaky valves and pipes, dispensing pumps, the
underground fuel oil tanks, overflowing dry
wells, and other accidental on-site chemical
spills and releases. In 1988, NAEC removed
and replaced the on-site tanks. This ROD
provides an interim remedy for contaminated
soil and ground water in OU1. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, TCE, and
xylenes; other organics including PAHs; and
metals including arsenic and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and pretreating ground water to remove
metals, residual amounts of free product, and
solids, followed by off-site disposal of solids and
free product, on-site treatment using air
stripping and vapor phase carbon adsorption to
remove VOCs, and polishing the effluent using
granular activated carbon; spray irrigating or
infiltrating the treated ground water over the on-
site soil; regenerating the spent carbon off-site;
and disposing of all solids, residual sludge and
free product off site. The estimated capital cost
for this RA is $700,000, with an annual O&M
cost of $100,000 for 3 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for ground
water will be addressed in the final remedy.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
217
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER (OU2), NJ
Federal Facility
February 4, 1991
The 7,400-acre Naval Air Engineering
Center site is an active air base in Jackson and
Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New
Jersey. Activities conducted on site include
program research, engineering, developmental
testing and evaluation, and various warfare
support services. Land use in the area includes
residential, woodland, vast wetlands, and
associated floodplain areas. Approximately
65,400 residents of the townships are serviced
by several municipal supply wells located within
one mile of the site to the southeast, and north.
From 1916 to 1919, the Eddystone Chemical
Company conducted chemical artillery testing on
site. In 1921, the U.S. Navy took control of the
site and conducted operations involving the use,
handling, storage, and on-site disposal of
hazardous substances in various buildings.
Preliminary investigations by the Navy from
1983 to 1986 identified potential on-site soil and
ground-water contamination in 44 site areas,
including area H, site 32, which has been
designated as OU2 for remediation. Site 32
consists of the launching end of five test tracks
and ancillary facilities including a drainage
system designed to receive oil and fuel run-off
from each track, a series of dry wells, and
several USTs. Contamination in this area was
thought to have been the result of improper
disposal of waste in five dry wells, various
spills, leaking valves, and other poor
housekeeping practices. In 1988, the Navy
excavated and removed off site the five dry
wells, contaminated soil, and underground
storage tanks to prevent potential discharges to
ground water. This ROD provides an interim
remedy for OU2, the ground-water
contamination in area H, site 32. The focus of
this OU is ground water, although some
treatment of soil may occur. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including PCE; other organics;
and metals including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and pretreating ground water to remove
metals, soil, and residual amounts of free
product, followed by off-site disposal of solids
and free product, and on-site treatment using air
stripping and vapor phase carbon adsorption to
remove VOCs; polishing the effluent using
granular activated carbon; spray irrigating or
infiltrating the treated ground water over the on-
site soil to promote biodegradation; regenerating
the spent carbon off site; and disposing of all
solids, residual sludge, and free product off site.
The estimated capital cost for this interim RA is
$550,000 (latest estimate), with an annual O&M
cost of $100,000 for 3 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
levels will be addressed in the final remedy.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
218
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER (OU3), NJ
Federal Facility
September 30, 1991
The 7,400-acre Naval Air Engineering
Center site is an active air base in Jackson and
Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New
Jersey. Activities conducted on site include
program research, engineering, development
testing and evaluation, and various warfare
support services. Land in the area includes
residential areas, woodlands, vast wetlands, and
associated floodplain areas. The site lies within
the Toms River Drainage Basin, and adjacent to
and south of the site are commercial cranberry
bogs that drain into and out of the southeast
section of the site. Approximately 65,400
residents of the townships are serviced by
several municipal supply wells located within
one mile of the site to the southeast and north.
From 1916 to 1919, the Eddystone Chemical
Company conducted chemical artillery testing on
site. In 1921, the U.S. Navy took control of the
site and conducted operations involving the use,
handling, storage, and on-site disposal of
hazardous substances in various on-site
buildings. This ROD addresses OU3, which
includes eight separate sites and a region known
as area L. The sites include a disposal area (site
15), a gas station (site 18), an inactive disposal
area (site 23), a contractor disposal area located
along a drainage swale (site 26), recovery
systems test sites (site 27), a recovery systems
track site (site 30), a parachute jump circle (site
34), and a soil stabilization field test site (site
40). Area L is located in the northwestern
corner of the facility in the vicinity of a
BOMARC missile explosion area. The
explosion resulted in the limited spread of a
radioacative material, plutonium. The results of
the RI show no evidence of significant
contamination at the eight sites and area L. At
most sites, contaminants were not detected. In
instances where contaminants were detected, the
levels were usually well below state and federal
action levels. Furthermore, investigations
conducted from 1985 to 1990 in area L also
concluded that no significant levels of
radiological contamination were present in
ground water, soil, or sediment in this area.
Therefore, there are no contaminants of concern
affecting this site.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes no
further action because no significant levels of
contaminants exist at the eight sites and area L.
No additional action is necessary to protect
human health or the environment. There are no
costs associated with this no action remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
219
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER (OU4), NJ
Federal Facility
September 30, 1991
The 7,400-acre Naval Air Engineering
Center (NAEC) site, which contains many
subsites, is a naval research design and testing
facility near the Jackson and Manchester
Townships, Ocean County, New Jersey. The
site lies within the Toms River Drainage Basin
and contains 1,300 acres of flood-prone areas.
Land use in the area is part residential and part
undeveloped. The estimated 65,400 people who
reside within the Jackson and Manchester
Townships receive their water from municipal
wells. This ROD focuses on remediation of area
E (site 28) within the NAEC site. Currently,
area E features include a former oil storage
shed, former paint locker, and five fuel storage
containers. From 1957 to 1980, unknown
quantities of waste oil, hydraulic fluids, and
solvents were discharged in area E. In 1988,
the RI identified elevated VOC levels and
floating product, most likely gasoline, in the
ground water. Subsequent investigations in 1990
discovered a gasoline leak in an underground
pipe, which apparently was the source of
ground-water contamination. On-site actions
have included repairing the leak and excavating
and disposing of 65 cubic yards of visually-
contaminated soil. This ROD provides an
interim remedy for ground-water contamination.
Future RODs will address the remaining
contaminated media including a final decision
for ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene, toluene, and xylenes; and
other organics including PAHs.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes on-site pumping and pretreating ground
water using precipitation and filtration to remove
metals, solids and residual amounts of free
product, and air stripping to remove VOCs;
filtering the effluent from the treatment process
water using a granular activated carbon polishing
filter, and discharging the treated water on site
in a spray irrigation and infiltration system
depending on the season; treating air emissions
using granular activated carbon; regenerating
and disposing of any spent carbon off site; and
disposing of the resultant sludge from the
treatment process off site. The estimated capital
cost for this RA is $1,000,000, with an annual
O&M cost of $100,000 for 3 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on state and federal MCLs.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
220
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
NL INDUSTRIES, NJ
September 27, 1991
The 44-acre NL Industries site is an
inactive, secondary lead smelting facility in
Pedricktown, Salem County, New Jersey. Land
use in the area is predominantly residential and
industrial. The site is bordered by two
tributaries to the Delaware River, which receive
surface discharges from the site. The site
overlies the Cape May aquifer, a potential
source of drinking water for local residents.
From 1972 to 1984, the site was used to recycle
lead from spent automotive batteries, and the
unused portions of the batteries were buried in
an on-site landfill. During operations, batteries
and other materials containing lead were stored
on paved and non-paved areas on site; and
drums and debris were scattered throughout the
site, within and outside of buildings, and on the
paved areas. There also are approximately
1,000,000 gallons of contaminated standing
water and 200 cubic yards of associated
sediment at the site. Between 1973 and 1980,
the state cited the PRP for multiple violations of
state air and water regulations. In 1989, EPA
began a multi-phased removal action, which
included consolidating and encapsulating debris
and lead-bearing materials into separate piles
totaling 9,800 cubic yards of kiln slag and 200
cubic yards of lead oxide; removing over 40,000
pounds of toxic and reactive materials;
incinerating 2,200 empty drums off site; and
constructing a chain-link fence to enclose the
site. In addition, EPA conducted an FFS to
address the remediation of slag and lead oxide
piles, debris and contaminated building surfaces,
standing water, and sediment. The FFS resulted
in the issuance of this early RA ROD,
designated as OU2. The nature and extent of
remaining contamination on the site and areas
adjacent to the site in various environmental
media, such as soil, sediment, ground water,
surface water, and air, are currently being
evaluated and will be addressed as OU1 in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the slag and lead oxide piles,
sediment, debris, and standing surface water are
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating on site the slag and lead oxide piles
using solidification/stabilization and placing the
residual material on site; decontaminating debris
and contaminated building surfaces, with off-site
treatment and disposal of debris that cannot be
decontaminated; treating and disposing of
standing water, wash water from the
decontamination process, and sediment off site;
conducting environmental monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including
land use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $4,987,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $17,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The selected remedy will attain all federal
and state ARARs. Chemical-specific clean-up
goals were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including land use
restrictions will be implemented at the site.
221
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ROCKAWAY BOROUGH WELLFIELD, NJ
September 30, 1991
The 2.1-square mile Rockaway Borough
Wellfield site is a municipal well field in
Rockaway Borough, Morris County, New
Jersey. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential. The estimated 10,000 people who
reside in Rockaway Borough use the underlying
glacial aquifer as their sole source of drinking
water. Beginning in 1980, a number of state
investigations revealed VOC-contaminated soil,
sediment, and ground water, which had
originated from several source areas within the
Borough. In 1981, the Borough constructed a
granular activated carbon adsorption treatment
system that treated approximately 900,000
gallons per day of raw water pumped from the
well field. Overall, the system has reduced
VOC concentrations in the municipal water
supply to levels meeting state and federal
drinking water standards. A 1986 ROD
provided for the continued operation and
maintenance of the existing ground-water
treatment system, for a continuation of the
RI/FS to positively identify additional
contaminant sources, and for further delineation
of the full extent of contamination. The 1986
ROD did not, however, address ground-water
restoration. Recently, EPA also has approved a
state-initiated modification to the current
treatment system to include the installation of an
air stripper as the first stage in the treatment
process. This ROD addresses final restoration
of the contaminated on-site ground water to
drinking water standards. A future ROD will
address the need for remediation of the
contaminant sources. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including PCE and TCE; and metals including
chromium and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes on-site
pumping and treatment of ground water from
two of three plumes of concern using chemical
precipitation and air stripping, followed by
reinjecting the treated ground water on site into
the glacial aquifer; and conducting
environmental monitoring. Under this RA, a
single treatment facility would be necessary for
the two treatment areas, and no active remedial
measures would be taken for the third plume.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$17,818,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $1,502,000 for 27 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on the more stringent of federal
or state MCLs, and include PCE 1 ug/l (state
MCL) and TCE 1 wg/1 (state MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
222
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ROEBLING STEEL, NJ
September 26, 1991
The 200-acre Roebling Steel site is an
inactive steel wire and cable manufacturing
facility in Florence Township, Burlington
County, New Jersey. Site features include a
34-acre slag disposal area, and 55 buildings
connected by a series of paved and unpaved
access roads. Two portions of the slag area lie
within the 100-year floodplain of the Delaware
River. A public playground, known as the
Southeast Park, is adjacent to the southeastern
portion of the site, and land surrounding the site
consists of farmlands, wetlands, and forested and
residential areas. The Roebling Steel site
produced steel products between 1906 and 1982.
In recent years, parts of the site have been used
as a storage facility for vinyl products, a
warehouse facility, a polymer reclamation
facility, a facility for repairing and refurbishing
refrigerated trailers and shipping containers, a
storage facility for insulation, and an equipment
storage facility for a construction company.
Approximately 1,458,000 cubic yards of slag
material from steel making processes were used
to fill in a large portion of the bordering
Delaware River shoreline. In addition to the
slag material, other potential sources of
contamination on site include: process buildings
containing chemical treatment baths, tanks, pits
and sumps; a wastewater treatment plant; two
sludge lagoons; friable asbestos insulation inside
buildings and falling from pipes; 52 railroad cars
containing fly ash, dry sludge, and debris; and
a landfill containing rubble and debris. Because
the site lacked properly operated environmental
control facilities, several regulatory agencies
have issued notices of noncompliances to site
owners over the last 25 years. Based on federal
investigations conducted in 1983, three removal
actions were conducted. In 1985, the state
removed explosive materials. In 1987, EPA
removed lab pack containers, drums of corrosive
and toxic materials, acid tanks, and compressed
gas cylinders. In 1990, EPA removed fencing
around the slag area. A 1990 ROD addressed
the remaining drums, tanks, transformers,
contaminated soil, baghouse dust, and chemical
and tire piles. This ROD addresses soil and
debris contamination in the slag area and in the
Southeast Park as OU2. Future RODs will
address final remedies for soil, sediment, debris,
ground water, surface water, and air. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and debris are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides; and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and transporting approximately
160 cubic yards of contaminated soil from two
areas of the Southeast Park to an off-site
treatment and disposal facility; backfilling the
excavated area with clean soil and revegetating
the area; conducting additional surface and
subsurface sampling to confirm the extent of
contamination and to test for exceedances of
regulatory levels; excavating and treating slag
areas that are leaching contaminants using a
mobile treatment unit that stabilizes the slag
material; conducting a treatability test to
determine the specific stabilization process;
dewatering of any slag material found below the
water table during excavation; collecting,
treating, and disposing of extracted water;
returning treated slag to an area above the water
table; reprocessing or off-site disposal of any
slag material leaching contaminants above
regulatory levels; excavating and off-site
disposal of localized areas of slag determined to
interfere with or be unaffected by the
solidification/ stabilization process; off-site
treatment and disposal of slag if the RD
determines that the volume of slag to be treated
is small compared to the current estimate of
223
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
30,000 cubic yards; grading and capping the
34-acre slag area using a soil cover; providing
riprap along the river shoreline to minimize
erosion; long-term ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls. The
estimated present worth cost of this RA is
$12,220,100, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $344,200.
Performance Standards or Goals
No promulgated
requirements for soil
federal or
contamination
state
exist.
However, the remedy will comply with state
interim soil action levels for carcinogenic PAHs
and inorganic compounds in the slag and soil.
The remedy also will comply with EPA's
chemical-specific guidelines for lead in soil,
which ranges from 500-1,000 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
restrict future excavations through the soil
cover.
224
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SINCLAIR REFINERY, NY
September 30, 1991
The Sinclair Refinery site is a former
refinery in Wellsville, Allegany County, New
York. The site is composed of a 90-acre
refinery area, 10-acre landfill area, and 14-acre
off-site tank farm. Surrounding land use is
primarily residential. The site borders the
Genesee River, which is used as a local source
of drinking water supplied by the Village of
Wellsville Municipal System. The underlying
ground-water flow at the site is generally to the
north and east, discharging directly into the
Genesee River. From 1901 to 1958, the site
was used to process Pennsylvania grade crude
oil until a fire in 1958 halted operations.
Currently, some private companies and the State
University of New York occupy the site. A
1981 SI revealed that debris from the eroding
landfill area has washed into and contaminated
the Genesee River. A 1985 ROD addressed
OU1 and provided for: removal and disposal of
drums; excavation and consolidation of the south
landfill area and filling of the excavated area
with clean soil; partial channelization of the
Genesee River to protect the landfill from
erosion and flooding; capping of the
consolidated landfill; construction of a fence
around the entire landfill site; and an evaluation
of the refinery portion of the site. This ROD
addresses OU2, remediation of the remaining
contaminated areas at the site located within the
90-acre refinery area and the off-site tank farm
including the contaminated ground water beneath
the refinery. Data collected during the OU2 RI
have not shown contaminant levels in landfill
ground water to be in excess of federal and state
standards; therefore, EPA has chosen not to
address landfill ground-water remediation under
this OU2 ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including benzene and xylenes,
semi-volatile compounds including naphthalene
and nitrobenzene, and metals including arsenic
and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes excavating
soil contaminated in excess of arsenic 25 mg/1
and lead 1,000 mg/1 to a depth of 1 foot;
treating excavated soil on site prior to
consolidation in the landfill; capping the landfill,
and filling and revegetating excavated areas;
conducting long-term monitoring of biota,
surface water, ground water, and soil-gas to
track any potential contaminant migration from
the subsurface soil; on-site pumping and
treatment of contaminated ground water followed
by discharging the treated ground water on site
to the Genesee River or off site to the POTW;
and implementing institutional controls in the
form of local zoning ordinances. This ROD also
provides contingency measures for ground water
all or some of which may be implemented based
on the monitoring data colleted. These measures
include variations in pumping rates,
implementing engineering or institutional
controls, monitoring specified wells,
reevaluation of remedial technologies, and
invoking chemical-specific ARAR waivers. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$15,549,700, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $750,183 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals for soil include
arsenic 25 mg/1 and lead 1,000 mg/1. Ground
water will be treated to attain federal MCLs or
state standards.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be recommended
on site in the form of local zoning ordinances.
225
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SOUTH JERSEY CLOTHING, NJ
September 26, 1991
The 1.2-acre South Jersey Clothing
Company (SJCC) site is an active clothing
manufacturing facility located in Minolta, Buena
Borough, Atlantic County, New Jersey. Land
use in the area is residential and commercial,
and local residents obtain drinking water from
the Borough municipal water supply system.
On-site features include two buildings used for
manufacturing operations, as well as the remains
of a building damaged in a 1979 fire. Another
Superfund site, the 3,000-square-foot Garden
State Cleaners (GSC) site, is located 500 feet
south of the South Jersey Clothing site. GSC
site features include a small building covering
much of the site. In 1940, SJCC began
manufacturing military clothing using VOCs
including TCE, as part of the dry cleaning
process. Based on state records, wastewater
containing TCE from these processes was
routinely discharged directly onto the facility
grounds, and other process waste was stored on
site in leaking drums. In addition, State records
indicate that the 1979 fire may have resulted in
the release of an estimated 275 gallons of TCE
from an on-site storage tank. State
investigations in 1981 identified elevated TCE
levels on site. Later in 1981, SJCC identified
and removed thirty-three 55-gallon drums of
TCE-contaminated soil; installed additional
ground-water monitoring wells from 1981 to
1984; and installed a ground water pump and
treatment system under a state order in 1985. In
1989, SJCC began installing a limited soil vapor
extraction system in the vicinity of the TCE
storage tank that reportedly ruptured in the 1979
fire, but this action was abandoned at the start of
the RI. Because the SJCC and GSC sites are in
proximity to one another and have similar
contamination, both sites will be remediated
concurrently. This ROD addresses soil and
ground-water contamination at both the SJCC
and GSC sites, as a final remedy. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, and toluene.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating approximately 1,600 cubic yards of on-
site contaminated soil using in situ vapor
extraction; treating the contaminated wastewater
from the vapor extraction processes on site using
an air stripping column; treating air emissions
using carbon adsorption units; pumping and on-
site treatment of contaminated ground water
using air stripping and carbon adsorption,
followed by reinjecting the treated water
upgradient from the site; regenerating spent
activated carbon from both treatment processes
off site; conducting long-term ground-water
monitoring; and implementing temporary
institutional controls. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA at the SJCC site is
$5,718,000, which includes an estimated annual
O&M cost of $293,100 for 70 years. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA at both
the GSC and SJCC sites is $11,169,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $542,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Federal and state agencies have agreed to
jointly establish ISAL clean-up goals of 1,000
wg/kg for PCE and TCE, given the
predominance of the two compounds at the site.
Ground-water remediation goals are based on the
more stringent of SDWA federal and state
MCLs, and include PCE 1 wg/1 (state) and TCE
1 wg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Temporary institutional controls will be
implemented on site while the need for
providing home treatment units for individual
residents is evaluated.
226
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SWOPE OIL & CHEMICAL, NJ
September 27, 1991
The 2-acre Swope Oil & Chemical site is a
former chemical reclamation facility in
Pennsauken, Carnden County, New Jersey.
Land use in the area is predominantly
commercial and industrial, and Pennsauken
Creek lies 0.8 miles northeast of the site. The
estimated 10,000 residents use ground water
from a public supply well screened in the lower
underlying aquifer near the site as their drinking
water supply. At the time site operations
ceased, pertinent site features included a main
building, distilling house, diked tank farm, open
drum storage area, and an unlined lagoon.
From 1965 to 1979, Swope Oil & Chemical
used the site for the reclamation of chemicals.
Site operations included buying, selling,
manufacturing, and processing oils, chemicals,
and paints, and discharging waste liquids and
sludge to an excavated, unlined lagoon.
Contaminated material also was contained within
a diked tank farm and an exposed drum storage
area. In 1975, state investigations showed that
discharge of waste to on-site drainage ditches
had resulted in probable migration of chemicals
to Pennsauken Creek via storm sewers. The
owners were cited for several disposal violations
in 1975, and again in 1979, when the site
operations ceased. Beginning in 1984, PRPs
removed drummed waste and 3,000 tons of
lagoon sludge, and also fenced the perimeter of
the site. Later in 1984, air strippers were
installed on Municipal Well 1 by the water
commission to remove VOC contamination
detected in the aquifer. A 1985 ROD provided
for removal, off-site disposal, and treatment of
storage tanks and their contents; demolition of
on-site buildings; and excavation and off-site
disposal of PCB-contaminated soil and sludge
area material. This ROD addresses remediation
of subsurface soil, which continues to leac
contaminants into ground water, as OU 2.
Future actions will evaluate whether further
source control measures or ground-water actions
are necessary. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are VOCs including
PCE and TCE, and other organics including
DEHP and naphthalene.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating on site approximately 153,000 cubic
yards of contaminated unsaturated soil using in
situ vacuum extraction with potential
enhancement of biodegradation of soil
contaminants, if the results of the treatability
study so warrant; treating air emissions using
carbon adsorption or thermal destruction prior to
discharge, if necessary; and monitoring soil and
ground water. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $2,099,000, which includes
estimated O&M costs of $397,500 for year 1 of
the vapor extraction system and $234,200 a year
for 5 years of ground-water monitoring.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on New Jersey ISALs and include 1
mg/kg for total VOCs and 10 mg/kg for
semi-volatiles, and are designed to mitigate the
threat of ground-water contamination.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
227
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
UPPER DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP SANITARY LANDFILL, NJ
September 30, 1991
The 14-acre Upper Deerfield Township
Sanitary Landfill is an inactive landfill located
on a 27-acre tract of land in Upper Deerfield
Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey.
Land use in the area is primarily agricultural.
The estimated 100 people who live within one
mile of the site maintained individual water
supply wells until the early 1980s. From 1938
to 1960, Seabrook Farms, Inc., a vegetable
growing and processing company, operated the
property as a gravel pit, and later as a waste
disposal facility for its vegetative waste. During
this time, pesticide residues and containers were
allegedly disposed of at the site. Since 1960,
Upper Deerfield Township has owned and
operated the facility as a municipal sanitary
landfill. A number of state investigations
identified VOCs including vinyl chloride,
chlorinated solvents, and mercury in excess of
federal drinking water standards in ground
water. In 1983, Upper Deerfield Township
began to supply affected residents with bottled
water, and in 1986, the township installed a
public water supply well and distribution system.
This ROD addresses ground water and air.
Because EPA investigations showed that the
ground-water and soil contamination associated
with the site no longer posed a health threat
under current or likely land use conditions, there
are no contaminants of concern affecting this
site.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes no further
action since previous investigations indicated that
ground-water and soil contamination associated
with the site no longer pose a health threat under
current or likely future land use conditions.
However, a comprehensive ground-water and air
monitoring program will be implemented, which
will include installing additional monitoring
wells and sampling downgradient residential
wells. In addition, sediment and surface water
sampling also will be conducted. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $2,380,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of
$154,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
228
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES, NJ
March 29, 1991
The 1.72-acre Waldick Aerospace Devices
site is a former aerospace parts manufacturing
facility in Wall Township, Monmouth County,
New Jersey. Land use in the area is
predominantly commercial and industrial, with
residential properties located to the east.
Hannabrand Brook flows within 900 feet of the
site before it merges with another stream that
eventually drains into the Atlantic Ocean. The
site overlies a sandy silt/sand aquifer system that
is a potential source of drinking water. From
1979 to 1983, Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc.
used the site to manufacture electroplated
quick-release pins for the aerospace industry.
For at least the first 3 years of operation,
wastewater containing metals and organic
solvents was discharged directly onto the
ground. In addition, used machine oil was
allowed to drain out of perforated drums onto
the ground. As a result of state and local
inspections, a number of investigations were
conducted by EPA, which revealed VOCs,
organics, and metals in soil and ground water in
excess of MCLs. In 1985, EPA conducted a
removal action that involved disposing of all
manufacturing-related chemicals from the facility
off site. A 1987 ROD provided a source control
remedy for soil that included in-situ air stripping
to remove VOCs, excavation and off-site
disposal of an area of metal-contaminated soil,
and decontamination or demolition of on-site
buildings. This ROD addresses both a final
remedy for soil as a modification of the 1987
ROD, and an interim RA for ground water to
prevent further ground-water contaminant
migration. The modification to the 1987 source
remedy is a result of additional investigations,
which revealed that metals were widespread
throughout the site, and that the volume of
contaminated soil was less than half of the
previously estimated amount. In addition, tests
during RD revealed that in situ air stripping was
inappropriate for the site. A future ROD will
address a final remedy for the ground-water
contamination. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including PCE, TCE, and toluene; other
organics; and metals including chromium and
lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected modified remedy for the source
contamination at this site includes excavating
8,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil; using
on-site thermal treatment to remove organics;
treating inorganic contaminated soil using
solidification/stabilization; and backfilling or off-
site disposal of the treated soil. The selected
interim RA for ground water includes installing
four ground-water extraction wells in the zone of
highest contaminant concentration; using
chemical precipitation to remove inorganics, and
disposing of the resultant sludge off site; using
air stripping to remove organics; reinjecting or
infiltrating treated ground water into the aquifer,
or discharging it to wetland areas to help offset
any dewatering effects caused by ground-water
extraction, if appropriate; and ground water
monitoring. The estimated cost of the soil
remediation is $3,420,000 to $5,913,569
depending on whether treated material is
disposed of on site or off site, respectively. The
estimated present worth cost for the ground-
water RA is $5,923,372, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $705,625.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground water will be treated to achieve
MCLs and non-zero MCLGs as part of the final
RA. Chemical-specific clean-up levels,
therefore, were not established.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
229
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
WARWICK LANDFILL, NY
June 27, 1991
The 13-acre Warwick Landfill is an inactive
municipal and industrial waste disposal site in
the town of Warwick, Orange County, New
York. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential, and the site is surrounded by
woodlands and wetlands. The estimated 3,000
people who reside approximately 1.5 miles
northeast of the site use residential wells as a
source of drinking water. From 1898 until its
closure in 1978, the Warwick Landfill accepted
municipal and industrial wastes and sludge.
Landfill contamination is attributed to the
unpermitted and illegal disposal practices
conducted by waste haulers and trespassers. As
a result of reports of illegal on-site dumping in
1979, and an inspection after a property transfer
in 1984, state investigations were conducted, and
revealed soil, sediment, ground-water, and
surface water contamination throughout the site.
This ROD addresses the contaminant source, the
on-site landfill, and provides an interim ground-
water remedy for OU1. The final remedy for
ground water (OU2) will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, and ground water are
VOCs including benzene, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; other organics including PAHs and
phenols; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
regrading the landfill mound, capping the
landfill with a 22-acre multi-layer cover, and
installing with a gas venting system; installing
and maintaining point-of-use treatment systems
consisting of granular activated carbon units at
contaminated residential wells until a final
ground-water remedy can be evaluated; sampling
residential wells; monitoring ground water and
air; evaluating wetlands adjacent to the property
in an effort to mitigate potential threats from the
site; and implementing institutional controls
including deed restrictions, and site access
restrictions such as fencing. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $14,279,600
which includes an annual O&M cost of
$526,300 for years 0 through 3 and $422,900
for years 4 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals will be addressed in the final RA but water
at the point of use must meet federal MCLs.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent disturbance of the cap.
230
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
WHITE CHEMICAL, NJ
September 26, 1991
The 4.4-acre White Chemical site is a
former chemical manufacturing facility in
Newark, Essex County, New Jersey. Land use
in the area is predominantly industrial and
residential, with an estimated daytime population
of 12,000 within one-quarter mile of the site.
On-site features include five major buildings and
three smaller facility support buildings. From
1983 to 1990, White Chemical Corporation
(WCC) used the site to manufacture acid
chlorides and flame retardant compounds. As a
result of state inspections, a number of
investigations were initiated by the state and
EPA that identified 10,900 55-gallon drums
containing improperly stored hazardous
substances; 150 gas cylinders; 126 storage tanks,
vats, and process reactors; 12,000
laboratory-size containers; and other
miscellaneous hazardous material present on site.
In 1989, the state conducted several SI and
issued notices of violation for improper
management and storage of hazardous waste. In
1990, the state reinspected the site and again
found various violations, and ordered WCC to
clean up the site. As a result of WCC's failure
to respond to any state notices or directives, the
state initiated a removal action to stabilize the
site. After removing 1,000 drums, the state
exhausted its authorized funds and suspended
operations. Shortly thereafter, the State
requested that EPA consider conducting a
removal action at the site. Later in 1990, EPA
issued WCC a UAO to discontinue all site
activities and evacuate all personnel. EPA also
performed several site assessments and initiated
stabilization activities under removal authorities.
Ongoing actions include drum overpacking,
segregating incompatible substances, and
restaging containers. EPA removed an
additional 3,200 empty 55-gallon drums and
repaired the chain-link fence that secures the
property. The contents of many containers are
still unknown. This ROD addresses interim
remedial measures for surface contamination. A
future ROD will address additional remedial
measures deemed necessary as a result of a
comprehensive RI/FS. The primary
contaminants of concern identified in the tanks,
drums, and containers are VOCs including
benzene and xylenes, other organics, inorganics,
and shock-sensitive compounds.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes continuing the site, stabilization process
performed during the ongoing removal action;
compiling an inventory, staging incompatible
substances, and consolidating compatible
substances for on-site temporary storage;
tranferring the contents of any container of
questionable integrity to a new container;
overpacking fuming or leaking containers;
disposing of or recycling any empty containers,
along with any extremely hazardous substances
off site to ensure the stability of the site;
possibly mobilizing a treatment system to treat
or neutralize some of the on-site hazardous
substances; decontaminating empty tanks,
reaction vessels, and process piping, followed by
on-site storage; transporting the contaminated
material off site to a RCRA-approved treatment
facility, to a hazardous waste disposal facility, or
to an appropriate facility for recycling or
processing; developing an emergency response
contingency plan for responding to any
emergencies that may occur during stabilization
efforts, and possibly a transportation safety
contingency plan for transporting hazardous
substances; continuing implementation of site
security measures; and conducting environmental
monitoring, and additional investigations to fully
characterize the nature and extent of
contamination in other environmental media at
the site, and to evaluate additional remedial
measures. The estimated present worth cost for
231
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
this RA is $22,096,000. No O&M costs are Institutional Controls
associated with this RA.
Not applicable.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
232
-------
Fiscal Year 7991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 3
AB1-002-3
REGION 3
Site
Arrowhead Associates/Scovill
AVCO Lycoming-Williamsport Division
Brodhead Creek
Cyro-Chem
Delta Quarries/Stotler Landfill
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
Dorney Road
Eastern Diversified Metals
First Piedmont Quarry 719
Greenwood Chemical
Halby Chemical
Haverton PCP
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
Heleva Landfill (Amendment)
Hellertown Manufacturing
State
VA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
PA
PA
VA
VA
DE
PA
PA
PA
PA
Page
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
244
246
247
248
250
251
252
233
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Site State Page
Industrial Drive PA 253
McAdoo Associates PA 254
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers MD 255
Middletown Air Field PA 256
Modern Sanitation Landfill PA 258
NCR, Millsboro DE 259
Old City of York Landfill PA 260
Publicker/Cuyahoga Wrecking Plant PA 261
Resin Disposal PA 262
Saunders Supply VA 263
Sealand Limited DE 265
Strasburg Landfill PA 266
USA Aberdeen-Edgewood (Federal Facility) MD 267
USA Aberdeen, Michaelsville (Federal Facility) MD 268
USA Letterkenny-PDO (Federal Facility) PA 269
USA Letterkenny Southeast Area (Federal Facility) PA 270
Whitmoyer Laboratories (OU2) PA 271
Whitmoyer Laboratories (OU3) PA 273
William Dick Lagoons PA 275
234
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ARROWHEAD ASSOCIATES/SCOVILL, VA
September 30, 1991
The 30-acre Arrowhead Associates/Scovill
site is a cosmetic-case manufacturing and filling
facility in Westmoreland County, Virginia.
Land use in the area is predominantly
agricultural, with several businesses. Also,
woodlands and wetlands areas are located
proximal to the site. There is a small stream,
Scates Branch, that originates on site and flows
to an off-site pond and creek. The site overlies
a shallow aquifer that is used by an estimated
500 people as a drinking water supply.
Ownership of the site has changed hands several
times. From 1966 to 1979, Scovill, Inc., and
later Arrowhead Associates, used the site for
manufacturing cosmetic cases using
electroplating, lacquering, and enameling
processes. Once the plating process was
complete, the solutions were discharged to on-
site settling ponds. Supernatant from these
ponds was either reused or discharged to surface
water. Bottom waste and small amounts of
other spent materials were stored in drums for
subsequent off-site disposal. After 1979, site
operations switched to cosmetic-case filling, and
subsequently to wire harness manufacturing.
Currently, Virginia Elastics uses the former
plating area as a storage warehouse. Numerous
investigations by the state and EPA revealed
extensive soil and ground-water contamination.
From 1986 to 1988, EPA conducted a
two-phased removal action at the site. Phase I
of the removal, conducted from 1986 to 1987,
included removal of waste and various
contaminated materials. Phase II, conducted
from 1987 to 1988, consisted of treating and
disposing of wastewater, sludge, and soil from
the former settling ponds, and off-site disposal
of contaminated soil from a drum storage area.
In 1990, the ponds were filled and graded, and
erosion control measures were installed. This
ROD addresses final remediation of soil and
ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene,
and xylenes; and metals including chromium and
lead.
Performance Standards or Goals
The selected RA for this site includes
implementing in situ vacuum extraction of
VOC-contaminated soil; on-site pumping and
pretreatment of contaminated ground water using
pH adjustment, precipitation, flocculation/
sedimentation, and filtration, followed by
treatment using air stripping and carbon
adsorption, and on-site discharge of the treated
water to Scates Branch; disposing of residual
sludge and residues from the ground-water
treatment process off site; treating off-gases
from the soil and ground-water treatment
systems using carbon adsorption; and
implementing environmental monitoring, and
institutional controls including ground-water use
restrictions. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA action is $13,177,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $11,833,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals will be
determined during the remedial design.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
are based on SDWA MCLs and include benzene
5 Mg/1, PCE 5 wg/1, and TCE 5 Mg/1.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented to prevent the use of water from
the contaminated aquifer until the aquifer has
been remediated to acceptable levels.
235
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
AVCO LYCOMING-WILLIAMSPORT DIVISION, PA
June 28, 1991
The 28-acre AVCO Lycoming-Williamsport
Division site is an active manufacturing facility
in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Surrounding
land use is primarily residential. The site
overlies a surficial glacial aquifer and a deeper
bedrock aquifer that are used as seasonal sources
of drinking water. Ground water is pumped
from the Williamsport Municipal Water
Authority (WMWA) well field located 3,000 feet
south of the site. Wetlands are located near the
site in the 100-year floodplain of Lycoming
Creek and the Susquehanna River. From 1929
until present, various manufacturing companies
including a bicycle and sewing machine
manufacturing plant, a sandpaper plant, a tool
and die shop, a silk plant, and aircraft engine
manufacturing plant have been located on site.
Possible sources of on-site contamination include
improper waste disposal in a "dry well,"
laboratory chemical disposal in a coolant well,
spillage and dumping in metal plating areas, a
sludge holding lagoon, cutting oils from a metal
chipster sump, degreasing areas, and chemical
storage areas. The site also contains
approximately 40 USTs that are presently being
abandoned or upgraded. In 1984, the state
identified VOC contamination in the WMWA
well field. In 1985, monitoring and recovery
wells were installed on site and off site to
identify the source of contamination, which was
determined to be the AVCO plant. In 1986, the
state approved the AVCO RA plan, which
included installation of an air stripping system to
treat water from three on-site and two off-site
recovery wells, and discharge to Lycoming
Creek. This RA remains in effect. Between
1989 and 1991, a RI/FS study was conducted to
further characterize the contamination and source
areas. This ROD addresses management of
migration of contaminated ground water from
the on-site area. Remediation of off-site ground
water will be addressed in a subsequent ROD.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including TCE and
metals including chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and treatment of contaminated ground
water using an on-site treatment facility that
utilizes precipitation, coagulation, flocculation,
and air stripping; treating air stripper off-gases
using BAT, possibly granular activated carbon
or fume incineration; dewatering and off-site
disposal of residual precipitation sludge and
spent carbon filters; discharging treated water on
site to surface water; monitoring ground water;
and implementing institutional controls including
land use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $9,300,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $442,900 for
30 years.
Performance Standardds or Goals
Ground-water clean-up standards are based
on the more stringent of federal MCLs or
non-zero MCLGs, or background levels.
Chemical-specific goals were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented at
the site.
236
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
BRODHEAD CREEK, PA
March 29, 1991
The 12-acre Brodhead Creek site is a former
coal gasification plant in the Borough of
Stroudsburg, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
The site occupies the floodplain area at the
confluence of Brodhead and McMichael Creeks.
Surrounding land use is commercial and
residential. Site features include two earthen
levees constructed to protect a nearby sewage
treatment plant from potential floodwaters.
From approximately 1888 to 1944, the coal
gasification plant was operated along the west
bank of Brodhead Creek. These activities
produced a liquid coal tar product composed of
PAHs, which was disposed of in an on-site open
pit until the mid-1940s. In 1980, during
construction repairs to the toe of the flood
control levee, coal tar was observed seeping into
Brodhead Creek. From 1981 to 1984, several
state and federal emergency response measures
and investigations were initiated on site. These
included installing filter fences and underflow
dams to intercept coal tar seepage, installing a
coal tar recovery pit on the bank of Brodhead
Creek, and constructing a slurry wall to mitigate
on-site coal tar migration toward Brodhead
Creek. In addition, from 1982 to 1983, the state
and EPA conducted a program designed to
remove coal tar from a backwater channel area,
which involved excavating and dewatering 900
cubic yards of sediment and backfilling the area
with clay and clean soil. Also during this time
period, the PRPs installed recovery wells in the
main coal tar pool and subsequently removed
8,000 gallons of coal tar. This ROD addresses
contaminated subsurface soil containing free coal
tar, and provides an interim remedy for the site.
A future ROD will address on-site ground-water
contamination and provide the final remedy for
the subsurface soil. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil are VOCs including
benzene, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including PAHs; and metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes an in
situ innovative enhanced recovery process which
entails installing hot water injection and
extraction wells in the free coal tar areas
composed of approximately 200 cubic yards of
subsurface soil; recovering both coal tar and
process water from extraction wells; separating
the coal tar from the process water and
disposing of the recovered coal tar at an off-site
permitted incineration facility; treating the
process water; discharging a portion of the
treated process water to Brodhead Creek, and
reinjecting the remainder of the treated water
into the subsurface soil to enhance coal tar
recovery; conducting a treatability study to
evaluate the coal tar recovery process;
monitoring ground water, sediment, and biota;
and implementing deed restrictions, and site
access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,120,000, which includes a total O&M cost of
$1,112,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The enhanced recovery process will be
applied to the free coal tar (i.e., coal tar at 100
percent pore volume saturation) areas, and will
remove and treat 60 to 70 percent of the free
coal tar. This process will prevent further
leaching of contaminants into the shallow ground
water.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be enacted to limit
future site use.
237
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CRYO-CHEM, PA
September 30, 1991
The 19-acre Cryo-Chem site is a metal
fabrication facility in Worman, Earl Township,
Berks County, Pennsylvania. Land use in the
area is semi-rural, with a woodland area located
northeast of the site, and an on-site stream west
of the contaminated area. Between 1970 and
1982, chemical solvents were used at the facility
at a rate of two to three 55-gallon drums per
year. During this time, a chemical spill
occurred at Cryo-Chem, but cannot be definitely
linked to the source of contamination. Well
sampling conducted between 1985 and 1987
showed ground-water contamination in
monitoring and residential wells within 1 mile of
the site, which led to a removal action that
required the installation of activated carbon filter
units in 20 affected homes. EPA has divided the
site into three OUs for remediation. A 1989
ROD addressed OU1, the contaminated drinking
water, by providing an alternate water supply.
A 1990 ROD addressed the remediation of
ground water using air stripping and carbon
absorption as OU2. This ROD addresses
contamination in soil caused by past facility
operations, which continues to leach from the
soil into the ground-water system. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil are
VOCs including TCA, TCE, DCA, and PCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
sampling the area to better define the extent of
the contamination; treating the contaminated soil
on site using vapor extraction; controlling air
emissions using carbon absorption, and
disposing of, or regenerating, any spent carbon;
discharging any water captured during in situ
vapor extraction to the pump and treat system
currently under design; and conducting
confirmation soil sampling and air monitoring.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA
ranges from $53,500 to $66,400 based on the
treatment selected. There are no O&M costs
associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Although current background contaminant
levels are less than federal standards, further
remediation was deemed necessary to prevent
additional leaching of contaminants from the soil
to the ground water. EPA intends to run the
soil vapor extraction system until it is effectively
not removing any additional VOCs. EPA does
not intend to continue remediation for OUS
beyond soil vapor extraction since it is known
that the contaminant levels in soil will be below
levels that are protective of human health.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
238
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
DELTA QUARRIES/STOTLER LANDFILL, PA
March 29, 1991
The 137-acre Delta Quarries/Stotler Landfill
site includes a 57-acre former landfill, and is
located between the City of Altoona, Logan
Township and the Village of Pinecroft, Antis
Township, Pennsylvania. Land use in the area
is rural. Several residences are approximately
35 feet east of the landfill boundary, and
wetlands areas exist to the southeast and
northeast. Residences and businesses in the
vicinity of the site rely on private wells adjacent
to the landfill for their drinking water supply.
Beginning in 1964, two adjacent municipal
landfills were operated on site, and in 1976 these
operations were merged into one landfill, known
as the Stotler Landfill. Delta Quarries and
Disposal, Inc. purchased the landfill and
continued to operate the facility until its closure
in 1985. Reports from EPA, the state, and
previous landfill operators indicate that
municipal waste comprises 98 percent of the
total landfilled waste; however, the landfill had
accepted some industrial waste including organic
solvents, process sludges and metals from
electroplating operation, tramp oils and residues
from sludge sedimentation basins, which have
contaminated on-site soil and ground water in
the landfill area. In 1984, the state and Delta
Quarries entered into a consent order to develop
and implement a closure plan for the landfill. In
1987, the site owners initiated the plan by
placing a 4-foot soil cap over the landfill,
vegetating the area, and installing sedimentation
controls including interceptor berms, channels,
and sedimentation basins. All elements of the
closure plan were completed except installation
of gas venting. This ROD addresses on-site
ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including PCE, TCE, and vinyl
chloride; and metals including manganese.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and on-site pretreatment of ground
water using precipitation to remove metals, if
necessary, followed by on-site treatment using
air stripping; discharging the treated water off
site to Little Juniata River; controlling air
emissions using activated carbon; monitoring
ground water and surface water; maintaining the
cap, and installing a gas venting system;
conducting periodic site reviews; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed and land use restrictions, and site access
restrictions such as fencing. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $2,344,581,
which includes a present worth O&M cost of
$1,176,989 over 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
standards are based on the more stringent of
SDWA MCLs or background levels, and include
l,2-DCA5wg/l (MCL); cis-l,2-DCE 70 wg/1
(MCL); trans-1,2-DCE 100 Mg/1 (MCL);
chloroform 100 Ğg/l (MCL); PCE 5 wg/1
(MCL); TCE5Ğg/l (MCL); and vinyl
chloride 2 Hg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented to
prevent future actions that would disturb the
landfill surface and waste. Deed restrictions will
provide notice to any future property owners of
potential hazards and likewise restrict the use of
the property.
239
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
DIXIE CAVERNS COUNTY LANDFILL, VA
September 30, 1991
The 39-acre Dixie Caverns County Landfill
is a former municipal landfill in Roanoke
County, Virginia. The surrounding land is
rural, with the nearest residence located one half
mile from the site. The site is situated on a
steep ridge between two valleys surrounded by
heavily forested mountains traversed by small
streams. Two unnamed headwater streams
receive surface runoff from the site, and
discharge to the the Roanoke River, which is
located two miles south/southeast. The landfill
is currently owned and was operated by the
county of Roanoke from 1965 until its closure in
1976. During operation, Dixie Caverns Landfill
accepted an estimated 440,000 cubic yards of
municipal and industrial wastes including refuse,
scrap metal, fly ash, and sludge. In 1983, EPA
investigations identified several disposal areas
including a discarded drum area, a sludge pit,
and a large fly ash pile, which contained
elevated levels of metals. In 1987, EPA
conducted a removal action that addressed the
drum and sludge areas; however, removal of the
fly ash was suspended on EPA's
recommendation. In 1987, the county developed
a removal work plan proposing a proprietary
stabilization process to treat the fly ash, and the
plan was approved in 1988 with remediation
levels set by EPA. Questions concerning the
regulatory status of the waste caused delay in
implementing the work plan. At that time, EPA
recommended suspension of further removal
activity pertaining to the fly ash because of
uncertainty as to whether or not the County's
plan would meet federal and state requirements.
This ROD addresses the fly ash at the site as
OU1. Future RODs will address other RAs
based on RI/FS investigations. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the debris are
metals including lead, cadmium, and zinc.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes excavating and transporting
approximately 9,000 cubic yards of fly ash off
site to an EPA approved high temperature metals
recovery technology facility for treatment and
subsequent reuse; and implementing state dust
and erosion and sediment controls during fly ash
excavation. The present worth cost for the RA
is $3,927,158. There are no O&M costs
associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific fly ash clean-up goals are
based on on-site disposal criteria developed by
EPA during the recent K061 LDR ruling, and
include lead 0.095 mg/kg and cadmium 0.032
mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
240
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
DORNEY ROAD, PA
September 30, 1991
The 27-acre Dorney Road site is a landfill in
Upper Macungie Township, Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania. Land use immediately
surrounding the site is rural, residential, and
agricultural. Approximately seven acres of
wetlands, including ponded areas, are scattered
throughout the site, with the greatest
concentration of these areas in the north-central
and southern parts of the site. The estimated 20
residents living within 1/4 mile of the site use
ground water as the primary source of potable
water. Prior to 1959, the site was used as an
open pit iron mine. From 1959 to 1979,
municipal and industrial wastes were disposed of
in the on-site abandoned iron mine pit. In 1970,
the state requested that the landfill be compacted
and covered, but the owners failed to comply.
The site was closed because the owners were
unable to acquire a landfill permit to renew
disposal operations. Further state investigations
during 1970 to 1972 identified a variety of waste
disposed of at the landfill including electric
utility plant sludge, battery casings, barrels of
petroleum products, and asbestos flooring waste.
In 1986, EPA performed an emergency removal
action to regrade the site to collect and contain
on-site surface run-off. Although a soil cover
was applied to portions of the site, the landfill
was never graded and capped, and on-site waste
continues to be exposed in areas. Seepage of
landfill waste is the principal source of on-site
ground-water contamination. A 1988 ROD
addressed OU1 and provided for elimination of
on-site ponded water; regrading and multi-layer
capping of the site; installing run-on/run-off
controls, ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions and site access restrictions
including perimeter fencing. In 1991, EPA
issued an BSD for OU1 requiring mitigation of
wetlands areas affected during cap construction.
This ROD addresses on-site ground-water
contamination as OU2, and provides a final
remedy for the site. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene and TCE; and metals
including chromium and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
providing wellhead treatment using carbon
adsorption for the private wells of affected
residences, and ground-water monitoring. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$274,040, which includes an annual O&M cost
of $14,410.
Performance Standards or Goals
ARAR waivers will be issued for state
standards, specifically those requiring
remediation of on-site ground water to
background levels and remediation of off-site
ground water to MCLs on the basis of technical
impracticability. In addition, data indicate that
ground-water contamination appears to be
naturally attenuating. Ground-water action
clean-up levels are based on MCLs, risk levels,
and state standards, and include benzene 5 wg/1,
TCE 5 wg/1, chromium 100 Ğg/l, and lead
15 Ğg/l.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
241
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
EASTERN DIVERSIFIED METALS, PA
March 29, 1991
The 25-acre Eastern Diversified Metals
(EDM) site is a former metals reclamation
facility in Rush Township, Schuylkill County,
Pennsylvania. Land use in the area is
predominantly agricultural with small pockets of
residential, commercial, and undeveloped land.
In addition, a small westward moving stream
traverses the site's southern border and
discharges into the Little Schuylkill River,
250 feet west of the site. Before 1966, the site
was owned by an aluminum manufacturing
facility. From 1966 to 1977, EDM reclaimed
copper and aluminum from metal wire and cable
in an on-site processing building. Plastic
insulation surrounding the metal wire and cable
was mechanically stripped and separated, and the
waste insulation was disposed of behind the
processing facility. Over time, the insulation
material formed a residual pile of "plastic fluff,"
the most distinctive site feature. In 1974, the
state required EDM to install a leachate
collection and treatment system on-site to
monitor, collect, and treat leachate emanating
from the fluff pile. Because of high biological
oxygen demand concentrations in the leachate, a
secondary treatment was designed and installed,
channeling leachate using drainage ditches and
collection trenches through an equalization
lagoon to an on-site treatment plant. In 1977,
EDM terminated operations, and in 1979 and
1980, residents complained of odors from the
site and expressed health concerns. Subsequent
state and EPA investigations from 1983 to 1985
determined that the fluff piles, soil, sediment,
leachate, and ground water were contaminated
by VOCs, other organics, and metals. This
ROD addresses two of three OUs at the EDM
site. This ROD provides a final remedy for "hot
spot" fluff and soil areas, metal-contaminated
sediment and soil, and miscellaneous debris as
OU1; and provides an interim remedy for
contaminated ground water as OU2. Future
RODs will address the final selected actions for
ground water (OU2), and the remainder of the
fluff pile (OUS). The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris,
ground water, and surface water are VOCs
including TCE; other organics including dioxins
and PCBs; and metals including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
removing 480 cubic yards of soil contaminated
with lead above federal target levels from
drainage ditches; excavating and incinerating,
either on-site or off-site, 500 cubic yards of
dioxin-contaminated fluff and 5,160 cubic yards
of PCB-contaminated fluff and soil in excess of
federal target levels; consolidating the on-site
scattered fluff with the remainder of the fluff
pile; removing 120 cubic yards of sand/silt/clay
stream sediment contaminated by metals above
federal target levels; conducting toxicity testing
on incinerator residuals, miscellaneous debris,
and possibly on soil and sediment depending on
type of disposal or containment; disposing of
incinerator residuals in an off-site municipal
landfill or consolidating these with the remaining
fluff pile on-site, if residuals pass the toxicity
test; if residuals fail the toxicity test, treating
with stabilization prior to disposal; disposing of
on-site soil and/or sediment passing the EP
toxicity test in an off-site municipal landfill; or
if soil and sediment fail an EP toxicity test,
stabilizing prior to disposal; disposing of
miscellaneous debris passing the toxicity test in
an off-site municipal landfill; or if miscellaneous
debris fails the toxicity test, disposing of these
materials in an appropriate RCRA unit;
upgrading surface-water runon/runoff controls;
installing a ground water collection trench
242
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
parallel to the existing trench to relieve
overburden ground-water flow; treating ground
water and leachate at an on-site treatment plant
that utilizes equilization basins, clarification,
discharge, and biological treatment, with on-site
discharge; upgrading the wastewater treatment
facility and existing equalization lagoon, or
constructing a new lagoon to meet federal
requirements; and further studying the
practicability of deep ground-water restoration.
The estimated present worth for this RA is
$12,429,000, which includes a present worth
O&M cost of $1,428,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals for soil, sediment,
and fluff are based on federal standards and
include dioxin 20 wg/kg, lead 1,000 mg/kg, and
PCBs 25 mg/kg. If fate and transport modeling
shows that lower values are appropriate, those
values will be used.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
243
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
FIRST PIEDMONT QUARRY 719, VA
June 28, 1991
The 4-acre First Piedmont Quarry Route 719
site is an inactive industrial and agricultural
landfill located north of the city of Danville in
Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Land in the area
consists of open space and woodlands, with
residential areas located to the south. The
estimated 1,893 people living within two miles
of the site obtain drinking water from wells or
springs. Two small ponds and a wetlands area
are located on site. In addition, the landfill is a
ground-water discharge area for an underlying
aquifer draining through the wetlands to Lawless
Creek, which runs 1,400 feet northwest of the
quarry. The site originally operated as a quarry
for crushed stone. From 1970 to 1972,
industrial and agricultural wastes were landfilled
in the 2-acre quarry area of the site. Waste
included hundreds of buried drums; tires; scrap
rubber; approximately 15,000 gallons of a
mixture of MS-20 (a floor degreaser containing
PCE), water, carbon black, and detergent;
off-specification batch materials containing trace
amounts of lead oxide; soil; tobacco scraps; and
wood. The landfill contains approximately
65,000 cubic yards of industrial and agricultural
wastes and 3,000 cubic yards of soil. Two
additional waste areas, the carbon black pile and
the waste pile, have been identified on site near
the western edge of the landfill. The carbon
black pile contains 100 cubic yards of a tire
reinforcement additive and contaminated soil,
and the waste pile contains 10 cubic yards of
steel and nylon cords, glass, waste rubber strips,
and contaminated soil. In 1972, the state
ordered waste disposal operations to cease as a
result of a fire on the landfill. This ROD
provides a final remedy for all site media
including the landfill material, leachate, the
carbon black pile and waste pile, and the
contaminated northern drainage soil and
sediment. The contaminants of concern
affecting the site are metals including arsenic,
lead, barium, antimony, and zinc.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and disposing off site 1,080 tons of
waste from the carbon black and waste piles
along with the contaminated soil and sediment
from the Northern drainage areas; performing a
TCLP of excavated material to determine if it is
RCRA characteristic waste, and if so, solidifying
and stabilizing the excavated material prior to
off-site disposal; filling the excavated carbon
black and waste pile areas with clean soil;
disposing of 30 to 40 drums from the surface of
the landfill at a RCRA Subtitle C treatment
facility; decontaminating and disposing of
surface debris at an approved landfill;
constructing a RCRA-cap and an associated
leachate collection system over the 2-acre
landfill area; covering the cap with six inches of
soil and contouring soil to promote run-off, and
revegetating the area; constructing run-off
control berms in the northern drainage areas to
lessen landfill cap run-offs; pretreating leachate,
if necessary, prior to transporting to a POTW,
or constructing an on-site treatment system with
on-site discharge to surface water if the POTW
will not accept the leachate; draining the north
and south ponds, and transporting and
discharging pond water off site to a POTW;
monitoring ground water and conducting
bioassays to assess the effectiveness of the
removal of the carbon black pile and waste pile
on the reduction of contaminant levels in the
southern drainage; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions,
and site access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,154,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $66,200.
244
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented on-
site to prevent residential development of the
site.
245
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
GREENWOOD CHEMICAL, VA
December 31, 1990
The 5-acre Greenwood Chemical site is a
former chemical manufacturing facility in
Newtown, Albemarle County, Virginia. Land
use in the area is mixed residential and
agricultural. On-site features include several
buildings, storage sheds, a buried drum area,
and seven former treatment lagoons. All
residents who reside within 3 miles of the site
are completely dependent on the ground water
underlying the site for their drinking water
supply. From the 1950s to 1985, either
Cockerille Chemical Company or Greenwood
Chemical Company used the site for
manufacturing chemicals for industrial,
agricultural, pharmaceutical, and photographic
purposes. The companies stored, treated, and
disposed of chemicals on site. In 1985,
operations ceased at the facility following an
explosion and fire. EPA investigations that were
conducted after this fire identified elevated levels
of cyanide, SVOCs, and VOCs in lagoons and
ground water. In 1987, EPA removed buried
and surface drums and containers of chemicals
from the site, along with the sludge associated
with three of the on-site lagoons. A 1989 ROD
provided for off-site incineration, solidification
and/or disposal of 4,500 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, and removal of containerized
chemicals. An explanation of significant
differences issued in 1991 authorized the
removal of three process buildings. This ROD
addresses the contaminated ground water and
surface water as OU2 and provides an interim
remedy. A future ROD will address additional
contamination of on-site soil. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water and surface water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene; SVOCs
including naphthalene; and metals including
arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes on-site
pumping and treatment of contaminated ground
and surface water using a treatment system
consisting of precipitation, sedimentation,
filtration, and UV/oxidation, followed by
discharging the treated water on site to surface
water; treating on-site sludge residuals from the
ground-water treatment process, if necessary,
prior to off-site disposal in a landfill; and
monitoring ground and surface water. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$3,218,000, which includes an estimated O&M
cost of $1,419,000 for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not provided.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
246
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
HALBY CHEMICAL, DE
June 28, 1991
The 14-acre Halby Chemical site
encompasses a chemical storage facility and
associated warehouses in Wilmington, New
Castle County, Delaware. Land use in the area
is primarily industrial. Storm water run-off
from the site generally flows toward a drainage
ditch which discharges into the Christina River.
From 1948 to 1977, the Halby Chemical Plant
process plant area was used to produce sulfur
compounds, and until 1969, a portion of the site
was used to store arsenic-containing pyrite ore.
From 1948 to 1964, the plant discharged all
liquids into an adjacent marsh or lagoon, which
drained into the Lobdell Canal before emptying
into the Christina River. From 1964 to 1975,
the plant acid wastewater was discharged to the
public sewers. From 1975 to 1977, the owners
periodically diverted the acid wastewater flow
from the county sewer system to its pilot plant,
and the treated wastewater was discharged to the
lagoon. In July of 1977, the facility was issued
a NPDES permit to discharge cooling water and
effluent from the process plant treatment plant.
The plant then closed in August 1977. Since
1977, Brandywine Chemical Company has used
the site to receive and distribute bulk chemicals.
As a result of citizen complaints about lagoon
overflow, hydrogen sulfide-like odors, and
numerous spills, a number of investigations were
conducted by the state and EPA beginning in
1983, which identified leaking drums and stained
soil. Analyses of samples taken during this site
investigation revealed VOCs, organics, metals,
and other carcinogenic compounds hi the soil.
This ROD addresses the first of two OUs and
provides a final remedy for soil and debris in the
process plant area. Contamination of air,
surface water, ground water, and sediment in the
marsh and lagoon areas will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD as OU2. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris are VOCs including benzene, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics including
PAHs; and metals including arsenic, chromium,
and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
consolidating debris on site or disposing of all
debris off site; excavating and stabilizing the top
6 inches of approximately 10,300 cubic yards of
contaminated surface soil in the process plant
area, followed by replacing the stabilized soil on
site; capping the approximately 5,800 square
yards residuals area with an asphalt cap;
conducting soil monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$1,586,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $43,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The clean-up goals for soil contaminants
including arsenic and carcinogenic PAHs are set
at background levels. Additional sampling and
analysis is required to ascertain background
levels; however, approximate goals include
arsenic 10 mg/kg and PAHs 1.2 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent post-closure use of the property and
possible damage to the cap.
247
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
HAVERTOWN PCP, PA
September 30, 1991
The 12- to 15-acre Havertown PCP site
consists of a former wood treatment facility and
an adjacent industrial facility in Haverford
Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
Land use in the area is mixed residential and
industrial. Naylors Run, a creek that drains the
entire site, flows into Cobbs Creek, which joins
Darby Creek before entering the Delaware
River. Only three families who reside more
than one mile from the site use the ground water
as their drinking water supply. From 1947 to
1991, National Wood Preservers used the site
for treating wood. Treated wood was air dried
on drip racks in dirt areas around the site and
stored in a dirt-covered storage yard. Chemicals
were stored in several tanks adjacent to the
facility. It has been estimated that up to
one million gallons of spent wood preservatives
were dumped into a nearby drip well. This
disposal practice is believed to be a primary
source of contamination to ground water and,
ultimately, Naylors Run. From 1962 through
1989, the state conducted a number of
investigations, which revealed PCP, oils, PAHs,
dioxin, heavy metals, VOCs, and phenols in
ground and surface water. In 1976, EPA
initiated a response action, which included
ground-water pumping and treatment, installing
filter fences, sealing a sanitary sewer, and an
attempt to grout two sewer pipes which
discharged into Naylors Run. Currently,
contaminated ground water still discharges into
Naylors Run from a storm sewer pipe. A ROD
addressed OU1, the cleanup of waste staged on
site from previous investigative actions, and the
interim remedial measure of designing and
installing an oil/water separator at the storm
drain outlet along Naylors Run. This ROD
addresses an interim remedy for shallow ground
water contamination, as OU2. A subsequent
ROD will address sediment contamination in
Naylors Run, soil contamination on site,
potential deep ground-water contamination from
on-site soil, and surface water and sediment
contamination due to runoff from on-site soil, as
OU3. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics including dioxin, oils, PAHs, PCP, and
phenols; and metals including arsenic.
Performance Standards or Goals
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes installing two free product recovery
wells with floating free product skimmers on
site; installing a shallow ground water collection
drain and pumping station, as well as additional
ground-water wells to monitor shallow ground
water; rehabilitating the existing storm sewer to
reduce infiltration by lining the sewer, followed
by directing all shallow ground water collected
to the existing oil/water separator; constructing
an on-site ground-water treatment plant, which
will include chemical precipitation to remove
inorganic compounds, with either a PACT
system or an AOP, and granular activated
carbon treatment as a reinforcement for the
PACT or AOP to remove organics and destroy
dioxins; treating effluent from the oil/water
separator using the new treatment plant;
discharging the effluent from the treatment plant
on site to surface water; treating and disposing
of any residuals off site; and ground-water
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA ranges from $10,036,000 to
$12,177,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost ranging from $485,500 to $595,000 for 30
years.
248
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals PCP 1 Mg/1 (MCL), TCE 5 ag/1 (MCL), toluene
1,000 wg/1 (MCL), xylenes 10,000 Ğg/l (MCL),
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up and arsenic 50 wg/1 (MCL).
goals are based on background levels, the more
stringent of SDWA MCLs or MCLGs, or new Institutional Controls
limits set forth in the final RA. Ground water
clean-up goals include benzene 5 Ğg/l (MCL), Not provided.
249
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
HEBELKA AUTO SALVAGE YARD, PA
September 30, 1991
The 20-acre Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard site
is an automobile junkyard in Weisenberg
Township, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Land
use in the area is predominantly agricultural,
with four residential properties close to the site.
The site is located within the headwaters of the
Iron Run subdrainage basin. From 1958 to
1979, and again from 1989 to present, the site
was used as an automobile junkyard and for
salvage operations. Scrap iron was recovered
from used storage tanks that were disposed on
site, some of which still contained organic
chemicals. In addition, during the past 10 to 15
years, approximately 1,000 cubic yards of used
battery casings have been disposed of on site in
two piles, along with empty storage tanks and
drums, junked cars, and miscellaneous scrap
metal. In 1985, EPA investigations identified
elevated levels of lead and chromium in soil and
sediment. A 1989 ROD addressed remediation
of site areas with lead concentrations exceeding
560 mg/kg in soil, as well as the piles of scrap
battery casings above these soil areas. The
ROD also provided for removal and recycling of
the battery casings, and excavation and treatment
of soil using cement- or lime-based fixation
processes. This ROD was developed to address
soil outside of the high lead concentration areas,
ground water, surface water, and air. However,
because the site investigations have found no
evidence of contamination in the media
addressed in this ROD, there are no
contaminants of concern.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes no
further action other than monitoring ground
water and surface water of Iron Run annually,
and a bioassessment of the creek. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $66,300, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $4,500 for 30
years. The cost for the follow-up bioassessment
is $125,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
250
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
HELEVA LANDFILL, PA
Amendment
September 30, 1991
The 25-acre Heleva Landfill site is a former
sanitary landfill in North Whitehall Township,
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Land use in the
area is predominantly rural with scattered
residences. The estimated 150 people who
reside within one-quarter mile of the site used
the ground water underlying the site as their
drinking water supply prior to 1986. From
1967 to 1981, the Heleva Landfill accepted
municipal and industrial wastes, which included
large volumes of liquid TCE. As a result of
Heleva's denied requests for solid waste permits
and refusal to implement a state-ordered
biostimulation project, the state closed the
landfill in 1981. A number of subsequent state
investigations revealed ground-water
contamination by VOCs, other organics, and
DNAPLs at levels that exceeded state and
federal ground water limits. A 1985 ROD
addressed on-site ground-water contamination
and provided for extending an existing water
main; capping the entire landfill; constructing
surface water diversions and gas venting
systems; constructing an on-site ground-water
treatment facility; establishing a pumping and
treating system for the contaminated
neargradient ground water; and ground-water
sampling and monitoring. Construction of all of
these major remedial activities has been
completed except for the ground-water extraction
and treatment component. This ROD amends
the ground^ water component based on data from
the 1989 predesign study which determined that
collection of downgradient ground water is
technically feasible. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
continuing with the selected remedy from the
previous ROD and replacing the ground-water
portion with extracting near gradient ground
water to contain the highly contaminated
dissolved plume immediately in the vicinity of
DNAPL contamination in the ground water;
pumping and on-site treatment of the
downgradient portion of the aquifer, and
discharging the treated ground-water on site to
surface water. The estimated present worth cost
for this amended RA is $40,950,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $1,848,000 for
30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Downgradient ground water will be
remediated to state background levels including
benzene 0.2 Mg/1, PCE 0.03 Mg/1, TCE 0.03
Ğg/l, and toluene 0.2 wg/1. The state and federal
ARARs for remediation of neargradient ground
water to background levels and MCLs will be
waived due to technical impracticability.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
251
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
HELLERTOWN MANUFACTURING, PA
September 30, 1991
The 8.64-acre Hellertown Manufacturing
site is an inactive spark plug manufacturing
facility in Northampton County, Pennsylvania,
approximately 1.5 miles south of Bethlehem.
The site is bordered by commercial and
residential areas, highway and railroad
transportation corridors, Saucon Creek, and a
wetlands area. On-site features include a
124,000-square-foot building, and five lagoons
totaling 500,000 cubic feet. From 1930 to
1975, chemical waste including TCE, zinc
plating waste, chrome dip waste, cleaners, and
cutting oils generated during plating and
degreasing processes were disposed of on site in
the unlined lagoons. Waste from these activities
then seeped into the local soil and rock strata.
In 1976, after the facility began discharging
treated wastewater into the municipal sewer
system, the lagoons were backfilled, closed in
place, and covered with topsoil. The material
used to backfill the lagoons included rejected
spark plugs, demolition material from
road-building activities, and soil excavated
during construction of the nearby Bethlehem
wastewater treatment plant. Studies conducted
in 1990 identified contamination by VOCs,
metals, and organic compounds in lagoon
backfill, soil, and in on-site ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water and VOCs including
benzene, DCE, PCE, TCE, vinyl chloride, and
xylenes; other organics including PAHs; and
metals including chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
capping the former 3.5-acre lagoon area with an
impermeable asphalt and clay cover; pumping
and on-site treatment of ground water using air
tripping; removing solids using a settling tank or
clarifier followed by filtration; discharging the
treated effluent on site to Saucon Creek;
long-term ground-water monitoring; controlling
surface water run-off; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,250,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
SDWA MCLs or state background
concentrations, whichever is the more stringent.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up levels
include benzene 0.2 Mg/1 (state background),
PCE 0.03 Ğg/l (state background),
TCE 0.12 Ğg/l (state background), and vinyl
chloride 0.18 Ğg/l (state background).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prohibit excavation of contaminated soil and the
use of on-site ground water for domestic
purposes.
252
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
INDUSTRIAL DRIVE, PA
March 29, 1991
The 30-acre Industrial Drive site is an active
sanitary landfill and industrial facility in
Williams Township, Northampton County,
Pennsylvania. Land use in the area is industrial,
residential, and agricultural. The site contains
active and inactive sanitary landfills as well as
active, inactive, and abandoned industrial
facilities. The Lehigh River and Lehigh Canal
are located northwest of the site, and a portion
of the site rests upon the trace of a thrust plane
known as the Musconetcong Fault. These
conditions have created a complex geologic
setting in which ground-water flow is governed
by topography. Prior to 1961, the site was used
for iron ore mining, industrial activities, and
agricultural purposes. In 1961, sanitary landfill
operations began on-site, and the site accepted
municipal solid waste for disposal in an unlined
landfill. By 1980, the landfill had expanded to
30 acres. In the late 1970s, local residents
alleged that the now inactive unlined landfill had
accepted hazardous waste that had contaminated
local drinking water wells. Waste disposal in
the unlined landfill ceased in 1986, but closure
of the landfill has not been completed. In 1986,
the state issued a permit for a 10-acre expansion
of the landfill, which included a liner and
leachate collection system. This expansion
landfill is currently active, but there are no plans
to further expand the landfill area.
Contamination in local ground-water wells was
first detected in 1983. Subsequently, the site has
been divided into two OUs for remediation. A
1986 ROD addressed OU1, and provided for an
alternate water supply by connecting numerous
private well users to an existing municipal water
supply. This ROD addresses OU2, the
contaminated ground water and the low-level
threat caused by the unlined municipal landfill.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, and TCE; other
organics; and metals including chromium and
lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
closing and capping the unlined landfill area
with a clay or synthetic cap; on site pumping
and treatrnent of contaminated ground water
using an air stripper, followed by carbon
adsorption with on-site discharge of the treated
ground water to the Lehigh River; regenerating
spent carbon off site; and long-term monitoring
of the closed landfill and ground water. If the
selected remedy cannot meet the specified
remediation goals, a contingency remedy will be
implemented to prevent further migration of the
plume, which will include a combination of
containment technologies including ground-water
extraction and treatment, and institutional
controls. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $12,775,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $536,000 for the first year
and $498,000 for years 2 to 45. There will be
an additional O&M cost of $20,000 every
5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The goal of this RA is to remediate ground
water to background levels as specified by state
hazardous waste management regulations.
Chemical-specific goals include benzene 0.2
wg/1, PCE 0.03 wg/1, TCE 0.03 Ğg/l, chromium
50 wg/1, and lead 5 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
253
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1997
McADOO ASSOCIATES, PA
September 30, 1991
The 9-acre McAdoo Associates site is an
inactive strip and deep mining facility located in
Kline Township, Schuylkill County,
Pennsylvania. The site consists of two
locations: the 8-acre McAdoo-Kline Township
(MKT) location, and the single acre
McAdoo-Blaine Street (MBS) location. The
MKT location is situated at the site of an old
(subsurface and surface strip) coal mine, and
land adjacent to this location is industrial,
abandoned, or contains reclaimed mine areas.
The shallow aquifer at the MKT location
consists of ground-water-filled mine workings
and other subsurface voids beneath the MKT
location, collectively called the "mine pool."
The mine pool discharges at the Silverbrook
discharge to the upper reaches of the Little
Schuylkill River. Both the mine pool and the
river have been severely affected by acid mine
drainage. The MBS location is adjacent to a
residential area and a mine spoil reclamation
site, and is presently covered with gravel and
used for vehicle storage. From the 1880s to the
1960s, strip and deep mining of anthracite coal
occurred at the MKT location. Two rotary kiln
furnaces and an upright liquid waste incinerator
were installed on site between 1975 and 1976 to
reclaim metals from waste sludges, reportedly
using waste solvents as fuels. In 1979, EPA
ordered the MKT location to close because of
numerous environmental compliance problems.
At the time of closure, the location contained an
incinerator, a garage and off-site trailer, 6,790
drums of hazardous waste, four above-ground
15,000-gallon storage tanks, three above-ground
10,000-gallon tanks, and miscellaneous debris.
The MBS location was used for the storage of
waste oil and hazardous waste in five
underground tanks. Activities at the MBS
location were stopped by EPA in 1979. As a
result of federal investigations, all drums and
site features were removed from the MKT
location between 1981 and 1988. A 1984 IRM
for the MBS location provided for removal of
underground tanks and contaminated soil, and a
1985 ROD addressed remediation of soil
contamination at the MKT location. This ROD
addresses sediment, ground water, and surface
water at the MKT location, and ground water at
the MBS location. EPA has determined that no
further remedial action other than that already
implemented at the site is required to ensure
protection of human health and the environment;
therefore, there are no contaminants of concern.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site is no further
action because previous interim remedial
activities were adequate to protect human health
and the environment. Ground-water monitoring
at the MKT and MBS locations will be
performed, including expanding the ongoing
water quality monitoring program at the MKT
location, and installing four ground-water
monitoring wells at the MBS location. The
estimated present worth cost for this no action
remedy with ground water monitoring is
$503,540, which includes an annual O&M cost
of $434,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
254
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MID-ATLANTIC WOOD PRESERVERS, MD
December 31, 1990
The 3-acre Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers
(MAWP) site is a wood treatment facility in
Harmans, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Land use in the area is predominantly industrial
and residential, and a wetland area traversed by
Stony Run Creek lies 600 feet west of the site.
Since 1974, the facility has been used for
pressure treatment of lumber using chromate
copper arsenate (CCA) as the wood preservative.
The site is divided into two areas: a treatment
yard on the eastern half of the site, and storage
yard on the western half. The treatment yard
contains CCA storage tanks, a pressure cylinder,
and a drip pad area. In 1978, the county
determined that water in a shallow residential
well downgradient of the site was contaminated
with high levels of hexavalent chromium.
Subsequent investigations by the state in 1978
revealed that soil and ground-water
contamination by chromium and arsenic was the
result of an overflow pipe from a CCA storage
tank. Under an agreement with the state,
MAWP removed 26 cubic yards of contaminated
soil beneath the overflow pipe, modified the
CCA storage system, and installed a concrete
drainage pad to collect drippings and reduce
future contamination. However, off-site
investigations by EPA in 1983 identified
elevated levels of arsenic and chromium in
ground water. Further EPA and MAWP studies
documented on-site arsenic-contaminated soil,
the result of removing treated wood prematurely
from the drip area before it had dried, was the
principal threat. In addition, these studies
identified approximately 5,200 cubic yards of
degraded soil, to an average depth of 2 feet, in
the treatment yard drip pad area and hi the
western most third of the storage yard.
Residential ground-water metal contamination
levels were found to be at much lower levels
than detected in earlier investigations; arsenic
was not detected, and chromium was detected
above the MCL in only one well. This ROD
addresses contaminated on-site soil and ground
water. The prunary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are metals
including arsenic and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and stabilizing approximately
20 cubic yards of on-site soil contaminated with
arsenic levels greater than 1,000 mg/kg (referred
to as hot spots), followed by off-site disposal;
capping the remaining soil with arsenic
concentrations between 10 mg/kg and
1,000 mg/kg with an asphalt/concrete cap;
constructing an enlarged and roofed drip pad
which is consistent with new wood treating
regulations; allowing natural attenuation to lower
chromium levels in ground water; monitoring
sediment, ground water, surface water, and air;
and implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $322,400, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $6,500 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals for soil are based on
achieving a 10'5 cancer risk level. The
chemical-specific goals for ground water are
based on federal MCLs including chromium
50 wg/1. EPA feels that MCLs will be achieved
by natural attenuation within 3 months after
construction is completed.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
ensure that the containment components are not
compromised by future property use.
255
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
MIDDLETOWN AIR FIELD, PA
December 17, 1990
The 500-acre Middletown Air Field site is a
former military airfield located between the
towns of Highspire and Middletown in Dauphin
County, Pennsylvania. Land in the area is used
predominantly for industrial and commercial
purposes. Several on-site wetlands areas, as
well as the floodplain of a small stream, have
been identified on site. From 1898 to 1917, the
site was operated by the U.S. Army as a basic
training camp. Subsequently, the site was used
as an airfield by the Army/Air Force from 1918
until all on-site military operations ceased in
1966. Site features include several private
manufacturing companies, an inactive landfill,
and the Harrisburg International Airport (HIA).
The site was divided into five distinct study
areas where soil, sediment, ground water, and
surface water investigations were conducted.
These five study areas are: (1) the 30-acre
runway area where, during the mid-1940s
through 1956, waste from base operations was
either incinerated or placed in a landfill; (2) the
150-acre industrial area where industrial
operations such as paint stripping and metal
finishing were conducted by the Air Force; (3)
the 1-acre fire training pit area where
combustible waste was burned during military
training exercises; (4) the 7-acre north base
landfill area where construction debris and
miscellaneous drums were disposed of from
1950 to 1956; and (5) the Meade Heights
housing area where, prior to housing
construction, waste may have been disposed.
Based on identification of on-site soil and
ground-water contamination, the remedial action
for the site was divided into five OUs that were
slightly different from the study areas. These
OUs and their respective media of concern are
as follows: ground water for the site (OU1); the
industrial area (soil) (OU2); the fire training pit
area soil (OUS); the north base landfill area
(ground water) (OU4); and Meade
Heightshousing area (surface) (OUS). This
ROD provides a final remedy for OU1 through
OU4, and an interim remedy for OUS, which
requires additional investigations to determine
contamination sources. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including TCE; other
organics including PAHs; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The combined selected RA for this site at
OU1 through OUS is continuing the operation of
existing drinking water supply treatment
systems, which include air stripping, followed
by disinfection, and the current distribution
system; monitoring and treating any additional
source of drinking water from new wells and
other HIA wells not used during routine
operations; reconfiguring HIA ground-water
production wells; monitoring ground water,
surface water, sediment, and biota; preparing a
health safety plan for any future activities that
may disrupt surface soil; and implementing
institutional controls including deed, land use,
and ground-water use restrictions throughout the
site. The estimated net present worth cost for
the RA for OU1 through OU4 is $1,327,000.
Capital costs for OU1 through OU4 total
$118,000. There are no capital costs for OUS;
but a net present worth cost of $55,000. Total
net present worth cost for all five OUs is
$1,382,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water remediation goals for OU1
and OU4 are based on federal MCLs, and
include lead 5 wg/1 (proposed MCL). The state
256
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ground-water ARAR for remediating the aquifer Institutional Controls
to meet background levels has been waived for
technical impracticability, and the aquifer itself Deed, land, and ground-water use
will be treated to meet MCLs. restrictions will be implemented on-site.
257
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
MODERN SANITATION LANDFILL, PA
June 28, 1991
The 83-acre Modern Sanitation Landfill site
is an active landfill in the Townships of Windsor
and Lower Windsor, York County,
Pennsylvania. Land use in the area is
predominantly agricultural and residential, with
nearby woodland areas. The site includes an
old, inactive, unlined 66-acre landfill area,
which is the subject of this ROD, and an
adjacent active 17-acre double-lined landfill area
to the north. Other site features include borrow
areas for landfill soil cover material; ground-
water extraction systems to the east, west, and
south of the landfill; a wastewater treatment
plant; a landfill gas-extraction system; and a
low-permeability final cover system. Since the
early 1940s, Modern Trash Removal has used
the site for municipal, and non-hazardous and
hazardous industrial waste stream disposal
activities. Industrial waste disposed of on site
includes inorganic production residues, pesticide
waste sludge, PCB waste, and oil and paint
waste. In 1977, a ground-water interceptor
trench was constructed to collect leachate from
the west side of the site. The collected water
currently is pumped to the on-site treatment
facility. In 1981, the state detected on-site
ground-water contamination by VOCs on the
western site border, and hi 1983, determined
that the western interceptor trench should be
upgraded and modified, and that quarterly
sampling of monitoring wells should be
implemented to detect the leachate seeps and the
presence of leachate constituents in ground
water. As a result, extraction wells to augment
the western interceptor trench were installed.
Leachate studies in 1985 also identified organic
contamination in the eastern site area; and, as a
result, 13 extraction wells were installed along
the eastern perimeter. Four surface
impoundments were operated on site to treat
ground water and leachate collected by the
interceptor and extraction wells. In 1987, the
surface impoundments were clean closed, and a
replacement treatment facility, which included
metal precipitation, filtration, and airstripping,
was constructed. In addition, as of 1990, 64 of
the 66-acre unlined landfill had been covered
with a low permeability cap. This ROD
provides a final remedy for the source of
leachate seeps and ground-water constituents.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; and metals including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
completing the low permeability cap and final
cover system over the 66-acre unlined landfill;
expanding the existing ground-water extraction
system on both the eastern and western sides of
the site; maintaining the on-site wastewater
treatment facility that treats extracted ground
water with physical/chemical and biological
treatment, followed by filtration and air stripping
prior to discharge of the treated wastewater on
site; managing the landfill gas collection system;
and continuing ground- and surface-water
monitoring. The present worth cost for this RA
is $18,078,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $1,175,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
state and federal standards and background
contaminant levels, whichever are lower.
Chemical-specific ground-water goals include
benzene 5 Mg/1 (MCL), PCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL), and
TCE 5 Mg/1 (PMCL).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
258
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
NCR, MILLSBORO, DE
August 12, 1991
The 58-acre NCR, Millsboro site is a former
manufacturing facility in Millsboro, Sussex
County, Delaware. Land use in the area is
mixed residential, agricultural, and industrial
with a small stream, Iron Branch, bordering the
site to the north and northeast. From 1965 to
1967, Dennis Mitchell Industries (DMI)
conducted manufacturing operations on site.
Reportedly, plating activities and other processes
generated wastewater and sludge that were
stored in an on-site lagoon. NCR Corporation
purchased the plant in 1967 and manufactured
mechanical cash registers from 1967 to 1975,
and electronic terminal equipment from 1975 to
1980. NCR's activities included chromium
plating, enameling, heat treating, and degreasing
operations using TCE. TCE and oil waste were
disposed of off site; and oil, grease, and paint
wastes were drummed and stored on site prior to
off-site disposal. Waste sludge associated with
the chromium plating processes was treated on
site and directed to on-site lagoons for
sedimentation and clarification prior to discharge
to Iron Branch. NCR also disposed of the waste
sludge in a pit along the eastern boundary.
From 1981 to 1983 under state direction, NCR
conducted on-site investigations, which revealed
ground-water contamination by VOCs and
chromium above levels of concern. In 1981,
NCR excavated and disposed of off site
approximately 315 cubic yards of lagoon sludge
and other waste during RCRA closure of the
facility. In 1988, NCR installed a ground-water
recovery well and air stripper to prevent
continuing migration of a TCE ground-water
plume. This ROD addresses a final remedy for
ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs, mainly TCE; and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and treatment of contaminated ground
water using air stripping, followed by carbon
adsorption, and coagulation and filtration, if
necessary, to remove chromium; controlling air
emissions from the ground-water treatment
system, if necessary; discharging the treated
water on site to surface water and/or through
ground-water infiltration galleries; conducting a
well survey to identify all wells located within a
one-mile radius of the site; conducting sediment,
ground-water and surface water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including
ground-water use and deed restrictions. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,749,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $859,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs and non-zero
MCLGs, and include TCE 5 wg/1 (MCL) and
chromium 100 Mg/1 (MCL). Discharge
limitations are SDWA MCLs and non-zero
MCLGs, SDWA underground injection control
limits; CWA NPDES; CWA ambient water
quality control and state requirements.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent land and ground-
water use.
259
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
OLD CITY OF YORK LANDFILL, PA
September 30, 1991
The 178-acre Old City of York Landfill site
is a municipal waste landfill in Springfield
Township, York County, Pennsylvania. Land in
the surrounding area is predominantly
agricultural and wooded. The site is bounded to
the southeast and the northwest by tributaries to
Codorus Creek, and these tributaries are
partially fed by seeps discharging from the
valley and hillsides near the landfill. Ten
residences located within 0.25 mile of the site
have or had ground water from domestic water
wells as their drinking water supply. From
1961 until its closure in 1975, the city used 56
acres of the site as a landfill for municipal
waste; however, some industrial waste was also
disposed of at the site. In 1978, the property
was sold to private owners. After local
residents expressed concern over water quality,
the state conducted a residential well sampling
program from 1981 to 1985. VOCs were
identified in six residential wells; as a result,
public water main was installed at the site. In
1982, the state notified the city and site owners
that operation of and existing conditions at the
landfill were hi violation of the Clean Streams
Act and directed the city to conduct a site
assessment to evaluate clean-up measures.
During 1987 and 1989, the city, under a state
order, installed a ground-water recovery and
treatment system connected to an air stripping
tower, which has not yet started operation.
Eight on-site collection vaults containing a total
of 1,120 cubic feet of orange-tinted sediment
and water are located on the site. These vaults
are part of an old leachate collection system that
is no longer functioning. In 1991, the owner
placed a deed restriction on the entire site to
prevent ground-water and surface water usage,
additional agricultural usage, subdivision of the
property, and soil disturbance. This ROD
addresses the long-term threats to soil, ground
water, and surface water produced by the
landfill and vault sediment. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, and
TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
restoring and revegetating the soil cover in the
northeastern portion of the site; disposing of
vault sediment off site; installing a diversion
swale along South Road; installing a ground-
water recovery/treatment system using the
existing air stripper, or adding additional ones,
as needed, with on-site discharge to surface
water; installing a landfill gas venting system
with monitoring probes; maintaining perimeter
fencing at the leachate collection values; and
monitoring ground water, surface water, and
sediment. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $8,291,080 which includes an annual
O&M cost of $259,080 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Remediation of ground water will continue
until contaminant levels meet the lower of site
background levels, which are methods detection
limits; and federal and state standards including
SDWA MCLs, proposed MCLs, and risk-based
levels.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
260
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
PUBLICKER/CUYAHOGA WRECKING PLANT, PA
June 28, 1991
The 37-acre Publicker/Cuyahoga Wrecking
Plant site is a former liquor and industrial
alcohol distillery in Philadelphia, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania. Surrounding land use is
primarily industrial, with 400,000 people living
within a 1-mile radius of the site. From 1912
until 1986 when the plant closed, alcohol
distilling operations were conducted on site.
From the 1970s to 1980s, the site was also used
as a petroleum and chemical storage facility,
which utilized 440 large above-ground tanks,
stored chemicals, chemical laboratories, reaction
vessels, production buildings, warehouses, a
power plant, and several hundred miles of
above-ground process lines, many of which were
wrapped with asbestos insulation. In 1987, a
CO2 utilization area was destroyed in an on-site
fire, which was accompanied by numerous
explosions. Subsequent on-site inspections by
EPA and the state identified leaking tanks, pits,
and process lines containing fuel oil, and
shock-sensitive explosive materials, and 7,000
gallons of reactive and flammable materials in
fermentation tanks and grain dryers. In 1987,
EPA stabilized the site by bulking flammable
and explosive materials on site for future
disposal, disposing of highly reactive laboratory
wastes and cylinders off site, crushing 3,100
empty drums, wrapping overhead asbestos-
covered process lines with plastic, and bagging
and storing loose asbestos materials on site. A
1989 ROD addressed OU1 and provided for off-
site treatment and disposal of hazardous waste
streams and chemicals recovered from within the
process lines, demolition of the above-ground
process lines, and packaging and on-site storage
of asbestos and other insulation materials. This
ROD addresses a portion of OU2, specifically
the bulked asbestos stored on site, any remaining
asbestos material attached to overhead exterior
pipelines, and a pile of asbestos debris near a
loading pier. A subsequent ROD will address
on-site soil and ground-water contamination.
The primary contaminant of concern present as
debris is asbestos, an inorganic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
removing approximately 150 cubic yards of
asbestos from overhead extraction pipes and
placing this material-in plastic bags; staging this
material, along with 6 cubic yards of asbestos
from near a loading :pier and 1,100 cubic yards
of bagged asbestos from previous removal and
remedial actions; and disposing of the staged
asbestos off site. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $293,420. There are no
O&M costs associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
All bulked and remaining loose asbestos
material will be removed from the site. No
specific clean-up standard for asbestos was
provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
261
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
RESIN DISPOSAL, PA
June 28, 1991
The 26-acre Resin Disposal site is an
inactive industrial landfill and former coal strip
mining area in Jefferson Borough, Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania. The site is bordered to
the north and west by residential areas, and to
the east and south by undeveloped land. The
site overlies a bedrock aquifer, and is also in
contact with the Pittsburgh Coal Formation, a
source of non-potable ground water. Prior to
1950, coal strip mining operations were
conducted on and near the site. From 1950 to
1964, 85,000 tons of process waste consisting of
petroleum and coal-derived chemicals mixed
with clay were disposed of in a previously
mined on-site area, and earthen dikes were used
to contain these wastes. Between 1980 and
1984, private investigations identified that
contaminants from the landfill had migrated to
the Pittsburgh Coal Formation, and the soil and
perched ground water downslope. Subsequently,
the site owners installed a leachate collection
system and an oil/water separator. EPA
investigations in 1988 further characterized
contaminated media and analyzed potential
contaminant pathways. This ROD addresses
source control, as well as preventing migration
of contaminated ground water in the Pittsburgh
Coal Formation. A subsequent ROD will
address any remediation of ground water that
may be necessary. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting soil, debris, and ground water
are VOCs including benzene, toluene, and
xylenes; and other organics including
napthalene, PAHs, and phenols. Selected
Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
capping the landfill with a multi-layer cap, and
upgrading the landfill dike; relocating a sanitary
sewer located along the northeast border of the
landfill to allow future access without disturbing
the landfill cap; installing a new oil/water
separator for leachate treatment, with discharge
of aqueous phases to a POTW, and possible off-
site reclamation of NAPLs for use as an energy
source; installing a skimmer well system to
remove NAPLs from ground water for use as an
energy source; monitoring ground water and
surface water; and implementing institutional
controls including deed restrictions, and site
access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,348,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $132,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Deed and land use restrictions will be
implemented at the site.
262
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SAUNDERS SUPPLY, VA
September 30, 1991
The 7.3-acre Saunders Supply site is an
active lumber yard facility in the Village of
Chuckatuck, a rural area of the City of Suffolk,
Virginia. Land use in the area is predominantly
mixed residential and commercial. The site is
composed of the Saunders Supply Company
property and a portion of the adjacent Kelly
property. Commercial establishments and
residences are to the east of the facility, and a
wooded area is to the west. From 1964 to 1991,
the Saunders Supply Company used the site to
chemically treat wood before distribution. Prior
to 1984, treated wood was placed on pallets
located directly on the ground near the wood
treating process area. Subsequently, from 1984
to 1991 when the site ceased operations, treated
wood was air-dried on a concrete drip pad.
These improper treatment and disposal processes
have contaminated on-site soil, sediment, and
ground water. Principal site features include the
treatment facilities, a former conical burn pit
area, a former earthen separation pond, and a
wastewater pond west of the site. Some
drainage from the site discharges to storm
sewers adjacent to the site boundary. After the
state investigated the site, Saunders Supply was
required to install monitoring wells, excavate the
contaminated soil around the conical burn pit
area, and install a recovery well. Treated water
from the recovery well was recycled as the
process water for the chemical treatment of
lumber. EPA conducted additional
investigations that revealed the presence of PCP,
arsenic, and chromium in the ground water.
This ROD addresses all media impacted by site
contamination as a final remedy. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting soil, sediment,
debris, ground water, and surface water are
organics including dioxins and PCP; and metals
including arsenic and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
draining the wastewater from the wastewater
pond, followed by on-site or off-site treatment
and discharge; excavating, treating using
dechlorination, and off-site disposal of 700 tons
of sediment from the wastewater pond and the
former earthen separation pond; excavating,
treating on site using low-temperature thermal
desorption (LTTD), and off-site disposal of
24,300 tons of soil and sediment from the storm
sewer exceeding 1.46 mg/kg PCP; regenerating
spent carbon from the LTTD treatment process
off site; treating ground water during the
dewatering process prior to excavating the soil;
discharging the treated water on site or off site
based upon remedial design studies; testing the
concrete pads for RCRA characteristic hazardous
waste; scarification of the top 1 inch of the
concrete pads and treating the removed material
using solidification if determined to be RCRA
characteristic waste, with subsequent off-site
disposal along with the remainder of the
concrete pads; removing and plugging
preexisting wells; cleaning and sliplining the
storm sewer; monitoring ground water; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed and ground-water use restrictions. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$20,485,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $15,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The chemical-specific soil clean-up level is
PCP 1.46 mg/kg. If ground water is discharged
on site, treated effluent must meet state permit
limits; or if discharged off site, treated effluent
must meet levels set by the receiving facility.
263
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented on site.
264
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SEALAND LIMITED, DE
September 30, 1991
The 2-acre Sealand Limited site, a former
coal tar treatment and recycling facility, is
located in Mt. Pleasant, New Castle County,
Delaware. Land use in the area is primarily
industrial and commercial. Current site features
include a concrete slab, a one-story building, an
abandoned rail spur, a gravel road, and
miscellaneous debris. Ground water underlying
the site is used as a source of drinking water.
From 1971 until 1976, Adams Laboratory used
the site for animal fat rendering activities. The
property was subsequently sold to Conrail,
which cleaned up the property to meet state
standards in 1979. From 1982 to 1983, Conrail
leased the property to Sealand. Sealand
allegedly conducted treatment, processing, and
recycling of coal to tar and off-specification
creosote waste on site until abandoning the site
in 1983. A 1983 state investigation discovered
21 steel tanks or hoppers; a 10,000-gallon
wooden storage tank and 300 55-gallon steel
drums, which were leaking liquids on site; a
boiler house; and various mixing chambers and
pressure vessels on the abandoned site.
Additional studies by EPA and the State
identified organics including PAHs, creosols,
and solvents in the on-site soil, drums, and
tanks. Subsequently in 1983, EPA conducted an
emergency removal action at the site and
removed off site 240,000 gallons of organic
waste from within the wooden and steel tanks,
and 320 drums. Additionally, EPA disposed of
122 cubic yards of solid waste, including 30
ubic yards of wooden tank debris and
approximately 50 to 92 cubic yards of sludge
and contaminated material off site. The owner
voluntarily removed 239 drums of
off-specification product. In addition, the
storage tanks were cleaned and moved, and the
tank and drum storage area was capped with
clay. This ROD addresses on-site soil as the
first and final OU. All hazardous materials
contained hi abandoned on-site tanks and drums
were disposed of off site during the EPA
removal action, and any remaining soil
contaminants pose low risks for humans at the
site. Based on this rationale, there are no
primary contaminants of concern affecting this
site.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site is no action.
There are no costs associated with this no action
remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
265
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
STRASBURG LANDFILL, PA
June 28, 199
The 22-acre Strasburg Landfill site is an
inactive landfill located within a 220-acre tract
of land in Newlin and West Bradford
Townships, Chester County, Pennsylvania. The
site is characterized by hills draining toward
Brandywine Creek and its floodplain, which
forms the southern and western site boundaries.
The nearest wetland is the Briar Run watershed
located 600 feet east/southeast of the site. The
201 single-family residences that surround the
site use ground water as a source of drinking
water. Before landfilling operations began in
1973, the site was used as farmland. From 1978
to 1983, the landfill accepted industrial and
heavy metal wastes and sludges. State
investigations in 1979 determined that landfill
operations had resulted in excessive siltation of
Briar Run. In 1980, the state permanently
prohibited the landfill from receiving industrial
waste. In 1983, the owners were cited for
violations, which they failed to correct, and the
state ordered the landfill closed. Closure
involved constructing a PVC cover and soil and
vegetation layer. Subsequent studies detected
VOCs in both on-site monitoring wells and off-
site residential wells. The state initiated an
interim action to control the leachate, which
included collection and off-site treatment of
leachate at a nearby municipal sewage plant and
installing diversions to halt leachate flow. A
1989 ROD addressed contaminated residential
wells and exposure pathways, and provided an
interim remedy to limit site access. The purpose
of this ROD is to limit direct contact and
exposure to contaminants using site access
restrictions, and to reduce further degradation of
the landfill cover. Remediation of the landfill
will be addressed in a future ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting this site are
VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, and
toluene; and metals including arsenic and
chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected interim RA for this site
includes implementing site access restrictions
including fencing that will encompass the
immediate landfill area, access roads, the
sediment pond, air stripping building, and
monitoring wells; and maintaining the fence and
the existing cap. The estimated total present
worth cost for this RA is $823,020, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $55,405.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
266
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
USA ABERDEEN - EDGEWOOD, MD
Federal Facility
September 27, 1991
The 17,000-acre USA Aberdeen - Edgewood
site is a military ordnance installation in
Edgewood, Maryland. The 4.5-acre Old
O-Field site, which is the focus of this ROD, is
a fenced hazardous waste and ordnance disposal
area located within the lower half of the
Gunpowder Neck in the Edgewood area of the
Aberdeen Proving Ground. Land use in the area
consists of military testing ranges, with a
mixture of industrial, military, and civilian
residential areas. The site overlies two aquifers
that drain into Watson Creek and the
Gunpowder River, which border the site. From
1941 to 1952, chemical-warfare agents including
mustard, lewisite, adamsite, white phosphorus,
munitions, contaminated equipment, and
miscellaneous hazardous waste were disposed of
in 35 on-site unlined pits and trenches. Studies
have shown that chemicals buried within the pits
have impacted ground water and also
interconnecting surface water in Watson Creek.
From 1949 to the mid-1970s, several
decontamination and clean-up operations were
conducted as a result of munitions explosions,
which spread mustard into the surrounding soil,
air, Watson Creek, and Gunpowder River.
These operations included the application of
1,000 barrels of DANC containing chlorinated
hydrocarbons; soaking the field with several
hundred gallons of fuel oil and setting the field
ablaze; dispersing lime into the surrounding
trees to further reduce the amount of mustard
present; and using supertropical bleach, lime,
and sodium hydroxide to destroy chemical
agents. Evidence shows that these
decontamination efforts have contaminated the
ground water with chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Subsequent remediation activities were limited to
removing and securing ordnance items on the
surface. The site has been divided into three
OUs for remediation. This ROD provides an
interim remedy for contaminated ground water
and its effect on surface water, as OU1. Future
RODs will address contaminated on-site soil and
surface water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene; and
metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes installing a downgradient extraction
well network; pumping and on-site treatment of
contaminated ground water using chemical
precipitation, followed by ultraviolet-oxidation;
monitoring the treated effluent, then discharging
the effluent on site to the Gunpowder River; and
disposing of the contaminated chemical
precipitation filter cake sludge generated during
the treatment process off site. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $9,120,000,
which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of
$466,650 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on CWA ambient water quality
criteria, and SDWA MCLs and proposed MCLs,
and include benzene 5 wg/1 (MCL), PCE 5 Ğg/l
(MCL), TCE 5 Kg/1 (MCL), toluene 40 Ğg/l
(PMCLs), and arsenic 50 wg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
None.
267
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
USA ABERDEEN, MICHAELSVILLE, MD
Federal Facility
September 27, 1991
The 79,000-acre USA Aberdeen site, also
known as the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving
Ground (APG), is an active military installation
used since 1917 for planning and testing
weapons, munitions, vehicles, and equipment in
Harford County, Maryland, near the head of the
Chesapeake Bay. APG is divided into two
functional areas: the 13,000-acre Edgewood area
and the 17,000-acre Aberdeen area, which
includes two landfills. These two areas are
divided and drained by Bush River, as well as
by numerous creeks. From 1922 to 1925, an
unknown amount of World War I white
phosphorus munitions (ordnance) was
supposedly buried offshore of the Aberdeen area
on the western side of the upper Chesapeake
Bay. This 15-acre area, termed the White
Phosphorus Underwater Munitions Burial Area
(WPUMBA), is the focus of this ROD. The
ordnance reportedly buried at the WPUMBA
consisted of land mines, grenades, and artillery
shells; in addition, bulk phosphorus may have
been buried. In 1933, the WPUMBA was
reportedly uncovered by a hurricane, resulting in
a large waterfowl kill. However, no evidence of
a disposal site at the WPUMBA was observed in
historical or aerial photographs, and only one
reference to the disposal area has been found.
In addition to background searches, EPA
conducted extensive electromagnetic and core
sampling studies of the WPUMBA from 1988 to
1989. Sample results revealed only trace
amounts of white phosphorus and only sporadic
magnetic objects in sediment, and no phosphorus
in surface water. Hence, no effective remedial
action is possible at the site. Future RODs may
be warranted if contamination is found.
Therefore, there are no primary contaminants of
concern affecting the site.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site is no action
with surface water monitoring after severe
storms with hurricane strength winds or any
other act which may disturb sediment. Water
samples will be analyzed for phosphorus, using
a detection limit of 0.01 ug/l, which is 10
percent of the established toxicity concentrations
approved by EPA, and for metals using EPA
detection limits. There are no present worth or
O&M costs associated with this no action
remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not provided.
Institutional Controls
Current site restrictions will remain in place.
268
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
USA LETTERKENNY-PDO, PA
Federal Facility
August 2, 1991
The 250-acre USA Letterkenny-PDO site is
within the 19,500-acre active U.S. Army facility
in Chambersburg, Franklin County,
Pennsylvania. Land use in the area is primarily
agricultural, with scattered residences and
military facilities. Shallow ground water at the
head of the site flows toward and into Rocky
Spring and Rocky Spring Lake. Since 1942, the
U.S. Army has used the PDO Area to overhaul,
rebuild, and test wheeled and tracked vehicles;
distribute class III chemicals and petroleum; and
store, maintain, demilitarize, modify, and
demolish ammunition. These past industrial
activities involved the on-site use of solvents,
oils, hydrocarbons, and metals, which were
disposed of in an oil burning pit and several
drum storage revetments. From 1987 until
1989, a number of EPA investigations
documented soil contamination near the drum
storage area and the oil burning pit; and these
areas are thought to be the primary sources of
on-site contamination. This ROD addresses
remediation of on-site soil as OU1. A
subsequent ROD will address ground-water
contamination as OU2. Because a majority of
the soil contaminants have already moved down
into the clays and silts of the underlying bedrock
and ground water, soil contaminants now pose
low risks for humans at the site, and no
remediation of the soil is necessary. Based on
this rationale, there are no primary contaminants
of concern affecting this site.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site is no action.
There are no costs associated with this no action
remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
269
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
USA LETTERKENNY SOUTHEAST AREA, PA
Federal Facility
August 2, 1991
The USA Letterkenny southeast area site is
on a 19,500-acre active U.S. Army facility in
Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania.
Land use in the area is primarily agricultural
with scattered residences and military facilities.
Ground water flowing beneath the southeast site
discharges into two nearby streams. Drinking
water in the 33 residences located within a
3-square-mile radius of the facility has been
affected by ground-water contamination from the
site. Since 1942, the U.S. Army has used the
southeast area to overhaul, rebuild, and test
wheeled and tracked vehicles; distribute Class III
chemicals and petroleum; and store, maintain,
demilitarize, modify, and demolish ammunition.
These activities past industrial have involved the
use and disposal of TCE, solvents,
hydrocarbons, and metals. As a result of an
IAG, EPA conducted several investigations
which identified VOC-contamination of on-site
soil in the K area associated with the various
burial trenches, pits, and landfills used for
hazardous waste disposal. This ROD addresses
contaminated soil in the southeast area, and is
the first OU for that area. Future RODs will
address other contaminant source areas and
ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are VOCs including
TCE and xylenes.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and treating on site 8,000 cubic yards
of VOC-contaminated soil using low temperature
thermal treatment; controlling vaporized
contaminants using a secondary high-
temperature combustor, or collecting these
vapors by adsorption onto activated carbon;
backfilling the residual ash on site; disposing of
the residual carbon off site; and conducting soil
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $1,539,191. There are no O&M
costs associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil excavation levels will be set at 225
ug/kg for all contaminants to ensure that the
levels of indicator chemicals in ground water
will meet the State ground water requirements.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
270
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
WHITMOYER LABORATORIES (OU2), PA
December 17, 1990
The 22-acre Whitmoyer Laboratories site is
an abandoned animal pharmaceutical
manufacturing facility in Jackson Township,
Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. Land use in the
area is predominantly agricultural, and there are
wetlands areas adjacent to the site. Part of the
site lies within the 100-year floodplain of the
Tulpehocken Creek-Union Canal, and an
estimated 40 residences in the vicinity of the site
use the underlying aquifer as their drinking
water supply. From 1957 to 1964, Whitmoyer
Laboratories, Inc., produced organic arsenicals
on site. In 1964, the new site owners began
storing concentrated waste in an on-site concrete
vault and, until 1971, conducted on-site pumping
and treatment of ground water and ocean
dumping of waste. In 1977, sludge from ground
water treatment was placed in on-site lagoons in
the eastern area of the site. Between 1978 and
1982, the site changed ownership twice, and
then in 1985, a RCRA site closure plan was
filed. In 1986, EPA provided bottled water to
residences with contaminated ground water. On-
site contamination of soil and ground water has
resulted from a combination of poor
housekeeping, poor disposal practices, and
improper storage of hazardous materials. In
1986, arsenic contamination was detected in
nearby residential wells by EPA. When the site
was abandoned in 1987, very little of the RCRA
closure plan had been implemented. From 1988
to 1990, EPA removed the abandoned drums
and laboratory waste from the site. A 1989
ROD provided for off-site removal of
concentrated liquids in abandoned tanks and
process vessels as the first OU1. This ROD
addresses OU2, which includes remediation of
chemical vault and lagoon waste, outdated
products, miscellaneous chemicals and
feedstocks, and contaminated site structures. A
ROD for OU3 will addresses remediation of
contaminated on-site soil and ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
debris and sludge are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including phenols; and metals including arsenic
and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and incinerating on site
approximately 3000 cubic yards of high organic
content vault wastes, and approximately 101
cubic yards of miscellaneous products and
feedstocks, followed by cement/pozzolan-based
fixation, and disposing of the residual ash off
site; treating approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
low organic content vault waste using fixation or
a similar fixation process, followed by off-site
disposal; excavating and incinerating on site
approximately 20 buried drums and 50 cubic
yards of tank and process vessel residuals,
followed by treating any residual ash using
fixation, and off-site disposal of residuals;
excavating approximately 24,000 cubic yards of
arsenic-contaminated lagoon waste with levels
above 10,000 mg/kg, followed by fixation of the
hazardous lagoons wastes; and disposing of
residuals along with nonhazardous waste and
other products and feedstocks off site;
demolishing buildings, associated tanks, .vessels,
processing equipment, and debris; incinerating
on site any combustible debris exhibiting the
RCRA arsenic toxicity characteristic, followed
by off-site disposal; coating and sealing
noncombustible permeable demolition debris
prior to off-site disposal; surface cleaning of
noncombustible impermeable demolition debris,
which exhibit the RCRA arsenic toxicity
characteristic and contaminated on-site structures
before off-site disposal; and off-site disposal or
recycling of untreated unsalvaged demolition
debris. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $45,800,000. There are no O&M
271
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
costs associated with this RA due to selection of up will be based on RCRA, CAA, CWA, and
off-site disposal for residuals. state standards.
Performance Standards or Goals Institutional Controls
Chemical-specific debris and surface water Not provided.
clean-up goals were not provided, but clean
272
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
WHITMOYER LABORATORIES (OU3), PA
December 31, 1990
The 22-acre Whitmoyer Laboratories site is
an inactive laboratory facility in Jackson
Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania.
Land use in the area is predominantly
agricultural with adjacent wetlands areas. In
addition, part of the site lies within the 100-year
floodplain of the Tolpehocken Creek-Union
Canal. An estimated 20 residences in the
vicinity of the site use the underlying aquifer as
their drinking water supply. From 1957 to
1964, Whitmoyer Laboratories, Inc., produced
organic arsenicals on site. In 1964, the new
owners, Rohm & Haas, began storing
concentrated waste in a concrete vault, and until
1971 conducted on-site ground-water pumping
and treatment and ocean dumping of waste. In
1977, sludge from ground-water treatment was
placed in lagoons in the eastern area of the site.
Between 1978 and 1982, the site changed
ownership twice, and then in 1985, a RCRA site
closure plan was filed. In 1986, EPA began
providing bottled water to residents with ground
water contaminated by site activities. A public
water supply line extension is currently being
designed and will be constructed as part of a
removal action. When the site was abandoned
in 1987, very little of the RCRA closure plan
had been implemented. From 1988 to 1990,
EPA removed approximately 800 abandoned
drums and laboratory waste off site. A 1989
ROD provided for remediation of hazardous
concentrated liquids, including laboratory waste,
abandoned at the site as OU1. A December
1990 ROD provided a remedy for vault and
lagoon wastes, miscellaneous products and
feedstocks, tanks, process vessels, and other on-
site structures as OU2. This ROD addresses
contaminated on-site soil, sediment, and ground
water as OU3. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
TCE, and PCE; other organics including PAHs;
and metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and fixation of approximately 61,000
cubic yards of soil/sediment with contaminant
concentrations above the "principal threat"
action levels using an iron-based or other
fixation process, followed by off-site disposal;
using biological treatment for approximately
5,600 cubic yards of soil/sediment with organic
concentrations above the "principal threat"
organic chemical action levels for the heavily
contaminated soil either prior to or following
fixation, followed by off-site disposal;
excavating and consolidating on site in the
vadose zone approximately 39,000 cubic yards
of soil/sediment having contaminant
concentrations below the "principal threat"
action levels but above ground-water-based
unsaturated soil clean-up targets, followed by
capping with low-permeability materials; placing
on site in the vadose zone approximately 16,000
cubic yards of soil/sediment with concentrations
below the ground-water-based unsaturated soil
action levels; soil capping any remaining
contaminated surface soil that contains arsenic
concentrations greater than 21 mg/kg and other
disturbed areas, as needed; backfilling, grading,
and revegetating the excavated areas;
demolishing on-site structures, followed by
salvaging non-hazardous debris and off-site
disposal of unsalvaged debris; on-site pumping
and treatment of contaminated ground water
using physical, chemical, and possibly biological
treatment, followed by either on-site discharge to
surface water, reinjection into the aquifer, or
both methods; disposing of any treatment
residuals off site; conducting long-term ground-
water monitoring; and implementing institutional
controls including deed restrictions for the
remaining contaminated areas. Additionally,
this ROD provides a contingency for ground
273
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
water if it becomes technically impracticable to
achieve clean-up goals. The contingent remedy
includes pumping from the perimeter area only
to prevent migration of the contaminant plume.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$77,300,000, which includes annual O&M costs
of $2,397,600 or $2,477,600 (depending on the
ground-water discharge option chosen).
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil action levels for saturated and
unsaturated soil and "principal threat" action
levels were developed based on the threat due to
inhalation/ingestion and to ground water using
MCLs, RCRA TCLP, and health-based criteria.
The target clean-up goal for surface soil is
arsenic 21 mg/kg. The action levels for
unsaturated soil include benzene 0.009 mg/kg,
PCE 0.051 mg/kg, TCE 0.017 mg/kg, and
arsenic 450 mg/kg. This will reduce the excess
cancer risk level associated with
inhalation/ingestion exposure to 10*. The action
levels for saturated soil include benzene 0.002
mg/kg, PCE 0.012 mg/kg, TCE
0.004 mg/kg,and arsenic 210 wg/kg based on
protection of ground water. Principal threat
action levels include benzene 10 mg/kg, PCE
14 mg/kg, TCE 10 mg/kg, and arsenic
1,000 mg/kg. Ground-water clean-up goals are
based on federal MCLs, proposed MCLs, and a
10'6 excess cancer risk level and reference dose
equal to 1 for noncarcinogens.
Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals
include benzene 0.005 mg/1 (MCL), PCE 0.005
mg/1 (PMCL), TCE 0.005 mg/1 (MCL), and
arsenic 0.05 mg/1. A state ARAR to remediate
ground water to background levels will be
waived because of technical impracticability. If
the contingent remedy is employed, an ARAR to
comply with SDWA MCLs will also be waived
because of technical impracticability.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent contact with remaining contaminated
areas.
274
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
WILLIAM DICK LAGOONS, PA
June 28, 1991
The 4.4-acre William Dick Lagoons site is
a chemical wastewater disposal site in West Cain
Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Land
use in the area is predominantly residential and
agricultural, with adjacent woodlands. An
estimated 30 residences located within 1,000 feet
of the site use private wells for their drinking
water supply. Two other Superfund sites are
near the site: the Blosenski Landfill located 1.7
miles southeast; and the Welsh Landfill, 5 miles
to the northwest. Originally, the site consisted
of three unlined earthen lagoons or ponds
covering 2.2 acres and an associated borrow
area. From the 1950s to 1970, William Dick
used the lagoons to dispose of wastewater left
from cleaning the interiors of chemical and
petroleum tank trailers owned primarily by
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines (CLTL), and
residual chemical products. In 1970, the state
ordered the lagoons closed after 37 wild geese
descended into the lagoons, and were coated
with waste. Later in 1970, vandalism caused the
release of an estimated 300,000 gallons of
wastewater into Birch Run, a tributary of the
west branch of Brandywine Creek. As a result
of this discharge, more than 2,600 fish died, and
water supplies that used Brandywine Creek as a
water source were closed. In 1971, William
Dick and CLTL began lagoon closure as part of
a state agreement. Activities during 1971
included the addition of alum to the wastewater,
spray irrigation of the treated wastewater into
the woods, and covering and revegetating
lagoons with soil. During 1985, site studies
identified numerous organic compounds in soil
samples, two spring-fed water supplies, and five
wells. In 1988, EPA required CLTL to fence
around the site, conduct yearly monitoring of
residential wells, and install point-of-entry
treatment systems for selected private wells. In
1990 and 1991, sampling revealed TCE andother
contaminants in 30 to 40 private wells. As a
result, CLTL installed point-of-entry carbon
filtration units in 12 of the 30 to 40 homes
where contamination in well water exceeded
MCLs. This ROD provides an interim remedy
and addresses contaminated residential water as
OU1 and ground water as OU2. A future ROD
will address source control and will provide a
remedy for the cleanup of contaminated soil.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, and TCE; other organics including phenol;
and metals.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
providing an alternate water supply to affected
residences by extending the city of Coatesville
Authority's water line; installing a water storage
tank near the site to provide storage and pressure
feed for the water line connections; monitoring
nearby springs; collecting hydrogeologic data;
conducting initial pumping and on-site treatment
of the contaminated ground-water plume using
treatment components that will be selected
during interim RD, which are expected to
include chemical precipitation and one of more
of the following: granular activated carbon,
chemical oxidation, and air stripping, with
possible emission controls; discharging the
treated water on site to surface water; installing
monitoring and recovery wells to further
characterize the entire plume; and implementing
institutional controls including ground-water use
restrictions. The estimated present worth cost
for this remedial action ranges from $5,991,000
to $7,028,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $305,000 to $330,000 for the first 5
275
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
years, and $21,000 to 46,000 for years 6
through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
For OU2, EPA is invoking a waiver for
federal and state ground-water clean-up
standards because the RA is an interim measure.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
will be set in the final remedy.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented to prevent current and future
residents from using the contaminated ground-
water plume from the aquifer as their drinking
water supply; to encourage the use of the newly
installed waterline; and to demand periodical
analysis for contaminants of ground-water wells
not linked to the extended water line.
276
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 4
Abl-OUZ-4
REGION 4
Site
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps (Amendment)
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Carolina Transformer
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum Storage
Ciba-Geigy
Golden Strip Septic Tank
Hercules 009 Landfill
Interstate Lead (ILCO)
Mallory Capacitor
Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
Medley Farms
Monsanto
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) (OU2) (Federal Facility)
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) (OU3) (Federal Facility)
Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) (OU4) (Federal Facility)
State
NC
TN
NC
NC
AL
SC
GA
AL
TN
KY
SC
GA
TN
TN
TN
Page
279
281
283
284
286
288
289
290
292
293
295
296
297
298
299
277
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Site State Page
Petroleum Products PL 300
Sangamo/Twelve-Mile/Hartwell PCB SC 302
Sherwood Medical Industries PL 304
Smith's Farm Brooks (Amendment) KY 305
Tri-City Industrial Disposal KY 306
USA Anniston Army Depot (Federal Facility) AL 307
USAF Robins Air Force Base (Federal Facility) GA 308
Velsicol Chemical TN 309
Wrigley Charcoal TN 310
278
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS, NC
Amendment
September 30, 1991
The Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps site consists
of a plant area and four disposal areas in
Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina. The
five areas are Farm Chemicals, Twin Sites,
Fairway Six, Mclver Dump, and Route 211.
Surrounding land use is primarily residential
with some light industry. Ground water is the
main source of drinking water for local
residents. From the 1930s until 1987, chemical
companies neighboring the site blended or
formulated pesticides at the formulation plant
located on the Farm Chemicals area. During
operations at the plant, substantial quantities of
pesticide waste was disposed of or spilled on
site. After investigations by EPA's Emergency
Response Division in 1985 and 1986, several
removal actions were conducted, including
removing surface contaminants, drums, and soil
in several areas. One removal action, conducted
in 1988, resulted in the excavation of 22,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil, which was
subsequently stockpiled in the Fairway Six area.
This stockpile was designated as OU2. A 1989
ROD documented the selected remedy for OU2,
which included on-site incineration of the
stockpiled material and on-site disposal of the
residual ash. OU2 has subsequently been
redesignated as OU4 and implementation of the
selected remedy postponed pending a selected
remedy for OU1. A fourth removal action in
1989 resulted in the excavation and stockpiling
of 3,200 cubic yards of pesticide-laden soil. In
1986, pesticides were detected in drinking water
from four municipal wells and three private
wells. A 1989 EPA investigation of the
remaining areas of the site, designated as OU1,
revealed a total of 98,733 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, in addition to that stockpiled
in the Fairway Six and Maclver Dump areas,
that require remediation. This ROD
concurrently addresses surface and subsurface
soil contamination addressed in OU1 and the
former OU2, and includes a change of treatment
technology for the former OU2 from
incineration to thermal desorption. The purpose
of this response action is to prevent current or
future exposure to the contaminated soil and to
reduce further contaminant migration into the
ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and debris are organics
including pesticides; metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and asbestos, an inorganic.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
conducting a treatability study using thermal
desorption; excavating and treating a total of
123,933 cubic yards of soil from all five areas
including previously excavated soil from the
Fairway Six and Mclver Dump areas using an
on-site thermal desorption process that includes
an activated carbon adsorption to treat off-gases,
followed by off-site incineration of residual
organics or disposal in another appropriate
manner; disposing of the non-hazardous treated
soil on site in the original excavated areas; on-
site solidification and disposal of any residue
that remains hazardous after thermal treatment;
removing asbestos and building demolition at the
Farm Chemicals area; and sampling and analyses
of site soil, as necessary, to confirm clean-up
status. A contingent remedy will be
implemented if the results of the treatability
study conclude that thermal desorption is
ineffective or cost prohibitive. The contingent
remedy will include all items detailed under the
selected remedy except that incineration would
be used as the treatment technology instead of
thermal desorption. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $29,115,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $115,000.
279
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil excavation levels for
each area are based on a 10~6 risk level and
include arsenic 2,705 Mg/kg and chromium
3,909 wg/kg. The selected remedy will attain
federal and state ARARs including RCRA LDR
requirements through a treatability variance for
soil and debris. An organics reduction
efficiency of 90 to 99.99 percent, as verified
using the TCLP, will be attained. These
reductions are not expected to achieve pesticide
levels below background levels in the area. The
ROD includes alternate treatability variance
levels, which must be attained for various
structural/functional groups.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
280
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ARLINGTON BLENDING & PACKAGING, TN
June 28, 1991
The 2.3-acre Arlington Blending &
Packaging site is an abandoned pesticide and
herbicide blending and packaging facility in
Arlington, Shelby County, Tennessee. Land use
in the area is predominantly residential,
agricultural, and light commercial. Site
operations have contaminated two units of the
underlying aquifer, which are not used as
drinking water sources From 1971 to 1978, the
Arlington Blending and Packaging Company
operated on site to properly formulate and
package various pesticide, herbicide, and other
chemical formulations. During site operations,
spills and leaks of chemicals occurred on site,
which resulted in compounds soaking into soil
and process building flooring, and migrating off
site via surface run-off. Process water
containing hazardous contaminants also was
discharged to on-site ditches, contaminating
adjacent properties including a residential area,
nearby ditches, and other surface water bodies.
In addition, numerous barrels and other
containers were left on site. Site investigations
revealed on-site and off-site contamination of
soil and ground water. In 1983, EPA initiated
a removal action, and excavated and removed
1,920 cubic yards of contaminated soil with
chlordane levels in excess of 50 mg/kg and 112
drums containing chemical waste. In 1990, as
a result of the RI data, EPA conducted another
removal action and excavated and temporarily
stored on site 70 cubic yards of contaminated
soil from the adjacent residential property. This
ROD addresses final remediation of primarily
pesticide-contaminated soil and ground water.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including benzene; other organics including
pesticides; and metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating 24,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and decontaminating the soil on site using
ex-situ thermal desorption; backfilling excavated
areas with treated soil; dechlorinating the
resulting condensed organic liquid from the
thermal desorption process, followed by off-site
disposal of the residual concentrated organic
liquid; treating and disposal of spent carbon or
sludge off site; temporarily storing residuals on
site, if needed prior to treatment to treatability
levels and off-site disposal; treating soil
containing levels of arsenic and/or other trace
metals above action levels on site using
solidification, followed by off-site disposal;
decontaminating and demolishing on-site
buildings, followed by off-site disposal; pumping
and on-site treatment of contaminated ground
water using activated carbon, followed by on-site
discharge of the treated effluent to surface water
or off site to a POTW; regenerating spent
carbon granules off site; monitoring ground
water; and providing for a contingency remedy
that involves treating soil on site using thermal
destruction instead of thermal desorption. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$12,170,167, which includes a total present
worth O&M cost of $1,605,256 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up levels are based on protection
of ground water and reduction of risk through
long-term dermal contact and oral ingestion and
include arsenic 25,000 wg/kg, which also takes
into account background levels.
281
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals Institutional Controls
are based on SDWA MCLs, and include
benzene 5 wg/l. Not applicable.
282
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CAROLINA TRANSFORMER, NC
August 29, 1991
The 4.8-acre Carolina Transformer site is a
former electrical transformer rebuilding and
repair facility in Fayetteville, Cumberland
County, North Carolina. Land use in the area is
predominantly agricultural and residential, with
a wooded/swamp-like area adjacent to the site.
The site may overlie as many as three aquifers,
of which only the shallow confined aquifer has
been found to be contaminated. From 1967 to
1982, Carolina Transformer Company rebuilt
and repaired electrical transformers on site.
During site operations, PCB fluids were drained
from transformers and improperly stored and
managed. From 1978 to 1982, a number of
EPA and state investigations identified PCB-
contaminated soil and ground water. In 1982,
the state determined that run-off from the site
violated surface water quality standards for
PCBs. In 1984, EPA began clean-up operations
at the site, and removed and disposed of 975
tons of contaminated soil off site in a
RCRA-permitted landfill. This ROD addresses
final remediation of contaminated soil, sediment,
debris, and ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including benzene and toluene; other organics
including dioxin and PCBs; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and treating on-site soil and sediment
contaminated with PCBs in excess of 1 mg/kg
using a solvent extraction process to separate the
organic contaminants and polynuclear aromatic
compounds from the soil and sediment and to
lower the solubility and mobility of the inorganic
contaminants; backfilling the excavated area with
treated soil; solidifying soil and sediment that
does not meet the RCRA toxicity
characteristicrequirements; demolishing 970
cubic yards of roof and wall material from three
on-site buildings and transporting the debris to
an off-site landfill; treating any remaining
structural material contaminated with PCBs in
excess of 10 Ğg/100 cm2 using a solvent washing
system; transporting 180 cubic yards of debris
and solid waste to an off-site landfill for disposal
and/or treatment; pumping and on-site treatment
of contaminated ground water using precipitation
to remove metals and activated carbon
adsorption to remove VOCs, followed by on-site
discharge to surface water or off-site discharge
to a POT\V; dewatering sludge generated from
the ground water precipitation process, followed
by off-site disposal; conducting ground-water
monitoring; and establishing a contingency
remedy for ground-water remediation, which
includes ground-water engineering controls,
ARAR waivers, institutional controls, continued
monitoring of specified wells, and periodic
reevaluation of remedial technologies if it is
determined that certain portions of the aquifer
cannot be restored to their beneficial uses. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$10,474,500, with an O&M cost of $78,100 for
years 0 through 1 and $17,400 for years 2
through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil/sediment clean-up
goals are based on carcinogenic risk and EPA
guidelines, and include dioxin 1.2 x Ifr4
(carcinogenic risk) and total PCB 1 mg/kg (EPA
guidelines). Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLGs,
EPA guidance, and state standards, and include
benzene 1 ag/1 (state), chromium 50 wg/1
(MCLG), lead 15 Kg/1 (EPA guidance),
PCB-1260 0.1 Ğg/l (state), and toluene 1,000
Mg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
283
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CHARLES MACON LAGOON & DRUM STORAGE, NC
September 30, 1991
The 17-acre Charles Macon Lagoon &
Drum Storage site is a former oil recycling and
antifreeze manufacturing facility in Richmond
County, North Carolina. The site is composed
of the 16-acre Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum
Storage site and the 1-acre Dockery site, which
is located 2,600 feet north of the Macon site.
Land use in the area is agricultural, and
woodlands cover over half of the site. The site
overlies an unconfined aquifer, and surface
runoff discharges to Pee Dee River, which runs
one mile west of the site. A wetlands area exists
between the site and the river. Four residences
are within 100 yards of the site and receive
drinking water from the municipal system.
From 1979 to 1982, unpermitted waste oil
recycling was conducted at the facility using a
large boiler to separate the waste oil from other
waste. Site features resulting from these
activities include drum storage areas, 12 unlined
or partially lined oil/water waste storage
lagoons, buildings, two truck tankers, and 14
tanks. In 1980, state inspectors observed that
several of the lagoons were overflowing with
metal-contaminated oil and sludge contaminating
the ground. They also discovered 175
deteriorating 55-gallon drums containing various
chemicals including VOCs and other organics.
In a 1981 EPA RCRA compliance inspection of
the Macon site, 10 violations of RCRA
regulations were cited. Subsequently, a court
order required the PRPs to initiate clean-up
activities at Macon in 1982, which led to
identifying 2,100 drums, 10 tanks, and 11
lagoons of concern. Private funds were used to
remove 300 drums and the contents of one
lagoon, as well as to install two monitoring
wells, before being depleted. EPA continued
site activities in 1983 by removing 3,123 tons of
waste and 137,000 gallons of oil. In 1984, EPA
conducted similar removal activities at the
Dockery site, removing 709 tons of waste.
After removal activites for both properties had
been completed in 1984, all but one lagoon,
referred to as lagoon 10, had been excavated and
backfilled. Because of the size of lagoon 10,
EPA decided to backfill and cap the lagoon
without excavating the contents. Recent
investigations, however, revealed that site soil
and ground water still pose a threat, particularly
downgradient of source areas such as lagoon
areas. This ROD addresses soil, vessels
containing hazardous materials, and ground
water, which is the principal threat at the site,
and is a final remedy. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sludge, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes;
other organics including PAHs; and metals
including arsenic and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating VOC-contaminated soil around the
lagoon 7 area using in situ vapor extraction with
a carbon adsorption system to remove off-gas
organic contaminants; excavating and treating
PAH-contaminated soil from lagoon 10 in an on-
site, biological waste treatment cell equipped
with a carbon adsorption system to control
emissions, followed by returning the treated soil
to lagoon 10 and covering with a low
permeability cap; emptying and dismantling all
vessels and demolishing buildings as necessary,
and off-site disposal or recycling of hazardous
and non-hazardous waste; further sampling of
soil, sediments, and surface water; pumping and
treatment of ground water using air stripping
and coagulation/filtration, followed by
discharging treated water to surface water if
NPDES standards are met or to an infiltration
gallery if standards are not met; and monitoring
ground water. The estimated present worth cost
284
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
for this RA is $8,700,000, which includes an
estimated present worth O&M cost of
$5,400,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
The chemical-specific clean-up goal for the
lagoon 7 area soil is PCE 3.0 mg/kg based on
protection of ground water. The goal for lagoon
10 area soil is total carcinogenic PAHs 2.0
mg/kg based on risk. Chemical-specific ground-
water remediation levels were based on the more
stringent of federal or state standardsincluding
PCE 0.7 Ğg/l (state), TCE 2.8 Ğg/l (state),
toluene 1,000 Mg/1 (MCL), total xylenes 400 ag/1
(state), chromium 50 wg/1 (state), and lead 15
Ğg/l (CERCLA).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
285
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CIBA-GEIGY, AL
September 30, 1991
The 1,500-acre Ciba-Geigy site is an active
chemical manufacturer in an industrial area in
Mclntosh, Washington County, Alabama. A
wetlands area borders the site property, and part
of the site lies within the floodplain of the
Tombigbee River. From 1952 to present,
Ciba-Geigy, formerly Geigy Chemical
Corporation, has produced various chemicals
including DDT, laundry products, herbicides,
insecticides, agricultural chelating agents,
sequestering agents, plastic resins and additives,
antioxidants, and specialty chemicals. In 1982,
during an investigation of an adjacent chemical
company, EPA identified on-site contamination
in a drinking water well on the Ciba-Geigy
property. In 1985, EPA issued a RCRA permit
that included a corrective action plan requiring
Ciba-Geigy to remove and treat ground-water
and surface water contamination at the site.
EPA performed further investigations to
determine the extent of contamination, and
revealed 11 areas of waste management and
potential contamination. These areas contain a
variety of waste, debris, and pesticide
by-products and residues. In 1987, as part of
the corrective action plan requirements,
Ciba-Geigy installed an additional wastewater
treatment system and ground-water monitoring
wells. A 1989 ROD provided for treatment of
the contaminated shallow alluvial aquifer by
using the on-site wastewater treatment plant as
OU1. This ROD addresses highly contaminated
soil and sludge at 10 of the 11 former waste
management areas as OU2. Future RODs will
address contamination within the floodplain
including the lower portions of an on-site
drainage ditch and areas in the Tombigbee River
in proximity of the site (OU3), and
contamination in the remaining untreated former
waste management area and the upland portions
of the drainage ditch (OU4). The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sludge, and debris are VOCs including benzene
and toluene; other organics including PCBs and
pesticides (e.g., DDT); and metals including
lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for the site includes
excavating contaminated soil and sludge from
within the 10 disposal areas until established
clean-up levels are reached or to a maximum
depth of 20 feet; treating 65,000 cubic yards of
highly-contaminated soil and sludge on site using
thermal treatment; evaluating the possibility of
pretreatment via solvent extraction, low
temperature thermal treatment, or critical fluid
injection and implementing this process, if
advantageous; treating 62,300 cubic yards of
moderately contaminated soil and sludge using
stabilization/solidification or a proven innovative
technology; obtaining a treatability variance to
dispose of the treated soil and residual ash in an
on-site landvault; treating deep soil areas, where
risk-based levels have not been achieved during
excavation to the depth of 20 feet, using in-situ
soil flushing combined with isolation walls,
extraction wells alone, or possibly extraction
wells in combination with in-situ vacuum
extraction or in-situ bioremediation, whichever
is found to most effective; backfilling and
revegetating the excavated areas; operating and
maintaining the landvaults for a minimum of 30
years; monitoring ground water; and
implementing institutional controls where
necessary including land and ground-water use
restrictions. The present worth costs for this
RA range from $94,000,000, if solidification of
low level contaminated soil is effective, to
$120,250,000, if incineration of all contaminated
material is required. O&M costs were not
provided.
286
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on soil depth. For soil to a depth of less
than 12 inches, goals are based on 10'6 risk level
for carcinogens, and an HI = 1 for
non-carcinogens. Chemical-specific goals for
surface soil include DDT 17 mg/kg.
Subsurface soil clean-up goals are based on
ground-water protection levels, as well as a
risk level for carcinogens and a HI=1 for
non-carcinogens, and include DDT 5,034 to
7,500 mg/kg depending on the area.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent ground-water usage and to minimize
land use until clean-up levels are achieved.
287
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
GOLDEN STRIP SEPTIC TANK, SC
September 12, 1991
The 55-acre Golden Strip Septic Tank
(GSST) site is an inactive waste hauling and
disposal facility in Simpsonville, Greenville
County, South Carolina. Land use in the area is
predominantly residential. The estimated 638
residents who reside within a quarter-mile of the
site use public water as their drinking water
supply. From 1960 to 1975, GSST used the site
to dispose of industrial and septic wastes in five
unlined lagoons. In 1975, GSST applied for an
industrial solid waste permit to dispose of liquid
waste, but the state denied the permit because
the proposed disposal method was unacceptable.
Subsequently, in 1978, GSST discontinued waste
collection, hauling, and disposal, and filled in
three of the five lagoons by pushing in
surrounding berms. State investigations of the
site began in 1972 and included a site survey of
lagoons and the surrounding area. The state
continued its monitoring after the lagoons were
filled and graded in 1978, and the results of the
monitoring led to additional investigations by
EPA in 1984 and 1986 and an RI and
supplemental RI from 1989 to 1990 and 1990 to
1991, respectively. EPA identified metal
contamination in lagoon soil and sludge, and
limited contamination of ground water. In
addition, 27 abandoned drums that contained low
levels of contaminants were found on the east
side of the site. Six of the drums have been
placed in overpack drums and stored in an on-
site temporary drum storage area. This ROD
addresses remediation of contaminated soil, as
well as sludge and surface water from the
lagoons, as a final remedy. Ground-water
contamination is expected to naturally attenuate
within two to five years after source remediation
occurs. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sludge, and surface water are
VOCs including benzene, PCE, toluene, and
xylenes; other organics; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and treating on site approximately
22,400 cubic yards of soil and 4,200 cubic yards
of sludge using solidification/fixation; backfilling
the treated residuals, covering the area with
clean soil, and revegetating the site; discharging
off site 1.9 million gallons of impounded surface
water from Lagoons 1 and 4 to a POTW;
disposing of drummed liquids, along with other
surface water; establishing ACLs for the MCLs
that are periodically exceeded in the ground
water to ensure that source control measures
have a positive effect on ground water;
conducting long-term ground-water and surface
water monitoring; investigating further the
contamination from the abandoned on-site
drums; and implementing institutional controls to
control site development. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $4,529,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $991,500.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on health-based criteria and include
arsenic 18 mg/kg, cadmium 65 mg/kg,
chromium 580 mg/kg, lead 500 mg/kg, PCE 56
mg/kg, toluene 12,000 mg/kg, and xylenes
120,000 mg/kg. Ground-water ACLs will be
established based on the arithmetic mean of the
first four samples of each constituent for that
well. For means that do not exceed the MCLs,
the MCL will be the applicable standard against
which ground-water monitoring results will be
compared.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
control site development.
288
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
HERCULES 009 LANDFILL, GA
June 27, 1991
The 16.5-acre Hercules 009 Landfill site is
in Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia. Land
use in the area is predominantly commercial and
residential. On-site features in the northern
seven acres of the site are a landfill area with
six disposal cells containing approximately
33,000 cubic yards of one percent toxaphene
sludge, a drainage ditch, and a drainage culvert.
Most of the estimated 1,400 residents within
three miles of the site are connected to a public
water supply, except for six homes and a church
that use private wells as their drinking water
supply. From 1948 to 1980, Hercules, Inc.,
manufactured the agricultural pesticide
toxaphene. Waste from the manufacturing
process was accumulated by storing toxaphene-
contaminated wastewater in the off-site settling
ponds. In 1975, the state permitted the site to
accept and dispose of pesticide waste, including
toxaphene, in the 009 landfill site. Also
disposed of in the landfill area were empty
toxaphene product drums, process sludges,
glass, rubble, and trash. In 1979, a state
inspection detected elevated levels of toxaphene
in sediment and surface water in the adjacent
drainage ditch, and in 1980, the state revoked
Hercules' operating permit. In 1983, the state
required Hercules to install a ground-water
monitoring system to assess site contamination.
In 1984, because toxaphene was found in a
deep/shallow well cluster in the aquifer beneath
the site, additional ground-water monitoring
wells were installed. Hercules closed, covered,
and seeded all landfill cells in accordance with
state solid waste permits. This ROD addresses
OU2, the contaminated ground water, as an
interim action. Future RODs will fully address
the principal threat posed by the site. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are organics including pesticides.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes extending municipal water lines and
connecting all residences with private wells and
the church to the municipal water supply; and
implementing institutional controls, including
ground-water use restrictions. The estimated
capital cost for this RA is $106,000. There are
no O&M costs associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels for ground water will be
addressed hi the final remedy.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
prevent consumption of contaminated ground
water.
289
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
INTERSTATE LEAD (ILCO), AL
September 30, 1991
The Interstate Lead (ILCO) site consists of
seven subsites located in and around the City of
Leeds, Jefferson County, Alabama. The site
includes an 8.5-acre active lead smelting facility
and its parking lot, a service station; a
manufacturing company; a church parking lot; a
1.4-acre residential property; a municipal
landfill; and a restaurant. Land use in the area
is mixed industrial and residential. Parts of the
ILCO site overlie the Fort Payne Chert and
Ordovician Undifferentiated aquifers, both of
which are sources of drinking water for the City
of Leeds. Since 1970, ILCO has manufactured
refined lead alloys through the smelting and
refining of lead-bearing scrap metals including
lead-acid automobile batteries. The resultant
furnace slag has been disposed of at the seven
subsites along with battery casings and
wastewater treatment sludge. From 1973 to
1984, ILCO stored furnace slag, battery chips,
and wastewater treatment sludge in piles at the
main facility and also used this waste as fill
material at the other site areas. Additionally,
some waste was disposed of at the municipal
landfill. State investigations in 1983 and 1984,
and a number of subsequent EPA investigations,
identified metal contamination in on-site soil,
sediment, ground water, surface water, and air.
In 1984, EPA conducted an emergency removal
action at the church subsite, and removed and
disposed of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of
waste material and soil off site. This ROD
provides a final remedy for soil contamination at
all of the subsites except the main facility
portion of subsite #1, and ground-water
contamination at four of the subsites as OU1.
Future RODs will address sediment, ground
water, and surface water contamination at the
main facility. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and
ground water are metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected source control RA for the
ILCO parking lot and the restaurant subsites
includes excavating soil and sediment with lead
concentrations exceeding 300 mg/kg and 50
mg/kg, respectively; controlling dust with water
spray during excavation and removal;
dewatering the sediment; treating the
contaminated material on site using solidification
and stabilization; replacing the treated soil into
the excavated areas in compliance with RCRA
requirements, and capping the areas; removing
battery casings and other debris with
solidification of battery casing material, and on-
site disposal of solidified material and off-site
disposal of other debris; and conducting air
monitoring. The selected source control RA for
the service station, the manufacturing company,
the residential property, and church subsites
includes excavating and treating soil using
solidification and stabilization at a centrally
located treatment area in the parking lot subsite;
disposing of treated material at the ILCO
parking lot with filling and revegetation of
excavated areas with clean soil, or disposing of
treated materials in the original excavated areas
with implementation of institutional controls
including deed restrictions; removal of sediments
exceeding 50 mg/kg lead, dewatering, and
treating the sediment along with the soil; and air
monitoring. The selected source control RA for
the municipal landfill includes constructing a
multi-layer cap over soil contaminated with lead
concentrations exceeding 300 mg/kg;
implementing institutional controls including
land use restrictions, and access restrictions; and
ground-water monitoring. The selected ground-
water RA for the resturant, manufacturing
facility, and residential property subsites
includes natural attenuation and implementing
institutional controls. The selected ground-water
290
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
RA for the municipal landfill includes pumping
and on-site treatment of contaminated ground
water using chemical/physical methods, followed
by on-site discharge; solidifying generated
sludge if necessary to meet LDRs before
disposal; and ground-water monitoring. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$29,009,000, which includes a present worth
O&M cost of $689,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up goals for soil are based on
teachability modeling and health-based levels,
and include lead 300 mg/kg (teachability),
arsenic 10 mg/kg (health-based), and chromium
1,750 mg/kg (health-based). The clean-up goal
for sediment is a regional aquatic species
protection level and is set at lead SO mg/kg.
Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
federal MCLs or proposed MCLs, and EPA
guidance criteria. Chemical-specific goals
include arsenic 50 wg/1 (MCL), chromium 50
wg/1 (MCL), and lead 15 Ğg/l (EPA).
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented to
prevent disturbance of the cap at the landfill
subsite. Deed restrictions will be implemented
at the manufacturing facility, residential
property, and church subsites if solidified
material is disposed of in original excavations.
291
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
MALLORY CAPACITOR, TN
August 29, 1991
The 8.6-acre Mallory Capacitor site is a
former electrical capacitor manufacturing facility
in Waynesboro, Wayne County, Tennessee.
Land use in the area is mixed residential,
commercial, and industrial, with the Green
River bordering the site to the east. There are
54 private wells located within a one-mile radius
of the site that draw on the Fort Payne
Formation aquifer for ground water. The
Mallory Capacitor Company was operated from
1969 to 1979 by Duracell, and from 1979 to
1984 by Emhart Industries to manufacture
electrical capacitors on site using TCE as part of
the process. Process liquid waste was stored in
underground storage tanks on site. From 1976
to 1980, clean-up actions were implemented by
Emhart to remove PCB-contaminated materials
from process equipment within the
manufacturing facility. These actions also
included removing the UST adjacent to the plant
and associated surrounding PCB-contaminated
soil. In 1984, routine TCE still bottom testing
revealed PCB-containing still bottoms. The
facility was subsequently shut down because of
unsafe working conditions. Subsequent studies
revealed significant levels of PCBs on portions
of the plant structure, in process equipment, and
in soil; and elevated VOC levels also were
identified in ground water. This ROD addresses
contaminated ground water as a final remedy.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including 1,2-DCE
and TCE; and other organics including PCBs.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
ground-water pumping and on-site treatment
using air stripping; removing precipitates using
filtration and carbon adsorption, followed by on-
site discharge to the Green River or off-site
discharge to a POTW; monitoring ground water;
conducting additional investigations to assess the
extent of off-site ground-water contamination
and the impact to surface waters; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed and ground-water use restrictions. If it is
determined that, based on site conditions, PCBs
are resistant to removal by pumping and that
ground water cannot be restored to beneficial
use for any or all of the contaminants, all of the
following long-term management measures may
be implemented: employing engineering
controls as containment measures; invoking
chemical-specific ARAR waivers for aquifer
cleanup based on technical impracticability;
implementing institutional controls to restrict
access to the aquifer; reevaluating remedial
technologies for ground-water remediation; and
continued monitoring of specified wells. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$3,005,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and include
PCBs 0.5 ttg/1, TCE 5 mg/1, and cis- and
trans-l,2-DCE 70 ug and 100 Ğg/l, respectively.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent consumption of
contaminated ground water.
292
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR DISPOSAL, KY
September 30, 1991
The 280-acre Maxey Flats Nuclear Disposal
site is an inactive low-level radioactive waste
disposal facility in Fleming County, Kentucky.
Land use in the area .is predominantly
agricultural and residential, with mixed
woodlands surrounding the site. The estimated
663 people who reside within 2.5 miles of the
site use the public water supply for drinking
purposes. From 1962 to 1977, Nuclear
Engineering Company, Inc. (NECO), operated
a solid by-product, source, and special nuclear
material disposal facility under a license with the
state. During this time, NECO disposed of
approximately 4,750,000 cubic feet of low-level
radioactive waste in an approximately 45-acre
area, designated as the "Restricted Area." The
majority of the waste was disposed of in unlined
trenches, but concrete capped "hot wells"
consisting of coated steel pipe, tile, or concrete
also were used for disposal of small-volume
waste with high-specific activity. The waste was
deposited in 52 disposal trenches within 27 acres
of the restricted area in both solid and
solidified-liquid form and were both
containerized and deposited loosely. Several
state investigations in the 1970s revealed that
leachate contaminated with tritium and other
radioactive substances was migrating from the
disposal trenches to unrestricted areas. In 1977,
the state ordered NECO to cease the receipt and
burial of radioactive waste. From 1973 to 1986,
an evaporator was operated on site as a means of
managing the large volume of water infiltrating
the disposal trenches as well as wastewater
generated by on-site activities. The evaporator
processed more than 6,000,000 gallons of
liquids, leaving behind evaporatory concentrates
that were stored in on-site above-ground tanks,
and eventually disposed of in an on-site trench.
In 1979, the state initiated stabilization and
maintenance activities including installing a
temporary PVC cover over the disposal trenches
to minimize rainfall infiltration. In 1988, EPA
conducted a two-phase removal action to handle
the threat posed by 11 on-site 20,000-gallon
tanks of questionable structural integrity located
in a tank farm building. Phase I consisted of
installing a heater in the tank farm building to
prevent the freezing and rupturing of tank valves
and fittings. Phase II consisted of solidifying
approximately 286,000 gallons of radioactive
liquids stored in the 11 tanks and water on the
floor of the tank farm building. The solidified
blocks will be disposed of on site in a newly
constructed trench. This ROD addresses final
remediation of soil, debris, and associated
leachate. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and debris are VOCs including
benzene, TCE, and toluene; metals including
arsenic and lead; and radioactive materials.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
extracting, solidifying, and disposing on site of
approximately 3,000,000 gallons of trench
leachate; demolishing and disposing of site
structures on site; excavating additional disposal
trenches for disposal of site debris and solidified
leachate; installing an approximately 50-acre
initial cap consisting of a clay and synthetic liner
after disposal of solidified leachate and debris in
the trenches; maintaining and periodically
replacing the initial cap synthetic liner as needed
every 20 to 25 years; re-contouring the capped
disposal area as needed to enhance the
management of surface water run-on and run-
off; temporarily storing any additional wastes
generated after constructing the initial cap on
site, followed by solidification and on-site
disposal of waste in a newly constructed disposal
trench; installing a ground-water flow barrier, if
necessary; installing an infiltration monitoring
system to continuously verify remedy
performance and detect the accumulation of
leachate in disposal trenches; installing a final
293
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
engineered multi-layer cap once natural
subsidence of the trenches has nearly ceased,
which could take 100 years; installing permanent
surface water control features; monitoring soil,
sediment, surface water, ground water, leachate,
air, selected environmental indicators, and rates
of subsidence; procuring a buffer zone adjacent
to the site to prevent deforestation or erosion of
the hill slopes, which could affect the integrity
of the selected remedy, and to provide an area
for monitoring; and implementing institutional
controls including land use restrictions. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$33,500,000, which includes a present worth
O&M cost of $10,097,549.
Performance Standards or Goals
Implementation of this remedy will result in
the reduction of risk from 10'1 to lO"4.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
restrict land use.
294
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MEDLEY FARMS, SC
May 29, 1991
The 7-acre Medley Farms site is a former
waste disposal area located on a private farm
used as pasture six miles south of Gaffney,
Cherokee County, South Carolina. Land use in
the area is predominantly agricultural and light
residential, and six private wells are within a
one-mile radius of the site. The site overlies a
shallow saprolitic and a deeper bedrock aquifer.
All residents in the near vicinity of the site are
connected to the public water distribution
system. From 1973 to 1976, the site was used
for disposal of drummed and other waste
material. In 1983, the state identified
approximately 2,000 deteriorating 55-gallon
drums and numerous plastic containers scattered
throughout the site. Other observations included
a chemical odor in the air, several excavation
pits containing discolored water and drums, and
stressed vegetation. Several state and EPA
studies identified VOCs and other organics in
on-site soil. In 1983, EPA removed 5,383
55-gallon and 15-gallon containers; disposed of
empty drums off site; bulked 24,000 gallons of
liquid waste, with off-site incineration of the
waste, and crushed and disposed of the empty
drums off site; excavated and disposed of 2,132
cubic yards of. contaminated soil off site; drained
70,000 gallons of water from six small lagoons,
followed by treatment using a pressurized
sand/gravel/ activated carbon filtration system to
remove organic contaminants; and backfilled the
lagoons with clean soil. Following this removal
action, EPA conducted a geological study to
determine the potential for ground-water
contamination. Subsequent EPA studies
identified VOCs in both soil and ground water.
This ROD addresses soil and ground-water
contamination as a final remedy. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, and TCE; and other organics including
pesticides and PCBs.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating contaminated soil on site using in situ
vapor extraction, and controlling air emissions
using carbon adsorption; regenerating or
disposing of the spent carbon; pumping and
treatment of contaminated ground water using
precipitation, flocculation, ion exchange, or
some other method of metal removal if
necessary, followed by air stripping; discharging
the treated water on site to surface water; and
monitoring ground water, surface water, soil,
and sediment. If the ground-water treatment
system cannot meet the specified remediation
goals, contingency measures and goals will be
implemented including engineering controls or
institutional controls, invoking chemical-specific
ARAR waivers, or reevaluating remedial
technologies for ground-water restoration. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,404,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $1,451,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals were
derived from calculations based on leachate
modeling, and include PCE 1,600 Ğg/kg and
TCE 500 wg/kg. Chemical-specific ground-
water clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs
and proposed MCLs, and include benzene 5 Ğg/l
(MCL), PCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), and TCE 5 ag/1
(MCL).
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions may be
implemented to restrict access to those portions
of the aquifer which may remain above
health-based levels.
295
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
MONSANTO, GA
December 7, 1990
The 75-acre Monsanto site is a former
industrial plant located three miles southeast of
Augusta, Georgia. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial, with a wetland area
located approximately 4,570 feet from the site.
In addition, the site is approximately three miles
from the Savannah River, an important source of
water for the Augusta area. The plant began
operations in 1962. From 1966 to 1974,
approximately 1500 pounds of arsenic were
placed in two on-site landfills. The landfills
were covered with soil, crowned with gravel,
seeded with grass, and closed in 1971 and 1977,
respectively. Ground-water investigations
conducted in 1979 and 1980 by Monsanto
identified arsenic in the surficial aquifer in
excess of the federal MCL. In 1983, Monsanto,
through a state action, excavated the materials in
the landfills and disposed of them off site. Soil
samples collected from the bottom of the
excavated area did not exceed the EP toxicity
standard for arsenic. This final ROD addresses
ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the ground
water is arsenic, a metal.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
monitoring ground water to evaluate compliance
with GPALs; pumping and discharging ground
water to an off-site POTW, in the event that
non-compliance with GPALs occurs; monitoring
ground water for two years following EPA's
acceptance that the MCL has been attained. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$600,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The chemical-specific and GPAL ground-
water clean-up goal for arsenic is 0.05 mg/1
based on SDWA MCLs.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
296
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE) (OU2), TN
Federal Facflity
June 28, 1991
The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR)
(USDOE) site is an inactive uranium recovery
landfill in Oak Ridge, Anderson County,
Tennessee. The United Nuclear Corporation
(UNC) disposal site, which comprises OU2, is
one of several hundred waste disposal sites or
areas of contamination at the ORR site requiring
Superfund remedial action. From 1982 to 1984,
the 1.3-acre disposal site received 11,000
55-gallon drums of cement-fixed sludge, 18,000
drums of contaminated soil, and 288 wooden
boxes of contaminated building and process
equipment demolition debris from the
decommissioned UNC uranium recovery facility
in Wood River Junction, Rhode Island. The
waste was placed in 5- to 50-foot deep pits and
covered with polyvinyl chloride sheeting.
Although some drums and boxes have
deteriorated, rusted, or split open, investigations
show that migration of contaminants to soil and
ground water has not yet occurred. This ROD
addresses the drummed soil, sludge, and debris
to prevent future ground-water contamination.
Subsequent RODs are planned to fully address
the principal threats posed by the ORR site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil, sludge, and debris are nitrite, an
inorganic; and strontium-90, a radioactive
material.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
clearing and grubbing sparse vegetation; placing
a multi-layer cover over the drums, soil, sludge,
and debris; revegetating the area and backfilling
over the UNC waste with additional soil; and
monitoring ground water. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $1,467,500,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $93,600
for year 1 and $69,800 for years 2 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
The selected remedy will prevent future
contamination of ground water from landfill
waste. Accordingly, the remedy will meet the
SDWA MCL for nitrate 10 mg/1 at
downgradient wells and meet a 10"* risk level for
strontium-90.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
297
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE) (OU3), TN
Federal Facility
September 19, 1991
The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR)
(USDOE) (OU3) site is an active nuclear
weapons component manufacturing facility
located in Oak Ridge, Anderson County,
Tennessee. The Y-12 plant, which is addressed
as OU3, is one of several hundred waste
disposal sites or areas of contamination at the
ORR site requiring Superfund remedial action.
The site occupies the upper reaches of East Fork
Poplar Creek (EFPC) in Bear Creek Valley.
From 1940 to the present, the Y-12 plant has
been used to produce nuclear weapons
components. From 1955 to 1963, mercury was
used in a column-exchange process to separate
lithium isotopes. Mercury spills from this
process resulted in mercury and
mercury-contaminated sediment being pumped
from the basements of buildings into three
concrete sedimentation tanks connected to storm
sewers, which discharge to EFPC. Testing of
the three concrete tanks showed that the tank
sediment contained mercury, and that
contaminated waste is still being discharged into
two of the three tanks. This ROD focuses on
the contaminated sediment in the sedimentation
tanks as an interim action. Future RODs will
address principal threats posed by plant
conditions including eliminating mercury from
the storm sewer system. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the sediment
are mercury, a metal, and radioactive materials.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected interim RA for this site
includes removing mercury-contaminated
sediment, liquids, solids, oils, and oily water
from tanks, followed by off-site treatment and
disposal; stabilizing mixed waste from one of the
tanks, followed by on-site disposal; screening
the wastewater removed from the tanks for
hazardous and radiological contamination prior
to sediment removal, followed by on-site
treatment of the wastewater; solidifying mixed
waste, followed by on-site storage; and
monitoring ground water and sediment. The
estimated capital cost for this RA is $0, with an
annual O&M cost of $586,000. This interim
remedy is expected to take only 5 months to
implement.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not provided.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
298
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
OAK RIDGE RESERVATION (USDOE) (OU4), TN
Federal Facility
September 19, 1991
The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR)
(USDOE) (OU4) site is a former uranium
isotope processing subsite in Oak Ridge, Roan
County, Tennessee. The 1,700-acre K-25 site,
which comprises OU4, is one of several hundred
waste disposal sites or areas of contamination at
the ORR site requiring Superfund remedial
action. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential. Three drum storage areas are
located in the northeastern portion of the site and
consist of two adjacent asphalt pads covering six
acres on the north side of Mitchell Branch, a
small stream. A curb surrounding the pads
directs water to a catch basin for each yard, all
of which discharge to Mitchell Branch. Built in
the 1940s, the K-25 site was used to separate
uranium isotopes by gaseous diffusion with
placement of resulting waste and sludge in
collection ponds. The storage yards were
constructed to temporarily store sludge that was
removed, stabilized, and drummed during
closure of the collection ponds from 1987 to
1989. The storage yards contain 36,000
ninety-gallon drums of stabilized sludge, 29,000
ninety-gallon drums of raw sludge, and 16,000
gallons of raw sludge in tanks, contaminated
with mixed radioactive and hazardous waste.
The drums have started to deteriorate and
develop pin hole leaks resulting in the release of
small quantities of liquids to the pads. In
addition, depressions have been observed in the
asphalt pads causing stacked drums to lean.
This ROD addresses the sludge stored at the
storage yards as an interim action to prevent or
mitigate releases to the environment. Future
RODs will address sludge remediation and
disposal. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the sludge are metals and radioactive
materials.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes eliminating free, liquids in sludge
through filter press, thermal drying, or similar
methods; repacking dry sludge, followed by on-
site storage of containers in existing or new
indoor facilities awaiting remediation and
disposal; and processing liquids removed from
the sludge through existing treatment facilities.
The estimated capital cost for this RA is
$69,000,000, with an annual O&M cost of
$400,000. This interim remedy is expected to
take 20 months.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
299
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, FL
October 5, 1990
The Petroleum Products site is an inactive
oil processing plant in Pembroke Park, Broward
County, Florida. The area surrounding the site
is highly developed with industrial, commercial,
and residential properties. The Petroleum
Products (PPC) site lies within the radius of two
major municipal wellfields. Current site features
include an industrial warehouse complex, a
fenced area with several dozen drums of
investigation-derived waste, a french drain
system, and several monitoring and abandoned
storm drainage wells. PPC began on-site
operations as a processor and broker of waste oil
in 1958. Several tanks were located in a tank
farm area bounded on the east and north by
several large areas of standing water, which
served as a culvert drainage system. Sludge
generated during oil refinery processes were
disposed of on site in unlined disposal pits. In
1970, a major rainfall caused the on-site disposal
pit to overflow, producing an oil slick on the
lakes of a nearby trailer park. Subsequently, all
disposal pits were filled in, but it is suspected
that sludge was mixed with clean fill and
returned to the pit or spread over the property.
Drainage at the site was then upgraded to a
french drain system and drainage wells, which
relieved flooding of the site and permitted
flushing of former disposal pit contamination
into the groundwater. In 1971, PPC ended all
on-site refining operations. The property was
subsequently used as a storage and distribution
facility. In 1979, at the request of the County,
PPC cleaned up portions of the site including
two oil-soaked areas. In 1983, the state required
PPC to remove additional waste oils and submit
a detailed site sampling plan. Subsequent
sampling identified that the ground water had
been contaminated by oils, VOCs, petroleum
hydrocarbons, and inorganic compounds. In
addition, a state investigation conducted in 1984
revealed that 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of free
oil were present in a ground-water plume
centered on the tank farm area and that
fluctuations in the water table had led to soil
contamination by these oils. In response to an
1985 administrative order, PPC emptied,
cleaned, and rendered inoperable all tanks;
tested all oil, water, and sludge before disposal
or recycling; removed and encapsulated asbestos
from a boiler house; and transported 262 drums
of sludge off site. In 1985, the state installed a
free product recovery system to recover oil
floating under the site, and a concrete pit was
installed in an on-site warehouse to contain free
oil seeping up through the floor. This ROD
addresses the first OU, enhancement of the free
product recovery system as an interim remedy.
A future ROD will address source control and
ground-water treatment. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are metals, including chromium and lead;
and oils.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
abandoning the damaged monitoring wells that
remain on site; abandoning the storm drainage
wells on-site, which put the Biscayne aquifer at
risk; monitoring private wells in the vicinity;
enhancing the present free product recovery
system to remove a larger volume of oil and to
contain the contaminated ground-water plume;
and disposing of waste oil off site at an
approved refinery. The estimated capital cost
for this RA is $660,000, with an estimated
O&M cost of $83,000.
300
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals ' Institutional Controls
This interim remedy will enhance the free Not applicable.
product recovery system and reduce the threat of
contaminant migration into municipal wells;
therefore, clean-up goals were not provided.
301
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SANGAMO/TWELVE-MILE/HARTWELL PCB, SC
December 19, 1990
The 253-acre Sangamo/Twelve-Mile/
Hartwell PCB site consists of seven separate
disposal areas in Pickens County, South
Carolina. These areas consist of the Sangamo
Plant area and six private disposal areas located
off site of the Sangamo Plant, which are
designated as the Breazeale, Nix, Dodgens,
Cross Roads, John Trotter, and Welborn areas.
Land in the general area is predominantly
forested, and there are several nearby lakes and
streams including Lake Hartwell and the
Twelve-Mile Creek basin. Since 1955, Sangamo
Weston, Inc., has manufactured electrolytic,
mica, and power factor capacitors. PCBs were
used as dielectric fluid in power factor
capacitors. Prior to 1972, waste materials
containing PCBs were landfllled in the seven
disposal areas. These PCB-contaminated
materials included scrap capacitors and
aluminum hydroxide sludge from an on-site
wastewater treatment plant. In the mid-1970s,
state and federal environmental monitoring
programs led to the detection of PCBs in the
sediment of Lake Hartwell, in its tributaries, and
in the soil of Sangamo Weston's dump sites. In
addition, PCBs were detected in fish samples at
two sites in the Twelve-Mile Creek area of Lake
Hartwell. In 1980, Sangamo Weston, Inc.,
removed a total of 17,711 cubic yards of
PCB-contaminated soil and debris from the Nix
and Dodgens areas, and disposed of it in a
landfill on the Sangamo Plant property. In
1986, a geotextile liner and soil cap were
installed as an interim measure to retard the
migration of PCB contamination from the
Breazeale site. In 1989, EPA removed off site
7,285 tons of PCB-contaminated soil and debris
from the Sangamo Plant area to a RCRA
landfill, and 6,684 capacitors were taken to an
off-site incinerator. This ROD addresses the
first of two OUs, and provides for remediation
of the ground-water and source contamination at
the seven disposal areas. A future ROD will
address the contamination of the Twelve-Mile
Creek basin and Lake Hartwell. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sludge, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including PCE and TCE; and other organics
including PCBs.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating materials contaminated with greater
than 1 mg/kg of PCBs at the Nix and Welborn
areas; excavating materials contaminated with
greater than 25 mg/kg of PCBs at the Sangamo
Plant area; excavating materials contaminated
with greater than 10 mg/kg of PCBs at the
Breazeale, Dodgens, Cross Roads, and John
Trotter areas; transporting the excavated
materials to the Sangamo Plant area for staging
and treatment; treating on site all excavated
materials using thermal desorption technology
and carbon adsorption to control off-gases;
placing the treated soil within the plant area;
filling each of the private areas with two feet of
clean fill where contaminated materials with
PCBs greater than 1 mg/kg remain, specifically
the Trotter, Dodgens, Breazeale, and Cross
Roads areas; ground-water pumping and on-site
treatment at the Dodgens, Breazeale, Cross
Roads, and Sangamo Plant areas using air
stripping and/or carbon adsorption; and
discharging treated water on site to surface
water. The estimated present worth cost for this
RA ranges from $47,900,000 to $63,300,000
depending on aquifer characteristics and the
volume of excavated solids. No O&M costs
were provided for this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs and include
302
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
PCBs 0.0005 mg/1 (proposed MCL), PCE 0.005 mg/kg remaining at the various areas will be
mg/1 (MCL), and TCE 0.005 mg/1 (MCL). covered with 2 feet of clean fill.
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil,
sludge, and debris include treatment to a level of Institutional Controls
PCB 2 mg/kg. Soil with greater than PCB 1
Not provided.
303
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SHERWOOD MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, FL
March 27, 1991
The 42-acre Sherwood Medical Industries
(SMI) site is an active medical supply
manufacturing facility just outside the city limits
of Deland, Volusia County, Florida. Land use
in the area is commercial and residential. Lake
Miller is along the western boundary, and a
wooded swampy area is located to the south of
the site. The underlying Floridan aquifer, which
is restrictively connected to the contaminated
surficial aquifer, is the drinking water source for
local residents. From 1959 to present, SMI has
used the site for manufacturing medical supplies,
primarily hypodermic needles. From 1971 to
1980, SMI disposed of approximately two tons
of liquid and sludge waste into two unlined
percolation ponds on site. At that time, solids
were removed from the ponds and placed into
on-site, unlined impoundments. From 1980 to
1982, SMI analyzed the contents of the
impoundments and disposed of the waste in an
off-site landfill. Initial site investigations
conducted by SMI and the state identified
ground-water contamination in on-site wells. In
1987, the state requested that SMI perform
additional investigations to determine the nature
and extent of ground-water contamination, and
to evaluate the need to implement IRMs. Based
on the observed on-site contamination of the
Floridan Aquifer, the state required SMI to
conduct extensive ground-water testing and
monitoring, and to provide bottled water to an
affected residence. In 1990, the state approved
SMI's design work plan, which outlined further
interim measures to be conducted at the site
including installation of a ground-water pump
and treat system. This ROD addresses an
interim remedy for the surficial aquifer to
prevent the contaminant plume from spreading
off site and migrating vertically into the Floridan
aquifer. Future RODs will fully address the
principal threats posed by the conditions at the
site. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
PCE and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes installing a system of recovery wells in
the on-site surficial aquifer; and pumping and
treatment of contaminated ground water using
air stripping, followed by on-site discharge of
the treated water to Lake Miller. The estimated
capital cost for this interim RA is $400,000,
with an annual O&M cost of $35,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Treated ground water will meet all federal
and state water quality standards for discharge to
surface water. Final clean-up levels will be
addressed in a future ROD.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
304
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SMITH'S FARM BROOKS, KY
Amendment
September 30, 1991
The 500-acre Smith's Farm Brooks site is a
former hazardous waste disposal area located in
Brooks, Bullitt County, Kentucky. The site is
bordered on the north, east, and west by
forested hills and on the south by a residential
area. The site includes a 37.5-acre landfill that,
until recently, was permitted by the state for the
disposal of solid waste. The site also includes
an 80-acre area upgradient of the permitted
landfill on a mile-long ridge between two
intermittent creeks where the unpermitted
disposal of drums containing hazardous waste
occurred over a 20-year period. This area has
been divided into two areas known as area A
and area B. As a result of EPA investigations in
1984 that revealed chemicals leaking from
drums, EPA removed 6,000 drums of surface
waste, excavated contaminated soil, and
implemented site stabilization and erosion
prevention measures. A 1989 ROD addressed
source control in the 80-acre area through
thermal destruction. Investigations during the
RD revealed lower levels of PCBs and a lower
volume of soil requiring treatment than what was
previously estimated in the RI, making
incineration less practical. This ROD amends
the 1989 ROD and provides source control in
the 80-acre area using chemical treatment, rather
than thermal treatment. A second OU will
address remaining potential threats associated
with the landfill, deep ground-water aquifers,
and other suspected areas of drum disposal. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, sediment, and debris are organics including
PCBs and PAHs, and metals including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
excavating 16,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and excavating contaminated stream
sediment in area B, as defined in the RI/FS;
treating area B soil and sediment on site by a
chemical process, possibly dechlorination or
hydrocarbon removal using APEG or BEST,
respectively, and by a solidification/fixation
process; overpacking debris from area B and
disposing of the overpacked debris and all
treated soil and sediment from area B on site
within area A; consolidating the contaminated
soil, sediment, and debris from peripheral areas
of area A into area A; recontouring area A;
constructing and maintaining retaining walls,
surface run-on/run-off control systems, and a
leachate collection system in area A, with on-site
or off-site treatment and disposal of leachate;
capping area A with a RCRA cap after all
material from area A and B have been disposed
of in area A; ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including
land use restrictions, and site access restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA
ranges from $22,000,000 to $25,000,000, based
on the treatment selected. O&M costs were not
provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Action levels for contaminated soil and/or
sediment were determined based on an excess
lifetime cancer risk of la5, with the exception of
lead, which was based on an HI< 1. Chemical-
specific goals for soil include PAHs 2 mg/kg
and lead 500 mg/kg, and for sediment PAHs
5 mg/kg and PCBs 2 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented on
site to limit further site use.
305
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
TRI-CITY INDUSTRIAL DISPOSAL, KY
August 28, 1991
The 349-acre Tri-City Industrial Disposal
site is an inactive industrial waste landfill located
in Brooks, Bullitt County, Kentucky. Land use
in the area is predominantly agricultural and
residential. The estimated 300 people who
reside within one mile of the site use ground
water from a thin unconfined limestone aquifer
as their drinking water supply. Ground water
discharges via several springs including the Cox
and Klapper Springs. From 1964 to 1967,
Tri-City Industrial Services, Inc., used the site
to dispose of industrial waste including scrap
lumber, fiberglass insulationmaterials, drummed
liquid waste, and bulk liquids that were poured
onto the ground. In 1968, state officials
reported that highly volatile liquid waste
resembling paint thinners were disposed of on
site. The site was a source of citizen complaints
about the condition of the landfill, explosions,
fires, and smoke during the disposal operations.
A number of state and EPA investigations that
were conducted between 1965 and 1989
identified contaminants including PCBs, phenols,
metals, and various organic compounds in on-
site soil, waste, and residential springs. In
1988, EPA provided local residents with an
alternate water supply, and conducted an
emergency removal action to excavate and
remove approximately 165 drums in generally
good condition, other crushed and empty drums,
metal containers, auto parts, 400 gallons of free
liquids, and over 800 cubic yards of suspected
contaminated soil. This ROD addresses ground
water contamination as OU1. Should the
confirmatory sampling of soil, sediment, and air
conducted in OU1 reveal unacceptable levels of
hazardous contaminants, additional measures
may be necessary and will be implemented as
OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
PCE, TCE, DCE, toluene, and vinyl chloride.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing a carbon adsorption system at the Cox
Spring; treating contaminated ground water
using carbon adsorption and discharging the
treated ground water to tributaries downstream
of the springs; conducting a leachability test to
determine whether spent carbon is a hazardous
waste; regenerating, or treating and disposing of
spent carbon off site; continuing to provide
potable water to residents who previously used
contaminated ground water as potable water until
acceptable levels are reached; confirmatory
sampling of soil, sediment, and ambient air to
assess the effectiveness of EPA's 1988
emergency removal action; long-term monitoring
of ground water, surface water, sediment, and
ecology; implementing a worker health and
safety program; and implementing institutional
controls including ground-water use restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,098,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $89,890 for the first year, $70,686 for
years 2 and 3, and $66,330 for years 4 through
30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs or non-zero
MCLGs, and include PCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), TCE
5 wg/1 (MCL), toluene 1,000 Ğg/l (MCL), and
xylenes 10,000 wg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Ground-water restrictions will be
implemented to restrict the potable use of ground
water con-taining or potentially containing levels
of contamination above MCLs or non-zero
MCLGs.
306
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
USA ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT, AL
Federal Facility
September 26, 1991
The 15,200-acre USA Anniston Army Depot
site is an active equipment rework facility for
the U.S. Army in Anniston, Calhoun County,
Alabama. The site is divided into several areas
including a southeast industrial area, which is
the focus of this ROD. Land use in the area is
predominantly residential. An estimated 72,000
residents in Calhoun County use Coldwater
Springs, located 1.5 miles south of the site, as
their primary source of drinking water. The
Army initially used the depot to store munitions,
and subsequently, to overhaul and repair combat
vehicles. Various types of liquid and solid
hazardous wastes were generated including
electroplating waste containing metals and
organic solvents from cleaning operations.
Waste was disposed of in various landfills,
trenches, disposal pits, and lagoons located in
the southeast industrial area and throughout the
site. A number of EPA and state site
investigations have revealed contamination by
VOCs, other organic compounds, inorganics,
and metals in the on-site ground water. Between
1978 and 1983, several on-site actions were
taken by the Army to remove contaminated
sludge and soil. In 1990, the Army completed
and began operating a ground-water pumping
and treatment system. This ROD addresses an
interim remedy for ground-water contamination
beneath the southeast industrial area as the first
OU. Future RODs may address further
contamination in the southeast industrial portion
of the site. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including PCE and TCE; other organics
including phenols; and metals including
chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
continuing to use the existing ground-water
pumping and treatment system using air
stripping to remove VOCs, followed by charcoal
filtration to remove phenols; discharging the
treated ground water on site to surface water;
and continued operation of the dewatering and
treatment system. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $945,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $60,000. The capital cost
is estimated at $895,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water goals will be
addressed in the final RA for the site.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
307
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
USAF ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, GA
Federal Facility
June 25, 1991
The 46.5-acre USAF Robins Air Force Base
(AFB) site is a logistics management and repair
center for aircraft, missiles, and support systems
in Warner Robins, Houston County, Georgia.
The Zone 1 area, which includes a 45-acre
inactive landfill and a 1.5-acre sludge lagoon is
part of the 8,855-acre Robins AFB. Land use in
the area is mixed residential and industrial. A
wetlands area borders the site to the east; in
addition, part of the site lies within the 100-year
floodplain of the Ocmulgee River. From 1965
to 1978, an on-site landfill (landfill no. 4) was
used for disposal of general refuse, and
industrial and hazardous wastes. From 1962 to
1978, the sludge lagoon was used for disposal of
wastewater treatment plant sludge and other
liquid waste. Types of waste generated at the
facility included electroplating waste, organic
solvents from cleaning operations, and
pesticides, all of which were disposed of in the
lagoon and landfill areas. Robins AFB
conducted a study in 1982 to identify and assess
on-site hazardous waste disposal practices.
Disposal areas were grouped into eight zones
based on location and type of activity. Zone 1
has been divided into three OUs. This ROD,
which focuses on OU1, addresses the
remediation of landfill no. 4 and the sludge
lagoon. Subsequent RODs will address
remediation of the neighboring wetlands and
surface waters (OU2) and the ground water
adjacent to landfill no. 4 and the sludge lagoon
(OUS). The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs
including PCE and TCE; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating 15,000 cubic yards of soil in the sludge
lagoon using in situ soil vapor extraction;
removing volatile contaminants from the air
using condensation, distillation, and carbon
adsorption; controlling and treating landfill
leachate; renovating the landfill cover; treating
the sludge lagoon to remove VOCs, treating
metals on site in the sludge lagoon using
solidification; on-site pumping and treatment of
ground water; diverting surface water near the
sludge lagoon; conducting long-term soil testing;
and monitoring ground and surface water. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA ranges
from $9,430,000 to $24,000,000 with an annual
O&M cost ranging from $321,400 to $334,400,
depending on the components of the landfill cap.
Performance Standards or Goals
Contaminant-specific remediation goals have
not been established for soil at the sludge lagoon
because they are dependent on establishment of
ground-water goals, which will be developed in
a subsequent ROD.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
308
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
VELSICOL CHEMICAL, TN
June 27, 1991
The 242-acre Velsicol Chemical site is a
former plant waste landfill located near the city
of Toone, Hardeman County, Tennessee. Land
use in the area is predominantly agricultural with
a wetlands area, 26 residences, and numerous
creeks located within one mile of the site. In
addition, part of the site overlies a surficial
aquifer that was used as a potable water supply
in the area. From 1964 to 1973, Velsicol
Chemical Corporation used the site to dispose of
industrial and chemical plant waste. Waste was
disposed of in trenches excavated on 27 acres of
the property. The site was closed in 1973
because of the possibility of contaminated
ground water migrating off site. By late 1978,
state and federal investigations had confirmed
ground-water contamination in private wells, and
a public water supply was provided in early
1979. In 1980, a 35-acre low permeability clay
cap was placed over the disposal area to control
and minimize additional impacts from the site.
This ROD addresses off-site ground-water
contamination as OU1 and will prevent
additional on-site ground-water contamination
from migrating from the disposal areas. Future
RODs will address other site contamination and
principal threats. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,
toluene, and xylenes; and other organics
including pesticides.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing extraction wells on site and off site to
restore the contaminated ground water to
acceptable drinking water standards; constructing
an on-site ground-water treatment plant and
treating contaminated ground water using solids
removal, air stripping, and final ground-water
polishing prior to discharge; discharging the
treated water on site to nearby surface water
bodies; treating off-gases with carbon
adsorption; monitoring ground water;
maintaining the ground-water treatment system
and the disposal area cover; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions. The selected RA is
contingent upon the performance data collected
during operation. If the selected remedy cannot
meet the specified remediation goals,
contingency measures may include alternating
pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points;
pulse pumping at wells to allow aquifer
equilibration and encourage adsorbed
contaminants to partition into ground water; and
installing additional extraction wells to facilitate
or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant plume.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$11,644,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $696,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs and
health-based criteria, and include carbon
tetrachloride 0.005 mg/1 (MCL), chloroform,
0.006 mg/1, toluene 1 mg/1 (MCL), and xylenes
10 mg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be established to
identify the presence, quantity, and nature of
waste in the disposal area and ground water, and
limit uses of both until remediation is complete.
309
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
WRIGLEY CHARCOAL, TN
September 30, 1991
The 81-acre Wrigley Charcoal site is a
former multi-use industrial operations area in the
town of Wrigley, Hickman County, Tennessee.
Land use in the area is industrial and residential,
with approximately 1,000 people residing within
a one-mile radius of the site. From 1881 to
1985, the site has been used mainly for pig iron
and wood retorting/wood distillation by-product
manufacturing. Additional activities conducted
between 1978 and 1985 included usage of
several remaining on-site buildings for metals
machining, copper recovery, and storage of
drummed industrial waste. Remaining primary
site buildings used for these later activities
include a warehouse; a dryer building; a
maintenance building; and a storage shed.
Improper disposal procedures have resulted in
soil, sediment, and debris contamination by
semi-volatile organic compounds in coal-tars
(mainly PAHs and phenols), VOCs, metals, and
asbestos. EPA investigations have identified
four major areas of on-site contamination.
These four areas are as follows: the 35-acre
primary site containing coal-tar contaminants;
the three-acre storage basin area that also
contains coal tar contaminants; the 40-acre
irrigation field (including an abandoned
wastewater lagoon) that was used for spray
irrigation (disposal) and degradation of PAH and
phenolic wastewaters; and the 3.5-acre athletic
field, a field used by local residents, which is
filled with blast furnace slag and soil derived
from the primary site from 1938-1950. The
primary site, which includes a warehouse, a
dryer building, a maintenance building, and a
storage shed, was an industrial production
facility for iron, charcoal, and wood distillation
products from 1888 to 1966. The primary site
was later used for metals machining, storage of
waste products, and recovery of copper from
transformers. The storage basin and irrigation
field were built in the late 1950s to receive
wastewater from the primary site. In 1988,
EPA performed a removal activity, which
stabilized the site by installing clay backfilled
culverts covered with erosion control fabric;
installing sheet piling to stabilize the banks;
retaining the tar pits; removing eight cubic yards
of asbestos material; solidifying approximately
130 cubic yards of tar pit waste, followed by
off-site incineration of the solidified material;
establishing a vegetative cover for the tar pit
cover; constructing a spillway; and off-site
landfilling of debris. This ROD addresses
interim remediation of remaining contaminated
soil, sediment, and debris, and will reduce the
risks at the primary site and storage basin by
eliminating the most imminent and substantial
threats while permanent solutions are developed
for the entire site. Future RODs may address
remediation of the contaminated primary site
soil, tar pits and tar cubes, as well as the storage
basin; coal-tar waste, friable roofing ACM, and
any on-site ground-water problems. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil are VOCs; other organics including PAHs,
and phenols; metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and asbestos, an inorganic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating, stabilizing, and disposing of off site
approximately 15 cubic yards of metallic waste
from the burn pit; consolidating and securing on
site approximately 120 drums of transformers;
excavating, incinerating, stabilizing, and
disposing of off site 14 waste drums, 29 cubic
yards of process tank sludge, and 122.5 cubic
yards of black coal tar waste located in three
separate areas; decontaminating the tanks;
excavating and disposing of visibly friable
310
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
asbestos material in the soil and buildings within
the primary site; re-engineering of the spillway
to accommodate flood waters; sorting and
disposing of site surface waste and debris piles
(including tar-cubes; pieces of ACM, crushed
drums and metallic debris) off site, or
temporarily consolidating these on site for future
remediation; conducting soil investigations and
continued sampling and analysis; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions, and site access restriction such
as fencing. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $984,998. O&M costs were not
provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
The remedy will attempt to meet RCRA
LDR BAT requirements for coal-tar waste using
incineration and stabilization; and burn-pit waste
using stabilization. Chemical-specific clean-up
criteria include chromium 0.5-6 mg/kg,
lead 0.1-3 mg/kg, arsenic 0.3-1 mg/kg, and
PAHs 0.5-20 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site.
311
-------
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 5
A61-402-S
REGIONS
Site
Acme Solvent Reclaiming
Allied Chemical and Ironton Coke
Anderson Development (Amendment)
Berlin & Farro
Better Brite Plating Chrome & Zinc
Buckeye Reclamation
Carter Industrials
Chem-Central
Conrail Kailyard Elkhart
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
Enviro-Chem (Northside Sanitary Landfill) (Amendment)
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Folkertsma Refuse
Fultz Landfill
G&H Landfill
State
IL
OH
MI
MI
WI
OH
MI
MI
IN
MN
IN
WI
MI
OH
MI
Page
315
317
319
321
322
324
325
327
329
330
331
333
335
336
338
313
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Site
Kentwood Landfill
Lemberger Landfill
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
MacGillis & Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
Main Street Wellfield
Michigan Disposal Service
Motor Wheel
National Presto Industries
Northside Sanitary Landfill (Enviro-Chem) (Amendment)
Novaco Industries (Amendment)
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Organic Chemicals
Ossineke Ground Water Contamination
Pagel's Pit
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill
Rasmussen's Dump
South Macomb Disposal #9, 9A
Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination
Stoughton City Landfill
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Summit National Liquid Disposal Service (Amendment)
Thermo Chem
Verona Well Field
Washington County Landfill
Zanesville Well Field
State
MI
WI
WI
MN
IN
MI
MI
WI
IN
MI
MN
MI
MI
IL
MN
MI
MI
IL
WI
MI
OH
MI
MI
MN
OH
Page
340
341
343
345
347
349
350
351
352
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
362
364
365
366
367
369
371
372
373
314
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ACME SOLVENT RECLAIMING, IL
December 31, 1990
The 20-acre Acme Solvent Reclaiming site
is a former industrial disposal site in Winnebago
County, Illinois. Land use in the area is mixed
agricultural and residential. The site is bounded
by an active quarry to the north, farmland to the
south and east, and the Pagel's Pit Superfund
site to the west. An on-site stream, which is a
tributary of Kilbuck Creek, eventually drains
into the Rock River to the south. The site
overlies two aquifers, which are used by the
estimated 400 residents who live within two
miles of the site as their drinking water supply.
From 1960 to 1973, Acme Solvent Reclaiming
disposed of paints, oils, and still bottoms on site
from its solvent reclamation plant. Waste was
dumped into depressions created from previous
quarrying and landscaping operations, and empty
drums also were stored on site. State
investigations in 1981 identified elevated levels
of chlorinated organic compounds in ground
water. A 1985 ROD provided for excavation
and on-site incineration of 26,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sludge, supplying home
carbon treatment units to affected residences,
and further study of ground water and bedrock.
During illegal removal actions taken by PRPs in
1986, 40,000 tons of soil and sludge were
removed from the site. A 4,000-ton waste pile
and two tanks containing contaminated liquids
remain on site, and since then an additional
2,000 tons of on-site contaminated soil and
sludge has been discovered. This ROD will
address waste areas remaining after the 1986
removal, including soil, bedrock, and ground
water, as part of OU2. A future ROD will
address an area of ground-water contamination
between the Acme Solvent Reclaiming and
Pagel's Pit sites as OU3. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sludge, and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, TCE, and xylenes; other
organics including PCBs; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and treating 6,000 tons of soil and
sludge from two waste areas, using
low-temperature thermal stripping; treating
residuals using solidification, if necessary,
followed by on-site or off-site disposal; treating
the remaining contaminated soil and possibly
bedrock using soil/bedrock vapor extraction;
consolidating the remaining contaminated soil on
site with any treatment residuals, followed by
capping; incinerating off site 8,000 gallons of
liquids and sludge from two remaining tanks,
and disposing of the tanks off site; providing an
alternate water supply to residents with
contaminated wells; pumping and on-site
treatment of VOC-contaminated ground water
with discharge to surface water; monitoring
ground water; and implementing institutional
controls including deed and ground-water use
and restrictions. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA ranges from $14,633,000 to
$16,233,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $908,400.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil are
based on a lifetime excess cancer risk level of
105. All waste area soil exceeding
PCBs 10 mg/kg must be excavated and treated.
In addition, all soil exceeding 10 mg/kg above
background levels using a photoionization device
will be excavated. Any soils remaining after
excavation and residuals landfilled on site must
meet the site-specific VOC cleanup standards
including benzene 69 Mg/kg, TCE 140 Mg/kg,
and PCE 1,200 wg/kg. Chemical-specific clean-
up goals for ground water are based on SDWA
MCLs, MCLGs, as well as 10"5 excess cancer
risk criteria, and include benzene 5 Mg/1 (MCL),
PCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), and TCE 5 Mg/1 (MCL).
315
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent use of contaminated
ground water by residents.
316
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ALLIED CHEMICAL AND IRONTON COKE, OH
December 28, 1990
The 95-acre Allied Chemical and Ironton
Coke site is composed of a former coke plant
and an operating tar plant in Ironton, Lawrence
County, Ohio. The site is located within a coal
mining region, and surrounding land use is
predominantly industrial and residential. The
Ohio River, a source of drinking water for the
city of Ironton, lies approximately 500 feet to
the west of the tar plant. On-site lagoons lie
within the 100-year floodplain of the Ohio
River, with portions of the lagoons inundated
sufficiently to maintain wetlands vegetation.
From approximately 1920 to the late 1960s,
wastewater and solid waste including coke and
coal fines, tank car sludge, boiler ash, and weak
ammonia liquor were discharged into swampy
areas east of the coke plant, which are adjacent
to Ice Creek, a tributary to the Ohio River.
From the early 1970s until the coke plant closed
in 1982, a series of four lagoons in the eastern
area of the plant were used to treat process
wastewater, stormwater run-off, and waste
sludge; and a fifth lagoon was used to dispose of
solid waste. Tar plant operations began on site
in 1945. Types of waste generated included
anthracene residues and salts, coal tar pitch
scrap, and phthalic anhydride residues, which
were disposed of on site in the Goldcamp
disposal area, a former sand pit adjoining the tar
plant. Extensive studies and on-site
investigations identified contamination in on-site
soil in the coke plant and tar plant areas, lagoon
sediment, Ice Creek sediment downstream of the
site, and ground water beneath and surrounding
the site. A 1988 ROD addressed the Gold Camp
disposal area and documented installation of a
cap and slurry wall, pumping and treatment of
contaminated ground water, and provisions for
supplemental study and remediation of non-
aqueous phase contaminants found on top of the
bedrock. This ROD addresses contamination at
all areas not previously addressed, and provides
a final remedy at the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and ground water are VOCs including
benzene; other organics including PAHs and
phenols; metals including arsenic; and other
inorganics including cyanide.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and incinerating on site
approximately 122,000 cubic yards of waste
material from lagoon 5, and 31,000 cubic yards
of waste coal, followed by on-site waste fuel
recovery (re-use of the waste heat generated
during incineration), and disposing of the
residual ash off site; in-situ bioremediation of
approximately 475,000 cubic yards of waste
material from lagoons 1 through 4, the residual
soil of lagoon 5, and the adjacent inner and
outer dikes; excavating and on-site
bioremediation on a prepared pad of
approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil from
the coke and tar plant soil; pumping and
treatment of ground water at a future on-site
treatment facility, with on-site reinjection or off-
site discharge; monitoring ground water on site
and downgradient of Ice Creek, and developing
a contingency plan in the event that contaminant
migration is encountered; pilot testing the
effectiveness of in situ bioremediation and
developing a contingency plan for an alternative
RA for lagoons 1 through 4, if necessary; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions, and site access restrictions
such as fencing. The estimated capital cost for
this RA is $21,000,000, with an estimated total
O&M cost of $28,500,000. Total estimated cost
is $49,500,000.
317
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals
The waste fuel recovery system shall be
designed and operated to achieve a 99.99 percent
destruction of carcinogenic PAHs. Lagoon 5
materials will be excavated until EPA visibly
determines that natural stream sediment has been
encountered. Bioremediation of soil and lagoon
sediment must reduce PAHs to attain a cancer
risk level of KT4 to 10^ and an HK1.
Chemical-specific levels for bioremediated soil
include PAHs 0.97 mg/kg and arsenic 0.56
mg/kg. Chemical-specific goals for soil include
PAHs 1.4 mg/kg of organic carbon and benzene
0.485 mg/kg of organic carbon. Leach tests will
be performed on the treated waste materials to
determine the concentrations of arsenic and
cyanide that will be protective of the ground
water. Ground-water clean-up goals are based
on site-specific risk assessment, MCLs, and
Health Advisories. Chemical-specific ground-
water goals include benzene 0.005 mg/1, phenol
4 mg/1, total PAHs 0.005 mg/1, and arsenic 0.05
mg/1.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent any future residential or recreational use
of the site.
318
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT, Ml
Amendment
September 30, 1991
The Anderson Development site is an active
chemical manufacturing facility in Adrian,
Lenawee County, Michigan. The site occupies
approximately 12.5 acres within a 40-acre
industrial park, which is surrounded by
residential areas. Site features include several
on-site buildings used for manufacturing,
storage, laboratories, and offices, as well as a
0.5-acre former process wastewater pretreatment
lagoon containing lagoon sludge and an
underlying clay layer. From 1970 to 1979, the
Anderson Development Corporation (ADC)
produced specialty chemicals on site including
4,4-methylene bis (2-chlororaniline) (MBOCA),
a hardening agent for the production of
polyurethane plastics. Untreated process
wastewater was discharged directly to surface
water until 1973, when the State discovered
aniline in a side drain from the facility. Later in
1973, ADC began separating process wastewater
from its cooling water, with subsequent
discharge of wastewater to a POTW. At the
POTW, MBOCA was settled out with other
solids and applied to the land, which has led to
contamination at the POTW drying beds. In
1979, the State ordered the POTW not to accept
the waste stream because of the decreased
efficiency of the POTW resulting from MBOCA
contamination. In 1979, after MBOCA was
found in on-site sediment, production of the
chemical ceased. In 1980 and 1981, the site
owner and the State cleaned up all contaminated
site areas, except for the on-site lagoon and the
adjacent soil, with MBOCA levels greater than
1 mg/kg by decontaminating the plant, sweeping
streets, shampooing/vacuuming residential
carpet, and removing some contaminated surface
soil off site. A 1990 ROD addressed site
contamination of surface soil, lagoon sludge, and
underlying lagoon clay. This ROD amends the
1990 ROD, which provided for treatment of the
contaminated media using in situ vitrification,
and documents the selection of low temperature
thermal desorption (LTTD) as the preferred
treatment technology, based on cost and other
concerns. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and lagoon sludge are VOCs
including toluene and MBOCA and its
degradation products; and metals.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected amended remedial action for
this site includes excavating and staging 3,000 to
4,000 tons of contaminated soil, clay, and
lagoon sludge with MBOCA concentrations
above the 1.6 mg/kg clean-up action level in an
LTTD device; performing treatability studies to
evaluate effectiveness of the LTTD technology,
then, if effective, treating the contaminated soil,
clay, and sludge on site using LTTD; placing the
treated soil, sludge, and clay into the excavated
lagoon, covering the lagoon with clean soil, and
regrading the area; or if the results of the
treatability study indicate that LTTD is
unacceptable, using in situ vitrification as the
alternate remediation technology; collecting
off-gases and treating the gases using an air
pollution control train, which includes a
scrubber system, air filters, and carbon
adsorption beds; treating aqueous streams from
the air pollution control train using liquid phase
activated carbon beds; thermally regenerating or
disposing of spent carbon and fines from the
particulate removal equipment off site; and
monitoring ground water and air. The estimated
cost of the LTTD treatment options for this
amended remedial action is $1,100,000.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals semi-volatile and inorganic contaminant cleanup
standards are consistent with state standards.
The "action" or clean-up level for MBOCA,
the primary contaminant of concern, is 1,684 Institutional Controls
Kg/kg, calculated based on EPA guidance
documentation, and corresponds to the excess ^ot applicable.
lifetime cancer risk level of 10~6. Other volatile,
320
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
BERLIN & FARRO, Ml
September 30, 1991
The 40-acre Berlin and Farro site is a
former liquid incineration and landfill facility in
Gaines Township, Genesee County, Michigan.
Land near the site consists of woodland and
agricultural areas. In addition, the site overlies
two aquifers, which provide well water to the
approximately 80 permanent homes located
within a 1/2 mile radius of the site. From 1971
to 1975, Berlin and Farro Liquid Incineration,
Inc. used the site to accept and store industrial
waste prior to incineration, and disposed of
crushed drums in a 1.1-acre on-site landfill.
During this period, the owners failed to comply
with air emission standards, on-site storage
volume limits, and permit standards that
prohibited on-site disposal of waste other than
solid waste. The facility also operated two
unauthorized waste storage lagoons and two
unlined storage lagoons; illegally buried five
tanks of wastewater; buried liquid waste;
operated USTs; poured liquid waste into
subsurface agricultural drains; and dumped
thousands of gallons of barrelled waste into two
on-site pits. In 1975, Berlin and Farro's permits
were revoked; however, illegal dumping of
industrial waste into the lagoons apparently
continued after the site was closed. Several
separate clean-up actions were undertaken by the
PRPs, the state, and EPA during the early to
mid-1980s. These activities included, but were
not limited to, removing lagoon sludge, the
incinerator facility, five underground tanks, an
agricultural drain and paint sludge trench,
surface debris, drums, waste piles and soil, and
1,000,000 gallons of contaminated water;
backfilling the lagoons and old drum landfill;
and constructing settling ponds. This ROD
addresses the final remedy for contaminated soil,
sediment, and ground water at the Berlin and
Farro site. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, and ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating, partially treating using solidification,
and consolidating (in an on-site RCRA
containment cell) contaminated soil and sediment
from the central site area and sediment from an
off-site drain (treatment of the materials will
remove free liquids and render characteristic
waste and non-characteristic RCRA waste);
collection and treating leachate from the cell;
backfilling, covering with soil and revegetating
the excavated on-site areas; regrading the
excavated areas of the drain; pumping and
treatment of ground water from the shallow
portion of the aquifer using a system of
collection trenches, followed by treatment using
air stripping and on-site discharge to the drain;
treating off-gas emissions from the ground-water
treatment system; monitoring ground water; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $8,119,300, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $233,100 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil and sediment clean-up
goals are based on state health-based standards
and include benzene 0.02 mg/kg, lead 20.8
mg/kg, toluene 16 mg/kg, and xylenes 6 mg/kg.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
are based on health standards, and include
benzene 1 wg/l.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent the installation of drinking wells on the
site during remediation.
321
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
BETTER BRITE PLATING CHROME & ZINC, Wl
June 28, 1991
The 2-acre Better Brite Plating Chrome &
Zinc site is composed of two plating facilities in
De Pere, Brown County, Wisconsin. The site
includes the 1.5-acre Chrome Shop and the
0.5-acre Zinc Shop, which are located
approximately 0.5 miles apart. Because of their
proximity and related backgrounds, the two sites
were jointly nominated to the NPL and are
addressed as a single site in this ROD. Land
use in the area is predominantly residential and
commercial, with a wetlands located
approximately 0.25 mile from the site. The
estimated 15,000 area residents use the
municipal wells drawing from the deep aquifer
as a drinking water supply. A municipal well
located approximately 250 feet from the site is
thought to influence the ground-water flow in
the contaminated shallow aquifer, but impacts
have not been observed in the municipal well
on-site. From 1963 to the early 1970s, the Zinc
Shop primarily plated chrome switching later to
zinc. The Zinc Shop has a long history of
improper operational procedures and spills into
the surrounding soil. Wastewater and/or plating
solutions routinely leaked between the floor and
sill plate of the building. Reportedly,
underground vertical plating tanks were used
early on. The Chrome Shop began chrome
plating operations during the early 1970s using
several above-ground tanks and four buried
vertical tanks in the plating process. In 1978
and 1979, the Chrome Shop was found to be
responsible for surface spills, which resulted in
construction of a shallow ground water
extraction system around a portion of the site.
Later, it was determined that the underground
plating tanks from the Chrome Shop had leaked
an unknown amount of plating solution and
VOCs into the on-site ground water.
Consequently, in 1985, the owner of the
Chrome Shop filed for bankruptcy and
operations ceased in 1986. In 1987, the state
installed ground-water monitoring wells at the
site, which identified contamination by metals
and VOCs in soil and ground water. In 1989,
the Zinc Shop closed, and a private contractor
removed the building that housed the Chrome
Shop. The state constructed a clay cap and
fenced around the area of highest soil
contamination. In 1990, the Zinc Shop owner
failed to comply with an administrative order to
conduct clean-up activities. Subsequently, EPA
performed an emergency removal action, which
included shipping 350 cubic yards of hazardous
and solid waste off site and constructing a
ground-water collection sump. Ground water is
collected, stored temporarily, and treated on
site. The residual chromium sludge from the
ground-water treatment is sent off site for
recycling. Later in 1990, EPA performed an
additional emergency response, and provided for
the construction of a wastewater pretreatment
system and an extraction system to collect and
pretreat shallow ground water prior to discharge
off site to the De Pere wastewater system. This
ROD addresses OU1, contaminated ground
water and surface water, as an interim action.
Future RODs will address remaining soil and
ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water and surface water are VOCs including
1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCA; other organics; and
metals including chromium, cyanide, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes continuing and expanding the current
operation of the ground-water extraction system
and pretreatment facility, which will include
pretreatment of the additional water collected by
the surface-water and ground-water collection
systems, and the Chrome and Zinc Shops, with
discharge to the De Pere wastewater system;
improving surface-water drainage, and
constructing berms to control surface-water run-
off and to prevent contaminant migration;
installing monitoring wells; fencing both shops;
and applying siding materials on the exterior of
the building at the Zinc Shop. The estimated
322
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
present worth cost for this RA is $500,000, Institutional Controls
which includes an annual O&M cost of $60,000.
Not applicable.
Performance Standards or Goals
All ARARs will be met during the final
action for the site.
323
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION, OH
August 19, 1991
The 658-acre Buckeye Reclamation site
contains a 50-acre former landfill in Richland
Township, Belmont County, Ohio. Land use in
the area is predominantly agricultural, rural
residential, and strip mining. A total of 46
domestic wells and springs are located within
one mile of the site. The site is situated in the
King's Run drainage ravine, and is bordered by
King's Run to the east and an unnamed run to
the west. King's Run flows to the south into
Little McMahon Creek. The original
topography of the valley has been altered by
coal mining and landfill operations. Prior to
1940, the site served as a disposal area for coal
mine refuse. The county licensed the area as a
public solid waste landfill in 1971, and the
facility accepted general trash, rubbish, and
nonhazardous waste. The landfill also accepted
industrial sludge and liquids, most of which
were received between 1976 and 1979, and
deposited in the waste pit located in the northern
section of the landfill. Solid industrial wastes
also were disposed of with municipal wastes
elsewhere in the landfill. In 1980, the Waste Pit
was filled with sludge, mine spoil, and
overburden soil; covered with soil and garbage;
and seeded. Results of the RI indicate various
levels of contamination in all media sampled,
except air. This ROD addresses the remediation
of contaminated leachate and ground water and
eliminates exposure to contaminated surface soil.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, TCE, and toluene; other organics
including PAHs; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, beryllium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
capping the entire landfill area, including the
waste pit and suspected sources of recharge for
the waste pit and water bearing zones, with a
solid waste landfill cap; installing a leachate seep
and ground-water collection system; treating
collected wastewater with constructed wetlands
and discharging the treated water on site to Little
McMahon Creek; conducting long-term ground
and surface water monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls including deed, land, and
ground-water use restrictions, as well as site
access restrictions including fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$48,663,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $99,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
EPA is invoking a waiver of RCRA closure
requirements due to the steepness of the landfill
slopes, which makes construction of a RCRA
Subtitle C cap technically impracticable.
Contaminants discharged from the wetlands
treatment system will not exceed NPDES
discharge limits. The limits may be modified to
more stringent levels if proven feasible.
Institutional Controls
Deed, land, and ground-water use
restrictions will be implemented at the site.
324
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CARTER INDUSTRIALS, Ml
September 18, 1991
The 3.5-acre Carter Industrials site is a
former scrap metal storage and salvage operation
in Detroit, Michigan. Surrounding land use is
mixed residential and light industrial in an urban
setting. On-site features include several
buildings, two shelters, an incinerator, a
1,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tank,
and seven piles consisting of approximately
46,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil
and debris. From 1966 until 1986, the site was
used as a scrap metal salvage and storage
facility, changing ownership several times during
the period. Items accepted for salvage included
electrical capacitors and transformers. During
salvage operations, dielectric fluid containing
PCBs was spilled from the capacitors and
transformers directly onto the on-site soil.
Adjacent commercial, residential, and municipal
properties have been contaminated by direct run-
off of spilled material, storm water run-off,
wind-blown dust, and tracking of spilled
material by vehicles. In 1986, the state
identified elevated levels of PCBs in on-site soil,
which was later confirmed by EPA
investigations. Consequently, in 1986, as part
of a removal action, EPA stabilized the site by
diverting surface water run-off to on-site
interception trenches and a treatment system;
excavating. and consolidating on-site
contaminated soil and debris along with off-site
residential debris into seven on-site piles;
decontaminating and disposing of debris off site;
decontaminating alleys and streets within a
4-square block area; and fencing the site. Also
in 1986, the state removed and disposed of all
PCB-contaminated soil with levels between 10 to
50 mg/kg from surrounding residential areas off
site. In 1989, the PRPs covered on-site piles of
contaminated material with geotextile and
vegetative cover to provide temporary
containment. This ROD addresses remediation
of remaining on-site and off-site source material.
A subsequent ROD will address the need for
remediation of contaminated sewer lines running
from the site. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and debris are organics
including PCBs; and metals including arsenic,
cadmium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating approximately 46,000 cubic yards of
on-site and off-site soil contaminated with
greater than 1 mg/kg PCBs; treating on-site and
off-site soil and debris with greater than 10
mg/kg PCBs on-site using low temperature
thermal desorption, and solidifying any material
that fails the TCLP; disposing of all on-site and
off-site material contaminated with PCBs 1
mg/kg to 10 mg/kg. including all treatment
residuals with less than 10 mg/kg PCBs in an
on-site containment cell with a clay and soil
cover; disposing of any material that cannot
meet the above on-site disposal criteria off site;
installing a leachate collection and pumpout
system in the containment cell; decontaminating
and demolishing three on-site buildings, and
containing the decontaminated debris in the cell;
removing a UST and its contents, with off-site
treatment or disposal of the contents, and on-site
decontamination and off-site disposal of the tank;
excavating and treating tank-contaminated soil;
monitoring leachate and air; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions,
and site access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$19,508,000. There are no O&M costs
associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
The clean-up goal of 1 mg/kg PCBs in soil
and debris is based on EPA guidance on RA for
Superfund sites with PCB contamination. All
soil and debris with greater than 10 mg/kg PCBs
will be treated on site. Soil and treatment
residuals with 1 to 10 mg/kg PCBs will be
contained on site. Soil clean-up levels for metal
contaminants are based on teachability testing (or
325
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
detection limits) and include arsenic 50 wg/kg, Institutional Controls
cadmium 80 wg/kg, and lead 100 wg/kg. An
ARAR waiver will be invoked for the Michigan Institutional controls including deed
Solid Waste Management Rule that specifies restrictions will be implemented at the site.
isolation distances for sanitary landfills.
326
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CHEM-CENTRAL, Ml
September 30, 1991
The 2-acre Chem-Central site is a bulk
chemical storage facility in Wyoming, Kent
County, Michigan. Land use in the area is a
mixture of residential and commercial. An
estimated 10,000 people live within one mile of
the site and receive their water supply via the
municipal distribution system. Two creeks,
Cole Drain and Plaster Creek, lie in proximity
to the site. Cole Drain, which has been included
as part of the site, empties into Plaster Creek
2,500 feet north of the site. In addition, two
hotels are located 800 feet from the site. Since
1957, Chem-Central has used the site to receive
and hold bulk chemicals by truck and railroad
tanker before redistribution to various industries.
Facilities at the site include a building with two
loading docks and a rail spur on the west side of
the plant. Approximately 10 above-ground
storage tanks are located along the plant's north
side and are surrounded by a concrete
containment wall and paved ground surface.
Between 1957 and 1962, hazardous substances
entered the ground as a result of faulty
construction of a T-arm pipe used to transfer
liquid products from bulk storage tanks to small
delivery trucks. Additional hazardous
substances may have entered the ground through
accidental spills. In 1977, a routine state
biological survey of Plaster Creek identified a
contaminated ditch containing oils with organic
compounds including PCBs and metals that was
discharging into Cole Drain. In 1977, the state
attempted to stop the oil flow by damming the
ditch. In 1978, EPA excavated sludge from the
ditch and removed the sludge using twelve
55-gallon drums for off-site disposal. Oils,
ground water, and various contaminants
continued to enter the ditch, and the state
unsuccessfully attempted to filter oil out of the
water. Between 1978 and 1986, the state and
EPA focused their efforts on finding and
eliminating the source of the ditch contamination
through extensive investigations of area soil,
ground water, and surface water. Results
indicated that ground water and soil surrounding
and north of the Chem-Central plant were
contaminated with volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds. In 1980, the state required
Chem-Central to clean up the contamination and
to institute a ground-water monitoring program.
Consequently, between 1984 and 1985, three
ground-water extraction wells, an interceptor
trench, and a treatment system using an air
stripper were installed. Contaminated water,
soil, and sludge were removed from the ditch
and placed in hazardous waste landfills, and the
ditch was backfilled with clean soil. This ROD
addresses a remedy for contaminated on-site
soil, contaminated off-site soil surrounding and
north of the plant, and the addresses a remedy
for contaminated on-site soil, contaminated off-
site soil surrounding and north of the plant, and
the ground-water contamination plume
emanating from the plant and spreading 1,800
feet northward. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including PCE, TCE, and toluene; and
other organics including PAHs and PCBs:
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing an in situ vapor extraction system for
on-site soil and two off-site soil areas north of
the property, using a network of horizontal
piping, collecting contaminated vapors in the soil
source area at the vacuum pump, and treating
these vapors using a vapor phase carbon
adsorption system before discharge to the
atmosphere; continuing the operation and
maintenance of the current ground-water
collection and treatment system; installing,
operating, and maintaining an expansion of the
current off-site ground-water collection system
either by extending the current interceptor trench
further east or north, or by constructing two
additional purge wells east of the current
interceptor trench; installing and operating a
purge well in the deep lens of contaminated
ground water beneath the main aquifer, and
327
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
connecting this well to the pump and treat
system; treating contaminated ground water
using an air stripper with off-site discharge to a
POTW; collecting oil in the purge wells, and
disposing of the oil at an off-site facility;
monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,099,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $170,000; or $2,131,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $172,900, depending on
which off-site ground-water collection option is
used.
Performance Standards or Goals
Contaminant goals for soil are based on 10*
cancer level or the HLSC. Clean-up levels in
soil must be reduced to less than 20 times the
ground-water standard for each chemical, or
TCLP must produce leachate with contaminant
levels below the ground-water clean-up levels.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
are based on health-based criteria including 10"6
risk level or HLSC and state levels including
TCE 3 Ğg/l (health-based), PCE 0.7 wg/1
(health-based), and toluene 100 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent installation of water wells in the site
area and to prohibit development that might
disturb on-site and some off-site soil.
328
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CONRAIL RAILYARD ELKHART, IN
June 28, 1991
The 2,500-acre Conrail Raiiyard Elkhart site
is composed of a 675-acre railroad facility and
adjacent areas of contamination to the northeast
and northwest in Elkhart County, Indiana.
Major surface water bodies in the vicinity are
the St. Joseph River, located one mile north of
the site, and the Baugo Bay located to the west
of the site, which have adjacent wetlands and
floodplain areas. From 1956 to the present, the
site has been used as a classification and
distribution point for rail freight cars. Car
repair, engine cleaning, and diesel refueling
activities were conducted on site. Reported on-
site spills and releases of oil, diesel fuel,
hydrochloric acid, caustic soda, and various
petroleum-related substances from 1976 to 1986
have occurred on site. EPA investigations
during the mid-1980s detected elevated levels of
TCE in ground water downgradient from the
railyard, and in the subsurface soil at various
points on site. After initially providing bottled
water, in-house carbon filters were provided to
76 residences. This ROD provides for the
containment of the contaminated ground-water
plume, as an interim action, and provides for a
safe and permanent drinking water supply. A
subsequent ROD will address contaminated soil
and ground water, and set final ground-water
remediation levels. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground'water are VOCs
including TCE and carbon tetrachloride.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and treatment of ground water using
prefiltration and air stripping, and discharging
the treated water on site to the St. Joseph River;
treating air emissions, if needed, using carbon
adsorption with off-site regeneration and disposal
of the spent carbon; conducting treatability
studies to determine treatment system design
parameters; providing an alternate water supply
by extending the municipal distribution system to
505 residences/businesses; monitoring ground
water; and implementing institutional controls,
including ground-water use restrictions, and site
access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$3,969,300, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $125,000 for 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Final soil and ground-water performance
standards will be addressed during remediation
ofOU2.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be utilized
to limit exposure to the area of contamination.
329
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
DAKHUE SANITARY LANDFILL, MN
June 28, 1991
The 80-acre Dakhue Sanitary Landfill site is
an inactive sanitary waste municipal landfill
located in Hampton Township, Dakota County,
Minnesota. Land use in the area is agricultural
and residential. The landfill overlies a sand and
gravel surficial aquifer that is not a drinking
water source and that extends downgradient of
the site. However, 15 residential wells are
located within one mile of the site, and a
municipal water supply well is located over three
miles south of the site, all of which extract
ground water from a deeper aquifer.
Investigations are ongoing to determine whether
the two aquifers are hydraulically connected.
From 1971 to 1988, Dakhue Sanitary Landfill,
Inc., owned and operated the landfill and
accepted mixed municipal and commercial
wastes, and small amounts of industrial waste.
State investigations conducted between 1983 and
1989 identified a variety of contaminants on site.
Investigations during the RI/FS identified VOCs,
organics, and inorganics in the surficial on-site
aquifer, and it has been determined that the
possible source of contamination is related to the
municipal, industrial, and commercial waste
disposed on site in the landfill. Ongoing
investigations are required to further define on-
site ground-water contamination. As a result,
the site will be remediated as two OUs. This
ROD addresses the source of the contamination
as OU1. A future ROD will address ground-
water contamination and possible remediation of
the downgradient plume, as OU2. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris are organics including phenols; and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
capping the site with a final cover system
consisting of a gas control layer, a barrier of
low-permeability material, and a drainage layer;
revegetating the area; treating air emissions from
gas vents; conducting air and ground-water
monitoring; and installing a fence around the site
perimeter. The capital cost for this RA is
$9,800,000, which includes an estimated annual
O&M cost of $54,000 for 2 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
330
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ENVIRO-CHEM (NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL), IN
Amendment
June 7, 1991
The Enviro-Chem site is a former waste
recovery/reclamation/brokerage facility in Boone
County, Indiana. Adjacent to the site is another
Superfund site, the Northside Sanitary Landfill
(NSL) which, prior to this ROD amendment,
was to be remediated in a combined remedy for
both sites. Land use in the area is agricultural
to the south and east, and residential to the north
and west, with approximately 50 residences
located within one mile of the sites. Run-off
from the sites is collected in a ditch which flows
off site and eventually empties into a reservoir
that provides approximately six percent of the
drinking water for the city of Indianapolis.
Enviro-Chem began operations in 1977 as a
recovery/reclamation/brokerage facility,
accepting solvents, oils and other waste from
industrial clients. Accumulation of contaminated
stormwater on site, poor management of the
drum inventory, and several spills led to state
and EPA investigations of the site. Between
1977 and 1981, the state permitted Enviro-Chem
to dispose of part of its waste at the adjacent
NSL. In 1981, a consent decree was issued
against Enviro-Chem giving them until
November 1982 to comply with environmental
laws and regulations. In May 1982, the state
ordered Enviro-Chem to close and
environmentally secure the site because it failed
to reduce hazardous waste inventories.
Subsequently, two emergency removal actions
were conducted to remove the major sources of
contamination. From 1983 to 1984,
approximately 30,000 drums, 220,000 gallons of
waste, and 5,650 cubic yards of soil and sludge
were removed off site and treated. In 1985,
20,000 gallons of contaminated water were
removed. A 1987 ROD provided a combined
remedy for both NSL and Enviro-Chem due to
their proximity and other similarities. The 1987
ROD addressed source control through soil
excavating, dewatering, and on-site disposal,
followed by capping; pumping and on-site
treatment of ground water; and implementing
deed and access restrictions. However, since the
signing of the ROD, EPA and the state have
been engaged in negotiating with the PRPs for
each site. These negotiations have resulted in
separate, complementary remedies and individual
consent decrees for each site, and modifications
to the original selected remedy. This ROD
amends the 1987 ROD and provides a
comprehensive site remedy for the Enviro-Chem
site addressing source control instead of ground-
water remediation. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil are VOCs including
PCE, TCE, toluene; and other organics
including phenols.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
treating contaminated soil on site using soil
vapor extraction with a granulated activated
carbon system to control the extracted vapor, if
necessary; and implementing a contingent
remedy for a subsurface ground-water collection
and treatment system, based on monitoring
results, if clean-up objectives are not reached in
five years. Other remedial actions documented
in the 1991 ROD amendment include capping
the site, implementing site access restrictions,
and monitoring of the subsurface and surface
water are not affected by this amendment. The
estimated present worth for this RA ranges
between $5,000,000 and $9,000,000. No O&M
costs were provided for this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up goals are based on ingestion of
subsurface water at the site boundary, and are
calculated from the acceptable subsurface water
concentrations assuming a dilution of leachate to
331
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
subsurface water of 1:1%, and using established Institutional Controls
partition coefficients. Chemical-specific soil
clean-up goals include phenol 9,800 wg/kg, TCE Not provided.
240 ug/kg, PCE 130 ag/kg, toluene
238,000 Ğg/kg, and total xylenes 195,000 Mg/kg.
332
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
FADROWSKI DRUM DISPOSAL, Wi
June 10, 1991
The 20-acre Fadrowski Drum Disposal site
is an inactive industrial landfill within the city of
Franklin, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.
Surrounding land use is mixed residential and
commercial. The western portion of the site lies
within the floodplain of the Root River, and
approximately nine acres of wetlands are located
on site. From 1970 until 1982 when the
property was sold, the site was an unregulated
and unlicensed landfill allowed only to receive
clean earth fill containing construction debris.
However, hazardous waste, including several
hundred drums of unknown material and
lubricant sludges, were illegally buried on site.
State investigations in 1981 identified evidence
of improper disposal of solid waste including
crushed drums, and boiler and foundry waste.
In 1982, the site was purchased by Menard, Inc.
with plans to use the property as a source of fill
material. In 1983, excavation began on site and
during this work various containers of waste and
sludge were uncovered, some drums were
inadvertently crushed, and liquids and sludge
were released into on-site soil. The state
directed the site owners to contain the exposed
waste until it could be sampled and
characterized, but instead the owners constructed
berms, then covered the waste material with
clay, without approval. The RI/FS was
conducted by a PRP, Acme Printing Ink, Co.
The RI located several buried drums and
identified locations likely to contain additional
buried drums. Miscellaneous low-level soil and
sediment contamination was also delineated.
Ground water in the thick, continuous layer of
clay below the site was found to contain low
levels of cyanide, mercury, chromium, and
barium. EPA sampling has shown that nearby
residential water supplies have not been
impacted by the contamination. This ROD
addresses soil contamination to prevent or
reduce the migration of contaminants into the
ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, and debris
are VOCs including toluene and xylenes; other
organics including PAHs and pesticides
including DDT; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating previously identified drums and 25
cubic yards of hazardous soil, and recycling, or
treating and disposing of the drummed waste off
site; constructing trenches to locate and excavate
additional containerized waste and the
surrounding characteristically hazardous soil;
treating any contaminated soil on site, followed
by off-site disposal of the residuals; constructing
a landfill cap and a leachate collection system,
and disposing of any leachate exceeding state
levels off site at a POTW or RCRA treatment
facility; allowing natural attenuation to remediate
ground water; monitoring ground water and
surface water for 30 years to ensure
effectiveness of the cap; and implementing
institutional controls to limit land and ground-
water use, and site access restrictions such as
fencing. If ground-water conditions worsen or
do not improve over a reasonable period of
time, EPA may evaluate the options for a
ground-water treatment program. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $2,230,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $32,100
for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Through removal of buried drums and the
containment of remaining low-level
contamination, it is anticipated that ground water
333
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
will meet clean-up standards through natural Institutional Controls
attenuation. Ground-water clean-up standards
are based on Wisconsin PALs, which are more Land and ground-water use restrictions will
stringent than federal standards. be implemented on site.
334
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
FOLKERTSMA REFUSE, Ml
June 28, 1991
The 8-acre Folkertsma Refuse site is an
inactive industrial landfill in Walker, Kent
County, Michigan. Surrounding land use is
primarily industrial with a few private residences
in the vicinity. The site is partially bordered by
woodlands, and migration of contaminants has
impacted a 100-year floodplain and scattered
wetland areas of Indian Mill Creek located to the
south. The site overlies surficial glacial and
bedrock aquifers, both of which are used for
local drinking water supplies. On-site features
include an uncapped landfill, a man-made creek
and a drainage ditch that join and discharge to
Indian Mill Creek, an office building, and three
warehouses. Prior to 1965, the site was used as
a muck farm. From 1965 until 1972, industrial
waste including foundry sand, chemical
products, construction debris, and other
industrial waste was disposed of in the on-site
landfill. The primary fill material in the landfill
is foundry sand. Since 1972, the site has been
operated as a pallet repair and manufacturing
facility. In 1984, EPA identified elevated
contaminant levels in the on-site drainage ditch
sediment, but not in on-site ground water.
Further investigations in 1985 and 1988
characterized on-site and off-site (Indian Mill
Creek) contamination, and determined the
potential for future ground-water contamination.
This ROD addresses engineering controls for
source material and management of migration of
contaminated ground water as a final remedy.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the landfilled material, sediment, and ground
water are VOCs; other organics including
SVOCs and PCBs; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and nickel.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and dewatering approximately 1,300
cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the
man-made creek, the drainage ditch, and Indian
Mill Creek, and consolidating these within the
landfill area; capping the landfill area with a
clay cap and revegetated soil cover installing
passive landfill gas vents, if necessary;
converting the man-made creek and the drainage
ditch to permeable subsurface drains to provide
for landfill surface drainage; monitoring ground
water and surface water;- and implementing
institutional controls such as deed and ground-
water use restrictions, as well as site access
restrictions such as fencing. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $1,500,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $58,000
for the first year. O&M costs for subsequent
years were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
The RA is designed to reduce the excess
lifetime cancer risk to the Ifr4 to 10"6 level and
the noncarcinogenic HI< 1. Chemical-specific
clean-up goals were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented at the site to prevent future
disturbances of the cap and landfill materials,
and future installation of drinking water wells.
335
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
FULTZ LANDFILL, OH
September 30, 1991
The 30-acre Fultz Landfill site is a privately
owned inactive sanitary landfill on the north
slope of a ridge that overlies abandoned coal
mines in Jackson Township, Guernsey County,
Ohio. Land use in the vicinity of the site is
primarily rural to the south, north, and east; and
residential and light industrial to the west. The
site lies within the drainage basin of Wills
Creek, which flows north adjacent to the site
and is used by the city of Cambridge as the
municipal water supply. The northern half of
the landfill lies in an unreclaimed strip mine
where surface mine spoil and natural soil form
a shallow aquifer. The southern half of the
landfill lies 25 to 80 feet above an abandoned
flooded underground mine in the same coal seam
as the strip mine. The flooded underground
mine forms an aquifer, which also is utilized for
drinking water. Six ponds, designated as
wetlands, are located on the north side of the
landfill in the area of unreclaimed strip mine
spoil. Surface-water runoff and leachate from
the landfill collect in several of these ponds.
From 1958 to 1968, the landfill was operated as
an open dump. In 1969, the site was licensed
by the county and began to accept household,
commercial, and industrial solid waste. During
the 1970s, the landfill operator was cited for
various violations including inadequate daily
cover of waste, receiving unauthorized waste,
leachate runoff, blowing debris, and open
dumping; and in 1985, on-site landfill operations
ceased. Disposal records show that an estimated
6,240 drums containing chlorinated and
non-chlorinated solvents and plating sludge were
disposed of in the landfill. Records also show
that drummed liquid and semi-liquid waste were
disposed of on site, and some of the solvents
were poured directly onto the ground and
burned. Investigations in 1988 by EPA
indicated that ground-water and leachate
contaminants emanating from the site have
contaminated the shallow aquifer and, to a lesser
extent, the deep mine aquifer. This ROD
addresses all contaminated media, and provides
a final remedy for the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, debris, ground water, and surface
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics including
PAHs and phenols; metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and other inorganics.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
constructing a containment berm and capping the
entire 30 acres of the landfill with a multi-layer
cap; installing structural supports for voids in
the underground mine to prevent cap damage by
subsidence; constructing an on-site treatment
plant and leachate collection system; pumping
and on-site treatment of contaminated ground
water and leachate using oxidation and
precipitation to remove metals, and filtration and
carbon adsorption to remove organics, or using
another treatment based on the outcome of a
bench-scale treatability study; discharging the
treated effluent on site to surface water;
regenerating spent carbon or disposing of the
carbon off site; disposing of sludge resulting
from the treatment plant processes off site;
constructing surface-water and sediment controls
to divert runoff away from the landfill;
mitigating affected wetlands; providing an
alternate water supply for contaminated
residential wells by connecting these homes to a
municipal water supply; monitoring soil,
sediment, ground water, and air; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions to limit ground-water and land
use, and site access restrictions including
fencing. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $19,480,700, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $218,000 for 30 years.
336
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals leachate and ground water must meet CWA and
state requirements. Chemical-specific
For ground-water remediation, site-related remediation goals were not provided.
contaminants that appear upgradient will be
reduced to their respective background Institutional Controls
concentrations. Other non-background
contaminants will be reduced to SDWA MCLs, Deed, land, and ground-water use
or to a cumulative carcinogenic risk no greater restrictions will be implemented at the site.
than Ifr6 or an HK1. Discharge of treated
337
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
G&H LANDFILL, Ml
December 21, 1990
The 70-acre G&H Landfill site is an inactive
landfill in Shelby Township, Macomb County,
Michigan. Surrounding land use is
predominantly residential with adjacent light
industrial facilities and a recreational area that
includes wetland and woodland habitats. The
site overlies two ground-water aquifers, the
uppermost of which is the source of drinking
water for some eastern area residences and
industries. A portion of the site is located
within the 100-year floodplain of the Clinton
River. The site is subdivided into three landfill
areas: a 44-acre Phase I landfill area, a 17-acre
Phase II area, and an 8-acre Phase III landfill
area. From 1955 to 1973, G&H landfill
accepted municipal refuse, and solid and liquid
industrial wastes including solvents, paints,
varnishes, and lacquers. In addition, from 1955
to 1967, waste oil and water mixtures were
disposed of at the landfill. Several unsuccessful
attempts were made by the landfill operators to
reclaim the oil, by pumping the oil into settling
ponds. After the oil was allowed to settle, the
volatile components evaporated, and the
resulting sludge was periodically removed and
buried in the landfill. In 1965 and 1966, the
state determined that improper liquid waste
disposal operations and waste oil
disposal/reclamation activities at the landfill
were contributing to on-site ground-water
contamination and oil seeps south of the site.
Based on these findings, all disposal operations
were ordered to cease. The landfill continued to
operate as a sanitary landfill until 1973, at which
time it was closed without a proper closure plan.
From 1982 to 1989, EPA initiated four removal
actions at the site to restrict public access to
contaminated ground water and oil seeps, and to
prevent the migration of PCB-contaminated oil.
In 1989, approximately 2,400 gallons of a PCB-
contaminated oil and water mixture were
removed and disposed of at an off-site thermal
destruction facility. The site has been divided
into two OUs for remediation. This ROD
addresses contaminated soil, sediment, and
landfill material (OU1); and the contaminated
ground-water plume, landfill leachate, and oil
seep (OU2). The ground-water contaminant
plume and the solvent/oil-contaminated soil and
landfill debris in the Phase I landfill area have
been identified as the principal threat. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, sediment, debris, and ground water are
VOCs including benzene, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; other organics including PCBs; metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and oils.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
constructing a landfill cover over the site to meet
current state landfill closure requirements;
constructing a subsurface barrier wall around the
perimeter of the landfill areas and oil seeps;
instituting leachate collection and treatment;
excavating soil and sediment outside the slurry
wall with PCB concentrations greater than or
equal to 1 mg/kg, followed by consolidating
these under the landfill cover if less than 500
mg/kg, or treating the soil and waste using off-
site incineration, vitrification, or some other
technology approved by EPA for the destruction
of PCBs if concentrations are greater than or
equal to 500 mg/kg; replacing affected wetlands;
pumping and treating the contaminated ground-
water plume outside the slurry wall, followed by
on-site discharge to the adjacent Clinton River
or to a treatment plant if pretreatment criteria
are met; connecting nearby residents to the local
municipal water supply; monitoring ground
water, surface water, and air; and implementing
deed and ground-water use restrictions, and site
access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$40,000,000, which includes an estimated annual
O&M cost of $750,000 for 30 years.
338
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals
Excavated soil and sediment will be treated
to 1 mg/kg to destroy PCBs if PCB
concentrations are greater than or equal to
500 mg/kg, or will be consolidated in the
landfill if PCB concentrations are less than
500 mg/kg. Ground-water clean-up standards
are based on state standards and SDWA MCLs.
Chemical-specific goals include vinyl chloride
0.02 ug/1 (state), benzene 1 ug/1 (state),
PCE 0.7 ug/1 (state), TCE 3 ug/1 (state), xylenes
20 Kg/1 (state), arsenic 0.02 ug/1 (state) (may
change; arsenic standard will be established
based on background), and lead 5 ug/1 (state).
An ESD is adjusting several ground-water
standards. Existing standards less than 1 Mg/1
will be adjusted to 1 ug/1 for carcinogens, which
is the approximate detection limit for chemicals
of concern. Standards less than 1 ug/1 for
inorganics will be adjusted to background levels
to be determined by EPA.
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to supplement engineering
controls as appropriate until cleanup standards
are met.
339
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
KENTWOOD LANDFILL, Ml
March 29, 1991
The 72-acre Kentwood Landfill site is an
inactive municipal landfill in Kentwood, Kent
County, Michigan. Land use in the area is
primarily residential and recreational.
Twenty-two residences surrounding the site use
ground water as their drinking water supply.
Landfilling operations at the site began in the
1950s, and continued intermittently until the
county capped and closed the landfill in 1976.
The site consists of two municipally-owned
landfill areas: a larger original landfill; and a
20-acre southern extension located
south-southeast of the original landfill. Both
landfills are constructed into the uppermost
aquifer beneath the site, and as a result, the
landfilled waste including garbage, rubbish,
construction, and demolition waste are in direct
contact with the upper aquifer ground water.
Site disposal records show no indication of
RCRA hazardous waste present at the site. In
1983, construction of a leachate collection
system to pump leachate to a POTW was
completed on the eastern side of the original
landfill, however, contamination from leachate
is still of concern. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the debris, ground water, and
leachate are VOCs including benzene, PCE, and
TCE; other organics; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
improving the landfill cap to include gas controls
and a leachate collection system; pumping and
pretreating ground water on site along with
collected leachate, as needed, before discharging
to a POTW; monitoring sediment, ground water,
surface water, and air; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions, and site access restrictions
such as fencing. If for any reason the leachate
or contaminated ground water cannot be treated
by the POTW, these liquids will be treated on
site, with subsequent on-site discharge to surface
water. The estimated present worth cost for this
RA is $5,700,000, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $210,000 for years 0 through 9,
and $200,000 for years 10 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for ground
water in the aquifer are based on SDWA MCLs
and state standards including benzene 1 wg/1
(state), PCE 0.7 wg/1 (state), TCE 3 wg/1 (state),
arsenic 0.02 wg/1 (state), chromium 30 Ğg/l
(state), and lead 5 wg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent cap erosion, exposure to site
contaminants, and to provide site security.
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented in areas with contaminated ground
water.
340
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
LEMBERGER LANDFILL, Wl
September 23, 1991
The 45-acre Lemberger Landfill (LL) site is
a former land disposal facility in Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin. The site is located within
one-quarter mile of another Superfund site, the
45-acre Lemberger Transport & Recycling
(LTR) site. Land use in the area is
predominantly agricultural, with four residences
within 1,000 feet of the sites. Ground water as
well as the Branch River, located less than one
mile west of both sites, are used as sources of
drinking water. From 1940 to 1969, Franklin
Township used 21 acres of the LL site as an
open dump. After 1970, the state licensed the
landfill to receive only municipal waste and
power plant fly ash and bottom ash. In 1976,
the LL site ceased operations except for disposal
of fly ash to bring the site to final grade. All
industrial waste was diverted to the nearby LTR
site. From 1970 to 1976, LTR received
industrial waste and a variety of liquids, sludge,
and slurries, which were deposited on site in
unlined trenches. As a result of reports of
contaminated material seeping onto local
properties, a number of state investigations were
conducted that identified VOCs levels above
state standards in residential wells. Affected
residences received deeper replacement wells
that have not shown contamination. Because of
the proximity of the sites and similarity in the
types of waste, the LL and LTR sites will be
remediated concurrently. This ROD provides a
final remedy for source contamination at the LL
site and ground-water contamination at both the
LL and LTR sites, as OU1. A future ROD will
address the landfill contents at the LTR site, as
OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and ground
water are VOCs including PCE, TCE, toluene,
and xylenes; other organics including PCBs and
pesticides; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
clearing and regrading the waste area to smooth
out the existing cap; constructing a multi-layer
cap with a vegetative cover to minimize cap
erosion; constructing a slurry wall around the
perimeter of the waste; installing at least one
small volume extraction well in the upper
aquifer to collect ground water within the slurry
wall; building an on-site treatment facility at the
LL site, and treating contaminated ground water
from both sites using electrochemical
precipitation to remove inorganic contaminants
and granular activated carbon to remove organic
contaminants, unless treatability studies deem
another technology to be more effective;
blending water extracted from the slurry wall
with ground water extracted for remediation,
and treating these at the treatment facility;
temporarily storing the residual sludge on site in
55-gallon drums, followed by disposing of
residual sludge as part of the future LTR source
control remedy or treating and disposing the
sludge off site at a RCRA landfill according to
federal and state regulations; recycling spent
carbon, if possible; discharging the treated
effluent on site to the Branch River; providing
an alternate water supply to residents whose
water supply is disrupted due to the operation of
the extraction system; investigating and
mitigating any affected wetlands; monitoring
ground water; and possibly implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions, and constructing a
security fence around the treatment facility to
limit site access. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $19,200,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $731,000 for years 0
and 1 and $596,000 for years 2 through 30.
341
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals 5 wg/l (state), lead 5 Ğg/l (state), and PCBs
0.5 Ğg/l (PMCL).
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on the most stringent of state Institutional Controls
standards, SDWA MCLS, and risk-based levels,
and include TCE 0.18 wg/1 (state), PCE 0.1 wg/1 Deed restrictions may be used to limit the
(state), toluene 68.6 Ğg/l (state), xylenes use of contaminated ground water.
124 wg/1 (state), arsenic 5 wg/1 (state), chromium
342
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
LEMBERGER TRANSPORT & RECYCLING, Wl
September 23, 1991
The 45-acre Lemberger Transport and
Recycling (LTR) site is a former land disposal
facility in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The
site is located within one-quarter mile of the
45-acre Lemberger Landfill (LL) site. Land use
in the area is predominantly agricultural, with
four residences within 1,000 feet of the site.
Ground water as well as the Branch River,
located less than one mile west of both sites, are
used as sources of drinking water. From 1970
to 1976, the LTR site received industrial waste
and a variety of liquids, sludge, and slurries,
which were deposited in unlined trenches. From
1940 to 1969, Franklin Township used 21 acres
of the LL site as an open dump. After 1970, the
state licensed the landfill to receive only
municipal waste and power plant fly ash and
bottom ash. All industrial waste was diverted to
the nearby LTR site. Reports of contaminated
material seeping onto local properties prompted
state investigations that revealed VOCs in
residential wells in excess of state standards.
Affected residences received deeper replacement
wells that have not shown contamination.
Because of the similarity of contamination and
proximity of the sites, the LTR and LL sites will
be addressed concurrently. This ROD provides
a final remedy for ground-water contamination
at both the LTR and LL sites, as the first OU1.
A future ROD will address the landfill contents
at the LTR site, as OU2. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including PCE, TCE, toluene,
and xylenes; other organics including PCBs and
pesticides; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
building an on-site treatment facility at the LL
site and treating contaminated ground water
from both sites using electrochemical
precipitation to remove inorganic contaminants
and granular activated carbon to remove organic
contaminants, unless treatability studies deem
another technology to be more effective;
blending water extracted from the slurry wall to
be constructed at the LL site with ground water
extracted for remediation, and treating it on site
at the treatment facility; temporarily storing
residual sludge on site, then treating and
disposing of the residual sludge as part of the
future LTR source control remedy or treating
and disposing the sludge off site at a RCRA
landfill according to federal and state
regulations; recycling spent carbon, if possible;
discharging the treated effluent into the Branch
River; providing an alternate water supply to
residents whose water supply is disrupted due to
the operation of the extraction system;
investigating and mitigating any affected
wetlands; monitoring ground water; and possibly
implementing institutional controls including
deed and ground-water use restrictions^ and
constructing a security fence around the
treatment facility to limit general accessibility to
the facility and the potential for public exposure.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$19,200,000, which includes the source control
remedy for the LL site and an annual O&M cost
of $731,000 for years 0 and 1 and $596,000 for
years 2 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on the most stringent of state
standards, SDWA MCLs, and risk-based levels,
and include PCE 0.1 wg/1 (state), TCE 0.18 Ğg/l
(state), toluene 68.6 Mg/1 (state), xylenes
124 wg/1 (state), arsenic 5 ug/1 (state), chromium
5 wg/1 (state), lead 5 Mg/1 (state), and PCBs
0.5 Ğg/l (PMCL).
343
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions may be used to limit the
use of contaminated ground water.
344
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MacGILLIS & GIBBS/BELL LUMBER & POLE, MINI
September 30, 1991
The MacGillis & Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
site consists of two active, adjacent wood
preserving facilities, referred to as the M&G and
Bell facilities, in New Brighton, Ramsey
County, Minnesota. Land use in the area is
residential and commercial. Several lakes,
streams, and wetlands are located within two
miles of the site. Most local residents receive
drinking water from 10 municipal wells, the
nearest of which is located one-quarter mile
southeast of the site. There are also a limited
number of residential wells existing in the area.
This ROD addresses the 24-acre M&G facility
on the eastern portion of the site. Site features
include a disposal area in the west-central
portion of the facility used to dispose of
PCP-contaminated wood chips, settled solids,
spent treatment solutions, and copper chromium
arsenic (CCA) contaminated drum shells; on-site
drums; and a storage area. From the late 1920s
to 1970, M&G used the site to treat wood poles
with various preservatives including creosote and
PCP. Process wastewater from these activities
may have been discharged to the disposal pond.
In 1970, M&G began using only CCA for
treatment and began recycling the process
solution within the treatment system.
Investigations conducted by EPA have detected
contamination of the on-site surface and
subsurface soil and ground water, which is
thought to be a result of leaking pipes, drippings
from treated poles, contamination from the
disposal area, and an on-site spill of 4,000 to
5,000 gallons of CCA in 1979. In 1988, M&G
conducted initial clean-up activities by
overpacking and storing on site approximately
200 deteriorated drums containing PCP-
contaminated soil and waste. In 1989, a thick
layer of PCP-contaminated oil, referred to as the
LNAPL plume, was identified floating on the
upper aquifer. Subsequently, a pump was
installed in an on-site well to recover the oil,
which is currently stored on site in the drum
storage facility. In 1988, EPA initiated pilot
tests for soil washing to remove PCP and PAHs
from contaminated on-site soil, and in 1989
initiated tests for a mobile biological ground-
water treatment system. EPA has divided the
site into two OUs for remediation. OU1 will
address remediation within the on-site disposal
area of the M&G facility. OU2 will address
ground-water remediation for the entire site, as
well as remediation of soil, process and storage
tanks, and waste containers outside of the
disposal area. This ROD provides an interim
remedy for OU2. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, debris, sludge, and
ground water are organics including dioxins,
PAHs, and PCP and metals including arsenic
and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
removing 100,000 gallons of PCP waste oil and
sludge from abandoned, above-ground and
underground PCP process/storage tanks;
decontaminating, dismantling, and disposing off
site of the waste process/storage tanks;
separating PCP waste and decontamination
liquids into oil and water phases using an
oil/water separator; plugging a discharge line
from one of the underground vaults to the
disposal off-site area; pumping ground water
from beneath the LNAPL plume to enhance
LNAPL recovery via a ground-water
depression/oil extraction process; containing and
on-site storage of PCP-contaminated oil and
sludge from tanks, residuals from ground-
water/waste water treatment facility, and LNAPL
oil from ground water; treating ground water,
and tank and tank decontamination wastewater
using an on-site bioremediation wastewater
treatment facility and, if necessary, a carbon
adsorption polishing unit; discharging effluent
water off site to a POTW; monitoring the
345
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
LNAPL plume; and implementing site access Performance Standards or Goals
restrictions. The selected remedy may be
modified to include a technology referred to as Chemical-specific clean-up goals were not
the contained recovery of oily waste process if provided for this interim remedy.
the process proves successful in a pilot test.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is , ... .. , ^ .
$3,542,543, which includes an annual O&M 'nst.tut.onal Controls
cost of $336,000. Not provided.
346
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MAIN STREET WELL FIELD, IN
March 29, 1991
The 48-acre Main Street Well Field
(MSWF) site is in Elkhart, Elkhart County,
Indiana. The well field provides the primary
water supply for the 44,000 city residents.
Adjacent to the site are several industrial
properties including Excel and Durakool to the
east, and Elkhart Products to the west, which
used TCE and other organic solvents as part of
their operations. The site is bounded by
Christiana Creek to the north and the St. Joseph
River to the south. MSWF is located in both a
wetlands and a floodplain, and overlies a sole
source aquifer. Since the early 1900s, an on-site
treatment and pumping station has been used for
the purification and distribution of water to the
surrounding community. The well field contains
17 production wells, two interceptors used as
production wells, two 2 million gallon storage
tanks, an air stripper facility, and recharge
ponds. Site contamination first occurred during
the 1950s when phenols from a nearby fuel tank
farm, east of the well field, were detected in on-
site wells. The contamination was mitigated by
excavating six recharge ponds and diverting the
water to those ponds from Christiana Creek.
During routine sampling in 1981, EPA identified
TCE contamination in on-site wells. Sampling
wells were installed on the Excel and Durakool
properties, and the results of this testing
indicated these industries were the likely sources
of contamination. Subsequently in 1981, the
city constructed two eastern interceptor wells,
which discharged to Christiana Creek, and
removed the nearby production wells from
service. As a result, TCE levels in finishing and
production wells dropped significantly. In 1984,
TCE levels on the west side of the field
increased, and EPA suspected a second plume
had impacted the well field. A 1985 ROD
provided for construction of an air stripping
facility to treat water from the seven production
wells and the two eastside interceptions.
Subsequent investigations further characterized
on-site contamination and led to the discovery of
a TCE-contaminated paint layer on the soil in
eastern area of the site. This ROD addresses
management of migration of the western
contaminant plume, as well as source control on
the east side of the well field. A third remedial
action may be necessary if further on-site
contamination is identified. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including PCE, TCE,
and xylenes; other organics including PAHs; and
metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating 22,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil
by in situ vacuum extraction; removing the 60
cubic yards of soil containing the paint layer,
followed by off-site incineration or suitable
treatment based on waste characterization and
off-site disposal in accordance with the LDRs
soil and debris treatability variance; constructing
new interceptor wells on the west side of the
field; continued pumping and treatment of
ground water using the existing air stripping
unit; ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $3,370,000, which includes
an estimated annual O&M cost of $130,000 for
20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Performance standards for soil and ground
water are based on a 105 excess lifetime cancer
risk. Chemical-specific goals for soil include
TCE 100 wg/kg. Interceptor wells will remain
operational as long as plumes entering the field
have cancer risk levels greater than 10*.
Chemical-specific goals for ground water include
PCE 0.6 Mg/1 and TCE 1 Mg/1.
347
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Institutional Controls standards are met and maintained for five years.
The city of Elkhart has requested that prevention
Deed restrictions will be implemented on the of residential exposure from the west side be
east side of the site until specified clean-up accomplished by whatever means necessary.
348
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MICHIGAN DISPOSAL SERVICE, Ml
September 30, 1991
The 68-acre Michigan Disposal Service
Landfill site is an inactive municipal landfill in
Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo County, Michigan.
Land use in the area is predominantly industrial,
commercial, and residential. The eastern border
of the site lies within a wetland and the 100-year
floodplain of nearby Davis Creek. From 1925
to 1961, the site was owned and operated by
private parties as a municipal landfill.
Forty-seven acres of the total site were used as
a landfill. In 1961, the city of Kalamazoo
purchased the property and began accepting
waste from residences, businesses, and local
industries. The majority of this waste was
incinerated on site, with on-site disposal of the
ash. From 1968 to 1981, the site was licensed
to accept only inert waste, and incineration
ceased due to new air pollution regulations. In
1981, the site was sold, and subsequently, was
operated as a licensed landfill. During the
mid-1980s, the state conducted investigations as
part of a landfill extension request. These on-
site studies documented that waste leaching from
the landfill had contaminated on-site soil,
sediment, and ground water. To continue
landfill operations, the owners were ordered to
install a collection system to intercept leachate
prior to entry into Davis Creek to prevent
contamination of the creek. This ROD
addresses on-site contaminated soil, sediment,
ground water, and surface water, as a final
remedy. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, debris, ground
water, and surface water are VOCs including
benzene; other organics including PCBs; and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing a clay cap and revegetating the landfill
contents; installing a leachate collection system
and a gas venting system for the landfill;
pumping and pretreating ground water on site,
as required, followed by off-site discharge of the
ground water/leachate to a POTW; monitoring
all media; and implementing institutional
controls, and site access restrictions including
fencing. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $8,269,500, which includes an annual
O&M of $253,800 for 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
SDWA and state standards. Chemical-specific
goals for ground water include benzene 1 Ğg/l
(state), arsenic 0.02 ng/1 (state), and lead 5 Mg/1
(state).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent exposure to site
contaminants.
349
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
MOTOR WHEEL, Ml
September 30, 1991
The 24-acre Motor Wheel site is an inactive
industrial waste disposal site in Lansing, Ingham
County, Michigan. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial. The site overlies a
glacial till and a glacial aquifer. From 1938 to
1978, the Motor Wheel Corporation used the
site for the disposal of solid and liquid industrial
wastes including paints, solvents, liquid acids
and caustics, and sludge. Waste was disposed of
in tanks, barrels, seepage ponds, and open fill
operations. An estimated 210,000 cubic yards
of waste fill is in place on site. As a result of
disposal practices, contaminants have leached
through the soil and into the underlying glacial
aquifer and perched zone. Between 1970 and
1982, at least three on-site clean-up actions were
initiated. In 1970, the state required the
removal and off-site disposal of solid waste,
paint sludge, and oils from seepage ponds and
backfilling of excavated pond areas. In 1978,
industrial waste and degraded soil were
excavated and stockpiled on site under a clay
cover. In 1982, the site owners removed three
10,000-gallon tanks, their contents, and
surrounding contaminated soil, along with
contaminated fill material containing an
unknown quantity of drums. This ROD
addresses the waste mass and ground-water
contamination in the perched zone and the
glacial aquifer. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, debris, and ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; organics including PAHs,
PCBs, and pesticides; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
backfilling the northern portion of the fill area
with 125,000 cubic yards of fill; capping the
disposal area with a 14.9-acre multi-media cap;
installing a slurry wall at the western and
southern boundary of the disposal area; installing
ground-water recovery wells or trenches
downgradient, and a collection transfer system to
deliver water to an on-site treatment facility;
pretreating ground water on site to remove iron
and manganese using aeration, clarification, and
filtration if needed, followed by on-site
treatment using air stripping and carbon
adsorption; using activated alumina to remove
fluoride from ground water, followed by off-site
discharge of the treated water to a POTW;
monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions, and site access restrictions
such as fencing. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $30,720,300, which includes
a capital cost of $11,083,300 and an annual
O&M cost of $1,277,400 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
state health-based standards or MDLs,
whichever is higher. Chemical-specific goals
include benzene 1 wg/1 (state), PCE 1 Ğg/l
(MDL), TCE 3 Ğg/l (state), toluene 800 Kg/1
(state), xylenes 300 ug/1 (state), and lead 5 wg/1
(state).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented on site.
350
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
NATIONAL PRESTO INDUSTRIES, Wl
September 30, 1991
The 325-acre National Presto Industries site
is a former munitions and metal-working facility
in Eau Claire, Chippewa County, Wisconsin,
adjacent to the town of Hallie. Surrounding
land use is light residential and commercial, and
the Chippewa River is located approximately
two miles north and west of the site. Lake
Hallie is located approximately one mile north of
the site. The site overlies a buried pre-glacial
valley that serves as a primary source of
drinking water. From 1942 until 1945, the site
was a government-owned, contractor-operated
producer of gunpowder, small arms, and radar
tubes. The site was owned by National Presto
Industries (NPI) since 1948. Initially, NPI
manufactured cookware and consumer products,
and generated waste streams consisting of
metals, oils, grease, and spent solvents during
operations. Also, beginning in 1951, artillery
shell fuses and aircraft parts were produced by
NPI under military contracts. Metal projectiles
production began in 1954 under separate
contracts. Early waste-handling practices
included the use of dry wells and seepage pits
with overflow from the pits discharged to a
former sand and gravel pit via gravity flow.
Waste was discharged directly to the sand and
gravel pit. During the 1960s, three additional
lagoons were constructed as percolation ponds
with the former sand and gravel pit serving as a
settling pond. A major waste stream generated
from the defense-related activities was a spent
forge compound, composed of mineral oil,
graphite, VOCs, and asphalt, which accounts for
much of the sludge in the bottom of one of the
settling ponds. From 1966 to 1969, the spent
forge compound also was landfilled on site.
Subsequently, the spent forge compound was
recycled as part of the manufacturing process.
Based on their investigations, EPA required NPI
to provide bottled water to an area in Hallie
where private wells were contaminated or
threatened by contamination from confirmed on-
site sources. A 1990 ROD provided a
permanent alternate water supply in the form of
hookups of affected residents and businesses to
municipal distribution systems. Further
investigations by EPA helped determine the
presence of four major contaminant^ migrating
from the NPI site. This ROD addresses
management of migration as an interim remedy.
A subsequent ROD will address final remedies
for both on-site source control and ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
PCE, TCA, and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes on-site pumping and treatment of
ground water using two cascade aeration units;
discharging the treated water to on-site storm
sewers for transport to surface water; conducting
further studies to determine the need for
pretreatment of ground water; installing a
dedicated pipe system for surface water
discharge if the storm sewer system cannot be
utilized; and conducting long-term ground-water
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $1,290,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $163,000 for years 0 and
1 and $104,000 for years 2 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Treated water must meet the requirements of
CWA ambient water quality criteria and state
standards for discharge to surface water.
Chemical-specific goals are not provided, but
will be developed as pan of subsequent
investigations.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
351
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
NORTHSIDE SANITARY LANDFILL (ENVIRO-CHEM), IN
Amendment
July 31, 1991
The Northside Sanitary Landfill site is a
hazardous and solid waste disposal facility in
Boone County, Indiana. Adjacent to the
Northside Sanitary Landfill (NSL) site is another
Superfund site, Enviro-Chem which, prior to
this ROD amendment, was to be remediated in
a combined remedy for both sites. Land use in
the area is agricultural to the south and east, and
residential to the north and west, with
approximately 50 residences located within one
mile of the sites. Run-off from the sites is
collected in a ditch, which flows off site and
eventually empties into a reservoir that supplies
approximately six percent of the drinking water
for the city of Indianapolis. NSL began
operating as a landfill between 1955 and 1962.
By 1981, NSL was operating as a hazardous
waste disposal facility and had accepted at least
16 million gallons of hazardous substances
including paint sludge, acids, spent acids, and
waste oil. Throughout its operation history,
NSL was allegedly accepting an abundance of
unapproved waste from off-site facilities
including Enviro-Chem, an adjacent waste
recovery, reclamation and brokering facility.
Additionally, EPA and the state cited NSL for
numerous operational deficiencies. In 1983,
NSL's hazardous waste and solid waste
operators permits were denied because of
leachate collection problems, acceptance of
unapproved waste, and deficiencies in its
closure, post-closure and ground-water
assessment plans. The state then ordered NSL
to perform several remedial measures including
installing a functioning leachate collection
system around the entire perimeter of the
landfill, installing a slurry wall or another
measure to prevent ground-water migration,
monitoring ground water, and to discontinue
acceptance of solid waste except for that amount
needed to adequately contour the site. A 1987
ROD provided a combined remedy for both the
NSL and Enviro-Chem sites due to their
proximity and other similarities. The 1987 ROD
addressed source control capping; pumping and
on-site treatment of ground water; and
implementing deed and access restrictions.
Since the signing of the ROD, EPA and the state
have been engaged in negotiations with the PRPs
for each site. These negotiations have resulted
in separate, complimentary remedies and
individual consent decrees for each site, and
modifications to the original selected remedy.
This ROD amendment provides a comprehensive
remedy and addresses both source control and
ground-water remediation. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, and toluene; other organics
including phenols; metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and oils.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
constructing a pipeline to pump ground water
and leachate off site to the city sewer system at
the city wastewater treatment plant and
constructing a hydraulic isolation wall system
south and west of NSL to prevent
uncontaminated ground water from entering the
ground-water leachate collection trench. If for
any reason the city treatment plant cannot be
used, this ROD amendment provides a
contingency for on-site treatment of ground
water followed by on-site discharge to surface
water as specified in the 1987 ROD; treatment at
another wastewater treatment plant; or another
alternative consistent with the CWA. Other RA
documented in the 1987 ROD including
constructing a RCRA cap and gas venting
system; collecting leachate and ground water in
a trench system; monitoring ground water,
surface water, and leachate; and implementing
352
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
site access restrictions are not affected by this
amendment. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA ranges from $25,000,000 to
$30,000,000. No O&M costs were provided for
this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water and leachate
clean-up goals are based on federal ambient
water quality criteria (WQC) and state water
quality standards (WQS), and include arsenic
0.0175 wg/1 (WQS), benzene 40 wg/1
(WQS), chromium 11 wg/1 (WQS), lead 10 wg/1
(WQS), PCE 8.85 wg/1 (WQS), phenols 570 wg/1
(WQC), TCE 80.7 wg/1 (WQS), and toluene
3,400 wg/1 (WQC).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
353
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
NOVACO INDUSTRIES, Ml
Amendment
September 5, 1991
The 2.6-acre Novaco Industries site is a one
building site in Temperance, Michigan. Land
use in the area is predominantly residential and
agricultural. The estimated 85 residences
located within a half-mile of the site use the
underlying sand/gravel and limestone aquifer as
their drinking water supply. In 1979, a chromic
acid leak occurred from a 1,870 gallon
underground storage tank at Novaco, which led
to chromium contamination of an on-site well.
Subsequent sampling from 1979 to 1982 detected
chromium in wells of properties adjacent to the
site, and as a result new wells were installed in
the uncontaminated lower aquifer. Later in
1979, Novaco Industries began pumping and
treatment of 122,000 gallons of contaminated
ground water, removing 400 pounds of
hexavalent chromium. In 1983, the state
sampled several residential wells, and chromium
was not detected above background levels.
However, sampling of ground-water monitoring
wells in 1984 and 1985 revealed chromium
contamination levels in excess of the MCL. A
1986 ROD addressed a final remedy for ground-
water contamination and provided for ground-
water pumping and treatment using
electrochemical reduction/ion exchange
polishing, followed by on-site discharge to
surface water. This ROD amends the 1986
ROD. Pre-design studies during 1988 have
determined that contaminant levels have
continued to decrease over time, and there is no
longer any indication of a chromium
contaminant plume. Therefore, based on these
data, there are no contaminants of concern
affecting the site.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site is no further
action. Although no significant contamination is
present at the site, EPA recommends that nested
wells be installed and ground-water monitoring
be implemented to evaluate the attenuation
process. However, if contaminant levels for
hexavalent chromium exceed 50 ug/1 for two
consecutive periods of monitoring, the remedy
from the 1986 ROD will be implemented.
There are no costs associated with this no action
remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
354
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
OAK GROVE SANITARY LANDFILL, MN
December 21, 1990
The 45-acre Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill is
a former municipal and industrial solid waste
landfill in Oak Grove Township, Anoka County,
Minnesota. Land consists of low regions of
uplands and sand dunes interspersed among
numerous lakes and wetlands. The nearby
developed land use in the area is agricultural and
residential. The site overlies two aquifers,
which are separated by a semi-confining layer.
The deeper aquifer provides regional potable
water and supplies many area residential wells.
Landfill operations began in 1967 and continued
until 1984, when the operating license was
suspended. An estimated 2.5 million cubic
yards of waste is present hi the landfill including
acidic oil sludge, paint and solvent waste,
foundry sands and sludge, inorganic acids, metal
sludge, and chlorinated and unchlorinated
organic compounds from pesticide
manufacturing. In addition, lime sludge was
used as a cover material on two thirds of the
landfill. A 1988 ROD addressed the sources of
contamination by containing the on-site waste
and contaminated soil with a cover. EPA
investigations in 1989 determined that the
contaminated shallow aquifer discharges directly
to the surface water of the adjoining wetlands
where ground-water contamination is being
reduced by natural attenuation, and thus,
limiting migration of contaminants to the surface
water. This ROD addresses remediation of
contaminated shallow ground water, prevention
of significant impacts on surface water from the
discharge of contaminated shallow ground water,
and provides for continued use of the deep
aquifer as a drinking water supply. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, toluene, and
xylenes; and metals including arsenic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes long
term monitoring of the shallow and deep
aquifers, surface water, and sediment at a
frequency of three times per year for the first
year and semi-annually thereafter; natural
attenuation of shallow ground water; abandoning
non-essential wells; and implementing
institutional controls including ground-water use
restrictions. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $800,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $90,000 for the first year
and $70,000 for subsequent years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Sediment, ground-water, and surface-water
monitoring will assure that contaminant levels do
not exceed SDWA MCLs, CWA ambient water
quality controls, and state surface-water quality
standards.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented for
the placement of drinking water wells.
355
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ORGANIC CHEMICALS, Ml
September 30, 1991
The 5-acre Organic Chemicals site is an
inactive solvent reclamation and chemicals
manufacturing facility in Grandville, Kent
County, Michigan. The site includes several on-
site buildings, structures, above-ground storage
tanks, and drum storage areas, a boiler facility,
a wastewater treatment facility, and a seepage
lagoon. Wetlands potentially are located 1,900
feet northwest of the site, and the Grand River
is located 0.95 miles to the north of the site. A
succession of petroleum-related industries leased
the land for petroleum refining from 1941 to
1945, followed by transport and storage
operations from 1945 to 1966. Organic
Chemicals Inc., (OCI) began site operations in
1968. Company records show that between
1968 and 1980, process waste and cooling water
including RCRA hazardous waste was
discharged to the on-site seepage lagoon. In
1979, 2,200 gallons of lacquer thinner were
spilled onto the ground on site and subsequently,
some of the spilled thinner was recovered and
disposed of on site in the seepage lagoon. In
1980, discharges to the lagoon ceased, and the
company installed a wastewater pretreatment
system, which discharged waste to the sanitary
sewer system. Subsequently, in 1981, the
seepage lagoon sludge was excavated and
disposed of off site. In 1983, EPA documented
on-site soil and potential ground-water
contamination resulting from the
solvent-contaminated seepage lagoon.
Additionally, in 1986, the state determined that
OCI was illegally disposing of sludge and other
hazardous residuals from the on-site solvent
recovery operations by placing these into drums
or rolloff containers along with routine
non-hazardous waste materials. Analysis of the
drum and container contents and soil samples
from the vicinity of these storage units revealed
the presence of VOCs and other organics.
During 1987, OCI, as part of a voluntary
investigation, discovered and removed 150
buried drums containing sludge and liquid
residues off site, and identified further on-site
soil contamination. Federal and state
investigations have determined that site
contamination has resulted from past operation
of the seepage lagoon by OCI, chemical spills at
the site and past oil-related activities. EPA has
divided the remediation into two response
actions. This ROD addresses contamination in
the upper ground-water system, as an interim
remedy. A future ROD will constitute the final
response at the site by addressing the remaining
on-site ground water and soil contamination.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including benzene,
toluene, and xylenes; and other organics
including PAHs and pesticides.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes on-site
pumping and treatment of ground water using a
treatment system consisting of an
equalization/sedimentation basin, two granular
activated carbon vessels, and an air stripper
polishing unit; discharging the treated water on
site to the Grand River; disposing of treatment
carbon residuals in an off-site landfill;
conducting a treatability study and pump test to
determine the proper treatment train and
pumping rates; and ground-water monitoring.
The estimated present worth cost for this interim
RA is $5,931,000, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $317,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
This RA is only part of a total RA and will
attain ground-water cleanup ARARs during
future response actions.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
356
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
OSSINEKE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, Ml
June 28, 1991
The Ossineke Ground Water Contamination
site is an area overlying a contaminated aquifer
in Ossineke, Alpena County, Michigan. Land
use in the area is predominantly residential and
commercial, with wetlands areas bordering the
west and northeast boundaries of the site. The
site hydrogeology is characterized by an upper
aquifer and lower confined aquifer, both of
which supply drinking water to local residents.
Historically, there have been two contaminant
source areas of concern within Ossineke. Area
1 is in the center of the town of Ossineke where
two gas stations are located, consisting of USTs,
and a former automobile rustproofing shop. In
1973, the rustproofing shop closed, the garage
floor was reportedly washed with chlorinated
solvents, and the residue was disposed of on the
ground behind the shop. Area 2 is a laundry
and dry cleaning facility that has an associated
wash water pond containing chlorinated
hydrocarbons and VOCs. In 1977, citizen
complaints about odors from drinking water
obtained from the upper aquifer prompted a
number of state investigations, which revealed
extensive on-site ground-water contamination in
the upper aquifer. Consequently, the state
advised all users of the upper aquifer to stop
using their wells. In 1982, the state discovered
that a snow plow had hit a gasoline pump
causing an unknown amount of gasoline to spill
and, subsequently, contaminate the basements of
several businesses. In 1986,the state replaced
residential wells affected by ground-water
contamination. Because the contaminants of
concern have been confirmed to be related to
petroleum releases from USTs, the Superfund
program does not have the authority to address
cleanup under CERCLA.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site is that no
further action be taken under CERCLA Section
101, and that the site be transferred to the EPA
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST).
In 1990, a formal transfer of the project from
OSWER to OUST occurred. There are no costs
associated with this no action remedy.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
357
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
PAGEL'S PIT, IL
June 28, 1991
The 100-acre Pagel's Pit site is an active
sanitary landfill facility in a predominantly rural
area of Winnebago County, Illinois.
Surrounding land use is mixed agricultural, rural
residential, commercial, and industrial. The site
is bounded on the west by Killbuck Creek.
Another Superfund site, Acme Solvent
Reclaiming, Inc., is located east and upgradient
of Pagel's Pit. The Acme Solvent site has been
shown to have contaminated the ground water in
the downgradient direction. The landfill at the
Pagel's Pit site is a former sand and gravel
quarry with a sealed asphalt liner that covers
about 47 acres. The landfill, which began
operating in 1972, accepted primarily municipal
waste, sewage sludge, and limited amounts of
Illinois special waste. Beginning in 1980, a
network of gas extraction wells was installed to
remove landfill gas that is generated by the
waste. Gas collected from the wells is used as
a fuel source for a sludge drying operation.
Some of these wells also are used for leachate
collection along with the manholes installed in
the landfill. In 1990, it was estimated that the
landfill contained about 4,700,000 cubic yards of
waste and had five to seven years of operating
capacity remaining. It has been determined that
the landfill has caused contamination of the
ground water. This ROD addresses the landfill
waste and contaminated ground water at the
downgradient side of the site as OU1. A future
ROD will address ground-water contamination in
the southeast corner of the site that is
undergoing further study. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the
groundwater are VOCs including
1,2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride; and
metals including arsenic, barium, manganese,
thallium and zinc.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
constructing a sanitary landfill cover for the
waste disposal area; pumping ground water
along the west side of the site; removing
inorganics by treating with ion exchange or
coagulation/flocculation, if necessary, prior to
on-site treatment using carbon adsorption or air
stripping, followed by carbon polishing of the
treated water, with on-site discharge to surface
water; removing spent carbon off site for
regeneration or disposal; extracting and treating
leachate off site at a POTW; extracting landfill
gas and using the gas for fuel, or flaring the gas;
monitoring ground water, leachate, and air;
maintaining all RA components; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $9,800,000 or $11,000,000,
which includes O&M costs of $310,000 or
$248,000 for 30 years, depending on the process
selected.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water goals are based on currently
promulgated MCLs or non-zero MCLGs, except
for arsenic and 1,1,-dichloroethene, or a risk
level of 10"5 or an HI=1 for contaminants
without MCLs. Chemical-specific goals were
not provided.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions may be implemented to
limit the development of property, and the
placement of new wells on the property and
adjacent to the site.
358
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
PINE BEND SANITARY LANDFILL, MN
September 30, 1991
The Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill (PBSL) site
is located one mile east of the Mississippi River
in Inver Grove Heights, Dakota County,
Minnesota. Land use in the area is residential
and industrial. The terrain is generally flat and
contains an immature drainage system resulting
in numerous on-site ponds and wetlands. The
site is composed of two landfills: the 255-acre
active PBSL and the inactive 52-acre Crosby
American Demolition Landfill (CADL). PBSL
began operation in 1971 as a mixed municipal
solid waste facility. CADL accepted compressed
bales of municipal solid waste from 1971 to
1974, and later, from 1976 to 1989 also
accepted demolition waste. Hydrogeologic data
from the site show that the two landfills are
considered one site because their ground-water
plumes commingle within a common surficial
aquifer. The resulting plume moves through the
surficial aquifer and is believed to eventually
discharge to the Mississippi River via springs in
the river bottom. In 1983, elevated levels of
VOCs were detected in the surficial ground
water beneath the site, and low levels of VOCs
were identified in numerous downgradient
commercial and residential wells. This
contamination is believed to be the result of
precipitation infiltrating through the permeable
landfill material and coming in contact with
buried waste. Since 1986, at the request of the
state, CADL has provided bottled water to
residences with contaminated wells to minimize
the risk of VOC-contamination migrating from
the PBSL/CADL site. This ROD addresses
ground-water contamination as the first of three
OUs. Future RODs will address source control
and final remediation of ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
site are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE,
and toluene.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
providing a permanent alternative water supply
by extending the existing Inver Grove Heights
municipal water supply; connecting impacted or
potentially impacted premises to the municipal
water supply; and permanently sealing the
potentially affected on-site private water supply
wells. The estimated present worth cost for this
RA is $2,649,499, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $30,350 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
359
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
RASMUSSEN'S DUMP, Ml
March 28, 1991
The 33-acre Rasmussen's Dump site is a
former industrial and domestic waste disposal
area in Green Oak Township, Livingston
County, Michigan. Surrounding land is
predominantly wooded with some residential and
agricultural development. Area residents rely
solely on the aquifer underlying the site for their
drinking water supply. The site is adjacent to
the Spiegelberg Landfill, another Superfund site.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, domestic,
industrial, and drummed hazardous waste was
disposed of on approximately one-third of the
site. Many incidences of on-site burning of
waste were reported during operational years of
the facility. Landfill operations ended in 1977
without complying with state laws on proper
capping or closure. Sand and gravel mining,
which began following site closure, caused
unearthed waste fill and drummed waste to be
redistributed around the site. In 1981, the state
detected low levels of ground-water
contamination on site. This contamination
includes: two on-site contaminated ground-water
plumes and four areas of soil contamination
referred to as the top of the municipal landfill
(TML), the northeast buried drum area (NEBD),
the industrial waste area (IW), and the probable
drum storage, leakage, disposal area (PDSLD).
In 1984, EPA removed approximately 3,000
drums and 250 cubic yards of contaminated on-
site soil. In 1990, the PRPs removed an
additional 650 on-site drums, waste, and
associated visibly contaminated soil from the
TML, NEBD, and IW areas, thereby reducing
the risk posed by the areas. Testing in the
PDSLD area indicated that soil contamination
resulting from drum leakage continues to
migrate into the soil directly above the ground-
water table or into the ground water itself, and
poses a continuing ground-water threat. This
ROD provides a final remedy for on-site
contaminated soil and ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics including ketones, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, and phenols; and metals including
cadmium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
capping the waste in the TML and NEBD areas,
and removing and disposing of waste drums
unearthed during cap construction off site at a
RCRA facility; ground-water pumping and
treatment using chemical precipitation followed
by pH adjustment to remove metal contaminants,
a biological treatment system to remove organic
ground-water contaminants, and air stripping and
granular activated carbon to remove residual
organic contaminants as necessary; discharging
the treated ground water on site through a
seepage basin in the IW and PDSLD areas to
flush area soil monitoring ground water;
continuing residential well sampling in
conjunction with sampling for the adjacent
Spiegelberg Superfund site; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions,
and site access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated capital cost for this RA is $7,320,000,
with an annual O&M cost of $4,580,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil contaminant levels in the PDSLD/IW
areas will be reduced to less than 20 times the
ground-water clean-up level for each chemical;
or leach tests performed on the PDSLD/IW soil
must produce leachate with concentrations below
the ground-water clean-up levels. Ground-water
clean-up goals are based on a 10"6 cancer risk
level. HLSC detection limits, taste and odor
threshold, state standards, and risk- and
health-based criteria. Chemical-specific goals
for ground water include benzene 1.2 wg/1
360
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
(risk), TCE 3 Ğg/l (10"6 risk level), toluene 800 and cadmium levels are equal to or less than
wg/1 (T&O), xylenes 300 Ğg/l (T&O), cadmium their corresponding filtered background levels.
4 wg/1, and lead 5 wg/1 (HLSC). Cleanup for
cadmium and lead will not be required if filtered Institutional Controls
lead and cadmium samples are 5 Ğg/l and 4 wg/1,
respectively, or if on-site filtered lead and Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
cadmium levels are greater than 5 ug/1 and site to prevent future intrusive land uses.
4 wg/1 respectively and these on-site filtered lead
361
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SOUTH MACOMB DISPOSAL #9, 9A, Ml
August 13, 1991
The 159-acre South Macomb Disposal #9,
9A site contains two inactive municipal landfills
in Macomb Township, Macomb County,
Michigan. Land use in the area is
predominantly agricultural and rural, with
several adjacent residences. A small stream, the
McBride Drain, runs along the western and
southern boundaries of the site, and there is a
possible wetlands area located at the site. Until
1989, the estimated 34 residents in the
immediate vicinity of the site used shallow and
intermediate aquifers associated with
contamination from landfills as their drinking
water supply. From 1968 to 1975, South
Macomb Disposal Authority (SMDA), a
municipal corporation, used the site to facilitate
the management and disposal of municipal refuse
for five towns in Macomb County. SMDA
acquired the 75-acre area #9 in 1968, accepted
680,000 cubic yards of municipal waste, and
capped the area with soil in 1971.
Subsequently, SMDA acquired the adjacent
84-acre area 9A in 1970, filled it with 1,200,000
cubic yards of municipal waste, and capped the
area with a mixture of sand, clay and silt in
1975. As a result of reported fish kills and
continued reports of leachate seepage into
McBride Drain, a number of state investigations
between 1976 and 1982 verified that the site was
the source of the leachate problem and prompted
SMDA to upgrade and expand leachate
collection systems along various portions of area
9A. From 1983 to 1984, the state investigations
detected VOC-contaminated ground water in
several residential wells near the site.
Consequently, from 1985 to 1988, SMDA
constructed an additional leachate collection
system on area #9, and a slurry wall across the
northern portion of area #9. In 1989, Macomb
Township connected residences near the site to
the municipal water supply. This ROD
addresses on-site contaminated ground water as
OU1. A future ROD will address the landfill
contents as OU2. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene and toluene; other organics
including phenols; and metals including arsenic
and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing extraction wells in the intermediate
aquifer, both within and outside the site
boundary and subsurface drains in the shallow
aquifer along the periphery of the waste deposits
in both sites #9 and 9A; collecting ground water
and leachate in a series of collection sumps,
followed by pumping to the on-site ground-water
treatment system; treating the contaminated
ground water on site using air stripping,
followed by granular activated carbon,
oxidation/precipitation, and granular media
filtration, with on-site discharge of the treated
water to McBride Drain; disposing of any
treatment residuals off site; extending the
existing slurry wall along the east side of area
#9; providing a municipal water supply to any
residences within a one-half mile radius of the
site that are not currently attached; conducting
long-term monitoring of ground water, surface
water, sediment of McBride Drain, leachate, air,
and residential wells; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water restrictions, and site access restrictions
including fencing. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $9,264,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $224,000.
362
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals Institutional Controls
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up Deed and ground-water restrictions will be
goals are based on the more stringent of state implemented on site to prevent future
standards or SDWA MCLs, and include benzene development of the landfill and to limit site
2Ğg/l (state), toluene 100 ugll (state), phenols access.
1,100 wg/1 (state), arsenic 1 Mg/1 (state), and
chromium 100 Ğg/l (MCL).
363
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SOUTHEAST ROCKFORD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION, IL
June 14, 1991
The 2 to 3 square mile Southeast Rockford
Groundwater Contamination site is a residential
area with contaminated private wells in
Winnebago County, Rockford, Illinois. The site
is in a predominantly urban residential area that
includes retail and commercial operations.
Surrounding land use is industrial. During
sampling from 1981 to 1984, the city of
Rockford identified elevated VOC levels in
ground water. Subsequently, in 1985, four
municipal wells including municipal well #35
and several private wells were closed. In 1984,
after plating waste was illegally disposed of in a
well, EPA conducted investigations that
identified contamination by VOCs and inorganics
in municipal and private wells. From 1986 to
1989, further EPA investigations defined a
1.2-mile contaminated area. In 1989, EPA
initiated an emergency action including
temporarily providing bottled water and
attaching carbon filters at affected residences and
ultimately connecting wells to the city water
supply if VOC-contamination exceeded 25
percent of the removal action level. This ROD
addresses the elimination of risk to residents of
the southeast Rockford area due to contaminated
ground water. A subsequent ROD will address
remediation of the contaminated ground-water
plume. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
PCE and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes providing an alternate water supply by
constructing and extending water mains, and
installing connections and service to the city
distribution system for affected residents;
reactivating municipal well #35 after
constructing a granular activated carbon water
treatment facility at the well; and abandoning
contaminated private wells. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $5,820,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of
$436,800 for years 1 through 5 and $58,800 for
years 6 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up standards are based
on state and federal standards. No
chemical-specific clean-up standards were
provided in the ROD.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
364
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
STOUGHTON CITY LANDFILL, Wl
September 30, 1991
The 27-acre Stoughton City Landfill site is
a former waste disposal facility in Stoughton,
Dane County, Wisconsin. The site was an
uncontrolled dump site from 1952 to 1969, and
later from 1969 to 1977 operated as a
state-licensed landfill covering approximately
15 acres. Land use in the area is predominantly
agricultural and residential, with several
wetlands areas located adjacent to the site. In
addition, part of the site lies within the 100-year
floodplain of the Yahara River, located west of
the site. From 1954 until 1962, liquid waste
was commonly poured over garbage and burned.
In addition, some liquid waste was poured down
holes drilled to test auger drilling equipment.
From 1969 to 1977, both solid and liquid
municipal wastes were disposed of at the
Stoughton Landfill. In 1977, the state required
that the site be closed and initiated closure
activities that included constructing a trash
transfer station, placing cover materials,
applying topsoil, and seeding. As a result of
improper disposal activities, a number of
investigations were conducted by the state and
EPA that revealed ground-water contamination
resulting from leachate discharge and surface
water run-off from the landfill. This ROD
addresses soil and ground water contaminated by
leaching landfilled waste. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, THF, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics including PAHs; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
placing a solid waste disposal facility cap over
the site; excavating waste in contact with ground
water along the southeastern and northeastern
sections of the site and consolidating this waste
under the cap; pumping and treatment of
contaminated ground water unless additional
monitoring indicates that ground-water extraction
is not required to achieve compliance with state
quality standards, and subsequent on-site
discharge of the treated ground water to the
Yahara River in compliance with NPDES
effluent limitations; long-term monitoring of
ground water; and implementing institutional
controls and site security measures including
fencing the entire site perimeter. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $7,546,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of
$329,600 for years 0 through 5 and $146,600
for years 6 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on state preventive action limits
(PALs), and include THF 10 Ğg/l.
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented to
prevent the installation of a well within 1,200
feet of the property boundary and residential
development of the site.
365
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
STURGIS MUNICIPAL WELLS, Ml
September 30, 1991
The 5 square mile Sturgis Municipal Wells
site is an active municipal well field in Sturgis,
St. Joseph County, Michigan. Land use in the
area is predominantly mixed industrial and
residential, with several wetlands areas located
near the site. The estimated 10,000 residents of
Sturgis use the intermediate and deep aquifers as
their drinking water supply. The site includes
the former Wade Electric facility, which closed
in 1966 and burned down in 1974, and the
Kirsch Company, which operated as a
manufacturing facility until 1980. These two
properties have been identified as two source
areas responsible for the ground-water
contamination in the aquifer used for the
municipal water supply. State investigations
starting in 1982 identified contaminated soil and
VOC-contaminated ground-water on site and
extensive ground-water contamination in various
wells throughout the city. This ROD addresses
final remediation of soil and ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, and TCE; and other organics
including PAHs.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating VOC-contaminated soil using vapor
extraction, followed by activated carbon
adsorption to capture off-gases; regenerating
carbon off site; excavating and disposing of off
site 10,890 cubic yards of low level PAH-
contaminated soil (10,000 cubic yards from the
Kirsch property and 890 cubic yards from the
Wade property); on-site pumping and treatment
of ground water using air stripping, followed by
vapor phase granular activated carbon to treat
off-gases; discharging the treated water on site
either to surface water via a storm sewer or
made available for use by the municipal water
system; ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls, and site
access restrictions including fencing. A
contingency plan would be developed to allow
for the rapid installation of a mobile water
supply treatment system, should it be required at
any of the existing municipal supply wells. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$13,810,000 for discharge of treated ground
water to a storm sewer, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $644,600 for years 0
through 3 and $598,000 for years 4 through 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals for
VOCs are based on state standards, and include
PCE 14 Mg/kg and TCE 60 Ğg/kg. Soil
containing PAHs will be excavated to 330
mg/kg, based on state standards.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
are based on state standards, and include
benzene 1 wg/1, PCE 1 wg/1, and TCE 3 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water use restrictions will be
implemented to prevent further installation of
wells in the city of Sturgis pending restoration of
the well field and associated aquifers.
366
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SUMMIT NATIONAL LIQUID DISPOSAL SERVICE, OH
Amendment
November 2, 1990
The 11.5-acre Summit National Liquid
Disposal Service site is a former liquid waste
disposal facility in rural Deerfield Township,
Ohio. The site contains two ponds, an inactive
incinerator, and several vacant buildings.
Surrounding the site are several residences, two
landfills, light industries, and farmland. Fifteen
to twenty residential wells are located within
1,000 feet of the site. From 1973 to 1978,
Summit National operated a solvent recycling
and waste disposal facility on site. Oil, resins,
sludge, pesticide and plating waste, and other
liquid waste was stored, incinerated, and buried
or dumped on site during facility operations. In
1978, the state ordered Summit National to stop
accepting waste material and to remove all liquid
waste from the site. In 1980, EPA removed
three bulk tanks, which contained approximately
7,500 gallons of hexachlorocyclopentadiene
along with contaminated soil, and treated some
contaminated water. In 1981, the state and eight
of the potentially responsible parties removed
additional drums, tanks, surface debris, and a
small amount of contaminated soil from the site.
Subsequently, EPA took interim measures to
control the migration of contaminants off site
and excavated an UST. During the RI/FS,
conducted from 1984 to 1987, EPA documented
on-site contamination of soil, sediment, ground
water, and surface water by a variety of organic
and inorganic compounds. Contaminated
property outside the site perimeters also was
found. This ROD amends a 1988 ROD that
provided for remediation of contaminated soil,
sediment, debris, ground water, and surface
water. Based on further site investigations, EPA
modified their original goal of containing
contaminated media to one of long-term clean up
at the site. In both the 1990 proposed remedy
for this ROD amendment and the 1988 ROD,
the remedy for the most highly contaminated soil
and sediment is excavation and treatment;
however, the ground-water extraction method in
the 1990 proposed remedy was significantly
different from the 1988 ROD and employed a
different technology that will result in long-term
soil cleaning, thus eliminating the need for
containment of contaminants with a slurry wall
and multi-layer cap as provided in the 1988
ROD. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, debris, ground
water, and surface water are VOCs including
benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics including PAHs, PCBs, and phenols;
and metals including arsenic and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
expanding site boundaries to include
contaminated areas along the site perimeters;
excavating and incinerating on site 24,000 cubic
yards of soil excavated to a depth of 2 feet,
4,000 cubic yards of sediment from the site
perimeter, drainage ditches and off-site ponds,
and 900 to 1,600 buried drums, followed by
backfilling the residual ash on site, or disposing
of the ash off site in a RCRA facility if the
waste does not meet EPA performance
standards; regrading the site; installing a
permeable soil cover over 10.6 acres of the site
with gas vents for treating and monitoring
potential air emissions; dismantling and/or
demolishing all on-site structures, and disposing
of debris on site; collecting ground water from
the upper aquifer via pipes and drains, and
constructing additional extraction wells in the
lower aquifer to augment the pipe and drain
system, followed by treating ground-water on
site; collecting and treating on-site surface water
from the two on-site ponds and drainage ditches
using precipitation, flocculation, coagulation, oil
and water separation, filtration, and carbon
adsorption using a pipe and drain collection
367
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
system; excavating sediment after dewatering the
ponds and ditches; relocating one vacant
residence; rerouting the south and east drainage
ditches to an uncontaminated area.
Performance Standards or Goals
Performance standards and goals were
detailed in the 1988 ROD. Soil cleanup will
attain a 2 x 105 cancer risk level. Discharge
levels for treated ground water and surface water
will meet federal and/or state water quality
standards. Individual clean-up goals for soil and
ground-water contaminants were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
control future site usage.
368
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
THERMO CHEM, Ml
September 30, 1991
The 9.5-acre Thermo Chem site is composed
of an inactive solvent and chemical waste
reprocessing, refining, and incineration facility,
and an inactive waste hauling facility in Egelston
Township, Muskegon County, Michigan. The
area surrounding the site consists of residential
areas, light manufacturing and commercial
buildings, and undeveloped woodlands. The site
is adjacent to two other Superfund sites: the
SCA Independent Landfill site, and the Bofors
Nobel site, which are located approximately
1,800 feet south and 1.25 miles east of the site,
respectively. Site features include a warehouse,
an incinerator, above-ground storage tanks, a
laboratory, and process buildings and associated
lagoons. A trout stream, Black Creek, is
located approximately 1,500 feet south of the
site and forms a broad and flat wetland. From
1969 to 1980, Thermo Chem received, distilled,
and regenerated solvents, paint waste, and
antifreeze into usable solvents. Unrecoverable
materials and by-products including sludge and
residues were incinerated on site. The Thomas
Solvent Company, which lies adjacent to, and is
owned by Thermo Chem, has been included as
part of the site because it is suspected to be a
source of ground-water contamination. The
Thomas Solvent Company was operated as a
hazardous waste hauling facility for Thermo
Chem and collected waste for recycling and
returned the material to customers. Wastewater
generated from the distillation and
equipment-cleaning process at Thermo-Chem
was discharged on site into a series of three
interconnected lagoons. In addition,
approximately 3,500 drums containing raw and
recycled materials were stored in an on-site UST
farm area during the years of operation. Former
on-site personnel indicated that sludge was
occasionally buried on site, and that on-site
chemical spills frequently occurred. In response
to investigation activities during 1988 and 1991,
EPA conducted an emergency removal of drums
and materials containing hazardous waste.
Federal investigations in 1990 indicated that
contaminant releases were one source of ground-
water contamination. This ROD addresses the
source of contamination by remediation of soil,
sludge, debris, and ground water up to the point
where ground water discharges into Black Creek
as OU1. A future ROD will address OU2, the
contamination problems within Black Creek and
ground-water contamination south of Black
Creek. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sludge, debris, and ground
water are VOCs including benzene, toluene, and
xylenes; other organics including PAHs, PCBs,
and pesticides; metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and other inorganics.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating, removing, and incinerating off site
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil and
sludge; treating and disposing off site any ash or
residuals produced from off-site incineration;
installing an in situ vapor extraction system and
treating on site approximately 9.5 acres of
remaining contaminated soil; conducting a
treatability study to determine the feasibility of
enhancing the natural biodegradation of organic
compounds in the soil undergoing in situ vapor
extraction system treatment; treating gases
emitted from the extraction wells using a
fume-rich incinerator; treating liquid from the
vapor extraction process on site; covering the
site with clean soil and vegetation, if necessary;
decontaminating, demolishing, and disposing off
site all on-site buildings and structures; on-site
pumping and treatment of ground water using
filtration, air stripping, metal precipitation, and
pH adjustment, followed by treating off-gases
using carbon adsorption and on-site discharge of
the treated ground water to Black Creek;
treating and disposing all residue, sludge, spent
369
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
carbon, or spent coagulants and flocculent at an
off-site landfill; conducting additional
treatability and leachability tests to determine the
need for further excavation and/or treatment;
and implementing institutional controls including
land use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $24,300,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $1,091,000 for
30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil clean-up standards are based on state
standards and a carcinogenic risk level of 10"*.
Ground-water clean-up standards are based on
state standards. Chemical-specific goals for soil
include benzene 10 mg/kg, toluene 2 mg/kg,
xylenes 1 mg/kg, PAHs 0.2 mg/kg to
0.6 mg/kg, PCBs 1 mg/kg, pesticides 0.0000006
to 0.00005 mg/kg, arsenic 0.0004 mg/kg,
chromium 0.04 mg/kg, lead 9 mg/kg, and
inorganics other than metals 0.08 mg/kg.
Chemical-specific goals for ground water include
benzene 1 wg/1, toluene 100 Ğg/l, xylenes
59 wg/1, PAHs 10 Mg/1 to 29 wg/1, arsenic
0.02 Mg/1, and inorganics other than metals
4 Mg/1.
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented on
site.
370
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
VERONA WELL FIELD, Ml
June 28, 1991
The Verona Well Field site consists of a
well field, three contaminant sources, and the
ground water between the source areas and the
well field in Battle Creek, Calhoun County,
Michigan. Surrounding land use is mixed
residential and industrial. Part of the site lies
within the 100-year floodplain of the Battle
Creek River, which runs southwesterly through
the site. The site overlies a surficial glacial
aquifer and a deeper bedrock aquifer, both of
which are local sources of drinking water. The
estimated 53,000 people who reside within the
city of Battle Creek and several surrounding
communities and industries use the Verona Well
Field, screened within the bedrock aquifer, as
their primary drinking water source. From 1964
until 1984, the Thomas Solvent Company
stored, blended, repackaged, distributed, and
disposed of industrial solvents at both their
Thomas Solvent Raymond Road (TSRR) facility
and their Thomas Solvent Annex facility. Three
source areas of contamination have been
identified on site, including the TSRR and
Annex facilities, and a paint shop in the Grand
Trunk Western Railroad (GTWRR) marshalling
switching yard. Contamination of the on-site soil
has resulted from surface spills, leaking drums,
and leaking underground storage tanks. During
the 1960s and 1970s, the paint shop in a car
department at the GTWRR used solvents for
degreasing and cleaning purposes. Spent
solvents were either disposed of directly on the
ground or in a drum pit outside the car
department building. In 1981, ground-water
contamination was discovered at the site, which
resulted in a number of investigations conducted
by the state and EPA. In 1984, an IRM
provided for the conversion of 12 production
wells into purge wells, and the installation of
three new production wells and an air stripper.
A 1985 ROD addressed remediation of soil and
ground water at the TSRR facility, and provided
for treatment of contaminated soil using vapor
extraction with off-gas treatment, and pumping
and treatment of contaminated ground water.
This ROD addresses the second and final OU for
soil and ground-water contamination at the site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics including phenols; and metals including
arsenic and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating soil at the Thomas Solvent Annex and
the GTWRR paint shop area using in situ soil
vapor extraction; continuing the operation of the
existing purge wells and air stripper; installing
additional purge wells, and treating extracted
ground water from the well field and source
areas on site using air stripping and vapor phase
carbon adsorption, with on-site discharge to
surface water; and monitoring ground water,
soil, surface water discharge, and air. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$15,300,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $840,000 for a maximum of 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up goals for soil and ground water are
based on state standards. Chemical-specific
goals for soil include benzene 20 Mg/kg,
PCE 10 Mg/kg, TCE 60 Ğg/kg,
toluene 16,000 Mg/kg, xylenes 6,000 Mg/kg,
arsenic 0.4 Ğg/kg, and chromium 2,000 Ğg/kg.
Chemical-specific goals for ground water include
benzene 1 Ğg/l, PCE 0.7 Mg/1, TCE 3 Ğg/l,
toluene 800 Mg/1, xylenes 300 Mg/1, arsenic 0.02
wg/1, and chromium 100 Mg/1.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
371
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL, MN
November 15, 1990
The 40-acre Washington County Landfill
site is an inactive sanitary landfill in Lake Elmo,
Washington County, Minnesota. Land use in
the area is predominantly residential and
agricultural. Lake Jane is located 250 feet north
of the landfill. The site overlies the St. Peter
Sandstone and Prairie du Chien Dolomite
aquifers, both of which are sources of drinking
water for an estimated 3,000 residents living
within three miles of the site. From 1969 to
1975, Washington and Ramsey counties used the
site as a sanitary landfill. The landfill is located
in an old gravel pit, and was constructed without
a liner. An area of approximately 35 acres was
filled with solid waste to an average depth of
approximately 30 feet. About 2.57 million cubic
yards of solid waste, excluding cover material,
were disposed of in the landfill. The waste was
primarily composed of residential waste with
smaller amounts of demolition and commercial
waste. Monitoring by Washington County in
1981 revealed low-level VOC contamination,
which poses a health risk based on long-term
ingestion of ground water. In 1983, four nearby
private wells also were found to contain low
levels of VOCs, and drinking water well
advisories were issued. A 1984 ROD provided
for the installation and operation of a ground-
water gradient control and spray-irrigation
treatment system at the landfill. It also provided
a safe drinking water supply to residents with
drinking water well advisories and initiated
monitoring of the ground-water gradient control
system. This ROD addresses a final remedy for
drinking water supply as part of a second OU.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, and xylenes.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
providing a municipal drinking water supply
system to supply drinking water to 10 homes
with private wells that have been affected by the
contaminant plume; and continuing operation of
the gradient control well and spray-irrigation
treatment system for the first OU, which consists
of four gradient control wells, two on-site
spray-irrigation treatment areas, and on-site
discharge to surface water. The estimated
present worth cost of this RA is $400,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $2,469.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on recommended allowable
limits established by the state and include
benzene 7 Ğg/l, PCE 6.6 wg/1, TCE 31 Ğg/l, and
xylenes 400 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
372
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ZANESVILLE WELL FIELD, OH
September 30, 1991
The 100-acre Zanesville Well Field site is an
active manufacturing and municipal well site in
Zanesville, Ohio. The site is composed of the
28-acre United Technologies Automotive (UTA)
facility and the 72-acre city of Zanesville Well
Field. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential and industrial. The Muskingum
River borders the manufacturing area on the
west and the well field on the east. From 1929
to the present, the UTA property was used for
various types of manufacturing activities.
During the early 1970s, a 10-foot wide, 75-foot
deep on-site well was filled in by using
demolition material and approximately 121 steel
drums, some of which contained TCE.
Additionally, TCE-based solvents were stored hi
a bulk storage tank adjacent to the well, and
other waste solvents were stored in drums
located near storm sewer basins. After EPA
investigations in 1981 revealed VOC
contamination in on-site ground water, the use
of three wells at the Zanesville Well Field was
discontinued. In 1983, approximately 145 tons
of waste were removed from the filled in well
by UTA when the well was properly abandoned
and sealed. Two of the three on-site wells are
currently part of a ground-water interceptor
system, in which extracted contaminated water
is discharged directly to the Muskingum River.
This ROD addresses contaminated soil on and
around the UTA facility, contaminated ground
water under and around the Zanesville Well
Field and the UTA facility, and the sources of
the ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including TCE and
dichloroethylene; metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead; and other inorganics.
and source areas contaminated by VOCs using in
situ vapor extraction, followed by activated
carbon to control off-gases; regenerating the
spent carbon from the air stripping process;
treating on site 1,800 cubic yards of
inorganic-contaminated soil using soil washing;
replacing the treated soil on site; disposing of
the concentrated waste and treatment residuals
off site, with further treatment, if needed;
pumping and on-site treatment of contaminated
ground water using air stripping; and
implementing site access restrictions to the UTA
property, and to the interceptor wells, discharge
pipes, and treatment facilities located in the
Zanesville Well Field. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $2,972,450, which
includes a present worth O&M cost of
$1,952,300.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on risk-based levels for a cumulative
excess lifetime cancer risk less than 10"6 and an
HI< 1, and include TCE 6.3 wg/kg and lead 12
mg/kg. Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and
include TCE 5 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
control future use of the UTA facility until soil
clean-up levels have been met and to control the
use and placement of wells in the affected area
until ground-water clean-up levels have been
met.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating approximately 36,000 cubic yards of soil
373
-------
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 6
Site
Cimarron Mining
Petro-Chemical (Turtle Bayou)
REGION 6
State
NM
TX
Page
376
377
375
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CIMARRON MINING, NM
September 6, 1991
The Cimarron Mining site consists of two
inactive ore-processing mills in Carrizozo,
Lincoln County, New Mexico. OU2, which is
the focus of this ROD, addresses contamination
at the 7.5-acre Sierra Blanca mill location. Land
use in the area is predominantly residential, with
an estimated 900 people residing within a half
mile north/northwest of the site. On-site
features at the Sierra Blanca location include two
buildings, four discharge pits, one cinder block
trench, a septic tank system, and numerous
process tanks and material piles. Prior to 1970,
Scott-Tex, Inc., used the site to recover a
variety of metals from ores transported to the
site. In the early 1970s, the mill was
temporarily shut down, and ownership was
transferred to the town of Carrizozo. The site
was then leased and used to recover platinum
and silver from ore material. In 1982, after a
possible spill occurred at the Cimarron mill,
milling operations were relocated to the Sierra
Blanca mill. During operations, the facility
discharged contaminated liquids on site and
produced approximately 570 cubic yards of
contaminated material piles and other waste
sludge. In 1990, EPA investigations revealed
43 cubic yards of tank sediment, 182 cubic
yards of material pile soil and rock, and 345
cubic yards of discharge pit sediment and soil
contaminated with high concentrations of metals,
particularly lead at the Sierra Blanca location.
A 1990 ROD addressed contamination of the
original Cimarron mill, as OU1. This ROD
addresses the final remedial action of the soil
and waste piles at the Sierra Blanca mill
location, as OU2. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and
sludge are metals including arsenic and lead.
of contaminated material piles and tank
sediment, including cinder block trench sediment
that failed the TCLP test, using cement
solidification and stabilization; excavating and
disposing of 345 cubic yards of contaminated
surficial soil and sludge that did not fail the
TCLP test in an on-site discharge pit along with
the solidified/stabilized waste; capping the
discharge pit with an impermeable cover;
removing all process drums, and
decontaminating tanks and associated piping on
site; filling in the discharge pits and the cinder
block trench with on-site soil and covering with
clean fill; installing additional ground-water
monitoring wells; monitoring ground water; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions, and site access restrictions
including fencing and zoning ordinances. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$79,000, which includes a total present worth
O&M cost of $10,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical- and action-specific soil clean-up
goals for lead are based on the Interim Guidance
on Establishing Soil Lead Clean-up Levels at
Superfund Sites, and remediation levels will not
exceed lead 500 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
regulate use of property, to notify potential
buyers of past activities, and to restrict
permissible uses.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for the site includes
excavating and treating on site 225 cubic yards
376
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
PETRO-CHEMICAL (TURTLE BAYOU), TX
September 6, 1991
The 500-acre Petro-Chemical (Turtle Bayou)
site is in Liberty County, Texas. Current land
use in the area is divided among cropland,
pasture, range, forest, and small rural
communities. The site overlies two aquifers and
is located partially within the Turtle Bayou
floodplain. Since 1929, the site has been used
for cattle grazing, timber collection, and rice
farming. Since 1971, numerous undocumented
disposal activities occurred on site involving
primarily petrochemical waste. Waste oils were
dumped in unlined pits and also spread onto
Frontier Park Road, an access road through the
site. These disposal activities have resulted in
contamination of on-site soil and ground water.
Waste samples collected during state and EPA
investigations indicated elevated concentrations
of metals, VOCs, and organics. A 1987 ROD
addressed OU1, and provided for excavation of
highly contaminated soil from Frontier Park
Road; placement of the highly contaminated soil
in a temporary RCRA vault; filling excavated
areas with clean soil; and resurfacing the entire
length of the road. This ROD for OU2 focuses
on three areas of contamination at the site
affecting soil and ground-water contamination,
known as the main waste area, the east disposal
area, and the Bayou disposal area. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene and
xylenes; other organics including PAHs; and
metals including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating 302,800 cubic yards of contaminated
soil on site using in situ vapor extraction to
remove VOCs, including injecting air below
affected soil to enhance removal of VOCs below
the shallow water bearing zone; controlling
vertical air infiltration using an engineered soil
and synthetic liner cap; consolidating
lead-contaminated soil in the main waste area,
followed by capping; using a slurry wall to
control horizontal migration of ground water;
treating extracted vapors from soil and ground
water using catalytic thermal destruction;
treating ground water using in situ vapor
extraction/air stripping, including injecting air at
the base of the shallow water-bearing zone to
remove VOCs from ground water; monitoring
ground water; and installing structures to control
surface-water runon and runoff. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $26,430,000,
which includes a total present worth O&M cost
of $11,466,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up goals for soil are based on a
leaching model used to determine the remedial
levels in soil required to protect the ground
water. Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals
include benzene 0.35 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg for
soil at depths of greater than 10 feet and less
than 10 feet, respectively (leachate model), and
lead 500 mg/kg (interim guidance).
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
include benzene 5 Ğg/l (MCL), lead 15 Mg/1
(EPA policy action level), and xylenes 10,000
wg/1 (health-based).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
377
-------
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 7
A51-002-7
REGION 7
Site
E.I. Dupont De Nemours (County RD X23)
Ellisville Area
Ellisville Area (Amendment)
Hastings Groundwater Contamination (OU1)
Hastings Groundwater Contamination (OUs 10 & 2)
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfill)
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lee Chemical
Lehigh Portland Cement
Mid-America Tanning
Peoples Natural Gas
Shaw Avenue Dump
State
IA
MO
MO
NE
NE
IA
MO
MO
IA
IA
IA
IA
Page
380
381
382
383
385
386
387
388
389
391
392
393
379
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS (COUNTY RD X23), IA
May 28, 1991
The E.I. DuPont De Nemours (County RD
X23) site is a paint waste disposal site 3.5 miles
south of West Point in Lee County, Iowa. The
site is divided into two subsites, McCarl and
Baier, which are three-fourths of a mile apart.
Land in the area is agricultural, residential, and
woodlands. The nearest residence is located 500
feet from the McCarl subsite. The site overlies
two water-bearing units, separated by 75 feet of
very low permeable clay. The Baier subsite was
used as the primary disposal site, and the
McCarl subsite, purchased in 1986, was used
when weather did not allow access to the Baier
site. From 1949 to 1953, an estimated 48,000
to 72,000 55-gallon waste drums were disposed
of at the two sites. Paint waste was generally
placed in trenches and burned, resulting in an
estimated 4,500 to 7,000 tons of ash remaining
on site. Paint cans, ash-like material, and
sludge casting were also visible on the surface of
the site. In 1983, an EPA investigation of the
Baier Farm detected levels of metals and
organics in excess of soil background levels. In
addition, ground-water monitoring wells,
installed during 1985 and 1986, detected metal
concentrations above MCLs. A 1989
investigation identified the source of
contamination as paint disposed of on site.
Removal from the Baier site was scheduled for
July 1989 by a UAO from EPA to DuPont, but
deferred by a February 1990 amendment. This
ROD addresses the soil, debris, and ground
water, as a final remedy. The ground water was
determined to be of little threat and is not
further addressed by this ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris at both subsites are VOCs including TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; and metals including
arsenic, chromium and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for the site includes
stabilizing/solidifying the contaminated soil at
both subsites, and covering the stabilized mass
with clean soil and vegetation; removing and
disposing off site all surface debris not amenable
to solidification at an authorized RCRA landfill;
monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$1,400,000. There are no O&M costs
associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on health-based criteria, and include lead
350 Ğg/kg, selenium 10 wg/kg, and cadmium 20
Ğg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including
restrictions will be implemented on site.
deed
380
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ELLISVILLE AREA, MO
September 30, 1991
The Ellisville Area site is a former waste oil
disposal site in Ellisville, St. Louis County,
Missouri. The site consists of the 11.6-acre
Bliss property and four contiguous properties
where hazardous substances have been
identified. Land use in the area is mixed
residential, rural, and recreational. Surface run-
off at the site drains to Caulks Creek, a tributary
of Bonhomme Creek, which enters the Missouri
River about one mile upstream of a city of St.
Louis waterworks intake. The site does not lie
in a floodplain, but flooding of Caulks Creek
occurs during periods of heavy rain. During the
1960's and 1970's, Bliss Waste Oil Company
used the site to transport and dispose of waste
oil products (some of which were contaminated
with dioxin), industrial waste, and chemical
waste. Liquid waste were poured into pits,
applied to the ground surface, and stored in
drums and buried. Dioxin-contaminated waste
oil was applied directly to surface soil for dust
control, and spillage from trucks also occurred.
Investigations conducted from 1982 through
1983 concluded that site contamination was not
affecting the ground water; however, some on-
site surface migration of contaminated soil and
sediment had occurred. In 1985, the State
constructed a diversion dike to redirect
stormwater runoff, which flowed through a fill
area containing buried drums; and fenced the
site. A 1986 ROD selected a final remedy for
non-dioxin wastes at the site and an interim
remedy for dioxin waste at the site including
excavation and interim on-site storage of
dioxin-contaminated materials. The interim
remedy has not been implemented. A 1988
ROD established the availability of a thermal
treatment unit at the Tunes Beach site to treat
dioxin-contaminated sites in eastern Missouri
including the Ellisville Area. This ROD
provides a final remedy for dioxin-contaminated
soil, which involves excavation and direct
transport of dioxin wastes off site for treatment.
The 1986 remedy for non-dioxin waste is not
affected. The primary contaminant of concern
affecting the soil is dioxin, an organic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and direct transportation of
approximately 7,000 cubic yards of
dioxin-contaminated soil for treatment at an off-
site temporary thermal treatment unit constructed
at the Times Beach site; disposing of treatment
residuals at the Times Beach site as
nonhazardous solid waste if delisting criteria are
met, or retreating at Times Beach or managing
residuals off site as a hazardous waste if
delisting criteria are not met. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $17,530,000.
There are no O&M costs associated with this
RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Performance standards for the thermal
treatment of soil include six-nines (99.9999
percent) destruction and removal efficiency and
delisting of the thermal treatment residue.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
381
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ELLISVILLE AREA, MO
Amendment
September 30, 1991
The Ellisville Area site is a former waste oil
disposal site in Ellisville, St. Louis County,
Missouri. The site consists of the 11.6-acre
Bliss property and four contiguous properties
where hazardous substances have been
identified. Land use in the area is mixed
residential, rural, and recreational. Surface
runoff at the site drains to Caulks Creek, a
tributary of Bonhomme Creek, which enters the
Missouri River about one mile upstream of a
city of St. Louis waterworks intake. The site
does not lie in a floodplain, but flooding of
Caulks Creek occurs during periods of heavy
rain. During the 1960's and 1970's, Bliss Waste
Oil Company used the site to transport and
dispose of waste oil products (some of which
were contaminated with dioxin), industrial
waste, and chemical waste. Liquid waste was
poured into pits, applied to the ground surface.
and stored in drums and buried.
Dioxin-contaminated waste oil was applied
directly to surface soil for dust control, and
spillage from trucks also occurred.
Investigations conducted from 1982 through
1983 concluded that site contamination was not
affecting the ground water; however, some on-
site surface migration of contaminated soil and
sediment had occurred. In 1985, the state
constructed a diversion dike to redirect
stormwater run-off, which flowed through a fill
area containing buried drums; and fenced the
site. A 1986 ROD selected a final remedy for
non-dioxin waste at the site and an interim
remedy for dioxin waste at the site including
excavation and interim on-site storage of
dioxin-contaminated materials. The interim
remedy has not been implemented. A 1988
ROD established the availability of a thermal
treatment unit at the Times Beach site to treat
dioxin-contaminated sites in eastern Missouri
including the Ellisville area. This ROD amends
the 1986 ROD because the pending availability
of a thermal treatment unit at Times Beach has
prompted EPA to reconsider the need for
excavation and interim on-site storage. This
ROD also provides a final remedy for
dioxin-contaminated soil, which involves
excavation and direct transport of dioxin waste
off site for treatment. The 1986 remedy for
non-dioxin waste is not affected. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the soil is
dioxin, an organic.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
excavating, and direct transportation of
approximately 7,000 cubic yards of
dioxin-contaminated soil for treatment at an off-
site temporary thermal treatment unit constructed
at the Times Beach site; disposing of treatment
residuals at the Times Beach site as
nonhazardous solid waste, if delisting criteria are
met, or retreating at Times Beach or managing
residuals off site as a hazardous waste if
delisting criteria are not met. No costs were
provided for this amended RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Performance standards for the thermal
treatment of soil include six-nines (99.9999
percent) destruction and removal efficiency and
delisting of the thermal treatment residue.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
382
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (OU1), NE
September 30, 1991
The Hastings Groundwater Contamination
site consists of localized areas where the aquifer
is contaminated with industrial chemicals,
primarily VOCs, in the city of Hastings, Adams
County, Nebraska. This ROD addresses part of
the Colorado Avenue subsite, which is one of
several Hasting Groundwater Contamination
subsites. This subsite consists of contaminated
soil at three industrial properties, which was
addressed in a 1988 ROD as OU9, and a
ground-water contaminant plume approximately
one mile long, which is the subject of this ROD
and referred to as OU1. Land use in the area is
residential and industrial. The West Fork Big
River lies to the north of the site, and the site is
characterized by a nearly flat ground surface
with a gentle slope to the southeast. The
estimated 23,000 residents of Hastings obtain
their drinking water from a municipal system
that taps into the underlying sole-source aquifer.
From 1967 to 1982, Dravo Corporation, the
former owner of one of the industrial properties,
manufactured heating and air conditioning
equipment on site and discharged chlorinated
solvents from its vapor degreasing process into
sanitary and storm sewers. Leaky sewer joints
and discharge of storm drains to open ditches
have resulted in seepage of chlorinated
compounds into the soil, and eventually into the
aquifer. In 1983, after 30 years of non-use,
Hastings municipal well #18 was put back online
to pump ground water, but complaints from
citizens about the odor and taste of the water
prompted the city to remove the well from
service. In 1985, EPA investigated on-site
ground-water contamination, including well #18,
and identified on-site TCA, TCE, and PCE
contamination. Monitoring wells showed that
the contaminant plume extended about one mile
eastward in the direction of ground-water flow.
The source of this contamination was traced to
Dravo's industrial facility. All affected wells
were subsequently shut down. A 1988 ROD
addressed the soil component of the Colorado
Avenue subsite as OU9 and identified treatment
using soil vapor and vacuum extraction
technologies, followed by treatment of extracted
vapor using an activated carbon system, and
monitoring soil, ground water, and air. This
ROD addresses the ground-water contamination
component as OU1. Future RODs may address
addkional source control measures, subsurface
monitoring, ground water extraction and
treatment, wellhead protection and treatment,
and provide institutional controls. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including DCE, PCE, and
TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes managing the contaminant plume by
pumping a number of pore volumes (5,550,000
gallons) of VOC-contaminated ground water,
treating the extracted ground-water on site using
granular activated carbon (with a contingency to
use air stripping and emissions treatment, or UV
oxidation), and reusing or reinjecting the treated
ground water; regenerating spent carbon off site;
and monitoring ground-water quality to measure
effectiveness of the interim action. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$6,061,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost ranging from $269,000 to $767,000 for 10
years. EPA has increased the estimated RA
timeframe for this interim action to 15 years.
The total present worth cost of the RA will
increase from the 10 year estimate primarily due
to a longer period of O&M.
383
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals Institutional Controls
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up Ground-water use restrictions will continue
goals are based on state and federal MCLs, and to be implemented on site to prevent pumping of
include PCE 0.005 mg/l and TCE 0.005 mg/1. contaminated ground water into the city
distribution system.
384
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
HASTINGS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION (OUs 10 & 2), NE
September 30, 1991
The Hastings Groundwater Contamination
site consists of localized areas where an aquifer
is contaminated with industrial chemicals in or
near the city of Hastings, Adams County,
Nebraska. Both the source control OU10 and
ground-water OU2 of the North Landfill, a
13.4-acre former municipal landfill, are
addressed by this ROD. Land use near the
landfill is mixed residential and commercial with
an active railroad directly north of the site. The
estimated 23,000 residents of Hastings obtain
their drinking water from the municipal water
system, which taps into the underlying
sole-source aquifer. As early as 1938,
brickmakers obtained clay source materials from
the area of the landfill. From 1961 to 1964, the
city of Hastings operated a municipal landfill on
site and accepted municipal and industrial waste
including waste containing VOCs. The landfill
was initially capped, and later in the 1970's an
additional two feet of capping materials were
added. In 1983, ground-water contamination
was discovered when the state sampled the
Hastings public water supply system in response
to citizen complaints about water quality. EPA
investigations have identified VOCs including
benzene, TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride in the
ground water adjacent to and downgradient from
the site. In 1985, soil-gas samples indicated that
the vadose zone above the aquifer was
contaminated. This ROD provides an interim
remedy for both OUs. Future RODs may
address additional source control measures,
subsurface monitoring, ground-water extraction
and treatment, wellhead protection and
treatment, and provision of institutional controls.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil and ground water are VOCs including
TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes geotechnical testing of the existing
landfill cap, improving the present cap through
regrading to promote surface run-off, and
revegetating the landfill surface; pumping and
on-site treatment of contaminated ground water
with a technology to be determined after further
testing, but will be either air stripping or UV
oxidation; monitoring the vadose zone, saturated
zones, and ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions,
and site access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA will
range from $2,300,000 to $4,000,000, based on
ground-water treatment and discharge options.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and include
TCE 5 wg/1, cis 2-DCE 70 wg/1, trans 1,2-DCE
100 wg/1, and vinyl chloride 2 Mg/1.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented on
site to prevent construction, and ensure cap
integrity.
385
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS LANDFILL), IA
September 23, 1991
The 105-acre John Deere (Ottumwa Works
Landfill) site is an active agricultural equipment
manufacturing and assembly facility in Ottumwa,
Wapello County, Iowa. Land use in the area is
predominantly residential, with wetlands located
within 1,000 feet of the site across the Des
Moines River. All of the site lies within the
100-year floodplain of the Des Moines River,
and a drainage ditch borders the site on the east
side. The estimated 27,000 Ottumwa residents
use municipal water obtained from the Des
Moines River as their drinking water supply.
The municipal intake is located approximately
1,000 feet upgradient from the site. Black Lake,
located 150 feet east of the site, is used as an
additional water source on an infrequent basis,
contributing approximately 1.0 to 1.5 percent of
the total annual volume of water distributed by
the Ottumwa Water Works. From 1911 to
1973, Deere & Company buried plant-generated
waste including solvents, paint sludge, heat
treating cyanide, heat treating sludge, petroleum
distillates, and foundry sand in the shallow
alluvium underlying the site. After landfilling,
some of the waste was burned on site on a
regular basis. In 1965, Deere & Company
acquired the southwestern portion of the site,
which had been used previously as a salvage
yard. In the late 1980s, investigations of the
disposal areas identified subsurface soil and
ground-water contamination by VOCs, other
organics, and metals. This ROD addresses the
disposal areas, the drainage ditch, and Black
Lake surface water. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sediment, and
debris are organics including PAHs; and metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions, and site access restrictions
including maintaining the perimeter fence. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,000. There are no O&M costs associated
with this RA since fence maintenance is covered
by the facility's operating budget.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not provided.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls including deed
restrictions will be implemented to prevent
exposure to site contaminants.
386
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
KEM-PEST LABORATORIES, MO
December 31, 1990
The 6-acre Kern-Pest Laboratories site is a
former pesticide production facility located in
Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. Site features
include a concrete block building that housed the
pesticide formulation operation and currently
holds approximately 11,200 gallons of
contaminated water in its basement; six storage
tanks used for storing solvents and oil; and a
lagoon used for the disposal of sewage and plant
waste. An unconfined aquifer system lies within
the alluvial and colluvial deposits at the site.
From 1965 to 1977, Kern-Pest Laboratories
formulated various pesticide products including
liquid pesticides, granular insecticides and
herbicides, and pesticide dust on site. Waste
generated from pesticide production contained
several pesticides including aldrin, dieldrin,
endrin, and heptachlor. Plant waste was
disposed of in the on-site lagoon. No
production or disposal activities have occurred
on site since 1977, and the lagoon was backfilled
with clay by the owner in 1981. Based on
federal assessments and investigations conducted
in 1981, it was determined that the lagoon and
the formulation building were the most
significant sources of site contamination.
Ground-water contamination has occurred from
the migration of contaminants from the soil
within the lagoon; ground water may also act as
a flushing mechanism for contaminants in the
subsurface soil. A 1989 ROD addressed OU1,
the contaminated surface soil in the lagoon;
surface soil in the lagoon area and near the
formulation building; and sediment in drainage
channels on site and off site. This ROD
addresses pesticide contamination in the
formulation building, ground water, and surface
water, as OU2. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting debris and surface water are
VOCs including benzene; other organics
including pesticides; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected. RA for this site includes
decontaminating the formulation building by
surface layer removal; dismantling
approximately 50 tons of interior structures and
formulation equipment not amenable to
decontamination, followed by off-site
incineration and disposal of decontaminated and
dismantled debris; implementing additional
decontamination measures including scarification
and applying a sealant to the concrete floors, if
necessary; collecting and treating on-site
approximately 11,200 gallons of water that has
collected in the basement of the formulation
building using activated carbon adsorption, with
on-site discharge of the water and off-site carbon
regeneration or disposal; long-term ground-water
and surface monitoring; anenting institutional
controls. The estimated present worth cost for
this RA is $727,000, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $5,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
No federal or state clean-up standards exist
for remediation of contaminated structures in
regard to risks posed by direct contact. EPA
has determined that a 10"5 individual lifetime
excess cancer risk will be protective of human
health from risks associated with contaminated
structures. Performance standards for inhalation
of pesticides are the worker permissible
exposure limits as defined by OSHA regulations
including aldrin 0.25 mg/m3 and dieldrin 0.25
mg/m3.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented to
limit future use of the formulation building to
commercial or industrial activities.
387
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
LEE CHEMICAL, MO
March 21, 1991
The 2.5-acre Lee Chemical site is a former
water treatment plant and chemical repacking
and distributing facility in Liberty, Clay County,
Missouri. Land use in the area is commercial
and rural. The estimated 17,000 people who
reside in Liberty obtain drinking water from
municipal water wells located approximately
2,000 feet southeast of the site. These wells
draw water from the alluvial aquifer underlying
the site. From 1920 to 1962, the city of Liberty
used the site as the city's water treatment plant.
From 1965 until 1975, when the city repossessed
the property, the site was leased to Lee
Chemical Company for packaging and
distributing commercial and industrial cleaning
solvents and other chemicals, some of which
were reprocessed on site in 55-gallon drums. In
1977, as required by EPA, the city removed and
disposed of approximately three hundred
55-gallon drums of waste off site. In 1979, low
levels of TCE were detected in the public water
supply wells. Subsequent EPA and state
investigations revealed contaminated ground
water and soil, and deteriorated drums and
chemical containers, and in 1982 the city and
state identified the site as a source of TCE
contamination in the public water supply. In
1983, the on-site water plant building and its
contents were demolished and disposed of off
site. In 1984, in an effort to contain the
contaminated ground-water plume and reduce
TCE levels in the water supply, the city
discharged water from the most highly
contaminated of its municipal water wells
through an abandoned sewer line to the Missouri
River and Shoal Creek. Later that year, an
abandoned municipal well on site was added to
the plume control measure and the discharge was
diverted to an abandoned water main to nearby
Town Branch Creek. Currently, no detectable
levels of TCE are found in wells connected to
the water supply system. This ROD addresses
soil and ground-water contamination, and
provides a final remedy for the site. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs including TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing an in situ aqueous soil washing system
consisting of infiltration trenches to enhance the
flushing of contaminants from on-site soil to the
underlying aquifer; pumping ground water to
flush contaminants from the underlying aquifer
to the extraction system and to control ground-
water movement away from the site, followed by
on-site discharge to surface water; implementing
a contingency phase ground-water treatment
project consisting of air stripping or other
treatment methods, if additional treatment of
discharge water becomes necessary to meet
health based risk levels, existing NPDES permit
limits, or other ARARs; and monitoring ground
water and air. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $550,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $52,000 for 5 years. If
treatment is deemed necessary, the revised
present worth cost for this RA is $670,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $67,000
for 5 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific goals for soil were not
provided. Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs and
include 1,1,2-TCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
388
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT, IA
June 28, 1991
The Lehigh Portland Cement site is
composed of two areas: the ISO-acre Lehigh
Portland Cement Company (LPCC) cement
production facility, and the 410-acre Lime Creek
Nature Center (LCNC), in Mason, Gordo
County, Iowa. Land use in the area is rural,
agricultural, and industrial. The site overlies an
aquifer that serves as a source of water for 12
nearby wells; and municipal water is obtained
from a deeper aquifer. Calmus Creek borders
the site and discharges to the Winnebago River,
located within a mile of the site. From 1911 to
the present, the LPCC has manufactured cement
products. As a result of operations, site features
currently include four abandoned quarries at the
LPCC area, which were worked until the 1950's
and subsequently were filled in with water, and
numerous tailings piles. The water bodies are
known as Blue Waters Pond, Arch Pond,
Cooling Waters Pond, and Area C Pond.
During its history, the LPCC disposed of cement
kiln dust (CKD) in several on-site piles and in
Area C Pond. The LCNC area was used by
LPCC to quarry materials until 1979, and
subsequently was backfilled with CKD from the
parent site and sold. Consequently, the LCNC
quarries also have become ponds, including
Quarry Pond. In 1981, hydrochemical tests of
Blue Waters Pond on the LPCC area indicated
high alkalinity. Subsequent investigations
indicated that the ponds on the LCNC area also
have high pH levels, although water quality is
better than at the LPCC area. Testing showed
that CKD was the cause of high alkalinity, and
that contamination of the aquifers has occurred.
In addition, a flow control structure installed on
the southeastern corner of Blue Waters Pond
allowed highly alkaline water to discharge into
Calmus Creek. Subsequently, overflow
prevention measures at Blue Waters Pond were
implemented by LPCC, but seepage to Calmus
Creek continued. This ROD addresses the
CKD, ground water, and surface water as a final
remedy. Elevated pH of ground water and
surface water also is of potential concern.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for the LPCC area includes
dewatering Blue Waters, Area C, and Arch
Ponds, and treating pond water using acid
neutralization, followed by ion exchange or
reverse osmosis if needed, with on site
discharge; excavating and consolidating CKD
from Blue Waters and Arch Ponds within Area
C Pond, followed by constructing a clay cap
over Area C Pond; constructing a cap over the
existing area known as the CKD reclamation
area; collecting shallow ground water via sumps
and a seep collection system constructed in the
base of Blue Waters and Area C Ponds, and
treating the ground water in the on-site treatment
system before on-site discharge; monitoring
ground water, surface water, and treated
discharge; and providing institutional controls
including deed restrictions. The selected RA for
the LCNC area includes constructing a dam
across Quarry Pond and draining the western
portion of the pond; excavating CKD within the
western portion of Quarry Pond and
consolidating the CKD within an exhausted
quarry east of the pond; constructing a clay cap
over the exhausted quarry; consolidating CKD
from all other LCNC areas in the Badlands area,
and constructing a clay cap over the consolidated
material; allowing Quarry Pond to refill; and
monitoring ground water and surface water.
The estimated present worth cost for RA at the
LPCC area is $3,400,000, and for the LCNC
area is $1,600,000. No O&M costs were
provided for the RA.
389
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals 0.5 mg/l (MCL), and pH 6.5 to 8.5 (secondary
MCL).
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals for both the LPCC and LCNC areas are Institutional Controls
based on the more stringent of SDWA MCLs
and state standards, and include arsenic 0.00003 Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
mg/l (state), lead 0.015 mg/l (state), chromium LPCC area-
390
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MID-AMERICA TANNING, IA
September 24, 1991
The 98.7-acre Mid-America Tanning site is
a former leather tannery in Sergeant Bluff,
Woodbury County, Iowa. Surrounding land use
is mixed industrial and agricultural. A portion
of the site is bordered by Oxbow Lake and lies
within the 100-year floodplain. The Missouri
River is approximately 1.5 miles to the
southwest of the site and receives discharges
from Oxbow Lake. The facility began on-site
processing of animal hides in 1970. From 1973
to 1989, the site was used intermittently under
various owners as a chrome tanning operation.
Process wastewater containing debris,
chromium, and other chemicals was discharged
to on-site lagoons and impoundments. Sludge
generated from the process was disposed on site
in the surficial soil or in disposal trenches.
Occasional system overloads resulted in
overflow of chromium wastewater into Oxbow
Lake. In 1980, the state confirmed the on-site
burial of chromium-containing sludge in
trenches, and the company was cited for permit
violations. A 1985 EPA investigation identified
excessive chromium contamination in on-site
soil, sediment, and ground water. In 1990, EPA
conducted a removal action that included
excavating and consolidating on-site 1,290 cubic
yards of sludge from the trench disposal area.
This ROD addresses the contaminated soil,
impoundment sediment and water, and the
excavated trench material. A future ROD will
address on-site ground-water contamination. The
primary contaminant of concern affecting the
soil, sediment, debris, sludge, and surface water
are metals including chromium and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for the site includes
treating 8,300 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and 44,500 cubic yards of impoundment
sediment on site using in situ immobilization;
immobilizing 1,293 cubic yards of consolidated
trench sludge on site, followed by either on-site
or off-site disposal; removing and disposing of
debris off site and discharging impoundment
water on site through an NPDES-permitted
outfall or treatment, if needed, with off-site
discharge to a POTW; capping contaminated
areas, and grading and seeding top soil;
conducting ground-water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions. A contingent remedy using ex
situ immobilization will be implemented if
treatability studies determine that the selected
remedy is inadequate. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $4,857,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $21,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Federal and state clean-up standards for
chromium have not been established at this tune.
Clean-up objectives are based on a 10"4 cancer
risk to human health and include hexavalent
chromium 2,490 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented at the
site to ensure that it is not used for residential or
agricultural purposes, and that buildings are not
constructed on the capped areas.
391
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS, IA
September 16, 1991
The 5-acre Peoples Natural Gas site is a
former coal gasification plant in Dubuque
County, Iowa. The city of Dubuque maintains
a public works garage on the eastern portion of
the site, and the Iowa Department of
Transportation owns the western portion. The
site is located 300 feet west of the Mississippi
River, and is within the Mississippi River
floodplain. In addition, the site overlies a silty
sand unit and an alluvial aquifer, which has been
determined to be a potential source of drinking
water. Surrounding land use is primarily
industrial and commercial, with adjacent
residential areas. From at least the 1930s to
1954, the site was used to manufacture gas.
By-products produced during this process
included coal tar, which was stored in an
underground tank and an above-ground tank,
and cyanide-bearing woodchips, which were
buried on the eastern portion of the site. From
1954 to 1964, the site was used as a natural gas
distribution, storage, and maintenance facility.
In 1986, EPA investigations identified extensive
contamination of on-site soil and ground water at
the site. In 1989, the PRPs conducted a removal
action that included excavating 5,500 cubic
yards of PAH-contaminated soil from the
western portion of the site, removing tanks used
to store coal tar, installing a leachate collection
system to prevent contamination from leaching
into the alluvial aquifer; and implementing
institutional controls. This ROD addresses both
soil and ground-water contamination, as a final
remedy. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, toluene, and xylenes; and
other organics including PAHs.
cubic yards of contaminated soil off site; treating
the soil and ground water within the silty sand
unit, which are contaminated with coal tar waste
using in situ bioremediation; pumping and on-
site treatment of contaminated ground water
using air stripping followed by off site and storm
sewers discharge to a POTW; ground-water and
air monitoring; and implementing institutional
controls such as ground-water and land use
restrictions, as well as site access restrictions
including fencing. A contingency for ground-
water treatment includes engineering controls
and an ARAR waiver if the extraction system
does not achieve clean-up levels. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $8,000,000,
which includes an estimated O&M cost of
$788,000 for 10 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Federal and state clean-up standards for soil
have not been established at this tune.
Therefore, goals for soil clean up are based on
a carcinogenic risk level of 10"4, and include 500
mg/kg for total PAHs and carcinogenic
PAHs 100 mg/kg. Remediation levels for
ground water are based on SDWA MCLs, and
include benzene at 1 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Ground-water and land use restrictions will
be implemented on site to prevent direct contact
with contaminants.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and incinerating an estimated 18,500
392
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SHAW AVENUE DUMP, IA
September 26, 1991
The 26-acre Shaw Avenue Dump site is a
chemical waste site in Charles City, Floyd
County, Iowa. Land use in the area is
predominantly residential. Part of the site lies
within the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar
River, and a wetlands area is located
approximately 600 feet south of the site. From
1899 to 1964, Charles City used the site as a
municipal landfill for waste incineration, and
disposal of liming sludge from the city's POTW
and asphaltic materials continue to be disposed
of in the landfill. Additionally, from 1949 to
1953, chemical waste generated by chemical
batch processing of arsenic and compounds used
in the production of animal pharmaceuticals at
Salsbury Laboratories were disposed of on site.
Between 1977 and 1981, the state issued reports
based on studies of the site and surface water
that documented elevated levels of metals in an
abandoned gravel pit near the site.
Approximately 14,000 to 28,000 cubic feet of
chemical waste and 10,000 tons of solid waste
from the POTW, including sludge containing
hazardous waste from Salsbury Laboratories,
and associated contaminated soil are currently
present on site. Leaching of contaminants,
especially arsenic, from 370 cubic yards of
chemical fill and adjacent soil into ground water
is thought to be the principal threat at the site.
A 200-gallon UST is located within the vicinity
of the chemical fill, and also is considered to be
a possible source of on-site contamination. This
ROD addresses the chemical fill and surrounding
contaminated soil, and the underground gasoline
tank as OU1. A future ROD will address
contaminated ground water as OU2. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and debris are VOCs including benzene,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics including
PAHs; metals including arsenic and lead; and
other inorganics.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating the chemical fill and soil using in situ
fixation and stabilization, followed by
constructing a low permeability cap over the
fixed and stabilized fill; conducting treatability
studies to determine the effectiveness of the
treatment, and if treatment is not effective,
issuing an BSD and disposing of the waste off
site; removing and disposing of off site the
underground gasoline tank; monitoring ground
water quality; and implementing institutional
controls including deed restrictions, and site
access restrictions including fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$513,400, which includes an annual present
worth O&M cost of $65,550.
Performance Standards or Goals
Action-specific soil clean-up goals are based
on state and federal standards, RCRA LDRs,
OSHA, RCRA TCLP, and UST regulations, and
include arsenic 50 mg/kg and cadmium 20
mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent construction, installation, and
maintenance of any ground water wells. Access
easements also will be implemented to prevent
unauthorized entry to the site.
393
-------
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 8
AS1-002-8
REGION 8
Site
Anaconda Smelter
Broderick Wood Products (Amendment)
Central City-Clear Creek
Chemical Sales (New Location) (OU1)
Chemical Sales (New Location) (OU2)
Chemical Sales (New Location) (OU3)
Hill Air Force Base (Federal Facility)
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) (Federal Facility)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (OU21) (Federal Facility)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (OU26) (Federal Facility)
Wasatch Chemical (Lot 6)
State
Page
MT
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
UT
CO
CO
CO
UT
396
397
398
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
395
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ANACONDA SMELTER, MT
September 23, 1991
The 6,000-acre Anaconda Smelter site is a
former copper and ore processing facility in
Deer Lodge County, Montana. Land use in the
area is predominantly residential. The site is
bounded on the north and east, respectively, by
the Warm Springs Creek and Mill Creek, both
of which are potential sources of drinking water.
From 1884 until 1980 when activities ceased,
the site was used for ore processing and smelting
operations. Flue dust was generated as a
by-product of copper smelting operations. The
majority of flue dust that was generated was
reprocessed, and the remaining portion was
stockpiled at nine locations on and around the
site. In 1988, EPA conducted an investigation
to determine the nature and extent of the flue
dust contamination. A 1988 ROD addressed the
Mill Creek OU15 and documented the relocation
of residents from the community surrounding the
smelter site as the selected RA. This ROD
addresses the flue dust OU11. Subsequent
RODs will address further site contamination in
adjacent soil, ground water, and surface water.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
this site from the flue dust materials are metals
including arsenic, cadmium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating a total of approximately 316,500
cubic yards of flue dust from the nine flue dust
locations and treating the dust on site using
cement/silicate based stabilization; disposing of
the treated residuals hi an on-site engineered
repository, which will include a soil or clay liner
and a leachate collection system; conducting air
and ground-water monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls including land use
restrictions, and site access restrictions. The
estimated capital cost for this RA is
$25,338,000, with an annual O&M cost of
$10,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
The treatment levels of flue dust
cement/silicate based stabilization will render the
material non-hazardous by meeting RCRA TCLP
regulatory limits, and include levels that will
limit leaching of contaminants to ground water
to arsenic 5.0 mg/1, cadmium 1.0 mg/1, and lead
5.0 mg/1.
Institutional Controls
Land use restrictions will be implemented.
396
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
BRODERICK WOOD PRODUCTS, CO
Amendment
September 24, 1991
The 64-acre Broderick Wood Products
(BWP) site is a former wood treatment facility
in Adams County, Colorado. Land use in the
area is predominantly industrial. The site is
one-half mile south of Clear Creek, a perennial
stream. The nearest residences are less than
one-eighth mile north of the site. From 1947 to
1981, BWP used the site for treating power
poles, fence posts, railroad ties, and other wood
products. Process waste from the on-site plant
were disposed on site in two unlined surface
impoundments in the northwest corner of the
site. Waste seepage occurred just north of the
site and was burned off starting in 1955. Also,
four other ponds were periodically used for this
purpose, and several fires have occurred on site.
In 1981, BWP submitted a RCRA permitting
application and obtained interim status to operate
its facility, but ceased operations because of
economic conditions. As a result of the waste
disposal practices at BWP, a number of
investigations were conducted by EPA and the
state. In 1981 and 1982, EPA noted several
violations of RCRA requirements; and other site
investigations identified possible contamination
of a trench near the surface impoundments that
had reportedly been used for the disposal of
solid waste, and grcamd-water contamination
downgradient of the surface impoundments.
Additionally, a fire in 1985 damaged the
treatment plant building. Water that was used to
fight the fire has been contaminated with
asbestos and remains in the basement of the
building. A 1988 ROD addressed interim
source control treatment of on-site sludge, as
OU 1, and provided for excavation and on-site
incineration of impoundment sludge, on-site
incineration or stockpiling of visibly
contaminated soil found beneath the sludge, and
treatment of water in the impoundments and
buildings. Based on new technical data and cost
information EPA has decided against using
incineration as treatment in OU1. This ROD
amends the 1988 remedy for sludge treatment.
A future ROD will address the final remedy for
the site by providing treatment of contaminated
soil, debris, and surface and ground water, as
OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the sludge are VOCs including toluene
and xylenes; other organics including dioxin and
PAHs; and metals including lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The amended RA for this site includes
excavating and preparing 950 cubic yards of
solid sludge, 1,220 cubic yards of liquid sludge,
and 500 gallons of oil collected from the sludge
from temporary storage cells within the
impoundments area; and transporting sludge and
oil to a permitted recycling facility to reclaim
creosote for use at other wood treating facilities,
followed by off-site incineration of recycler
residues, and off-site disposal of incinerator ash
in a permitted landfill. The estimated total cost
for this RA ranges from $2,058,200 to
$2,191,000. O&M costs are included in the
capital costs because treatment will occur off
site.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific sludge clean-up goals are
based on RCRA land disposal restrictions and
include lead 0.51 mg/1, toluene 28 mg/kg, and
xylenes 33 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
397
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CENTRAL CITY-CLEAR CREEK, CO
September 30, 1991
The Central City-Clear Creek site is an
active mining facility in Central City, Clear
Creek and Gilpin counties, Colorado. Land use
in the area is predominantly commercial and
recreational, and an artificial wetlands area is
located on site. The site lies within the
400-square mile drainage basin of Clear Creek,
which serves as a drinking water source for
several municipalities. Gold mining operations
began on site in 1859 and portions of the site
became some of the most heavily mined areas of
Colorado. Extraction of surface ores led to an
increase in the depth of the mining and,
consequently, drainage tunnels were constructed
to control water drainage problems. Presently,
six major mine drainage tunnels are thought to
be principal discharge sources of acid mine
water containing high concentrations of metals to
surface waters including Clear Creek and its
tributaries. In addition, over 21 mine tailings
piles with an estimated total volume of over
2,000,000 cubic yards at numerous locations
throughout the site are thought to be major
sources of contamination. In response to site
contamination, EPA has conducted three
removal actions since 1987. In 1987, EPA
conducted a removal action to prevent the
collapse of a mine waste pile. Also in 1987,
EPA conducted a second removal action, which
involved connecting three residences with private
wells to the municipal public water supply. In
1991, EPA conducted a third removal action,
which involved removing uncontaminated
mercury from a small trailer. Because of the
complexity of the site, EPA divided the site into
several OUs for remediation. A 1987 ROD
addressed OU1 and provided for passive
treatment of acid mine water discharge from five
discharging tunnels: National, Gregory Incline,
Argo Tunnel, Big Five, and Quartz Hill tunnels.
A 1988 ROD addressed OU2 and provided for
the remediation of mine waste piles in the
immediate proximity of the five discharging
tunnels. This ROD supersedes the remedy
provided for OU1 in the 1987 ROD by including
active treatment of the Argo Tunnel and
delaying a decision on treating the discharges
from the Big Five, National and Quartz Hill
tunnels, and the Gregory Incline. EPA will
consider a subsequent ROD to address treatment
of the remaining on-site tunnels pending farther
monitoring and treatability studies. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are metals including arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
constructing physical barriers for mine waste
piles (to reduce metals loading to surface water
and human health risks from ingestion or
inhalation of metals); treating discharges from
the Burleigh tunnel passively through the use of
man-made wetlands; treating discharges from the
Argo tunnel actively along with ground water
pumped from the immediate area; providing an
alternate water supply where needed; invoking
an interim action waiver of ARARs for
discharges from the National, Quartz Hill, and
Big Five tunnels, and the Gregory Incline, and
invoking a technical impracticality waiver for
restoring ground water to MCLs; collecting
discharges from the National and Quartz Hill
tunnels, and Gregory Incline with final
disposition to be established pending further
monitoring and treatability studies; and
implementing institutional controls. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$23,510,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $1,204,000 for 30 years.
398
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals Institutional Controls
The passive treatment system will remove Engineering and institutional controls will be
approximately 99.5 percent of the zinc, 99.84 implemented to prevent exposure to site
percent of the copper, and 9.7 percent of the contaminants.
manganese from tunnel discharge. Active
treatment will remove 100 percent of the zinc
and manganese, and 99.84 percent of the
copper.
399
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CHEMICAL SALES (NEW LOCATION) (OU1), CO
June 27, 1991
The Chemical Sales (CS) (New Location)
(OU 1) site is an active chemical sales and
storage facility in Commerce City, Adams and
Denver Counties, Colorado. Land use in the
area is predominantly industrial, and there are
six residences located on the northern portion of
the site. The site is bounded by Sand Creek to
the north and lies within the 100-year floodplain
of the creek. An estimated 30,000 people who
reside near the site use the alluvial aquifer as the
principal source of drinking water. Since 1976,
CS has used the site to store and sell organic
chemicals and acids. Site features include a
warehouse and tank farm including an associated
system of above-ground tanks and USTs and
pipelines. Between 1985 and 1990, three on-site
chemical releases of hazardous substances into
the soil and ground water from the CS facility
were reported. In 1985, approximately 200
gallons of methylene chloride were spilled into
on-site soil during a chemical transfer. The
second release was in 1986 when rain water
contaminated with several VOCs was discharged
into a nearby drainage ditch. The third release
occurred in 1990, when approximately 3,700
gallons of methanol were spilled on the ground
surface near the CS tank farm. Several EPA
investigations confirmed the release of hazardous
substances into the ground water from the CS
Property. The site has been divided into three
OUs for remediation. This ROD addresses
remediation of soil and ground-water
contamination south of Sand Creek, as OU1.
Future RODs will address other site
contamination including the ground water plume
and associated contamination (OU2), and
residential exposure to contaminated wells and
domestic water from the municipal water supply
(OU3). The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs
including PCE and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating contaminated on-site soil using vapor
extraction; treating air emissions with catalytic
oxidation; recirculating exhaust from the
catalytic oxidation system into the contaminated
soil; pumping and on-site treatment of ground
water in the source area and plume area using
air stripping, followed by reinjecting the treated
water from the source area wells and
reinfiltrating treated water from the plume area
through on-site discharge; monitoring ground
water, treated water, and air; providing public
notice of potential health threat from
contamination ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including ground-water use
restrictions. The estimated cost for this RA is
$2,081,000. No O&M costs were provided for
this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on an acceptable concentration of leachate
multiplied by the partitioning^coefficient for the
soil, and include PCE 0.150mg/l and TCE
0.115 mg/1. Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and
include PCE 0.005 mg/1 and TCE 0.005 mg/1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
400
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CHEMICAL SALES (NEW LOCATION) (OU2), CO
June 27, 1991
The Chemical Sales (CS) (New Location)
(OU 2) site is an active chemical sales and
storage facility in Commerce City, Adams
County, Colorado. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial. The site is a portion
of a four-square-mile-area, which consists of
single and multi-family residences, small
business, municipal facilities, and agricultural
and undeveloped land. Part of the site lies
within the 100-year floodplain of Sand Creek,
which borders the site. An estimated 30,000
residents near the site use the alluvial aquifer as
their principal source of drinking water. Since
1976, CS has used the site to store and sell a
variety of organic chemicals and acids. On-site
features include a warehouse and tank farm,
including an associated system of aboveground
and underground storage tanks and pipelines.
Between 1985 and 1990, three on-site chemical
releases of hazardous substances from the CS
facility into on-site soil and ground water were
documented. First in 1985, approximately 200
gallons of methylene chloride were released
during a chemical transfer. The second release
occurred hi 1986 when VOC-contaminated rain
water was discharged into a nearby drainage
ditch. In 1990, approximately 3,700 gallons of
methanol were spilled onto the ground near the
CS tank farm. The site has been divided into
three OUs for remediation. A previous ROD
addressed on-site soil and ground-water
contamination as OU1. This ROD addresses
OU2, the VOC-contaminated ground-water
plume, which is north of Sand Creek. A
subsequent ROD will address residential
exposure to the contaminated alluvial aquifer.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for OU2 of this site
includes pumping and on-site treatment of
ground water using air stripping, followed by
on-site reinjection of treated water into the
aquifer; annual ground-water monitoring; and
voluntary abandonment of bedrock wells. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,420,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $223,000 for years 0 through 8 and
$27,000 for years 8 through 20.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and include
benzene 5 Mg/1 (MCL), PCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL), and
TCE 5 wg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
401
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CHEMICAL SALES (NEW LOCATION) (OU3), CO
June 27, 1991
The Chemical Sales (CS) (New Location)
(OU 3) site is an active chemical sales and
storage facility in Commerce City, Adams
County, Colorado. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial. This area is part of a
4-square-mile area, which consists of single and
multifamily residences, small businesses,
municipal facilities, and agricultural and
undeveloped land. An estimated 30,000
residents near the site use the alluvial aquifer as
the principal source of drinking water. Since
1976, CS has used the site to store and sell a
variety of organic chemicals and acids. On-site
features include a warehouse, a tank farm, and
an associated system of USTs and pipelines.
Between 1985 and 1990, three on-site chemical
releases of hazardous substances into the soil and
ground water from the CS facility were
documented. First, in 1985, approximately 200
gallons of methylene chloride were released
during an on-site chemical transfer. Second, in
1986, VOC-contaminated rain water was
discharged into a nearby drainage ditch. Third,
in 1990, approximately 3,000 gallons of
methanol were spilled on the ground surface
near the CS tank farm., EPA investigations
confirmed the release df hazardous substances
into ground water from the CS property. This
site has been divided into three OUs for
remediation. Two previous 1991 RODs have
addressed soil and ground-water contamination
as OU1 and OU2. This ROD addresses OUS,
residual exposure to site contaminants through
domestic use of underlying alluvial aquifers.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
connecting residences currently using wells for
domestic water supply to the South Adams
County Water Supply District (SACWSD);
installing home-activated carbon units in homes
not readily accessible to SACWSD;
implementing ground-water monitoring for
benzene; and providing public notification of the
potential health threat from contaminated ground
water. The estimated present worth cost for this
RA is $157,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $5,520 for 30 years. Future costs for
activated carbon treatment units have not been
estimated, and residents may be expected to pay
small annual O&M costs.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
402
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
HILL AIR FORCE BASE, UT
Federal Facility
September 30, 1991
The 6,700-acre Hill Air Force Base (Hill
AFB) site is an active military facility situated
between the cities of Ogden and Salt Lake City,
covering portions of Davis and Weber Counties,
Utah. This ROD addresses part of OU2, which
consists of two unlined disposal trenches, seeps,
and springs, and confined and unconfined
aquifers. Land use in the area is mainly
agricultural and residential. Both South Weber
and Hill AFB obtain drinking water from deep
wells in confined aquifers. Because the base
covers a large area, the Air Force has grouped
geographically adjacent contaminated areas into
seven OUs. From 1967 to 1975, Hill AFB
disposed of waste solvents and sludge from
degreasing operations in the on-site disposal
trenches. It is estimated that 100,000 to
1,000,000 gallons of TCE bottoms from the
solvent recovery unit, sludge from vapor
degreasers, and plating-tank sludge bottoms were
disposed of in these trenches. Federal
investigations from 1983 to 1986 identified VOC
contamination in on-site and off-site ground
water. As a result of these investigations, Hill
AFB began collection and treatment of
contaminated ground water from seeps and
springs in 1986. In addition, an alternate water
supply was provided to five properties to prevent
the use of contaminated ground water from seeps
and springs. This ROD addresses the interim
remediation of OU2 subsurface soil and ground
water by removing a DNAPL source and thus
preventing contaminants from reaching aquifers
currently used as drinking water sources. A
subsequent ROD will provide a final remedy for
OU2 soil, ground water, surface water, and air.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the soil and ground water are VOCs including
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes installing and maintaining a source
recovery system to remove DNAPL
contamination from the subsurface; pumping
DNAPL-contaminated ground water, with on-
site discharge to a pretreatment facility to
separate DNAPL from ground water using a
steam stripper; temporarily storing the DNAPL
on site in steel tanks, followed by transporting
the waste off site for incineration; installing a
pipeline from the site to the base IWTP; treating
the pretreated ground water at the IWTP using
air stripping, followed by carbon adsorption;
discharging the treated water off site to a
POTW; and monitoring DNAPL collection and
treatment during remediation activities. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$3,710,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $1,000,000 for 2 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Actual chemical-specific standards or goals
will be set in a future ROD.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
403
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ROCKY FLATS PLANT (USDOE), CO
Federal Facility
January 25, 1991
The Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) site is part
of the 6,550-acre nuclear weapons research,
development, production, and plutonium
processing complex in Jefferson County,
Colorado. The plant is composed of the
450-acre Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) security area
and the remaining buffer area. Land use in the
area is predominantly rural and agricultural with
several new residential areas under development.
This ROD addresses OU 2, which includes the
903 Pad and Lip, and Mound and East Trenches
Areas, which are located southeast of the RFP.
The site lies within the South Walnut Creek and
Woman Creek drainage basins. The South
Walnut Creek Basin and Woman Creek surface
water serve as a source of drinking water. Since
1951, the Department of Energy (DOE) used the
site for manufacturing components for nuclear
weapons, processing plutonium, and fabricating,
machining, and assembling components from
metals. A number of past on-site storage and
disposal activities are potential sources of
contamination. From 1958 to 1967, drums
containing radioactively contaminated oils and
solvents were stored on site, with some of the
drums corroding and leaking approximately
5,000 gallons of liquid into the soil. During a
clean up and removal effort of the drum storage
area, winds distributed plutonium to the south
andğeast. Prior to 1968, sanitary sewage sludge
and flattened drums contaminated with uranium
and plutonium were disposed of in on-site
trenches, and drums of uranium-contaminated oil
were burned in on-site pits. During the 1950s
and 1960s, reactive metals including lithium,
and solvents were destroyed on-site. In
addition, various bottled gases were detoxified
on site between 1982 and 1983. Current waste
handling practices involve on-site and off-site
recycling of hazardous materials, and off-site
disposal of solid radioactive materials at another
DOE facility. DOE has conducted a number of
investigations that revealed VOCs, metals, and
radionuclides above background levels in soil,
sediment, ground water, and surface water. A
1969 clean-up action attempted to remove
corroded and leaking drums of radioactive waste
from an on-site area, remove contaminated soil,
and cap the soil. In 1970, approximately 1,405
drums containing radioactive waste were
removed and disposed of off site. A 1990 ROD
addressed contaminated ground water. This
ROD provides an interim remedy for
contaminated South Walnut Creek Basin surface
waters as part of OU2. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the surface
water are VOCs including carbon tetrachloride,
PCE, and TCE; and radioactive materials.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes collecting surface water using diversion;
treating surface water using precipitation and
cross-flow membrane filtration to remove
suspended solids and radionuclides, followed by
liquid-phase activated carbon to remove organic
contaminants; discharging the treated water on
site to South Walnut Creek; conducting
treatability studies; and monitoring surface
water. The estimated present worth cost for this
RA is $4,850,600, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $361,600.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific surface water clean-up
goals will be based on the most stringent of state
and federal allowable limits as set forth in
ARARs, and will apply to the final RA.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
404
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OU21), CO
Federal Facility
June 6, 1991
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) (OU
21) site comprises part of the 17,000-acre RMA
site, which is a former U.S. Army chemical
warfare and incendiary munitions manufacturing
and assembly plant in Adams County Colorado.
From the 1950s until late 1969, the U.S. Army
used the RMA facility to produce the nerve
agent GB (isopropylmethyl-phosphono-
fluoridate). In addition, between 1947 and
1982, private industries leased major portions of
the plant's facilities to manufacture various
insecticides and herbicides. From 1970 through
1982, U.S. Army facility operations have
primarily involved the destruction of chemical
warfare materials. Because final remediation of
the RMA site will take many years to complete,
13 IRAs were determined necessary prior to
implementing the final on-post ROD. The south
tank farm plume (STFP), OU21, is one of
several areas being addressed as part of the other
contaminated sources IRA. The STFP is located
in the southern half of sections 1 and 2 of the
RMA site. From 1947 to 1978, STF tanks
464A, 464B, and others were used intermittently
to store bicycloheptadiene (BCHPD) and
dicyclopentadiene (DCPD) bottoms generated
from pesticide manufacturing. In addition,
mixtures of BCHPD, DCPD, and fuel oil were
pumped onto the ground, or collected or buried
on site during tank cleanings. From 1960 to
1963, leakage of BCHPD/DCPD bottoms
occurred from a pipe connected to tank 464A,
and additional spills occurred in 1964 and 1978.
The exact spill locations and amounts are
generally not known. Additionally, in 1948, a
large spill of benzene containing toluene and
xylene impurities occurred in the STF.
A number of U.S. Army investigations have
revealed ground-water contamination originating
from the areas of LNAPL located near tank
464A. Recent investigations have shown that
the STFP does not pose significant risk to public
health or the environment, as originally
suspected, because data indicate that the plume
will not migrate into nearby Lake Ladora or
Lake Derby prior to implementation of the final
remedy. In addition, biodegradation of the
plume may be occurring. This ROD addresses
interim management of migration of the STFP
and is consistent with the final response action.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the ground water are VOCs including benzene,
toluene, and xylenes.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected interim RA for this site
includes performing one-time comprehensive
ground-water monitoring throughout the STFP to
verify the extent and migration rate of STFP
constituents and the existence of conditions
conductive for biodegradation within the STFP
and conducting annual ground-water monitoring
including performing quarterly measurement of
STFP water levels. No cost information was
provided for this interim RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Not applicable.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
405
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL (OU26), CO
Federal Facility
September 5, 1991
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) (OU
26) site comprises part of the 17,000-acre RMA
site, which is a former U.S. Army chemical
warfare and incendiary munitions manufacturing
and assembly plant in Adams County, Colorado.
From the 1950s until late 1969, the U.S. Army
used the RMA facility to produce the nerve
agent GB (isopropylmethyl-phosphono-
fluoridate). In addition, between 1947 and
1982, private industries leased major portions of
the plant facilities to manufacture various
insecticides and herbicides. Since 1970, U.S.
Army facility operations primarily have involved
the destruction of chemical warfare materials.
Because final remediation of the RMA site will
take many years to complete, 13 IRAs were
determined necessary prior to implementing the
final on-post ROD. OU26, which is one of
these 13 IRAs, is composed of the piping and
equipment in the buildings in the north and south
Plants at RMA. From 1987 to 1989, the U.S.
Army surveyed and sampled the former
chemical process equipment and piping in the
north and south plants. In 1990, the U.S. Army
decontaminated piping and equipment in some
buildings in the north plant, and sampled 2,354
one-ton containers. This ROD addresses
contaminated piping and equipment in numerous
buildings in the north and south plants, and
contaminated one-ton containers. This IRA will
facilitate the final remedy for the clean up of
chemical process buildings and structures, by
verifying the decontamination status of chemical
process piping, equipment, and one-ton
containers, and decontaminating these structures
and one-ton containers, as necessary, to allow
for reuse or disposal of the equipment and
piping. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the debris and air are the chemical
agents GB (Agent GB, Sarin), HD (Agent
Mustard), L (Agent Lewisite), and VX (Agent
VX).
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
sampling to determine the level of
decontamination inside piping and equipment as
identified in the sampling operations in the north
and south plants; decontaminating piping,
equipment, and one-ton containers; and
dismantling piping and equipment. No cost
information was provided for this interim RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific standards for air are based
on federal regulations and include
GB 0.0001 mg/m3, HD 0.003 mg/m3,
L 0.003 mg/m3, and VX 0.0001 mg/m3.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
406
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
WASATCH CHEMICAL (LOT 6), UT
March 29, 1991
The 18-acre Wasatch Chemical (Lot 6) site
is an active chemical production, storage, and
distribution facility in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Land use in the area is predominantly industrial.
The site lies one-half mile east of the Jordan
River, within the center of the Jordan River
Valley. The site overlies a thick aquifer that is
a regional source of potable water. Surface
water run-off from the site is drained by a series
of ditches, which ultimately discharge to the
Great Salt Lake. From 1957 to 1986, Wasatch
Chemical Company and other tenants used the
site for production, packaging, storage, and
distribution of various chemical products,
including industrial chemicals, acids, solvents,
pesticides, and fertilizers. Process wastes,
including dioxins, were directed toward an on-
site evaporation pond, stored in 40 drums, and
also discharged directly in the ground and
possibly into the Salt Lake City sewer system.
Noncompliance with state and federal hazardous
waste storage practices and disposal standards
prompted a number of state investigations,
which revealed elevated levels of VOCs in on-
site soil and sludge, and PCE in ground water.
In 1986, as part of a removal action, EPA
removed 40 drums and cylinders and other
contaminated materials off site. This ROD
addresses contamination of on-site soil, sludge,
and ground water as a final remedy. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, sludge, and ground water are VOCs
including PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; and
other organics including pesticides, herbicides,
and dioxins.
of contaminated soil and sludge and 650 gallons
of liquid waste in the former evaporation pond;
treating these materials on site using in situ
vitrification; excavating and land farming
1,111 cubic yards of hydrocarbon-contaminated
soil; sealing the surface of the site using asphalt
paving; pumping and on-site treatment of 20.4
million gallons of contaminated ground water
using air stripping; controlling air emissions
with carbon adsorption, if needed, followed by
off-site disposal of residuals; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $3,900,000, which
includes an estimated annual O&M cost of
$33,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil cleanup goals are based on health-based
action levels and include PCE 103,000 Kg/kg,
TCE 22,000 wg/kg and dioxin < 1 Ğg/kg (based
on RCRA LDRs). Ground-water action levels
are based on SDWA MCLs and proposed
MCLs, and include PCE 5 wg/1 (MCL) and
TCE 5 Mg/I (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent land and ground-
water access and use at the site.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and consolidating 3,587 cubic yards
407
-------
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 9
A51-002-9
REGION 9
Site
Advanced Micro Devices 901/902 (Signetics) (TRW Microwave)
Advanced Micro Devices #915
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Castle Air Force Base (Federal Facility)
CTS Printex
FMC (Fresno Plant)
Indian Bend Wash Area (OUs 1, 4, 5, 6)
Mesa Area Ground Water Contamination
Micro Storage/Intel Magnetics
Monolithic Memories (Advanced Micro Devices-Arques)
(National Semiconductor)
National Semiconductor (Monolithic Memories)
Signetics (Advanced Micro Devices 901/902) (TRW Microwave)
Sola Optical USA
South Bay Asbestos Area (Amendment)
State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Page
411
413
414
416
417
418
420
421
422
423
425
427
429
430
409
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Site State Page
Spectra-Physics (Teledyne Semiconductor) CA 431
Synertek (Building #1) CA 433
Teledyne Semiconductor (Spectra-Physics) CA 435
TRW Microwave (Advanced Micro Devices 901/902) (Signetics) CA 437
Valley Wood Preserving CA 439
Van Waters & Rogers CA 441
410
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 901/902 (SIGNETICS)
(TRW MICROWAVE), CA
September 11, 1991
The 3-acre Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)
site is an active semiconductor manufacturing
facility in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County,
California. The site is part of a larger study
area that includes four OUs: the AMD 901/902
site, the Signetics site, the single acre TRW
Microwave site, and a 100-acre off-site
contaminated ground-water plume. Land use in
the area is predominantly commercial and
industrial. Residential property lies to the north
and west of the main facilities and overlies
portions of the off-site ground-water OU. Six
aquifers are associated with the study area
including a deeper aquifer confirmed only at the
TRW and Signetics sites. Currently, the
contaminated ground water is not used as a
drinking water supply, but the state considers
several of the aquifers to be potential drinking
water sources. From 1969 to the present, AMD
has used its portion of the study area for
manufacturing semiconductors using organic
solvents, acids, and metals. These substances
also were used in semiconductor manufacturing
at the Signetics and TRW sites from 1964 to the
present and from 1974 to 1986, respectively.
As a result of a leakage from the acid
neutralization system at the AMD site, a number
of investigations were conducted that revealed
extensive contamination of on-site soil and
ground water. Leakage from an underground
waste solvent storage tank at the Signetics site
and responses to an information questionnaire
regarding an underground tanks investigation at
the TRW site resulted in a number of
investigations that revealed extensive
contamination of soil and ground water. Several
initial remedial measures were conducted at the
AMD OU. During 1983 and 1984, acid
neutralization sumps and approximately
217 cubic yards of contaminated soil were
removed. From 1984 to 1988, remediation of
ground water was implemented using extraction
wells and dewatering sumps. Several initial
remedial measures also were conducted at the
Signetics OU. From 1982 to present, ground
water has been pumped from various site
locations and treated using air stripping and
carbon adsorption, followed by air stripping to
control off-gases and reuse of the treated water
in industrial processes. Contaminated soil has
been removed from three separate locations,
including 4,720 cubic yards of soil from a waste
solvent storage tank area in 1983. In 1989,
three vapor extraction wells were installed to
treat contaminated soil. Several initial remedial
measures also have been conducted at the TRW
OU. From 1983 to 1984, an underground waste
solvent storage tank and 120 cubic yards of on-
site contaminated soil were removed. From
1984 to present, ground water has been pumped
and treated using air stripping, followed by on-
site discharge to surface water. In addition, two
ground- water extraction systems pump
contaminated ground water from the 100-acre
off-site plume. The extracted water is treated at
a neighboring AMD facility using air stripping,
followed by liquid phase granular activated
carbon polisher and on-site discharge to surface
water, or reuse by the facility. This ROD
collectively addresses final remediation of, soil
and ground water in the four separate OUs
within the study area. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including PCE and
TCE; and other organics.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
separate remedies for the four different OUs of
the study area. The remedy for the AMD OU
includes excavating 37 cubic yards of on-site
contaminated soil, followed by off-site
411
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
incineration and/or disposal, and backfilling the
excavation with clean soil; and continuing on-
site pumping and treatment of ground water
using air stripping and carbon adsorption of
off-gases, followed by reuse of the treated
water. The remedy for the Signetics OU
includes expanding the on-site soil vapor
extraction system and continuing on-site
pumping and treatment of ground water using air
stripping, followed by aqueous-phase carbon
polishing, reuse of the treated water, and
vapor-phase carbon treatment of the effluent air
stream. The remedy for the TRW OU includes
continuing on-site pumping and treatment of
ground water using air stripping, followed by
on-site discharge of treated water to surface
water. The remedy for the off-site ground-water
OU includes continuing and expanding the
pumping and treatment system for contaminated
ground water using air stripping and
aqueous-phase carbon adsorption, followed by
reuse of the treated water or on-site discharge to
surface water, and off-site regeneration of spent
carbon. Each OU also will involve continuing
ground-water monitoring, and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for the RA for all OUs is
$11,900,000, which includes an estimated O&M
cost of $225,000 for the AMD OU; $236,000
for the Signetics OU; and $255,000 for the off-
site ground water OU. No annual O&M cost
was provided for the TRW OU.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals have
been set at background or total VOCs 1 mg/kg
based on state policy. Chemical-specific
ground-water clean-up goals are based on state
and federal MCLs, and include PCE 5 Ğg/l
(state) and TCE 5 Mg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent human exposure to
contaminated ground water during the clean-up
period.
412
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES #915, CA
August 26, 1991
The Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) #915
site is an active semiconductor manufacturing
facility in Santa Clara County, California. The
site consists of approximately five acres and
contains three physical structures, the largest of
which is a 116,000-square-feet building known
as AMD 915. The site is in the Santa Clara
Valley, and the facility lies within an industrial
park bordered by residential areas. Ground
water from this basin provides up to 50 percent
of the municipal drinking water for 1.4 million
residents of the Santa Clara Valley. The site
overlies three aquifers, one of which is known
as the B aquifer, which is approximately 20 to
100 feet below the surface. AMD 915 was built
in 1974, and on-site manufacturing processes
have involved the use of solvents, caustics, and
acids. Eleven chemical storage or treatment
areas have been documented at the AMD 915
facility including three underground acid
neutralization systems, two above-ground drum
storage areas, and six underground tank
complexes. Two of the acid neutralization
systems remain in operation, as well as one
drum storage area, and two tank complexes.
Records indicate that solvent waste and other
materials were stored in underground tanks, and
as many as 28 separate underground tanks may
have been in service at various times. In 1981,
site investigations discovered soil contamination
during a planned UST removal. Two leaking
underground tanks were identified, and 7,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed.
The majority of these tanks now have been
removed from service or replaced. In 1982,
ground-water contamination also was addressed
and found to be limited to the B aquifer.
Additional off-site sources of ground-water
contamination may have a significant effect on
the AMD 915 site including commingling of
ground-water contamination. The most notable
of these are AMD 901/902 facilities, Signetics,
and FBI Microwave. Two interim RAs for soil
were completed during 1981 and 1982, including
off-site removal and disposal of a waste solvent
tank, and the removal of one acid neutralization
system and 5,500 cubic yards of soil. In 1982,
ground-water pumping and treatment using air
stripping and carbon adsorption began on site
using existing building dewatering sumps. This
was supplemented with the installation of a
series of wells during 1982 and 1988. This
ROD addresses remediation of on-site
contaminated ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics; and metals
including arsenic and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
continuing the operation of eight existing
ground-water extraction wells; and treating
contaminated ground water on site using air
stripping and carbon adsorption, followed by
discharge of the treated water on site to surface
water. The estimated present worth cost for this
RA is $2,100,000. This figure represents the
O&M costs for 30 years since the system is
already in place as an interim measure and no
additional capital costs are required.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up standards are based
on the more stringent of federal or state MCLs
for drinking water. Chemical-specific goals for
ground water include PCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), and
TCE 5 Mg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
limit access to site ground water until clean-up
standards have been met.
413
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
ATLAS ASBESTOS MINE, CA
February 14, 1991
The 450-acre Atlas Mine Area is part of the
Atlas Asbestos Mine site in Fresno County,
California. The site consists of four
geographically distinct areas (the Atlas Mine
Area, the Clear Creek Management Area
(CCMA), the Ponding Basin of the California
Aqueduct, and the city of Coalinga). The Atlas
Mine Area is on rural land owned by the federal
government and private parties, and surrounding
land is used for mining, ranching, farming, and
recreation. The mine area includes three open
pit asbestos mine surfaces, stockpiles of asbestos
waste material, an abandoned mill building, a
settling pond, and debris. Construction of an
asbestos mill at the Atlas Mine began in 1962,
and on-site asbestos mining and milling activities
occurred from 1967 to 1979. Approximately
three million cubic yards of asbestos ore and
asbestos mill tailings from on-site operations
were bulldozed into piles adjacent to the mill
building. In 1976 and 1980, the Atlas Mine was
cited for violating asbestos emissions standards.
In early 1980, after detecting elevated levels of
asbestos in water samples from the California
Aqueduct, the state concluded that additional
corrective measures were necessary to prevent
mine- and mill-generated asbestos from entering
the drainage basins. Further state investigations
identified high concentrations of asbestos in the
mine area soil, surface water, and air. A 1989
ROD for the city of Coalinga OU addressed
cleanup of asbestos-contaminated soil in
Coalinga, California by burying the
contaminated material in a waste management
unit with an impermeable cap. This ROD is
designed to control the release of asbestos from
the mine area. No actions are proposed at this
time for the CCMA or the Ponding Basin of the
California Aqueduct. In 1992, EPA will
evaluate the DOI BLM's revised land use plan
for CCMA to determine if the plan is adequate
to minimize airborne asbestos emissions, and the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and California
Department of Waste Resources actions to
minimize airborne emissions from the Ponding
Basin to determine if further action is necessary.
The primary contaminant of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, debris, surface water, and air
is asbestos, an inorganic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes paving
the road through the Mine Area or implementing
an appropriate road maintenance alternative;
constructing stream diversions, sediment
trapping dams, and other slope stabilization
elements; instituting a verification sampling plan
involving surface water modeling and surface
water and stream bed sampling, as necessary;
conducting a revegetation pilot project, and
implementing revegetation if found to be
technically feasible and cost-effective;
dismantling the mill building with off-site
disposal along with other debris from the mine
area; and implementing institutional controls
including deed and land use restrictions, and site
access restrictions such as fencing. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$4,286,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $19,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
All diversion and drainage facilities will be
designed and constructed to accommodate the
anticipated volume of precipitation and peak
flows from surface run-off in a 25-year, 24-hour
storm. All tailings will be protected from
100-year peak stream flows. Quantification of
risk reduction is difficult because asbestos from
natural and disturbed areas will continue to enter
414
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
the surface water; however, a verification Institutional Controls
sampling plan will be implemented to confirm
that an appropriate reduction in asbestos Deed restrictions will limit use of the
transport is achieved. privately-held land and prevent disturbance of
the contaminated material left at the mine area.
415
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CASTLE AIR FORCE BASE, CA
Federal Facility
August 12, 1991
The 2,777-acre Castle Air Force Base is a
Strategic Air Command training base six miles
northwest of the city of Merced in Merced
County, California. Land use in the area is
predominantly agricultural. Several irrigation
canals and laterals are located within one mile of
the base including Canal Creek, which borders
the base on its southwest boundary and receives
run-off from the base and irrigated land
downstream. At least 20 agricultural wells are
located within three to four miles of the site, and
a number of residential and municipal wells are
located within two miles of the site. Since
1941, the site has been used as a military air
training base. Fire training activities, as well as
aircraft and jet engine maintenance activities
including metal plating and processing, have
occurred on site. Both processes involve the use
of fuels, solvents, and chemicals and have
generated municipal and chemical wastes.
During routine well sampling, the state identified
elevated TCE concentrations in ground water in
the shallow aquifer beneath and south of the site.
In 1984, the base was required not only to
implement remedial measures to correct this
identified contamination but also to prevent
future ground-water degradation from waste
discharges. The site has been divided into OUs
for remediation. This ROD provides an interim
remedy for the main TCE plume, as OU1.
Future RODs will address remaining soil and
ground-water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, and
TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this interim remedy
includes on-site pumping and treatment of
ground water using air stripping, followed by
natural biological enhancement to accelerate the
release and degradation of hazardous constituents
in the saturated zone; reinjecting the treated
ground water on site to maintain hydraulic
control and avoid depletion of the aquifer;
treating emissions from the air stripping process
using granular activated carbon; and treating the
emissions abatement unit by on-site steam
regeneration, and disposing of the liquid
condensate off site. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $28,445,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $2,744,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals based on
MCLs and risk levels will be established in a
subsequent ROD.
Institutional Controls
Institutional controls will be implemented on
site to reduce site risks.
416
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CTS PRINTEX, CA
June 28, 1991
The CTS Printex site is an inactive printed
circuit board manufacturing facility in Mountain
View, Santa Clara County, California. Land
surrounding the site is used for industrial,
commercial, residential, and agricultural
purposes. The site overlies two major
water-yielding zones, a shallow and deep
aquifer, which are suspected to be hydraulically
continuous. Historical ground-water use in the
area surrounding the site includes private
water-supply wells for homes and agriculture
prior to the construction of public water and
sewer connections in 1984. Site features include
a flammable materials storage shed area, an
industrial wastewater sump used to neutralize
and discharge waste to POTW, a "wet floor"
building used for both wet and dry
manufacturing processes, a materials and waste
storage warehouse, and various office buildings.
From 1981 to 1985, the CTS Printex site
manufactured printed circuit boards at its on-site
facilities. Site investigations by CTS Printex in
1985 established that the "wet floor" building
and the waste-water sump areas were the sources
of on-site soil and ground-water contamination,
and that the release of contaminants was
attributed to deterioration of the concrete bases.
In 1986, the state certified closure of the former
CTS facility. In 1987, the state required CTS to
implement the following interim RA for soil and
ground water: destroying and removing
contaminated on-site structures, removing
residual metals sludge and process debris from
the site, hydroblasting interior areas of structures
exposed to contaminants, excavating the sump
and contaminated soil, and installing and
operating a ground-water extraction system. This
ROD addresses contaminated on-site ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
continuing the current ground-water extraction
system, including discharging the untreated
water to the sanitary sewer for off-site treatment
at the POTW; and ground-water monitoring.
Passive air stripping is created by passing water
through the sewer collection system and through
the sewage treatment plant. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $786,000,
which includes an estimated O&M cost of
$104,700 for 15 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
the more stringent of federal MCLs or non-zero
MCLGs, or state MCLs. Chemical-specific
goals include benzene 1 Ğg/l (state), PCE 5 wg/1
(MCL), TCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), and toluene 100
wg/1 (state). Action-specific goals include
compliance with the city of Mountain View's
discharge requirement for the sanitary sewer,
which is total organics equal to 1 wg/1 at the
point of discharge.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
417
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
FMC (FRESNO PLANT), CA
June 28, 1991
The 17-acre FMC (Fresno Plant) site is an
active pesticide manufacturing facility in Fresno,
California. Surrounding land use is primarily
industrial, but several residential areas are within
one kilometer of the site. The site overlies two
unconsolidated sand zones that are a potential
source of ground water, and have been
contaminated by site operations. Since 1931,
various agricultural product operations have
been conducted on site including sulfur
processing, and fertilizer and pesticide
manufacturing. Wastewater from liquid
pesticide formulation was discharged to a
4.92-acre area of the site via a trench during the
1960s and 1970s. From 1963 until 1974,
wastewater from oil drum cleaning operations
was stored in an above-ground tank and was
sprayed on a concrete evaporation slab in an oil
drum yard. A former disposal pond area was
used for the disposal of fertilizer process waste
from 1967 to 1972. From 1972 until 1983, a
wastewater evaporation pond was used for the
discharge of wastewater, including oil drum
washing rinsate. From 1976 until 1988, a
rainwater percolation pond was used to collect
surface run-off from non-production areas of the
site. These waste disposal practices have led to
contamination of on-site soil and ground water.
In 1980, FMC excavated a portion of the
contaminated soil in the oil drum yard. In 1983,
discharge to the wastewater evaporation pond
was discontinued. In 1985, 1,500 cubic yards of
contaminated soil were excavated from the waste
pond. In 1989, this pond was lined with a
synthetic liner. Investigations by FMC under
EPA oversight from 1989 to 1991 characterized
and quantified site contamination, affected
media, and probable source areas. This ROD
provides for remediation of on site source areas
and restoration of ground water as a final
remedy. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are
organochlorine and organophosphorous
pesticides although VOCs including PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics including
dioxin, PAHs, and phenols; and metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead are also present.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating approximately 25,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil from on-site source areas, and
treating the soil using soil washing and
stabilization technologies; backfilling the
excavated areas with treated soil; treating soil
wash water using carbon adsorption; capping
unpaved and excavated areas including the
4.92-acre wastewater evaporation pond, oil drum
yard, and percolation pond; on-site pumping and
treatment of ground water using filtration, air
stripping, and carbon adsorption; reinjecting or
reusing the treated ground water on site;
providing an alternate water supply to on-site or
off-site well users, if necessary, to eliminate
adverse affects to ground-water treatment;
monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed, land, and
ground-water use restrictions. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $17,310,681,
which includes an annual O&M cost of
$445,163 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up standards for soil are based on a
carcinogenic risk level of 10"4 and an HI=1.
However, when combined with capping and
institutional controls, the selected soil remedy
attains a 10"6 carcinogenic risk level.
418
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Ground-water clean-up standards are based on Institutional Controls
the more stringent of federal or state MCLs or
non-zero MCLGs. If these standards do not Deed restrictions will be implemented to
exist, state action levels, site-specific restrict ground-water use and future land use on
health-based levels, or quantification limits will site.
be used.
419
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA (OUs 1, 4, 5, 6), AZ
September 12, 1991
The Indian Bend Wash Area site is an active
electronics manufacturing and metal plating
facility located in the cities of Scottsdale and
Tempe, Maricopa County, Arizona. The site
consists of two study areas, the North Indian
Bend Wash (NIBW) and South Indian Bend
Wash (SIBW), both of which contain portions
that lie in the 100-year floodplain of the IBW.
The NIBW area is the focus of this ROD and
consists of four operable units; 1, 4, 5, and 6.
Land use within the 10-square mile NIBW study
area is mainly residential, commercial/industrial,
and developed open space (parks and golf
courses). In addition, the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community maintains a
portion of NIBW as Cropland. The Indian Bend
Wash provides the major surface water drainage
for the NIBW area. Since 1950, various
electronics manufacturing and metal plating
facilities, as well as other industries, have been
active at NIBW. On-site operations have
included the use and disposal of organic
solvents. During operations, waste solvents and
wastewater containing solvents were released
from solvent storage tanks and pipes directly to
dry wells, surface pits, ponds, lagoons, and the
ground surface. In 1981, the state conducted
well sampling and identified VOC contamination
in several municipal supply wells. EPA
investigations have concluded that the methods
used for solvent disposal led to soil
contamination, which in turn acted as a source
of contamination for underlying alluvial units.
A 1988 ROD provided for remediation of the
middle and deep alluvial units at NIBW. This
ROD addresses contamination in the vadose zone
and in the upper alluvial unit within the NIBW
area. However, because the vadose zone
overlies the upper alluvial unit, which overlies
the middle and deep alluvial units, RAs
documented in this ROD are dependent upon
successful completion of the 1988 ROD. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and shallow ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene;
other organics; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead. EPA has designated 13
areas at NIBW for potential contamination in the
vadose zone. Twelve of these areas are
designated by number. The 13th area is in the
vicinity of several city of Scottsdale ground-
water supply wells.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing a soil vapor extraction system for areas
7 and 8 consisting of soil vapor extraction wells,
a manifold collection system, a vacuum pump,
and a vapor-phase carbon adsorption system;
installing additional soil vapor monitoring wells
to continue investigations in areas 3, 5, 6, 9, 11,
and 12 with either soil vapor extraction or no
further action remedies as needed; conducting no
further action for areas 1,2, 4, 10, and the city
of Scottsdale wells; and ground-water
monitoring in the upper alluvial unit. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is a
minimum of $21,576,000, depending upon the
need for soil vapor extraction in areas 3, 5, 6,
9, 11, and 12, which includes an annual O&M
cost of at least $935,000 for 30 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil and ground-water
criteria are based on the more stringent of state
water quality standards, federal MCLs, or
non-zero MCLGs. These criteria include PCE
5 wg/1 (MCL), TCE 5 wg/1 (MCL), toluene 1000
wg/1 (MCL), arsenic 50 wg/1 (MCL), chromium
50 wg/1 (state), and lead 50 wg/1 (MCL).
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
420
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MESA AREA GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, AZ
September 27, 1991
The 80-acre Mesa Area Ground Water
Contamination site is a semiconductor
manufacturing facility in Mesa, Maricopa
County, Arizona. Land use in the area is
predominantly industrial and residential. The
site overlies two aquifers: an LA A, which is
used by the residents of Mesa as a drinking
water source, and a UAA. Since 1966,
Motorola, Inc. has used the site for the
production of semiconductors and the storage of
chemicals in an underground storage system.
On-site manufacturing processes involve the use
of solvents, acids, and bases. In 1983, Motorola
identified VOCs, including TCE, in ground
water originating from the LAA. Subsequent
investigations by Motorola revealed high levels
of VOC-contaminated soil in the main chemical
handling area, and VOC and chromium
contamination in the UAA. From 1983 to 1987,
Motorola performed a partial closure of the
underground waste solvent storage system under
RCRA authority. In 1984, Motorola installed
ground-water monitoring wells, later converted
these into extraction wells, and pumped
contaminated ground water from the UAA.
Since 1987, as a result of Motorola's actions,
contamination levels have been consistently
below MCLs. However, by 1991, the
contaminated ground-water plume had migrated
to over one mile southeast of the site. In 1991,
EPA dropped the Mesa Ground Water
Contamination site from the NPL and referred
the site to the RCRA program because the site is
a RCRA facility, the ground water
contamination is solely from the Motorola
facility, and no public drinking water supply
wells have been contaminated. This action will
be implemented by the PRP under state
supervision, and incorporated as a component of
the corrective action plan under RCRA. This
ROD documents final remediation of
contaminated soil and ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs including PCE
and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating shallow on-site soil using soil vapor
extraction, controlling VOC emissions using
carbon adsorption, followed by off-site disposal
of carbon residuals; on-site and off-site pumping
of contaminated ground water; treating the
ground-water on site using vacuum
degasification, followed by carbon adsorption to
remove VOCs; discharging the treated water
from the degasifier to the deionized water
treatment plant for reuse in manufacturing and
other facility processes; disposing of remaining
wastewater at a POTW; and rehabilitating two
deep industrial ground-water supply wells to
prevent them from acting as conduits for
contaminant plume migration from the upper to
the lower aquifer. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $7,144,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $581,000 for 13 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on state standards, and include PCE 14
mg/kg. Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs, and
include PCE 5 Kg/1 and TCE 5 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
421
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
MICRO STORAGE/INTEL MAGNETICS, CA
August 26, 1991
The 3-acre Micro Storage/Intel Magnetics
site consists of a former microcomputer disk
drive manufacturing facility and a magnetic
bubble production and testing facility in Santa
Clara, Santa Clara County, California. Land
use in the area is predominantly industrial,
although approximately 300,000 people reside
within a three-mile radius of the site. In
addition, the site overlies two shallow aquifers
zones, which in turn, overlie the Santa Clara
Valley ground-water basin, the primary drinking
water source for the 1.4 million residents of the
Santa Clara Valley. From 1985 to 1986, Micro
Storage Corporation (MSC) researched,
developed, and manufactured microcomputer
disk drives. Chemicals used on site were stored
in an external shaded storage area in 55-gallon
drums. From 1978 to 1987, Intel Magnetics
(IM), a magnetic bubble production and testing
facility, operated both an underground solvent
tank used to store waste solvents, and an
inorganic acid neutralization system. As a result
of possible improper storage procedures at both
facilities, a number of state and EPA
investigations identified VOCs including
benzene, TCE, and TCA, and other organics in
the ground-water aquifer beneath the site.
Interim remedial measures have included:
extracting contaminated ground water at both
sites; removing all chemicals stored on the
combined MSC/IM site; and replacing the UST
and excavating contaminated soil at the IM site.
Treated ground water is discharged to a storm
sewage system tributary of nearby Calabazas
Creek. This ROD addresses ground water
contaminated by past facility operations. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, and toluene; and other organics.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
continuing ground-water extraction and treatment
with carbon adsorption until clean-up standards
are achieved in all combined MSC/IM site
monitoring wells; installing and sampling a
minimum of two new monitoring wells;
hydraulically contain the entire 93,000 cubic
yards ground-water plume above clean-up
standards; maintaining hydraulic control to
prohibit the further vertical and horizontal
migration of the ground-water pollution;
quarterly ground-water monitoring at the
combined MSC/IM site during the clean-up
period; treating the extracted ground water with
an existing carbon absorption system;
discharging the treated ground water on site to
Calabazas Creek; and implementing deed
restrictions on site. The estimated present worth
O&M cost for this RA ranges from $630,000 to
$1,100,000 for 10 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on the more stringent of federal
and state MCLs standards, and include benzene
1 wg/1, PCE 5 wg/1, TCE 5 wg/1, and toluene
100 wg/1.
Institutional Controls
Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prohibit the use of on-site shallow ground water
and control other subsurface activities.
422
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
MONOLITHIC MEMORIES (ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES - ARQUES)
(NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR), CA
September 11, 1991
The Monolithic Memories (MM) site is a
former semiconductor manufacturing facility
located in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara,
California. Land surrounding the site is used
for commercial and light industrial purposes.
The site lies within the confined area of the
Santa Clara Valley ground- water basin, which
consists of various upper and lower aquifer
zones. Ground water from this basin provides
up to SO percent of the municipal drinking water
for Santa Clara Valley residents. Remediation
of the MM site has been combined with another
NPL site, National Semiconductor (NSC),
because both sites contribute to the same
ground-water contamination problem. The
combined remediation has been divided into two
OUs. This ROD addresses OU1, which consists
of three subunits. Subunit 1 includes the 60-acre
NSC facility, which contains more than 20
buildings used for administrative offices,
laboratories, and semiconductor manufacturing;
and the 10-acre United Technology Corporation
facility, which was used to develop and test
rocket propellants. Subunit 2 includes the MM
facility, currently owned by Advanced Micro
Devices, and consists of buildings used for
office space and semiconductor production
facilities. Subunit 3 consists of the areas
downgradient from subunits 1 and 2 and extends
to the leading edge of the contaminant plume.
Semiconductor manufacturing activities took
place on site at NSC beginning in 1967, and at
MM in 1970, and continued until 1989. Virgin
solvents and acids used in semiconductor
manufacturing processes were stored in
aboveground tanks and storage drums. Waste
solvents were stored in underground and
aboveground tanks, and acid waste was treated
in underground and aboveground tanks or
underground neutralization sumps. In 1982,
NSC and MM conducted PAs of soil and ground
water near USTs and underground storage
sumps, in response to a state-initiated storage
tank leak detection program. As a result, both
NSC and MM removed tanks, sumps, and soil
from areas containing elevated concentrations of
solvents. In addition, in 1984 and 1986, NSC
installed off-site and on-site ground-water
extraction systems, and MM installed on-site
extraction systems in 1986 and 1988. This ROD
addresses remediation of contaminated soil on
the facility property and ground water in the
upper aquifer zone as OU1. OU2 will address
remaining soil and ground-water problems
associated with the western portion of the
ground-water contaminant plume. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; and other
organics including PAHs and phenols.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating contaminated soil in Subunits 1 and 2 on
site using soil vapor extraction, with carbon
adsorption to control emissions, if required;
excavating and surface aeration of contaminated
soil, if necessary; pumping and on-site treatment
of contaminated ground water by expanding the
existing extraction system and adding an ozone
oxidation treatment system to the current air
stripper treatment systems; controlling air
emissions from the air strippers using carbon
treatment, if necessary; discharging the treated
ground- water on site to storm sewers;
monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$8,400,000, which includes a 30-year operation
period. O&M costs were not provided.
423
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals ^oals for ground water include benzene 1 wg/1
(state), phenol 5 wg/1 (state), PCE 5 wg/1 (state),
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil and TCE 5 wg/1 (state), and xylenes 175 wg/1
ground water are based on the more stringent of (site-specific).
state MCLs, federal MCLs, non-zero MCLGs,
and site-specific standards based on an HK1 Institutional Controls
and a calculated cancer risk of 10"6 to 10~*.
Chemical-specific goals for soil include total Deed restrictions will be implemented on
VOCs 1 mg/kg (site-specific) and PAHs site for soil and ground water.
10 mg/kg (site-specific). Chemical-specific
424
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR (MONOLITHIC MEMORIES), CA
September 11, 1991
The 70-acre National Semiconductor (NSC)
site is a former semiconductor manufacturing
facility located in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara,
California. Land surrounding the site is used
for commercial and light industrial purposes.
The site lies within the confined area of the
Santa Clara Valley ground-water basin, which
consists of various upper and lower aquifer
zones. Ground water from this basin provides
up to 50 percent of the municipal drinking water
for Santa Clara Valley residents. Remediation
of the NSC site has been combined with another
NPL site, Monolithic Memories (MM), because
both sites contribute to the same ground-water
contamination problem. The combined
remediation has been divided into two OUs.
This ROD addresses OU1, which consists of
three subunits. Subunit 1 includes the 60-acre
NSC facility, which contains more than 20
buildings used for administrative offices,
laboratories, and semiconductor manufacturing,
and the 10-acre United Technology Corporation
facility, which was used to develop and test
rocket propellants. Subunit 2 includes the MM
facility, currently owned by Advanced Micro
Devices, and consists of buildings used for
office space and semiconductor production
facilities. Subunit 3 consists of the areas
downgradient from subunits 1 and 2 and extends
to the leading edge of the contaminant plume.
Semiconductor manufacturing activities took
place on site at NSC beginning in 1967 and at
MM in 1970, and continued until 1989. Virgin
solvents and acids used in semiconductor
manufacturing processes were stored in above-
ground tanks and storage drums. Waste solvents
were stored in underground and aboveground
tanks, and acid waste was treated in
underground and aboveground tanks or
underground neutralization sumps. In 1982,
NSC and MM conducted PAs of soil and ground
water near USTs and sumps, in response to a
state-initiated storage tank leak detection
program. As a result, both NSC and MM
removed tanks, sumps, and soil containing areas
with elevated concentrations of solvents. In
addition, in 1984 and 1986 NSC installed off-
site and on-site ground-water extraction systems,
and MM installed on-site extraction systems in
1986 and 1988. This ROD addresses
remediation of contaminated soil on the facility
property and ground water in the upper aquifer
zone as OU1. OU2 will address remaining soil
and ground-water problems associated with the
western portion of the ground-water contaminant
plume. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; and other organics including PAHs and
phenols.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating contaminated soil in Subunits 1 and 2
using soil vapor extraction, with carbon
adsorption to control emissions, if required;
excavating and surface aeration of contaminated
soil, if necessary; pumping and treatment of
contaminated ground water by expanding the
existing extraction system and adding an ozone
oxidation treatment system to the current air
stripper treatment systems; controlling air
emissions from the air strippers using carbon
treatment, if necessary; discharging the treated
ground-water on site to storm sewers; ground-
water monitoring; and implementing institutional
controls including deed restrictions. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$8,400,000, which includes a 30-year operation
period. O&M costs were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for soil and
ground water are based on the more stringent of
425
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
state MCLs, federal MCLs, non-zero MCLGs, TCE 5 wg/1 (state), and xylenes 175 wg/1
and site-specific standards based on an HI < 1 (site-specific).
and a calculated cancer risk of 10"6 to KT*.
Chemical-specific goals for soil include total institutional Controls
VOCs 1 mg/kg (site-specific) and PAHs
10 mg/kg .(site-specific). Chemical-specific Deed restrictions will be implemented on
goals for ground water include benzene 1 wg/1 site for soil and ground water.
(state), phenol 5 Ğg/l (state), PCE 5 Ğg/l (state),
426
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SIGNETICS (ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 901/902)
(TRW MICROWAVE), CA
September 11, 1991
The Signetics site is an active semiconductor
manufacturing facility in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara
County, California. The site is part of a larger
study area that includes four OUs: the Signetics
site, the three-acre Advanced Micro Devices
(AMD) 901/902 site, the single acre TRW
Microwave site, and a 100-acre off-site
contaminated ground-water plume. Land use in
the area is predominantly commercial and
industrial. Residential property lies to the north
and west of the main facilities and overlies
portions of the off-site ground-water OU. Six
aquifers are associated with the study area
including a deeper aquifer confirmed only at the
TRW and Signetics sites. Currently, the
contaminated ground water is not used as a
drinking water supply, but the state considers
several of the aquifers to be potential drinking
water sources. From 1964 to the present,
Signetics used its portion of the study area for
manufacturing semiconductors with organic
solvents, acids, and metals. These substances
also were used in semiconductor manufacturing
at the AMD and TRW sites from 1969 to the
present and from 1974 to 1986, respectively.
As a result of a leakage from an underground
waste solvent storage tank at the Signetics site,
a number of investigations were conducted that
revealed extensive contamination of on-site soil
and ground water. Leakage from the acid
neutralization system at AMD and responses to
an information questionnaire regarding an
underground tanks investigation at TRW resulted
in a number of investigations that also revealed
extensive contamination of on-site soil and
ground water at both of these sites. Several
initial remedial measures were conducted at the
Signetics OU. From 1982 to present, ground
water has been pumped from various site
locations and treated using air stripping and
carbon adsorption, followed by air stripping to
control off-gases and reuse of the treated water
in industrial processes. Contaminated soil has
been removed from three separate locations,
including 4,720 cubic yards of soil from a waste
solvent storage tank area in 1983. In 1989,
three vapor extraction wells were installed to
treat contaminated soil. Several initial remedial
measures also have been conducted at the AMD
OU. In 1983 and 1984, acid neutralization
sumps and about 217 cubic yards of
contaminated soil were removed. From 1984 to
1988, remediation of ground water was
implemented using extraction wells and
dewatering sumps. Several initial remedial
measures also have been conducted at the TRW
OU. From 1983 to 1984, an underground waste
solvent storage tank and 120 cubic yards of on-
site contaminated soil were removed. From
1984 to present, ground water has been pumped
and treated using air stripping, followed by on-
site discharge to surface water. In addition, two
ground-water extraction systems pump
contaminated ground water from the 100-acre
off-site plume. The extracted water is treated at
a neighboring AMD facility using air stripping,
followed by liquid phase granular activated
carbon polisher, with on-site discharge to
surface water or reuse by the facility. This
ROD collectively addresses final remediation of
soil and ground water in the four separate OUs
within the study area. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including PCE and
TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
separate remedies for the four different OUs.
The remedy for the Signetics OU includes
expanding the on-site soil vapor extraction
system; and continuing on-site pumping and
427
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
treatment of ground water using air stripping,
followed by aqueous-phase carbon polishing,
reuse of the treated water, and vapor-phase
carbon treatment of the effluent air stream. The
remedy for the AMD OU includes excavating 37
cubic yards of on-site contaminated soil,
followed by off-site incineration and/or disposal,
and backfilling the excavation with clean soil;
continuing on-site pumping and treatment of
ground water using air stripping and carbon
adsorption of off-gases, followed by reuse of the
treated water. The remedy for the TRW OU
includes continuing on-site pumping and
treatment of ground water using air stripping,
followed by on-site discharge of treated water to
surface water. The remedy for the off-site
ground-water OU includes continuing and
expanding the pumping and treatment system for
contaminated ground water using air stripping
and aqueous-phase carbon adsorption, followed
by reuse of the treated water or on-site discharge
to surface water, and off-site regeneration of
spent carbon. Each OU also will involve
continuing ground-water monitoring, and
implementing institutional controls including
deed and ground-water use restrictions. The
estimated present worth cost for the RA for all
OUs is $11,900,000, which includes an
estimated annual O&M cost of $236,000 for the
Signetics OU; $225,000 for the AMD OU; and
$255,000 for the off-site ground-water OU. No
annual O&M cost was provided for the TRW
OU.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals have
been set at background or total VOCs 1 mg/kg
based on state policy. Chemical-specific
ground-water clean-up goals are based on state
and federal MCLs, and include PCE 5 wg/1
(state) and TCE 5 wg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent human exposure to
contaminated ground water during the clean-up
period.
428
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SOLA OPTICAL USA, CA
September 27, 1991
The 35-acre Sola Optical site is an active
ophthalmic lens manufacturing facility in
southern Sonoma County, California. Land use
in the surrounding area is mixed residential,
manufacturing, commercial, and undeveloped.
Adobe Creek is located 1,500 feet west of an
on-site building. The City of Petaluma utilizes
an unconfmed aquifer, which underlies the site,
as a drinking water source. In 1982, Sola
identified low levels of solvents in on-site
ground water near six underground solvent
storage tanks used to store TCA, acetone, and
methanol. In 1983, the San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)
directed Sola to investigate ground- water
contamination at the site. In 1985, Sola
independently excavated and removed the
underground tanks along with the gravel backfill
and three to five feet of native soil from the
sides and bottom of the excavation. In 1987, the
SFRWQCB ordered Sola to construct a ground
water extraction and treatment system and, in
1988, the treatment system began pumping and
treating ground water using granulated activated
carbon to remove VOC contamination, followed
by discharging the treated ground water under
permit to Adobe Creek. This ROD provides a
final remedy to restore ground water to its
beneficial use. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
installing additional extraction wells on site;
continuing pumping and treatment of ground
water using the existing granulated activated
carbon adsorption system, followed by
discharging the treated water on site to surface
water, or discharging the extracted ground water
off site with or without treatment to a POTW;
disposing of any spent carbon off site; and
ground-water monitoring. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA ranges from $2,100,000
to $2,200,000 depending on the treatment
selected, which includes an annual estimated
O&M cost of $169,000 for 15 to 20 years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA MCLs and state
standards.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
429
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SOUTH BAY ASBESTOS AREA, CA
Amendment
June 26, 1991
The 550-acre South Bay Asbestos Area site
consists of a ring levee in Alviso, San Jose,
California. Land use in the area is mixed
residential, commercial, light industrial, and
agricultural. A 300-acre wetlands area is located
adjacent to the site and is partially covered by
the levee. The ring levee was constructed by
the City of San Jose as an emergency measure
during a flood in March 1983, but a number of
subsequent EPA investigations determined that
the levee soil was comprised of 40 percent
asbestos. In 1986 and 1987, EPA conducted
several emergency response actions to reduce
asbestos exposure around the site including the
removal of an asbestos pile, paving and covering
local roads and lots, and spraying the levee with
a dust-suppressing polymer. A 1988 ROD
provided for installation of a vegetated soil cover
over the levee. A subsequent 1989 ROD
addressed the remediation of portions of the site
not previously addressed and provided for
paving of contaminated truck yards, monthly wet
sweeping of streets, removal of asbestos waste
debris, cover requirements, inspections, deed
restrictions on landfills, and site maintenancee
and monitoring. This ROD amends the 1988
ROD for the asbestos-contaminated soil in the
ring levee and surrounding area. The primary
contaminant of concern affecting the soil is
asbestos, an inorganic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating and disposing off site 25,000 cubic
yards of asbestos-contaminated levee soil;
restoring any wetlands areas located under the
levee, or which were disturbed by the
excavation; and conducting soil sampling. The
estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$2,100,000. There are no O&M costs
associated with this RA.
Performance Standards or Goals
The chemical-specific soil cleanup goal for
asbestos is based on health-based criteria, and is
1 area percent.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
430
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SPECTRA-PHYSICS {TELEDYNE SEMICONDUCTOR), CA
March 22, 1991
The Spectra-Physics site is composed of two
Superfund sites: the Spectra-Physics site, a laser
and related components manufacturing facility,
and the Teledyne Semiconductor site, a
semiconductor manufacturing facility, as well as
off-site areas associated with a contaminated
ground water plume in Mountain View,
California. Land use in the area is
predominantly commercial and industrial. The
site is bordered by Permanente Creek to the west
and a landfill dewatering trench to the north.
Prior to the construction of public water and
sewer connections in 1984, ground-water use in
the area included private water supply wells for
homes and agriculture. Many of these wells
have been abandoned, and only a few currently
are hi use. Since 1963, Spectra-Physics has
manufactured lasers and associated components
on site, and has used VOCs including TCE as
part of the manufacturing processes.
Wastewater and rinse water were discharged
through five below-grade sumps into the sanitary
water system. Since 1962, Teledyne
Semiconductor, Inc. has operated a
semiconductor manufacturing facility on site.
Below-grade sumps were used for acid
neutralization and waste TCE collection.
Furthermore, an UST (tank A) was used for
storing waste solvents. In 1980, all underground
solvent handling activities were discontinued and
all chemicals are currently stored aboveground.
From 1982 to 1984, state investigations
identified the release of VOCs from solvent
tanks into on-site soil at both areas.
Spectra-Physics and Teledyne have together and
separately implemented interim actions on site.
In 1987, Spectra-Physics excavated and removed
all but one of the sumps and 6 feet of
contaminated soil from the facility area, and
installed a soil vapor extraction system as an
interim removal action to reduce VOCs in soil.
Teledyne excavated and removed tank A and the
surrounding contaminated soil, and installed
ground-water extraction systems on and around
the site to remove VOCs present in
concentrations above specified levels followed
by discharge of the extracted water to the
sanitary sewer system. This ROD addresses
contamination of the ground-water aquifers and
on-site soil. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including PCE, TCE, and toluene.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
expanding the existing soil vapor extraction
system at the Spectra-Physics area including
treatment of off-gases using granular activated
carbon; ground-water pumping and treatment at
both the Teledyne and Spectra-Physics areas
using air stripping followed by vapor phase
carbon to control air emissions, if the air levels
exceed permitted standards, followed by
discharging the treated water into an on-site
storm drain; continuing operation of the existing
ground water extraction systems at the off-site
Mountain View Area, with a contingency for
adding additional air stripping capacity prior to
discharge into the city sewer system; and soil
and ground-water monitoring. The estimated
present worth cost for the Spectra-Physics area
is $2,729,595, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $188,600. The estimated present worth
cost for the Teledyne area is $2,000,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $86,000 for 30
years. The estimated present worth cost for
monitoring the off-site Mountain View Area is
$10,496,757, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $720,739 for 30 years. The estimated
total present work cost for this RA is
$18,226,352, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $909,425 for 30 years.
431
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals federal MCLs or MCLGs including PCE 5 wg/1
(MCL), TCE 5 Mg/1 (MCL), and toluene 100
Soil will be remediated to meet state Ğg/l (state).
standards and reduce the risk of additional
ground-water contamination. Chemical-specific Institutional Controls
clean-up goals for soil include PCE 5 wg/kg,
TCE 5 Mg/kg, and toluene 100 wg/kg. Ground- Not provided.
water will be remediated to meet state and
432
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SYNERTEK (BUILDING #1), CA
June 28, 1991
The 1.5-acre Synertek (Building #1) site is
a former semiconductor products manufacturing
facility in Santa Clara, Santa Clara County,
California. The major site feature is a 24,000
square foot building (building #1). The site is
comprised of both on-site and off-site
components. The on-site component includes
the area within the Synertek property boundaries
surrounding Building #1, and the off-site
component includes the area contaminated by a
ground-water plume that has migrated north past
the property boundaries and into the adjacent
industrial park. The surrounding area is zoned
for light industrial manufacturing. The site
overlies three shallow aquifer zones, and a deep
aquifer zone that provides up to 50 percent of
the municipal drinking water for the Santa Clara
Valley residences. It is suspected that hydraulic
separation among shallow aquifers is imperfect
owing to the discontinuous nature of sediment
types. Municipal water supply wells perforate
the aquifer zones nearby. Historical ground
water use in the area includes private
water-supply wells for homes and agriculture
prior to the construction of public water
connections and municipal water supply wells.
The location of one agricultural well still
remains unknown and is still under investigation.
The Synertek site manufactured semiconductor
products from 1978 to 1985. During this period
Synertek constructed and utilized two
underground tank systems to store chemicals and
solvents used in semiconductor manufacturing
processes, and an underground concrete vault
was constructed for process water neutralization.
In 1982, after Synertek submitted a facility
questionnaire to the state describing their
underground neutralization systems, sumps, and
tanks, the state initiated further site studies to
characterize subsurface pollution. The state
determined that accidental release of chemicals
leaking from the two underground tank systems
was a source of on-site ground-water and soil
contamination. In 1985, the state required the
excavation and off-site removal of the solvent
and neutralization tanks. In addition, on-site
ground-water pumping and treatment using an
air stripping tower began in 1987. A well
search for abandoned potentially contaminated
agricultural wells was conducted in 1986 and
one well is still unaccounted for. This ROD
addresses only contaminated ground water since
the contaminated soil and structures were
removed previously. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including TCE, vinyl chloride, 1,1-DCE,
cis-l,2-DCE, TCA, and 1,1-DCA.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
continuing operation of the existing ground-
water extraction and air stripping treatment
system; discharging the treated effluent to an on-
site storm drain; controlling air emissions by
carbon adsorption, if emissions exceed levels
currently permitted by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District; conducting a pilot
injection study to evaluate if the reinjection of
treated water would enhance the removal of
pollutants, speed ground-water cleanup, and
reduce ground-water discharge to the surface;
conducting potential conduit investigations to
locate and seal the remaining abandoned
agricultural well that is believed to exist close to
the plume; monitoring ground water; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed and well use restrictions. The estimated
present worth cost for this RA is $895,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $61,000.
433
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals Institutional Controls
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up Deed and well permit restrictions will be
goals are based on the more stringent of federal implemented on site to protect humans from
MCLs, state MCLs, non-zero MCLG, or a exposure to contaminated ground water.
hazard risk index, and include TCE 5 ug/l
(state).
434
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
TELEDYNE SEMICONDUCTOR (SPECTRA-PHYSICS), CA
Inarch 22, 1991
The Teledyne Semiconductor site is
composed of two Superfund sites: the Teledyne
Semiconductor site, a semiconductor
manufacturing facility, and the Spectra-Physics
site, a laser and related components
manufacturing facility, as well as off-site areas
associated with a contaminated ground- water
plume in Mountain View, California. Land use
in the area is predominantly commercial and
industrial. The site is bordered by Permanente
Creek to the west and the city of Mountain View
landfill dewatering trench to the north. Since
the construction of public water and sewer
connections in 1984, most private wells have
been abandoned; however, eight private wells
are currently operational for residential and
agricultural uses. Since 1962, Teledyne
Semiconductor, Inc. has operated a semi-
conductor manufacturing facility on site. From
1962 to 1980, the facility used two 1,400-gallon
underground sumps for acid neutralization and
waste TCE collection, and a 2,000-gallon waste
solvent tank (tank A) for collection and disposal
of liquid chemical waste on site. In 1980, all
underground solvent handling activities were
discontinued and waste holding and disposal
facilities were moved aboveground.
Spectra-Physics, Inc. has manufactured lasers
and associated components on site since 1963,
and has used VOCs including TCE as part of the
manufacturing processes. Wastewater and rinse
water were discharged through five below-grade
sumps into the sanitary water system. From
1982 to 1984, state investigations identified the
release of VOCs from solvent tanks into on-site
soil at both areas. Teledyne and Spectra-Physics
have together and separately implemented
interim actions on site. Teledyne excavated and
removed tank A and the surrounding
contaminated soil, and in 1986, installed ground-
water extraction systems on and around the site
to remove VOCs present in concentrations above
specified levels and discharge extracted water to
the sanitary sewer system. In 1987,
Spectra-Physics excavated and removed all but
one of the sumps and 6 feet of contaminated soil
from the facility area, and installed a soil vapor
extraction system as an interim removal action to
reduce VOCs in soil. This ROD addresses
contamination of the ground-water aquifers and
on-site soil. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
expanding the existing soil vapor extraction
system at the Spectra-Physics area including
treatment of off-gasses using granular activated
carbon to control air emissions; ground-water
pumping and treatment at both the Teledyne and
Spectra-Physics areas using air stripping,
followed by vapor phase carbon to control air
emissions, followed by discharging the treated
water into an on-site storm drain; continuing
operation of the existing ground-water extraction
systems at the off-site Mountain View area, with
a contingency for adding additional extraction
wells and treating the extracted water using air
stripping prior to discharge into the city POTW;
and conducting soil and ground-water
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA at only the Teledyne area is
$2,000,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $86,000 for 30 years. The estimated
present worth cost for the Spectra-Physics area
is $2,729,595, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $188,600. The estimated present worth
cost for monitoring the off-site Mountain View
area is $10,496,757, which includes an annual
O&M cost of $720,739 for 30 years. The
estimated total present cost for this RA is
$18,226,352, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $909,425 for 30 years.
435
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Performance Standards or Goals to meet state and federal MCLs or MCLGs
including PCE 5 Ğg/l (MCL), TCE 5 Ğg/l
Soil will be remediated to meet state (MCL), and toluene 100 Ğg/l (state).
standards and reduce the risk of additional
ground-water contamination. Chemical-specific Institutional Controls
clean-up goals for soil include PCE 5 wg/kg
(state), TCE 5 wg/kg (state), and toluene 100 Not provided.
wg/kg (state). Ground water will be remediated
436
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
TRW MICROWAVE (ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 901/902)
(SIGNETICS), CA
September 11, 1991
The 1-acre TRW Microwave site is an active
semiconductor manufacturing facility in
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County, California. The
site is part of a larger study area that includes
four OUs: the three-acre Advanced Micro
Devices (AMD) 901/902 site, the Signetics site,
the single-acre TRW Microwave site, and a
100-acre off-site contaminated ground-water
plume. Land use in the area is predominantly
commercial and industrial. Residential property
lies to the north and west of the main facilities
and overlies portions of the off-site ground-water
OU. Six aquifers are associated with the study
area including a deeper aquifer confirmed only
at the TRW and Signetics sites. Currently, the
contaminated ground water is not used as a
drinking water supply, but the state considers
several of the aquifers to be potential drinking
water sources. The single acre TRW portion of
the site has changed hands several times from
1968 to present; however, from 1974 to 1986,
TRW used its portion of the study area for
manufacturing semiconductors using solvents,
metals, and acids. These substances also were
used in semiconductor manufacturing at the
AMD and TRW sites from 1969 to the present
and from 1964 to the present, respectively. As
a result of responses to an information
questionnaire regarding an underground tanks
investigation at the TRW site, a number of
investigations were conducted that revealed
extensive contamination of on-site soil and
ground water. Leakage from the acid
neutralization system at the AMD and leakage
from an underground waste solvent storage tank
at the Signetics site resulted in a number of
investigations that also revealed extensive
contamination of on-site soil and ground water at
both of these sites. Several initial remedial
measures have been conducted at the TRW OU.
From 1983 to 1984, an underground waste
solvent storage tank and 120 cubic yards of on-
site contaminated soil were removed. From
1984 to present, ground water was pumped and
treated using air stripping, followed by on-site
discharge to surface water. Several IRMs also
have been conducted at the AMD OU. In 1983
and 1984, acid neutralization sumps and about
217 cubic yards of contaminated soil were
removed. From 1984 to 1988, remediation of
ground water was implemented using extraction
wells and dewatering sumps. Several IRMs also
were conducted at the Signetics OU. From 1982
to present, ground water has been pumped from
various site locations and treated using air
stripping and carbon adsorption, followed by air
stripping to control off-gases and reuse of the
treated water in industrial processes.
Contaminated soil has been removed from three
separate locations, including 4,720 cubic yards
of soil from a waste solvent storage tank area in
1983. In 1989, three vapor extraction wells
were installed to treat contaminated soil. In
addition, two ground-water extraction systems
pump contaminated ground water from the
100-acre off-site plume. The extracted water is
treated at a neighboring AMD facility using air
stripping, followed by liquid phase granular
activated carbon polisher and on-site discharge
to surface water or reuse by the facility. This
ROD collectively addresses final remediation of
soil and ground water in the four separate OUs
within the study area. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including PCE and
TCE; and other organics.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
separate remedies for the four different OUs of
the study area. The remedy for the TRW OU
includes continuing on-site pumping and
437
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
treatment of ground water using air stripping,
followed by on-site discharge of treated water to
surface water. The remedy for the AMD OU
includes excavating 37 cubic yards of on-site
contaminated soil, followed by off-site
incineration and/or disposal, and backfilling the
excavation with clean soil; and continuing on-
site pumping and treatment of ground water
using air stripping and carbon adsorption of
off-gases, followed by reuse of the treated
water. The remedy for the Signetics OU
includes expanding the on-site soil vapor
extraction system; and continuing on-site
pumping and treatment of ground water using air
stripping, followed by aqueous-phase carbon
polishing, reuse of the treated water, and
vapor-phase carbon treatment of the effluent air
stream. The remedy for the off-site ground-
water OU includes continuing and expanding the
pumping and treatment system for contaminated
ground water using air stripping and
aqueous-phase carbon adsorption, followed by
reuse of the treated water or on-site discharge to
surface water, and off-site regeneration of spent
carbon. Each OU also will involve continuing
ground-water monitoring, and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground-
water use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for the RA for all OUs is
$11,900,000, which includes an estimated
O&M cost of $225,000 for the AMD OU;
$236,000 for the Signetics OU; and $255,000
for the off-site ground-water OU. No annual
O&M cost was provided for the TRW OU.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals have
been set at background or total VOCs 1 mg/kg
based on state policy. Chemical-specific
ground-water clean-up goals are based on state
and federal MCLs, and include PCE 5 wg/1
(state) and TCE 5 wg/1 (state).
Institutional Controls
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent human exposure to
contaminated ground water during the clean-up
period.
438
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
VALLEY WOOD PRESERVING, CA
September 27, 1991
The 14.4-acre Valley Wood Preserving
(VWP) site is a former wood preserving facility
in Turlock, Stanilaus County, California. Land
use in the area is predominantly agricultural, and
one residence is located on site. There are
subsurface irrigation drains at the site, which
eventually discharge to the San Joaquin River
about 12 miles west of the site. From 1973 to
1979, VWP used a solution of chromated-copper
arsenate (CCA) to preserve lumber on site.
Wood preserving chemicals were mixed and
stored on site in three above-ground storage
tanks. After treatment, the wood was allowed to
drip dry on paved and unpaved areas. Chemical
spills, leaking tanks, improper on-site disposal
practices, and chemical drippings from the
treated lumber are known sources of
contamination. In 1979, state investigations
identified metals including arsenic and chromium
in an on-site storage pond, holding tanks, on-site
and off-site soil, and the on-site underlying
shallow aquifer. In 1989, EPA investigations
identified low levels of chromium contamination
in several domestic wells, and required VWP to
install an interim ground-water extraction and
electrochemical treatment system to help contain
the migration of contamination. EPA also
required VWP to design a plan for the
development of an alternative water supply for
any affected residences. VWP also installed
three deep ground-water wells to serve as
domestic water supplies. This ROD provides a
final remedy for contaminated soil and ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are metals
including arsenic and chromium.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
excavating approximately 15,000 cubic yards of
contaminated surface and subsurface soil;
treating the soil using cement-based fixation;
backfilling excavated areas with treated soil that
meets state criteria, maintaining stabilized soil
mass on site to prevent future exposure; placing
treated soil that exceeds state criteria in lined
cells on site; collecting, handling, and disposing
of leachate; pumping and treatment of
contaminated ground water using electrochemical
treatment to reduce hexavalent chromium to its
trivalent form, followed by treating the residual
using alumina adsorption to remove any residual
arsenic; disposing of ground-water on site by
infiltration and evaporation at one or more
percolation ponds, or by underground injection
through subsurface injection wells; disposing of
sludge generated during the treatment process
off site; conducting soil, ground- water, surface
water, and air monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls possibly including deed
restrictions. The estimated present worth cost
for this RA is $3,850,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $224,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Soil excavation clean-up standards are based
on an excess cancer risk level of 10"6 for surface
soil and levels protective of ground water from
contaminated leachate for subsurface soil.
Ground-water clean-up standards are based on
State levels and potential health risks.
Chemical-specific soil goals include arsenic
2 mg/kg (risk-based) and hexavalent chromium
4 mg/kg (risk-based) for surface soil; and
arsenic 5 Ğg/kg and hexavalent chromium 5
Ğg/kg for subsurface soil. State criteria require
a liner below soil containing arsenic and
chromium concentrations greater than 500 mg/kg
and below soil exhibiting leachable arsenic and
chromium at 5 wg/1. Ground-water clean-up
goals include arsenic 16 Ğg/l (health-based) and
chromium 50 wg/1 (state).
439
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Institutional Controls land use practices are compatible with the fixed
soil mass.
Institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions, may be used to ensure that future
440
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
VAN WATERS & ROGERS, CA
September 11, 1991
The 13.7-acre Van Waters & Rogers site is
a commercial chemical storage, handling, and
distribution facility in San Jose, California.
Land use in the area is predominantly
commercial and industrial. Nearby surface
drainage features include Coyote Creek,
approximately 1,200 feet to the east, and the
Guadalupe River, approximately 6,000 feet to
the west, that discharge to San Francisco Bay
nine miles to the north. Since 1976, Van
Waters & Rogers has used the site for bulk
chemical transfers; storage in drums and
underground tanks; chemical blending,
packaging, and distribution; and rinsing of
containers. Surface features from which releases
of organic chemicals have occurred are
aboveground storage tanks, rail-mounted tank
cars, drum fillers, UST fill pipe manifolds, and
a hazardous waste storage area. Subsurface
features include 37 USTs; subsurface product
transfer piping; and the subsurface storm drain
system, which eventually discharges to the
Guadalupe River. Fourteen USTs are not in
service and are currently empty. With the
exception of one tank used to store diesel fuel,
all USTs have been used to store various
industrial chemicals including PCE, toluene, and
xylenes. During a survey of Regional hazardous
waste facilities in 1982, the state identified
VOCs, selected aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic
hydrocarbons, ketones, glycols, and alcohols in
on-site soil and ground water. Potential sources
of contamination include a 1977 accidental
release of PCE from an aboveground
12,000-gallon tank at the loading dock and
various leaks from USTs and associated piping.
Van Waters & Rogers began an interim ground-
water remediation program in 1986 that involves
ground-water extraction and treatment using air
stripping with on-site discharge to the storm
drain. This ROD provides a final remedy for
on-site contaminated soil, debris, and ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are
VOCs including PCE and TCE.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
treating approximately 8,100 cubic yards of soil
"hot spots" containing more than 10 mg/kg of
one or more of PCE, TCA, and TCE using in
situ vapor extraction; temporarily capping
46,000 cubic yards of soil containing greater
than 1 mg/kg total VOCs, including areas
containing USTs until tank removal can take
place; removing USTs at a later date and
investigating adjacent soil; expanding the
existing upper aquifer ground-water pumping
and treatment system by adding an air stripping
unit and converting existing monitoring wells to
extraction wells, wherever possible; treating the
off-gases from the new air stripping unit;
treating the lower aquifer by either granular
activated carbon or air stripping; discharging the
treated ground water on site to the storm drain
system; monitoring soil and ground water; and
implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $4,997,000, which includes
a net present value O&M cost of $4,374,000.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up goals for soil are intended to
minimize contaminant migration to ground
water. Chemical-specific initial soil goals for
PCE and TCE are 10 mg/kg. Final soil goals
will be 1 mg/kg for total VOCs.
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals
are based on state and federal MCLs and risk
levels, and include PCE 5 wg/1 (MCL) and TCE
5 Ğg/l (MCL).
441
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
Institutional Controls 8round water for drinking water until final
clean-up standards are met.
Deed and ground-water use restrictions will
be implemented to prevent the use of on-site
442
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA Region 10
A51-002-10
REGION 10
Site
American Lake Gardens (McChord AFB-Area D) (Federal Facility)
Bangor Naval Submarine Base (Federal Facility)
Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex
Commencement Bay-Nearshore/Tideflats
Northwest Transformer-Salvage Yard (Amendment)
Union Pacific Railroad Yard
Yakima Plating
State
WA
WA
ID
WA
WA
ID
WA
Page
444
445
446
448
449
450
452
443
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
AMERICAN LAKE GARDENS (McCHORD AFB-AREA D), WA
Federal Facility
September 19, 1991
The American Lake Gardens (McChord
AFB-area D) site is an active U.S. Air Force
base located at McChord Air Force Base, Pierce
County, Washington. The site consists of two
areas, area D and American Lake Garden Tract
(ALGT). Area D is located entirely on-base.
Area D activities include Air Force Base
administration, flight operations support
functions, and housing and recreation facilities.
Approximately 2,384 people reside in the area D
housing facilities. ALGT is an off-base
commercial and residential area with
approximately 3,431 residents and various
businesses. Hydrogeologic units exist on site
including a series of confined and unconfmed
aquifers that appear to be hydraulically
connected. Various surface water bodies exist
near the site and are principally ground
water-fed. From the mid-1940s to the present,
no known industrial activities have occurred in
the ALGT area; however, seven waste disposal
sites have operated within the Area D portion of
the site. In 1981, the Air Force initiated a
multi-phase program to identify past disposal
sites and contaminants and to eliminate public
health risks. Concurrent with DOD
investigations, EPA discovered TCE in ground-
water monitoring wells installed at the ALGT,
and in 1984, concluded that waste disposal sites
in area D were the likely source of ground-water
contamination. Modeling studies indicate that
most of the soil contamination by VOCs has
moved into the ground water, and that DNAPLs
may continue to act as a secondary source of
ground water contamination. In 1986, the Air
Force provided an alternate water source to
residents of ALGT, and subsequently connected
80 percent of the residences to a public water
supply. This ROD addresses remediation of the
contaminated on-site and off-site ground-water
plume, as a final remedy. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE,
toluene, and xylenes; other organics; and metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and treating both the on-site and off-
site ground-water contaminant plumes in the
confined aquifer using an on-site multi-bed
carbon adsorption treatment facility, followed by
recharging or irrigating the treated ground water
on site; regenerating the spent carbon off site;
monitoring the ground-water contaminant plume;
and implementing institutional controls such as
deed, ground water, and land use restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA
ranges from $4,445,000 to $6,949,000, for
interest rates of 10 percent and 4 percent
respectively, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $341,000 for years 0 through 2 and
$318,000 for years 3 to 30.
Performance Standards or Goals
Ground water will be restored to levels
consistent with state and federal MCLs.
Chemical-specific goals for ground water include
cis-l,2-DCE 70 iig/1 (MCL), 1,1-DCE 0.7 Ğg/l
(MTCA), TCE 5 mg/1 (MCL), and vinyl
chloride 0.04 wg/l (MTCA).
Institutional Controls
Deed, land, and ground-water
restrictions will be implemented on site.
use
444
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE, WA
Federal Facility
September 19, 1991
The Bangor Naval Submarine Base
(SUBASE) is a former munitions handling,
storage, and processing facility in Kitsap
County, Washington. Land surrounding the
SUBASE is generally undeveloped and supports
limited residential use. The site overlies the
surficial shallow aquifer and deeper aquifers,
which are the principal water supplies for
SUBASE Bangor and surrounding communities.
Demilitarizing (demil) operations were
conducted from 1940 until 1978, and included
collecting condensate and solid explosive within
a holding tank, followed by removal of the solid
material from the wastewater before final
discharge. Site F, a wastewater lagoon, was
used between 1960 and 1971 for the disposal of
final wastewater solution. Periodically, the
lagoon was allowed to drain. Waste materials
present in surficial sediment of the lagoon were
burned off in place with waste oils, or
transported to the on-site ordnance burning area
for thermal destruction. Between 1972 and
1980, wastewater was collected into 55-gallon
barrels and delivered to the SUBASE
liquid-waste incinerator. Several on-site
investigations of the distribution and transport of
waste constituents at site F have occurred since
1971. Based on data collected, it was confirmed
that soil in the lagoon area is contaminated by
ordnance constituents. In 1972, 500 cubic feet
of soil was excavated from the top several feet
of the lagoon and transported to the on-site
ordnance burning area for burning. In 1980, the
lagoon was filled in and covered with a low
permeability asphalt cover. Ground-water
quality data collected at site F during prior
studies indicated that only the shallow aquifer
has been impacted by site F. This ROD is an
interim RA addressing ground-water
contamination at site F as OU2. The intent of
this remedy is to contain the contaminated
ground water plume. A future ROD will
address final remediation of both soil and ground
water. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are organics including
RDX; 2,4,6-TNT; 2,4-DNT; 2,6-DNT;
1,3,5-TNB; 1,3-DNB; N-nitrate; and
nitrobenzene.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
pumping and treatment of ground water from the
shallow aquifer using UV-oxidation; reinjecting
the treated ground water on site into the shallow
aquifer, or infiltrating it on site using a recharge
basin; ground-water monitoring; and providing
design information, as applicable, for the final
remedy. If the UV-oxidation process cannot
achieve the specified performance standards due
to either technological or economic concerns,
then carbon adsorption will be coupled with the
UV-oxidation system to complete the treatment
process prior to disposal. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA is $2,515,000, which
includes an O&M cost of $1,300,000 over 2
years.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific ground-water clean-up
goals are based on MTCA clean-up standards
and include RDX 5 wg/1, 2,4,6-TNT 3 Kg/1,
2,4-DNT 0.1 Kg/1, 2,6-DNT 0.1 Kg/1,
1,3,5-TNB 0.8 Kg/1, 1,3-DNB 2 Kg/1, N-nitrate
10,000 Kg/1, and nitrobenzene 8 Kg/1.
Institutional Controls
Not applicable.
445
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
BUNKER HILL MINING AND METALLURGICAL COMPLEX, ID
August 30, 1991
The Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical
Complex site is a 21 square-mile area centered
around an inactive industrial mining and
smelting site, and includes the cities of Kellogg,
Smelterville, Wardner, Pinehurst, and Page, in
Shoshone County, Idaho. The inactive industrial
complex includes the Bunker Hill mine and mill,
a lead smelter, a zinc smelter and a phosphoric
acid fertilizer plant, all totalling several hundred
acres. Furthermore, the site includes the south
fork of the Coeur d'Alene River, an alluvial
floodplain bordered by mountains, numerous
valleys and gulches, and vegetated residential
areas. In 1886, the first mill for processing lead
and silver ore was constructed at the site.
Operations were expanded in later years with the
addition of a lead smelter; a blast furnace; and
electrolytic zinc, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid,
and fertilizer plants. On-site operational and
disposal practices have caused the deposition of
hazardous substances (e.g., metals) throughout
the valley via airborne particulate deposition,
alluvial deposition of tailings dumped in the
river, and migration from on-site sources.
Initially, most of the solid and liquid residue
from the complex was discharged into the river.
When the river flooded, these materials were
deposited onto the valley floor, and have leached
into on-site soil and ground water. Although
some of the industrial waste has been removed
and disposed of off site, thousands of tons of
sludge, tailings, flue dust, and other waste still
remains on site. Contamination at the site is a
result of tailings deposition in the floodplain,
and airborne deposition from smelter and mill
complex emissions. A fire in 1973 severely
reduced air pollution control capacity at the lead
smelter. A 1974 public health study and
concurrent epidemiologic and environmental
investigations concluded that atmospheric
emissions of particulate lead from the active
smelter were the primary sources of elevated
blood lead levels in local children. In 1977, two
tall stacks were added to disperse contaminants
from the complex. The complex ceased smelter
operations in 1981, but continued limited mining
and milling operations from 1988 to early 1991.
In 1989, EPA began a removal program to
excavate lead-contaminated soil from affected
residential properties. Federal and state agencies
have designated a 21-square-mile study area,
which has been divided into populated areas and
non-populated areas for remediation. This ROD
addresses contaminated residential soil within the
populated areas of the site, and includes four
incorporated communities and three
unincorporated residential areas as OU1. The
nonpopulated areas of the site as well as all
other contaminated media in the populated areas
(e.g., house dust, and commercial properties)
will be addressed in a future ROD. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting residential
area soil are metals including arsenic and lead.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes soil
sampling; excavating contaminated soil and sod
exceeding 1,000 mg/kg lead on approximately
1,800 residential properties, and replacing it
with clean soil and sod; disposing of the
contaminated soil and sod at an on-site
repository; capping the repository; placing a
visual marker if lead levels in soil exceed
1,000 mg/kg below the depth of excavation;
revegetating the area; conducting long-term
environmental monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed and land
use restrictions. The estimated present worth
cost for this RA is $40,600,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $460,000 for 30 years.
446
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals Institutional Controls
Residential soil with lead concentrations Deed, land use, and other administrative
greater than 1,000 mg/kg will be excavated and restrictions will be implemented on site.
replaced with clean material resulting in mean
soil lead concentrations in residential areas of
approximately 200 to 300 mg/kg.
447
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
COMMENCEMENT BAY-NEARSHORE/TIDEFLATS, WA
December 31, 1990
The 10 to 12 square mile Commencement
Bay-Nearshore/Tideflats site encompasses
shallow water, shoreline, waterways, and
adjacent land in Tacoma, Pierce County,
Washington at the southern end of the main
basin of Puget Sound. Surrounding land use is
primarily residential and recreational. This site
has been divided into eight different OUs. Part
of this site is on the 67-acre Asarco Tacoma
Smelter area, an inactive copper smelter facility
adjacent to Puget Sound, which is the focus of
this RA. This area consists of over 70 buildings
and other structures including three piers, a
562-foot-high stack and a pond used for the
discharge of plant cooling water. From 1890
until 1986, the primary use of the site was for
copper smelting, as well as lead smelting, and
sulfuric acid, sulfur dioxide, and arsenic
production activities. Historically, molten slag
was used as fill, and was poured onto the
ground at the edge of the shoreline.
Subsequently, many of the on-site structures
were constructed over this contaminated
material. In 1987, Asarco completed the initial
stabilization of the area which included the
demolition of buildings near the stack. A 1987
ROD addressed OUS, Tacoma Tarpits, a
historical coal gasification site. A 1989 ROD
addressed OU1-CB/NT sediments and
OU5-CB/NT sources, both associated with
marine sediments. This ROD provides an
interim remedy for OU7, the Asarco
Demolition, and addresses further clearing of the
site to prevent the threat of an uncontrolled
collapse of the stack and to minimize
contaminant migration to off-site surface water.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting
the debris, sludge, and surface water are metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and
other inorganics including asbestos.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected interim RA for this site
includes demolishing and dismantling on-site
buildings using conventional techniques after
cleaning and/or decontaminating these structures;
removing and disposing asbestos materials off
site; demolishing the stack by implosion using
explosives, with dust suppression using fogging
and misting and/or encapsulation of the stack
internal lining; disposing of hazardous,
dangerous, and solid demolition debris off site
and/or temporarily storing debris on site;
incinerating on-site uncontaminated wood and
other combustible materials; cleaning and
decontaminating buildings that will not be
demolished; collecting dust suppression
wastewater in the on-site pond, which has been
converted to a wastewater evaporation system;
removing a ship to shore oil line, and preventing
spillage of any residential oil; disposing of
evaporation pond sludge and dust off site in a
metal recovery facility; diverting off-site surface
water away from the site, and collecting on-site
surface water in the wastewater evaporation
system; and monitoring air and surface water.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA
ranges from $11,764,500 to $38,686,000.
O&M costs were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Air emissions and dust control must meet
the substantive requirements of the CAA and
state regulations. Final performance standards
for ground water and surface water will be
determined in the final ROD. Chemical-specific
performance standards were not provided.
Institutional Controls
Not provided.
448
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
NORTHWEST TRANSFORMER - SALVAGE YARD, WA
Amendment
September 30, 1991
The 1.6-acre Northwest Transformer -
Salvage Yard site is former transformer storage
and salvage facility, is 2 miles south of Everson
in Whatcom County, Washington. The site is
bordered by low-density residential areas to the
north and east, and farmland to the south.
Storage and salvage operations were conducted
in an on-site barn where PCB-contaminated
dielectric fluid was drained from the
transformers prior to dismantling. Transformer
casings and associated parts were incinerated on-
site, and some of the recovered oil was burned
to heat the barn. Spills and leakages of
PCB-laden oil onto the ground occurred
frequently. Additionally, oil was dumped
directly into a seepage pit on-site, and
contaminated soil and possibly ground water.
EPA studies from 1977 to 1985 identified PCB
concentrations as high as 38,000 mg/kg in on-
site media. In 1985, EPA removed 1,400 cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated soil and debris,
6,660 gallons of PCB-contaminated liquids, and
several contaminated transformer casings. In
addition EPA initiated a ground-water
monitoring program and imposed site access
restrictions. In 1987, sufficient PCB
contamination was identified in the soil to
warrant further site remediation. A 1989 ROD
addressed remediation through excavation,
consolidation, and on-site treatment using in situ
vitrification. This ROD amends the 1989 ROD
and provides a change in the remedy for soil due
to excessive cost. The primary contaminant of
concern affecting the soil is PCB, an organic.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected amended RA for this ROD
includes incinerating approximately 70 cubic
yards of soil contaminated with PCBs at levels
greater than or equal to 50 mg/kg at a
TSCA-approved facility, landfilling
approximately 1,500 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with PCBs at levels greater than or
equal to 1 mg/kg and less than 50 mg/kg off site
at a'TSCA-approved facility; demolishing the
barn and disposing of the debris off site; testing
the soil and concrete within the barn; placing a
soil cover over the entire site; and implementing
institutional controls, if necessary. The
estimated capital cost for this amended RA
ranges from $1,400,000 to $4,000,000
depending on the amount of soil removed.
O&M costs were not provided.
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are
based on the Washington State Model Control
Act and include PCBs 1 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
If complete removal of soil with PCB levels
> 1 mg/kg cannot be demonstrated and
hazardous materials remain on site, institutional
controls will be implemented.
449
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD YARD, ID
September 10, 1991
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Yard
site is an active rail yard located in Pocatello,
Bannock County, Idaho. Land use in the area is
mixed commercial and light industrial, with
some residential areas. Site features include
sludge pits along the northwestern edge of the
site, and Portneuf River, which is located 1,000
feet from the pit. Ground water in the vicinity
of the sludge pit occurs in two distinct
water-bearing deposits, the Upper and Lower
Aquifers, which appear to be hydraulically
connected. UPRR began operations around the
turn of the 20th century. Site operations have
included maintenance and repair work, train
assembly, and refueling, which involved the use
of various fuels, cleaning agents, detergents, and
degreasers, including halogenated and
non-halogenated hydrocarbon-based solvents.
UPRR constructed a treatment plant in 1961 to
receive industrial waste water and surface storm
water run-off from the railyard. Until 1983,
sludge from the treatment plant's oil/water
separator and from a dissolved air flotation unit
was disposed in the on-site sludge pit.
Currently, the sludge pit contains approximately
2,500 cubic yards of sludge and 1,700 cubic
yards of contaminated soil beneath the sludge.
In 1983, EPA determined that seepage from
UPRR's sludge pit, and from a nearby area
where an oil tie treating facility was located
were contributing to Upper Aquifer ground-
water contamination. In 1985, UPRR, the only
identified PRP, conducted an investigation of the
railroad yard, and the sludge pit was determined
to be the principal source of on-site
contamination. This ROD addresses
contamination of the Pocatello Sludge Pit located
at the UPRR property. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, sludge, and ground water are VOCs,
other organics including PAHs and
petroleum-based hydrocarbons (oils), and metals.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
implementing a comprehensive soil, sediment,
sludge, and ground-water sampling effort prior
to remedial activities to determine background
levels and to set final remediation goals;
excavating to the maximum extent practicable up
to 4,200 cubic yards of visibly-contaminated
soil, sediment, and sludge; testing these media
for compliance with land disposal restriction
treatment standards, followed by disposal at an
approved off-site landfill; treating soil remaining
beneath the excavated area using in situ soil
flushing as part of the Upper Aquifer ground
water treatment system, backfilling, grading, and
capping the entire pit boundary; extracting and
treating NAPL contaminants from the upper
aquifer ground water using an on-site oil/water
separator and a dissolved air flotation unit;
discharging effluent off site to a POTW; placing
skimmed oil in an on-site holding tank for sale
to a recycler; disposing of residual sludge from
ground-water treatment off site; conducting
quarterly sampling and analysis of ground water
to ensure remediation goals are met;
constructing a fence around the sludge pit;
providing advanced funding for design and
installation of an alternate water supply system
to be implemented if monitoring indicates that
ground-water contamination has not been
adequately remediated; monitoring ground
water, surface water, and air; and implementing
administrative and institutional controls including
deed, land, and ground-water use restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost for this RA is
$3,797,550, which includes a present worth
O&M cost of $1,657,900 for 30 years.
450
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Performance Standards or Goals
Chemical-specific remediation goals have
not been finalized, with the exception of lead
500 mg/kg for soil and 0.015 mg/1 (MCL) for
ground water, as a result of incomplete data
regarding background concentrations of
contaminants in soil, sediment, sludge, and
ground water. Final clean-up goals will be
based on background concentrations, lowest
practical quantitation limits, ground-water
ARARs identified in the feasibility study, or
target concentration values, whichever is
highest. Health-based clean-up goals include a
10"6 cancer risk for carcinogens and an HI< 1
for non-carcinogens.
Institutional Controls
Deed, land, and ground-water
restrictions will be implemented on site.
use
451
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
YAKIMA PLATING, WA
September 30, 1991
The 0.94-acre Yakima Plating site is an
inactive nickel-chrome automobile bumper
replating facility in Yakima, Yakima County,
Washington. The site lies within a mixed light
commercial and residential area, and there are
four schools within one mile of the site. Ground
water from the shallow alluvium aquifer supplies
much of the domestic and irrigation water in the
Yakima Basin, and many residences adjacent to
the site utilize private ground-water wells for
their water supply. Yakima Plating began
operations in 1965 utilizing 20 to 30
aboveground holding tanks, which were stored
within the plating building. These tanks were
used during the electroplating operation
cleaning, plating, and rinsing processes. Rinse
water and spent plating tank solutions were
disposed into a floor drain within the plating
room. The floor drain was connected to an
underground sedimentation tank and drain field
line that collected the sedimentation tank
overflow and distributed the wastewater to
subsurface soil. The wastewater system
operated from 1965 until plating operations
ceased in 1990. Site assessments and
investigations conducted by EPA contractors in
1984 and 1990 determined that the sludge and
effluent from the settling tank were a dangerous
waste under state regulations and that the
potential exists for public exposure to metals
from contact with contaminated surface and
subsurface soil. This ROD addresses
remediation of contaminated on-site soil, debris,
and sludge. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, debris, and sludge are
organics including pesticides; and metals
including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and
nickel.
Selected Remedial Action
The selected RA for this site includes
removing 1,500 gallons of liquid and 6.5 cubic
yards of sludge currently in tanks and
containers, and treating and disposing of these
materials at an off-site facility; excavating,
treating, and disposing of contaminated soil at an
off-site landfill; excavating and decontaminating
underground tanks using a solvent or
water-based solution; abandoning the tanks in
place, and covering the tank areas with clean
fill; treating and disposing of any liquids or
sludges generated during the decontamination
process at an off-site facility; and excavating and
disposing of 540 cubic yards of soil and
underground drain lines at an off-site facility;
ground-water monitoring; and implementing
institutional controls including land and ground-
water use restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this RA ranges from $310,000 to
$377,000, depending on the type of solution
used for debris decontamination. There are no
O&M costs associated with this remedial action.
Performance Standards or Goals
Clean-up levels for soil and ground water
are set at the more stringent of the NCP and
state standards. Chemical-specific soil
remediation goals include arsenic 20 mg/kg,
chromium 400 mg/kg, lead 50 mg/kg, and
DDT 2.9 mg/kg.
Institutional Controls
Land use and ground-water restrictions will
be implemented at the site.
452
-------
Appendix D
Progress Toward Meeting
Superfund-Related Statutory
Requirements
In response to a recommendation of the
Lautenberg-Durenberger Report on Superfund
Implementation: Cleaning up the Nation's Cleanup
Program, EPA includes in this report the following
matrix, which charts the progress of EPA and other
government organizations in meeting statutory
requirements imposed by SARA. The matrix lists all
Superfund-related administrative and program
implementation (rather than site-specific)
requirements by statutory section, describes the
mandated activity, indicates if the activity has been
completed, and briefly describes what has been done
to meet the requirement. If the activity has not been
completed, its status is reported.
EPA and other government organizations have
made significant progress towards meeting their
statutory requirements. The matrix indicates that 35
of the 39 applicable one-time requirements with
specific deadlines have been completed. Furthermore,
14 of the 15 requirements due annually or biannually
have been completed for FY91, and one was not yet
due. Also, 25 of the 26 requirements with no specific
deadline have been completed.
453
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Meeting CERCLA-Related Statutory Requirements,
as Amended by SARA17
CERCLA
Section
102(a)
Statutory
Deadline
12/31/862'
102(a)
12/31/8627
Requirement
EPA to promulgate final
regulations establishing
reportable quantities (RQs)
for all hazardous substances
for which proposed RQs
were published prior to
March 1, 1986.
EPA to propose regulations
establishing RQs for all
hazardous substances for
which proposed RQs were
not published prior to March
1, 1986.
Status
Completed 05/08/92 - EPA
promulgated final RQs for lead and
methyl isocyanate in the Federal
Register (FR) (56 FR 20014).
09/29/86. 08/14/89 - EPA
promulgated final RQs for all
hazardous substances (except for
lead metal and methyl isocyanate)
(51 FR 34534, 54 FR 33418, 54 FR
33426).
Completed 03/16/87 - EPA
proposed RQs for all hazardous
substances for which proposed RQs
were not published prior to March
1, 1986 (52 FR 8140). EPA
proposed RQs for radionuclides (52
FR 8172).
17 In this matrix, requirements of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, precede requirements of SARA that
do not amend CERCLA.
- Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
454
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
102(a)
Statutory
Deadline
04/30/882'
104(c)(9) 10/17/89
104(i)(2)(A) 04/17/87
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/88
Requirement
EPA to promulgate final
regulations establishing RQs
for all hazardous substances
for which proposed RQs
were not published prior to
March 1, 1986.
States to provide assurances
of availability of hazardous
waste treatment or disposal
facilities.
Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) and EPA
to produce list of 100
hazardous substances most
commonly found at National
Priority List (NPL) sites that
pose significant human
health risks.
ATSDR and EPA to
produce list of a total of 200
hazardous substances
including the first set of 100
substances most commonly
found at NPL sites that pose
significant human health
risks.
Status
Completed 05/08/92 - EPA
promulgated final RQs for the 16
remaining hazardous substances (56
FR 20014).
08/14/89 - EPA promulgated final
RQs for all hazardous substances
(except for 14 lead-containing
wastes, lead acetate, and lead
phosphate) (54 FR 33418, 54 FR
33426).
05/24/89 - EPA promulgated final
RQs for radionuclides (54 FR
22524).
Completed 03/19/90 - All 50
states and the District of Columbia
have submitted plans;
12/29/88 - EPA issued guidance to
state officials on providing
assurances (53 FR 52783).
Completed 04/17/87 - ATSDR
and EPA published list of first set
of 100 hazardous substances (52 FR
12866).
Completed 10/20/88 - ATSDR
and EPA published list of 200
hazardous substances which
includes the first and second set of
hazardous substances (53 FR
41280).
Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
455
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/892'
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/92?
Requirement
ATSDR and EPA to add no
fewer than 25 hazardous
substances to list of those
most commonly found at
NPL sites that pose
significant human health
risks.
ATSDR and EPA to revise
list of hazardous substances
most commonly found at
NPL sites that pose
significant human health
risks.
Status
Completed 10/26/89. 10/17/90.
10/17/91 - EPA published three
lists of 25 hazardous substances
each (54 FR 43619, 55 FR 42067,
56 FR 52166);
11/25/91-Correction to the
10/17/91 list published (56 FR
59331).
10/17/91 - EPA expects to revise
list annually (56 FR 52166).
Completed 10/28/92 - Notice of
availability of revised CERCLA
Priority List of 275 Hazardous
Substances (57 FR 48801).
- Due annually on this date through 1991.
- Due annually on this date beginning in 1992.
456
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
10/17/87^
Requirement
ATSDR to prepare
toxicological profiles on
each of the hazardous
substances on the list of
those most commonly found
at NPL sites that pose
significant human health
risks.
Status
Completed 10/15/87 - The first
set of 25 profiles were announced
for public comment (52 FR 38340);
04/06/89, 06/28/89, 12/01/89 -
Notices of availability of 15 final
profiles published (54 FR 14037,
54 FR 26417, 54 FR 49816);
12/17/90 - Notice of availability of
all 25 final profiles published (55
FR 51775).
Completed 12/20/88 - The second
set of 25 profiles were announced
for public comment (53 FR 51192);
08/14/90 - Notice of availability of
final profiles published (55 FR
33172).
Completed 10/17/89 - The third
set of 30 profiles were announced
for public comment (54 FR 42568);
06/13/91 - Notice of availability of
final profiles published (56 FR
27261);
06/26/91 - Notice of availability of
correction to final profiles
published (56 FR 29308).
Completed 10/16/90 - The fourth
set of 30 profiles were announced
for public comment (55 FR 41881);
09/12/91 - An additional three
fluoride compound profiles were
announced for public comment (56
FR 46436).
10/8/92 - An additional 5 profiles
were announced for public
comment (57 FR 46393).
Profiles for original 100 hazardous substances on list must be completed at a rate of no fewer than
25 per year by 10/17/90.
457
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
ATSDR to revise and
republish toxicological
profiles.
ATSDR, in consultation
with EPA and the Public
Health Service, to assess
whether adequate
information is available on
the health effects of those
hazardous substances most
commonly found at NPL
sites that pose significant
human health risks.
ATSDR, in cooperation with
the National Toxicology
Program (NTP), to assure
the initiation of a program
of research designed to
determine the health effects
(and techniques for
development of methods to
determine such health
effects) of substances for
which adequate information
is not available (or under
development).
Status
Completed 10/17/91 - The first
set of 20 updated draft profiles
published (56 FR 52086);
11/25/91 -- Correction to the 20
updated profiles published (56 FR
59330).
10/8/92 - Notice of availability of
10 updated profiles (57 FR 46393).
ATSDR includes assessments in the
"Adequacy of the Database" section
of the toxicological profiles
required by CERCLA Section
104(i)(3). Subsequently, ATSDR
refines these assessments.
Completed 09/11/89 - ATSDR
published Decision Guide for
Identifying Substance-Specific Data
Needs Related to Toxicological
Profiles (54 FR 37618).
03/28/90 -- ATSDR published the
results of a pilot exercise that
identified priority data needs for
specific substances (55 FR 11566).
10/17/91 - Initiation of the
Substance-Specific Research
Program in which 38 substances
were classified as priority leads (56
FR 52178).
- Profiles for hazardous substances must be revised within three years after addition to list.
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
458
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
104(i)(5)(D) 10/17/87
104(i)(6)(A) 12/10/882'
104(i)(10) 10/17/885'
Requirement
EPA to promulgate
regulations for the payment
and recovery of costs of
health effects research
programs established under
CERCLA Section 104(i)(5).
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL prior
to SARA's date of
enactment.
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL after
SARA's date of enactment.
ATSDR to submit report to
EPA and Congress on
ATSDR activities.
Status
Completed 03/08/90 - EPA
believes that the revised National
Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
satisfies the statutory requirement
(NCP Subpart B 300.160(d); (55
FR 8666)); see also preamble to
proposed rule (53 FR 51402).
Completed 12/08/88 - Health
assessments performed for 951
facilities.
Ongoing - During FY91, ATSDR
completed 162 health assessments.
The completed health assessments
included 13 revisited and 2
petitioned assessments.
Completed August 1989. August
1990. February 1992 - Volumes I
and II of first biannual report and
the second biannual report
submitted to EPA and Congress.
- Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
- Health assessments to be completed within one year of date of proposal on NPL.
2/ Due biannually from 10/17/88.
459
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
104(1X14)
Statutory
Deadline
105(b)
04/17/88
Requirement
ATSDR to assemble and
develop as necessary,
educational materials
(including short courses) on
the medical surveillance,
screening, and methods of
diagnosis and treatment of
injury or disease related to
exposure to hazardous
substances. The material
will be distributed to the
states and upon request to
medical colleges, physicians,
and other health
professionals.
EPA to revise the NCP.
Status
Completed 09/13/89 - ATSDR
created Division of Health
Education to implement ongoing
program.
FY90 - ATSDR developed 40,000
case studies in environmental
medicine, which were distributed
through states, counties, and
professional organizations; ATSDR
negotiated and implemented 20
state cooperative agreements for
physician education training in
environmental medicine; and
ATSDR developed state training
course materials and provided
support to conduct training (2,800
health professionals trained).
FY91 - ATSDR funded the
Association of State and Territorial
Health Officials to implement state
courses in risk communication (56
PR 41693); ATSDR funded state
departments of health and
departments of the environment to
educate health professionals on
hazardous substance exposure in
the environment (56 FR 41694);
ATSDR also funded the
Association of Occupational and
Environmental Clinics to improve
the methodology for diagnosing
injury related to hazardous
substance exposure (56 FR 41691).
Completed 03/08/90 -- EPA
published revised NCP (55 FR
8666).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
460
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
105(c)(l) 04/17/88
105(c)(l) 10/17/88
107(f)(2)(A)
107(f)(2)(B)
107(k)(6)
Requirement
EPA to promulgate
amendments to the hazard
ranking system (HRS).
EPA to establish effective
date for the amended HRS.
EPA to designate in the
NCP federal natural
resource trustees.
States to designate state
natural resource trustees and
notify the Department of the
Interior (DOI) of such
designations.
Comptroller General to
conduct a study of options
for the management of the
liabilities associated with
hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal sites
after their closure.
Status
Completed 12/14/90 - EPA
published revised HRS (55 FR
51532);
12/23/88 - EPA published
proposed revisions (53 FR 51962).
Completed 12/14/90 - Revised
HRS became effective 03/14/91, 90
days after publication in Federal
Register.
Completed 11/20/85 - EPA
designated in Section 300.72 of the
NCP federal natural resource
trustees (50 FR 47912);
03/08/90 - Section 300.72 of the
NCP was revised and renumbered
as Section 300.600 (55 FR 8666).
44 states and four territories have
officially designated natural
resource trustees as of July 1993.
Completed 06/01/90 -- General
Accounting Office (GAO) published
report entitled Hazardous Waste -
Funding of Post-Closure Liabilities
Remains Uncertain (GAO/RCED-
90-64).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
461
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
109(d)
Statutory
Deadline
11100
Annually
lll(o)
01/17/87
Requirement
EPA to prescribe criteria
(by regulation) for paying an
award to any individual who
provides information leading
to the arrest and conviction
of any person for a violation
subject to criminal penalty
under CERCLA.
Inspector General (IG) of
federal agencies,
departments, or
instrumentalities to conduct
audits and submit audit
reports to Congress of all
uses of the Hazardous
Substances Trust Fund in
the prior fiscal year.
EPA to develop and
implement procedures to
adequately notify concerned
local and state officials of
limitations on the payment
of claims for response costs
incurred for sites on NPL.
EPA to prescribe
appropriate forms and
procedures for response
claims filed under
CERCLA.
Status
Completed 05/05/88 - EPA issued
an interim final rule (IFR)
prescribing criteria for citizen
awards for information on criminal
violations under Superfund (53 FR
16086).
06/21/89 - EPA published a final
rule identical to the IFR (54 FR
26142).
Completed September 1988.
September 1989. September 1990.
September 1991. September 1992
- EPA submitted FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, and FY91 reports to
Congress.
Completed 02/05/87 - EPA
published notice of regulatory
limitations on response claims (52
FR 3699).
09/13/89 -- EPA published
proposed regulations to establish
procedures to inform concerned
persons of limitations on payment
of response claims (54 FR 37892);
01/21/93 - EPA published final
rule (58 FR 5460).
Completed 01/21/93 - EPA
published final rule (58 FR 5460).
09/13/89 - EPA published
proposed regulations to establish
response claims procedures (54 FR
37892).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
462
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
116(a)(l) 01/01/882'
116(a)(2) 01/01/892'
10/17/90
116(d)(l) 10/17/89
116(d)(2) 10/17/90
116(d)(2) 10/17/91
Requirement
EPA to promulgate
regulations that will
establish procedures for
public participation in the
development of the adminis-
trative record.
EPA to complete
preliminary assessments
(PAs) of all facilities
contained on the CERCLA
Information System
(CERCLIS) as of SARA's
date of enactment.
Following completion of
PAs, EPA to complete site
inspections (Sis) at facilities
contained in CERCLIS as of
SARA's date of enactment,
as necessary.
Following completion of
PAs or Sis, EPA to
complete evaluation of each
facility listed in CERCLIS
as of SARA's date of
enactment, as warranted.
EPA to start 275 remedial
investigations/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs).
EPA to start total of 450
RI/FSs only if 275 starts
deadline not met.
EPA to start total of 650
RI/FSs only if 275 starts
deadline not met.
Status
Completed 03/08/90 - Regulations
included in revised NCP Subpart I
(55 FR 8666).
Completed 01/01/88.
Nine regions met statutory
schedule; remaining region plans to
meet goal in 1993.
Following completion of PAs or
Sis, EPA will take appropriate
steps to mitigate the threat at
facilities based on the policy of
addressing worst sites first.
Completed Mav 1989.
Not applicable - Prior deadline
met.
Not applicable - Prior deadline
met.
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
- Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
463
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/89
10/17/91
H9(c)(8)
09/30/89^
120(c)
Requirement
EPA to start 175 remedial
actions (RAs) at individual
NPL sites.
EPA to start an additional
200 RAs at individual NPL
sites.
EPA to promulgate
regulations for issuing
Technical Assistance Grants.
EPA to develop guidelines
and promulgate regulations
on the indemnification of
response action contractors.
Comptroller General to
report to Congress on
application of CERCLA's
provisions for the
indemnification of response
action contractors.
EPA to establish Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket and
make available for public
inspection.
Status
Completed 02/01/90.
10/17/91 -- EPA has begun an
additional 63 RAs and completed
22 remedial designs.
Completed 10/1/92 - EPA
published final rule (57 FR 45311).
Completed 01/25/93 - EPA
published final guidelines (58 FR
5972);
10/06/87 - EPA issued interim
guidance (OSWER Directive
#9835.5);
10/31/89 - EPA published
proposed guidance and request for
comments (54 FR 46012).
Completed 09/26/89 - GAO
published report entitled
Contractors Are Being Too
Liberally Indemnified by the
Government (GAO/RCED-89-160).
Completed 02/12/88 - Notice of
initial list of 1,095 federal facilities
published (53 FR 4280). Public
may review and copy specific
documents in the Docket by
contacting the Federal Facilities
Docket Hotline.
-' Specific deadline not stated in statute.
- Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
464
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
120(c)
Statutory
Deadline
Semiannually
120(d)
04/17/88
120(d)
04/17/89
Requirement
EPA to publish updates of
Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket.
EPA shall take steps to
assure that a PA is
conducted for each facility
on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket.
Following PAs, EPA to
evaluate federal facilities
with criteria established in
accordance with Section 105
under the NCP for
determining priorities among
releases; those facilities
meeting the criteria are to be
included on the NPL.
EPA and states to publish
timetable and deadlines for
completion of RI/FSs at
federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Status
Completed 11/16/88. 12/15/89.
08/22/90. 9/27/91. 12/12/91.
7/17/92. 02/05/93 - EPA
published first seven updates (53
FR 46364, 54 FR 51472, 55 FR
34492, 56 FR 49328, 56 FR 64898,
57 FR 31758, 58 FR 7292).
Completed 04/17/88 -- EPA took
steps to assure that federal agencies
complied with this process prior to
statutory deadline. EPA informs
federal agencies of the requirement
to gather information on sites and
assists agencies in collecting and
analyzing such information. PAs
have not yet been completed at all
federal facilities.
EPA evaluates federal facilities
where appropriate in light of
resource constraints and other
demands. During FY91, three
federal facilities were proposed to
the NPL and no facilities were
listed. As of the end of FY91, 116
federal facilities had been added to
the NPL (56 FR 35840); additional
sites have been evaluated and
determined not to be appropriate
for the NPL.
Schedules for completion of RI/FSs
at federal facilities are routinely
developed pursuant to interagency
agreements (lAGs), or are
published by EPA and the state
when IAG negotiations are
unsuccessful. lAGs have been
signed for 85 of the 116 federal
facility sites as of FY91.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
465
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/87
10;
120(e)(2)
n/
120(e)(2)
ni
120(e)(3)
Annually
with budget
Requirement
Federal departments,
agencies, or
instrumentalities to begin
RI/FSs for federal facilities
listed on NPL prior to
SARA's date of enactment.
Federal departments,
agencies, or instrumental-
ities to begin RI/FSs for
federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Federal departments,
agencies, or instrumental-
ities to enter into lAGs with
EPA for completion of RAs
for federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Federal departments,
agencies, or instrumental-
ities to begin RAs for
federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Federal agencies to review
alternative agency funding to
provide for costs of RAs.
Agencies to submit
statement of the hazard
posed by facilities and
identify consequences of
failure to begin and
complete RAs.
Status
Not applicable No federal
facilities were listed on NPL prior
to SARA's date of enactment.
07/22/87 - First federal facilities
listed on NPL (52 FR 27620);
CERCLIS reports that EPA had
115 RI/FS starts during FY91.
EPA policy is to enter into an IAG
with federal facilities (listed on the
NPL) during the RI/FS stage, prior
to the RA stage. As a result, RA
lAGs are completed well in
advance of the statutory mandate.
At the end of FY91, 85 lAGs had
been signed with 24 lAGs signed
during FY91.
During FY91, 15 RAs for federal
facilities on the NPL began.
Completed January 1987.
January 1988. January 1989.
January 1990. January 1991.
January 1992 Included in annual
budget submissions to Congress.
Not later than six months after listing of federal facility on NPL.
&' Within 180 days after EPA review of RI/FS.
Not later than 15 months after completion of RI/FS.
466
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
120(e)(5)
Statutory
Deadline
Annually
Requirement
Federal agencies,
departments, or
instrumentalities to submit
reports to Congress on
progress in implementing
CERCLA federal facility
requirements.
Status
Completed May 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992
and February 1994 - EPA's
reports included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
120(h)(2)
04/17/88 EPA, in consultation with
the General Services
Administration, to
promulgate regulations on
the form and manner of
notice required whenever
any federal department,
agency, or instrumentality
enters into a contract to sell
or transfer property owned
by the United States on
which a hazardous substance
was stored, disposed, or
released.
EPA to report to Congress a
list of facilities for which a
five-year review is required,
the results of all such
reviews, and any actions
taken.
Completed 04/16/90 -- Final rule
published (55 FR 14208).
Completed May 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992.
and February 1994 - EPA's
reports included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
7/
EPA to promulgate
regulations providing for
state involvement in
initiation, development, and
selection of remedial
activities.
Completed 03/08/90 - Regulations
included in revised NCP Subpart F
(55 FR 8666).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
467
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
EPA to issue procedures for
special notice regarding
negotiation with potentially
responsible parties.
Status
Completed 10/19/87 - EPA sent
procedural guidelines to Regional
Administrators from Assistant
Administrator for OSWER
(OSWER Directive #9834.10);
02/23/88 - Guidelines published as
Interim Guidance on Notice Letters,
Negotiations, and Information
Exchange (53 FR 5298);
02/07/89 -- EPA published
Appendix C to the Interim
Guidance (Model Notice Letters)
(OSWER Directive #9834.10).
122(e)(3)(A)
123(d)
10/17/87
126(c)
FY88 budget
request
EPA to develop guidelines
for preparing nonbinding
preliminary allocations of
responsibility (NBAR).
EPA to promulgate
regulations for
reimbursement to local
governments for costs
incurred in responding to
the release or threatened
release of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or
contaminant.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on hazardous
waste sites on Indian lands.
Completed 05/28/87 - EPA
published interim final guidelines
(52 FR 19919).
May 1991 - EPA published
Summary of "Interim Guidelines for
Preparing NBARs" (OSWER
Directive #9839.IPS).
Completed 01/15/93 - EPA
published final rule (58 FR 4816);
10/21/87 - IFR published (52 FR
39386).
Completed 11/06/87 - Report
entitled Hazardous Waste Sites on
Indian Lands submitted to
Congress.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
468
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
301(c)(l) 04/17/87
301(g)
10/17/87
301(h)(l) Annually
Requirement
DOI to issue regulations for
the assessment of damages
for injury to, destruction of,
or loss of natural resources
resulting from a release of
oil or a hazardous
substance.
Comptroller General to
submit report to Congress
on the results of the
insurability study.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on CERCLA
implementation.
Status
Completed 02/22/88 - Final
regulations published (53 FR 5166).
Completed 10/16/87 - GAO
published report entitled Issues
Surrounding Insurance Availability
(GAO/RCED-88-2).
Completed May 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992
and February 1994 - EPA's
reports included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
301(h)(2)
EPA IG to review EPA's
Report to Congress required
under CERCLA Section
Completed May 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992
and February 1994 - EPA's
reports included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, and FY91 Reports
to Congress, required under
CERCLA Section 301(h)(l).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
469
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
306(a)
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
Department of
Transportation (DOT) to list
and regulate hazardous
substances, listed or
designated under CERCLA
Section 101(14), as
hazardous materials under
the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act.
Status
Completed 08/21/89 - DOT,
through the Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA),
amended Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) by revising the
List of Hazardous Substances and
Reportable Quantities (54 PR
34666);
11/07/90 - RSPA published
additional revisions to the list in the
HMR (55 FR 46794).
EPA to issue regulations
describing manner of notice
of citizen suits.
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to
establish and support a basic
hazardous substance
research and training
program.
Completed 11/23/92 - EPA
published final rule (54 FR 55038);
12/28/92 - Correction to final rule
published (51 FR 61612).
Completed 09/14/87 - HHS
published notice of availability of
final National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) Hazardous Substances
Basic Research and Training Plan
(52 FR 34721). HHS previously
initiated steps to establish program,
including: 11/28/86-HHS
published draft program description
(51 FR 43089); 12/15/86 - HHS
held first public meeting to solicit
comments.
- Requirements to be completed by November 17, 1986, or at the time each substance is listed or
designated as hazardous under CERCLA, whichever is later.
-' Specific deadline not stated in statute.
470
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
311(a)(6) 07/17/87
3H(b)(l)
311(b)(5)(B) 01/17/87^
Requirement
HHS to appoint an advisory
council to assist in
implementing and
coordinating activities for
the hazardous substance
research and training
program established under
CERCLA Section 311(a)(l).
HHS, through NIEHS, to
issue a plan to implement
the hazardous substance
research and training
program established under
CERCLA Section 311(a)(l).
EPA to carry out a program
of research, evaluation,
testing, development, and
demonstration of alternative
or innovative technologies.
EPA to publish a solicitation
for innovative or alternative
technologies suitable for
full-scale demonstration at
Superfund sites.
Status
Completed 03/13/87 - HHS
appointed NIEHS Advisory Council
on Hazardous Substances Research
and Training (52 FR 7934);
07/20/87 -- Advisory Council first
convened.
Completed 09/14/87 - Notice of
availability of final version of the
NIEHS Hazardous Substances Basic
Research and Training Plan
published (52 FR 34721).
Completed December 1986 - EPA
published the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Strategy and Program Plan
(EPA/540/G-86/001). Program is
ongoing.
Completed January 1986.
January 1987. January 1988.
January 1989. January 1990.
January 1991. January 1992.
January 1993 Solicitations
published.
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
- First solicitation due January 17, 1987; subsequent solicitations to be published no less often than
annually.
471
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
is;
Requirement
EPA to initiate or cause to
be initiated at least 10 field
demonstration projects of
alternative or innovative
treatment technologies.
In carrying out the SITE
program established under
CERCLA Section 3ll(b)(l),
EPA to conduct a
technology transfer program
and establish and maintain a
central reference library on
relevant information.
EPA to make grants to
universities to establish and
operate not fewer than five
hazardous substance
research centers.
Status
FY87 - 1 site demonstration
completed;
FY88 6 site demonstrations
completed;
FY89 7 site demonstrations
completed;
FY90 4 site demonstrations
completed.
FY91 7 site demonstrations
completed.
Completed December 1986 EPA
announced the publication of
program reports and documents
(e.g., demonstration reports,
bulletins) through the Center for
Environmental Research
Information.
09/01/87 - EPA established the
electronic Bulletin Board System
(BBS), including a "SITE
Conference."
05/08/89 - EPA established the
Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Center (ATTIC). EPA
eliminated the SITE Conference
from the BBS; important program
information is available through
ATTIC.
08/07/91 - SITE announced an
update of the ATTIC system which
will include bioremediation
technologies (56 FR 37543).
Completed FY89. FY90. FY91 -
EPA made $1 million grants to
each of five Hazardous Substance
Research Centers.
^' Due in fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990.
-' Specific deadline not stated in statute.
472
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
Annually
with budget
Requirement
EPA to submit report to
Congress on progress of the
SITE program established
under CERCLA Section
Status
Completed February 1988. March
1989, March 1990. September
1991. October 1992 - FY87,
FY88, FY89, FY90, and FY91
SITE program reports submitted to
Congress.
312(e)
EPA to conduct habitability
and land use study of the
Love Canal Emergency
Declaration Area, and to
work with New York State
(NYS) to develop
recommendations based
upon the study results.
Completed 07/28/88 - Study
submitted to NYS Commissioner of
Health. September 1988 -
Commissioner issued follow-up
report.
07/10/89 - Love Canal Land Use
Advisory Committee issued
recommendations.
May 1990 - Love Canal Area
Revitalization Agency published
final generic environmental impact
statement.
June 1990 - Agency published the
Love Canal Area Master Plan.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
473
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Meeting SARA-Related Statutory Requirements1
i/
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
Status
118(b) 01/17/87 EPA to grant $7.5 million to
New Jersey for removal and
temporary storage of radon
contaminated soil.
118(d) 07/01/87^ Comptroller General to
submit report to Congress
on study of shortages of
skilled personnel in EPA.
118(f) 03/01/8727 ATSDR to submit report to
Congress on the nature and
extent of lead poisoning in
children from environmental
sources.
1180) 04/17/87 EPA to submit report to
Congress on joint use of
vehicles for transportation of
hazardous and non-
hazardous substances.
118(k)( 1) 10/17/87 EPA to submit report to
Congress on radon site
identification and
assessment.
Completed 01/15/87 - Grant made
to New Jersey.
Completed 10/26/87 - GAO
published report entitled Improve-
ments Needed in Work Force
Management (GAO/RCED-88-1).
Completed 07/12/88 -- Report
entitled Nature and Extent of Lead
Poisoning in Children in the United
States submitted to Congress.
Completed 04/20/87 - Report
entitled A Study of Joint Use of
Vehicles of Hazardous and Non-
Hazardous Materials submitted to
Congress (OSWER Directive
#9360.6-01).
Completed 02/23/90 - Report
submitted to Congress.
- In this matrix, requirements of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, precede requirements of SARA that
do not amend CERCLA.
- Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
474
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SARA Statutory
Section Deadline
Requirement
Status
118(n)(l) 04/17/87
EPA to conduct a
demonstration program to
test methods and
technologies of reducing or
eliminating radon gas and
radon daughters where it
poses a threat to human
health.
EPA to submit report on
radon mitigation
demonstration program.
Department of Energy
(DOE) to carry out program
at the Liquified Gaseous
Spills Test Facility.
Program to test and evaluate
technologies utilized in
responding to liquified
gaseous and other hazardous
substance spills that threaten
human health or the
environment.
Completed September 1985 -
EPA established Radon Action
Program. Since the enactment of
SARA, EPA has focused its
program efforts to meet the
statutory mandate.
Completed 06/12/87. 01/18/89.
02/26/90. 01/15/91 - Four reports
have been submitted to Congress.
Completed 06/30/87 -
Memorandum of understanding
developed among DOE, EPA, and
DOT.
1990 - Collaborative research
effort between DOE and the
Silicone Health Council to study
hazardous material foams.
1990 - Collaborative effort among
DOE and other organizations
(under an IAG) to conduct a study
on materials for chemical protective
suits.
1990 - Collaborative effort
between DOE and Center for
Chemical Process Safety to conduct
field test of gas dispersion model.
1991 - Testing of totally
encapsulated suits and their
resistance to released chemicals.
-' Specific deadline not stated in statute.
^ Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
& Due annually on this date beginning in 1987.
475
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
Status
126(a)
126(f)
EPA to enter into contracts
and grants with a nonprofit
organization in Albany
County, Wyoming, to carry
out program established
under CERCLA Section
11/17/86 EPA Administrator to
certify in writing that RODs
or consent decrees covering
RAs, signed within 30 days
of enactment of SARA,
comply to the maximum
extent practicable with
Section 121 of CERCLA.
10/17/87 Department of Labor (DOL)
to promulgate standards for
the health and safety
protection of employees
engaged in hazardous waste
operations.
~~ EPA to promulgate worker
protection standards
identical to those contained
in the Occupational Safety
and Health Act regulations
established by DOL under
CERCLA Section 126(a).
Completed 1988 - EPA entered
into contract with the Western
Research Institute (WRI) to carry
out technology transfer program
requirements under CERCLA
Sections 118(n)(2)(A), (B), and
(D).
September 1990 - DOE entered
into a second contract with WRI
that is scheduled to run until 1995,
which continues to address
requirements under CERCLA
Section 118(n)(2).
Completed 11/17/86 - All three
RODs signed comply; no consent
decrees lodged during this period.
Completed 03/06/89 - DOL
published standards (54 FR 9294).
Completed 06/23/89 - EPA
published final standards (54 FR
26654).
- Specific deadline not stated in statute.
' Not later than 90 days after promulgation of DOL final regulations.
476
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SARA Statutory
Section Deadline
Requirement
Status
205(b)
205(h)
07/17/87 States to develop and submit
to EPA inventories of all
underground storage tanks
containing regulated
substances.
01/17/88 Comptroller General to
submit report to Congress
on study of the availability
of pollution liability
insurance, leak insurance,
and contamination insurance
for owners and operators of
petroleum storage and
distribution facilities.
Annually Secretary of Defense to
submit report to Congress
on progress in implementing
Department of Defense
Environmental Restoration
Program.
Completed 07/17/87 - All 50
states submitted inventories to
EPA.
Completed 01/15/88 - GAO
published report entitled Insuring
Underground Petroleum Tanks
(GAO-RCED-88-39).
Completed March 1988. March
1989. February 1990. March
1991. February 1992 - FY87,
FY88, FY89, FY90, and FY91
reports submitted to Congress.
477
-------
-------
Appendix E
EPA Annual Report to Congress:
Progress toward Implementing
CERCLA at EPA Facilities as
Required by CERCLA Section
20(e)(5)
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 480
2.0 EPA Progress in Meeting Requirements of CERCLA Section 120 during FY91 480
3.0 State-by-State Status of EPA Facilities Subject to Section 120 of CERCLA 481
Exhibits
Exhibit E-l: Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 482
479
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1991
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, requires each department, agency, or
instrumentality responsible for compliance with
Section 120 of CERCLA to furnish an annual report
to Congress concerning its progress in implementing
the requirements of that section.
Requirements of CERCLA Section
120(e)(5)
The annual reports to Congress required by
Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA are to include, but
need not be limited to, each of the following items:
(A) A report on the progress in reaching interagency
agreements (lAGs) under CERCLA Section
120(e)(2);
(B) The specific cost estimates and budgetary
proposals involved in each IAG;
(C) A brief summary of the public comments
regarding each proposed IAG;
(D) A description of the instances in which no
agreement was reached;
(E) A report on progress in conducting remedial
investigations and feasibility studies (RI/FSs)
required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(l) at
National Priority List (NPL) sites;
(F) A report on conducting remedial actions (RAs)
at NPL sites; and
(G) A report on progress in conducting RAs at
facilities that are not listed on the NPL.
The annual report is also required to contain a
detailed description, on a state-by-state basis, of the
status of each facility subject to this section, including
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 Compliance Program
EPA has given high priority to maintaining
compliance with CERCLA requirements at its own
facilities. To ensure compliance, 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.
As part of EPA's commitment to environmental
compliance, the environmental compliance program
has instituted an environmental auditing program to
accomplish many of its compliance objectives. Audits
are conducted at EPA facilities to identify potential
regulatory violations of federal (including CERCLA),
state, and local statutes. By performing these detailed
facility analyses, EPA is better able to assist facilities
in complying with environmental regulations.
2.0 EPA PROGRESS IN MEETING
REQUIREMENTS OF CERCLA
SECTION 120 DURING FY91
EPA is required to report on progress in meeting
the requirements of CERCLA Section 120 in terms
of lAGs, RI/FSs at NPL sites, and RAs at NPL and
non-NPL sites.
EPA did not have any facilities placed on the
NPL during FY91. As a result, EPA has not
entered into any lAGs for remediation requiring
reportingunder CERCLA Sections 120(e)(5)(A),
(B), (C), or (D).
EPA has not been involved with RI/FSs or RAs
that would require reporting under CERCLA
Sections 120(e)(5)(E) and (F).
For purposes of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5),
only the following facilities with past releases or
documented contamination will be included in this
discussion.
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Florida
Following completion of the preliminary
assessment (PA) in April of 1988, additional testing
and reviews of environmental data led to the
determination that hazardous substances are not
being released into the environment. The Agency
480
-------
Fiscal Year 1991
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
considers Superfund site evaluation to be
accomplished.
EPA Central Regional Laboratory,
Maryland
EPA operates an analytical testing laboratory in
Annapolis, Maryland. The laboratory discharged
waste-water into an on-site septic tank disposal
system, and then to the public sewer system. EPA,
in conjunction with the State of Maryland, conducted
an on-site investigation for ground-water
contamination. The study indicated that hazardous
substances had not been released into the
environment, and further remedial action was not
required.
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory,
Michigan
The Agency has conducted a PA of the facility,
which is located in Ann Arbor, and considers
Superfund evaluation to be accomplished.
EPA Raritan Depot, New Jersey
Originally, the site was owned by the Department
of Defense (DOD) and used for munitions testing
and storage. In 1961, the General Services
Administration (GSA) took possession of the
property, and transferred 165 acres to EPA in 1988.
Although residual contamination from past DOD
and GSA activities persists at the facility, EPA has
not stored, released, or disposed of any hazardous
waste substances on the property. Some pre-
Superfund waste was temporarily stored at the site,
but was later properly disposed off site.
Additional site investigation work occurred in
FY91, following the discovery of a contaminated
surface water impoundment. The investigation is
currently underway, although near-term remediation
is under consideration.
EPA Tech Center, North Carolina
EPA's laboratory at Research Triangle Park was
permitted for incineration research involving
hazardous waste. A PA of the site has been conducted,
accomplishing Superfund site evaluation.
EPA Laboratory, Oregon
The EPA laboratory in Corvallis is a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator,
and is not subject to the requirements of CERCLA
Section 120(h).
EPA Laboratory, Texas
The EPA laboratory in Houston is a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator, and is not subject
to the requirements of CERCLA Section 120(h).
Region 10 Environmental Services
Division Laboratory, Washington
EPA acquired the property from the Department
of the Navy, and used the land to construct an
environmental testing laboratory. The land adjacent
to the laboratory contains a rubble landfill that was
minimally covered by the Navy. The landfill's soil
cover has begun to deteriorate, exposing rubble
material. Additional sampling has been performed
at the site, revealing the presence of hazardous
substances in the surface water run-off. Further
investigative work is in progress.
3.0 STATE-BY-STATE STATUS OF
EPA FACILITIES SUBJECT TO
SECTION 120 OF CERCLA
Federally-owned facilities are listed on the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket, which documents those federal facilities
added to, corrected on, or removed from the docket.
At the end of FY91, the docket listed 18 EPA-owned
facilities. During the fiscal year, the docket listed
one deletion of an EPA-owned facility, the
Narragansett Environmental Research Laboratory in
Rhode Island.
The names of these 18 EPA facilities, along with
an indication of the types of problems and progress
of activities required by CERCLA, are presented, by
state, in Exhibit E-1.
481
-------
Exhibit E-1. Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
State
EPA Facility
Known or Supected Problems
Project Status
oo
to
AR Combustion Research Facility
CO National Enforcement Investigation Center
FL Environmental Research Laboratory
IL Region 5 Environmental Services Division
Laboratory
KS EPA Mobile Incinerator
KS Region 7 Environmental Services Division
Laboratory
MD EPA Central Regional Laboratory
Ml Motor Vehicle Emmission Laboratory
NC EPA Tech Center
NJ EPA Raritan Depot
OH AWBERC Facility
OH Center Hill Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
OH Testing and Evaluation Facility
OR EPA Laboratory
TX EPA Laboratory
VA Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center
VI Anguilla Landfill
WA Region 10 Environmental Services Division
Laboratory
No contamination
No contamination
No significant contamination
No contamination
No contamination from mobile
incinerator
No contamination
No contamination
No contamination
No contamination
No contamination that poses a
threat to the environment
No contamination
No contamination
No contamination
Small quantity generator
Small quantity generator
Minor contamination due to EPA
activities
Extent of contamination under
investigation
Minor contamination due to EPA
activities
PA completed 4/89; currently under review by
regional offices.
PA completed 4/88; currently under review by
regional offices.
PA completed 4/88; site evaluation accomplished.
PA complete 4/88; currently under review by
regional offices.
Site evaluation accomplished; mobile incinerator
removed from site.
PA completed 4/88; currently under review by
regional offices.
PA completed 4/88; site evaluation accomplished.
PA conducted 3/90; site evaluation accomplished.
PA conducted 8/91; site evaluation accomplished.
PA/SI prompted additional investigative work
currently underway.
PA completed 4/88; currently under review by
regional offices.
PA completed 4/88; currently under review by
regional offices.
PA completed 4/88; currently under review by
regional offices.
Conditionally exempt from PA requirements.
Conditionally exempt from PA requirements.
PA/SI conducted; currently under review by
regional offices.
Site assessment in progress.
PA/SI prompted additional investigative work
currently underway.
51
I
en
I
Source: Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
I
-------
Appendix F
Report of the EPA Inspector
General
483
-------
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
% PRO^
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit Report E1SFF2-11-0019-3100404
Review of the Superfund Annual Report To Congress
For Fiscal Year 1991
FROM: John
Inspe
-------
Scope and Objectives;
The objective of our review was to determine whether the
Agency's Annual Report, Progress Toward Implementing Superfund:
Fiscal Year 1991. is reasonable and accurate, as required by
Section 301(h)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. We began our
review on October 28, 1991, and we completed virtually all of our
work by June 22, 1992, approximately one month before EPA submitted
the Annual Report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
On July 31, 1992, the OIG auditors were notified that
allegations had been made regarding possible irregularities related
to the fiscal 1991 Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection
completions in Region 9. Because of the ongoing OIG investigation,
on February 1, 1993, we issued a disclaimer of opinion on the
Agency's fiscal 1991 Annual Report until the Office of Audit and
the Office of Investigations could perform work to determine the
extent of the irregularities. As a result of the disclaimer, the
Agency revised its Annual Report to exclude Preliminary Assessment
and Site Inspection information. Since the Preliminary Assessment
and Site Inspection information has been deleted from the Agency's
Annual Report for fiscal 1991, and we have completed adequate
follow-up work on other issues resulting from the allegations, we
can now express an opinion on the Agency's revised Annual Report.
As part of our original field work, we performed detailed
audit work in Headquarters and in Regions 2, 3, and 9 to verify the
accuracy of selected key information presented in the following
Annual Report chapters and appendices:
"Executive Summary;"
1.0: "Major Program Accomplishments;"
2.0: "Response Initiatives;"
4.0: "Federal Facilities Program;"
5.0: "Other Statutory Requirements for the Report;"
Appendix A: "Status of Remedial Investigations,
Feasibility Studies, and Remedial Actions at Sites on
the National Priorities List in Progress on
September 30, 1991;"
Appendix B: "Remedial Designs in Progress on
September 30, 1991;" and
Appendix C: "Record of Decision Abstracts."
486
-------
We did not perform in-depth audit work on Chapter 3.0,
"Estimate of Resources Required to Implement Superfund." This
was because the General Accounting Office had just completed an
audit of the Outyear Liability Model, the method by which the
Agency calculates much of the information in Chapter 3.0.
We began our original field work by using a January 1992
draft of the Agency's Annual Report, and we reviewed updated
drafts as we received them. We focused our field work on those
items the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and
Liability Act specifically required to be included in the Annual
Report. We also reviewed the final changes made to the Agency's
fiscal 1991 Annual Report in September 1993.
We performed detailed audit work in Regions 2, 3, and 9 as
part of the original field work because of the volume of activity
or because we had not performed this review in the region in
prior years. Recognizing regional differences, we hoped, in this
manner, to obtain a balanced, nationwide perspective for our
review.
For the information in the Executive Summary, Chapter 1.0,
and Appendices A and B, we obtained printouts from the CERCLIS
for October 1991, and we selected sample cases for review in the
site assessment, removal, and remedial programs. We obtained the
October 1991 printout from the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) to define our universe of cases. In
Region 2, we randomly selected 84 accomplishments from a universe
of 204. In Region 3, we randomly selected 68 accomplishments
from a universe of 162. In Region 9, we randomly selected 78
accomplishments from a universe of 145. (All of the samples and
universes exclude Preliminary Assessments and Site Inspections on
which we are not opining.) With the exception of the
accomplishments we sampled and interviews we conducted in Regions
2, 3, and 9, no audit tests were performed to evaluate the
adequacy of manual or automated controls for CERCLIS.
For our sample cases, we reviewed the source documentation
in Regions 2, 3, and 9 to determine whether the activities
claimed met the definitions for valid fiscal 1991
accomplishments. The specific source documentation reviewed
varied from activity to activity. For example, for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) completions, the official
Agency definition states that the completion date is the date
"the Record of Decision [ROD] is signed by the Regional
Administrator/Deputy Regional Administrator or the AA SWER." In
accordance with this definition, we reviewed source documents
showing the signature of the appropriate official on the ROD. We
performed this same type of review for each of the site
assessment, removal, and remedial actions selected for review.
Although a majority of our sample items was selected at random,
we did not select statistically valid samples.
487
-------
Our subsequent field work included interviews with Region 2
and Region 3 officials. We also used some of the preliminary
results of the work we completed related to the Agency's fiscal
1992 Annual Report to arrive at our opinion of the fiscal 1991
Annual Report.
When we have conducted this review in prior years, we have
generally stated our opinion on the reasonableness and accuracy
of the entire Annual Report, including historical data. This is
because we have reviewed past years' Annual Reports and the data
have not changed; or, if the data have changed, the changes are
minor and easily explainable compared to prior fiscal years' data
we have reviewed. However, for this year's Annual Report, the
Agency modified the computerized program which selects historical
data from CERCLIS for presentation in the Annual Report.
Accomplishment levels of historical data claimed for prior years
in this year's Annual Report are different from the levels
claimed in prior years' Annual Reports. Thus, we are not able to
express an opinion on the historical data in the fiscal 1991
Annual Report because the data are changed from the data we
sampled and reviewed during our review of prior Agency Annual
Reports.
Our scope originally included the review of Preliminary
Assessments (PA) and Site Inspections (SI) completed during
fiscal 1991. Due to the OIG investigation that began during our
original field work and then continued throughout our subsequent
field work, the Agency removed PA and SI information from the
Annual Report. We, therefore, express no opinion regarding now
absent fiscal 1991 PA and SI completions information at this
time.
On August 3, 1993, we provided the Agency with a draft
report qualifying our opinion of the Agency's Annual Report to
Congress for fiscal 1991. The Agency provided a response to our
draft report on September 10, 1993. The Agency agreed to address
our concerns by revising the Annual Report. Because all of the
issues in our draft report were resolved, and the Agency revised
its report appropriately, we agreed with the Agency not to
include its response to our draft report in this final report.
Our work was performed in accordance with the Government
Auditing Standards (1988 revision) issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States. However, we did not perform a full
scope audit to determine if the Superfund program is achieving
the results required by CERCLA, nor did we perform extensive
tests to determine if internal controls are adequate. We
performed limited audit work necessary to determine if key
information included in the Annual Report is reasonable and
accurate. As noted above, our audit was performed in accordance
with Government Auditing Standards, but this does not guarantee
the discovery of irregularities resulting from noncompliance.
488
-------
Results of Review
MOST FISCAL 1991 ACCOMPLISHMENTS WERE PROPERLY SUPPORTED
Most of the fiscal 1991 Superfund accomplishments we
randomly selected were supported. We grouped the Superfund
accomplishments into three categories: (1) site assessment
accomplishments, (2) removal accomplishments, and (3) remedial
accomplishments. We disclaimed an opinion on the site assessment
accomplishments because they were under investigation. However,
we found no errors in the reporting of removal action accomplish-
ments for the accomplishments we sampled. Lastly, we found that
the error rate of our sampled remedial accomplishments listed in
CERCLIS did not exceed 10 percent, and we notified the
appropriate Agency officials regarding the errors we found.
Accordingly, we concluded that fiscal 1991 Annual Report
accomplishments are accurate and reasonable within these
parameters.
Below is a chart detailing the errors we found for remedial
accomplishments only. Remedial accomplishments include remedial
investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FS) starts, RI/FS comple-
tions, remedial design starts, remedial action (RA) starts, and
RA completions. We did not include removal accomplishments
(removal starts and removal completions) in this chart because we
questioned none of the removal accomplishments we sampled. Also,
we did not include site assessment accomplishments (preliminary
assessments and site inspections) in this table because we
disclaimed an opinion on these accomplishments.
Sample Error Rate of Remedial Accomplishments
Region
2
3
9
Sample
53
62
60
Validated
51
61
54
Questioned
2
1
6
Percent
Questioned
4%
2%
10%
489
-------
-------
Appendix G
List of Sources
The following is a list of reference sources and a bibliography of materials that were used in the
preparation of this report. Reference sources are those materials that were used directly in the formulation of
the text. Documents cited in the bibliography were used for background information only. Sources for data
used in exhibits within this document are cited in the exhibits and also listed below. .
Sources
Statutes
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, P.L. 96-510 (11
December 1980), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et. seq.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 94-580 (21 October 1976), 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et. seq.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 99-499 (17 October 1986), 42 U.S.C. Section 11001
et. seq.
Rulemakings
EPA. December 24,1991. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Deletion of
Sites from the National Priorities List; Five-Year Reviews. 56 FR 66601.
EPA. December 12,1991. Notice of Fifth Update of the Federal Agency Waste Compliance Docket Pursuant
to CERCLA Section 102(c). 56 FR 64898.
EPA. December 4, 1991. Notice to Change Policy Regarding Five-Year Reviews. 56 FR 66601.
EPA. September 27, 1991. Notice of Fourth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102(c). 56 FR 49328.
EPA. September 10,1991. Notice of Intent to Delete: National Priorities List; John's Sludge Pond, Wichita.
56 FR 46142.
EPA. July 26,1991. Proposed Rule: Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation; Reportable Quantity Adjustment, Coke
By-Products Waste Listings. 56 FR 35758.
491
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
EPA. March 27,1991. Reportable Quantity Adjustments for Petroleum Refinery Primary Treatment. 56 FR
12826.
EPA. February 11, 1991. Notice of Recategorization of 14 Sites on the National Priorities List. 56 FR 5634.
EPA. December 14, 1990. Final Rule: Revised Hazard Ranking System. 55 FR 51532.
EPA. August 22,1990. Notice of Third Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102(c). 55 FR 34492.
EPA. March 8,1990. Final Rule: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. 55 FR 8666.
EPA. December 15, 1989. Notice of Second Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102(c). 54 FR 51472.
EPA. December 1,1989. Technical Assistance Grants to Groups at National Priorities List Sites; Amendments
to Interim Final Rule. 54 FR 49848.
EPA. November 16, 1988. First Six-Month Update of List of Federal Facilities Under CERCLA Section
120(c) and Revisions to Initial List. 53 FR 45364.
EPA. March 24,1988. Technical Assistance Grants to Groups at National Priorities List Sites; Interim Final
Rule with Request for Comments. 53 FR 9736.
EPA. February 12,1988. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket; EPA Initial List of Federal
Facilities Under CERCLA Section 120(c). 53 FR 4280.
Memoranda
EPA/OARM. October 18,1991. Report on Contract Laboratory Program Review. Memorandum from Willis
E. Greenstreet to F. Henry Habicht II.
EPA/OIG. September 18, 1991. Audit Report E1SKE9-11-0047-1100411: Review of the Adequacy of
Selected Headquarters and Regional Operational Controls Over the Contract Laboratory Program.
Memorandum from Kenneth A. Konz to Don R. Clay.
EPA/OSWER. December 9, 1991. Audit Report E1SKE9-11 -0047-1100411: Review of the Adequacy of
Selected Headquarters and Regional Operational Controls Over the Contract Laboratory Program.
Memorandum from Don R. Clay to Kenneth A. Konz.
EPA/OSWER. July 19,1991. Recommendations for Accelerating Cleanup and Managing Risks at Superfund
Sites. Memorandum from Don R. Clay to William K. Reilly. (The 30-Day Study).
Reports
Clean Sites. October 1990. Improving Remedy Selection: An Explicit and Interactive Process for the
Superfund Program.
EPA/Office of the Administrator. October 1991. Implementation of the Superfund Alternative Remedial
Contracting Strategy, Report of the Administrator's Task Force. Publication 21T-2001.
EPA/OERR. June 1989. A Management Review of the Superfund Program. EPA/540/8-89/007.
(The 90-Day Study).
492
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA/OSWER. June 21, 1991. Five-Year Review Report.
EPA/TIO. January 1991. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report. EPA/540/2-91/
001.
Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Ocean, and Water Protection. May 1989. The Lautenberg-Durenberger
Report on Superfund Implementation: Cleaning Up the Nation's Clean-up Program.
Guidance Documents
EPA/OERR. November 1991. Evaluation of Ground Water Extraction Remedies: Phase II, Pre-print.
EPA/OERR. September 1991. Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA. Publication
9345.0-01 A.
EPA/OERR. September 1991. PA-Score Software User's Manual and Tutorial, Version 1.0. Publication
9345.1-11.
EPA/OERR. August 1991. Guidance on the Consideration of ARARs During Removal Actions. Publication
9360.3-02.
EPA/OERR. May 1991. Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes During Site'Inspections. OERR
Directive 9345.3-02.
EPA/OERR. December 1990. Sampler's Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program. EPA/540/P-90/006.
EPA/OERR. February 1988. Superfund Removal Procedures Manual. Directive 9360.0-03B.
EPA/ORD. January 1991. User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program. EPA/540/P-91/002.
EPA/OSWER. October 1, 1991. Superfund 30-Day Study Task Force Implementation Plan: Accelerating
Superfund Cleanups and Evaluating Risk at Superfund Sites.
EPA/OSWER. September 1991. Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessment under CERCLA. EPA/
540/G-91-013).
EPA/OSWER. August 1991. Furthering the Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies in OSWER
Programs. Publication 9380.0-17FS.
EPA/OSWER. May 23, 1991. Structures and Components of Five-Year Review. Publication 9355.7-02.
EPA/OWPE. July 3, 1991. Policy Toward Owners of Residential Property at Superfund Sites. Directive
9834.6.
Other Sources
Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superrund Response Actions. 40 CFR Part 35
Subpart O.
EPA/OERR. January 1992. 2000th Removal Industrial Fuel and Asphalt. Fact Sheet.
EPA/OERR. October 23,1991. "New Lead Cleanup Model to Meet Scientific Standards," Superfund Report.
EPA/OERR. August 1991. Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews. Directive 9355.7-02FS.
EPA/OERR. July 1991. Background Information: National Priorities List, Proposed Rule. Publication
9320.7-041. Intermittent Bulletin. Volume 1, Number 1.
493
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1991
EPA/OERR. June 1991. Superfund Program Management Manual, FY92: Volume l.EPA/540/P-91/0046a.
EPA/OERR. June 1991. Superfund Program Management Manual, FY92: Volume 2. EPA/540/P-91/0046b.
EPA/OERR. July 1990. Conference of State Superfund Programs: The Manager's Challenge for the
1990's - Issues Summaries and Agenda. Publication 9375.6-08A.
EPA/OERR. March 1990. Inventory of Treatability Study Vendors. EPA/540/2-90/003a.
EPA/OERR. June 1988. Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Guidance). Directive
9230.0-03B.
EPA/OPM. CERCLA Information System.
EPA/OPM. Superfund Budget Documents.
EPA/OSWER. December 1991. OSWER Soil Lead Clean-up Guidance.
EPA/OS WER. August 1991. Five-Year Review Fact Sheet.
EPA/TIB. December 1991. Three City Urban Soil-Lead Demonstration Project.
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. 40 CFR Part 300.
Bibliography
Reports
EPA. October 1990. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1989.
EPA. April 1990. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1988.
EPA. April 1989. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1987.
EPA/OERR. September 30, 1991. Superfund FY91 Annual Management Report.
EPA/OERR. May 1991. Status Report on the Superfund Program's Recent Accomplishments.
EPA/ORD. February 1988. The Superfund Innovative Technology Program: Progress and Accomplishments,
A Report to Congress. EPA/540/5-88/001.
EPA/OSWER. September 1991. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report.
EPA/540/2-91/001.
EPA/OSWER. October 1991. Implementation of Superfund Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
(ARCS): Report of the Administrator's Task Force 1991. Directive 9201.0-01.
EPA/OWPE. October 18, 1991. CERCLIS 58 Events Master Report, Percent of PRP Participation.
Guidance Documents
EPA/OE/OCM. November 1988. Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy. EPA/130/4-89/003.
494
-------
Fiscal Year 1991 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Other Sources
EPA/Office of the Administrator. July 1991. Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the
1990s: The Final Report of the EPA Ground-Water Task Force.
EPA/Office of the Administrator. October 3,1991. Statement of William K. Reilly, Administrator U.S. EPA,
Be fore the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on Public Works and Transportation,
U.S. House of Representatives.
EPA/OERR. July 1991. Quick Turnaround Analytical Service for Superfund. Quick Reference Fact Sheet.
EPA/OERR. June 1990. Non-CLP Superfund Analytical Services Tracking System. Publication 9200.5-323 FS.
EPA/OERR. April 1990. Computer-Aided Data Review and Evaluation. Publication 9200.5-322/FS.
EPA/OERR. April 1990. Contract Laboratory Program Analytical Results Database. Publication 9200.5-
321/FS.
EPA/OERR. December 1989. Treatability Studies Under CERCLA: An Overview. Publication 9380.3-
02FS.
EPA/OERR. March 1989. Hazardous Waste Releases on Indian Land; Beginning the Superfund Process.
EPA/540/8-89/001.
EPA/ORD. November 1991. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Technology
Profiles, Fourth Edition. EPA/540/5-91/008.
EPA/ORD. August 1991. Bioremediation in the Field. EPA/540/2-91/018.
EPA/OS WER. November 1991. Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective
Action and Site Remediation (A Bibliography of EPA Information Resources). EPA/540/8-91/92.
EPA/OSWER. September 1991. Abstract Proceedings: Third Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic and International. EPA/540/2-91/016.
EPA/OWPE. October 18, 1991. Stars Briefing Package, FY91.
EPA/TIO. November 1991. Innovative Remediation Technologies: Implementation Successes and Challenges.
EPA/TIO. August 1991. Tech Trends, No. 6. EPA/540/M-91/004.
EPA/TIO. August 1991. Training Forum Forecast: Developments in OS WER Training Policy, Programs,
and Technology, Volume 1, Number 1.
EPA/TIO. May 1991. Synopsis of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation Technologies.
EPA/540/8-91/009.
EPA/TIO. March 1991. Bioremediation Field Initiative. Fact Sheet.
495
-------
|