United Slates
Environmental Prctecir
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA540-R-95-U5
9200.2-19
PB96-963210
Superfund
ir
/ t
-------
Publication 9200.2-19
Progress Toward
mplementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
REPORT TO
CONGRESS
Required by
Section 301 (h) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
51-037-Cov
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Yean 9
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 1992 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 1992 (FY92). As the Superfund program
reached its twelfth year, the Agency had begun work at nearly 96 percent of the 1,275 sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL). (These 1,275 NPL sites include 1,150 general or non-federal sites and 125 federal
facility sites.) 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, 88 NPL sites were placed in the construction completion category during the fiscal year,
bringing the program total to 149 sites. The Agency also started nearly 90 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies, more than 170 remedial designs (RDs), and more than 110 remedial actions (RAs) during the fiscal
year.
EPA has continued its successful efforts to compel potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to clean up
hazardous waste sites. PRPs began more than 70 percent of the RDs and RAs started in FY92. EPA entered
into 241 enforcement agreements with a potential value of more than $ 1.4 billion; this is the third consecutive
year in which Superfund enforcement agreements achieved over $1 billion in clean-up commitments. The
Agency and PRPs have now started more than 3,040 removal actions, including 380 during FY92. Federal
facility accomplishments have shown dramatic increases; 104 of the federal facility sites on the NPL are now
covered by interagency agreements for clean-up activities. EPA also continued to encourage public
involvement in the Superfund process, to enhance partnerships with states and Indian tribes, and to encourage
the use and development of treatment technologies.
In addition to providing an overall perspective on progress in the past fiscal year, this Report contains the
information Congress specifically requested in Section 301(h) of CERCLA, including a report on the status
of remedial actions and enforcement activity in progress at the end of the fiscal year and an evaluation of newly
developed feasible and achievable treatment technologies. The Report also includes a description of current
minority firm participation in Superfund contracts and EPA's efforts to encourage their increased participation,
in
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Foreword
(continued)
as required by Section 105(f). The Report fulfills the requirement of Section 301 (h)(l)(E) for an annual update
on progress being made at sites subj ect 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). The EPA Inspector General's report on the reasonableness and accuracy of the information
in this Report, as required by CERCLA Section 301(h)(2), is included as Appendix E.
Appendix G is included to give an overall summary of the Superfund Program in fiscal years 1992 through
1994.
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Timothy Fields, Jr.
Acting Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
IV
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 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), Gayle Dye, Dave Evans, 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, Kirby Briggs, Hugo Fleischman, Jo Ann Griffith, Diana J.
Hammer, Carol Jacobson, Jeff Langholz, Kenneth Lovelace, Shahid Mahmud, Carolyn Offutt, Bill Ross, and
Melissa Shapiro, from the Hazardous Site Control Division; Barbara Bach, Susan Griffin, Jim Konz, Lisa
Matthews, Delores Rodgers-Smith, Chuck Sands, and Suzanne Wells, from the Hazardous Site Evaluation
Division; Scott Blair and Pat Kennedy, from the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; and Jeff Heimerman
and Meg Kelly, from the Technology Innovation Office.
Additional key contributions from other Environmental Protection Agency offices were provided by:
Betty Bailey, Jonathon Cannon, and Elizabeth Craig, Office of Acquisition Management; Howard Wilson,
Office of Administration and Resources Management; Deborah Banks, MaryannFroelich, Stacey Greendlinger,
and Tony Wolbarst, Office of Air and Radiation; Steve Herman, Linda Rutsch, Augusta Wills, and Jim
Woolford, Office of Enforcement; Earl Salo and Lee Tyner, Office of General Counsel; Stuart Miles-McLean,
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; Steven James, John Martin, Richard Nalesnik, Peter Preuss, 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; LL Col. Steve Walker, Department of Defense; and Mary Morton, Department of
Interior.
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
-------
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments v
Executive Summary xiii
Chapter 1: Accelerating Cleanup ..................................... „... 1
1.1 Achieving Cleanups 1
1.2 Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model 3
1.2.1 Single, Continuous Site Assessment 3
1.2.2 Regional Decision Teams 5
1.2.3 Early Actions to Reduce Immediate Risks 5
1.2.4 Long-Term Actions to Restore the Environment 5
1.2.5 Implementation 6
1.3 Other Efforts to Accelerate the Pace of Cleanup 7
1.3.1 Standardizing Remedy Planning and Selection 7
1.3.2 Shortening the Remedial Design Phase 8
1.3.3 Resolving Issues that Cause Delays 9
1.3.4 Accelerating the Pace of PRP Cleanups 9
,
Chapter 2: Major Initiatives ..~.................................~................. .. ............ .„.....„„.....„..„.„ 11
2.1 The Superfund Revitalization Office 11
2.2 Promoting Consistency in Risk Assessment and Risk Management 11
2.2.1 Risk Assessment Initiatives 11
2.2.2 Risk Management Initiatives 13
2.3 Advancing the Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies 14
2.3.1 Increasing the Availability of Cost and Performance Data 14
2.3.2 Centralizing Accessto Information 16
2.3.3 Overcoming Regulatory Barriers 16
1 2.3.4 Providing Technical Support 17
2.4 Improving Agency Contracting 17
2.4.1 Improving Contract Management and Accountability 18
2.4.2 Eliminating Excess Contract Capacity 19
2.4.3 Controlling Costs 19
2.4.4 Securing Quality Work from Contractors 20
2.5 Enhancing Communications 20
2.5.1 Improving Measures of Superfund Success 20
2.5.2 Public Outreach 21
VII
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 3: Site Evaluation Accomplishments 23
3.1 Site Assessment s 23
3.1.1 The Inventory of Sites (CERCLIS) 23
3.1.2 Preliminary Assessments 24
3.1.3 Site Inspections 25
3.2 National Priorities List 26
3.2.1 National Priorities List Update 26
3.2.2 Relationship between CERCLIS and NPL Data 26
3.3 The Lead Program 26
3.3.1 The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model : 26
3.3.2 Three City Lead Study 27
3.4 The Radiation Program 28
3.4.1 Superfund Program Guidance 28
3.4.2 Technology Demonstration and Evaluation 28
3.4.3 Regional Assistance 29
3.5 Guidance Documents 29
Chapter 4: Emergency Response Accomplishments 31
4.1 The Removal Action Process 31
4.2 Progress in Addressing Immediate Threats 33
4.2.1 Status Report on Removal Actions 33
4.2.2 Expanding the Use of Removal Authority 33
4.3 Environmental Response Team 35
4.4 Emergency Response Guidance and Rulemaking 35
4.4.1 Superfund Removal Procedures Manual 36
4.4.2 Reportable Quantity Regulatory Program 36
Chapter 5: Remedial Accomplishments 39
5.1 Remedial Progress 39
5.1.1 The Remedial Process 39
5.1.2 Fiscal Year Accomplishments 41
5.1.3 Status of Remedial and Enforcement Activities in Progress 42
5.2 Remedy Selection 43
5.3 Remedial Initiatives 44
5.4 Use and Development of Treatment Technologies 47
5.4.1 The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program 47
5.4.2 Superfund Research Grants 52
5.4.3 Technical Assistance, Expert Advice, and Information Transfer 53
5.5 Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121(c) 54
VI11
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
Chapter 6: Enforcement Accomplishments 55
6.1 The Enforcement Process 55
6.2 Fiscal Year 1992 Accomplishments 56
6.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities 56
6.2.2 PRP Participation in Clean-Up Activities 56
6.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements 57
6.3 Success in Reaching and Enforcing Agreements with PRPs 58
6.3.1 Consent Decrees for Remedial Design/Remedial Action 58
6.3.2 Unilateral Administrative Orders 60
6.3.3 Consent Decrees for Cost Recovery 61
6.3.4 DeMinimis Settlement Under CERCLA Section 122(g) 63
6.4 Enforcement Initiatives 64
6.4.1 Enforcement Under the Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model 64
6.4.2 Early De Minimis Guidance 65
6.4.3 Final Lender Liability Rule 65
6.4.4 Cost Recovery Initiatives 65
Chapter 7: Federal Facility Cleanups 67
*
7.1 Federal Facility Responsibility Under CERCLA 67
7.1.1 Facility Responsibilities 67
7.1.2 EPA'S Oversight Role 67
7.1.3 The Role of States and Indian Tribes 68
7.2 Progress at Federal Facility Sites 68
7.2.1 Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 69
7.2.2 Progress Toward Cleaning Up Federal Facilities on the NPL 70
7.2.3 Federal Facility Agreements Under CERCLA Section 120 70
7.3 Federal Facility Initiatives 71
7.3.1 Base Closure 71
7.3.2 Accelerated Cleanups at Federal Facilities 72
7.3.3 Interagency Forums 72
7.3.4 Innovative Technology Development 72
7.4 CERCLA Implementation at EPA Facilities 73
7.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) 73
7.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA Facilities Subject to Section 120 of CERCLA 74
Chapter 8: Superfund Program Support Activities. 77
8.1 Community Relations and Technical Assistance Grants 77
8.1.1 Fiscal Year 1992 Highlights 78
8.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA Section 117(e) 78
8.2 A Coordinated Approach to Public Information 79
IX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
Contents
(continued)
8.3 EPA's Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 81
8.3.1 Response Agreements and Core Program Cooperative Agreements 81
8.3.2 Fiscal Year 1992 Highlights 83
8.4 Minority Firm Participation in Superfund Contracting .• 84
8.4.1 Minority Firm Contracting During Fiscal Year 1992 84
8.4.2 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 85
8.4.3 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Departments and Agencies
to Use Minority Contractors 85
8.4.4 Publications of Interest to Minority Contractors 86
Chapter 9: Estimate of Resources 87
9.1 Source and Application of Superfund Resources 88
9.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup 89
9.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Clean-Up Effort 89
9.2 Estimated Resources to Complete Current NPL Sites 89
9.2.1 Estimated Cost to Complete Existing NPL Sites 90
9.2.2 Program Element Assumptions Represented in the Model 90
9.3 Estimates of Resources Necessary for Other Executive Branch Departments
«nd Agencies to Complete Superfund Implementation 92
Appendices
Appendix A Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial
Actions at sites on the National Priorities List in Progress
on September 30,1992 A-l
Appendix B Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1992 B-l
Appendix C List of Records of Decision C-l
Appendix D Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related
Statutory Requirements D-l
Appendix E Report of the EPA Inspector General E-l
Appendix F List of Sources F-l
Appendix G Summary of the Superfund Program [1992-1994] G-l
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1
Exhibit ES-2
Exhibit ES-3
Exhibit 1.1-1
Exhibit 1.2-1
Exhibit 2.1-1
Exhibit 2.3-1
Exhibit 3.1-1
Exhibit 3.1-2
Exhibit 3.1-3
Exhibit 3.2-1
Exhibit 4.1-1
Exhibit 4.2-1
Exhibit 4.2-2
Exhibit 5.1-1
Exhibit 5.1-2
Exhibit 5.1-3
Exhibit 5.1-4
Exhibit 5.1-5
Exhibit 5.1-6
Exhibit 5.2-1
Exhibit 5.2-2
Exhibit 5.4-1
Exhibit 5.4-2
Exhibit 6.2-1
Exhibit 6.2-2
Exhibit 6.2-3
Exhibit 6.2-4
Exhibit 7.2-1
Exhibit 7.2-2
Exhibit 7.4-1
Exhibit 8.1-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1992 Superfund Activities xiv
Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year xv
Statutory Requirements for the Report xix
Superfund Sites in the Construction Completion Category 2
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model 4
Superfund Revitalization Office Structure 12
Development of Innovative Technologies 15
Sites Added to CERCLIS 24
Preliminary Assessments Fiscal Year Comparison 25
Site Inspections Fiscal Year Comparison 25
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1992 27
Typical Removal Response Actions 32
Removal Action Starts 34
Removal Action Completions 35
Work Has Occurred at Most National Priorities List Sites 40
Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program
for Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1992 41
Comparison of Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts 42
Comparison of Remedial Design Starts 42
Comparison of Remedial Action Starts 43
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead
for Fiscal Year 1991 and Fiscal Year 1992 44
Summary of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1992 Records of Decision.... 45
Percentage Distribution of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1992
Records of Decision 46
Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technology Program 48
Innovative Technologies in the Demonstration Program 49
Estimated Value of PRP Response Settlements 57
Increase in the Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
Started by PRPs since the Enactment of SARA 58
Cost Recovery Settlements 59
Cost Recovery Collections 59
Number of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 69
Distribution of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket 70
Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket 75
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from Fiscal Year 1988
Through Fiscal Year 1992 80
XI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
Contents
(continued)
Exhibit 8.4-1 Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1992 85
Exhibit 8.4-2 Amount of Money Awarded to Minority Firms Through
Direct Procurement 86
Exhibit 8.4-3 Services Provided by Minority Contractors 86
Exhibit 9.1-1 EPA Superfund Obligations 89
Exhibit 9.2-1 Estimate of Total Trust Fund Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites on
the National Priorities List 90
Exhibit 9.3-1 CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for
Other Federal Departments and Agencies 93
XII
-------
Executive Summary
As the Superfund program entered its twelfth
year in December 1991, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or "the Agency") continued
to fulfill the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) for protecting public health, welfare,
and the environment. CERCLA requires that EPA
update Congress each year on the status of the
Superfund program. This Report fulfills the
requirement.
EPA* is committed to accelerating the pace of
hazardous waste site cleanup. Fulfilling this
commitment, the Agency completed clean-up
activities to place a record 88 National Priorities List
(NPL) sites in the construction completion category
during fiscal year 1992 (FY92). By the end of the
year, work had occurred at nearly 96 percent of the
1,275 sites on the NPL, including 40 sites that have
been deleted. Leaving a total of 1,183 sites currently
listed on the NPL for fiscal year 1992.
This Report presents information on the
initiatives undertaken by the Agency during FY92 to
enhance progress under the Superfund program.
This Report also identifies the Agency's
accomplishments, highlighting those of FY92.
Exhibit ES-1 summarizes FY92 program
accomplishments. Exhibit ES-2 provides a
comparison of FY92 accomplishments with those of
previous years and total program accomplishments.
Accelerating the Pace of Site Cleanup
Aggressively pursuing the acceleration of site
cleanup, the Agency focused on achieving
construction completion at sites and on introducing
and implementing a new model for cleanup. The
Agency also continued to implement measures
recommended by the 199130-Day Study Task Force
to streamline the activities in the clean-up process.
By concluding clean-up activities at 88 NPL
sites, the Agency more than doubled the number of
sites in the construction completion category. These
completions brought the program total of NPL sites
in the construction complete category to 149, a 144
percent increase over the 61 sites in that category at
theendofFY91.
A new model for Superfund clean-up action was
introduced during the fiscal year to streamline the
clean-up process. The Superfund Accelerated Clean-
Up Model (S ACM) will allow for rapid reduction of
risks at Superfund sites and restoration of the
environment over the long term. SACM introduces
significant improvements to the existing clean-up
process by
Eliminating sequential and duplicative studies
as site assessment and investigation activities
are combined;
• Removing the existing overlap between the types
of clean-up actions done under the Superfund
removal program and those done under the
remedial program, to save time and money; and
Redefining Superfund clean-up actions as early
actions and long-term actions with comple-
mentary applications.
EPA Regions initiated SACM pilot projects during
FY92 to explore the benefits of the new clean-up
model.
Implementing 30-Day Study Task Force
xin
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit ES-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1992 Superfund Activities
Remedial Activities
Percentage of National Priorities List Sites Where Work Has Begun 96%
Sites Classified as Construction Completions as of September 30,1992 149
Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30,1992 936
Records of Decisions Signed1 . 126
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Starts2 90
Fund-Financed 50%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 50%
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies in Progress on September 30, 1992 920
Remedial Design Starts2 170
Fund-Financed 30%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 70%
Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1992 412
Remedial Action Starts2 110
Fund-Financed - 30%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 70%
Remedial Actions in Progress on September 30, 1992 354
Removal Activities
Removal Action Starts2 380
Fund-Financed 280
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 1 oo
Removal Action Completions2 340
Fund-Financed 270
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 70
Site Assessment Activities
CERCLIS Sites Added 2 1,800
Preliminary Assessments Conducted2 1,900
Site Inspections Conducted2 1,300
National Priorities List Site Activities to Date 1,275
Sites Proposed for Listing During Fiscal Year 1992 30
Final Sites Listed During Fiscal Year 1992 0
Sites Proposed for Deletion During Fiscal Year 1992 9
Sites Deleted During Fiscal Year 1992 2
Enforcement Activities
Settlements for All Potentially Responsible Party Response Activities 241 ($1.4 billion)
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Settlements 90 ($1.2 billion)4
Unilateral Administrative Orders Issued (All Actions) 110 N/A
Cost Recovery Dollars Collected N/A ($185.3 million)
Accomplishments at Federal Facility Sites
Records of Decision Signed 46
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts* 100
Remedial Design Starts 2 40
Remedial Action Starts2 30
1 Records ot decision signed tor Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed sites.
2 Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
3 Estimated value of work potentially responsible parties have agreed to undertake.
4 Remedial design/remedial action settlements include remedial design/remedial action consent decrees and unilateral administrative orders
with which potentially responsble parties have stated their intention to comply.
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; SI-OIS-IOM
Federal Register notices through September 30,1992.
XIV
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit ES-2
Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year
FY80-86
Total
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
Total1
Total2
Removal Completions3
National Priorities List Sites4
CERCLA Sites3
Preliminary Assessments
Conducted3
Site Inspections Conducted3
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study Starts3
Records of Decision Signed5
Remedial Design Starts3
Remedial Action Starts3
National Priorities List Deletions
810
901
25,200
20,200
6,400
660
199
120
70
13
230
964
27,600
4,000
1,300
210
77
110
70
0
320
1,194
30,000
2,900
1,200
170
152
120
70
4
260
1,254
31,900
2,200
1,700
170
136
180
110
11
290 270
1,236 1,245
33,600 34,200
1,600
1,900
170
149
130
80
1
1,300
1,900
70
175
160
100
9
340
1,275
36,400
1,900
1,300
90
126
170
110
2
2,520 2,560
1,275 1,275
36,400 36,400
34,100 34,100
15,700 15,700
1,540
1,014
990
610
40
2,080
1,117
1,100
700
40
11ncludes only activities where Fund monies were spent. The total includes Fund monies spent at enforcement-lead sites to oversee PRP
activities.
2Also includes activities conducted by federal facilities and states where no Superfund resources were used.
3Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
4 Figures reported in this row represent the cumulative total of final, proposed, and deleted sites as of September 30,1992. At the end of FY92,
there were 1,183 final, 52 proposed, and 40 deleted sites. This includes 125 federal facility sites (116 final and 9 proposed)
5 Includes new and amended records of decision.
Sources:' CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Federal Register notices through September 30,1992.
51-013-9J
recommendations, the Agency also engaged in efforts
to streamline remedy planning, selection, and design.
The Agency worked to develop presumptive
remedies, technology-based standards, and soil
trigger levels to standardize remedy planning and
selection. The Agency also worked to shorten the
remedy design phase for sites where the extent of
remedial action cannot be readily determined,
facilitate the resolution of site-specific issues that
commonly cause delays in the clean-up process, and
accelerate private party cleanups.
Other Major Initiatives
In addition to efforts aimed at accelerating the
pace of cleanup, the Agency implemented measures
to improve other aspects of the Superfund program:
• To strengthen program management and
accountability, the Administrator appointed the
National Superfund Director and created the
Superfund Revitalization Office (SRO). The
mission of SRO is to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of Superfund cleanup and
administration, and to ensure equity in Superfund
enforcement.
To promote consistency in risk assessment and
risk management, the Agency implemented 30-
Day Study Task Force recommendations. As a
first step, the Agency conducted reviews of
Superfund risk assessment guidance and risk
characterization practices, targeting areas
needing improvement and coordination with
other EPA programs. To examine issues that
may lead to inconsistency in deciding the
appropriate clean-up actions for sites, EPA
established the National Superfund Risk
Management Workgroup.
To promote increased use of innovative treatment
technologies, the Agency engaged in initiatives
to demonstrate the technologies and centralize
access to information about them.
To better balance its environmental mission
xv
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
wiineffectivecontractmanagement, the Agency
engaged in efforts to improve contract
management and accountability, eliminate excess
contract capacity, control costs, and secure quality
work from contractors.
• Toenhancepublicoutreachandcommunications,
the Agency adopted new measures of Superfund
progress and developed informative publications.
Site Evaluation Accomplishments
EPA continued its progress in identifying and
assessing newly discovered sites. At the end of
FY92, there were more than 36,400 sites identified in
the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), the
Superfund inventory of potentially threatening
hazardous waste sites. EPA had completed site
assessment activities at nearly 95 percent of these
sites and determined that 1,275 of these sites should
be proposed to or listed on the NPL.
To improve site evaluation, the Agency
undertook projects to address the technical
complexities associated with both lead- and
radionuclide-contaminated sites. To better assess
the effects of lead contamination, EPA continued
work on the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
Model (TEUBK) and the Three City Lead Study. The
IEUBK model is a tool that will aid the development
of risk assessment procedures for lead-contaminated
soil. The Three City Lead Study will determine
whether a reduction of lead in residential soil will
result in a decrease of blood-lead levels in children
exposed to the contaminant.
To improve assessment of sites involving
radionuclide contamination, EPA generated guidance
documents for conducting assessments, conducted
technology demonstrations, and increased
Headquarters assistance to the Regions.
Emergency Response Accomplishments
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, the Agency
and potentially responsible parties (PRPs) started
380 removal actions and completed more than 340
during FY92. Of the 380 removal actions begun in
FY92, PRPs financed nearly 100 and EPA financed
more the 280. PRPs also financed 70 of the more than
340 completed removal actions.
Also during the year, the Agency expanded the
use of removal authority for "early actions." This
expanded use of removals to reduce immediate risks
and expedite cleanup at NPL sites is a key element of
SACM. EPA applied the early action approach to 13
sites during FY92, drawing on $37 million of funds
allocated for this purpose.
Other FY92 emergency response highlights
include Environmental Response Team
accomplishments (61 removal actions, 5 oil spills,
and 2 international actions), completion, of two
volumes of the Superfund Removal Procedures
Manual, and promulgation of a regulation dealing
with the adjustment of reportable quantities for 31
hazardous substances.
Remedial Accomplishments
Remedial accomplishments during the fiscal
year reflect the Agency's continued efforts to
accelerate the overall pace of cleanup and complete
clean-up activities at an increasing number of sites.
At the end of FY92, work had occurred at nearly 96
percent of the 1,275 sites on the NPL, and clean-up
activities had been completed to place 149 sites
(nearly 12 percent) in the construction completion
category. During the year, the Agency or PRPs also
started nearly 90 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), more than 170 remedial designs
(RDs), and more than 110 remedial actions (RAs). In
addition, the Agency signed 126 records of decision
(RODs) at Fund-financed or PRP-financed sites.
Proceeding with efforts initiated under the 30-
Day Study, EPA worked to develop presumptive
remedies for municipal landfill, wood-treating,
contaminated ground-water, and solvent-
contaminated sites. In other initiatives, the Agency
worked toward developing standard soil trigger
levels, established a construction completion
category, and finalized a directive on ground-water
remediation to ensure a consistent approach at
xvi
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund and RCRA sites. The Agency also took
measures to demonstrate and provide information on
innovative treatment technologies to encourage their
use at Superfund sites. To this end, EPA continued
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
Program, the Superfund Research Grants Program,
and programs to provide technical assistance,
information, and training.
Enforcement Accomplishments
Enforcement accomplishments for FY92 directly
reflect the Agency's continuous commitment to
maximize PRP involvement in financing and
conducting cleanup, and to recover Superfund monies
expended for response action. PRPs financed more
than 70 percent of the RDs and RAs started in FY92.
For the third consecutive year, the Agency achieved
enforcement agreements with PRPs worth more than
$ 1 billion in response work, reaching 241 settlements
worth more than $1.4 billion during FY92. In
addition, cost recovery settlements and collections
increased in FY92 over previous years. The Agency
achieved $250.6 million in cost recovery settlements,
as compared to $ 144.3 million inFY91. Cost recovery
collections in FY92 were $ 185.3 million, as compared
to $83.4 million in FY91.
Enforcement initiatives in FY92 focused on
improving the efficiency and fairness of Superfund
enforcement. The Agency adopted a phased approach
to streamline enforcement-related activities and
support the faster and more efficient cleanups
envisioned under SACM, while continuing to
maximize the amount of response work undertaken
by PRPs. In another initiative, the Agency issued
guidance on earlyde minimis settlements to expedite
and improve the negotiation process and reduce
transaction costs for EPA and PRPs. In rulemaking
activities, EPA finalized the lender liability rule to
clarify the secu red creditorexemption provided under
CERCLA, and proposed a rule for standardizing and
streamlining the cost recovery process.
Federal Facility Cleanup
Federal departments and agencies are responsible
for implementing CERCLA at federal facility sites.
To ensure federal facility compliance with CERCLA
requirements, EPA provides advice and assistance,
oversees activities, and takes enforcement action
when appropriate. As of the end of FY92, there were
1,709 federal facility sites identified on the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Of
the sites on the docket, 125 were proposed to or listed
on the NPL, including 116 final and 9 proposed sites.
Activity during the fiscal year at these federal facility
NPL sites included starting approximately 100
RI/FSs, 40 RDs, and 30 RAs and signing 46 RODs.
As a result of 12 interagency agreements executed
during the year, 104 of the 116 final federal facility
NPL sites were covered by enforceable agreements
for cleanup.
To clarify the roles of EPA and other federal
departments and agencies with regard to NPL sites,
Update 12 to the NPL, published in February 1992,
distinguishes federal facility sites from non-federal
sites. Other federal facility initiatives during the year
focused on military base closures, acceleration of
cleanups, interagency forums to address restoration
issues, and innovative technology use for cleanup.
Superfund Program Support Activities
EPA took measures in FY92 to enhance support
activities in the Superfund program, including efforts
to improve community relations, enhance public
access to information, strengthen EPA's partnership
with states and Indian tribes, and increase minority
contractor utilization.
In efforts to help citizens become more
knowledgeable about the technical and scientific
aspects of Superfund sites, and better prepared to
participate in the clean-up process, EPA awarded 37
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) to community
groups in 9 Regions. Continuing to streamline the
TAG program, EPA promulgated the TAG final rule
to simplify procedures. Also, EPA revised and
expanded its community relations skills course and
developed several publications and fact sheets for
use by EPA community relations staff and the public.
The Agency worked to improve public access to
Superfund information. FY92 marked the end of
EPA's five-year plan to standardize and manage the
extensive Superfund document collection and
incorporate it in public information and outreach
xvn
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
activities. The Agency worked closely with the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) to
increase public awareness of the document
distribution services offered by NTIS.
To promote its partnership with states and Indian
tribes in the Superfund clean-up process, EPA assisted
in developing comprehensive state and Indian tribe
Superfund programs under 51 core program
cooperative agreements (CPCAs). As a result of
EPA's efforts, states and Indian tribes initiated two
RI/FSs, five RDs, six RAs, and two removal actions
during the fiscal year. EPA involved Indian tribes in
Superfund activities by awarding site-specific
cooperative agreements and CPCAs to the All-Indian
Pueblo Council, the Inter-Tribal Environmental
Council of Oklahoma, and the Navajo Nation.
To assist small and disadvantaged businesses,
EPA, through direct and indirect procurements,
awarded over $44.5 million worth of contracts and
subcontracts in FY92 to minority contractors to
perform Superfund work. This amount represents
almost six percent of the total dollars obligated to
finance Superfund work during the year. In
cooperation with the National Association of Minority
Contractors, EPA conducted four training seminars
to assist minority contractors in becoming more
successful in winning Superfund contracts. EPA
also hosted its annual minority business enterprise
and women's business enterprise workshops to
familiarize minority and women business owners
with the contracting opportunities available in the
Superfund program.
Estimate of Resources Required to
Implement Superfund
Under Executive Order 12580, EPA is required
to estimate the resources needed to implement
Superfund. Since the enactment of CERCLA in
1980, Congress has provided Superfund with $10.5
billion in budget authority (FY81 through FY92).
This includes $1.7 billion for FY81 through FY86,
and $8.8 billion for the post-SARA period-, FY87
through FY92.
Long-term resource estimates needed to
implement Superfund are based on the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM). The OLM estimate of the
cost to complete cleanup of current NPL sites for
FY93 and beyond is more than $16.4 billion for a
total estimated cost for the program of $26.9 billion.
Organization of this Report
Information prepared for this Report is assembled
in response to Congressional requirements specified
in CERCLA. Exhibit ES-3 is a guide to the
information required under CERCLA and its location
in the Report.
xvin
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit ES-3
Statutory Requirements for the Report
CERCLA
Section
CERCLA Requirement
Report
Section
Report Content
Annual report to Congress on the Chapter 1
progress achieved in
implementing Superfund during Chapter 2
the preceding fiscal year
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapters
Chapters
Chapter?
Detailed description of each
feasibility study {FS) at a facility
Efforts to accelerate the pace of cleanup
Initiatives to improve the Superfund
program
Site evaluation accomplishments
Emergency response accomplishments
Remedial accomplishments
Enforcement accomplishments
Federal facility progress
Chapter 8 Community relations, state and Indian
tribe, and public outreach activities
Section 5.2 Overview discussion of RODs signed
during the fiscal year, including the number
of treatment and containment remedies
selected
Appendix C List of RODs signed in the fiscal year
Appendix A
Status and estimated date of
completion of each FS
Notice of each FS which will not
meet a previously published
schedule for completion and the
new estimated date for
completion
An evaluation of newly developed Section 5.4
feasible and achievable
permanent treatment
technologies
Progress made in reducing the
number of facilities subject to
review under CERCLA Section
121 (c), which requires a report to
the Congress a list of facilities for
which a five year review is
required, the results of all such
reviews, and any actions taken as
a result of such reviews
ROD Annual Abstracts of each ROD signed in the fiscal
Report year
Appendix A Status and estimated completion date of
each FS in progress at the end of the fiscal
year
Scheduled completion date published for
the last fiscal year, the scheduled
completion date recorded in CERCLIS as
of end of the current fiscal year, and
identification of schedule changes
Evaluation of newly developed
technologies through the Superfund
Innovative Treatment Evaluation program
Section 5.5 Annual update on progress being made on
sites subject to review under CERCLA
Section 121(c)
Source: CERCLA, as amended by SARA; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
51-01S49D
XIX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit ES-3 (cont'd)
Statutory Requirements for the Report
CERCLA
Section
CERCLA Requirement
Report
Section
Report Content
301(h)(2)
105(f)
120(e)(5)
Report on the status of all Exhibit ES-2
remedial and enforcement actions
undertaken during the fiscal year,
including a comparison to
remedial and enforcement actions Section 5.1
undertaken in prior fiscal years
Section 6.2
Appendix A
Estimates of the amount of
resources, including the number
of work years or personnel, which
would be necessary for each
department, agency, or
instrumentality which is carrying
out any activities to complete the
implementation of all duties
vested in the department, agency,
or instrumentality
Review by the Inspector General
and submission of any report
related to EPA's activities for
reasonableness and accuracy
Brief description of the contracts
which have been awarded to
minority firms under Superfund
and the efforts made to
encourage the participation of
such firms in the Superfund
program
Annual report to the Congress
concerning EPA progress in
implementing remedial activities
at its facilities
Appendix B
Sections
9.1-9.2
Section 9.3
Appendix E
Section 8.4
Section 7.4
A comparison of actions undertaken during
the fiscal year to those undertaken in
previous fiscal years
Information on fiscal year remedial activity
starts (including PRP involvement) with a
comparison of fiscal year activities to those
of the previous fiscal year
Information on fiscal year enforcement
activities with a comparison of fiscal year
activities to those of the previous year
Information on the status of each RI/FS
and RA in progress at the end of the fiscal
year
Information on the status of RDs in
progress at the end of the fiscal year
EPA resource estimates for CERCLA
implementation
Other federal agency's and department's
estimates for CERCLA implementation
Review of the Inspector General on this
Report
Information on minority contracting awards
by EPA, states, Indian tribes, and other
federal agencies using Superfund monies.
EPA efforts to encourage increased
minority contractor participation in the
Superfund program
Report on EPA progress in CERCLA
implementation at EPA-owned facilities,
including a state-by-state status report
51-013- SOD
XX
-------
Chapter 1
Accelerating Cleanup
EPA revitalized Superfund during FY92,
achieving clean-up goals while implementing far-
reaching reforms for future cleanups. Fulfilling the
commitment to accelerate the pace of cleanup,
Agency efforts focused on
Completing clean-up activities to more than
double the number of sites categorized as
construction completions;
• Refining the clean-up process by introducing a
simplified paradigm, the Superfund Accelerated
Clean-Up Model (SACM), for future cleanups;
and
Streamlining clean-up activities such as remedy
planning, selection, and design and eliminating
significant sources of delay.
1.1 ACHIEVING CLEANUPS
Aggressively pursuing the cleanup of Superfund
sites, the Agency completed clean-up activities to
place a record 88 additional National Priorities List
(NPL) sites in the construction completion category
during FY92. As shown in Exhibit 1.1-1, fiscal year
progress brought the total number of NPL sites
classified as construction completions to 149,
exceeding the 1991 30-Day Study Task Force
recommendation of 130 sites by the end of FY92.
The FY92 program total of 149 sites represents an
increase of 144 percent over the FY91 program total
of 61 sites. The significant rise in completions during
FY92 reflects the increasingemphasis on completing
construction at sites and the streamlining of
documentation requirements.
Construction Completions
To better communicate Superfund progress, the
Agency defined construction completion and
established the construction completion category. A
site is considered a construction completion site
when
• All necessary physical construction of clean-up
remedies is complete;
• EPA has determined that the response action
should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction; or
The site qualifies for deletion or has been deleted
from the NPL.
Before reaching construction completion status,
a site has undergone substantial response efforts:
• The site has been assessed (preliminary
assessment (PA) and site inspection (SI)) and
determined to warrant placement on the NPL. If
any immediate threat to human health or the
environment was identified at the site, a
Superfund removal action may have been taken
to address the threat.
• After placement of the site on the NPL, the
Agency has conducted a remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) to further examine the
nature and extentof contamination and to evaluate
clean-up alternatives.
• EPA has selected a remedy for the site and has
signed a record of decision (ROD) to document
its selection of the remedy.
For a site where construction of the remedy is
required, EPA has completed a remedial design
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 1
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
ARCS Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
CD Consent Decree
CWA Clean Water Act
DOJ Department of Justice
ESI Expanded Site Inspection
FS Feasibility Study
HRS Hazard Ranking System
NPL National Priorities List
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA Preliminary Assessment
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
Rl Remedial Investigation
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SACM Superfund Revitalizafon Office
SI Site Inspection
SRO Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
(RD) to develop plans for the construction of the
selected remedy.
• To construct the remedy, EPA has undertaken
and completed a remedial action (RA) at the site.
At sites where avariety of remedies are required,
discrete site areas or "operable units" are defined. A
site is classified as a construction completion site
only when construction completion criteria have
been met at all operable units of the site and a
preliminary close-out has been conducted to ensure
that any construction is consistent with the ROD and
RD. Operation of a constructed remedy will continue
until performance standards are met and desired
clean-up levels are achieved.
30-Day Study Recommendations
Because of efforts during the fiscal year, the
Agency surpassed the number of FY92 construction
completions recommended by the 30-Day Study
Task Force. These fiscal year efforts also established
an infrastructure to achieve recommendations for
future years.
Implementing 30-Day Study Task Force
recommendations, EPA Headquarters worked with
each Region to identify sites that were candidates for
construction completion status for FY92 and FY93.
Exhibit 1.1-1
Superfund Sites in the Construction
Completion Category
200
175 ~
125-
100 -
75 ~
50-
25-
1992 Target:
130
FY92
Program Total
149
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response/Office of Program Management
and Hazardous Site Control Division.
51-013-22F
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
To achieve the national target, the Agency allowed
one Region to fall short of its expected portion only
if another Region could accomplish the additional
construction completions needed. A workgroup
reinforced the priority of achieving construction
completion. Regional experts, Headquarters Office
of Research and Development staff, and the
Environmental Response Team provided technical
assistance to the Regions to support construction
completion efforts. The Agency monitored progress
through a tracking system and quarterly conference
calls between Regions and Headquarters. To provide
the required resources, the Agency developed
strategies allocating additional personnel in the
Regions to direct clean-up activities and ensuring
sufficient funding for future years.
1.2 SUPERFUND ACCELERATED
CLEAN-UP MODEL
To accelerate the pace of future cleanup, the
EPA Administrator endorsed SACM as the new
model for clean-up action in the Superfund program.
Implementing SACM will streamline and accelerate
the clean-up process, better direct finite resources
toward site clean-up activities rather than site study,
and more clearly identify and communicate
environmental results.
Exhibit 1.2-1 illustrates the SACM process.
Under SACM, the Agency will screen and assess
sites under a single, continuous site assessment
process. During this assessment process, a Regional
decision team will recommend short-term, "early
actions" to address threats to the health and safety of
the surrounding population and environment. The
team will assess whether and when "long-term
actions" for environmental remediation, such as
ground-water restoration, are appropriate.
Enforcement activities, community relations, and
state involvement will occur throughout the process.
SACM will introduce significant improvements
in the existing clean-up process:
Combining site assessment activities, SACM
will eliminate sequential and often duplicative
studies.
SACM will eliminate the existing overlap
between the types of clean-up actions executed
under the Superfund removal program and those
executed under the Superfund remedial program.
By redefining and distinguishing Superfund
clean-up actions as early actions and long-term
actions, SACM will allow each action distinct
applications.
1.2.1 Single, Continuous Site
Assessment
SACM will combine the various studies
conducted under the existing clean-up process,
thereby saving time and money. Under the existing
process, sites might be assessed separately under the
Superfund site assessment, removal, and remedial
programs; under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) program; by the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; by states; by
localities; and by private parties. The Agency
found that personnel performing these assessments
often did not consider the information gathered in
other studies because of perceived differences in
data needs and time lags during which data from
previous assessments became obsolete.
The single, continuous site assessment under
SACM will consolidate the elements of existing
studies, providing timely, multiple-use data:
• The existing two-stage site assessment screening
process will become a single screening function
that will be conducted as sites are discovered.
The single screening function will combine the
PA, which consists of research into existing
information to identify whether a potential threat
exists, and the SI, which consists of sufficient
sampling to assess a potential threat.
• Following the initial screening, remedial
investigation (Rl)-level data will be collected
for sites where a potential threat exists. Rl-level
data provides information on the type and extent
of contamination to determine the risks posed
and the clean-up action required. The Rl-level
data will provide the information to evaluate the
need for both early and long-term actions.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 1.2-1
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
I
(0
I
t
Site
Screening
and
Assessment
RCRAor
Other
Authority
Regional
Decision
Team
Early Action
to Reduce
Risk
(<5 years)
Long-Term
Hazard
Ranki
Long-Term Action for
Media Restoration
(>5 years)
Early
Action
Completed
Long-Term Cleanup
Completed
Site is Deleted From
Long-Term
Remediation List
Source: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
51-013-23G
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
In addition, by initiating early involvement of
states, potentially responsible parties (PRPs),
communities, and other parties in the process, S ACM
will limit the need for multiple assessments by these
parties.
Consolidation of assessment steps can save years
in the clean-up process by more quickly eliminating
the uncertainties surrounding a site. Rigid quality
assurance/quality control procedures will ensure high-
quality data that can be used to support multiple
assessment needs.
1.2.2 Regional Decision Teams
Under SACM, Regional decision teams will be
created to determine appropriate response actions
for Superfund sites. The teams will recommend
early actions to address threats to human health and
safety and determine whether a site will be included
on the Long-Term Remediation List. The teams may
decide that federal action is inappropriate; in this
case, the site may be deferred to other response
authorities, such as state authority under RCRA.
Capitalizing on the expertise in the Regions, the
Regional decision teams will generally consist of
experienced managers of both Fund-lead and
enforcement-lead sites, site and risk assessors, On-
Scene Coordinators, Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs), Community Relations Coordinators,
Regional Counsel staff, and state officials.
Implementation of the 30-Day Study Task Force
recommendations and other Agency efforts to
develop accepted standards for remediation levels
and technologies will provide decision-making tools
that can be used by the teams.
1.2.3 Early Actions to Reduce
Immediate Risks
SACM will facilitate rapid risk reduction at
Superfund sites. The Agency will address all
immediate threats to human health and the
environment through early actions. Examples of
early actions include
Removing soil and waste;
Preventing access to contaminated areas;
• Capping landfills;
• Relocating people; or
• Providing alternative drinking water sources.
Early actions will expand the use of existing
removal authority to expedite responses to immediate
threats, especially at NPL sites. Most commonly,
immediate threats at NPL sites are associated with
the possibility or risk of direct contact with waste or
contaminated soil, or ingestion of contaminated water.
These risks can be reduced rapidly through SACM
early actions. Under the existing process, the Agency
commonly addresses such risks at NPL sites through
remedial authority. CERCLA, however, authorizes
the use of removal actions at NPL sites when the
removal action is consistent with planned remedial
action.
The Agency will use rapid reduction of risk
through early actions as a primary measure of
Superfund progress and success. To keep the public
informed of progress in reducing risks, the Agency
will publish an Early Action List in the Federal
Register. The Agency will place sites on the list
when a decision for clean-up action is made and will
remove the site from the list when clean-up action is
completed. Early actions generally will take no more
than three to five years.
1.2.4 Long-Term Actions to Restore
the Environment
In some cases, clean-up actions to restore the
environment may take many years, sometimes
decades. SACM clearly identifies environmental
restoration as a long-term action. Examples of long-
term actions include
• Ground-water restoration;
• Remediation of mining areas;
Extended incineration; or
• Wetland/estuary restoration.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
The Agency will determine the need for long-
term actions through the SACM site assessment
process. The Agency will publish a list of sites
requiring long-term actions in the Federal Register
on the Long-Term Remediation List In most cases,
any immediate threats to human health and the
environment at sites on this list will have already
been addressed through early actions.
1.2.5 Implementation
During the fiscal year, the Agency developed
and began carrying out an implementation plan for
SACM. Projects aimed at piloting the SACM process
were also initiated.
The Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up
Model Implementation Plan
In April 1992, senior managers from the Office
ofSolid Waste and Emergency Response (OS WER),
the Office of General Counsel, the Office of
Enforcement, and the Regional offices participated
in.a SACM planning session to develop a draft
implementation strategy. The session focused on
three areas:
Consolidating existing assessment processes;
Clarifying the distinction between early action
and long-term action; and
• Identifying necessary program m anagement and
contracting changes.
The goal of the session was to develop a well-
defined framework for SACM implementation.
Discussion groups identified and prioritized more
than 100 interrelated issues to be addressed. The
groups developed an implementation plan that set
out a timetable, identified activities, and assigned
responsibilities for dealing with these issues. During
FY92, the Agency began many of the activities in the
implementation plan:
• Establishing Regional decision teams;
Developing short sheets and fact sheets to provide
information on the new clean-up model;
Modifying relevant guidance; and
Examiningpossible statutory changes thatmight
be required to facilitate full implementation of
SACM, such as streamlining the process required
to waive removal funding and duration limits.
Soliciting additional Regional input on SACM
implementation, the Agency held a national meeting
in August 1992 of more than 30Q EPA Superfund
officials and held follow-up meetings throughout the
year with eachRegion. Members of the newly formed
Superfund Revitalization Office (SRO), led by the
National Superfund Director, coordinated these
meetings. (The National Superfund Director and
SRO, which was created by the Administrator to
improve management and accountability in the
Superfund program, oversaw major Agency
initiatives throughout the year. See Chapter 2.)
In addition to obtaining Regional perspectives,
EPA sought input on SACM from other federal
agencies, states, communities, and PRPs and began
examining the roles of these parties in the SACM
process.
Regional Pilots
The Regions initiated SACM pilots through an
OSWER Regional pilot incentive program aimed at
identifying ways to improve the Superfund process.
Using a variety of approaches, the SACM pilots will
explore developing a single site assessment function,
employing a team approach to decision making, and
conducting early actions.
Region 1 will use the time prior to beginning an
RI/FS to better define the scope of the investigation
to be conducted in the RI/FS. The Region will
identify ways to make the RI/FS work plan more
specific, aim investigations on the most promising
remedial alternatives, and identify opportunities for
early actions. Also, at 10 NPL sites, the Region will
use decision teams to direct appropriate response
actions.
Regions 2 and 8 will combine the existing
processes for the expanded SI (BSD and RI/FS into
a single site assessment function. An Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractor
will perform both the ESI and RI/FS activities, and
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring package
will be prepared simultaneously. Candidate sites for
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
the pilots are high-priority Fund-lead sites that are
likely to score over 28.50 on the HRS, the current
criterion for listing on the NPL. Beginning the RI/FS
before a site is listed on the NPL may accelerate
cleanup by 22 months or more.
Region 3 will evaluate using removal actions
ratherthan remedial actions fortune and cost savings
at complex NPL sites. The early actions will include
short-term activities, such as excavation or source
control. Region 3 will also form an interdisciplinary
team to develop and implement an approach for
evaluating NPL sites where removal and remedial
actions could be integrated.
Using decision teams, Regions 5 and 9 will
streamline site screening and assessment activities
by defining the information needed in an initial site
investigation to satisfy the requirements for the
standard remedial, removal, and site assessment
investigations. Region 9 will pilot the resulting site
investigation design at 30 sites.
Through continued innovations in its "Lightning
ROD" pilots, Region 6 will seek to shorten the
overall Superfund process for both Fund-lead and
PRP-leaB sites by three years. The Lightning ROD
pilot includes planning and funding clean-up activities
priorto NPL listing, concurrently executing activities,
and technically improving reporting and
recordkeeping.
Region 10 will address surface contamination
through early actions at three NPL sites. The Region
will conduct an early action involving excavation
and disposal to address well-characterized metal
contamination of the soil at the Yakima Plating site.
At two other sites with surface contamination but no
ground-water contamination, the Region will expedite
cleanups through early actions by conducting removal
actions following the completion of the RI and risk
assessment.
1.3 OTHER EFFORTS TO
ACCELERATE THE PACE OF
CLEANUP
In addition to introducing SACM, the Agency
implemented recommendations made by the 30-Day
Study Task Force to streamline clean-up activities
and eliminate significant sources of delay. The task
force suggested that time savings could be achieved
by
• Standardizing elements of remedy planning and
selection, thus narrowing the numberof possible
remedial alternatives and the time required to
evaluate alternatives;
Abbreviating the design phase at sites where the
extent of necessary action cannot be readily
determined;
Facilitating the resolution of site-specific issues
that cause delays in the clean-up process; and
Accelerating PRP cleanups.
1.3.1 Standardizing Remedy Planning
and Selection
To accelerate the pace of cleanups and improve
consistency in remedy selection across the Regions,
the 30-Day Study Task Force advocated standardizing
remedy planning and selection. During FY92, the
Agency began developing three approaches
recommended in the study, including presumptive
remedies, technology-based standards, and soil-
trigger levels. Several Regions initiated pilots to
further explore possible approaches for streamlining
clean-up activities.
Presumptive Remedies
By associating a certain type of site with the
types of clean-up remedies historically selected, the
Agency will identify a site's presumptive remedies.
The Agency will identify two or three viable
presumptive remedies for each type of site, thereby
limiting the number of remedial alternatives that
must be considered while also providing decision
makers with the flexibility to consider site-specific
information. Use of presumptive remedies will cut
time from the feasibility study (FS), in which the
Agency evaluates remedial alternatives, and from
the RD, in which the Agency develops the plan for
constructing and implementing the technology
proposed for cleanup.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
During FY92, the Agency worked to develop
presumptive remedies for four types of sites:
municipal landfill, wood-treating, polluted ground-
water, and solvent-contaminated sites. For each type
of site, EPA formed a workgroup, consisting of
Regional and Headquarters officials, to analyze
historical information. Based on the workgroups'
findings, the Agency will issue guidance on the
presumptive remedies for each of the four types of
sites. The Agency will also issue an overview
"shortsheet" to address technical, legal, and policy
issues that might arise in implementing presumptive
remedies.
Technology-Based Standards
During FY92, the Agency formed a workgroup
to evaluate the feasibility of establishing technology-
based remedies for some types of sites. The Agency
will link technologies to clean-up objectives, media,
and pollutants to develop an index of the best available
technologies for dealing with various site
characteristics.
Soil-Trigger Levels
Because few federal or state soil clean-up levels
for specific pollutants have been developed, the
extent of cleanup for soil has traditionally been
determined on a site-by-site basis. To facilitate the
determination of soil clean-up levels, the Agency
began developing soil trigger levels. A trigger level
reflects a chemical concentration below which EPA
would consider the chemical not to be of concern,
and above which EPA would consider further study
appropriate. Under certain conditions, the trigger
level might also serve as the clean-up level.
During FY92, the Agency began developing soil
trigger levels forthe 30 top-priority chemicals found
at Superfund sites. The Agency directed its focus
toward trigger levels for chemicals that pose direct
contact threats, particularly contaminants that could
be ingested or inhaled. The Agency will also develop
trigger levels for soil in cases where contamination
may pose a threat to ground water.
Regional Pilots
The Regions will provide input on standardizing
remedy planning and selection through projects
conducted under the OS WER Regional pilot incentive
program. Region 3 will review all of its municipal
landfill sites to evaluate whether capping is
appropriate as a standard remedy. Region 6 will
draw on historical experience with similar sites to
conduct focused FSs. Region 7 will develop standard
clean-up goals, remedy types, and ROD and
statement-of-work language for grain storage sites,
polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated sites, and
coal gasification sites.
Region 9 will use plug-in RODs, modifying
existing RODs used in similar circumstances, to
accelerate the cleanup of the Indian Bend Wash site
near Phoenix, Arizona. The northern and southern
sections of the Indian Bend Wash site have similar
contamination and geology. The Region will modify
the RODs developed to address contamination at the
northern sections in creating new RODs to address
contamination at the southern sections. Using a
plug-in ROD eliminates the need for a separate FS
and ROD at each portion of the site, allowing cleanup
to progress from the RI directly to the RD and
resulting in potential time and resource savings.
1.3.2 Shortening the Remedial Design
Phase
EPA explored options for shortening the design
phase of cleanup to allow the construction of the
selected remedy to begin earlier in the process. The
30-Day Study Task Force recommended this
approach for sites where the time spent in designing
the response action is of limited benefit in determining
the extent of action required. The task force suggested
that this approach might be appropriate at sites where
large-scale excavations are necessary, where specific
contamination boundaries cannot be readily defined,
or where abandoned industrial facilities must be
dismantled and decontaminated. In FY92, a
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
workgroup consisting of representatives from
Headquarters, Regional offices, and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) convened to
develop criteria for shortened RDs and to identify
appropriate projects for pilot studies.
To facilitate the RD and construction of the
remedy, the 30-Day Study Task Force recommended
increasing the flexibility within the scope of work for
contracts that are used to support these activities at
Fund-lead sites. These contracts include the
Emergency Response Qean-Up Service contracts,
the ARCS contracts, and USAGE pre-placed
construction contracts. During the fiscal year, the
Agency issued Use of Time and Materials and Cost
Reimbursement Subcontracts for Remedial Actions
under the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
Contracts, a directive on the expansion of the scope
of work for ARCS contracts.
1.3.3 Resolving Issues that Cause
Delays
The* 30-Day Study Task Force found that
unresolved site-specific issues between government
entities could cause significant delay in remedy
selections, PRP settlements, RDs, and RAs. During
FY92, EPA undertook actions to identify and address
the common causes of these site-specific issues and
to work toward their resolution.
Managers from EPA, the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and various states met to develop strategies to
resolvesite-specific issues. The strategies emphasize
early and routine elevation of issues to senior
management and management supervision of the
issue resolution process. In aMay 1992 memorandum,
EPA provided guidance to the Regions to better
address issues at sites where contamination crosses
Regional or national boundaries, where technical or
policy issues could set a national precedent, where
conditions require national-level coordination with
other federal agencies, or where there is a high level
of public interest. The memorandum directed the
Regions to elevate such issues and the National
Superfund Director to oversee the issue resolution.
The National Superfund Director and the Regions
developed and began implementing an action plan to
improve EPA/DOJ interagency coordination in
Superfund enforcement. Representatives of EPA
and DOJ held weekly meetings to discuss ways to
expedite theenforcement process, including methods
that had proven successful in the past. To eliminate
duplication between EPA and DOJ paperwork, the
Agency recommended that EPA documents be
included in the consent decree (CD), which outlines
the terms of the agreement between EPA and PRPs
for site cleanup. The Agency also proposed a rule
clarifying EPA procedures for recovering clean-up
costs from PRPs.
The Agency solicited information from the
Regions and states on the common causes of
EPA/state site-specific issues. Under the resulting
action plan, the Agency will investigate potential
conflicts with states regarding state applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs),
approaches to AR AR dispute resolution, the effect of
presumptive remedies on state participation in clean-
up decisions, and improvements in communicating
information about EPA removal actions. To reduce
the financial burden of cleanup for states, the Agency
will consider allowing states to pay their statutorily
required 10 percent cost share in phases or with in-
kind services. The Agency will also streamline the
Superfund guidance on memoranda of agreement
that describe how EPA and a given state will cooperate
on Superfund cleanups,
1.3.4 Accelerating the Pace of PRP
Cleanups
During FY92, the Agency modified policies to
eliminate significant sources of delay in PRP
cleanups, as identified in the 30-Day Study. EPA
issued a directive in November 1991 limiting mid-
stream takeovers to eliminate delays caused by
changes in lead responsibility from EPA to PRPs
within a discrete phase of cleanup. In April 1992, the
Agency issued a policy directing the Regions to
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
encourage PRPs to initiate RD woric after EPA and
PRPs have signed the CD rather than after DOJ has
lodged the CD in court and the court has entered the
CD. Initiating work at this point would eliminate the
time lost between the signing of the CD and the
entering of the CD in the court, which can be as long
as two years.
Through the OSWER Regional pilot incentive
program, the Regions pursued a variety of projects to
encourage early PRP involvement in clean-up
activities and accelerate the pace of PRP-lead
cleanups. Several Regions piloted the use of early de
minimis settlements for reaching clean-up agreements
with parties whose contribution to the contamination
at a site was relatively minor. At the Tonolli site,
Region 3 developed an early waste-in list to identify
candidate de minimis parties. This list was used to
negotiate a proactive settlement with llOde minimis
parties at the site. By reaching early settlements with
de minimis parties, EPA will be able to manage
negotiations with the remaining PRPs more
efficiently.
To achieve site cleanup more quickly at the
Aquatech site, Region 4 negotiated de minimis
settlements while conducting removal activities.
Region 9 will accelerate the RD and RA at the
Operating Industries, Inc., site by pressing for an
early settlement with the 3,500 de minimis PRPs.
Successful settlement with the de minimis parties at
the Operating Industries, Inc., site would set
precedents for de minimis settlement size and
monetary value.
Region 1 began a project to identify effective
financial inducements for encouraging PRPs to
accelerate the pace of cleanups. At selected pilot
sites, the Region will restructure the statement of
work that accompanies CDs to include incentives
such as discounts on oversight costs and other
financial benefits for completing cleanup ahead of
schedule.
Region 3 sought ways to accelerate the pace of
PRP cleanups by improving resolution of EPA/DO J
issues. Through discussions with DOJ, the Region
eliminated the statement of work as an attachment to
the CD and, instead, addressed specific performance
goals in the ROD. Deleting the statement of work
from the CD eliminates ambiguities that could arise
when the ROD and CD descriptions of the selected
remedy differ. By including the specific performance
goals in the ROD, ROD quality is improved, and
legal approval can be accelerated.
Region 4 piloted a voluntary cleanup, whereby
EPA will give official approval to PRPs who
voluntarily undertake clean-up action prior to a site's
placement on the NPL. In the Region 4 pilot, PRPs
will conduct a voluntary cleanup with EPA oversight
under an administrative order on consent.
Implementing the concepts of SACM site assessment,
PRPs in the Region 4 pilot will conduct ESI and RI/
FS activities simultaneously with NPL listing
activities.
Region 8 will expedite cleanup at the Annie
Creek site in South Dakota through a multi-authority
enforcement pilot. The Region will use both
Superfund and Clean Water Act (CWA) authority to
accomplish site cleanup. By combining the tools of
both statutes, it is estimated that remediation will be
accelerated by at least six months. Both Superfund
and CWA personnel will monitor clean-up progress.
Region 10 will examine methods for more
effective and efficient PRP searches. The Region
will define a step-by-step process for searching for
PRPs and will clarify the responsibilities of search
team members, including civil investigators, cost
recovery specialists, RPMs, and attorneys with the
Office of Regional Counsel. The pilot will seek to
streamline the PRP search process by reducing the
time required to identify PRPs and reach settlements.
The Region will provide the resulting
recommendations to Headquarters and other Regions.
10
-------
Chapter 2
Major Initiatives
In addition to efforts aimed at accelerating the
pace of cleanup, the Agency launched major
initiatives to improve other aspects of the Superfund
program, including
• Improving management and accountability
through the appointment of a National Superfund
Director and the creation of the Superfund
Revitalization Office (SRO);
• Promoting consistency in risk assessment and
risk management;
• Advancing the use of innovative treatment
technologies;
• Refining contract management; and
• Enhancing communication with the public on
the success of the Superfund program in
eliminating threats to human health and the
environment and on progress in performing
environmental restoration.
2.1 THE SUPERFUND
REVITALIZATION OFFICE
Created by the Administrator in October 1991 to
improve management and accountability in the
Superfund program, SRO consists of a team of 20
"trouble shooters," led by the National Superfund
Director. The mission of SRO is to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of Superfund cleanup
and administration, and to assure equity in
Superfund enforcement.
SRO supports this mission through two groups:
the Superfund Acquisition Group and the Program
and Enforcement Group. During FY92, the Superfund
Acquisition Group managed implementation of the
improvements to Superfund contracts programs and
resolution of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) contract issues. The SRO Program and
Enforcement Group supported Agency initiatives to
accelerate the pace of cleanup and oversaw matters
associated with risk assessment and risk management,
enforcement, federal facilities, the Department of
Justice, and states. Exhibit 2.1-1 illustrates the
responsibilities of these groups and highlights the
major initiatives pursued by the Agency in FY92.
2.2 PROMOTING CONSISTENCY IN
RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK
MANAGEMENT
During FY92, the Agency implemented several
initiatives to enhance consistency in risk assessment
and risk management in the Superfund program. By
improving consistency in these areas, EPA may
more accurately quantify the health threats posed by
hazardous substances and improve the decision-
making processes for determining how to best address
such threats.
2.2.1 Risk Assessment Initiatives
Risk assessment is the evaluation of the nature
and magnitude of threats to human health and the
environment that result from exposure to hazardous
substances. The 30-Day Study Task Force examined
11
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 2
ARCS Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
OOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
NPL National Priorities List
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
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SRO Superfund Revitalization Office
START Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team
STL Superfund Technical Liaison
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TSC Technical Support Center
USAGE United States Army Corps of Engineers
exposure assumptions used in the Superfund program
to assess risks. The task force found, with minor
exceptions, that the Superfund exposure assumptions
were consistent with those used in other EPA
programs. The Agency, however, also identified
aspects of the exposure assumptions warranting
further study and determined that there is a need for
better coordination with other Agency programs.
30-Day Study Recommendations
As recommended by the 30-Day Study Task
Force, the Agency sought internal and external review
of Superfund risk assessment guidance. The Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
directed a review of all FY91 Superfund risk
assessments conducted by the Agency. Regional
interpretations and applications of risk assessment
policies were also reviewed to identify any
modifications warranted.
Exhibit 2.1-1
Superfund Revitalization Office Structure
National
Superfund Director
_L
Team Director
Superfund
Acquisition Group
Initiatives Involving
• Alternative Remedial Contracting
Strategy Task Force Implementation
• Contract Laboratory Program Task Force
Implementation
• Long-Term Contracts Strategy
Implementation
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Contracts Management
1
Program and
Enforcement Group
Initiatives Involving
• Construction Completions
• 30-Day Study Recommendations
• Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up
Model Implementation
• Risk Assessment and Risk Management
• Department of Justice
• Enforcement
• Federal Facilities
• States
• Site-Specific Issues
Source: Superfund Revitalization Office.
51-013-258
12
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
The Science Advisory Board and Risk
Assessment Council initiated reviews of Superfund
risk assessment guidance to identify specific areas
that require coordination with other Agency
programs. The Science Advisory Board also
iru'tiated a review of the new Integrated Exposure
Uptake Biokinetic Model, which predicts the lead
level in blood of persons exposed to the contaminant.
At the end of FY92, the board's reviews were still
in progress.
Risk Assessment Council Evaluation
InFebruary 1992, the Risk Assessment Council
completed a review of Agency-wide risk
characterization practices. The Agency issued the
council's findings in Guidance on Risk
Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk
Assessors. The guidance targets improvements in
three principal areas of Agency risk assessments.
Characterization of Risk: The council
recommended that risk assessments provide a
more thorough characterization of risk,
including open discussion of the data and
methods used. The guidance suggests that
descriptive information accompany numerical
risk estimates to ensure a more objective and
balanced characterization of risk.
Comparability and Consistency: The council
recommended that the Agency work to bring
about greater comparability among Agency
risk assessments. For example, the estimated
risk for an "average" person contracting a
disease cannot be accurately compared to the
risk for the "most exposed individual." The
risk characterization guidance cited above
advocates the use of multiple risk descriptors
and ranges of exposure for both individuals and
the general population to present a more
complete and comparable measure of risk.
• Use of Professional Scientific Judgement and
Explanation of Special Circumstances: The
risk characterization guidance highlights the
role of professional scientific judgement in
overall risk assessment. The guidance calls for
detailed explanations when special
circumstances preclude a full risk assessment.
During the fiscal year, the Agency began
developing Superfund guidance to adopt the council' s
risk characterization findings. The key change for
Superfund risk assessment will be the use of multiple
risk descriptors.
Under existing policies, Superfund risk
assessments identify the reasonable maximum
exposure (RME), a standard that was designed to
protect the most exposed and vulnerable individuals.
Although the Superfund program will continue to
use the RME in evaluating the action necessary to
protect human health, the Agency will also consider
providing average, or central tendency figures. In
addition, the Agency will consider providing
estimates of population risk, which typically have
not been a part of Superfund risk assessments.
Other Risk Assessment Initiatives
The Agency responded to concerns raised by
industry to EPA's June 1990 policy banning
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) from
performing risk assessments at Superfund sites. The
Agency initiated a year-long study to re-evaluate this
policy, examining coordination, duration, and
enforcement issues and soliciting public comments.
Other EPA initiatives to improve risk assessment
for lead and radionuclides and to enhance risk
assessment guidance are discussed in Chapter 3.
2.2.2 Risk Management Initiatives
Risk management is the process of identifying
the actions that can or should be taken to mitigate
risks and determining appropriate clean-up levels. In
examining Superfund risk management, the 30-Day
Study Task Force identified a number of aspects that
may lead to variation and inconsistency in decision
making. To examine these issues, the Agency
established the National Superfund Risk Management
Workgroup. During FY92, the workgroup finalized
two policies:
Usingabaselineriskassessmentfordetermining
the need for remedial action; and
• Distinguishing between principal and low-level
threat wastes to determine whether a remedy
13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
using treatment, or using containment and
institutional controls, is warranted.
The workgroup also began developing policies on
three additional issues: selectingclean-upgoals based
on cumulative risk for ground water and soil,
projecting future land use as it affects remedy
selection, and identifying appropriate remediation
time frames for ground-water actions.
2.3 ADVANCING THE USE OF
INNOVATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
CERCLA requires that, when selecting a remedy
for a Superfund site, EPA give preference to treatment
remedies that reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of waste at a site. To increase the use of
treatment remedies, the Agency works to expand the
pool of proven cost-effective treatment technologies
available and facilitate access to information about
these technologies. Exhibit2.3-l illustrates the steps
required to develop and implement innovative
treatment technologies.
The need for effective treatment technologies is
apparent from the increasing universe of
contaminated sites. As of the end of FY92, there
were 1,275 National Priorities List (NPL) sites, and
the number will grow. In particular the number of
complex federal facility sites is expected to increase
rapidly. In addition to Superfund sites, there are
active industrial sites that require corrective action
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), underground storage tank sites that require
soil and ground-water remediation, and sites that are
to be cleaned up under state programs.
In 1990, the Agency created the Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) to promote the use of inno-
vative treatment technologies for site cleanup. TIO
solicited input from technology users—federal and
state projectmanagers, consulting engineers, Superfund
PRPs, and owners/operators of RCRA facilities—to
identify barriers in using innovative treatment
technologies. To eliminate obstacles to innovative
technology use, the Agency is working on
Increasing the amount of credible cost and
performance data available;
Centralizing and providing increased access to
information;
Examining ways to overcome regulatory barriers
to the development and use of these technologies;
and
Providing technical support to speed cleanup
and introduce technology.
2.3.1 Increasing the Availability of
Cost and Performance Data
Insufficient cost and performance data can
discourage potential users from trying innovative
treatment technologies. Lack of available information
stems in part from the fact that m any new technologies
have not been tested on a pilot scale using actual
waste. EPA, in conjunction with other federal
agencies, states, and private groups, participated in
several programs to demonstrate new treatment
technologies and develop critical cost and
performance data for promoting technology use and
transfer.
Developing and Testing Innovative
Treatment Technologies
Providing opportunities for technology transfer
between the federal government and the private
sector, the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) program under EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) spent FY92, its
seventh year, developing and evaluating new
technologies. The program serves as a mechanism
for evaluating field-scale demonstrations of
innovativetreatment technologies. Accordingto EPA
research, treatment technology developers who have
conducted SITE field demonstrations have been
involved in more than 700 treatability studies at
hazardous waste sites and were selected to conduct
remediation work at more than 50 percent of the
sites. (See Chapter 5 for additional information on
the SITE program.)
14
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 2.3-1
Development of Innovative Technologies
Commercialization
Conceptualization
Source: Office of Research and Development.
51-013-260
TIO, Region 9, the Office of Federal Facilities
Enforcement, ORD, the Department of Defense
(DOD), state agencies, and Clean Sites, Inc. (a non-
profitorganization) sponsored a joint "public-private
partnership project," using federal facilities as the
proving grounds to demonstrate innovative treatment
technologies. Expanding upon the concepts of the
SITE program and the Department of Energy's
(DOE's) Integrated Technology Demonstration
Program, the project involves private companies in
the design and evaluation of treatment technologies
tested at the federal facility sites. The goal of the
project is that all parties accept the applicability of
the innovative treatment technologies being tested
without asking private groups to risk a trial of new
technologies at their own sites. McClellan Air Force
Base in Sacramento, California, will be the first
public-private partnership project site. (Additional
information on the use of federal facility sites to test
innovative treatment technologies is provided in
Chapters 5 and 7.)
Increasingly, EPA laboratories have conducted
work in conjunction with industry through the
facilitating mechanisms of the Federal Technology
Transfer Act. EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory has developed several techniques. These
techniques include a transportable rotary kiln
incineraton the "volume reduction unit," an advanced
mobile soil washer/extractor; the alkaline metal
hydroxide-polyethylene glycol and base-catalyzed
decomposition chemical treatment processes; and
several improved bioremediation and soil-vapor
extraction techniques.
Other Information Development Efforts
Throughout FY92, EPA worked to develop
information on innovative treatment technologies.
The Agency convened committees and roundtables
composed of federal and private experts in
engineering and technological fields to support this
effort.
15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Bioremediation Action Committee: EPA created
the Bioremediation Action Committee to develop
and communicate information about bioremediation,
one of the most promising innovative treatment
technologies. Bioremediation involves using
naturally occurring bacteria to destroy contaminants.
The contaminants, a carbon source, are eradicated as
they are consumed by the bacteria.
The Bioremediation Action Committee is
composed of experts from federal and state agencies,
academia, the bioremediation industry.and potential
users. The committee developed information on
common goals and research needs, coordinated joint
actions, generated treatability testing protocols and
manuals, collected information for ORD's Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC)
bulletin board, and communicated bioremediation
experience and progress. With the committee, EPA
launched a bioremediation field initiative to evaluate
and communicate experience in applying
bioremediation to site cleanup.
Wastech "92: Wastech '92 was a joint effort by
EPA and the American Academy of Environmental
Engineers to develop reports on the state-of-the-
practice of innovative treatment technologies. The
reports, which were under development at the end of
FY92, will be reviewed by members of technical and
professional societies, engineers, scientists, and
members of the waste management community to
develop consensus on the benefits, limitations, design
criteria, and relative economic viability of innovative
treatment technologies.
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable:
The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable,
composed of representatives of EPA, USAGE, DOD,
DOE, and the Department of Interior, developed a
comprehensive record of performance and cost on
innovative treatment technologies used by federal
departments and agencies. The information compiled
was documented in three publications: Synopses of
Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site
Remediation Technologies; Bibliography of Federal
Reports and Publications Describing Alternative
and Innovative Treatment Technologies for
Corrective Action and Site Remediation; and
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated
Site Clean-Up Technologies.
2.3.2 Centralizing Access to
Information
To provide centralized access to information
about innovative technologies, TIO and ORD offered
several organized and targeted sources of
information. Three electronic information sources
include ATTIC, the Vendor Information System for
Innovative Treatment Technologies, and the Clean-
Up Information System. TIO and ORD prepared
publications providing information on new
developments and the application of innovative
technologies, including Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report; Tech
Trends and Ground-Water Currents bulletins;
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Tech-
nologies: A Developer's Guide to Support Services',
and Citizen's Guide to Innovative Treatment Tech-
nologies. The Agency also developed satellite video
training seminars and conducted its annual domestic
and international forum on innovative hazardous
waste treatment technologies. (Additional discussion
of these information sources is provided in Chapter 5.)
2.3.3 Overcoming Regulatory Barriers
During FY92, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) evaluated barriers
posed by environmental regulations to the
development and commercialization of innovative
technologies. Having found that the existing
volume-testing limit for an exemption from certain
RCRA requirements is insufficient for some pilot-
scale testing of innovative treatment technologies,
the Agency will propose expanding the testing limit
for soil from 1,000 kilograms to 10,000 kilograms.
The Agency will also generate a directive to
encourage and accelerate approval of new technology
testing at permitted facilities. Testing may occur
through the permit modification process or through
new research and development permits. To further
promote new technology development, EPA will
promulgate regulations to address and facilitate the
use of bioremediation.
16
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
2.3.4 Providing Technical Support
ORD provided Superfund Regional staff with
direct technical support through five ORD Technical
Support Centers (TSCs), Superfund Technical
Assistance Response Teams (START), and the
Superfund Technical Liaison (STL) Program. The
goal of each of these programs is to increase the
speed and quality of Superfund cleanups, and reduce
their costs, by providing Regional Superfund staff
with direct access to the technical expertise and
resources of the Agency's active researchers.
• The TSCs provided Regional Superfund staff
access to EPA's active researchers in the areas of
ground-water remediation, risk assessment,
engineering, site characterization, and modeling.
TSCs responded to over 443 requests fortechnical
support in 1992.
• The START program provided long-term,
intensive engineering assistance to Regional staff
for more than 59 sites.
The* STLs are senior ORD scientists who are
permanently stationed in Regional offices. The
STLs provided direct technical assistance to
Regional staff, facilitated interaction with and
among ORD laboratories and Headquarters
offices, promoted the appli cation of good science
within the Regional waste programs, and
provided feedback to ORD science planners on
Regional technical needs.
2.4 IMPROVING AGENCY
CONTRACTING
Seeking to balance its environmental mission
with effective contract management, the Agency
undertook actions for
• Improving Agency contract management and
accountability;
• Eliminating excess contract capacity;
Controlling costs; and
Securing quality work from contractors by pro-
viding incentives for good work and penalties
for poor performance.
Agency efforts were based on recommendations
made in several studies of EPA contracting methods
that were conducted over the past several years.
These studies included an FY92 review of Agency-
wide contracting by the Standing Committee on
Contracts Management.
Review of the Standing Committee on
Contracts Management
In March 1992, the Standing Committee on
Contracts Management convened to conduct an in-
depth, comprehensive review of EPA contract
procurement and management practices and to
identify necessary reforms. The committee identified
several systemic and process changes to achieve a
balance between environmental protection and fiscal
management, outlining major reforms in the way
EPA operates internally and does business with
private companies that provide services to the Agency.
The committee recommended improving the
organizational structure of Agency procurement and
contract management; increasing the number of
Agency procurement, Office of the Inspector General
(OIG), and contract debarment and suspension staff;
improving human resource procedures to enhance
the Agency's ability to attract and retain quality staff
for contract management; clarifying the roles of the
Agency and its contractors; regulating contractor
costs; and increasing the security of Agency
information systems. Many committee
recommendations reinforced earlier strategies
adopted for individual contracts, such as the
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS)
contracts. The Agency began implementing
committee recommendations during FY92.
Continuing Contract Initiatives
Other contracting recommendations originated
in task force and OIG reviews of two major Superfund
contracting strategies: the ARCS program, used to
provide contract support for conducting Superfund
remedial clean-up actions, and the Contract
17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Laboratory Program (CLP), used for obtaining
laboratory analysis of samples from Superfund sites.
To improve ARCS management processes and
oversight, EPA initiated changes to reduce contractor
program management costs, eliminate excess contract
capacity, improve contract controls and financial
reviews, and redesign the award fee process as a
more effective tool to enhance contractor
performance.
To improve the CLP, the Agency took steps to
strengthen internal controls forvalidating data quality
and monitoring laboratory performance, improve
management and accountability within the program,
centralize methods development, explore alternatives
for laboratory certification, and reduce program costs.
As recommended by the OIG, the Agency launched
an effort to collect all original documentation relating
to the analyses conducted under the CLP for use in
any future litigation between EPA and PRPs. The
Agency also undertook actions to prevent and deal
with potentially fraudulent laboratory practices.
Highlights of actions taken during FY92 and the
resulting improvements to EPA' s contracts programs
are discussed in the following sections.
2.4.1 Improving Contract Management
and Accountability
To implement a national program that will
balance the Agency's environmental mission with
effective contract management, the Standing
Committee on Contracts Management outlined
actions to develop a strong management and
leadership presence for EPA.
• The Agency designated a new high-level
management position, Senior Resource Official,
to bridge the gap in accountability between
program and procurement offices and ensure
well-managed contracts.
• To reinforce the new direction in EPA con-
tracting, 85 percent of EPA's senior executives
attended a training program in contract manage-
ment and ethics.
To give the office responsible for contract finance
and administration more authority and accoun-
tability, EPA consolidated contracts, grants, and
suspension and debarment functions under the
soon-to- be-created Deputy Assistant Admin-
istrator for Acquisition and Assistance Manage-
ment.
Increased Agency resources for managing
contracts were also recommended by the committee.
To respond, EPA allocated an additional $3 million
for new procurement staff in FY92. The Agency has
also increased funding for the OIG by 76 percent
over the last four years. EPA will also seek to
increase, by 50 percent, the staff overseeing
suspension and-debarment of contractors, and will
broaden the focus of the traditionally criminal-
oriented agenda to include suspension and debarment
for poor contractor performance.
To attract and retain qualified people in contract
management positions, the Agency will improve
workforce planning, recruiting, training, career
management, rewards, and recognition. During
FY92, EPA launched one of the largest and most
comprehensive contract management training
programs in its history. The Agency added more
hours to mandatory training for Remedial Project
Managers, including both contract-specific and
program-specific training. The Agency developed a
training course for Regional Superfund Division
Directors to assist them in determining where the
Regions need to improve their contract management
practices. New EPA job announcements were
amended to advise all interested candidates that they
will be expected to manage projects.
To oversee implementation of measures to
improve ARCS, the Agency established an ARCS
Council and Regional management teams. The
Agency also created the position of Superfund
Acquisitions Manager, in SRO, to oversee all
Superfund acquisition activities and decisions.
Management of the CLP was improved as the
Agency elevated national program management
responsibilities from the branch level to the division
level within the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
of OERR. The Agency also increased resources for
management of the program. ORD was tasked to
take the lead in establishing a process for
standardizing the development and validation of the
18
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
analytical methods used in the CLP and in continuing
a project to study methods integration.
2.4.2 Eliminating Excess Contract
Capacity
The Agency took steps to eliminate excess
capacity in the ARCS contracts. EPA reduced the
ARCS contract capacity by $2 billion and will
continue to assess and adjust ARCS contract capacity
annually. The Agency also raised the ceiling for
remedial actions under the contracts from $5 million
to $15 million. The new ceiling will enable the
Agency to use ARCS contractors to perform the
larger scale remedial actions that were formerly
conducted solely by USAGE. The Agency also issued
guidance to the Regions to assist them in assigning
work, emphasizing the use of USAGE to review the
design and construction activities of ARCS
contractors.
2.4.3 Controlling Costs
The Agency increased controls over contractor
costs that are not related to environmental protection,
including certain indirect costs and program
management costs. Financial monitoring and
reviewing were strengthened to detect unallowable
costs.
Indirect Costs
EPA convened a two-day meeting with
representatives of EPA's largest contractors and the
Defense Contract Audit Agency to discuss plans for
tightening contract management generally, and for
controlling indirect costs in particular. Indirect costs,
or contractor overhead costs such as office rent and
general equipment costs, are billed indirectly to the
government at a rate established through audits of a
contractor's operating expenses.
Although "reasonable" employee morale costs
(such as company picnics) are allowable under federal
regulations, the Agency will no longer pay for such
activities. EPA will clarify its policy on the kinds of
indirect charges that it considers unacceptable.
Program Management Costs
Program management costs consist of charges
directly billed to the government for administration
and technical support of a contract, in contrast to
costs associated with specific contract services such
as site clean-up activities. During the fiscal year, the
Agency took steps to reduce and regulate program
management costs under the ARCS contracts.
The Agency set a national target of 15 percent
for ARCS program management costs for FY92.
Program management cost goals were established
for each separate ARCS contract When aggregated
on a Regional basis, costs would result in the 15
percent goal.
The Agency successfully lowered program
management costs for the ARCS contracts from the
FY91 national average of 19.7 percent to 14.0percent
in FY92. To achieve the target and assure continued
low program management charges, the Agency issued
guidance to support cost management activities,
provide direction for allocating program management
costs to site-specific work assignments for purposes
of cost recovery, and improve cost tracking by
distinguishing the technical and administrative
components of program management costs. EPA
also notified ARCS contractors that up to 25 percent
of their award fee would be based on their program
management cost level.
EPA will incorporate the revised ARCS program
management cost concept into future Superfund
contracts so that start-up costs, administrative costs,
and other clean-up support costs are distinguished,
monitored, and controlled.
Financial Monitoring and Reviews
Both the Standing Committee on Contracts
Management and the ARCS Task Force called for
increased resources for EPA's OIG to audit Agency
contracts and for improvements to contract controls.
The Agency issued directives to the Regions requiring
invoice reviews and emphasizing the requirement to
develop independent government cost estimates for
comparison to contractor cost estimates. To further
the use of the independent government cost estimates,
the Agency evaluated and improved existing cost
estimating tools.
19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
To improve the administration of government-
owned equipment used by ARCS contractors, the
Agency began evaluating the establishment of
regional, government-owned, contractor-operated
warehouses where all equipment not required on a
regular basis could be stored and accessed by ARCS
contractors. During FY92, Region 9 began a project
to test this approach. The Agency also initiated a
study to identify other measures for effective
administrative controls of government-owned
equipment used by contractors.
2.4.4 Securing Quality Work from
Contractors
The Standing Committee on Contracts
Management, the ARCS Task Force, and the CLP
Task Force recommended measures to assure receipt
of quality work from contractors. The Standing
Committee on Contracts Management recommended
that EPA broaden its debarment and suspension
focus to include cases of poor contractorperformance.
The "Agency took steps to reinforce the dual-
incentive approach for affecting contractor perfor-
mance on ARCS contracts: factoring contractor
performance in determining the amount of fee
awarded to a contractor and also in assigning future
work. The Agency modified the ARCS contractor
performance evaluation criteria to include the quality
of contract administration in addition to the quality
of remedial work. The Agency included reducing
program management costs and meeting program
management cost targets as significant factors
affecting a contractor's award fee. The Agency also
issued guidance to reinforce its policy on factoring
contractor performance in assigning work.
The Agency implemented both proactive and
reactive controls to deter fraud in the CLP. The
Agency improved internal controls for the oversight
of laboratories and proposed a regulation to establish
procedures for Superfund employees to follow when
contract laboratories are under investigation for fraud.
In a joint effort with DOD and DOE, EPA created a
Data Authenticity Program to prevent fraudulent
laboratory practices. The Agency also began
evaluating the use of performance bonds by contract
laboratories to increase accountability of the
laboratories for their performance.
2.5 ENHANCING COMMUNICATIONS
To better communicate Superfund progress, the
Agency improved measures of program
accomplishments and launched new outreach
approaches during the fiscal year.
2.5.1 Improving Measures of
Superfund Success -
Historically, the public has measured the
Superfund program by the number of sites deleted
from the NPL. Although NPL deletions are the
ultimate goal of the program, they do not adequately
portray the progress that the Agency has achieved in
the Superfund program. To be eligible for deletion
from the NPL, a site has been assessed to determine
the threats posed; remedial activities have been
conducted (remedial investigation/feasibility study,
remedial design, and remedial action) including
construction of the remedy; and the remedy has
operated until clean-up goals for the site have been
achieved. This process takes years and may
sometimes take decades if environmental restoration
is involved. Until apolicy change inFY92, a site also
had to undergo a five-year review after meeting
clean-up goals before it was eligible for deletion
from the NPL.
Given the attenuated process, the Agency has
taken several steps to better define and portray
Superfund progress at sites.
In December 1991, the Agency issued a policy
that, for sites where clean-up goals have been
achieved, EPA would no longer wait until after
a five-year review had been completed to delete
a site from the NPL. As of the end of FY92, the
Agency proposed to delete nine sites from the
NPL under this revised policy, including two
sites that were deleted during the year. EPA will
20
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
continue to monitor these deleted sites, even
though they are no longer on the NPL.
In another measure to portray progress
accurately, federal facility sites have been
segregated on the NPL. This distinction will
illustrate more clearly the responsibilities of
EPA and other federal agencies. Although the
common public perception is that EPA is
responsible for cleaning up all sites on the NPL,
other federal agencies are responsible for
implementing Superfund policies at their sites.
As recommended by the 30-Day Study Task
Force, the Agency has measured and
communicated its progress in completing clean-
up activities necessary to classify sites as
construction completions.
The Agency has introduced the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-Up Model to clearly identify
the risk reduction and environmental restoration
that is accomplished under the Superfund
program.
2.5.2 Public Outreach
The Agency launched a number of outreach
efforts to provide the public with information on the
progress of the Superfund program. Efforts included
issuing several publications, coordinating public
meetings, and piloting new public outreach
approaches.
Publications
A number of new publications focusing on
Superfund accomplishments were issued inFY92.
In the Superfund at Work series, the Agency
describes the history of Superfund activities at
individual sites. TheCompendium of Good Ideas,
an SRO publication, documents successful,
Regionally developed approaches to cleanup and
enforcement.
To highlight individual clean-up and
enforcement accomplishments, the Agency began
publishing Superfund Response Alerts. As
recommended by the 30-Day Study, the Agency
issued the alerts as press releases and sent courtesy
copies to members of appropriate Congressional
delegations. For especially significant actions,
members of the EPA administration visited
Superfund sites to meet with local communities.
Efforts to promote public understanding of the
role of risk in Superfund site assessments and decision
making were enhanced as the Agency developed
formal communication plans for major Superfund
risk assessment guidance, briefed key Congressional
staff on Superfund risk assessment and management
procedures, developed a brochure to be distributed to
citizen groups, and published an article on the risk
assessment process.
Other Efforts
In June 1992, the Agency held a public meeting
to discuss planned and ongoing Superfund initiatives.
In this open forum, EPA was able to solicit input
from the general public, industry, environmentalists,
and interested groups. Following a general discussion,
specific topics were examined in breakout sessions,
including: fostering voluntary cleanups by PRPs;
effectively involving states, communities, and other
interested parties in the site clean-up process;
communicating Superfund program expectations;
and measuring progress of the program. The Agency
will take steps to address recommendations made
during the meeting and will convene additional public
forums.
Seeking ways to improve outreach efforts, Region
10 launched a communications strategy through the
OSWER Regional pilot incentive program. The
Region employed an Outreach Specialist to convey
the accomplishments of Superfund to the public, the
press, Congress, and interested groups. The goals of
the pilot are to improve communications and to
counter criticism of the program.
Chapter 8 of this report provides more
information about public outreach efforts conducted
by the Agency during the fiscal year.
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
22
-------
Chapter 3
Site Evaluation
Accomplishments
By the end of FY92, more than 36,400 potentially
threatening hazardous waste sites or incidents had
been reported to EPA for evaluation under Superfund.
EPA continued its progress in evaluating and
assessing these sites. EPA also proceeded with
ongoing efforts to address technical complexities
associated with lead and radionuclide contamination,
and improved site evaluation guidance.
3.1 SITE ASSESSMENT
The site assessment phase of the Superfund
process begins when EPA is notified of a potentially
threatening hazardous waste site or incident. The
Agency records basic information about the site in
the inventory of potentially hazardous waste sites
maintained in the CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS), which also tracks further actions and
decisions at the site. For sites where there is an
immediate threat posed to human health, welfare, or
the environment, EPA conducts a removal action to
address the threat. For other sites, a two-stage
assessment is 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 to evaluate the site for
possible listing on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL is the list of sites having the highest
remediation priority.
At any point in the process, EPA may determine
that the Superfund evaluation of the site is complete
and that no further steps to list the site on the NPL
will be taken. EPA places such sites into the "no
further remedial action planned" (NFRAP) category.
A NFRAP decision does not necessarily mean that
there is no hazard associated with the site; it merely
means that, based on available information, the site
does not meet the criteria for placement on the NPL.
As appropriate, a NFRAP site might be addressed
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) or other authorities. A Superfund removal
action may be taken at a NFRAP site or at any time
during the two-stage evaluation process if there is an
immediate threat to human health or the environment
identified.
As noted in Chapter 1, the Agency is revising the
site assessment process in the Superfund Accelerated
Clean-Up Model (SACM). SACM will consolidate
site assessment functions into a single, continuous
process. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the
revised process.
3.1.1 The Inventory of Sites
(CERCUS)
When the Agency is notified of a potential site,
it records basic information about the site in
CERCLIS, the national inventory of potentially
threatening hazardous waste sites. EPA is notified of
a site in a variety of ways, including through
information provided by states, handlers of hazardous
materials, and concerned citizens. For example, an
individual might report concerns about a particular
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 3
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
DOE Deparment of Energy
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
MRS Hazard Ranking System
IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
LVF Las Vegas Facility
NAREL National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned
NPL National Priorities Ust
NRC National Response Center
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORO Office of Research and Development
ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA Preliminary Assessment
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Supertund
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RQ Reportable Quantity
SACM Supertund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
SI Site Inspection
TIB Toxics Integration Branch
TSC Technical Support Center
VORCE Volume Reduction and Chemical Extraction
Exhibit 3.1-1
Sites Added to CERCLIS
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 Section 103
of CERCLA. Section 103 specifies that a person,
such as a facility manager in charge of a vessel or
facility, must immediately report any release of a
hazardous substance that is equal to or greater than
the repoitable quantity (RQ) for that substance to the
National Response Center (NRC). The NRC operates
a24-hour hotline to allow for immediate notification.
Penalties are imposed for failure to comply with this
requirement.
As illustrated in Exhibit 3.1-1, EPA added
approximately 1,800 sites to CERCLIS during FY92,
bringing the total inventory of potentially threatening
hazardous waste sites to be evaluated under Superfund
to more than 36,400 sites.
3.1.2 Preliminary Assessments
Upon being notified of a potentially threatening
hazardous waste site, EPA or the state will assess the
potential threat posed by the site through a PA. The
PA can include either an on-site or off-site
reconnaissance to observe the site and collect
2000-1^
FY91
FY92
Total FY80 through FY92: 36,400
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
51-013-47D
informatioa Reconnaissance activities may include
an on-site visit or survey, an off-site perimeter survey,
or data collection from local authorities. EPA or the
state will also review existing site-specific
information for early determination of the need for
further action. This information might include past
state permitting activities, local population statistics,
and information that identifies the site's potential
effect upon the environment. This review enables the
Agency or state to determine whether further study
of the site is necessary, whether removal assessment/
action is needed, or whether the site should be
categorized as NFRAP. If the PA indicates that a
potential threat is posed by the site to human health
or the environment, EPA will perform an SI to do a
more extensive study.
As shown in Exhibit 3.1-2, EPA and states
conducted nearly 1,900 PAs in FY92, an increase of
more than 45 percent over the 1,300 PAs conducted
in FY91. To date, EPA and states have completed
PAs at nearly 34,100 sites or nearly 95 percent of the
sites in CERCLIS. The Agency has classified more
24
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
than 40 percent of sites where a PA has been conducted
as NFRAP. The remaining sites have proceeded to
the Si-stage for more extensive evaluation. As of the
close of the fiscal year, approximately 2,000 sites
identified in CERCLIS required PAs to be conducted.
i
3.1.3 Site Inspections
The purpose of the SI is to conduct further
evaluation of the site to determine whether the site is
appropriate for listing on the NPL. The SI usually
includes collection and analysis of environmental
and waste samples to determine
• The hazardous substances present at the site;
The concentrations of these substances;
• Whether the substances are being released or
there is potential for their release; and
• Whether the identified hazardous substances are
attributable to the site.
As illustrated in Exhibit 3.1-3, the Agency
completed more than 1,300 Sis during FY92 for a
total of approximately 15,700 Sis conducted under
the Superfund program. Most Sis conducted have
resulted in NFRAP decisions and .more than 1,200
have resulted in decisions to propose sites to the
NPL. As of the close of the fiscal year, EPA has not
yet completed Sis at approximately 3,000 sites at
which data from the PA determined that an SI was
necessary.
During the SI, data is gathered through
increasingly focused collection efforts. At any time
during the SI, EPA may make a NFRAP decision
based on this data. For other sites deemed candidates
for the NPL, the data will be used to calculate a score
using the Hazard Ranking System (MRS). The HRS
serves as a screening device to evaluate and measure
Exhibit 3.1-2
Preliminary Assessments
'Fiscal Year Comparison
2000
FY91
FY92
Total FY80 through FY92: 34,100
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
51-013-4 SJ
T3
C)
O
•O
C
O
O
V)
U)
Exhibit 3.1-3
Site Inspections
Fiscal Year Comparison
2000-
1600-
1200-
800-
400-
FY91
FY92
Total FY80 through FY92: 15,700
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
51-013-46G
25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
the relative hazard a site poses to human health,
welfare, and the environment and to determine
whether placement on the NPL is warranted. The
HRS evaluates four pathways for potential human
exposure to contaminants from a site: ground water,
surface water, soil, and air.
3.2 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
The NPL is the list of sites to which EPA gives
highest priority for remediation. EPA ranks the
potential hazard of sites using the HRS to identify
candidate NPL sites. If a site scores 28.50 or higher,
the Agency proposes the site for listing on the NPL,
solicits public comments for consideration, and then
either announces the final listing of the site on the
NPL or removes the site from consideration for
listing (classified as NFRAP). A site on the NPL
remains listed until all clean-up goals are attained
and no further response action is appropriate, at
which point, EPA will delete the site from the NPL.
»
3.2.1 National Priorities List Update
As of the end of FY92, there were 1,275 NPL
sites, consisting of 1,183 final sites, 52 proposed
sites, and 40 deleted sites. These sites included 30
sites proposed and 2 sites deleted during FY92; no
additional proposed sites were listed as final. Exhibit
3.2-1 illustrates the historical number of final sites
on the NPL since SARA was promulgated in 1986.
NPL Update 12, published in February 1992,
was the first NPL update to distinguish non-federal,
or general, Superfund sites from federal facility
sites. Of the 1,275 proposed, final, and deleted NPL
sites,
1,150 NPL sites were non-federal sites (1,067
final sites, 43 proposed sites, and 40 deleted
sites); and
125 NPL sites were federal facility sites (116
final sites and 9 proposed sites).
Of the 30 sites that were proposed during FY92,28
were non-federal sites and 2 were federal sites.
3.2.2 Relationship between CERCLIS
and NPL Data
CERCLIS is used to track the discovery of and
actions taken at all potentially threatening hazardous
waste sites, including those that are listed on the
NPL. Of the over 36,400 sites in CERCLIS at the end
of FY92,1,275 were either proposed to or listed on
the NPL. Sites deleted from the NPL reflect an
activity required to be reported. Although the sites on
the NPL are a relatively small subset of the inventory
in CERCLIS, they generally consist of the most
complex and environmentally compelling cases.
Under CERCLA, EPA can only use the Trust Fund
for long-term remedial action cleanups at NPL sites;
although Fund money can be used to undertake
removal actions whether or not a site is on the NPL.
3.3 THE LEAD PROGRAM
Lead is one of the most frequently found toxic
substances at Superfund sites. Also, lead is generally
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 assess the effects of lead contamination:
developing the Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model and conducting the Three
City Lead Study.
3.3.1 The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model
To aid Regional risk managers in establishing
permanentlead clean-up levels for soil, EPA's Toxics
Integration Branch (TIB) is developing risk
assessment procedures and tools such as the IEUBK
Model. This model predicts blood-lead levels in
children who may be exposed to lead through air,
soil, dust, drinking water, diet, and paint. The IEUB K
Model uses site-specific data or, if no such data are
available, default values that are typically based on
national averages. Until a permanent lead clean-up
26
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.2-1
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1992
Sites Added
Total1'2
Sites Added
Previously Listed
1
This graph illustrates final NPL sites only and reflects the fact that EPA deleted 13 sites from FY80 to FY86,4 sites in
FY88,11 sites in FY89, 1 site in FY90, 9 sites in FY91, and 2 sites in FY92. The total of final, proposed, and deleted
NPL sites as of September 30,1992 was 1,275.
•>
' The total number of sites listed on the NPL from 1983 to 1986 was 703.
Source: Federal Register notices through September 30,1992.
51-013-SE
level is developed, 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.
During FY92, EPA continued work on a site-
specific IEUBK guidance manual that will assist risk
assessors and managers in deciding when to use site-
specific data in the IEUBK model, and in identifying
the most appropriate method for collecting data.
EPA continued its efforts to validate the IEUBK
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.
During FY92, EPA's Science Advisory Board
reviewed the appropriateness of using the IEUBK
model to assess total lead exposure at Superfund
sites. The board concluded that, although refinements
in the detailed specifications of the IEUBK model
are recommended, the approach used to develop the
model was sound. The board stated that the model
can be applied effectively for many current needs
even as it continues to undergo refinement for other
applications, based upon experience gained in its
use. At the end of FY92, EPA was working to
complete the IEUBK model, the site-specific
guidance manual on the EEUBK model, and the
interim Soil Lead Directiveto establish a permanent
clean-up level for lead.
3.3.2 Three City Lead Study
During the fiscal year, EPA, with the support of
the Centers for Disease Control and the Department
of Agriculture, completed the Three City Lead Study,
a project to determine whether a reduction of lead in
residential soil and dust (interior house dust and
exterior soil dust) would result in a decrease of
blood-lead levels of children exposed to the
contaminant Theprojectexaminedgroupsofchildren
in Baltimore, Boston, and Cincinnati in carefully
27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
chosen, non-randomly selected areas within each
city. 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."
For all three cities, EPA conducted baseline
sampling of blood, hand dust, soil, interior house
dust, paint, and water. EPA also sampled exterior
street dust in Cincinnati. Soil removal activities and
post-removal sampling of lead contamination were
completed in all three cities. An interim report entitled
the Three City Lead Study was released July 26,
1991, containing descriptions of project designs,
protocols for sampling and analyses, removal
methods, problems encountered, and baseline data.
During FY92, the Agency compiled specific study
findings into individual city reports. In addition to
the individual city study reports, EPA's Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) and
Office of Research and Development (ORD) were
preparing an integrated, technical, peer-reviewed
report that will include information from the analyses
of the combined Three City Lead Study data set.
3.4 THE RADIATION PROGRAM
During the fiscal year, EPA made progress in
addressing technical complexities associated with
site assessments, risk assessments, and clean-up
technology evaluations for sites contaminated with
radionuclides. Activities included developing
Superfund guidance, conducting technology dem-
onstrations and evaluations, and providing assis-
tance to Regions.
3.4.1 Superfund Program Guidance
EPA continued its efforts to address radiation
issues by contributing to several Superfund guidance
documents in FY92.
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST): TIB cooperated with the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) to update
information on radionuclides for HEAST. The
updates improve risk assessment capabilities
through the continued application of sound
scientific principles. ORIA added more than 200
radionuclides to the March 1992, HEAST.
Additionally, ORIA included and refined
cancer-risk slope factors for radioactive decay
chains and modified slope factors for external
exposure.
Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment Manual:
ORIA had under development the Radiation
Exposure and Risk Assessment Manual that
covers environmental pathway modeling and
toxicity assessment.
Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment
ORIA completed the radiation-specific sections
of Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment.
Development of Clean-Up Levels'. ORIA began
developing standard clean-up levels for
radioactive materials in ground water and soil.
ORIA also began developing guidance to
establish criteria and standards for the cleanup
of radioactive materials at federal facilities. The
clean-up guidance will be developed to be
consistent with the SACM process.
Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under
CERCLA: ORIA and the Science Advisory Board
continued work on HRS radiation issues. ORIA
completed the radiation-specific section of
Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under
CERCLA and a draft report addressing radiation
site scoring under the revised HRS.
3.4.2 Technology Demonstration and
Evaluation
Under the volume reduction and chemical
extraction (VORCE) program, ORIA conducted a
successful technology demonstration to reduce
radioactivity in soils. Using soil from the NPL site at
Montclair/Glen Ridge, New Jersey, the VORCE
28
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
pilot plant achieved a 56 percent volume reduction,
with the concentration of radioactivity reduced by 73
percent in the cleaned soil fraction.
In May 1992, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) published
Characterization Protocol for Radioactive
Contaminated Soils developed by ORIA as Directive
9380.1-10FS. An interagency task group consisting
of representatives from EPA's OSWER and ORIA,
the Department of Energy (DOE), and NRC began
drafting five reports on environmental transport
modeling for radionuclides.
3.4.3 Regional Assistance
EPA Headquarters provided the Regional offices
with assistance to address NPL sites contaminated
with radioactive materials. ORIA presented three
DOE-funded, two-day workshops on RQs and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules
on protection of workers exposed to radioactivity.
The workshops were held in Washington, DC;
Augusfa, Georgia; and Albuquerque, New Mexico.
ORIA also conducted seminars on radioactive site
remediation technologies for Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators in
Seattle, Washington, and Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The Agency established the ORIA National Air
and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL),
assisted by the ORIA Las Vegas Facility (LVF), as a
Technical Support Center (TSC). The ORIA
laboratories under the TSC program provided the
following radioanalytical site-specific support to
Regional programs:
• ORIA completed a VORCE pilot plant for the
Montclair/Glen Ridge, New Jersey, site in
Region 2. ORIA also completed laboratory
screening for a Region 2 treatability study at a
site in Maywood, New Jersey.
In Region 3, the ORIA scanner van, operated by
LVF, assisted in locating contaminated properties
in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania. NAREL/TSC
provided analytical support and a comparison of
measurement techniques for the site.
• ORIA continued providing technical assistance
to Region 4 for oversight of the DOE remediation
efforts in Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. This assistance involved reviewing
CERCLA documents and providing oversight of
field sampling activities. Also, Region 4
Superfund staff participated in a radiation worker
safety and health pilot program sponsored by
ORIA.
In Region 5, ORIA provided risk assessment
support for dealing with radionuclide
contamination at the Kerr-McGee/West Chicago
and DOE Mound Plant sites. NAREL/TSC
provided radioanalytical support for the former
DOE production facility at Fernald, Ohio, and at
the Industrial Excess Landfill in Union Town,
Ohio.
InRegion 8, ORIA, with assistance from NAREL/
TSC, provided support to justify a no-action
alternative at the Denver Radium site. ORIA and
NAREL also worked with the RPM on technical
issues associated with the DOE Rocky Flats site.
ORIA and LVF assisted Region 9 in developing
a site sampling and analysis plan for Norton Air
Force Base. This support consisted of reviewing
site survey reports and providing recom-
mendations for characterization and remediation
of alleged buried radium wastes. NAREL and
LVF also assisted in the remediation activities at
Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard.
In Region 10, ORIA assisted the RPM at the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in
overseeing DOE soil treatability studies. At the
Hanford site, ORIA assisted the RPM in
reviewing designs for a facility to vitrify
radioactive waste for permanent geologic
disposal. ORIA also provided technical assistance
to the RPM at the Teledyne Wan Chang site.
3.5 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
OERR, ORIA, and ORD published several
guidance documents during FY92.
Guidance for Data Useability in RiskAssessment
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
(Part A), April 1992: This manual provides
practical guidance on the procedures for obtaining
environmental analytical data that meet the
minimum level of data quality required for
Superfund risk assessments. Guidance is
provided for both the design and evaluation of
sampling and analytical activities for risk
assessments within the remedial investigation.
Guidance for Data Useability inRiskAssessment
(PartB), May 7992:This document supplements
Part A by providing information on determining
the useability of analytical data for performing a
baseline risk assessment at sites, including those
with radionuclide contamination.
Supplemental Guidance to Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Calculating
the Concentration Term, May 1992: This
guidance provides additional information on
general intake equations presented in RAGS
Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual,
Pan A. The manual discusses basic concepts
concerning the concentration term, describes
how1 to calculate the concentration term, and
identifies where to find assistance.
ECO Updates (intermittent): This series of
bulletins contains updates on ecological
assessment of Superfund sites. The bulletins
serve as a supplemental guidance to RAGS,
Volume 2, Environmental Evaluation Manual.
Understanding Superfund Risk Assessment, July
1992: This fact sheet explains the four steps of
the risk assessment process in simple,
nontechnical language. It briefly describes the
differences between risk assessment and risk
management and explains how the results of the
baseline risk assessment are used in making
decisions at Superfund sites.
Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under
CERCLA, September 1992: This document
provides guidance for site inspections conducted
under CERCLA. The guidance discusses how to
review and evaluate available information, how
to plan an effective sampling strategy for
collecting analytical data to evaluate a site using
the HRS, and how to prepare required reports
and work products.
30
-------
Chapter 4
Emergency Response
Accomplishments
Throughout the 11-year history of Superfund,
the emergency response and removal program has
successfully prevented and minimized threats to
human health and the environment. Through FY92,
EPA and potentially responsible parties (PRPs) have
initiated more than 3,040 removal actions to address
threats posed by the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances.
This chapter discusses the removal action process,
the progress achieved under the Superfund removal
program in addressing immediate threats to human
health and the environment, the contributions of the
Environmental Response Team (ERT), and
emergency response guidance and rulemaking
development.
4.1 THE REMOVAL ACTION
PROCESS
Removal actions are taken in response to a
release or threat of release of a hazardous substance
that presents an immediate or near-term threat to
human health, welfare, or the environment. Examples
of situations that might warrant a removal action
include chemical spills or fires at production or
waste storage facilities, transportation accidents
involving hazardous substances, and illegal disposal
of hazardous waste (midnight dumping). Exhibit
4.1-1 presents examples of the kinds of threats that
might be posed by these situations and the
corresponding removal actions that might be taken.
Managed by a federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSQ,
a removal action is generally short-term, addresses
the most immediate threats, and complies with
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) to the extent practicable given the
exigencies of the situation.
When notified of a release or threat of release
that might require a removal action, the Agency
conducts a removal site evaluation to determine the
source and nature of the release, the threat to public
health and the environment, and whether an
appropriate response has been initiated. The Agency
reviews the results of the removal site evaluation and
other factors to determine the appropriate extent of a
removal. At any point in this process, the Agency
might refer the action to the site assessment program
or determine that no further remedial action is
necessary. When the Agency concludes that a removal
action is required, the appropriate response is
implemented to minimize or eliminate the threat.
The removal program categorizes removal actions
based on the time available before a response action
must be initiated. "Emergency" removal actions
require response at the site within hours. 'Time-
critical" removal actions are conducted when the
lead agency concludes that the action must begin
within six months. For "non-time-critical" removal
actions, the planning period may extend more than
six months before the removal action is begun.
During this planning period, the lead agency conducts
an engineering evaluation/cost analysis for the
response action.
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 4
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
ERRS Emergency and Rapid Response Services
ERT Environmental Response Team
MIC Methyl Isocyanate
NPL National Priorities List
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RQ Reportable Quantity
SACM Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
To document the selection of a response action
for a removal, the Agency prepares an action
memorandum that states the authority for initiating
the action, describes the action to be taken, and
explains the basis for selecting the response. EPA
also establishes an administrative record, compiling
the documents that formed the basis for the selection
of the response action.
The following sections discuss other key aspects
of the removal action process, including community
participation, the role of the OSC, and CERCLA
limitations on the scope of removal actions.
Community Participation in Removal
Actions
The removal process provides many
opportunities for public participation. The Agency
appoints an official spokesperson to keep the public
abreast of the progress of a given removal action.
The administrative record may be made available at
a repository near the site and at EPA offices. If the
removal action is expected to continue beyond 120
days, the lead agency must involve local officials
and other parties in the process.
The On-Scene Coordinator
The OSC organizes, directs, and documents the
removal action. Duties include conducting field
Exhibit 4.1-1
Typical Removal Response Actions
Threat Posed
Typical Removal Action Taken
Humans or animals have access to released
hazardous substances, fire, or explosion
Precipitation or run-off from other sources (e.g.,
flooding) may enter the release area
Failure of a structure such as a lagoon
is likely
Migration of hazardous substances into soil,
ground water, or air is likely
Drinking water supply is contaminated
Installing fences, warning signs, or other security
and site control precautions
Removal of waste materials posing the threat
Temporarily relocating residents in extreme
situations
Constructing drainage controls, such as run-off or
run-on diversions
Stabilizing berms, dikes, or impoundments
Containing hazardous substances, such as
capping contaminated soil or sludge
Treating hazardous substances, including
incineration
Excavating highly contaminated soil
Removing drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk
containers containing hazardous substances
Providing alternate water supplies
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Emergency Response Division.
51-013-8C
32
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
investigations, on-scene monitoring, and overseeing
the removal action. The OSC is also responsible for
preparing a final report that describes the site
conditions prior to the removal action, the removal
action performed at the site, and any problems that
occurred during the removal action.
Removal Action Statutory Limits
Removal actions are generally short-term,
relatively inexpensive responses to releases or threats
of releases that pose a danger to human health,
welfare, or the environment. Accordingly, Congress
included in CERCL A limitations for removal actions
of $2 million and one year for the cost and duration,
respectively. Congress established exceptions to these
limits, however, under specific circumstances:
Continued response is required immediately to
prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency; there is
an immediate threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment; and action cannot otherwise be
provided on a timely basis; or
• Continued response action is otherwise
appropriate and consistent with the remedial
action to be taken.
During FY92, EPA authorized 29 exemptions
(ceiling increases) for removal actions to exceed the
$2 million limitation. In addition, EPA authorized 10
exemptions to continue removals for more than one
year.
4.2.1 Status Report on Removal
Actions
Of approximately 380 removal actions begun
either by EPA or PRPs in FY92, PRPs financed
nearly 100 and EPA financed more than 280. The
removal actions started by PRPs included 30 at NPL
sites and 70 at non-NPL sites. EPA started 30
removal actions at NPL sites and 250 at non-NPL
sites. Exhibit 4.2-1 compares the number of removal
actions started by EPA and PRPs in FY91 and FY92.
EPA and PRPs completed more than 340 removal
actions during FY92. PRPs funded 70 of the 340
completed removal actions, including 20-at NPL
sites and 50 at non-NPL sites. EPA funded 270 of the
total, including 40 at NPL sites and 230 at non-NPL
sites. Exhibit 4.2-2 compares the number of removal
actions completed by EPA and PRPs in FY91 and
FY92.
Removal actions that have started but have not
reached completion are considered "ongoing."
Ongoing removal actions include actions that have
been in progress less than 12 months and removal
actions that have continued for more than 12 months
underexemptions from the statutory one-year duration
limit. Sites where a removal action has taken place
but the contaminants have not yet been transported to
a disposal facility are also defined as sites with
ongoing removal actions.
4.2 PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING
IMMEDIATE THREATS
Cumulatively, since the inception of Superfund,
the Agency and PRPs have begun more than 3,040
removal actions at NPL and non-NPL sites to address
immediate threats to human health, welfare, or the
environment posed by releases or potential releases
of hazardous substances. Under the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-Up Model (SACM), the Agency
will expand its use of removal actions to expedite
response, especially at NPL sites.
4.2.2 Expanding the Use of Removal
Authority
Expanding the use of removal authority for
"early actions" to reduce immediate risks more rapidly
and expedite cleanups at NPL sites is a key element
of SACM. As an incentive to pilot this approach
during FY92, the Agency set aside $50 million in the
remedial action budget to fund early actions. Early
actions can be emergency, time-critical, or non-
time-critical removal actions or rapid remedial
responses.
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 4.2-1
Removal Action Starts
m
o
1
o
fc.
0)
.a
FY91
FY92
Removal Action Starts
FY80-FY92
Total Fund-Financed
FY80-FY92:
Total PRP-Financed
FY80-FY92:
Total Removal Action
Starts FY80-FY92:
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
51-013-01J
Although the set-aside program was not
announced until February 20, 1992, the Agency
allocated more than $37 million of the set-aside
money for early actions at 13 sites in 7 Regions,
including 8 NPL sites. All of the clean-up actions
funded were time-critical removals with the exception
of one rapid remedial response in Region 1. The
funding for early actions did not replace normally
used Regional removal funds, but allowed Regions
to initiate additional actions. The set-aside funding
and the use of remedial funding directly under the
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS)
contracts significantly enhanced the Agency' s ability
to expedite overall response at the NPL sites.
Additional information on SACM and the use of
removal authority to conduct early actions is provided
in Chapter 1.
Due to the success of the early action approach,
the Agency will set aside an additional $50 million
for early actions in FY93. To further facilitate early
actions, EPA's Emergency Response Division will
work with the Regional offices and the Office of
Acquisition Management to eliminate obstacles
posed by limited capacity and funding under ERRS.
An example of an early action at an NPL site is
the SACM pilot at the National Zinc Site in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma. On August 5, 1992, the
Agency initiated phase one of a removal action at the
site to excavate lead- and cadmium-contaminated
soil. The phase one removal action, which is expected
to take 12 months and cost approximately $2.5
million, will address 29 high access public areas
including schools, day care centers, parks,
playgrounds, and recreation areas in the vicinity of
several historic smelter operations. The action will
also address residences where testing indicates that
children had high levels of lead in their blood, or
where lead or cadmium levels detected in soil
exceeded action levels. During the removal action,
contaminated soil with lead levels greater than 500
34
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.2-2
Removal Action Completions
FY91
FY92
Removal Action Completions
FY80-FY92
Total Fund-Financed
FY80-FY92: 1,980
Total PRP-Financed
FY80-FY92: 540
Total Removal Action
Starts FY80-FY92: 2,520
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Spurce:*CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
51-013-38G
parts per million (ppm) and cadmium levels greater
than 30 ppm will be excavated and disposed of at an
approved hazardous waste facility. The excavated
areas will be backfilled with clean soil. This action
will be consistent with the overall remediation of the
site and will address near-term threats to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
TEAM
As part of the removal program required by the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, EPA manages ERT. Over its 11
years of service, this team of EPA experts has been
available to OSCs and Remedial Project Managers
to support removal and remedial actions 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year. In addition to its response
support, ERT provides introductory- and
intermediate-level training courses in health and
safety and other technical aspects of response. ERT
provides expertise in emergency response, hazard
assessment, health and safety, air monitoring,
alternative and innovative technology, site
investigation, ecological damage assessment, clean-
up contractor management, and oil and chemical
spill control.
During FY92, ERT responded to 102 removal
actions, 61 remedial actions, 5 oil spills, and 2
international incidents. ERT also offered 227 training
courses nationwide.
4.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
GUIDANCE AND RULEMAKING
During FY92, the Agency continued updating
the Superfund Removal Procedures Manual. Under
the reportable quantity (RQ) regulatory program, the
35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Agency proposed adjustments to RQs, completed
the report of the EPA Hazardous Substances Task
Force, and issued a directive regarding release of
ethlene glycol in airplane de-icing operations.
4.4.1 Superfund Removal Procedures
Manual
The Superfund Removal Procedures Manual
covers all procedural and administrative requirements
for removal actions. The manual is used by OSCs,
other removal personnel, remedial program staff,
enforcement personnel, and staff from other federal
and state agencies. In FY90, EPA began restructuring
the manual into a series of 10 stand-alone volumes,
each addressing distinct aspects of Superfund removal
actions. In FY92, EPA completed the third and
fourth volumes of the series: Removal Enforcement
Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators and Public
Participation Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators:
Community Relations and the Administrative Record.
The remaining six volumes of the manual were under
development as of the end of FY92.
4.4.2 Reportable Quantity Regulatory
Program
Section 102(b) of CERCLA, as amended, sets an
RQ of one pound for hazardous substances, except
those substances for which different RQs have been
established pursuant to Section 311(b)(4) of the
Clean Water Act. Section 102(a) of CERCLA
authorizes EPA to adjust RQs for hazardous
substances and to designate additional CERCLA
hazardous substances.
Under CERCLA Section 103(a), the person in
charge of a vessel or facility must immediately
notify the National Response Center upon learning
of a release of a hazardous substance in a quantity
that is equal to or exceeds its RQ. In addition to these
reporting requirements, Section 304 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986 requires that a release of a hazardous substance
in quantities equal to or exceeding its RQ (or one
pound if a reporting trigger is not established by
regulation) be reported to state and local authorities.
Reportable Quantity Adjustments
EPA proposed RQ adjustments for 31 hazardous
substances in a May 8, 1992, rule (57 FR 20014).
These 31 substances include the following chemicals:
• Lead metal;
• Thirteen lead compounds;
• Fifteen lead-containing hazardous wastes listed
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA);
• RCRA characteristic wastes that fail theToxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure ("TC wastes")
based on their lead constituents; and
• Methyl isocyanate (MIC).
The RQ adjustments for lead and lead compounds
are based on the neurotoxic effects of lead in children.
The potential adverse reproductive and respiratory
effects of MIC resulted in the RQ adjustment for
MIC. Also during the fiscal year, EPA began preparing
responses to public comments received on the
proposed RQ adjustments.
The Hazardous Substance Task Force
Report
In April 1992, EPA completed the report of the
EPA Hazardous Substances Task Force. Following
the release of 19,500 gallons of the herbicide metam
sodium into the Sacramento River on July 14,1991,
Congress requested that EPA identify and address
gaps in the regulation of hazardous chemicals like
metam sodium. The task force was charged with
Examining the issues associated with expansion
of the CERCLA hazardous substance list;
• Suggesting additional criteria to identify
environmentally hazardous materials to be
regulated in transportation; and
Identifyinginnovative approaches beyondEPA's
traditional regulatory framework that would
enhance the protection of human health and the
environment.
36
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Other Efforts
The Agency issued a directive (Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9360.4-
12) on February 4, 1992, concerning releases of
ethylene glycol from airplane de-icing operations.
Ethylene glycol is a CERCLA hazardous substance
by virtue of its listing as a hazardous air pollutant
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The
Agency issued the directive in response to airline
industry concerns about CERCLA reporting
requirements for releases during de-icing that exceed
the RQ for ethylene glycol. The directive stated
EPA's position on the applicability of the federally
permitted release exemption and the continuous
release reporting regulation.
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
38
-------
Chapter 5
Remedial Accomplishments
Remedial progress during FY92 illustrated
EPA's commitment to accelerate the pace of
Superfund cleanup. Compared to FY91, there were
an increased number of remedial activities started
resulting in an increased numberof remedial activities
in progress at the end of the year. In addition, the
Agency completed clean-up activities to place a
record number of 88 National Priorities List (NPL)
sites in the construction completion category, more
than doubling the number of sites so categorized in
the 10 previous years of the Superfund program.
This chapter highlights progress in remediating
NPL sites and provides information on
• The remedial process;
• Fiscal year accomplishments;
Remedies selected during the year,
• Fiscal year remedial initiatives;
• Efforts to develop and use innovative treatment
technologies, including an evaluation of newly
developed and achievable permanent treatment
technologies, as required by CERCLA Section
301(h)(l)(D); and
Results of completed five-year reviews, required
by CERCLA Section 121(c) and 301(h)(l)(E),
for sites where contamination remained on site
after remedial action was completed.
5.1 REMEDIAL PROGRESS
By the end of FY92, work had occurred at nearly
96 percent of the 1,275 NPL sites. Exhibit 5.1-1
illustrates the status of the work at NPL sites, by the
most advanced stage activity at each site. The
remedial process used for cleaning up NPL sites
and highlights of the progress made at the sites
during FY92 are described below.
5.1.1 The Remedial Process
The "remedial process" refers to the cleanup
of our nation's highest-priority hazardous waste
sites—those placed on the NPL. It is the second of
a two-phase process. The first phase is the site
evaluation phase, which consists of the discovery
or identification of a potential site, the preliminary
assessment of the site, and the site inspection (SI).
During the SI, the site is evaluated for possible
listing on the NPL. If a site is listed on the NPL
after the SI, it is eligible for Trust Fund financing
of clean-up activities under the remedial authorities
of CERCLA. Remedial activities include the
following key components:
• The remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS), determining the type and extent of
contamination, and evaluating and developing
remedial clean-up alternatives;
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), developing plans
and specifications needed for the construction
of the selected remedy;
• The remedial action (RA), implementing the
selected remedy, including the construction of
39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 5
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Clearinghouse
CA Cooperative Agreement
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CLU-IN Clean-Up Information
DNAPL Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
MMTP Monitoring and Measurement Technologies
Program
NAPL Nonaqueous Phase Liquid
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OER Office of Exploratory Research
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RFA Request for Application
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
SI Site Inspection
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
TIO Technology Innovation Office
UV Ultraviolet
VISITT Vender Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies
the remedy and the completion of the
construction; and
• Operation and maintenance (O&M), assuring
the effectiveness or integrity of the remedy for
long-term response actions.
A Remedial Project Manager (RPM) oversees
all remedial and related enforcement activities.
Regional Coordinators at EPA Headquarters assist
RPMs by reviewing program activities and answering
technical or policy questions. 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 law and comparatively more
stringent state environmental laws that legally apply
to hazardous waste site cleanups.
Exhibit 5.1-1
Work Has Occurred at Most National Priorities List Sites
Proposed NPL Sites 52
Final NPL Sites 1.183
Subtotal 1,235
Deleted NPL Sites 4Q.
Total 1,275
396
374
(Includes 125 Federal Facilities)
As
.°\°
\S\
."V"
v>
*
.
S
JSS'
vc
X^
^
r«y
0°
/
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
51-013-39C
40
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
5.1.2 Fiscal Year Accomplishments
As shown in Exhibit 5.1-2, the Agency and
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) had undertaken
approximately 1,540 RI/FSs, 990 RDs, and 610 RAs
in the Superfund program by the close of the fiscal
year. The remedial accomplishments during FY92
reflect the Agency's continued efforts to accelerate
the pace of cleanup, place sites in the construction
completion category, and encourage PRP
participation in cleanup.
• fl//FSS/artt:DuringFY92,PRPsandthe Agency
financed the start of 90 RI/FSs; PRPs and the
Agency each financed 50 percent. The number
of RI/FSs started in FY92 represents a nearly 30
percent increase over the more than 70 RI/FSs
started in FY91. Exhibit 5.1-3 illustrates this
comparison of RI/FS accomplishments.
RD Starts: As snown inExhibi 15.1 -4, the Agency
or PRPs started 170 RDs in FY92; PRPs financed
approximately 70 percent and the Agency
financed 30 percent The number of RDs started
in FY92 represents a more than 5 percent increase
over the 160 RDs started in FY91.
RA Starts: PRPs and the Agency financed the
start of 110 RAs during FY92; PRPs financed
more than 70 percent, and the Agency financed
30 percent. The 110 RAs started in FY92
represent an almost 10 percent increase over the
100 RAs started inFY91. Exhibit5.1-5 illustrates
this comparison of RA accomplishments.
Construction Completions: The Agency placed
a record 88 NPL sites in the construction
completion category during FY92, bringing the
Superfund program total to 149. The significant
Exhibit 5.1-2
Remedial Accomplishments under the Superfund Program
for Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1992
610
Remedial Actions
990
Remedial Designs
1,540
invesfigauon^easibiiiy Studies
600
-J-T— r , , . . i ,
800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Number of Actions
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
51-013-33J
41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 5.1-3
Comparison of Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts
FY91
FY92
RI/FS Starts
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Lead
FY91
FY92
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
30%
70%
50%
50%
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
51-013-31G
rise in completions during FY92 reflects the
increasing emphasis on completing
construction at sites and the streamlining of
documentation requirements.
PRP Involvement: PRPs' financing of more
than 70 percent of the RDs and RAs started in
FY92 exhibits the Agency's successful efforts
to compel PRPs to participate in clean-up
activities. Additional information on PRP
involvement in Superfund cleanup is provided
in Chapter 6.
In addition to these Fund-financed and PRP-
financed activities, other federal agencies or
departments, states, and Indian tribes financed or
assumed the lead for response activities. These
accomplishments are discussed in Chapters 7 and 8.
Exhibit 5.1-4
Comparison of Remedial Design
Starts
FY91
FY92
RD Starts
Fund-Financed H PRP-Financed
Lead
FY91
FY92
Fund-Financed 30% 30%
PRP-Financed 70% 70%
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
51-013-32H
5.1.3 Status of Remedial and
Enforcement Activities in
Progress
At the end of FY92,1,274 RI/FS and RA projects
were in progress at 751 NPL sites, compared with
1,196 RI/FSs and RAs at 750 NPL sites at the end of
FY91. FY92 projects included 920 RI/FSs and 354
RAs. As required by CERCLA Sections 301 (h)( 1 )(B),
(C), and (F), a listing of projects in progress at the end
of FY92 is provided in Appendix A, along with their
projected completion schedule. There were also 412
RDs in progress at the end of FY92, compared with
374 RDs in progress at the end of FY91. A listing of
all RDs in progress at the end of FY92 is provided in
Appendix B.
42
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.1-5
Comparison of Remedial Action
Starts
FY91 FY92
RA Starts
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Lead
FY91
FY92
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
35%
65%
30%
70%
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
51-013-30K
Of the 1,274 RI/FS and RA projects in progress
at the end of the FY92, 208 were on schedule. In
addition, 45 projects were ahead of schedule and 322
projects were started during the fiscal year. Projects
behind schedule totaled 596, and 103 projects had no
previously published estimated date of completion.
Exhibit 5.1-6 identifies the number of projects in
progress at the end of FY91 and FY92 at NPL sites
by lead.
PRPs were conducting 481 of the RI/FS and RA
projects in progress at the end of FY92, including
310 RI/FSs and 171 RAs. Of these 481 PRP-financed
projects, 74 were on schedule. In addition, 11 projects
were ahead of schedule and 121projects were started
during the fiscal year. Projects behind schedule
totaled 238, and 37 projects had no previously
published estimated date of completion.
The status of RI/FSs and RAs in progress is
based on a comparison of each project's planned
completion date in the CERCL A Information System
(CERCLIS) at the end of FY91 with the planned
completion date in CERCLIS at the end of FY92. An
initial completion schedule is included when a
remedial activity is entered into CERCLIS. Minimal
site-specific information is available when the initial
completion schedule is determined, 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.
5.2 REMEDY SELECTION
The Agency signed 172 RODs in FY92, including
126 new and amended RODs for Fund-financed and
PRP- financed sites and 46 RODs for federal facility
sites.
The ROD documents the results of all studies
performed on the site, lists the remedies selected to
clean up the site, and identifies each remedial
alternative that the Agency considered. The ROD is
signed after completion of the RI/FS, and after the
public has had the chance to comment on the remedial
alternatives under consideration. The Agency selected
a variety of remedies in fiscal year RODs, based on
a careful analysis of characteristics unique to each
site and the proximity of each site to people and
sensitive environments. (Wetlands and endangered
wildlife are examples of environmental resources
that are taken into consideration when evaluating
remedies.)
Congress, with the enactment of SARA, sent
EPA a clear message to give preference to treatment
rather than containment remedies. Exhibit 5.2-1 lists
the number and types of source control treatment and
containment remedies selected in FY92 RODs. It
also identifies the number of remedies selected for
addressing contaminated ground water.
Exhibit 5.2-2 represents the 172 FY92 RODs by
percentage comparison based on the type of remedies
selected.
The list of the 172 RODs signed during FY92 is
provided in Appendix C. To fulfill the requirement
of CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(A) to provide an
abstract of each feasibility study (e.g., ROD), a
summary of each FY92 ROD is available in the
publication ROD Annual Report FY1992.
43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 5.1-6
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead
for Fiscal Year 1991 and Fiscal Year 1992
Fund- Financed— State-Lead
Fund-Financed—Federal-Lead1
Fund-Financed— EPA Performs Work at Site2
PRP-Financed and PRP-Lead
Mixed Funding— Monies from Fund and PRPs
PRP-Financed— State Order and EPA Oversight3
State Enforcement
Federal Facility
Total
RI/FS
FY91 FY92
42 37
181 153
19 15
253 259
0 2
65 51
0 3
329 400
889 920
RDs
FY91 FY92
22 22
121 104
3 4
186 233
5 3
15 15
0 0
22 31
374 412
RAs
FY91 FY92
29 29
103 105
2 2
133 151
6 7
14 .20
0 0
20 40
307 354
1 Includes remedial program-lead projects and enforcement program-lead projects.
f Projects at which EPA employees, rather than contractors, perform the site clean-up work.
J Projects where site clean-up work is financed and performed by the PRPs under state order, with EPA oversight.
Sources: Progress Toward Implementing Superiund: FY91 (Appendices A and B) and FY92 (Appendices A and B). 51-013-180
5.3 REMEDIAL INITIATIVES
Continuing efforts initiated under the 30-Day
Study to streamline remedial activities, the Agency
worked to develop presumptive remedies, standard
soil trigger levels, and guidance defining
"construction completion" site status. The Agency
also issued a final directive on ground-water
remediation.
30-Day Study Initiatives
The 30-Day Study Task Force recommended
several measures to improve remedial activities.
Presumptive Remedy Selection: Presumptive
remedies will streamline the remedy selection
process by identifying standard remedies for
specific types of sites. The Agency began to
work to develop guidance on presumptive
remedies during FY92. The public, state, or
PRPs may also propose use of other approaches
based on site-specific technical information
or on local or state concerns.
Standardized Soil Trigger Levels: The 30-
Day Study Task Force found that the existing
procedure for establishing differentsoil clean-
up levels for each site was complex and time-
consuming. To expedite the process, the
Agency began developing methods for
determining standard soil trigger levels,
which may serve as clean-up levels under
certain circumstances. During FY92, the
Agency began work on soil trigger levels for
the top 30 priority chemicals found at
Superfund sites.
Construction Completion Policy: On
February 19, 1992, EPA announced new
procedures for defining the construction
completion category for NPL sites (Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Directive 9320.2-3C).
"Construction completion" is a single
44
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-1
Summary of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1992 Records of Decision1
Source Control Remediation T(*al Number of
Treatment Technology2 occurrences
Thermal Destruction/Incineration 10
Immobilization 37
In situ Vacuum/Vapor Extraction 20
Soil Washing 4
Thermal Desorption 4
Bioremediatiorf 13
To Be Determined/Unspecified Treatment 13
In situ Vitrification 0
Dechlorination 0
Soil Flushing 4
Volatilization/Aeration 0
Solvent Extraction 1
Chemical Treatment 1
TOTAL 107
Other Treatment
Decontamination 18
Recovery/Recycling 9
Surface Water Treatment 20
NAPLs Treatment 8
Gas Flaring 4
TOTAL 59
Containment Only
On-site 21
Off-site 8
TOTAL 29
Other Actions (e.g., Institutional Controls, Relocation) 7
_ Total Number of
Contaminated Ground-Water Remediation Occurrences
Active Restoration
Physical/Chemical 139
Biological 1 o
To Be Determined/Unspecified Treatment 18
Publicly Owned Treatment Works 12
TOTAL 179
Alternate Water Supply 7
Natural Attenuation 12
Leachate Treatment 1 o
Containment* 8
Other Actions (Institutional Controls) 5
No Further Action 25
1 Based on 172 FY92 RODs, including 46 federal facility RODs and 8 ROD amendments, includes 85 final and 34 interim
action RODs, and 25 no action RODs; more than one remedy may be associated with a ROD.
2 Includes primary and contingent treatment technologies. Data reflects occurrences of technologies as selected in the
119 RODs that addressed source control; more than one technology may be associated with a ROD.
3 Includes in situ and ex situ processes.
4 Includes management of migration.
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Hazardous Site Control Division
51-013-41E
45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 5.2-2
Percentage Distribution of Remedies Selected
In Fiscal Year 1992 Records of Decision12
No action
(25 RODS)
15%
Other6
(7 RODs)
Treatment with and
without on-site and off-site
containment of residuals3l4
(50 RODs)
29%
Ground-water
remedy only
(28 RODs)5
16%
Containment as a
primary component
(26 RODs)
15%
SOURCE
CONTROL
(119 RODs)
Treatment as a principal
component and containment
of separate areas3
(36 RODs)
21%
1 Based on 172 FY92 RODs, including 46 federal facility RODs and 8 ROD amendments.
Many sites require more than one type of action to mitigate threats identified.
3 Includes treatment trains for source.
4 Many treatments yield a residual that may require further management.
5 Includes containment, institutional controls, restoration, and alternate water supply remedies.
6 Includes institutional controls, monitoring, or relocation remedies.
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Hazardous Site Control Division.
51-013-42J
category in which all completed sites can be
listed. Sites may be placed into the construction
completion category when all necessary
physical construction of the remedy is
complete, whether or not final clean-up levels
have been achieved; EPA has determined that
the response action should be limited to
measures that do not involve construction; or
the site qualifies for deletion or has been
deleted from the NPL.
Additional information on these initiatives is
provided in Chapter 1.
Final Directive on Ground-Water
Remediation
InMay 1992, OSWERissued an updated ground-
water remediation policy directive entitled,
Considerations in Ground-Water Remediation at
Superfund Sites andRCRA Facilities—Update. The
final directive builds on previous policies and uses
lessons learned from Superfund clean-up efforts to
address special ground-water clean-up problems
posed by nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
contaminants—organic compounds that do not
readily mix with water. NAPLs, particularly dense
NAPLs (DNAPLs), pose special problems because
46
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
they can be long-term sources of ground-water
contamination. DNAPLs are difficult to locate and
remediate in the subsurface.
The policy promotes a consistent remedial
approach at both Superfund sites and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective
action facilities. The policy provides
recommendations concerning site characterization
approaches, appropriate early actions, and remedial
approaches.
5.4 USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
CERCLA requires that EPA give preference to
treatment remedies that reduce the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of waste at a site. To ensure that a broad
range of treatment technologies is available for use
at Superfund sites, the Agency works to expand the
pool of proven, cost-effective, and technically sound
innovative treatment technologies and increase the
availability of, and access to, information about
them.
The Office of Research and Development (ORD)
contributes to the development of treatment
technologies through its Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. As part of
this program, ORD invites technology developers to
demonstrate new, innovative technologies on waste
from NPL sites. ORD also awards research grants
and contracts through its Office of Exploratory
Research (OER).
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 projectmanagers, engineers,
academics, contractors, and other interested parties
to the availability of new technologies. ORD also
supports 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.
5.4.1 The Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program
In 1986, to help satisfy the CERCLA requirement
for preference of treatment remedies, EPA's OSWER
and ORD established the SITE program. ORD's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, administers the
SITE program. The goal of the program is the
development, demonstration, and subsequent
application of new treatment technologies.
The SITE program, in its seventh year as of
FY92, has been an integral part of EPA's research
into alternative clean-up methods for hazardous waste
sites. Under the program, EPA awards cooperative
agreements (CAs) to technology developers. These
developers then refine their innovative technologies
during bench- or pilot-scale tests and may demonstrate
them, with support from EPA, at hazardous waste
sites. EPA collects and publishes engineering,
performance, and cost data on the technologies tested
through the program to aid in future decision making
for hazardous waste site remediation.
The successful implementation of innovative
technologies requires a team approach. SITE program
staff members work closely with EPA's Regional
offices, states, technology developers, the Superfund
Technology Assistance Response Team, and OSWER
to provide technology demonstrations and to
disseminate information. The SITE program also
uses EPA research facilities, such as the Test and
Evaluation Facility and the Center Hill Facility in
Cincinnati, Ohio, to evaluate innovative technologies.
Operational Areas
The SITE program is divided into four operational
areas: emerging technologies, demonstrations,
monitoring/measurement, and technology transfer.
Emerging Technologies Program:EPA provides
technical and financial support to developers for
bench- and pilot-scale testing and evaluating of
innovative technologies that have been, ataminimum,
proven on the conceptual or bench-scale level. The
intent is that, following this initial testing, technologies
will advance to the more rigorous testing of the
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Demonstration Program. The Emerging
Technologies Program compares the applicability
of particular technologies to Superfund site waste
characteristics. Each technology's performance is
documented in a final report, project summary,
and bulletin. In response to the FY91 solicitation,
nine new technologies were accepted in the
Emerging Technologies Program in FY92, bringing
the total number to 53. Exhibit 5.4-1 provides a
percentage breakdown, by treatment technique, of
the technologies tested in the Emerging
Technologies Program through FY92.
Demonstration Program.'Promising innovative
technologies are field-tested on hazardous waste
materials. Engineering and cost data are gathered
on the technologies so that potential users can
assess their applicability to a particular site cleanup.
Data collected during the field demonstration are
used to assess the performance of the technologies,
the potential need for pre- or post-processing of the
waste, applicable types of wastes and waste matrices,
potential operating problems, and approximate capital
and operating costs. During FY92, 19 new
technologies were accepted into the Demonstration
Program, including 8 from the annual request for
proposal, 4 from the Emerging Technologies
Program, 1 developed by EPA, 2 from nominations
by EPA Regional offices and other federal agencies,
and 4 from other sources. As of December 1992, the
program included 94 technology projects, 15 of
which were demonstrated in FY92. Exhibit 5.4-2
provides a percentage breakdown by treatment
technique of technologies in the Demonstration
Program as of FY92.
Exhibit 5.4-1
Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technology Program
Thermal
Destruction 8 (15%)
Chemical
15(28%)
Physical
11 (20%)
Solidification/
Stabilization
Biological
13(24%)
Materials
Handling 4 (8%)
Source: Office of Research and Development
51-013-271
48
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies
Program (MMTP): The goal of this program is to
assess innovative and alternative monitoring,
measurement, and site characterization technologies.
During FY92,14 technologies were demonstrated,
each evaluating one or more monitoring and
measurement techniques.
Technology Transfer Program: Technical
information on innovative technologies in the
Emerging Technologies Program, Demonstration
Program, and MMTP is disseminated through various
activities. The Agency provides this information to
increase the awareness and promote the use of
innovative technologies for assessment and
remediation at Superfund sites, and to encourage
communication among individuals who require up-
to-date technical information.
Fiscal Year 1992 Demonstrations of
Innovative Treatment Technologies
To evaluate new treatment technologies, 14
developers completed 15 field demonstrations during
FY92, bringing the total number of demonstrations
that have been completed under the SITE
Demonstration Program to 44. The demonstrations
completed in FY92 are summarized below.
Accutech Remedial Systems, Inc., has developed
an integrated treatment system incorporating
pneumatic fracturing extraction (PFE) and hot gas
injection (HGI). The system provides a cost-effective
accelerated remedial approach to sites with DNAPL-
contaminated ground-water aquifers. The patented
PFE process, which has been demonstrated at several
sites, increases and equalizes subsurface airflow
Exhibit 5.4-2
Innovative Technologies in the Demonstration Program
Thermal
Desorption
16(17%)
Radioactive
2 (2%)
Materials
Handli
3 (3%)
Solidification/I
Stabilization
11 (12%)
Physical/
Chemical
34 (37%)
Thermal
Destruction
9(10%)
Biological
17(18%)
Other
1 (1%)
Source: Office of Research and Development.
51-013-28
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
within low permeability formations, such as clay
and fractured rock, to enhance contaminant mass
removal. This technology was accepted into the
SITE Demonstration Program in December 1990
and was demonstrated during July and August
1992 at a New Jersey Environmental Qean-Up
Responsibility Act site in South Plainfield, New
Jersey.
Babcockand Wilcox Co. 'Scyclone vitrification
technology is designed forthe combustion ofhighly
contaminated hazardous wastes, such as sludge
and soil containing heavy metals and organic
constituents. The waste may be in solid, soil sludge,
or liquid form. The technology captures heavy
metals in the slag and renders them nonleachable.
An important application of the process is treatment
of soil that contains low-volatility radionuclides.
The technology was accepted into the SITE
demonstration program in August 1991, and the
demonstration was completed in Alliance, Ohio,
in November, 1991.
Bergmann USA's soil and sediment washing
technology separates contaminated particles by
density and grain size. The technology operates on
the hypothesis that most contamination is
concentrated in fine particles and that
contamination of larger particles is generally not
extensive. In this technology, contaminated soil is
screened to remove coarse rock and debris. Water
and chemicals are added to the soil to produce a
slurry feed, which flows to an attrition scrubbing
machine. Rotary trommel screws, dense media
separators, and other equipment create mechanical
and fluid shear stress, removing contaminated silt
and clay from granular soil particles. Different
separation processes then create output streams
consisting of granular soil, silt and clay, and wash
water. This technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in 1991. It was field
evaluated in Toronto, Ontario, in April 1992 and
Saginaw, Michigan, in May 1992.
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc., has developed a
process that uses a specialized truck, a complex
surfactant, and water to clean soil contaminated
with organics. Ancillary equipment includes gravity
oil and water separators, coalescing filters, and a
bioreactor. All equipment used in the process is
mobile, and treatment normally occurs on site. A
single wash removes 85 to 99 percent of hydrocarbon
contamination. High concentrations require
additional washes. The BioGenesis technology,
accepted into the SITE Demonstration Program in
June 1990, was first demonstrated in Santa Monica,
California, in May 1992.
Brice Environmental Services Corporation'ssoti
washing plant is a portable, cost-effective, above-
ground process for reducing the overall volume of
contaminated soil that will require treatment. The
demonstration plant is contained on an 8-by^O-
foot trailer and transported with a pickup truck. The
system uses conventional mineral processing
equipmentfordeagglomeration, density separation,
and material sizing, centered around a patented
process for effective fine particle separation. The
processing rate depends on the percentage of soil
fines in the feed material. The soil washing plant
was accepted into the SITE Demonstration Program
in late 1991. During the SITE demonstration, which
was conducted in late summer 1992 at the Alaskan
Battery Enterprises Superfund site in Fairbanks,
Alaska, the system processed between 2.5 and 5
tons of contaminated soil per hour. The unit can,
however, operate at up to 20 tons per hour.
Canonie EnvironmentalServiceshas developed
a low-temperature desorption process known as
low temperature thermal aeration (LTTA)
technology. It removes organic contaminants from
soil into a contained air stream, which is extensively
treated to either collect the contaminants or to
thermally destroy them. A direct-fired rotary dryer
is used to heat the air stream which, by direct
contact, desorbs water and organic contaminants
from the soil. A second air stream treatment system
can treat soil containing high concentrations of
petroleum hydrocarbons. The treated soil, after
meeting the treatment criteria, can be backfilled on
site without restrictions. The process generates no
waste water or waste soil. The LTTA technology
was accepted into the SITE Demonstration Program
in summer 1992. A demonstration was performed
50
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
on soil contaminated with organochlorine pesticides
at a pesticide site in Arizona during September 1992.
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.'s
"PO*WW*ER" technology is used for treatment
and volume reduction of complex industrial and
hazardous waste waters containing mixtures of
inorganic salts, metals, volatile and nonvolatile
organics, volatile inorganics, and radionuclides. The
proprietary technology combines evaporation with
catalytic oxidation to concentrate and destroy
contaminants, producing high-quality water. The
"PO*WW*ER" technology treats a wide spectrum
of contaminants, produces high-quality effluent,
destroys volatile pollutants, and achieves a high-
volume reduction. The technology was accepted into
the SITE Demonstration Program in 1991. It was
tested on landfill leachate in September 1992 at the
developer's pilot plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana.
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., has also
developed the "X*TRAX" technology, a thermal
desorption process that removes organic
contaminants from soil, sludge, and other solid media.
It is not an incinerator or a pyroly si s system. Chemical
oxidation and reactions are not encouraged, and no
combustion by-products are formed. The organic
contaminants are removed as a condensed liquid,
characterized by a high heat rating, which may then
be either destroyed in a permitted incinerator or used
as a supplemental fuel. Because of low operating
temperatures and gas flow rates, this process is less
expensive than incineration. This technology was
accepted into the SITE Demonstration Program in
summer 1989. EPA conducted a SITEdemonstration
of the technology at the Re-solve, Inc., Superfund
site in Massachusetts in May 1992.
EPOC Water, Inc. 'Sprecipitation, microfiltration,
and sludge dewatering treatment process uses a
combination of processes to treat a variety of wastes.
In the first step of the process, heavy metals are
chemicallyprecipitated. Precipitates and all particles
larger than 0.1 to 0.2 micron are filtered through a
unique fabric crossflow microfilter (EXXFLOW).
The concentrate stream is then dewatered in an
automatic tubular filter press of the same fabric
material (EXXPRESS). The EXXFLOW/
EXXPRESS demonstration unit, which is
transportable and mounted on skids, is designed to
process approximately 30 pounds of solids per hour
and 10 gallons of waste water per minute. The
technology was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in 1989. Bench-scale tests
were conducted in 1990, and the SITE demonstration
was conducted in May 1992 on highly acidic mine
drainage at the Iron Mountain Superfund site in
Redding, California.
Peroxidation Systems, Inc., designed the perox-
pure technology to destroy dissolved organic
contaminants in ground waterorwaste waterthrough
an advanced chemical oxidation process using
ultraviolet (UV) radiation and hydrogen peroxide.
Hydrogen peroxide is added to the contaminated
water, and the mixture is then fed into the treatment
system. UV light catalyzes chemical oxidation of
organic contaminants in water by its combined effect
upon the organics and reaction with hydrogen
peroxide. Many organic contaminants that absorb
UV light may undergo a change in their chemical
structure or become more reactive with chemical
oxidants. More importantly, UV light catalyzes the
breakdown of hydrogen peroxide to produce hydroxyl
radicals, which are powerful chemical oxidants.
Hydroxyl radicals react with organic contaminants,
destroying them and producing harmless by-products
such as carbon dioxide, halides, and water. The
process produces no hazardous by-products or air
emissions. This technology was accepted into the
SITE Demonstration Program in April 1991. A
demonstration took place in September 1992 at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300
Superfund site.
Resources Conservation Company developed
the Basic Extraction Sludge Technology ("BEST')
process, a mobile solvent extraction system that uses
one or more secondary or tertiary amines to separate
organics from solids and sludges. The BEST process
begins by mixing and agitating the cold solvent and
waste in a cold extraction tank. Solids from the cold
extraction tank are transferred to the extractor/dryer,
a horizontal steam-jacketed vessel with rotating
paddles. The solvent mixture created by this process
is then heated. As the mixture's temperature increases,
the water separates from the organics and solvent.
51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
The organics-solvent fraction is decanted and sent
to a stripping column, where the solvent is recycled.
The organics are discharged for recycling or
disposal, and the water is passed to a second
stripping column where residual solvent is
recovered for recycling. The water is then typically
discharged to a local waste-water treatment plant.
The BEST technology was accepted into the SITE
Program in 1987, and was demonstrated in July
1992 at the Grand Calumet River.
Roy F. Weston has developed the low-
temperature thermal treatment (LT) system that
thermally desorbs organic compounds from
contaminated soil without heating the soil to
combustion temperatures. The LT system consists
of three parts: soil treatment, emissions control,
and water treatment. Accepted into the SITE
demonstration program in September 1991, the
system was demonstrated as part of a proof-of-
process test for full-scale remediation of lagoon
sludge at a Superfund site in Adrian, Michigan,
during November and December 1991.
RREUUniversity of Cincinnati developed a
hydraulic fracturing process that creates fractures
in silty clay soil to enhance the permeability. The
technology creates sand-filled horizontal fractures
up to one inch in thickness and 20 feet in radius.
These fractures are then placed at multiple depths
ranging from 5 to 30 feet below ground surface to
enhance the efficiency of treatment technologies
such as soil vapor extraction,m situ bioremediation,
and pump-and-treat systems. The technology was
accepted into the SITE program in July 1991 and
was demonstrated in Cincinnati, Ohio, in September
1992.
So/7TecM IPs/Stems,/nc.'Sanaerobicthermal
processor is a thermal desorption process.
Contaminated soil, sludge, and liquid are heated
and mixed in a special, indirectly fired rotary kiln.
The unit desorbs, collects, and recondenses
hydrocarbons and other pollutants found in
contaminated material. The unit can also be used
in conjunction with a dehalogenation process to
destroy halogenated hydrocarbons through a
thermal and chemical process. This technology
was accepted into the SITE Demonstration Program
in March 1991, and has been shown at two SITE
demonstrations. At the second demonstration,
completed in June 1992, a full-scale unit remediated
soils at the Outboard Marine Corporation site in
Waukegan, Illinois.
Toronto Harbor Commission has developed a
soil recycling process that removes inorganic and
organic contaminants in soil to produce a reusable
fill material. The process involves three technologi es
operating in a series. The first technology is a soil
washing process that reduces the volume of material
to be treated by concentrating contaminants into a
fine slurry mixture. The second technology removes
heavy metals from the slurry through a process of
metal dissolution. The third technology, chemical
hydrolysis accompanied by a biodegradation process,
destroys organic contaminants concentrated in the
slurry. The three integrated technologies are capable
of cleaning contaminated soil for reuse on industrial
sites. The Toronto Harbor Commission's soil
recycling process was accepted into the SITE
Demonstration Program in 1991. Demonstration
sampling took place in April and May 1992.
5.4.2 Superfund Research Grants
Various sources of funding are available for
Superfund-related research. One of the funding
programs administered by OER is the Research
Grants Program, which 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.
InFY92, the Research Grants Program published
a request for applications (RFA) for "Improved
Pump-and-Treat Processes for Remediation of
Superfund Sites." The major emphasis was on
treating sites polluted by DNAPLs, including some
halogenated organic solvents. Of 32 applications
received in response to the RFA, the peer panel of 20
engineers judged 12 applications to be fundable. The
top five applications were each funded for two years;
total funding was $1.4 million.
52
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
5.4.3 Technical Assistance, Expert
Advice, and Information Transfer
To encourage their use, the Agency has increased
the availability of information on innovative treatment
technologies. The Agency has developed several
electronic information sources, publications, and
training and professional development opportunities
to provide more organized and targeted information.
Electronic Information Sources
The three principal EPA electronic sources of
information on innovative treatment technologies
are the Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Clearinghouse (ATTIC), the Vendor
Information System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISITT), and Clean-Up Information
(CLU-IN):
• ATTIC, developed and implemented by ORD,
integrates hazardous waste data in a centralized,
searchable source thatmay be accessed by federal,
state, and public sector users. By the end of
F$92, ATTIC contained data from more than
2,400 references. Since its inception in 1989,
user requests to ATTIC have increased from 120
to more than 1,000 per month.
• VISITT contains vendor-submitted performance
and cost information. As of FY92, VISITT
included information on 155 innovative treatment
technologies offered by 97 developers and
vendors. TIO provides this database on diskettes
to interested potential users of innovative
technologies. Since its initial development in
FY91, TIO has distributed nearly 7,000 diskettes.
• CLU-IN's electronic bulletin board services
offer a variety of information pertaining to
innovative treatment technologies, including
Federal Register notices regarding hazardous
waste, listings of EPA publications, training
program schedules, information on requests
for proposals for environmental clean-up
work, and a directory of EPA hazardous waste
site clean-up experts.
Publications
TIO and ORD have developed a number of
publications that provide information on new
developments and the application of innovative
treatment technologies:
Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-
Annual Status Report is a booklet that
documents the selection and use of innovative
treatment technologies at Superfund sites and
provides technical background information.
The booklet is designed to enhance
communication between vendors, experienced
technology users, and those who are
considering innov ati ve treatment technologies
to clean up contaminated sites.
• Tech Trends and Ground-Water Currents are
two quarterly bulletins published by TIO on
soil remediation technologies and ground-
water remediation technologies, respectively.
As of FY92, these newsletters were being
distributed to more than 9,000 interested
subscribers, including federal and state project
managers, consulting engineers, and PRPs.
• Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: A Developer's Guide to Support
Services provides information to developers
to assist them in developing, testing, and
commercializing innovative technologies.
• Citizen's Guides to Innovative Treatment
Technologies'^ a 10-volume set of publications
directed toward community leaders and the
interested public. The guides provide basic,
readable information on technologies thatmay
be used to clean up Superfund, RCRA
corrective action, or underground storage tank
sites. The guides are available in both English
and Spanish.
Training and Professional Development
Opportunities
TIO works with the Airand Waste Management
Association, the Hazardous Waste Action
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Coalition, and several other organizations to
develop satellite video seminars on innovative
treatment technologies. The seminars are
downlinked to more than 60 locations in the United
States and Canada. The four-hour seminars are
targeted at federal, state, and private project
managers and feature panels of technical experts
in a question-and-answer format Video topics
offered through FY92 included bioremediation,
bioventing, soil-vapor extraction, and thermal
desorption.
In another training initiative, EPA, the
California Environmental Protection Agency, the
Department of Energy, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers hosted a conference, The Fourth
Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: Domestic and International, in
November 1992. The aim of the conference was to
increase the awareness in the user community of
technologies that are available for application.
Through technical papers and poster displays, the
conference introduced domestic and international
innovativehazardous waste treatment technologies.
Conference attendance has increased over time:
approximately 800 people attended the conference
in 1991 and more than 1,100 people attended in
1992.
5.5 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 121(c) requires
that EPA review sites where the Agency selected
such a remedy no less often than every five years
after the 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 required facilities for which periodic reviews
are required, the results of all the reviews, and any
action taken as a result of the reviews. F Y92 was the
second year in which sites became eligible for the
five-year review.
The Agency has issued guidance entitled
Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews,
which 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)
and policy reviews (those that EPA will implement
as a matter of policy). EPA also issued a fact sheet on
five-year review guidance to reinforce the guidance.
By the end of FY92, EPA had conducted a total
of seven five-year reviews (six more than were
reflected in the report for FY91). The six additional
reviews were conducted by Region 1 at the Auburn
Road Landfill in New Hampshire and at the McKin
Company site in Maine; by Region 5 at the FMC
Corporation and the Kummer Sanitary Landfill in
Minnesota; and by Region 8 at the Rose Park Sludge
Pit in Utah and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in
Colorado. Three of the reviews were statutory
(AubumRoad, Kummer SanitaryLandfill, and Rocky
Mountain Arsenal). Three were policy reviews (FMC
Corporation, McKin Company, andRosePark Sludge
Pit). At all of these sites, EPA determined that the
remedies remain protective of human health and the
environment. EPA will conduct future five-year
reviews consistent with CERCLA Section 121 (c)
and Agency guidance.
At the Auburn Road site, the Kummer Sanitary
Landfill, the McKin Company site, and the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, no recommendations for action
were necessary as a result of the five-year reviews.
At the FMC Corporation site, the Region
recommended to continue O & M activities under
way. At the Rose Park Sludge Pit, the Region
recommended developmentof more enforceable deed
and land use restrictions. Subsequently, those
restrictions were negotiated, and the site was proposed
for deletion from the NPL.
54
-------
Chapter 6
Enforcement Accomplishments
The Superfund enforcement program uses the
provisions of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, to
maximize the involvement of potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) in the clean-up process. The goals of
the program are continuing to maintain high levels of
PRP participation in conducting and financing
cleanups through EPA's aggressive use of statutory
authority; ensuring fairness and equity; and
recovering Superfund monies expended by EPA for
response actions.
FY92 accomplishments illustrate the growing
success of the enforcement program. For the third
consecutive year, EPA achieved enforcement
agreements with PRPs worth more than $ 1 billion in
PRP response work. PRPs financed more than 70
percent of the remedial designs (RDs) and remedial
actions (R As) started during the fiscal year. Through
its cost recovery program, EPA collected $185.3
million in FY92 for reimbursement of Superfund
expenditures, an increase of 122 percent over the
$83.4 million collected in FY91.
The Agency began several initiatives in FY92 to
improve the enforcementprocess. The Agency issued
guidance for earlyde minimis settlements to expedite
and improve the negotiation process and to reduce
transaction costs, finalized the lender liability rule to
clarify CERCLA's secured creditor exemption, and
proposed a comprehensive new rule in an effort to
standardize and streamline cost recovery efforts.
6.1 THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
The Superfund program integrates enforcement
and remediation activities. To initiate the enforcement
process, EPA identifies PRPs, attempts to negotiate
an agreement with them to perform or pay for the
cleanup, enters into a settlement if they agree, and
oversees the work performed under the settlement If
the PRPs do not settle, EPA conducts the cleanup
using Superfund monies and later pursues a cost
recovery action against the PRPs, or issues aunilateral
administrative order (UAO) compelling them to
perform the cleanup. These steps are fundamental to
obtaining PRP involvement in conducting response
activities and recovering expended Trust Fund
monies. The enforcement process is explained in
more detail below.
• When a site is being proposed to the National
Priorities List (NPL) or a removal action is
required, EPA conducts a PRP search to identify
parties that may be liable for site cleanup. PRPs
include present and past owners or operators of
the site, generators of waste disposed of at the
site, and transporters who selected the site for
disposal of hazardous waste.
EPA notifies parties of their potential liability
for future response work and for any past
response costs incurred by the government. This
begins the negotiation process.
• EPA attempts to encourage PRPs to undertake
clean-up activities at the beginning of clean-up
phases, specifically the start of removal actions,
remedial investigation/feasibility studies
(RI/FSs), or remedial design/remedial actions
(RD/RAs). If PRPs are willing to and capable of
doing the response work, the Agency will attempt
to negotiate an agreement for them to conduct
and finance proposed clean-up work and to pay
for past government costs. An agreement for an
RA must be in the form of a judicial consent
55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 6
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
CD Consent Decree
DOJ Department of Justice
NPL National Priorities List
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RD. Remedial Design
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
SACM Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
TCE Trichtoroethylene
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
decree (CD) entered by a federal district court.
An agreement for a removal action or RD may
also be in the form of an administrative order on
consent (AOC) issued by a Regional
Administrator. Both of these agreements are
enforceableinacourtoflaw. When PRPs conduct
the response work under these agreements, EPA
oversees the PRPs' work. PRPs who settle may
seek contribution toward the cleanup from non-
settjing PRPs through third-party litigation.
If a settlement is not reached, CERCLA Section
106 provides EPA with the authority to issue a
UAO requiring the PRPs to conduct the cleanup
or, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), to
bring suit to compel PRPs to perform the work.
If the Agency issues a UAO and the PRPs do not
comply, the Agency has the option of filing a
lawsuit to compel the performance specified in
the order. The Agency may impose statutory
penalties under CERCLA Section 106 for non-
compliance with a UAO, as well as treble
damages under CERCLA Section 107(c)(3).
If PRPs do not perform the response action and
the site is cleaned up using Superfund monies,
EPA will file suit through DOJ, when practicable,
to recover the money spent. Many of these suits
to recover past costs will also include EPA
claims for estimated future costs. Any money
recovered from the PRPs is returned to the Trust
Fund.
6.2 FISCAL YEAR 1992
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In FY92, the list of Superfund enforcement
accomplishments continued to grow.
6.2.1 Settlements for Response
Activities
The Agency reached 241 settlements (CDs,
AOCs, or UAOs in compliance) with PRPs for
response activities, worth more than $1.4 billion.*
This was the third consecutive year that annual
response settlements exceeded $1 billion. Exhibit
6.2-1 compares the response settlements achieved in
FY91 and FY92. The Agency has achieved a total of
more than $7.6 billion in response settlements under
the Superfund program through FY92.
Of the 241 response settlements achieved, 90
settlements, worth more than $1.2 billion, were for
RD/RAs. The RD/RA settlements consisted of 42
CDs forRD/RAs,45 UAOs for RD/RAs where PRPs
were in compliance, and 3 AOCs for RDs. These
settlements are a result of the lOORD/RAnegotiations
started and 116 completed by EPA during the fiscal
year.
The Agency issued a total of 110 UAOs during
FY92,including48 for RD/RAs. The Agency entered
a total of 135 AOCs, including the 3 for RDs. The
total UAOs issued and AOCs entered include
agreements for removal actions, RI/FSs, RDs, and
RD/RAs.
6.2.2 PRP Participation in Clean-Up
Activities
Exhibit 6.2-2 illustrates the dramatic increase
in the participation of PRPs in undertaking and
* Although UAOs are not technically settlements, EPA
considers them settlements because EPA utilizes UAOs to
accomplish PRP response.
56
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 6.2-1
Estimated Value of PRP Response Settlements
(in Millions)
FY91
FY92
Settlement Totals
FY80 to FY92
Total RD/RA
Settlements FY80 to FY92: $6,113.3
Total Other Response
Actions FY80 to FY92: $1,571.4
Total Response ~~~"~~~
Settlements FY80 to FY92: $7,684.7
Other Response Actions
Cleanup Design and
Construction (RD/RA)
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
51-013-34F
financing RDs and RAs since the enactment of
SARA in 1986. During FY92, PRPs continued to
finance and conduct an increasing percentage of
the RDs and RAs undertaken by EPA or PRPs at
NPL sites.
PRPs started sli ghtly more than 70 percent of the
RDs in FY92, compared to slightly less than 70
percent inFY91;and
• PRPs started more than 70 percent of the RAs in
FY92, compared to nearly 65 percent in FY91.
PRPs started fewer RI/FSs in FY92 than in
FY91. PRPs undertook 50 percent of the RI/FSs in
FY92, compared to 70 percent of the RI/FSs in
FY91.
6.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements
During FY92, EPA and DO J achieved settlements
worth $250.6 million for recovery of Trust Fund
expenditures. These FY92 settlements represent
more than 30 percent of the total $842.9 million
achieved in cost recovery settlements under the
program and a 74 percent increase over the $144.3
million in settlements reached in FY91. Included in
FY92 settlements were 83 administrative cost
recovery settlements worth $24.1 million. Exhibit
6.2-3 illustrates cost recovery settlement
accomplishments for FY91, FY92, and program-to-
date.
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 6.2-2
Increase in the Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions Started
by PRPs Since the Enactment of SARA
FY87
Remedial Design Starts
FY89
FY92
Remedial Action Starts
Fund-Financed Hi PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
51-013-3SF
EPA collected $185.3 million on cost recovery
settlements, bankruptcy settlements, and other
sources. These FY92 collections represent a 122
percent increase over the $83.4 million collected in
FY91 and 34 percent of the $546.3 million collected
by EPA under the program-to-date. Exhibit 6.2-4
illustrates cost recovery collections forFY91, FY92
and program-to-date.
6.3 SUCCESS IN REACHING AND
ENFORCING AGREEMENTS
WITH PRPs
During FY92, the EPA Offices of Regional
Counsel and Regional Waste Management Divisions,
working in conjunction with the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, Office of Enforcement, and
DOJ, entered into a number of enforcement
agreements with PRPs, establishing several major
enforcement precedents. Examples of significant
CDsforRD/RAs, UAOs, CDs for cost recovery, and
AOCs for de minimis settlements under CERCLA
Section 122(g) are described below.
6.3.1 Consent Decrees for Remedial
Design/Remedial Action
Dover Municipal Landfill, New Hampshire
(Region 1):EPA reached an agreement with25 PRPs
at the Dover Municipal Landfill in Strafford County,
New Hampshire. The CD was referred to DOJ on
June 4,1992, and was lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire on
58
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 6.2-3
Cost Recovery Settlements
(in Millions)
W
o
Q
FY91
FY92
Total FY80 through FY92: $842.9
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement.
51-013-36E
Exhibit 6.2-4
Cost Recovery Collections
(in Millions)
o
"o
Q
FY91
FY92
Total FY80 through FY92: $546.3
Source: CERCLIS; Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement.
51-013-37H
August 7,1992. The estimated value of the settlement
is $31.6 million, representing future response costs
and most of EPA's past costs. Some of the parties
have agreed to perform the work at the site, and
others, as "cash-out" defendants, are required to
contribute to the cost of the cleanup. The work to be
performed at the site includes installing a landfill cap
with a leachate collection and treatment system and
constructing a ground-water pump and treat system.
The clean-up action is designed to remove volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metal
contaminants from ground water and surface water
on and near the site.
New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts (Region 1):
On August 21,1992, a CD was referred to DOJ, and
on September 4,1992, DOJ lodged the CD with the
U. S. District Coun for the District of Massachusetts,
settling claims for clean-up costs, injunctive relief,
and natural resource damages at the New Bedford
Harbor site. Under this cash-out agreement, Federal
Pacific Electric Company and Cornell Dubilier
Electronic, Inc., will pay $21 million. This sum
includes $1 million plus accrued interest for EPA's
past clean-up costs; $ 10 million, plus accrued interest,
for environmental damage and restoration costs
incurred by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Massachusetts Secretary of
Environmental Affairs; and $10 million to fund
EPA's future cleanup and natural resource restoration.
The primary contaminants of concern at the site are
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and metals,
including lead.
Marathon Battery, New York (Region 2): On
September 30,1992, EPA referred a CD to DOJ after
successfully reaching an agreement with three PRPs
to clean up the 60 acre Marathon Battery site in Cold
59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Spring, New York. DOJ lodged the CD with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York
on January 6, 1993, and the court entered the
agreement on January 17,1993. Under the terms of
the CD, Gould Incorporated will perform the
comprehensive cleanup, and Marathon Battery
Corporation and the U.S. Army will help to finance
the work, estimated to cost $100 million. The three
PRPs have also agreed to reimburse EPA for
$9 million in past costs. The cleanup, which will be
performed under EPA oversight, will address three
distinct areas of the site and include treatment of
cadmium-contaminated sediment and soil.
Sangamo Weston/Twelve Mile Creek/Lake
HartwellSite, SouthCarolina(Region4):On April 15,
1992, EPA reached a successful agreement with
Schlumberger Industries, Inc., to fund and perform
the first phase of comprehensive clean-up actions at
the former disposal area, located in Pickens County,
South Carolina. Under the terms of the CD, which
was referred to DOJ on March 4,1992, and lodged
with the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, the
PRP will perform clean-up work estimated to cost
$47.9 million, reimburse EPA for 100 percent of
more than $0.7 million in past costs, and pay EPA's
future oversight costs at the site. A unique aspect of
the settlement is that Schlumberger agreed to
implement any remedy that EPA selected. The
Agency has chosen an alternative technology called
low thermal desorption. Schlumberger also agreed
to pay for further remedial action using standard
technologies should the innovative method prove
ineffective. Soil and ground water at the site are
contaminated with PCBs.
G & H Landfill, Michigan (Region 5): EPA
successfully reached an agreement with PRPs for
clean-up actions at the G & H Landfill site in Macomb
County, Michigan. The CD was referred to DOJ on
June 30, 1992, and lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
September 10,1992. Under this settlement, 14 PRPs
will conduct and pay for cleanup, which is estimated
to cost $40 million. The parties also agreed to
reimburse EPA for approximately 50 percent of past
response costs, or approximately $2.5 million.
Through this settlement and previous settlements at
the site, EPA has recovered all of its past costs and
has succeeded in gaining the PRPs' cooperation in
performing cleanup of PCBs and heavy metal
contamination and in paying for future EPA oversight
costs.
Hunt's Disposal Landfill, Wisconsin (Region 5):
EPA successfully reached an agreement with 40
PRPs to pay for and perform the cleanup of the 35
acre Hunt's Disposal site in Caledonia, Wisconsin.
The CD was referred to DOJ on March 27,1992, and
lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on April 21, 1992. Under the
terms of the settlement, the parties will perform and
pay for the cleanup, which is estimated to cost $21
million, including future EPA oversight costs. In
addition, the PRPs will reimburse EPA for 100
percent of its past response costs incurred at the site,
or approximately $1.5 million. The comprehensive
cleanup addresses soil, ground water, and surface
water contaminated with heavy metals and VOCs.
6.3.2 Unilateral Administrative Orders
General Motors Corporation (Central Foundry
Division), New York (Region 2J:The EPA Region 2
Administrator issued two UAOs to the General
Motors Corporation (GM), requiring the company to
clean up its 270 acre GM/Central Foundry site in
Massena, New York. The first UAO, which was
issued on March 31,1992, addresses the cleanup of
sediment in the St. Lawrence River and river basin,
contaminated soil on the neighboring St. Regis
Mohawk Reservation and on the GM Property, four
lagoon areas, and the East Disposal Area. The work
to be conducted under this order is estimated to cost
$78 million. The second UAO, issued on August 18,
1992, requires GM to clean up a 12 acre landfill and
the North Disposal Area. The estimated value of this
work is $45 million. GM is complying with the
UAOs.
Thermo-Chem, Inc., Michigan (Region 5): On
May 6, 1992, the EPA Region 5 Administrator
issued a UAO requiring 20 PRPs to conduct and pay
for the cleanup at one portion of the Thermo-Chem
disposal site, located in Muskegon County, Michigan.
60
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
The estimated value of the work is $24.2 million. The
clean-up plan involves excavating contaminated soil
and extracting contaminated ground water. The
primary contaminants of concern are VOCs, including
trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, and xylene. The
PRPs are complying with the UAO.
Denver Radium, Operable Unit 8, Colorado
(Region 8): On August 21,1992, the EPA Region 8
Administrator issued a UAO to the Shattuck Chemical
Company to pay for and perform the cleanup of its
property. The total estimated cost of the cleanup is
$26 million, and the PRP is complying with the
order.
The site, Denver Radium, is located in the Denver
metropolitan area and consists of 44 separate
properties, including the Shattuck Chemical area
that is contaminated with radioactive sands and
waste. Under the terms of the UAO, the PRP is
dismantling several buildings on the site and shipping
radioactive debris to a secure, off-site facility. In
addition, radioactive soils both on the site and on
nearby properties will be excavated, solidified with
cement^or another hardening agent, disposed of on
site, and capped. Ground water is also being
monitored. Under EPA supervision, PRPs will
conduct long-term monitoring of the site to assure
clean-up levels are met.
Gould, Inc., Oregon (Region 10): The EPA
Region 10 Administrator issued a UAO to seven
PRPs on January 22,1992, directing them to clean up
the 14 acre Gould, Inc., site in Portland, Oregon. In
compliance with the order, the PRPs will pay for and
clean up the first operable unit, which consists of
contaminated soil and sediment. The total estimated
value of the work is $19.4 million, including future
oversight costs of $0.7 million.
At the site, soil and sediment are contaminated
with high levels of lead, chromium, and arsenic,
which were released during nearly four decades of
lead smelting activities and lead-acid battery disposal.
The PRPs are currently excavating battery casing
fragments and recycling the components. In addition,
they are required to excavate contaminated soil and
sediment, which will be solidified with a hardening
agent, disposed of on site, and covered with a soil
cap. On-site air monitoring will be conducted to
ensure federal, state, and local air-quality levels are
met.
6.3.3 Consent Decrees for Cost
Recovery
Cannons Engineering, Massachusetts/New
Hampshire (Region 1): In an ongoing enforcement
effort, EPA reached an agreement with six PRPs to
fund clean-up actions at four Superfund sites,
collectively known as the Cannons Sites Group. The
sites are the Cannons Bridgewater facility in
Bridgewater, Massachusetts; the Cannons Plymouth
Harbor site in Plymouth, Massachusetts; the Gilson
Road site in Nashua, New Hampshire; and the
Tinkham's Garage site in Londonderry, New
Hampshire. The CD was referred to DO J on April 29,
1992, and lodged with the U.S District Court for the
First District of Massachusetts on June 26, 1992.
Under the terms of the CD, the PRPs agreed to pay
EPA $5.8 million for past and future response costs.
The primary contaminants affecting soil, surface
water, and ground water at and around the Cannons
Sites Group are VOCs and PCBs. To date, 380
settling parties, including 313 de minimis parties,
have participated in cost recovery settlements with
EPA. The estimated total value of these settlements
is $59.5 million.
Fisher-Calo, Indiana (Region 5): EPA reached a
successful agreement with more than 260 PRPs to
clean up the 250 acre, former solvent processing and
reclaiming facility located in LaPorte County,
Indiana. The CD was referred to DOJ on
December 30,1991, and lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana on
February 27,1992. Under the terms of this agreement,
the parties must pay for and perform site clean-up
activities, which are estimated to cost $31 million,
including future EPA oversight and response costs.
The parties will also reimburse EPA for $3.1 million
in past response cost. The primary contaminants of
concern include PCBs and VOCs. Although EPA
did not specify the use of innovative technologies in
its clean-up plan for treating soil and ground water,
the plan calls for pilot studies of alternative clean-up
61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
methods to be conducted should additional
contamination be found.
MIDCOI and MIDCOII, Indiana (Region 5): On
January 10, 1992, EPA referred a CD for the
MIDCO I and MIDCO II sites in Gary, Indiana, to
DOJ. The CD was lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana on January
31,1992, and entered by the court on June 23,1992.
Under the terms of the CD, which is a combined
settlement for cleanup, 94 parties, including 32 de
minimisparties,agreed to pay past costs and penalties
and to finance and perform future cleanups at both of
these Superfund sites. The parties will reimburse
EPA a total of $5 million for past costs and pay $0.4
million in civil fines. At MIDCO I, the parties will
also perform and pay for the remedy, estimated to
cost $ 10 million. At MIDCO II, the parties agreed to
pay for and perform response actions estimated to
cost $13 million.
Ground water at both sites is highly contaminated
with VOCs (toluene, benzene, and trichloroethylene
(TCE)), as well as isoporone, cyanide, arsenic, lead,
and other metals. PCBs have been detected in
sediment and soil. Since 1981, EPA has undertaken
a series of emergency removal actions, including
removal of drums, tanks, and contaminated soil.
Currently, RD efforts are underway at both sites for
RAs that will include treatment of contaminated soil,
sediment, and ground water.
Summit National, Ohio (Region 5): EPA
successfully reached an agreement with Beazer East
Company to reimburse 98 percent of costs incurred
by EPA at the 11.5 acre, former liquid waste disposal
facility in Deerfield, Ohio. The U.S. District Court
for the District of Ohio entered the CD on February
14,1992. The settlement requires Beazer Company
to reimburse EPA $2.4 million for past costs, plus
$0.2 million in interest In a previous settlement, 64
PRPs agreed to fund and perform a comprehensive
cleanup of contaminated soil, surface water, and
ground water. VOCs are the major contaminants at
the site.
Verona Well Field, Ml (Region 5):EPA reached a
successful agreement with nine PRPs for the
reimbursement of past costs associated with one
portion of the 160 acre weU field. The CD was
entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan on November 15,1991. Under
the terms of the agreement, the parties will reimburse
EPA $11.8 million, representing 100 percent of the
clean-up costs EPA incurred at this portion of the
site. The primary contaminant at this portion is TCE.
Crystal Chemical Co., Texas (Region 6): EPA
reached a successful agreement with the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company and Voluntary
Purchasing Groups Inc., to pay for the cleanup of a
6.8 acre chemical manufacturing facility in Houston,
Texas. The partial CD was referred to DOJ on
January 3, 1992, and lodged with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 2,
1992. Under the terms of the partial CD, the two
PRPs agreed to reimburse the $3 million in response
costs that EPA incurred at the site through January 1,
1992. This sum represents 95 percent of the costs
sought in this case. The primary contaminant at this
site is arsenic, which has contaminated the ground
water, soil, and surface water.
Aidex Corporation, Iowa (Region 7):EPA reached
a successful agreement with eight PRPs to recover
costs incurred during the cleanup of this former
pesticide formulation facility located near Council
Bluffs, Iowa. The CD was lodged with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on
November 20, 1991, and entered by the court on
February 6,1992. Underthe settlement, EPA and the
State of Iowa will each recover 80 percent of their
past costs for the cleanup of pesticide-contaminated
soil, surface water, and ground water at and near the
site. EPA will recover approximately $10.4 million
and the State of Iowa will recover approximately
$0.88 million, including $0.15 million for the cost of
future ground-water monitoring. The primary
contaminants affecting soil, surface water, and
shallow ground water include pesticides, pesticide-
related wastes, and VOCs.
Missouri Electric Works, Missouri (Region 7):
EPA reached a mixed funding settlement with more
than 170 PRPs, including approximately 130 de
minimis settlers and 3 federal agencies (U.S. Army,
U.S. Air Force, and the Defense Logistics Agency),
in connection with the 6.5 acre Missouri Electric
Works site in Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. On
62
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
June 29, 1992, DOJ lodged the CD with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Under the terms of the agreement, the PRPs will pay
fpr comprehensive clean-up actions, estimated to
cost $15 million. In addition, the de minimis PRPs
wjll pay $80,000 toward EPA's total $ 1.2 million in
past costs, which will release them from future
liability. EPA will pay a maximum of 20 percent, or
$3.5 million, toward the cleanup. Also, the Agency
anticipates that it will take future cost recovery
actions against recalcitrant PRPs to recover EPA's
present share, or the "mixed" portion of the
settlement.
PCBs and VOCs affect air, sediment, soil, and
ground water at the site. The EPA-selected remedy
provides for on-site incineration of PCB-
contaminated soil, and pumping and treating of
ground water by air-stripping and carbon adsorption.
Smuggler Mountain, Colorado (Region 8):
Region 8 referred a CD for RD/RA to DOJ on
March 20, 1992, and on May 4, 1992, the CD was
lodged with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. The agreement is for recovery of $3.2
million In clean-up costs incurred at the 116 acre
Smuggler Mountain site in Pitkin County, Colorado,
and represents a cash-out settlement for two PRPs,
the Atlantic Richfield Company and the U.S.
Department of the Interior. The cash-out allows EPA
to recover $1.6 million from each party for past and
future response costs, and exempts the parties from
further responsibility for the clean-up plan. It is
expected that, combined with other cost recovery
actions at the site, the amount paid by each of these
parties will represent 10 percent of the total response
costs. The primary contaminants of concern consist
of various heavy metals from previous mining and
smelting operations at the site.
Indian Bend Wash Area, Arizona (Region 9):
EPA reached an agreement with eight PRPs to
perform the cleanup of the northern section of the
Indian Bend Wash Area site in Maricopa County,
Scottsdale, Tempe, Phoenix, and the Salt River Indian
Reservation, Arizona. The CD was referred to DOJ
on August 21,1992, and lodged with theU.S. District
CouitfortheDistrictofArizonaonDecemberT, 1992.
Under the terms of the agreement, the settling parties
have agreed to reimburse EPA $5.1 million for costs
incurred at the site and to provide $5 million to
implement the remedy for ground-water and soil
cleanup. The primary contaminants of concern are
VOCs, cyanide, acids, and heavy metals, including
chromium and lead.
United Chrome, Oregon (Region 10): EPA
reached a successful agreement with the City of
Corvallis, Oregon, to clean up the former chrome-
plating facility and reimburse EPA for past costs.
The CD was lodged with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon on June 29,1992, and entered
by the court on September 21,1992. Under the terms
of the CD, the City of Corvallis is required to pay
EPA $2 million. The primary contaminant of concern
at the site is chromium.
6.3.4 De Minimis Settlement Under
CERCLA Section 122(g)
Shore Realty, New York (Region 2): On
Augusts, 1992, an AOC between EPA and 136
settling de minimis parties became effective. The de
minimis settlement total is $2.1 million, and each
PRP's responsibility will be proportional to its
contribution of waste to the site. The agreement
includes nearly $0.28 million for past costs and
estimated future costs, and a premium of more than
$ 1.8 million to be placed in a trust fund for use by the
non-de minimis settlors and the State of New York
for future clean-up costs at the site. Total estimated
costs for the site are $9.9 million.
Tonolli Corporation, Pennsylvania (Region 3):
EPA entered an AOC with 170 de minimis parties at
the Tonolli Corporation site in Nesquehoning,
Pennsylvania. The AOC, signed on July 1, 1992,
resolves the liability of the participating PRPs. The
settlement requires payments for past costs and
estimated future response costs proportional to the
volume of waste each PRP contributed to the site,
plus a settlement premium of 65 percent to cover
unexpected future costs. The total value of the
settlement is approximately $3.5 million, including
$2.4 million for past costs incurred by EPA and
$ 1 million to finance future clean-up work at the site.
63
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
The 20 acre Tonolli Corporation site is an
abandoned secondary lead smelting plant that
operated from August 1974 to October 1985, when
the company filed for bankruptcy. The site consists
of a battery crushing operation, smelter, refinery,
water treatment plant, hazardous waste landfill, and
hazardous waste above-ground storage tank. The
primary contaminants of concern are heavy metals,
such as lead, cadmium, chromium, zinc, and arsenic.
Past EPA actions have included treating lagoon and
tank contents, discharging treated effluent to a nearby
creek, installing a semi-permanent water collection
and treatment system around waste storage areas,
and excavating contaminated soil and sludge from
on-site lagoons.
Alaskan Battery Enterprises, Alaska (Region 10):
September 14, 1992, was the effective date of an
AOC for recovering past EPA costs at the Alaskan
Battery Enterprises site inFairbanks, Alaska. Twenty-
seven de minimis PRPs signed an AOC agreeing to
reimburse EPA for more than $0.17 million. All
eligible de minims parties, consisting primarily of
small businesses, signed the AOC.
Collectively, the settling parties sent more than
2,600 batteries to the Alaskan Battery site from the
late 1960s to 1988. Battery parts were stored, recycled,
and disposed of on site. As a result, soil was
contaminated with lead, posing a threat to ground
water. In 1988 and 1989, EPA removed approximately
4,000 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil. A
recently completed site study calls for long-term
monitoring of ground water to detect any lead
migration from the soil. Total response costs at the
site are estimated at $3 million.
EPA encouraged the de minimis parties to work
together to lower theirtransaction costs. EPA drafted
the AOC, made a settlement offer to the eligible
parties, made suggested changes to the AOC, and
secured the participation of all parties eligible forde
minimis settlement. EPA is pursuing additional PRPs
for the unrecovered share of past costs in a separate
cost recovery action.
6.4 ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES
During FY92, EPA continued efforts to develop
more efficient ways to encourage PRP participation
in cleanups and to recover Trust Fund monies. The
Agency launched several initiatives to expedite and
improve the negotiation process, reduce transaction
costs, and standardize and streamline cost recovery
efforts.
6.4.1 Enforcement Under the
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up
Model -
EPA is modifying its approach to CERCLA
enforcement to correspond to the changes in the
clean-up program that will be brought about by the
implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Clean-
Up Model (SACM). The Agency is streamlining
enforcement-related activities to support faster and
more efficient cleanups envisioned under SACM,
while continuing to maximize the amount of response
work conducted by PRPs.
Major enforcement activities affected by
shortened clean-up schedules under SACM include
searching for PRPs, establishing PRP liability,
involving PRPs in early site assessment activities,
and encouraging PRPs to undertake non-time-critical
removals. To expedite these activities, EPA has
adopted a new, phased approach. The phased
approach focuses first on a limited PRP search to
establish the liability of easily identified PRPs. EPA
can begin negotiations with the identified PRPs, and
clean-up work can proceed while the search for
additional PRPs continues. When this phased
approach is used, Regions are encouraged to provide
"constructive" notice, i.e., notices in local newspapers
and the Federal Register to alert unidentified PRPs
who might be interested in participating in site
decisions.
64
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
6.4.2 Early De Minimi's Guidance
i
EPA emphasizes the use of de minimis
settlements under CERCLA Section 122(g) to
lower transaction costs and increase case
management efficiency at sites where there are
large numbers of PRPs. Under this statutory
provision, the Agency settles with PRPs
(generators and transporters) whose waste
contribution at a site is minimal in terms of both
volume (usually less than one percent of the total
waste volume) and toxicity. The number of de
minimis PRPs at sites is often many times greater
than the number of major waste contributors.
On June 26,1992, EPA issued Methodology for
Early de minimis Waste Contributor Settlements,
under CERCLA Section 122(g)(J)(A), to facilitate-
de minimis settlements. The guidance recommends
that Regional officials initiate the de minimis
settlement process as early as possible. The process
includes (1) informing EPA Headquarters and
notifying potential de minimis parties of their
eligibility; (2) providing a waste-in list that identifies
the specific amounts and types of waste contributed
by each PRP; (3) defining the criteria forde minimis
eligibility; (4) forming a de minimis settlement
group early in the process; and (5) offering incentives
for timely settlement. The guidance suggests
procedures for standardizing the de minimis
settlement process, including methods forestimating
future costs and establishing criteria to allocate
financial responsibility among PRPs. It also outlines
reimbursement provisions to be included in the
settlement document.
6.4.3 Final Lender Liability Rule
On April 29, 1992, to define terms and clarify
potential liability of lenders and government entities
as owners or operators under CERCLA, the Agency
finalized the lender liability rule. The final rule
clarifies the "security interest exemption" provision
of CERCLA, and interprets the term "involuntary
acquisition" as it pertains to government entities.
CERCLA Section 101(20)(A) exempts from
liability a person who, without participating in the
management of a facility, holds indication of
ownership to protect a security interest. The April
29, 1992, rule clarifies which activities are and are
not considered to be "participating in management."
The rule also exempts governmental entities
from liability when they act as conservatoror receiver
of property through an involuntary acquisition or
transfer. Involuntary acquisition includes
abandonment proceedings, tax delinquencies, asset
forfeitures, foreclosures, and seizures. Private parties
are not covered by this provision of the rule.
6.4.4 Cost Recovery Initiatives
At sites where EPA has undertaken clean-up
activities using Trust Fund monies, the Agency will
pursue cost recovery actions requiring PRPs to
reimburse the Trust Fund. To expedite the cost
recovery process, the Agency proposed a rule on
August 6, 1992, to clarify which costs EPA can
recover through cost recovery actions. The rule
• Adds types of indirect (overhead) costs that
EPA can recover,
• Identifies how costs are determined;
• Specifies when interest begins to accrue on the
monies owed to the Trust Fund;
Describes the information and documentation
needed to substantiate expenditures; and
Clarifies when the limitations period for EPA to
bring a cost recovery action begins.
Although EPA has sought recovery of all direct
costs incurred at a site, i.e., those directly attributable
to site remediation activities, the Agency has sought
to recover only a portion of its indirect costs. In
contrast, the proposed rule uses full-cost accounting
to identify all indirect costs incurred by the Superfund
program for recovery. Additional categories of
indirect costs that EPA will recover under the
proposed rule include costs of
65
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Research and development for scientific studies,
such as those involving the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation program;
Depreciation of non-site-specific capital
equipment, such as computer and laboratory
equipment; and
Preliminary site costs.
The proposed rule is not retroactive. The Agency
will only apply the new rate to cost recovery actions
that have not been finally resolved. The Agency
anticipates that this rule will clarify common issues
argued in cost recovery cases, thereby providing a
substantial savings by reducing both PRP and EPA
transaction costs.
66
-------
Chapter 7
Federal Facility Cleanups
Departments and agencies of the federal
government manage a vast array of industrial
activities at 27,000 installations. Due to the nature of
such activities, whether they be federally or privately
managed, installations may be contaminated with
hazardous substances. All contaminated facilities
are subject to CERCLA requirements.
Although federal facilities comprise only a small
percentage of the community regulated under
CERCLA, most federal facilities are larger and more
complex than their private industrial counterparts.
The corresponding complexity of federal facility
clean-Up activities presents unique management
issues from the standpoint of compliance with
environmental statutes. To address these issues, eight
of the largest federal departments and agencies
reported a combined budget of approximately $8.4
billion in FY92 for environmental programs in air,
drinking water, pesticides, Superfund, and other
related areas.
7.1 FEDERAL FACILITY
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER
CERCLA
1 Federal departments and agencies responsible
for facilities must conduct preliminary assessments
(PAs), site inspections (Sis), and clean-up actions.
To ensure federal facility compliance with CERCLA
requirements, EPA not only provides advice and
assistance, but takes enforcement action when
appropriate.
Under state statutes, states also have a range of
authority and enforcement tools available, in addition
to those available under CERCLA, that can be used
in addressing federal facility compliance with
environmental regulations. Federal agency
compliance can also be addressed by Indian tribes
acting as either lead or support agencies for Superfund
response activities.
7.1.1 Facility Responsibilities
Federal departments and agencies are responsible
for identifying and addressing hazardous waste sites
at the facilities that they own or operate. They are
required under CERCLA to comply during site
cleanup 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
needed to comply with the reporting requirements.
7.1.2 EPA'S Oversight Role
EPA works through the Office of Federal
Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) in the Office of
Enforcement to assist federal agencies with clean-up
activities. EPA responsibilities include assisting in
and ultimately concurring with remedy selection,
providing technical advice and assistance, reviewing
federal agency pollution abatement plans, and
resolving disputes regarding noncompliance. To
fulfill these responsibilities, EPA relies on personnel
from Headquarters, Regional offices, and states.
67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 7
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CERFA Community Environmental Response Facilitation
Act
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
FFER Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
GSA General Services Administration
IAG Interagency Agreement
MOD Memorandum of Understanding
NPL National Priorities List
OFFE Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
ORD Office of Research and Development
PA Preliminary Assessment
POGO Privately Owned, Government Operated
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
SI Site Inspection
TIO Technology Innovation Office
To track the status of federal facilities, EPA uses
a number of information systems. The Facility Index
System provides an inventory of federal facilities
subject to environmental regulations. Through the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), EPA
maintains a comprehensive list of all reported
potentially threatening hazardous waste sites,
including federal facility sites. The list of federal
facilities contaminated with hazardous waste is made
available to the public through the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and through
docket updates published in the Federal Register.
7.1.3 The Role of States and Indian
Tribes
Under CERCLA Section 120(f), for federal
facility sites on the National Priorities List (NPL),
state and local governments are encouraged to
participate in the planning and selection of remedial
actions taken by federal agencies in that state or local
community. State and local government participation
includes, but is not limited to, reviewing applicable
data and developing studies, reports, and action
plans. EPA encourages states to become signatories
to the interagency agreements (lAGs) that federal
agencies must enter into with EPA under CERCLA
Section 120(e)(2). State participation in the CERCLA
cleanup process is carried out as set forth in CERCLA
Section 121.
Cleanups at federal facility sites that are not on
the NPL are also carried out by the federal agency
that owns or operates the site. These cleanups are
subject to state laws regarding removal and remedial
actions in addition to CERCLA. Therefore, a state's
role at a non-NPL federal facility site will be
determined by the state's clean-up laws, as well as by
CERCLA.
CERCLA Section 126 mandates that federally
recognized Indian tribes be "afforded substantially
the same treatment" as states with regard to most
CERCLA provisions. Therefore, a qualifyingjndian
tribe would have a substantially similar role in federal
facility cleanups as a state. Qualifying 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.
7.2 PROGRESS AT FEDERAL
FACILITY SITES
OFFE, in conjunction with various other
Headquarters offices, Regional offices, and states,
ensures federal department and agency compliance
with CERCLA and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. The compliance
status of federal facilities is tracked on the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The
docket contains information regarding federal
facilities that manage hazardous waste or from which
hazardous substances have been released.
In recent years, the number of federal facilities
listed on the docket and on the NPL, which are those
having highest priority for remediation under
Superfund, has increased. To distinguish the
increasing number of federal facility from non-
federal NPL sites, EPA published Update 12 of the
NPL in February 1992, listing federal facility anb
non-federal sites separately. This distinction helps to
clarify responsibility at federal facility sites.
68
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
As CERCLA Section 120(e)(2) requires, and to
facilitate cleanup, EPA negotiates lAGs at each
federal facility site listed on the NPL. I AGs document
clean-up activities, formalize the schedule of
activities, and establish mechanisms for resolving
disputes.
i To keep Congress and the public informed of
remedial progress at federal facility sites, CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5) requires that each federal
department and agency, including EPA, furnish an
annual report to Congress on progress toward
implementing CERCLA at its facilities. EPA's annual
report is provided in Section 7.4.
7.2.1 Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
i
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 functions as a
comprehensive record of the federal facilities
Superfund program. Information submitted to EPA
on identified facilities is compiled and maintained in
the docket. This information is then made available
to the public.
On February 12,1988, the initial federal agency
docket was published in \heFederal Register. At that
time, 1,095 federal facilities were listed. Exhibit
7.2-1 shows the increase in the number of sites on the
docket since its first publication. During FY92, a
total of 211 sites were added to the docket and 104
sites were removed in docket updates on
December 12,1991 and July 17,1992. (Facilities are
removed from the docket for such reasons as incorrect
reporting of hazardous waste activity or transfer
from federal ownership.)
The July 17, 1992 update of the docket listed a
total of 1,709 facilities. Of these sites, the Department
of Defense (DOD) owned and/or operated 814 (48
percent) and the Department of the Interior (DOI)
owned and/or operated 420 (25 percent). The
Exhibit 7.2-1
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
12/12/91
7/17/92
1,095
1,170
Number of Facilities
Note: Dates are those on which updates were published in
the Federal Register.
Source: Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket
51-013-190
remainder were distributed among 18 other federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities. A
breakdown of facilities on the docket, by federal
department or agency, is illustrated in Exhibit 7.2-2.
In FY92, EPA added privately owned,
government-operated facilities (POGOs) to the
docket for the first time. The statutory basis for
POGO inclusion has existed since the enactment of
SARA and was specifically addressed by EPA in
1992. CERCLA Section 120(c) requires that the
docket contain information submitted under RCRA
Sections 3005,3010, and 3016 and CERCLA Section
103. These sections impose duties on operators and
owners of facilities. All facilities that have
contaminated areas and are operated by the federal
government are subject to these sections, whether or
not they are government-owned.
69
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 7.2-2
Distribution of Federal Facilities
on the Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket
Department of Defense
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
United States Postal Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
Veterans Administration
Civil Corps of Engineers
General Services Administration
Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Department of Commerce
Department of Health and Human
Services
Department of the Treasury
Department of Labor
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Ownership Not Yet Determined
Central Intelligence Agency
s'mall Business Administration
TOTAL
Note: Percentages total toss than 100% due
814
420
93
76
69
39
38
28
27
22
17
17
16
12
7
6
2
2
2
1
1
1,709
(48%)
(25%)
(5%)
(4%)
(4%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0.7%)
(0.4%)
(0.4%)
(0.1%)
(0.1%)
(0.1%)
(0.06%)
(0.06%)
to rounding.
Source: Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket and Office of Enforcement/Office of Federal
Facilities Enforcement
51-013-208
7.2.2 Progress Toward Cleaning Up
Federal Facilities on the NPL
Update 12 of the NPL, published in February
1992, was the first NPL update to distinguish federal
facility sites from non-federal sites. The update
contains language that clarifies the roles of EPA and
other federal departments and agencies with regard
to federal facility sites. EPA is not the lead agency for
federal facility sites on the NPL; federal agencies are
lead agencies for their facilities. EPA is, however,
responsible foroverseeing federal facility compliance
with CERCLA.
There were 125 federal facility sites on the NPL
as of the end of FY92, including 116 final sites and
9 proposed sites. During FY92, six federal facilities
were proposed for listing on the NPL, butno additional
federal facility sites were listed as final sites.
Federal departments and agencies made
substantial progress during FY92 toward cleaning
up federal facility NPL sites. Activity at federal
facility NPL sites during the year included starting
approximately 100 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), 40 remedial designs (RDs), and 30
remedial actions (RAs) and signing 46 records of
decision.
7.2.3 Federal Facility Agreements
Under CERCLA Section 120
IAGs comprise the cornerstone of the
enforcement program addressing federal facility NPL
sites. During FY92,12 CERCLA IAGs were executed
to accomplish hazardous waste cleanup at federal
facility NPL sites. Of the 116 final federal facility
sites listed on the NPL, 104 were covered by
enforceable agreements by the end of the fiscal year.
IAGs between EPA and the responsible federal
department or agency document some or all of the
phases of remedial activity (RI/FS, RD, RA, operation
and maintenance) to be undertaken at a federal
facility NPL site. States are sometimes signatories to
these agreements. IAGs formalize the procedure and
timing for submittal and review of documents and
include a schedule for remedial activities, in
accordance with the requirements of CERCLA
Section 120(e). They also establish mechanisms to
resolve any disputes between the signatories.
Furthermore, EPA can assess stipulated penalties
under these agreements.
IAGs must comply with the public participation
requirements of CERCLA Section 117 and are
enforceable by the states. Citizens may enforce the
agreements through civil suits. Penalties may be
imposed by the courts against federal departments
and agencies in successful suits brought by states or
citizens for failure to comply with IAGs.
70
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA took precedent-setting action in federal
facility enforcement under an IAG during FY92. As
part of the Hanford tri-party agreement, the
Department of Energy (DOE) agreed to complete
construction and initiate operation of a low-level
mixed waste laboratory on or before January 31,
1992. On OctoberSl, 1991, DOE requested that this
schedule be changed. EPA and the State of
Washington initially denied the request, but, after
negotiating, the parties reached agreement on the
dispute. As a result, DOE agreed to seek funding for
expedited response actions at Hanford and to construct
and operate an on-site laboratory significantly smaller
than originally proposed. The agreement allows DOE
one year to demonstrate that low-level mixed waste
laboratory needs can be satisfied using a combination
of an existing commercial laboratory and the
downsized on-site laboratory that was under
construction by the end of FY92. EPA and the state
assessed DOEa$100,OOOpenaltyfornoncompliance
with the original agreement.
7.3 • FEDERAL FACILITY INITIATIVES
The growing awareness of environmental
contamination at federal facilities has increased the
public demand for facility cleanup. EPA has worked
to establish priorities for clean-up programs in order
to maximize cleanups with the finite resources
available. In FY92, OFFE focused on priority issues
including military base closure, acceleration of federal
facility cleanups, interagency forums to address
issues, and innovative technologies for cleanup.
7.3.1 Base Closure
During FY92, 69 military installations, not
including residential facilities, were scheduled to be
closed under the 1988 and 1990 base closure acts,
(Public Law 100-526 and Part A of Public Law 101-
510). Of these installations, 15 were on the NPL.
The base closure acts provide for the closure and
realignment of installations due to revised military
force needs. Bases slated for closure frequently
include land and facilities suited for non-military
use. This leads to pressure for the expeditious
transfer of military property to non-federal interests
for economic development Many of the military
installations contain contaminated areas, however,
and CERCLA sets strict standards to prevent the
transfer of property contaminated by hazardous
substances.
During FY92, EPA worked to meet both
economic and environmental goals forbase closures.
Building on the efforts of the Defense Environmental
Response Task Force, a multi-agency group formed
by Congress to examine the environmental issues
associated with base closure, OFFE's Base Closure
Workgroup and DOD worked to identify and
implement solutions to base closure issues. In a
February 1992 memorandum, EPA announced its
position forbalancing the protection of human health
and the environment with making property available
for reuse at closing installations. The memorandum
identified the point in the remediation process at
which EPA felt that a transfer by deed could occur.
On October 19, 1992, Congress passed and the
President signed the Community Environmental
Response Facilitation Act (CERFA), amending
CERCLA to provide for property transfers at a point
comparable to that advocated by EPA. Accordingly,
under CERFA, property may be transferred while
long-term ground-water remedial action continues.
In June 1992, the combined efforts of EPA,
DOD, and the State of California produced guidance
for identifying property that is environmentally
suitable for transfer. The document, DOD Guidance
on the Environmental Review Process to Reach a
Finding of Suitability to Transfer, outlines consulting
roles for EPA and the state during DOD
determinations. The transfer criteria address EPA's
concern for the cleanup of base areas posing an
environmental threat while supporting DOD' s efforts
to identify base areas that have near-term reuse
potential. EPA reexamined this guidance in light of
the concurrence role that Congress gave the Agency
under CERFA. In addition, EPA began reviewing
procedures DOD had proposed for leasing or
transferring title of remediated parcels.
71
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
On the Regional and state levels, EPA and DOD
co-sponsored conferences to foster improved
communication among DOD, EPA, states, and other
interested parties on clean-up facilitation,
redevelopment of closing bases, and issue resolution.
Conference participants met to discuss acceleration
initiatives, risk management, real estate transfer and
redevelopment, remediation technologies, and
development of standardized techniques forcleanups
at closing military bases. During FY92, conferences
were held in Sacramento, California, and Boston,
Massachusetts. The information exchanged at the
conferences will have direct and immediate
application to cleanup and redevelopment.
7.3.2 Accelerated Cleanups at Federal
Facilities
OFFE developed draft guidance to identify
components of the Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up
Model that provide opportunities for speeding cleanup
at federal facilities on the NPL. The guidance
addresses site assessment, the impact of accelerated
cleanup on the NPL, presumptive remedies, early
and long-term actions, public participation, and the
effect of accelerated cleanup on existing federal
facility lAGs. As of the end of FY92, the draft
guidance was undergoing Regional review.
7.3.3 Interagency Forums
During the year, EPA worked in conjunction
with other federal departments and agencies to
develop national policy and define environmental
restoration issues at federal facilities.
Federal Facilities Clean-Up Leadership
Council
To lead nationwide efforts in cleaning up federal
facilities, EPA established the Federal Facilities
Clean-Up Leadership Council, consisting of
representatives from EPA Headquarters, Regional
program offices, and Offices of Regional Counsel.
At its quarterly meetings, the council serves as a
forum for generating national policy and guidance;
addressing technical, enforcement, and strategic
planning issues; and developing a team approach
toward making the federal facilities clean-up program
a model of success.
Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee
In April 1992, EPA established the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration (FFER)
Dialogue Committee as an advisory committee under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The committee
provides a forum for identifying and redefining
issues related to environmental restoration activities
at federal facilities. The goal of the committee is to
develop consensus on recommendations for
improving the process by which federal facility
environmental restoration decisions are made.
During the year, the FFER Dialogue Committee
made substantial progress toward an interim report
that will describe methods for improving the process
by which federal agencies share information and
involve affected parties in decision making. Through
the procedures outlined in the interim report, the
FFER Dialogue Committee will seek to create an
open, public, interactive process that originates at
the local or facility level and extends through the
entire federal hierarchy of departments, agencies,
and offices that are part of the Executive Branch
decision-making process. The committee's
recommendations are intended to institutionalize the
consultative process and provide an outline of the
procedures and ground rules necessary for the
equitable involvement of all parties.
Recommendations include creating site-specific
advisory boards and developing information
dissemination policies. The interim report will
explicitly address priority setting in the event of a
funding shortfall.
7.3.4 Innovative Technology
Development
OFFE, in conjunction with the Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) and the Office of Research
72
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
and Development (ORD), worked toward
establishing federal facilities as development and
field research centers for applying innovative
technologies for source reduction, pollution control,
site investigation, and site remediation.
EPA, the State of California, the Air Force, and
private firms established a "public-private partnership
project" to measure the performance of select
technologies. McClellan Air Force Base in California
was the first site used in this project, for demonstrating
remediation technologies. Information discovered
through the project is ultimately expected to lower
costs, reduce clean-up times, and increase clean-up
efficiency at federal and private sites.
OFFE and TIO explored the use of other federal
and private sites for similar partnership projects. In
1992, OFFE and TIO supported an Air Force initiative
to use bioventing for remediating subsurface
contamination from jet fuel spills. The Air Force
developed a protocol for the conditions and use of the
bioventing technology, a biological treatment system
that uses the injection of atmospheric air to treat
contaminated soil. The protocol received a favorable
review* from ORD's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory. To encourage the review and
consideration of the Air Force protocol and the
potential application of bioventing for site
remediation, OFFE and TIO distributed a
memorandum to all EPA Regions. As of the end of
FY92, the Air Force proposed bioventing for 55 sites
around the nation.
In other FY92 activity, EPA signed a joint
implementation plan for a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with DOE, DOD, DOI, and
the Western Governors Association to examine issues
and technology needs for environmental restoration
and waste management in western states. Reports
generated under the MOU identify barriers to
technology development and address the need for a
cooperative approach when developing technical
solutions to environmental restoration and waste
management problems. OFFE will continue to
coordinate this project for EPA until a committee is
formed in compliance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and site-specific technology projects
are proposed and implemented.
7.4 CERCLA IMPLEMENTATION AT
EPA FACILITIES
Of the 1,709 sites on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket at the end of
FY92, 17 were EPA-owned. None of these EPA-
owned sites were listed ontheNPL. Clean-up progress
at these 17 facilities, as required by CERCLA Section
120(e)(5), is described below.
7.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5)
CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) requires an annual
report to Congress from each federal department,
agency, or instrumentality on its progress in
implementing Superfund at its facilities. Specifically,
the annual report to Congress is to include, but need
not be limited to, each of the following items:
• Section 120(e)(5)(A): A report on the progress in
reaching lAGs under CERCLA Section
120(e)(2);
• Section 120(e)(5)(B): The specific cost estimates
and budgetary proposals involved in each IAG;
• Section 120(e)(5)(C): A brief summary of the
public comments regarding each proposed IAG;
• Section 120(e)(5)(D): A description of the
instances in which no agreement (IAG) was
reached;
• Section 120(e)(5)(E): A progress report for
conducting RI/FSs required by CERCLA Section
120(e)(l) at NPL sites;
• Section 120(e)(5)(F): A progress report for
remedial activities at sites listed on the NPL; and
• Section 120(e)(5)(G): A progress report for
response activities at facilities that are not listed
on the NPL.
CERCLA also requires that the annual report
contain a detailed description, on a state-by-state
basis, of the status of each facility subject to this
73
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
section. The status report must include a description
of the hazards presented by each facility, plans and
schedules for initiating and completing response
actions, enforcement status (where applicable), and
an explanation of any postponement of or failure to
complete response actions.
EPA has given high priority to maintaining
compliance with CERCLA requirements at its own
facilities. To ensure concurrence with all
environmental statutes, EPA uses its environmental
compliance program to heighten regulatory
awareness, identify potential compliance violations,
and coordinate appropriate corrective action
schedules at its laboratories and other research
facilities.
EPA has also instituted an environmental auditing
program of 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 its
facilities in complying with environmental
regulations.
7.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA
Facilities Subject to Section 120
of CERCLA
At the end of FY92, the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docketlisted 17 EPA-
owned facilities, including one site added to the
docket and two sites removed from the docket during
the fiscal year. The National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory in Montgomery,
Alabama, was added to the docket, and the
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
in Warrenton, Virginia, and the Anguilla Landfill in
Fredericksted, Virgin Islands, were deleted.
EPA is required to report on progress in meeting
Section 120 requirements at EPA-owned sites for
reaching lAGs, conducting RI/FSs at NPL sites, and
undertaking response activities at NPL and non-NPL
sites.
• EPA did not have any facilities listed on the NPL
as of FY92; therefore, EPA has not entered into
any lAGs for remediation requiring reporting
under CERCLA Sections 120(e)(5)(A), (B), (C),
or(D).
Because no EPA-owned sites are listed on the
NPL, EPA has not undertaken any RI/FSs or
remedial actions at NPL sites that would require
reporting under CERCLA Sections 120(e)(5)(E)
and(F).
EPA has evaluated and, as appropriate,
undertaken response activities at all 17 EPA
sites on the docket. Exhibit 7.4- 1 provides state-
by-state status for EPA-owned sites and identifies
the types of problems and progress of activities
at each site, as required by CERCLA Section 1 20
EPA facilities that have undergone significant
response activities in FY92 are discussed in detail
below.
National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory, Alabama
EPA's air and radiation laboratory formerly
operated at a site near its current location at Gunter
Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. During
operations at the original site, waste solvents,
including xylene and benzene, were discharged into
a pit adjacent to the laboratory building. The releases
were identified through EPA's internal auditing
program. In conjunction with the Underground
Injection Control Program of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, EPA is
working to determine the extent of the resulting
contamination and to develop an appropriate
mitigation program. The Agency is monitoring the
ground-water wells on the property regularly and
initiating a program to pump ground water from the
contaminated area. EPA is also evaluating the use of
biological remediation to address any residual
contamination.
EPA Central Regional Laboratory,
Maryland
EPA conducted an on-site investigation of
ground-water contamination at the EPA Central
74
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 7.4-1
Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
State
EPA Facility
Known or Suspected
Problems
Project Status
AL National Air and Radiation
Environmental Laboratory
(formerly known as the
Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility (EERF))
AR Combustion Research Facility
CO National Enforcement
Investigation Center
FL Environmental Research
Laboratory
IL Region 5 Environmental
Services Division Laboratory
KS EPA Mobil Incinerator
KS Region 7 Environmental
Services Division Laboratory
MD, EPA Central Regional
Laboratory
Ml Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory
NC EPA Tech Center
NJ EPA Rarrtan Depot
OH AWBERC Facility
OH Center Hill Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research
Laboratory
OH Testing and Evaluation Facility
OR EPA Laboratory
TX EPA Laboratory
WA Region 10 Environmental
Services Division Laboratory
Contained soil and
ground-water
contamination
No contamination
No contamination
No 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
attributable to DOD
ownership
PA completed; ongoing monitoring
and remediation.activities.
PA completed 4/89; no further
remedial action planned.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
No further remedial action
planned; mobile incinerator
removed from site.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
PA completed 4/88. SI
completed; monitoring of site
ongoing.
PA conducted 3/90; no further
remedial action planned.
PA conducted 8/91; no further
remedial action planned.
PA/SI prompted additional
investigative work currently
underway.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
Conditionally exempt from PA
requirements.
Conditionally exempt from PA
requirements.
PA/SI prompted additional
investigative work. Currently
undergoing Hazard Ranking
System scoring.
Source: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and the Office of Administration
and Resources Management.
51-013-21F
75
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Regional Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland.
Although the State of Maryland is satisfied that
hazardous substances have not been released into the
environment and that further response action is not
required, the Agency continues to maintain
monitoring wells at the site.
EPA Raritan Depot, New Jersey
Originally, the Raritan Depot site was owned by
DOD and used for munitions testing and storage. In
1961, the General Services Administration (GSA)
took possession of the property and, in 1988,
transferred 165 acres to EPA. Although residual
contamination from past DOD and GSA activities at
the facility persists, EPA has not stored, released, or
disposed of any hazardous substances on the property.
Site investigation work occurred in FY91,
following the discovery of a contaminated surface-
water impoundment. The investigation has resulted
in the implementation of interim clean-up actions.
Response activities have included spraying a rubble
pile containing asbestos with a bituminous sealant;
removing the liquid in the surface impoundment,
excavating soil, installing a liner, and backfilling the
impoundment with clean material; excavating and
storing munitions; and removing underground storage
tanks. EPA expects that DOD will pursue additional
clean-up work at the site.
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 property
adjacent to the laboratory contains a rubble landfill
that was covered by the Navy. The soil cover on the
landfill has begun to deteriorate, exposing
construction material. Initial sampling performed at
the site revealed the presence of hazardous substances
in surface-water run off. Additional sample collection
and analysis was conducted to facilitate an evaluation
using the Hazard Ranking System. Headquarters and
Regional staff are evaluating this information to
determine required action.
76
-------
Chapter 8
Superfund Program Support
Activities
In addition to direct clean-up and enforcement
activities, EPA undertook actions in FY92 to improve
community relations, enhance public access to
Superfund information, and strengthen its partnership
with states and Indian tribes. This chapter highlights
progress in these areas, as well as progress in
encouraging minority firm participation in Superfund
contracting, as required by Section 105(f) of
CERCLA.
8.1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS
Superfund's community relations program is
based on a commitment to inform citizens who are
potentially affected by Superfund sites about those
sites and to involve these citizens in the Superfund
clean-up process. Thus, EPA directs its efforts
towards
• Informing the public of planned or ongoing
actions;
• Giving the public an opportunity to comment on
and provide input for technical decisions; and
Focusing on and resolving conflict.
The guideline for EPA's proactive community
relations program is "early, often, and always." EPA
must begin outreach activities early in the Superfund
process, meet with citizens on a regular basis, and
always listen to citizens' concerns. There is no
formula for approaching a community; each
community is unique and requires a communication
strategy designed to meet its needs.
EPA's policy of enhanced community
involvement is demonstrated by its continuous efforts
to tailor community relations activities for each
community and identify effective approaches for
reaching concerned citizens. In addition to the
statutorily required community relations activities,
EPA often uses innovative communication
techniques. For example, EPA holds "open houses"
and uses various media such as public access
television and video monitoring equipment to
enhance information transfer between EPA and local
citizens and to promote greater public understanding
of and participation in site activities.
As EPA moves to streamline the Superfund
process through the Superfund Accelerated Clean-
Up Model, the Agency remains committed to
promoting meaningful community involvement in
decision making during all phases of site clean-up
activity. In fact, EPA views early and frequent
public involvement as pivotal to the success of
EPA's mission to protect human health and the
environment.
During FY92, EPA continued to improve the
already active community relations program by
finalizing a rule to streamline the Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG) program.
77
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 8
CA Cooperative Agreement
CPCA Core Program Cooperative Agreement
DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
IAG Interagency Agreement
MBE Minoirity Business Enterprise
MOD Memorandum of Understanding
NAMC National Association of Minority Contractors
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
NSP Navajo Superfund Program
NTIS National Technical Information Service
OSDBU Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RO Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
SB Small Business
SDB Small Disadvantaged Business
SSC Superfund State Contract
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
WBE Women's Business Enterprise
8.1.1 .Fiscal Year 1992 Highlights
EPA enhanced its community relations program
in FY92 by improving community relations guidance,
training tools, and outreach materials. For example,
EPA published Community Relations in Superfund:
A Handbook, which is the result of efforts by EPA
Headquarters and Regional staff to develop a
comprehensive community relations policy for the
Superfund program. The handbook includes updated
and expanded guidance on community relations
requirements and policies, i nteragency coordination,
and program administration. The handbook also
contains guidance on the TAG program and "risk"
communication. Detailed appendices in the handbook
provide examples of community relations activities,
samples of the community relations plan/proposed
plan/responsiveness summary, and community
relations directives and fact sheets.
In a parallel effort, EPA revised and expanded
its community relations skills course in FY92 to
ensure that EPA staff members are equipped with
the latest community relations skills and techniques
and that they have a thorough understanding of
community relations requirements at Superfund sites.
During FY93, EPA will offer this course to
community relations staff across the country in
various Regional offices and state capitals.
To promote a better public understanding of the
Superfund program, EPA published 13 fact sheets,
designed specifically for the public, on Superfund
topics. The fact sheets include
• Superfund: An Overview,
• Identifying Sites,
• The Removal Program,
• The Remedial Program,
• Exposure Pathways,
• Public Involvement,
• Community Interviews,
• Trichloroethylene,
• Arsenic,
• Benzene,
• Poly chlorinated Biphenyls,
• Information Repository, and
• Information Repository (for Librarians').
These fact sheets and other outreach documents
are available to interested parties from Regional
Community Relations Coordinators. In response to
requests of concerned communities for better
understanding of "risk," EPA also developed acourse
entitled Risk Communication for Citizens:A
Workshop.
8.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants
Under CERCLA Section 117(e)
The TAG program is an EPA community
outreach program designed to help citizens become
more knowledgeable about the technical and
scientific aspects of a Superfund site and thus become
better able to participate effectively in the clean-up
process. CERCLA Section 117(e), as amended by
SARA, authorizes EPA to award TAGs of up to
$50,000 to local groups affected by NationalPriorities
78
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
List (NPL) sites or by sites where preliminary work
has begun. Using TAG funds, local groups can
employ technical advisors to assist them in
understanding the conditions at hazardous waste
sites and of the Superfund clean-up process.
EPA's continuing efforts to enhance the TAG
program and encourage increased public
participation reflect a commitment to meaningful
public involvement. As part of its commitment,
EPA promulgated the TAG final rule on October 1,
1992, (57FR 45311) to streamline TAG procedures.
Under the TAG final rule,
• Procurement procedures have been simplified.
The streamlined procedures expedite the process
of hiring technical advisors. Recipients are no
longer required to follow the procurement
procedures required for larger federal grants.
• The application process has been streamlined.
An application can now serve as both a Letter of
Intent (to apply) and an application.
• The types of allowable activities have been
expanded. Grant funds may now be used to pay
an Individual with the appropriate skills to
manage the grant for community groups. This
addition was made specifically for community
groups that lack the expertise to administer a
federal grant Also, the final rule allows grant
funds to be used to pay for health and safety
training, if necessary, to enable the technical
advisor to gain site access.
• The administrative cap of 20 percent has been
reinstated. In light of the additional allowable
activities, the 20 percent cap on administrative
costs safeguards limited TAG funds for the
intended purposes.
Regions, rather than Headquarters, can now
grant waivers of up to $50,000 forTAGs to help
streamline the process. This action removes the
requirement for Headquarters to approve the
waiver. Additional funding also will be available
1 for unusually large and complex sites.
• I Language concerning ineligible applicants has
been strengthened. The final rule clarifies the
extent and nature of allowable potentially
responsible party (PRP) involvement in an
applicant group. It also clarifies eligibility
requirements for applicants, thus enabling EPA
to identify ineligible parties early in the
application process.
To provide technical support to communities,
EPA has awarded 103 TAGs worth more than $5
million. This total includes 37 TAGs awarded in 9
Regions in FY92. FY92 TAG awards represent a 54
percent increase over the number of TAGs awarded
in FY91. Exhibit 8.1-1 illustrates the increasing
number of TAGs awarded under the Superfund
program since TAGs were first awarded in FY88.
8.2 A COORDINATED APPROACH
TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
The Agency's public information outreach
program is built on a system of document
coordination and management. All Superfund
documents are listed in the Compendium of
Superfund Program Publications and its regular
update bulletins. (Single copies of this publication
are available free upon request.)
FY92 marked the end of EPA's first five-year
plan to standardize and manage the extensive
Superfund document collection and to incorporate it
in public information and outreach activities. The
plan included designing a simplified inventory
management program for Superfund documents,
the Superfund Docket, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Superfund
Hotline, as well as for the services provided by the
Department of Commerce's National Technical
Information Service (NTIS).
EPA began several key projects that will serve
as the basis for a second five-year plan to enhance
information access.
• EPA established a new communications and
outreach plan. Closely linked to the document
management and delivery systems, its central
coordinating role will help ensure that the
program "speaks with one voice."
79
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Exhibit 8.1-1
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from
Fiscal Year 1988 Through Fiscal Year 1992
120-
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
Fiscal Year Awards
Cumulative Prior Awards
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Hazardous Site Control Division.
51-013-290
• Working withNTIS, EPA launched an aggressive
public campaign to make Superfund document
users aware of the extensive customer-oriented
services offered by NTIS. Purchases of
Superfund technical documents from NTIS
increased by nearly 900 percent from the close
of FY91 to the close of FY92. The joint EPA-
NTIS effort also resulted in better service to the
customer and achieved a significant reduction
in the costs of printing Superfund documents.
• EPA developed a limited centralized distribution
list for EPA Regional and Headquarters
personnel and state, local, and select external
contacts. This centrally maintained system
became fully operational during the fiscal year
and is expected to result in increased efficiency
and cost savings.
Superfund information services available to the public
are described in detail below.
The National Technical Information
Service
The Department of Commerce's NTIS serves as
a permanent archive and general source of federal
publications, including Superfund documents. In
the past, EPA had provided more than two million
Superfund documents to interested parties free of
charge. Unfortunately, because of resource
constraints, this approach is no longer possible.
EPA, nevertheless, remains committed to ensuring
that Superfund documents will continue to be
available to the public. Accordingly, the Agency and
NTIS have embarked on an ambitious joint project
that will bring the entire Superfund collection within
quick and easy reach of all users.
NTIS has established a Superfund Order Desk
where users may purchase single copies or
customized subscriptions forcategoriesof documents
pertinent to their needs. Pre-publication documents
are available at the Superfund Order Desk prior to
80
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
completion of formal printing and distribution. The
joint EPA-NTIS outreach and marketing effort during
FY92 informed all regular users about this service.
In addition to quick access, the Agency's public
information outreach program is committed to
providing high quality documents. To ensure that
both goals are met, the interagency Quality Action
Team monitored the program throughout FY92 and
will continue its efforts throughout FY93 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
regulations. In compliance with the Freedom of
Information Act, the public is allowed access to
docket materials following approval of the material
by the Office of General Counsel and announcement
of the proposed or final regulation in the Federal
Register. The docket also maintains viewing copies
of records of decision as well as a limited stock of the
Federal Register containing Superfund regulatory
information.
•
Other Information Sources
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline provides
information to the public and EPA personnel
concerning hazardous waste regulations and policies.
With regard to Superfund, the hotline is a
comprehensive source of general information about
ongoing program developments.
EPA also maintains the Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection at EPA Headquarters and
Regional libraries. The collection contains
documents ranging from records of decision to
commercially produced books on hazardous waste
and Superfund.
8.3 EPA's 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. SubpartFof theNational
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP) and the administrative requirements in
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O provide mechanisms for
ensuring meaningful state and Indian tribe
involvement in implementing Superfund response
activities, as required by Section 12 l(f) of CERCLA.
Subpart O describes EPA's authority to transfer
funds and responsibilities to states and Indian tribes
so that they can undertake response actions in
accordance with the NCP. It also describes the
assurances required under CERCLA Section 104
from states and Indian tribes.
8.3.1 Response Agreements and Core
Program Cooperative
Agreements
Response agreements provide states, Indian
tribes, and political subdivisions with the opportunity
to participate in response activities at sites under
their jurisdiction. Superfund core program
cooperative agreements (CPCAs) assist states and
Indian tribes in developing their overall response
capabilities.
Response Agreements
Response agreements fall into two categories:
Superfund state contracts (SSCs) and cooperative
agreements (CAs). Both kinds of agreements serve
as the contractual tools through which states, Indian
tribes, and political subdivisions work with EPA in
Superfund response activities.
Certain prerequisites are common to all response
agreements. States, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions must demonstrate the ability to track
costs in accordance with EPA financial and
administrative standards. For remedial (long-term)
action to occur, they must provide the Agency with
certain other assurances. These include assuring the
operation and maintenance of remedies, meeting a
cost-sharing requirement, assuring a 20 year capacity
for disposal or treatment of hazardous wastes,
providing off-site disposal, and assuring interest in
real property.
81
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Superfund State Contracts: SSCs are required
.when EPA is the lead agency for remedial activities.
Through these contracts, states, Indian tribes, and
political subdivisions provide EPA with statutorily
required assurances. These contracts specify the
process for collection of cost-share payments from
states, Indian tribes, and political subdivisions, as
required by CERCLA Section 104. The cost share is
generally 10 percent of the cost of the remedial
action (RA) and is not applied to planning activities
such as the remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS) or remedial design (RD).
SSCs also are required when a political
subdivision assumes the lead for remedial activities.
The parties to this kind of SSC include EPA, the
state, and the political subdivision. The SSC must be
in place before EPA can transfer CA funds to the
political subdivision.
Lead-Agency Cooperative Agreements: Lead-
agency CAs facilitate the implementation of the
NCP by enabling states, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions (with appropriate hazardous waste
management capability and sufficient resources) to
assume lead-agency responsibility formany response
activities. As the lead agency, the state, Indian tribe,
or political subdivision is provided with Superfund
monies to 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's cost share (cash or in-kind services) and
other CERCLA Section 104 assurances.
Support-Agency Cooperative Agreements:
Support-agency CAs facilitate the implementation
of the NCP by allowing states, Indian tribes, and
political subdivisions that do not have the lead-
agency responsibility to actively participate as a
support agency in response activities at sites under
their jurisdiction. The state, Indian tribe, or political
subdivision assists the lead agency by sharing its
information and expertise, and also benefits from
the experience of participating in a Superfund
response action.
Removal Cooperative Agreements:Remova\c A
funds are used by states, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions to conduct non-time-critical removal
actions. Non-time-critical removal actions are those
in which the nature of the action allows a planning
period of more than six months. Although states,
Indian tribes, and political subdivisions are not
required to share in the cost of removal actions, EPA
strongly encourages cost sharing. The removal CA
documents the scope of work for the non-time-
critical removal 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 PRP
response actions.
To be eligible for enforcement CA funding
underSubpart O, states mustsubmit the following to
EPA:
• A letter from the state Attorney General
certifying that the state has the capability to
pursue enforcement actions;
A copy of the statute that authorizes the state to
undertake enforcement actions; and
Any further documentation required by EPA to
establish the state's capability to undertake the
enforcement activities.
Core Program Cooperative Agreements
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 that are not
attributable to a specific site, but are important to the
improvement of their overall response capabilities.
EPA meets the requirements of SARA Section 104(d)
through Superfund CPCAs.
Through CPCAs, EPA offers states and Indian
tribes the opportunity to develop comprehensive,
self-sufficient Superfund programs. CPCAs have a
single budget and scope of work designed to enhance
state or Indian tribe program activities. Approval of
the budget request and scope of work is dependent
on the developmental needs of a state or Indian tribe
program, demonstrated progress in meeting previous
core objectives, and availability of funds. States are
required to provide a 10 percent cost share for core
program awards.
82
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA typically budgets and distributes $10
million to $ 13 million in CPCAs annually among the
10 Regional offices. Regions have the discretion to
provide additional funding from certain other funding
categories if monies are available. During FY92,51
CPCAs were in effect for states and Indian tribes; 21
of the CPCAs had multi-year budget periods.
EPA intends that the core program lay the
groundwork for the implementation of an integrated
EPA-state/Indian tribe approach for meeting
Superfund goals. The program is in its sixth year of
implementation, and EPA is reviewing its
effectiveness to identify potential areas for
improvements. In FY92, EPA examined activities in
six states and determined that the core program was
effectively building and sustaining state programs.
EPA will conduct assessments of additional states in
FY93.
8.3.2 Fiscal Year 1992 Highlights
Under authority of the NCP and in compliance
with administrative requirements in 40CFR Pan 35,
Subpart O, states, and Indian tribes took the lead on
several federal Superfund clean-up projects during
FY92. States and Indian tribes supervised the
initiation of two RI/FSs, five RDs, six RAs, and two
removal actions.
State Highlights
To support increased state involvement in
Superfund, EPA participated in several efforts to
provide states with information about the program.
EPA and the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials sponsored a
conference for state Superfund managers to exchange
information on developing and implementing state
and federal Superfund programs. The state/EPA
conference in FY92, which was the third conference
in the series, was attended by over 160 participants
representing 44 states, 2 territories, 2 Indian tribes,
EPA, and other federal agencies. The theme of the
conference was accomplishing cleanups within
budgetary constraints. Discussion areas included
the clean-up process, voluntary cleanups, cost
recovery, and the state role in the Superfund program.
The Agency continued to offer the 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 the contractual mechanisms,
including their purposes and applications. Itidentifies
steps necessary to fulfill a response agreement,
explains state assurances, assists state project officers
in calculating a state's cost share, and describes
techniques for managing response agreements.
During FY92, the Agency conducted two seminars
involving 52 state and federal participants. The
Agency plans to conduct additional seminars during
FY93.
To provide an on-line information exchange,
EPA funded and developed a state Superfund
network. The network is an information exchange
bulletin board for state Superfund program
representatives. Network services offered include
weekly news items and electronic mail services, as
well as a document service and databases that provide
users full-text search capabilities. As of the end of
FY92, efforts were underway to provide access to
the network to EPA Regional Superfund offices.
Indian Tribe Highlights
In FY92, the Superfund program was actively
involved in addressing hazardous waste problems
on Native American lands and in assisting Indian
tribes in assuming regulatory and program
management responsibilities. The Superfund
program continued to promote involvement by
interested Indian tribes through SSCs, CAs, CPCAs,
and Superfund memoranda of understanding
(MOUs), Highlights of FY92 Indian tribe
involvement included the following activities.
• EPA negotiated and awarded a CPCA and multi-
site CA, each worth $250,000, to the All-Indian
Pueblo Council (Region 6).
• EPA successfully negotiated a Superfund
memorandum of agreement between Region 6
and the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council of
Oklahoma (representing 22 Indian tribes).
• EPA negotiated and awarded a CPCA and a
multi-site CA, of $450,000 each, to the Inter-
83
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Tribal Environmental Council of Oklahoma. An
additional $20,000 was provided for
management assistance at the Tar Creek NPL
site on behalf of the Quapaw Tribe (Region 6).
• The Navajo Superfund Program (NSP) received
EPA funding to perform site evaluations. With
this funding, NSP performed 22 preliminary
assessments and 18 site inspections in FY92.
The NSP also prepared a quality assurance plan
for site sampling (Region 9).
• The Navajo Nation received CPCA funding to
develop a tribal code, an MOU for the Navajo
Abandoned Mine Lands Program concerning
roles and responsibilities for cleaning up uranium
mine sites, and administrative systems for
addressing the November 1991 Management
Assistance Program review. In addition, the
agreement supports intermittent inter-
governmental personal agreements to assist the
nation in its program development efforts (i.e.,
funding to hire an attorney, an accountant, and
a Superfund coordinator) (Region 9).
As *an ongoing activity, representatives from
EPA's Superfund program participate in the EPA/
Indian Tribe Workgroup. The workgroup, in
conjunction with the EPA National Indian Program
Coordinator, addresses environmental issues
affecting Native Americans.
8.4 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. EPA's
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (OSDBU) is responsible for ensuring
that the Agency complies with Section 105(f) of
CERCLA and has prepared this section of the FY92
Report.
8.4.1 Minority Firm Contracting During
Fiscal Year 1992
EPA satisfies Section 105(f) of CERCLA
through direct and indirect procurements. EP'A
procures services directly from minority contractors
through contracts and subcontracts. Direct
procurements include Small Business Administration
8(a) contracts awarded to minority contractors, prime
contracts awarded to minority firms, and subcontracts
awarded to minority firms under EPA prime
contracts. EPA procures services from minority
contracting firms indirectly through contracts and
subcontracts awarded by states, Indian tribes, and
other federal departments and agencies under
Superfund financial assistance agreements. Under
cooperative agreements (CAs), states and Indian
tribes award contracts and subcontracts to minority
firms with funds transferred from Superfund to the
state or Indian tribe. Other federal departments and
agencies award contracts and subcontracts to
minority firms with Trust Fund monies transferred
to the agencies under interagency agreements (lAGs).
During FY92, EPA, through direct and indirect
procurements, awarded contracts worth more than
$44.5 million to minority contractors to perform
Superfund work. This amount represents almost six
percent of the total dollars obligated to finance
Superfund work during the fiscal year. Exhibit 8.4-
1 illustrates that EPA awarded most of the contract
dollars ($30.8 million) to minority contractors
through direct procurements. Contracts and
subcontracts worth almost $2.4 million were awarded
under EPA/state CAs, including a $300,000 grant
for Superfund training awarded to the National
Association of the Minority Contractors (NAMQ, a
non-profit organization. Other federal agencies
awarded more than $11.3 million in contracts and
subcontracts to minority firms under lAGs.
As Exhibit 8.4-2 illustrates, subcontracts
accounted for the largest share of EPA direct
procurements to minority firms. Subcontracts
totalling $15.2 million were awarded to minority
firms by EPA prime contractors. Other direct
procurements included $11.9 million in SmE.ll
Business Administration 8(a) contracts and $3.7
million in prime contracts to minority firms.
84
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 8.4-1
Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1992
Type of Activity
Total Dollars
Obligated
Minority Contractor
Participation1
Percentage of
Total
Direct Procurement
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements:
Total
$621,300,000
111,906,383
29,947,994
$763,154,377
$30,800,000
2,390,892
11,351,119
$44,542,011
4.95
2.14
37.90
5.84
This does not include Women's Business Enterprise participation.
This amount represents the total dollars awarded in FY92 through interagency agreements.
Source: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
Minority firms provide three kinds of services to
the Superfund program: professional, field support,
and construction. Exhibit 8.4-3 illustrates examples
of tasks performed.
8.4.2 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified
Minority Firms
OSDBU conducted a number of outreach
activities during the fiscal year to identify qualified
minority firms and inform them of opportunities
available in the Superfund program.
• OSDBU coordinated efforts with the Office of
Acquisition Management to establish small
business (SB) and small disadvantaged business
(SDB) subcontracting goals for all prime
contracts. These goals are monitored by
contracting officials to ensure and encourage
SB/SDB usage.
• In cooperation with NAMC, OSDBU conducted
four training sessions to assist minority
contractors in becoming more successful in
obtaining Superfund direct prime contract and
I subcontract awards. A total of 140 participants
51-013-2D
representing 94 firms took part in the training
sessions.
OSDBU, in cooperation with the States of Utah
and Connecticut, hosted minority business
enterprise (MBE) and women's business
enterprise (WBE) workshops to familiarize
minority and women business owners with the
opportunities available in Superfund and other
EPA programs. A total of 200 people attended
the workshops.
EPA hosted its mid-year MBE/WBE workshop
in November 1991 and its annual MBE/WBE
workshop in May 1992. These workshops
focused on improving minority contractor
utilization in the Superfund program.
8.4.3 Efforts to Encourage Other
Federal Departments and
Agencies to Use Minority
Contractors
OSDBU, in cooperation with the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response and Grants
85
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 19
-------
Chapter 9
Estimate of Resources
Section 301(h)(l)(G)ofCERCLA 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 FY92.
Section 9.1 of this chapter includes annual
information on Trust Fund resources obligated by
EPA and other federal departments and agencies
through FY92. An estimate of the long-term costs of
cleaning up sites on the existing NPL is included in
Section 9.2, together with an overview of the
estimating method used. The estimate includes Trust
Fund resource projections for EPA and other federal
departments and agencies funded through the Trust
Fund for FY93 and beyond. The estimate does not
include the cost incurred by other federal agencies to
clean up their sites, or potentially responsible party
(PRP) contributions. Finally, Section 9.3 provides
information submitted to EPA by other federal
departments and agencies on their resource needs
(from the Trust Fund and within their agency budgets)
for FY89 to FY92, and describes their Superfund
activities.
The long-term resource estimate provided in
Section 9.2 is based primarily on the responsibilities
and duties assigned to EPA and other federal
departments and agencies by Executive Order 125 80.
Computing such an estimate entails 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 the
sites and delete them from the NPL.
In developing the long-term resource estimate,
EPA considered several sources of information:
• EPA Superfund budgets and budget estimates
for FY89 through FY92, 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 underthe provisions
of 41 CFR 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 FY93, and beyond. The Agency is working
to identify data requirements, improve data quality,
develop cost estimating methods, and collect
additional information. This long-term effort has
87
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 9
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
Cooperative Agreement
CA Consent Decree
CD CERCLA Information System
CERCLIS Department of Energy
DOE Department of the Interior
DOI Department of Justice
DOJ Federal Aviation Administration
FAA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA General Services Administration
GSA Interagency Agreement
IAG Maritime Administration
MARAD National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
NCP Contingency Plan
National Institute of Environmental Health
NIEHS Sciences
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA National Priorities List
NPL National Response Team
NRT Outyear Liability Model
OLM On-Scene Coordinator
OSC Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSHA Potentially Responsible Party
PRP Remedial Action
RA Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RI/FS Record of Decision
ROD Regional Response Team
RRT Research and Special Program Administration
RSPA Tennessee Valley Authority
TV A United States Coast Guard
USCG United States Department of Agriculture
USDA Department of Veterans Affairs
VA
been coordinated with the development of the FY94
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 for implementing CERCLA.
The initial results of this effort are presented in
Section 9.2 of this chapter.
EPA's ability to project the federal resource
requirement for CERCLA implementation improves
each year as more experience is gained. Improved
coordination with other federal departments and
agencies, and additional data on the implementation
of the federal facilities requirement of Section 120
will also increase the accuracy of future resource
estimates.
9.1 SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF
SUPERFUND RESOURCES
Since the enactment of CERCLA in 1980,
Congress has provided Superfund with $10.5 billion
in budget authority (FY81 through FY92). This
includes $1.7 billion for FY81 through FY86, and
$8.8 billion for the post-SARA period, FY87 through
FY92. The FY92 budget allocated total resources of
nearly $1.8 billion targeted for the following
activities:
• The Response Program uses 79 percent of
Superfund resources. Response program
activities include site assessment, time-critical
and non-time-critical removals, long-term clean-
up actions, and program implementation
activities. Also included is support provided by
the Office of Water, the Office of Air and
Radiation, and other federal agencies.
• The Enforcement Program uses 11 percent of
Superfund resources. Enforcement activities
include PRP negotiations, litigation, and
settlements and cost recovery efforts.
• Management and Support uses 7 percent of
Superfund resources. This category includes
program analysis provided by the Office of
Program Planning and Evaluation; personnel,
contracting, and financial management services
from the Office of Administration and Resources
Management; legal services provided by the
Office of General Counsel; and the audit function
provided by the Office of the Inspector General.
• Research and Development uses 3 percent of
Superfund resources for the study and validation
of new environmental technologies.
Exhibit 9.1-1 presents a snapshot of the allocation of
Superfund resources for FY91 and FY92 within
these categories.
88
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 9.1-1
EPA Superfund Obligations
(in Millions)
Program Area
Response Program (Total)
EPA
Other Federal Agencies
Enforcement Program
Management and Support
Research and Development
TOTAL SUPERFUND
FY92
FY91 President's
Actuals Actuals
$1,169.4
1,032.0
137.4
173.8
126.8
83.7
$1,553.7
$1,402.7
1,248.9
153.8
191.1
121.5
65.0
$1,780.3
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation.
E51-013-11B
9.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup
Site cleanup is the single largest category of
Superfund expenditures and is expected to remain so
in the future. To project EPA funding needs for
clean-up activities, several key estimations were
made, including
• Theprojectednumberandaveragecostof studies,
remedial designs, and remedial actions (RAs)
undertaken;
• The extent and cost of removal activity; and
• The proportion of direct clean-up actions
undertaken by PRPs.
9.1.2 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.
9.2 ESTIMATED RESOURCES TO
COMPLETE CURRENT NPL
SITES
Estimating the cost of cleaning up current NPL
sites depends on a number of factors, many of which
will change as the program continues to mature. The
main factors are
• Changes in Superfund program policies and
procedures because of the revised NCP,
particularly the 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.
Based on these factors, EPA uses the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM) to estimate 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
numberofprogram-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:
89
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
• Active NPL sites;
• NPL sites where the remedial process has not yet
begun; and
• Non-site activities.
EPA's estimate of resources required to clean up
the existing NPL sites is provided in Section 9.2.1.
To develop this estimate, the Agency has concentrated
on the remedial and removal programs. These
programs are the major components of the Superfund
program and account for the majority of Fund
expenditures by the Agency. Section 9.2.2 describes
these and other key OLM features.
9.2.1 Estimated Cost to Complete
Existing NPL Sites
As illustrated in Exhibit 9.2-1, EPA's estimate
of the total Trust Fund liability to complete cleanup
of existing NPL sites is $26.9 billion. This total
includes the OLM estimate of $ 16.5 billion for FY93
and beyond. Major assumptions shaping the long-
term estimate include
• The OLM estimates only the Trust Fund cost of
the existing NPL (1,275 sites, including 1,183
final, 52 proposed, and 40 deleted sites as of
September 30,1992).
Exhibit 9.2-1
Estimate of Total Trust Fund Liability
to Complete Cleanup
at Sites on the
National Priorities List
(in Millions)
Total Allocations
FY92 and Prior
FY93 and beyond
TOTAL
$10,459.5
16,465.8
$26,925.3
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation and 51-013-120
Outyear Liability Model.
• Removal activities at sites on the NPL remain at
current levels.
• The RA cost estimate is $12.2 million. FY92
analyses of RA cost factors (choice of technology,
site size, and technology cost) have led to a
decrease in the RA cost estimate.
• Program support and other non-site elements are
straightlined at the levels of theFY94President's
budget.
- Approximately 35 percent of all new RI/FS
starts will be Fund-financed (i.e., the Trust Fund
will pay at least 90 percent of the cost).
• For non-federal facility sites, PRPs will take the
lead on 70 percent of the 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 facility sites.
Assumptions about the future reflect planning
assumptions taken from the Superfund Program
Management Manual and historical performance
averages, both of which are revised periodically.
EPA will continue to monitor developments that
affect program costs. Changes will be incorporated
into the Model as they occur, improving depiction of
future programmatic direction and refining previous
analysis. OLM estimates will vary over time as a
result, and subsequent editions of this report will
most likely contain revised estimates.
9.2.2 Program Element Assumptions
Represented in the Model
To provide a better estimate of the cost of the
Superfund program and the flexibility needed to
estimate the costs of future initiatives, the Model
includes many variables representing specific
program elements.
90
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 56 sites on the existing NPL that were inactive
attheendofFY92.
Data on the active NPL sites are stored in
CERCLIS and incorporated into the OLM to present
the most accurate picture of planned activities. The
OLM estimates ancillary activities for sites at which
some level of planning or remediation activity is
underway. Because most of the existing NPL sites
are active, they constitute a large portion of the total
liability estimate.
In addition to planned remedial activities,
enforcement activities have a significant impact on
the costs of addressing Superfund sites. All
enforcement activities are estimated by the Model
according to past program experience and several
standard sequences of activities, each representing a
different enforcement approach. Enforcement-related
variables within the Model include costs, woricyears,
and the shift in remedial costs when Superfund
assumes responsibility from, orpasses 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 where the remedial process has yet to begin.
Cleaning up an NPL site involves a number of
different activities occurring over time and in
predictable arrangements. For sites where the
remedial process has yet to begin, the OLM must
first approximate the activities that will be involved
when remediation of the sites begins. Approximations
are made by applying several "generic" activity
sequences to the number of sites being estimated.
When the activities have been set, cost and workyear
pricing factors are applied to estimate the necessary
resources. A consistent approach is used for all site-
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 Costs
Although non-site 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 factors to
the levels included in the FY94 President's budget.
Aside from thenumberof sites requiring cleanup
and the cost of individual cleanups, the assumption
of managerial and financial responsibility for a site
has the largest potential impact on the cost of the
Superfund program. There are many factors involved
in establishing who is responsible for a site (referred
to as the site "lead"), including
• Level of emphasis on the enforcement program;
• Willingness of states to assume financial
responsibility; and
• Cost-sharing arrangements between Superfund
and the states and between Superfund and the
PRPs.
The Model accommodates each of these factors
with one or more variables, allowing the estimation
of Superfund liabilities across a wide range of site-
lead and cost -sharing scenarios. 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 leads will ultimately result in lower Fund costs,
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
but related litigation may extend the amount of time
required to reach deletion.
Factors Related to Remedial Action Costs
The method of estimating RA costs is based on
analysis of RODs signed from FY87 through FY92.
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.
9.3 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)(l)(G) of CERCLA is providing an
estimation of the resources needed by other federal
departments and agencies for CERCLA
implementation. There are no projections of future
needs available for other agencies. The Superfund-
related resource needs of the other Executive Branch
departments and agencies for Superfund are met
through two sources: the Trust Fund and the
individual federal department or agency budgets.
Trust Fund monies are provided to other federal
agencies through two mechanisms:
• Interagency Budgets: 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
money from the Trust Fund to other federal
departments and agencies through site-specific
agreements.
Federal departments and agencies also allocate
monies from their budgets for Superfund-related
activities through CERCLA-specific funds and
general funds of the department or agency.
Exhibit9.3-l summarizes reported expenditures
(both Trust Fund and agency budgets) from FY89 to
FY92 of other federal departments and agencies.
The following information was provided by the
respective departments and agencies to describe
their resource needs and Superfund activities.
Department of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
initiated a special program in FY88 to achieve
compliance with the statutory and regulatory
requirements of CERCLA. The program includes
preassessment, assessment, removal, and remedial
activities at USDA facilities throughout the United
States.
The USDA has 96 sites listed on the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. None
of these sites are currently listed on the NPL, but
several might be added to the list in the future. The
USDA sites on the docket are primarily the
responsibility of the Agricultural Research Service,
Farmers Home Administration, and Forest Service.
Other USDA agencies, including the Animal Plant
and Health Inspection Service, Commodity Credit
Corporation, Food Safety Inspection Service, and
Soil Conservation Service, also have a small number
of CERCLA activities underway.
In general, USDA agencies have completed an
92
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 9.3-1
CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal Departments
and Agencies
(Dollars in Millions)
Federal
Departments
and Agencies
Agriculture
Commerce (NOAA)
Defense
Energy
FEMA
General Services
Administration
Health and Human
Services
ATSDR
NIEHS
Interior
Justice
Labor (OSHA)
NASA
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Transportation
Veterans Affairs
Total
FY89
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
2.6
2.3 0.9
-
-- 112.8
2.0
—
44.5
21.9
1.1 9.0
22.1
0.4
0.6
~
5.8
5.0
93.9 137.1
FY90
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
-- 13.3
2.2 0.9
-- 601.3
-- 431.6
1.7 1.0
..
45.2
36.3
1.1 34.1
28.8
1.0
5.7
—
7.3
-- 12.0
115.31,108.2
FY91
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
12.8
2.2 1.1
-- 1,065.0
- 1,000.0
1.7 1.4
„
48.5
41.9
1.2 59.0
32.8
0.7
3.9
--
12.5
2.0
128.3 2,158.4
FY92
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
27.7
2.2 1.3
-- 1,129.4
- 1,444.6
1.8
0.4
56.5
51.1
1.2 70.4
35.5
0.7
2.4
4.3
20.5
2.0
148.3 2,703.7
FY89-FY92
Total
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
56.4
8.9 4.2
-- 2,795.7
-- 2,989.0
7.2 2.4
0.4
194.7
151.2
4.6 172.5
119.2
2.8
12.6
4.3
46.1
21.0
485.8 6,107.4
Source: Office of Program Management.
51-013-13F
inventory and discovery process for USDA-owned
facilities or managed lands with the following
exceptions:
• The Forest Service has not completed an
inventory of potential problems on the 190
million acres of land it manages with respect to
abandoned mining sites or closed sanitary
landfills. Most of these sites are the result of
third-party activities on national forest lands
that have occurred in the past under authorizing
statutes, regulations, or permits. Cleanup at
these sites might involve cost recovery from
PRPs.
The Forest Service acts on behalf of the Secretary
of Agriculture as a federal trustee for natural
resources on lands it manages that have been
damaged by releases of hazardous substances.
The inventory of such sites has not yet clearly
been established. The Forest Service also acts
for USDA in providing support and assistance to
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
the National Response System through the
National Response Team (NRT) and the Regional
Response Teams (RRTs).
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 goals are to (1)
reduce risks to coastal habitats and resources from
hazardous chemical releases through preparedness
and response activities; (2) protect and restore NOAA
trust habitats and resources affected by hazardous
waste sites in coastal areas and; (3) enhance the state
of knowledge about hazardous material interactions
in coastal environments through research,
development, and technology transfer.
NOAA accomplishes these goals through two
networks of regional coordinators:
• NOAA's Coastal Resource Coordinators work
with EPA to evaluate natural resource concerns
at coastal hazardous waste sites and to ensure
coordination among state and federal natural
resource trustees. This work is funded largely
through CERCLA. 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.
• NOAA's Scientific Support Coordinators
provide U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and EPA On-
Scene Coordinators (OSCs) with scientific and
technical expertise in planning for and
responding to oil and hazardous material releases.
Scientific Support Coordinators seek to mitigate
the effects of a release into coastal areas. Their
work is funded by NOAA.
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DOD) has the
authority and responsibility under CERCLA to clean
up contamination associated with past activities. In
1984, DOD increased its emphasis on hazardous
waste cleanup when Congress established the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program. Under this
program, DOD identifies, investigates, and cleans
up environmental contamination from past activities
for which DOD is responsible following the
procedures of the NCP.
At the close of FY92, DOD owned and/or
operated 814 sites listed on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
Department of Energy
The Department of Energy (DOE) is committed
to conducting its operations in a safe and
environmentally sound manner and to preventing,
identifying, and correcting environmental problems
during present and future operations.
DOE has issued guidance establishing policies
and procedures for clean-up activities conducted
under CERCLA. DOE has also developed a Five-
Year Plan that will be updated annually and will
integrate planning for corrective activities,
environmental restoration, and waste management
operations at its facilities. DOE conducts assessments
at its operating facilities to monitor environmental
compliance and follow up on findings. Compliance
with environmental laws, regulations, and
requirements is an integral part of operations at DOE
facilities to ensure that risk to human health and to
the environment posed by past, present, and future
operations are eliminated or reduced to safe levels.
During FY92, DOE made significant progress
in reaching agreements with regulatory entities,
undertaking clean-up actions, and initiating
preventive measures to eliminate future
environmental problems. In accordance with
CERCLA Section 120, DOE initiated remedial
activities at all 17 DOE sites listed on the NPL,
including removal actions, interim actions, and the
initiation of final remediation activities. The 17
DOE NPL sites include Brookhaven National
Laboratory Site, New York; Femald Environmental
Management Project (formerly known as Feed
Materials Production Center), Ohio; Hanford Site,
Washington;IdahoNationalEngineeringLaboratory
Site, Idaho; Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory-Main Site, California; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, California;
94
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Maywood Site, New Jersey; Monticello Mill Site,
Utah; Monticello Vicinity Properties, Utah; Mound
Plant, Ohio; Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee;
Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado; Ross Complex,
Washington; Savannah River Site, South Carolina;
St. Louis Site, Missouri; Wayne Site, New Jersey;
and Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project,
Missouri. Since FY90, no additional DOE facilities
have been listed on the NPL, and only one site
(Pantex Plant, Texas) has been proposed for listing.
During FY92, DOE executed four CERCLA
Section 120 interagency agreements (lAGs) for Oak
Ridge Reservation, Tennessee; BrookhavenNational
Laboratory Site, New York; Weldon Spring Site,
Missouri; and Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory-Site 300, California. DOE and EPA also
began renegotiation of existing lAGs for Mound
Plant, Ohio, and Weldon Spring Site, Missouri, to
add the State of Ohio and the State of Missouri,
respectively, as parties to the lAGs.
Department of Health and Human
Services
Agency for Toxic Substances 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,
lexicological profiles, health studies, surveillance,
and registries; and health educatioa ATSDR activities
to fulfill these responsibilities are highlighted below.
ATSDR's emergency response staff is
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 experts including chemists,
lexicologists, environmental scientists, and medical
professionals. At the request of EPA Regional offices,
other federal agencies, and state and local agencies,
ATSDR emergency response personnel made five
on-site emergency responses and responded to
requests for information related to 83 other acute
events during FY92.
ATSDR participated in four simulated hazardous
substances emergencies, averaging 60 participants
each. Approximately 400 representatives from
federal, state, and local agencies and organizations
observed the simulated emergencies. ATSDR also
participated in 12 smaller scale hazardous material
event simulations.
Through its cooperative agreement (CA)
program, ATSDR supported emergency response
activities in five state health departments, improving
the capability of participating states to respond to an
emergency involving hazardous substances. In
addition, ATSDR prepared approximately 500health
consultations and provided technical assistance to
address approximately 400 otherrequests from EPA
and other federal, state, or local agencies and
organizations.
ATSDR and states in ATSDR's CA program
prepared a total of 233 public health assessments,
including 19 petitioned health assessments. ATSDR
also conducted 118 reviews and updates of sites that
were assessed early in the agency's existence and
prepared summary reports for 23 lead initiative
sites. In order to expand the states' abilities to
produce public health assessments, ATSDR trained
more than 80 state health assessors in the agency's
current public health assessment methods.
At the request of EPA, ATSDR personnel and
staff from states in the CA program evaluated 47
RODs and 39 RI/FS workplans to determine whether
proposed remedial alternatives would minimize sites'
existing and future impacts on public health.
ATSDR conducts studies of the human health
effects of toxic substances for selected groups of
exposed individuals. Many environmental exposures
occur at levels that do not result in acute illness, but
which might cause unrecognized biologic changes.
In FY92, a total of 17 studies and surveillance
projects were completed, and 34 studies and 21
surveillance projects were in progress.
ATSDR continued funding grants to support
research into health effects related to one or more of
95
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
ATSDR priority health conditions, which include
birth defects and reproductive disorders, cancer
(selected anatomic sites), immune function disorders,
kidney dysfunction, liver dysfunction, lung and
respiratory diseases, and neurotoxic disorders. Six
studies were in progress as of the end of FY92.
ATSDR supports the development of educational
materials in environmental medicine for health
professionals. More than 5,000 health professionals
were trained in programs sponsored by ATSDR
through CAs with state health departments. ATSDR
also distributed over 110,000 copies of Cose Studies
in Environmental Medicine to health professionals.
Nearly 1,800 health professionals received CME
credit for their participation in the case studies
program, which was reviewed and accepted for
credit by the American Academy of Family
Physicians, American College of Emergency
Physicians, American Osteopathic Association,
American Association of Occupational Health
Nurses, and American Board of Industrial Hygiene.
Five case studies were published in the journal of
the American Academy of Family Physicians,
American Family Physician. Case Studies in
Environmental Medicine: Nitrate/Nitrite Toxicity
was mailed in September 1992 to 38,000 members
of the American Academy of Pediatrics because of
the relevance of the document to the treatment of
children.
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences: The National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) uses CERCLA funds to
support its Worker Training Program and its
Superfund Basic Research Program .NTEHS received
$20 million from the FY92 appropriations to support
grants under its Worker Training Program for
providing occupational safety training for workers
that perform dangerous jobs or manage hazardous
substance emergencies. Between 1987 and 1992,the
first five years of the Worker Training Program,
NIEHS supported 16 primary grantees representing
consortia of over 60 different organizations and local
government units. During this five-year period, the
program has trained over 250,000 workers across the
country in 8,000 classroom and hands-on training
courses that have entailed almost five million contact
hours of actual training. Since the reauthorization of
CERCLA in 1986, NIEHS has awarded 18 CAs to
support training by eight labor organizations, five
major multi-state university consortia, three joint
labor-management trust funds, one community
college consortium, and a non-profit occupational
health center.
Now in its seventh year, the NIEHS Superfund
Basic Research Program continues to provide
research and training grants directed towards
understanding, assessing, and attenuating the adverse
effects on human health resulting from exposure to
hazardous substances. Grants made under the
program sponsor coordinated core research in
biomedicine, including multicomponent
interdisciplinary research in engineering,
hydrogeology, and ecology. The research provides a
broader and more detailed body of scientific
information to be used by federal, state, and local
agencies and by private organizations and industry
in making decisions related to the management of
hazardous materials.
Asof FY92,NIEHS's Superfund Basic Research
Program supported 18 research programs at 29
universities or institutions, encompassing more than
142 individual research projects. The following are
three examples of ongoing research projects
supported by the NIEHS:
• Research at the University of California explores
new technologies for thermal andbioremediation
of toxic wastes and seeks to identify new
analytical technologies, including biomarkers,
to evaluate the health effects of remediation.
This research, which involves 36 scientists in ten
projects and three cores, was developed in
research collaborations and/or technology
transfers among EPA, USDA, the U.S. Army
Medical Research and Development Laboratory,
the Department of Commerce, NOAA, the
California Air Resources Board, Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, and private
organizations.
• Integrating biomedicine, epidemiology, ecology,.
and engineering disciplines, research at the New
York University Medical Center assesses the
96
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
impact of hazardous waste exposure on human
health, including new and sensitive methods for
detecting human exposure to chemicals. This
research involves 26 investigators involved in
11 projects and three cores.
• At the University of Washington, research
continues on the development of biomarkers for
the lexicological effects of hazardous waste
chemicals. Research focuses on identifying
biomarkers that may be predictive of exposure,
adverse effects, and/or unusual susceptibility to
toxic substances in the environment.
Department of the Interior
Each of nine bureaus and fourterri tonal elements
of the Department of the Interior (DOI) provides
support to the Superfund program, primarily in
assisting the NRT and 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 national resource trustee
concerns, natural resource damage assessment
briefings, and settlements of trustee resources.
DOI is involved in the full range of response and
remediation activities on its lands and at its facilities.
Whenever feasible, DOI seeks to prevent the
generation and acquisition of hazardous wastes,
including minimizing waste generation through the
use of sound waste management practices. DOI
manages waste materials responsibility in order to
protect the natural resources and the people who live,
work, and enjoy its lands and facilities. DOI is
committed to moving aggressively to clean up and
restore areas under its care that are contaminated.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible
for all judicial litigation brought under CERCLA.
This responsibility includes conducting CERCLA
civil judicial litigation, representing EPA in
bankruptcy proceedings, prosecuting criminal
violations, conducting defensive and appellate
litigation, and participating as omicus curiae on
behalf of EPA, as required to support effective
implementation of the statute. In addition, DOJ
provides support in negotiating consent decrees
(CDs)underSections 106,107 and 122ofCERCLA;
processes CDs in accordance with approved
interagency procedures; prepares and disseminates
reports on litigative activities; and keeps EPA
informed of other CERCLA actions consistent with
the national program.
The enforcement efforts of DOJ play a critical
role in the overall Superfund program. Successful
judicial actions to recover clean-up costs and
replenish the Trust Fund, and actions to compel
PRPs to conduct clean-ups are integral parts of
EPA's enforcement strategy.
Civil litigation efforts in support of the Superfund
program have been extraordinarily successful. Since
1980, DOJ, together withEPA's enforcement efforts,
has achieved over 1,800 judicial settlements valued
at more than $6 billion. Of this total, more than $4
billion was recovered in the last four years. In FY92,
DOJ filed 154 judicial complaints (matching the
highest number filed in any previous year), assessed
$203 million through cost recovery actions, and
forced defendants to undertake various clean-up
activities valued at $894 million. The number of
active Superfund cases being litigated rose from 159
cases with 523 defendants in FY87 to 551 cases with
3,908 defendants at the beginning of FY93.
Superfund money provides DOJ with the
necessary attorneys, support staff, expert witnesses,
and litigation support vital to the CERCLA
enforcement process.
Department of Labor
Funds appropriated under general lAGs allow
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) of the Department of Labor to provide EPA
with technical assistance in the area of worker safety
and health. SARA Section 126 requires OSHA to
issue standards for employees engaged in hazardous
97
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
waste operations. Programs operated by OSHA or
states with OSHA-approved plans protect workers
at Superfund sites and support the NRT and RRTs.
OSHA performs laboratory analyses of samples
collected during Superfund site inspections and
maintains and calibrates technical equipment used
for these inspections. OSHA develops interpretations
of worker protection standards and maintains a
computerized system for the interpretations and for
tracking hazardous waste inspection activity. As a
member of the NRT and the associated RRTs, OSHA
provides assistance to these teams to complete their
annual workplans, conduct paper audits of response
plans, and perform technical assistance site visits.
Department of Transportation
The Department of Transportation uses funding
from its budgetto support CERCLA-related activities
carried out by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), the USCG, the Maritime Administration
(MARAD), and the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA).
Federal Aviation Administration: CERCLA
activities of the FAA involve pollution abatement
and hazardous waste cleanup at regional facilities.
United States Coast Guard/The USCG supports
the Superfund program by providing OSCs and
incident control and clean-up specialists 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 of
hydrocarbons in storage tank facilities at Kings
Point and other locations.
Research and Special Program Administration:
RSPA activities in supportof CERCLA 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 forthe states that was
established by the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990. This
grant program supports SARA-related emergency
planning and training for accidents and incidents
involving hazardous materials.
Department of Veterans Affairs
From FY89 through FY92, the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) budgeted $21 million for
Superfund cleanup and other construction activity
related to hazardous waste. VA anticipates that it
will make additional budgetary requests in the future
to cover its liability under Superfund. At present,
VA has been identified as a relatively small
contributor of hazardous waste at about 10 Superfund
sites.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The enactment of SARA in 1986 made many of
the voluntary preparedness and planning activities
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) 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 appropriation
authorizations. Funding for Superfund activities was
requested under the Superfund interagency budget.
The remainder of FEMA's hazardous materials
activities, including those authorized by SARA Title
III, was incorporated into FEMA's own operating
budget (under its technological hazards budget).
Since FY87,no additional funds have been requested
under CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(G) to carry out
Superfund activities.
Funding received under Superfund is used to
provide guidance, technical assistance and
interagency coordination for FEMA and multi-
agency initiatives that support state and local
responsibilities required under Superfund.
Interagency coordination is accomplished primarily
through the NRT/RRT structure. FEMA chairs the
NRT preparedness and training committees and
provides staff support to the NRT, RRTs, and
supporting subcommittees.
FEMA activities in support of state and local
governments include evaluating exercises focusing
98
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
on specific Superfund sites; providing guidance and
technical assistance in the design and development
of hazardous material exercises to include
jurisdictions within and around Superfund sites;
providing guidance and technical assistance in the
development and revision of hazardous material
plans addressing Superfund issues to ensure their
adequacy and consistency with the NCP; providing
training and course materials for constituencies
involved in various Superfund clean-up activities;
supporting the NRT-sponsored National Hazardous
Materials Conference to coordinate efforts for
improving hazardous material emergency
preparedness nationwide; and completing the
temporary and permanent relocation programs started
in FY91 (e.g., Times Beach, Forest Glenn).
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. GSA does not have any sites
on the NPL, although it has completed a cleanup at
a non-NPL site.
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 statutory
environmental requirements. This program provides
the means to conduct environmental compliance
monitoring, 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, including studies, assessments, RI/FSs,
and RAs. During FY92, there were no NASA-owned
sites listed on the NPL, but the revised Hazard
Ranking System criteria may result in future listing
of sites. As ongoing studies and assessments continue
and pending regulatory reviews are completed, clean-
up activities are expected to proceed.
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is
committed to operating and maintaining its facilities
and properties in compliance with statutory
environmental requirements.
The TVA has no facilities listed on the NPL, and
none of its facilities have been proposed for listing.
TVA, however, is currently involved in a site cleanup
under a RCRA corrective action. In addition, TVA
has commenced a program to evaluate site
contamination and remediation beyond that required
by regulations. TVA is also involved in several
research and development projects involving new
remediation technologies.
99
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
100
-------
Appendix A
Status of Remedial
Investigations, Feasibility
Studies, and Remedial Actions
at Sites on the National
Priorities List in Progress on
September 30,1992
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
FY92. This appendix also provides notice of RI/FSs
and RAs thatEPA 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)(Q. These dates were
previously published in Appendix A of Progress
TowardlmplementingSuperfund: Fiscal Year 1991.
In addition to meeting these statutory requirements,
this appendix lists new remedial projects that were
begun in FY92 and were in process at the end of
FY92. Listed activitiesmayincluderemedial projects
at several operable units on a single site, as well as
first and subsequent activities at a single operable
unit.
Information in the appendix is organized under
the following headings:
• RG — EPA Region in which the site is located.
• ST — State in which the site is located.
Site Name — Name of the site, as listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Location—Location of the site, as listed on the
NPL.
Operable Unit — Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring; a
single site may include more than one operable
unit.
Activity — Type of project in progress on
September 30,1992.
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);
A-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
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 state-financed, no
Fund money), and SR (state-ordered PRP
response activities), are excluded from this status
report because they do not include federal
financing.
Forsome activities, the indicated lead is followed
by an asterisk (*), which indicates that funding
for the activity was taken over by the indicated
lead during FY92.
Funding Start—The date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
Previous Completion Schedule—Forprojects
ongoing at the end of FY91 that continued into
FY92, the quarter and fiscal year of the planned
completion date for the activity, as of
September 30,1991. This column is blank for
projects that were begun in FY92.
Present Completion Schedule — The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion of the
activity, as of September 30, 1991. This
information was compiled from CERCLIS on
November 11,1992.
Status — Status of the project with respect to
previous (FY91) and present (FY92) published
completion schedules, as follows:
On-schedule projects are designated by a zero
(0).
Projects that arebehind 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 FY92 are described
as new in the status column.
Projects described asDNE (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 FY92 Report. For example,
several activities with the status of DNE were
state enforcement-lead or state-lead and state-
financed before FY92, and therefore did not fall
under the requirements of CERCLA Section
301(h)(l)(B). During FY92, 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.
A-2
-------
Progress Towara Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
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
Beacon Heights Landfill
Kellog-Deering Well Field
Linemaster Switch Corp.
Old South ington Landfill
Solvents Recovery Service of New
England
Yaworski 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
Beacon Falls
Nor walk
Woodstock
South ington
South ington
Canterbury
Fairhaven
Holbrook
Tyngsborough
Fort Devens
Fort Devens
Woburn
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
03
03
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
03
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1992
LEAD
RP
RP
EP
RP
RP
F
RP
F
RP
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
F
FUNDING
START
09/30/91
03/31/92
05/16/90
07/10/89
09/29/87
05/21/92
10/29/86
08/12/88
04/08/91
09/18/89
09/05/89
06/26/90
09/30/91
09/28/90
05/13/91
05/13/91
08/31/92
08/31/92
08/31/92
05/13/91
05/13/91
05/13/91
05/18/92
05/30/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 93
3 93
3 93
2 93
4 94
4 93
3 92
1 93
2 92
3 97
2 93
4 93
3 93
4 93
1 94
1 94
1 94
1 93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 95
1 94
4 99
3 93
4 93
2 93
4 94
3 94
4 93
1 94
2 93
3 97
4 94
1 95
4 94
4 94
1 95
1 95
1 95
1 95
3 95
3 94
1 94
2 94
STATUS
-5
new
-25
0
-2
new
0
-3
-5
-4
-4
0
-6
-5
-5
-4
new
new
new
-4
-6
-2
new
-5
Tl
|
•t
5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
1 MA Iron Horse Park Bilterica 01
03
1 MA New Bedford Site New Bedford 01
02
1 MA Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Ashland 03
1 MA Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Falmouth 01
Edwards 03
04
05
06
07
08
1 MA Salem Acres Salem 01
1 MA Shpack Landfill Norton/Attleboro 01
1 MA Wells G&H Woburn 02
03
1 ME Brunswick Naval Air Station Brunswick 03
04
05
06
1 ME Loring Air Force Base Limestone 01
02
03
04
05
07
08
09
10
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/15/91
01/31/90
02/15/85
12/20/91
05/21/87
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
06/15/87
09/24/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
06/22/90
02/22/88
06/22/90
06/22/90
01/30/91
01/30/91
05/09/91
05/09/91
05/09/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
2
4
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
1
3
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
3
1
95
93
92
92
94
92
93
93
93
94
94
92
93
93
93
93
92
93
94
94
93
94
95
96
96
98
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
4
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
3
1
95
94
93
94
93
94
94
95
93
95
93
95
93
95
94
94
93
93
94
93
93
94
94
94
94
95
96
96
98
STATUS
0
-5
-4
new
-2
0
-6
-8
-2
-7
3
-4
-5
-7
-3
-5
-3
-5
DNE
DNE
0
0
0
-4
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CM
O
O
L.
CO
CU
,
CD
U
en
u.
•Jj
C
H-
1 X
V) — i
a
•f— Q^
4-> a.
c <
1
|
-53
1
i —
en
O
c_
O
a.
-CM
co o
UJ O
a
1— O
co ro
>- oe
1— UJ
— i ca
•-t UJ
CO h"
— a.
VI UJ
< M
Ul
O
CO C/>
Z CO
o iu
•— of
O O£
— a.
t—
CO Z
UJ »-•
Z CO
~ 2
< h*
2 0
a <
UI
£=!
ce —
o
U. UJ
O £
UJ
CO O£
ra
1— O
<=:
CO
en
i—
CO
§
—, UJ
t— 1— —
CO CL U
UJ ^ ZC
a; o o
a ^j (/;
g
cn i-t ui
Bh- _I
UJ —
> CL U
ce o cj
o. u co
C3
z
1-1 H-
a os
U. CO
u
^
i—
>
£
^
Of UJ h-
UJ — 1 •—
O < 3
§
' §
_ 1
UJ
z
IU
1—
CO
1—
CO
Of
in '•o
ro •*
o\ o*
•* •*
S! 8
IO CM
O O
o o
*^ *>.
0 N-
O O
u- u-
co
V
oe. oe
0 0
c
o
C CO
-C 4J
en c.
CD O
3 z
"E
CD
CU
O) — *
ca — .
— * M-
CO -Q
v> c.
ca
CO —1
C) X
4J CU
CU ^
C CD
•^ 0
a. o
UJ Z
ro
ot
ro
8
-*
o
*v
CM
O
u_
CO
^
oe
0
•a
t_
o
M-
^
en
c_
o
3
4^
C
a.
en
L.
01
O
4-1
^^
T-
o
CO
oe
0
O)
c
a
UJ
en
CD
CJ
1_
cu
CO
CO
4-1
c
c_
c
UJ
0
"o
at
=
3 OinO033O33 -* «-
CU i CU CU CU CU i I
c c c c c
O c>OO*OOOO*OC> C> O^
ro cMro«~ cMstfM*"*"^ ^± *~
ro CM >rf- NJ- in CM ro
0 Ol> Ov 0 O 0
CM CM «— CM *— -* -*
O O O> C> C> O O 5 O O CO CO
*^ ^~ ^~ N- ^ m m ^~ ^ ^ co ro
T- CMCM*-«— CMCMCM*-*- CM O
o «-«-ooooooo o o
U.U.U.U.U-U-U.U.U- 0- Q.
u. U.U.U.U.U.U-U.H.U- oe Of
co cocococococncococo co co
«^ -^-v^^^^^^^ -^ ^
oe otacocoeacatoeacct oe of
o ooooooooo o o
g
'i
z
~» -C
03 O C
CO O 3 O
E E CO 4->
— en c- en
f- c. E .c
cu o o o
SO. CO -3
•f~
o c
CJ CD
D)
c cu >•
— CO t-
4-> ID CD
ID CO 4->
O CO —
0) L- CO *-
e- 0 -0
•— u- -C C
JT 4-> CD
cn c_ c- «j
8- < i -
CD en co
x o (- c-
3 CO EC
CU O> O O)
Z CX CO CJ
Z X I —
z z z a:
ro
S
CM
g;
to
§
rs.
CM
0
U-
cn
t.
2
o
T3
^)
H-
JC
'i
CO
"^
H-
1?
CD
^
oe
cn
u
en
CD
Q
„
oe
00
S
CM
5
CM
oo
co
r^
CM
S
U-
2
O
T-,
cu
H-
4-*
'i
CO
cu
4->
cn
CO
3
12
IT
en
CD
r
oe;
333
cu eu cu
c c c
in ro ^*
o o o
»- fO CM
•
CM CM CM
O O O
ro ro ro
CM CM CM
ro ro ro
o o o
Ul_ U_ U-
u- u- u.
CO CO CO
^*t t
Of Of Of
000
c
3
o
en
D)
c
-C
4-*
t_
o
z
4j
CO
C
o
o
D
c_
cn
c
o
CJ
CO
ID
CU
°> C.
cn cu
> C
CD CU
a cj
l
of
3
CU
c
ot
^~
gj
ro
CM
S
u_
LJ-
co
V
oe
o
c
3
O
cn
D)
c
f
(_
o
z
4_(
CO
m
c
o
4-1
g
O
CO
CO
CU
^ l_
en cu
> C
CO CU
a cj
_
Of
333
CU CU CU
c c c
ro in ^t
O o O
J- CM «-
CM CM CM
o o o
ro ro ro
CM CM CM
ro 10 ro
000
u- u, u-
u- u- u.
cn cn cn
't.^t
Of Of Of
o o o
v
u
1
z
O)
c
E
CO
»—
1
a
|
UJ
a
CO
z
L- L.
0 01
3 C
cu o
z u
_
a:
A-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
o\
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
RI
RI
RI
RI
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Peterson/Puritan, Inc.
Picillo Farm
Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Western Sand & Gravel
BFI Sanitary Landfill (Rockingham)
Bennington Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Burgess Brothers Landfill
Old Springfield Landfill
Parker Landfill
Pine Street Canal
Tans i tor Electronics Inc.
American Cyanamid Co.
Asbestos Dump
Bog Creek Farm
Bridgeport Rental & Oil
Services
Brook Industrial Park
Burnt Fly Bog
LOCATION
L i nco I n/Cumber I and
Coventry
South Kingstown
Burr illvi lie
Rockingham
Bennington
Woodford
Springfield
Lyndon
Burlington
Bennington
Bound Brook
Millington
Howe 1 1 Township
Bridgeport
Bound Brook
Marlboro Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
05
03
02
01
02
01
01
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
SE
SE
F
F
F
F
F
S
S
FUNDING
START
05/29/87
11/09/87
09/30/90
09/25/87
07/24/92
06/28/91
08/27/91
09/17/92
08/10/90
06/27/88
09/12/90
05/28/88
05/28/88
01/24/91
09/27/91
04/19/88
09/29/88
04/12/89
12/07/83
09/30/88
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
4
3
4
3
1
4
3
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
93
93
93
91
93
94
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
4
4
3
4
1
3
4
4
1
4
1
3
3
2
4
4
2
3
1
4
93
93
94
91
94
94
94
93
94
93
94
94
95
94
93
94
95
93
94
95
STATUS
-1
0
-4
0
new
-4
-3
new
-1
-5
-3
DNE
DNE
-3
-2
-7
-7
-2
-4
-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Chemsol, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (TOMS RIVER
CHEMICAL)
Combe Fill North Landfill
Combe Fill South Landfill
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.
Fair Lawn Well Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
Florence Land Recontouring
Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
LOCATION
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Piscataway
Toms River
Mount Olive
Township
Chester Township
Saddle Brook
Townsh i p
Bayvi lie
Fair Lawn
Atlantic County
Florence Township
Pemberton
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
03
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
04
05
07
08
09
10
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
Rl/FS
RI/FS
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
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
F
F
F
f
S
S
RP
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
03/29/85
07/15/85
03/15/90
09/28/90
07/05/89
09/30/88
09/28/90
04/29/88
06/26/87
09/30/92
08/19/92
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
09/29/89
08/06/92
06/19/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
4
1
1
93
92
92
93
94
92
93
95
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
94
93
4
3
4
4
3
4
2
4
2
1
4
1
4
3
4
4
2
4
2
2
2
93
93
93
93
95
94
93
95
94
94
95
95
93
93
93
93
95
94
94
94
94
STATUS
-3
-5
-7
-3
-6
-8
-1
-3
-4
-4
new
new
-5
DNE
-3
-3
-8
-4
-1
new
-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
oo
Rfi
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Fried Industries
GEMS Landfill
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Goose Farm
Helen Kramer Landfill
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown
Plant)
Higgins Disposal
Higgins Farm
Hopkins Farm
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Jackson Township Landfill
Kauffman & Minteer, Inc.
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill
LOCATION
East Brunswick
Township
Gloucester
Township
Glen Ridge
Plumstead
Township
Mantua Township
Gibbstown
Kingston
Franklin Township
Plumstead
Township
Morganvi lie
Jackson Township
Jobs town
Pemberton
Township
Pitman
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
01
03
01
01
01
02
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
FE
PS
F
F
F
RP
F
PS
F
F
PS
S
PS
F
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
06/28/85
06/05/89
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/30/92
08/27/92
09/23/88
07/02/86
05/17/90
09/29/90
02/03/87
09/28/84
08/21/88
04/11/89
09/30/92
09/30/88
09/29/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
3
4
1
4
3
2
1
4
1
4
4
93
93
98
93
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
99
4
1
4
1
4
4
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
1
4
1
93
95
98
94
98
99
94
95
95
94
94
94
94
93
96
99
97
STATUS
-2
-6
0
-4
new
new
-2
-6
-8
-4
-6
DNE
-4
1
new
0
new
-------
Progress lowa.-d Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
SITE NAME
Lodi Municipal Well
Lone Pine Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
Metaltec/Aerosystems
Monitor Devi ces/ I nterc i rcui ts.
Inc.
Monroe Township Landfill
Montcl air/West Orange Radium
Sit6
NL Industries
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Weapons Station
Radiation Technology Inc.
Renora, Inc.
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Township Wells
LOCATION
Lodi
Freehold Township
Maywood/Rochel le
Park
Franklin Borough
Wall Township
Monroe Township
Montclair/West
Orange
Pedricktown
Lakehurst
Colts Neck
Rockaway Township
Edison Township
Rockaway Township
Rockaway
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
04
05
08
09
01
02
01
02
03
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
i
30, 1992
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
RP
RP
FF
F
F
PS
F
F
F
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
RP
RP
PS
FUNDING
START
06/19/87
10/13/89
09/21/87
07/21/90
03/29/91
03/12/92
12/01/86
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/30/92
04/25/86
02/04/91
09/30/91
03/16/92
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/27/90
09/27/90
07/24/86
08/25/90
09/30/92
12/16/86
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
1
4
1
1
4
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
92
94
93
94
93
93
98
93
93
95
93
94
93
93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 93
3 94
1 94
4 94
1 95
2 95
1 94
4 98
1 94
4 98
3 93
2 93
1 97
3 96
2 93
4 93
2 94
4 95
2 93
1 94
1 95
3 93
STATUS
-4
-1
-4
0
-8
new
-4
0
-4
new
-1
DNE
-6
new
DNE
DNE
-4
-6
-1
-3
new
DNE
3!
1
i
^
J
3
8
._ »
51
i
Q.
t
1
i
i
§
§
33
C
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Hscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS
OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Roebling Steel Co.
Sayreville Landfill
Scientific Chemical Processing
Sheild Alloy Corp.
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
Tabernacle Drum Dump
U.S. Radium Corp.
Universal Oil Products (Chemical
Division)
WR Grace & Co. Inc. /Wayne Interim
Storage Site
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
White Chemical Corp
Wi Ison Farm
American Thermostat Co.
Anchor Chemicals
Batavia Landfill
LOCATION
Florence
Say rev i lie
Carlstadt
Newfield Borough
Pennsauken
South Kearny
Tabernacle
Township
Orange
East Rutherford
Wayne Township
Wall Township
Newark
Plumstead
Township
South Cairo
Hicksville
Batavia
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
HA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1992
LEAD
F
PS
RP
PS
RP
S
RP
F
F
PS
FF
F
F
PS
F
RP
RP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/29/92
11/26/91
12/19/88 1 93
10/05/88 1 93
09/07/88 2 96
05/23/89 1 93
09/21/92
09/28/84 1 93
09/30/89
05/28/86 4 92
07/21/90 4 94
09/30/91 2 93
09/27/91 1 93
02/03/87 4 92
08/07/92
06/02/89 2 93
08/09/84 4 92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
1
4
1
3
3
3
1
4
95
94
94
94
96
94
94
93
94
94
94
95
93
93
94
94
93
STATUS
new
new
-6
-6
0
-4
new
-2
DNE
-5
0
-7
•2
-3
new
-3
-4
5
I
S
1
S
3,
1
i
j*
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CM
1
t-
- Of
1- UJ
-I £
~ UJ
CD t-
« O.
CO UJ
< CO
LU
^°
CO CO
Z CO
O LU
—i a:
r- C3
< O
u a:
« a.
CO Z
UJ »
Z CO
1 l_^
< 1—
UJ
1<
o
u. UJ
O £
UJ
CO Of
Si
1- <
CO
CO
CO
z
o
*~ UJ
1— h~ — 1
Z LU =}
UJ — 1 O
co a. LU
LU z: z
a: o cj
a. cj co
z
o
CO ^^ UJ
— —1 Q
> a. ui
UJ Z Z
OS O 0
Q- CJ CO
ry
5 a:
U. CO
a
11 1
^
i—
>
£
O
i
Of LU 1—
LU _l —
Z
o
1
LU
z
LU
CO
1—
c/>
C9
tt
CO
c>
-
5
st
r--
co
ro
CM
Sf
o
U-
OS
0
^
c
o
u
E
CD
C
Q.
TJ
~0>
LU
-
01
£_
m
z
CM
2
CD
C
£
-
t>
O
£
u_
"-
CO
s^
Of
o
g
s.
X
o
CO
(_
o
CD
CO
c
o
4-*
CD
z
1
ca ^
§§
CD *^
Z
CM
1
5!
CM
CM
O
§
Q_
a:
o
c
o
I
o
u
en
c
CD
01
_,
ca
1
o
OB E
cj a
z
CM
1
S
-
8
ro
0
X
|
CM
0
o.
ac
CO
S^
Of
0
CO
^
-3
L.
0
a.
CO
0
a
.^
a
0)
en
CO
2
CO
CO
01
!5
3
a
00
o
c.
f_
ca
CJ
z
CM
C
ot
CM
CM
O
CM
O
u.
CO
i^
Of
CM
0
11
CD
13
01
C
°i
L.
CO
u.
CO
CD
LU
p
Q.
L.
o
o
c
o
4-*
u
CJ
z
CM
i
£
-
CM
O
ro
(M
£
o
CO
a.
Of
o
c
i
Q.
a
c
_v
c
o
CJ
z
CM
1
ot
-
5!
-
o
o
*x
S
O
a.
Of
CO
•^
QL
0
Dl
t_
E
CO
2
O
L.
CD
H-
0
^—
.,_
^
c
a
01
CO
01
o
CJ
z
CM
1
gj
CM
C?
-
CO
co
o
0
CM
O
JC
CO
»*-
o
o
1—
,^
"~*
**-
•a
c
ca
<
TJ
C
JO
o
a.
L.
o
CJ
CJ
u.
z
CM
O
CM
O
ro
CM
O
ro
*
0
a.
Of
u>
•^
Of
o
CO
J
LU
U
C
V)
01
CO
L.
Q.
£_
01
4-*
C
LU
01
U
CD
u_
Z
CM
1
ot
OJ
Si
o
1
u-
co
•>.
Of
CM
0
CO
CO
LL.
CO
c.
CD
O)
CO
z
F
01
o
Si
C3 CO
CO ••-
01 TJ
col
u- CO
z
CM
in
o
ro
ro
o
CM
s>
in
CM
o
0
Lu
co
-^
Of
CM
0
cu
CD
3
S
c
c
CD
LL.
O
U
CO
C
4^
CD
CL
CU
CD
N
C9
Z
CM
1
in
-
g>
CM
C>
CM
•O
O
a.
Of
CO
^
Of
o
o
0
c.
o
•
u
c
CO
g
•5
o
u
01
oc
u
CO
o
C9
z
CM
St S IS o! IS § S;
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
m ro ro >» ~* in in
o* o* o* o* o* o* o*
CM CM •* CM >I CM vl-
O O O O O O 0
O O O O O O O
o o o o o o o
CM CM CM CM CM CM CVI
to ro ro ro ro ro to
o o o o o o o
CO CO t/> CO CO CO CO
» V.«^^-x.-x,
Of Of Of Of Of Of Of
*- CM ro N» in >o r-.
o o o o o o o
Of
0)
CO
ca
o>
u
o
u.
c
ca
CO
«*-
M-
0
Z
CM
|V^
S
-
to
O
-
oo
LA
CO
0
a.
Of
0
CO
ca
u_
CO
ca
en
CO
z
•Jf
CO
CL.
CU
i
o
1
3=
-
CM
A-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Hooker (South Area)
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Hudson River PCBs
Islip Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Johnstown City Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Katonah Municipal Well
Kenmark Textile Corp.
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Li Tungsten Corp.
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Love Canal
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Marathon Battery Corp.
LOCATION
Niagara Falls
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Town of Johnstown
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Bedford
Farmingdale
Horseheads
Glen Cove
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
Malta
Cold Springs
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
07
08
01
03
03
03
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
PS
PS
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
F
F
S
S
S
S
RP
F
F
RP
FUNDING
START
11/02/90
11/02/90
09/21/88
04/28/92
07/25/90
03/15/92
10/03/88
03/29/91
03/26/91
03/14/90
07/31/91
09/28/90
08/08/91
OB/26/92
09/28/90
09/26/91
09/26/91
02/09/87
06/26/87
11/10/89
09/27/91
06/28/91
08/30/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
4
4
3
1
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
97
95
92
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
91
93
94
92
91
4
4
3
2
3
4
2
1
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
96
96
93
93
94
94
93
95
94
92
94
93
95
94
93
93
93
94
94
94
93
93
93
STATUS
1
-4
-3
new
-4
new
-1
-5
-4
0
-4
-3
-7
new
-2
DNE
DNE
-8
-9
-4
5
-3
-7
-------
Progress iowa,d Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
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
AND
SITE NAME
Niagara County Refuse
Niagra Mohawk Power Corp.
(Saratoga Springs Plant)
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Olean Well Field
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Pollution Abatement Services
Preferred Plating Corp.
Radium Chemical
Richardson Hill Road LandfU/Pond
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Sarney Farm
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Wheatfield
Saratoga Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Olean
Plattsburgh
Oswego
Farmingdale
New York City
Sidney Center
Cor t I and
Deer Park
Amen i a
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
06
03
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
STUDIES,
30, 1992
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
RP
PS
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
F
RP
F
RP
RP
F
F
F
F
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
03/30/89 1 93
09/27/89 2 93
09/21/92
07/27/89 3 92
11/13/90 1 93
01/27/88 2 92
06/25/91 4 93
09/30/92
04/23/91
09/30/92
04/23/91
04/23/91
06/04/92
09/28/90 1 93
01/31/92
09/27/90
06/29/90 4 92
07/22/87 1 97-
01/04/90 1 93
09/30/92
05/17/91 1 93
04/26/90 1 93
03/31/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
4
1
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
2
4
4
3
3
1
3
2
2
3
4
93
94
94
92
93
93
94
93
94
95
93
94
94
93
95
93
93
94
94
94
94
93
93
STATUS
-1
-6
new
-1
0
-6
-3
new
DNE
new
DNE
DNE
new
-3
new
DNE
-3
-4
-6
new
-5
-2
new
2!
8
1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
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
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
SITE NAME
Sealand 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
Volney Municipal Landfill
York Oil Co.
Barceloneta Landfill
GE Wiring Devices
Juncos Lary'*ill
Naval Security Group Activity
RCA Del Car i be
Upjohn Faci lity
Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells
LOCATION
Lisbon
Romulus
Sidney
Wellsville
Oyster Bay
Port Crane
Farmingdale
Vestal
Town of Volney
Moira
Florida Afuera
Juana Diaz
Juncos
Sabana Seca
Barceloneta
Barceloneta
Vega Alta
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
F
FF
FF
F
RP
RP
RP
RP*
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
FF
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
06/29/90
03/19/90
04/29/91
09/19/89
12/06/91
05/29/92
11/15/90
05/14/92
06/07/88
09/30/87
09/28/90
05/21/92
09/28/90
05/30/91
11/30/90
03/19/92
03/31/88
02/11/92
04/19/89
09/18/92
10/23/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
4
2
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
93
93
94
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
1
4
4
3
2
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
1
1
4
4
3
95
94
94
94
94
93
94
95
93
93
95
95
94
93
93
95
94
94
95
94
94
STATUS
-5
-4
-2
-6
new
new
-7
-5
-2
-4
-11
new
-6
-1
-2
new
-1
new
-7
new
-6
-------
Progress loward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
2 VI
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 MD
AND
SITE NAME
Tutu Wellfield
Army Creek Landfill (Delaware Sand
& Gravel Llangollen)
Dover Air Force Base
Dover Gas Light Co.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Co. (Newport Pigment plant
LdF
Halby Chemical Co.
Kent County Landfill (Houston)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport
Plant)
Standard Chlorine of Delaware,
Inc.
Sussex County Landfill No.
5
Tyler Refrigeration Pit
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
Area)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Tutu
New Castle
County
Dover
Dover
Newport
New Castle
Houston
Newport
Delaware City
Laurel
Smyrna
Edgewood
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
06
07
08
09
10
11
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1992
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
MR
MR
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
PS
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
02/19/92
09/28/90
07/23/91
03/02/92
06/29/90
06/29/90
07/06/90
08/12/88
12/20/91
09/27/91
09/26/91
11/30/87
03/29/91
03/29/91
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
12/05/90
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
4
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
4
3
3
1
93
95
92
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
92
96
93
93
93
94
92
93
93
94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 94
4 95
2 94
4 92
3 92
3 93
3 93
2 93
1 95
1 95
4 94
1 94
2 94
1 94
3 93
1 96
1 94
3 94
2 94
1 94
2 94
1 95
3 94
1 94
STATUS
new
-11
3
new
-2
-3
-1
-2
new
-6
-4
-3
-4
-3
-4
0
-4
-6
-3
0
-6
-6
-4
0
§
$
i
™
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fisoul Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
(Michaelsville Landfill)
Annearundel County Landfill
Bush Valley Landfill
Kane & Lombard Street Drums
Limestone Road
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
Woodlawn County Landfill
AIW Frank/Mid- County Mustang
AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
Aladdin Plating, Inc.
Ambler Asbestos Piles
Bell Landfill
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Berks Landfill
Berks Sand Pit
LOCATION
Aberdeen
Glen Burnie
Abingdon
Baltimore
Cumberland
Hollywood
Woodlawn
Exton
Glen Rock
Scott Township
Ambler
Terry Township
Bridgewater
Township
Denver
Spring Township
Longswamp
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
05
06
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
03
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
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
RP*
S
RP
F
RP
F
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
F*
RP
F
FUNDING
START
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
08/30/91
09/01/90
06/15/90
12/28/88
02/28/90
05/29/92
12/28/88
09/14/90
03/01/89
05/16/90
06/08/92
01/09/92
02/11/91
06/15/92
03/12/90
06/26/91
08/16/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
2
4
4
2
1
1
2
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
92
93
93
93
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
1
4
1
2
4
3
4
4
2
4
94
93
94
94
94
94
95
94
93
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
STATUS
0
0
-4
-2
-4
-4
-9
-2
new
-2
-1
0
-3
new
new
-2
new
-3
-4
DNE
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
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
Blosenski Landfill
Boarhead Farms
B redhead Creek
Brown's Battery Breaking
Butler Mine Tunnel
Butz Landfill
Centre County Kepone
Croydon TCE
Dougtassvi lie Disposal
Drake Chemical
Dublin TCE Site
Eastern Diversified Metals
Elizabethtown Landfill
Fischer & Porter Co.
Havertown PCP
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
LOCATION
West Cain
Townsh i p
Bridgeton
Township
Stroudsburg
Shoemakersville
Pittston
Stroudsburg
State College
Boro
Croydon
Doug I ass vi lie
Lock Haven
Dublin Borough
Hometown
Elizabethtown
Warminster
Haverford
Weisenberg
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
02
03
03
02
01
03
01
02
01
03
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
RP
F
RP
F
RP
F
RP
F
F
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
F
F
F
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
09/13/91
12/05/89 4 93
05/29/92
12/27/91
03/30/87 4 92
09/30/91
11/07/88 2 93
09/30/91 2 93
06/08/89 3 93
10/04/91
09/30/91
08/15/91 1 93
10/19/87
09/30/91
09/28/90 1 93
02/20/92
08/03/90 1 92
08/15/91 2 93
09/29/92
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
2
2
1
93
94
94
93
93
93
94
93
93
93
95
94
93
93
94
94
93
93
94
STATUS
DNE
-1
new
new
-2
DNE
-3
-1
0
new
DNE
-5
DNE
DNE
-7
new
-5
0
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
oo
RG
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
SITE NAME
Henderson Road Site
Hunterstown Road
Jack's Creek/Si tkin Smelting and
Refining Inc.
Lackawanna Refuse
Letterkenny Army Depot (Property
Disposal Office Area)
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
Malvern TCE
Metal Banks
Middletown Air Field
Mill Creek Dump
Moyers Landfill
Naval Air Development Center (8
waste centers)
LOCATION
Upper Merion
Township
Straban Township
Ma it land
Old Forge
Borough
Franklin County
Chambersburg
Malvern
Philadelphia
Middletown
Erie
Eagleville
Warminster
Townsh i p
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
03
01
01
03
01
02
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
F
F
RP
F
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/12/92
03/15/91
03/10/87
08/28/90
06/02/87
02/03/89
02/03/89
02/03/89
12/16/88
05/29/91
06/21/91
06/30/89
05/04/92
09/29/88
09/20/90
09/20/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
1
3
4
4
2
1
3
4
3
3
94
93
93
92
93
94
93
93
92
93
92
1
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
1
4
3
1
1
1
3
1
95
94
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
93
95
93
94
95
93
94
STATUS
new
0
-2
-1
-3
-2
0
DNE
-4
-1
DNE
-1
new
-6
-4
DNE
PA North Penn-Area 1(Gentle
Cleaners/Granite Knitting
Mill
Souderton
01
RI/FS
06/30/88
93
93
3 PA North Penn-Area 12
Souderton
01
RI/FS
12/23/91
1 94
new
-------
Progress Towa-d Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS.
RG
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
AND
SITE NAME
North Penn-Area 6 (J.W. Rex/Allied
Paint/Keystone hydra
Novak Sanitary Landfill
Occidental Chemical Corp./Firestone
Co.
Ohio River Park
Palmerton Zinc Pile
Publicker Industries Inc.
Raymark
Rect icon/Allied Steel Corp.
Resin Disposal
Revere Chemical Co.
River Road Landfill (Waste
Management, Inc.)
Rodale Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Lansdale
South Whitehall
Twp
Lower Pottsgrove
Twp.
Neville Island
Palmerton
Philadelphia
Hatboro
East Coventry
Twp.
Jefferson
Borough
Nockamixon
Township
Hermitage
Emmaus Borough
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
02
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES.
30, 1992
LEAD
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
06/30/88 1 95
12/31/88 1 93
12/28/89 1 93
10/16/91
02/21/92
07/31/88 4 99
12/13/91
02/24/92
08/12/88 1 93
09/23/92
09/21/89 2 93
09/25/92
03/29/90 1 93
06/24/92
12/16/88 2 93
05/05/90 1 93
09/22/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
3
1
2
4
1
2
1
3
2
3
3
4
2
2
1
95
93
93
94
93
99
94
93
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
95
STATUS
0
-1
-2
new
new
0
new
new
-4
new
0
new
-2
new
0
-5
new
1
8
i
-*
to
K»
TO
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
>
I
o
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
VA
VA
SITE NAME
Sal ford Quarry
Sh river's Corner
Stanley Kessler
Strasburg Landfill
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tysons Dump
Walsh Landfill
Westinghouse Elevator Co. (Sharon
Plant)
Westinghouse Elevator Co.
Plant
William Dick Lagoons
York County Solid Waste and Refuse
Authority Landfill
Atlantic Wood Industries,
Inc.
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
LOCATION
Sal ford Township
Straban Township
King of Prussia
Newlin Township
Toby Hanna
Upper Her ion
Township
Honeybrook
Township
Sharon
Gettysburg
West Cain
Township
Hopewell Township
Portsmouth
Front Royal
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
04
01
01
02
02
04
01
02
02
02
01
01
02
03
04
06
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
F
FF
RP
F
F
F
PS
PS
RP
RP
PS
RP
RP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/22/88
03/10/87
01/07/91
01/14/92
09/27/90
06/03/88
07/08/92
05/01/90
03/21/91
09/20/88
09/20/88
03/20/92
02/05/92
11/30/87
07/23/87
07/23/87
03/04/91
07/22/91
09/27/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
4
4
93
93
93
93
93
92
92
92
93
93
92
94
SCHEDULE
4
3
4
3
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
4
3
94
93
93
93
93
95
94
93
94
93
94
94
93
93
93
94
93
94
94
STATUS
-4
-2
-1
new
-1
-8
new
-5
DNE
-3
DNE
new
new
-4
-2
-4
-2
0
DNE
3 VA Buckingham County Landfill
Buckingham
01
RI/FS
RP
01/31/91
93
93
-1
-------
Progress loward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
WV
WV
SITE NAME
C&R Battery Co., Inc.
Defense General Supply Center
Greenwood Chemical Co.
H & H Inc., Burn Pit
L.A. Clarke & Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood
Preservation Division)
Rinehart Tire Fire Dump
Saltville Waste Disposal
Ponds
Fike Chemical
Follansbee Site
Ordnance Works Disposal
Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
LOCATION
Chesterfield
County
Chesterfield
County
Newton
Farrington
Spotsylvania
County
R i chmond
Frederick
County
Saltville
Nitro
Follansbee
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
06
07
08
09
03
04
01
01
02
05
01
01
03
04
01
01
02
02
03
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
FF
FF
START SCHEDULE
04/28/92
09/21/90 1
09/21/90 4
09/21/90
10/11/91
10/11/91
10/11/91
10/11/91
09/30/91
06/11/91
06/30/88 4
09/08/89 1
08/17/90
09/06/89
12/31/87 3
09/29/89 4
09/15/88 3
09/15/88
01/11/89 3
09/27/90 1
06/04/90 1
06/24/91
06/09/92
92
93
92
92
92
92
93
92
97
93
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
93
94
93
94
94
94
94
93
93
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
97
95
93
93
STATUS
new
-9
0
ONE
new
new
new
new
DNE
ONE
-3
-5
DNE
DNE
-3
-1
0
DNE
-3
0
-8
DNE
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfunu: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
to
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
Alabama Army Ammunition
Plant
Anniston Army Depot (Southeast
Industrial Area)
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Perdido Ground Water Contamination
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
Agn'co Chemical Co.
Airco Plating Co.
American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant)
Anaconda Aluminum Co./Milgo
Electronics
LOCATION
Childersburg
Anniston
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
Perdido
Saraland
Axis
Bucks
Montgomery
Pensacola
Miami
Pensacola
Miami
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
01
02
01
03
04
02
01
01
01
02
03
02
03
01
0?
01
02
01
02
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
EP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
03/15/90
11/30/90
05/04/92
12/12/90
09/28/89
03/31/92
12/24/91
09/18/89
05/08/90
03/19/92
07/02/90
01/05/90
12/19/90
01/05/90
12/19/90
03/26/91
01/31/92
11/14/90
11/28/89
08/05/92
08/05/92
08/05/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
3
3
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
3
3
2
92
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
94
93
93
93
92
4
3
4
3
3
1
3
2
2
2
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
95
93
94
93
96
94
92
96
93
93
92
94
93
94
93
93
93
93
93
96
96
96
STATUS
DNE
-3
new
DNE
-12
-2
new
-12
0
new
1
0
0
0
0
0
new
0
-4
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
SITE NAME
Anodyne, Inc.
B&B Chemical Co., Inc.
BMI Textron
Beulah Landfill
Cecil Field Naval Air Station
Chemform, Inc.
City Industries, Inc.
Davie Landfill
Florida Steel Corp.
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant/Genera
I Development Utili)
Helena Chemical Co.
Hipps Road Landfill
Holl ingsworth Solderless
LOCATION
North Miami
Beach
Hialeah
Lake Park
Pensacola
Jacksonville
Pompano Beach
Orlando
Davie
Indiantown
Palm Bay
Tampa
Duval County
Fort Lauderdale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
RP
F
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
MR
RP
EP
PS
RP
PS
RP
RP
F
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
03/26/90 4 92
09/13/89 3 92
06/30/92
09/16/91 3 93
12/12/89
10/22/90 3 93
10/22/90 3 93
02/18/92 1 94
02/18/92
02/18/92
10/22/90
10/19/89 4 92
04/07/92
09/28/92
03/03/92
08/13/90 3 92
06/28/90 3 95
01/23/92
02/07/89 1 93
09/02/92
01/15/92
12/10/87 1 93
2
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
4
2
4
3
4
4
1
3
3
93
94
95
93
95
94
94
95
95
95
93
92
95
94
94
93
95
94
94
95
93
93
STATUS
-2
-7
new
0
ONE
-4
-2
-4
new
new
DNE
0
new
new
new
-5
0
new
-7
new
new
-2
Terminal
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
4 FL Homestead Air Force Base Homestead 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
4 FL Jacksonville Naval Air Station Jacksonville 01
02
4 FL Miami Drum Services (Part of Miami 01
Biscayne Aquifer)
4 FL Northwest 58th Street Landfill Hialeah 01
(Part of Biscayne Aquife
4 FL Peak Oil Co. /Bay Drum Co. Tampa 01
02
03
04
4 FL Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola 01
02
03
04
Ob
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
F
RP
RP
RP
EP
EP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/08/90
07/01/92
09/30/88
03/22/90
02/10/89
03/01/88
02/05/88
02/05/88
11/01/90
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
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
2
3
4
4
1
2
4
3
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
92
92
93
93
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
95
94
3
2
3
4
4
1
2
4
4
4
3
4
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
95
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
95
95
93
95
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
95
94
95
95
95
95
STATUS
DNE
-4
-(;
-1
0
-1
-1
-2
DNE
-8
0
-11
-1
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
0
0
0
0
-7
0
0
0
6
-4
new
new
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
to
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
SITE NAME
Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.
Petroleum Products Corp.
Pickettville Road Landfill
Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water &
Sewer
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sherwood Medical Industries
Standard Auto Bumper Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Co (Tarpon
Springs)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
Uingate Road Municipal Incinerator
Dump
Zellwood Ground Water Contamination
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
LOCATION
Medley
Pembroke Park
Jacksonville
Vero Beach
Tampa
Cottondale
Plant City
Deland
H i a I eah
Tarpon Springs
Tampa
Brandon
Fort Lauderdale
Zellwood
Cedartown
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
F
RP
EP
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
EP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
F
RP
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
03/26/87 4 92
09/15/89 2 92
04/23/92
04/29/92
02/10/89 3 92
03/01/88
09/30/90 4 93
06/24/92
03/24/92
03/12/91
07/28/92
09/02/92
06/01/89 4 93
09/3 0/V2
09/27/91 2 94
09/30/91 1 93
09/21/92
03/30/90 1 93
4
2
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
93
95
93
95
92
93
94
94
93
93
95
95
94
94
95
93
94
93
STATUS
-4
-12
new
new
-1
DNE
-1
new
new
DNE
new
new
-1
new
-3
-1
new
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Suptrfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
Rr,
4
4
4
4
4
. 4
>
S)
** 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KY
KY
KY
SITE NAME
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Firestone Tire & Rubber
Co.
Hercules 009 Landfill
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Marzone Inc. /Chevron Chemical
Co.
Math is Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road)
Powersville Site
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Co.
Woolfolk Chemical Works,
Inc.
Brant ley Landfill
Ca I dwell Lace Leather Co.,
Inc.
Oistler Brickyard
LOCATION
Cedartown
Albany
Brunswick
Albany
Tifton
Kensington
Peach County
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Calvert City
Auburn
West Point
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
02
04
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
EP
F
FUNDING
START
09/16/91
07/09/90
07/15/88
01/07/92
07/23/91
07/23/91
09/15/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
11/02/88
01/08/91
12/31/91
09/28/90
05/06/91
07/06/90
04/24/90
01/10/90
03/29/90
09/28/88
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
2
2
3
3
2
3
4
1
1
4
94
92
92
94
93
92
92
93
93
92
93
93
96
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
1
3
3
4
4
94
93
93
93
94
94
94
93
99
92
93
95
93
95
93
93
94
93
96
STATUS
0
-2
-1
new
DNE
0
new
-1
-29
-1
0
new
DNE
-8
-1
-2
DNE
-3
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
to
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
MS
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone
Qurry
General Tire & Rubber Co.
(Mayfield Landfill)
Green River Disposal, Inc.
National Electric Coil/Cooper
Industries
Red Perm Sanition Co. Landfill
Smith's Farm
Flowood Site
Newson Brothers/Old Reichhold
Chemicals, Inc.
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Bypass 601 Ground Water
Contamination
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber
Operations)
LOCATION
Olaton
Mayfield
Macco
Dayhoit
Peewee Val ley
Brooks
Flowood
Columbia
Jacksonville
Aberdeen
Concord
Ons low County
Shelby
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
02
02
03
04
05
06
09
10
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
09/20/89
12/20/89
05/22/90
05/18/92
08/18/89
04/14/92
11/09/89
08/09/91
03/12/92
09/28/92
07/10/92
09/21/90
03/01/91
06/28/90
10/04/90
08/21/91
09/29/92
12/02/91
04/13/92
10/24/88
09/24/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
1
3
1
3
2
4
2
4
4
93
92
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
94
99
95
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
3
4
3
2
3
2
1
4
2
3
4
1
4
3
3
4
4
4
94
93
94
94
93
95
93
93
93
94
93
93
94
93
94
94
94
95
96
99
95
STATUS
-2
-3
-4
new
-3
new
DNE
0
new
new
new
-1
-8
-2
-1
-2
new
new
new
0
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
>
CO
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SITE NAME
Chemtronics, Inc.
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Koppers Co., Inc (Morrisville
Plant)
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco,
Inc.
National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
North Carolina State University
(Lot 86, Farm Unit #1)
Beaunit Corp. (Circular Knit and
Dye)
Elmore Waste Disposal
Geiger (C & M Oil)
Golden Strip Septic Tank
Service
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
Koppers Co., Inc (Florence
Plant)
Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
LOCATION
Swannanoa
Statesville
Washington
Morrisvi lie
Charlotte
Salisbury
Raleigh
Fountain Inn
Greer
Rantoules
Simpsonvi tie
Fairfax
Beaufort
Florence
Rock Hill
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
EP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
START
06/10/91
11/29/90
09/05/90
03/14/89
09/25/89
06/27/90
05/04/92
03/31/92
02/21/92
09/15/89
03/31/92
06/30/88
03/31/89
01/13/88
02/29/88
12/13/90
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
3
2
2
1
4
3
3
4
2
99
93
93
92
99
99
93
91
92
92
92
93
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
1
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
3
2
3
93
93
93
93
99
99
93
94
94
93
94
91
93
93
94
93
STATUS
26
-3
-1
-2
0
0
new
new
new
-1
new
0
-3
-4
-6
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
>
tb
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
SC Lexington County Landfill Cayce
Area
SC Palmetto Recycling, Inc. Columbia
SC Palmetto Wood Preserving Dixiana
SC Para-Chem Southern, Inc. Simpsonville
SC Rochester Property Travelers
Rest
SC Rock Hill Chemical Co. Rock Hill
SC Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile Pickens
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB
SC Savannah River Site (USDOE) Aiken
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
RP
F
F
F
RP
RP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
04/14/92
05/06/92
03/25/90
09/25/89
09/30/91
02/19/92
09/25/91
08/31/90
06/29/92
06/29/92
02/28/90
02/28/90
07/06/90
08/06/90
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
10/31/91
10/28/91
03/25/92
10/21/91
02/25/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
1
2
2
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
97
93
93
93
93
92
92
93
94
93
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
2
3
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
94
94
93
94
93
94
93
94
96
96
95
95
93
93
93
93
93
94
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
96
STATUS
new
new
18
-3
0
new
0
-4
new
new
-12
-12
1
3
1
1
0
4
-5
-4
-5
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-5
new
new
new
new
<0
<0
1
t
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
o
CO
c
g
_-
f-
•o
t_
CD
|
CO
CO
u
cn
O
Q.
<
X
o
z
LU
Q.
Q.
<
-CM
cn o
LU O
1— O~
en ro
1- LU
I-H m
i-* LU
CO 1—
—i CL
< cn
UJ
u- Z
o
cn cn
z cn
O UJ
51
U OH
—i CL
cn z
z cn
"" o
< P
M O
0 <
UJ
UJ <
o
u- UJ
0 £
LU
cn ce
1— O
< z
cn
cn
>—
i—
cn
§
« UJ
LU _J O
cn Q. uj
ce o u
CL u cn
CO — UJ
— _1 0
> Q. LU
ce. o ci
C3
z
o ce
Z) 1—
UJ
1—
>
h-
*
e£ LU >—
LU _1 —
&co z
< O
z
0
h-
g
o
LU
LU
1—
cn
t—
cn
a
ce
3333
0) QJ O 0)
C C C C
0000
^~ CM CNJ CNJ
CM CM CM CM
O O O O
in in in in
o T- «- «-
CM r- CO O
O O O *"^
U. U- U. U.
u. u. u. u.
co cn co co
V^^ V
ce ce ce ce
in *o r-. co
CM CM CM CM
«— NOO 3 CMOOOOOOOOOr— O O ^* 3UJ«-3**OCMOin>OrO
ii OJ ii l CJZiCUCMc— CMCMiv-CM
C C Q C i i i i i i
o oo o oooooooooooo o o ooooooooooo
ro CNJ *^ »^ >^ ^f ^ *j «j %^ «^ ja ja CD
L. 0) CU CO
o c r o o T3
CD O jQ C C ••-
•f- CO CO C Ct> 0) C£
*-> -^ '^ CO C. C.
C 0 3 -• 3 3 Ji
O CO 41 — CD CO CD
CL -3 _j s: _i _i o
U O LU
c *•• o o
— c o
co o) cn
co" O- •— ^
0 "u C D ^ C
CJ O O 4-> Q. O
3 •— O E •—
C f CO 3 <-•
..- - •- •- 01
D) E J= J= O 01
T3CCC.C. OOJ=01
C CO O 3 < i i M T3
CUUCOJO X>*ft)"-
co •— ^ C cooicoce
§1_ O •- ID L. L. L.
fl)C03— C-f-OJi
£-31) •— 33ZCO
u z z z z z z
cn h- i- i— t- H- i-
-» J- <* -* -4- - sf
A-30
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
4 TN
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
5 IL
AND
SITE NAME
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman
County)
Adams County Quincy Landfills 2 &
3
Beloit Corp.
Byron Salvage Yard
Central Illinois Public Service
Co.
DuPage County Landf i ll/Blackwell
Forest Preserve)
H.O.D. Landfill
Ilada Energy Co.
Interstate Pollution Control,
Inc.
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Toone
Quincy
Rockton
Byron
Taylorvi lie
Uarrenvi lie
Antioch
East Cape
Girardeau
Rockford
Joilet
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
13
15
16
20
21
22
23
27
02
01
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1992
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
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
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
PS
PS
F
EP
PS
RP
RP
RP
PS
FF
FUNDING
START
06/09/90
09/14/90
09/18/90
07/16/90
12/28/90
12/28/90
01/14/91
10/02/91
11/04/91
09/12/90
09/27/90
09/04/92
12/29/89
09/12/90
09/29/89
08/20/90
06/19/89
09/27/90
06/09/89
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
4
1
3
1
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 99
1 99
2 93
1 98
2 98
3 99
3 99
3 96
3 94
2 93
2 94
2 99
4 93
4 92
4 93
1 95
2 93
3 95
1 95
STATUS
-19
-20
3
-19
DNE
DNE
-24
new
new
0
-4
new
-3
2
-3
-5
-1
-8
-8
i
S
•^
•o
3
8
§"•<
J
•|
§"
a
(A
C
"0
GJ
3J
C
O
-------
Progress Toward Imptemei.dng Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
>
to
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
IL
IL
IL
SITE NAME
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant(Load-A
ssembly- Pack ing Area
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West
Branch of Dupage River)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler
Park)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat
Plant)
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
MIG/Dewane Landfill
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
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
LOCATION
Joliet
DuPage County
West Chicago
West Chicago
LaSalle
Lemont
Belvidere
Granite City
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
Carterville
Savanna
Rockford
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
02
01
03
04
02
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
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
FF
F
F*
F
S
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
S
FF
FF
FF
S
FUNDING
START
06/09/89
09/30/92
05/20/92
05/20/92
04/11/89
09/29/89
03/29/91
09/30/92
09/26/90
06/27/91
08/13/91
09/29/88
09/13/91
09/13/91
09/29/89
07/10/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
2
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
93
93
95
95
93
93
1
3
3
3
1
2
2
4
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
95
95
95
95
95
94
94
94
95
93
93
93
95
95
94
94
STATUS
-5
-8
-8
new
-7
-3
0
new
DNE
-1
-2
-3
0
0
-1
-4
Contamination
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
U)
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
Velsicol Chemical (Illinois)
Wauconda Sand & Gravel
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
Yeoman Creek Landfill
Carter Lee Lumber Co.
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill
#1
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglas Road/Uni royal, Inc.,
Landfill
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Galen Meyer's Dump/Drum
Salvage
Nimco, Inc., Dump
Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
Lakeland Disposal Service,
Inc.
Marion (Bragg) Dump
Weal's Landfill (Bloomington)
LOCATION
Marshall
Uauconda
Woodstock
Waukegan
Indianapolis
Columbus
Elkhart
Kokomo
Mishawaka
Fort Wayne
Osceola
Elkhart
Gary
Claypool
Marion
Bloomington
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
F
S
S
S
F*
RP
S
F
F
RP
MR
RP
FUNDING
START
03/29/91
09/30/91
09/29/89
12/22/89
04/09/92
09/15/87
10/01/90
05/25/90
08/26/91
03/27/92
08/24/89
09/20/90
04/11/89
09/21/89
09/28/87
03/30/89
08/07/89
07/07/88
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
1
2
2
4
3
4
1
4
2
1
2
4
3
2
94
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
89
4
3
3
4
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
3
1
1
4
3
2
94
93
93
94
95
93
94
94
95
95
95
94
95
93
93
93
93
89
STATUS
0
-2
-1
DNE
new
-3
-1
-3
-5
new
-8
-3
-9
0
-3
0
0
0
-------
Progress Toward Implemtnting Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Ninth Avenue Dump
Prestolite Battery Division
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Souths ide Sanitary Landfill
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Tri-State Plating
Waste, Inc. Landfill
Whiteford Sales & Service/Nationale
ase
Adam's Plating
Albion- Sheridan Township
Landfill
American Anodco, Inc.
Anderson Development Co.
Auto Iron Chemicals, Inc.
Bendix Corp. /Allied Automotive
LOCATION
Gary
Vincennes
Indianapolis
Seymour
Indianapolis
Lafayette
Columbus
Michigan City
South Bend
Lansing
Albion
Ionia
Adr i an
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
03
04
05
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RA
RA
RA
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
FE
FE
RP
RP
PS
RP
F
RP
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
07/16/91
12/11/90
07/16/91
12/23/88
09/21/92
09/21/92
09/21/92
08/17/87
09/08/89
09/29/89
03/08/90
03/29/91
03/31/87
09/29/89
09/28/88
01/07/92
10/23/87
01/05/92
06/01/90
02/13/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
2
3
1
4
2
3
2
1
3
2
1
93
93
93
94
95
93
93
95
92
93
94
92
92
93
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
4
1
2
3.
4
3
1
1
93
93
95
93
93
95
95
94
95
94
95
99
93
94
94
94
93
93
94
94
STATUS
-1
-1
DNE
0
new
new
new
0
0
-4
-5
-16
-5
-3
-1
new
-5
new
-7
-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
r\j
a*
t_
(D
(0
U
(A
u_
•Q
H-
t-
(Jj rf
1 2
o
u> z
C IU
— Q-
C Si
-£
_e
•a
u
ID
|
CA
CO
— _j a
> CX UJ
in s: =
a: o cj
O. CJ CO
CJ
z
"-• t-
u. CO
a
UJ
,_
>
1—
o
1
Ot UJ 1-
UJ -J •—
§
2
o
UJ
z
UJ
cn
en
CJ
Of
3 CM
C
e> e>
~* "*
ro
o
CM O
o o
CM ro
o ro
o o
u- cn
en
u-
ot ot
«- CM
0 O
§
1
ca
y
0
c
i
0
z
cn
c.
0
M-
O
m
in
o
e>
"*
O
e>
•^.
o
CM
>o
o
a.
ot
at
CM
0
artford
X
c.
o
CO
4-*
C
CD
cn
CO
3
O
L.
3
CO
in
g
ro
~
co
c^
o
CD
cn
en
u.
•-S
at
o
a
CO
c
3
O
1—
i
+•*
(0
o
— J
H-
•£
CD
t_
O
C
•a
c_
CD
oa
1
a
in
c
e>
"*
CM
in
I
"•
en
u.
at
CM
O
uchanan
m
01
u
'o
o
t_
4->
UJ
in
Z
c
in
O
C\J
S
v,
CM
CM
O
Q.
at
at
o
CD
•§
U
(A
0
CA
0
L.
1
§
€
4)
£
in
ro
ro
o
~*
t>
§
v»
to
CM
e>
0
a.
a:
cn
u.
QC
0
"i
CD
D>
3;
O
CJ
D>
C
c_
3
4V
U
CD
H-
3
C
CO
3^
i
in
ro
o
CM
CM
O
1
i
o
u_
cn
u.
at
0
c_
01
4-*
CO
01 CA
J= — •
U — •
o —
Ot X
«4-
(^
-1
ca
^
in
z
c
e>
"T-
$
•^.
o
ro
o
0
a.
ot
ot
0
CO
u
^3
c
^
CD
1
CO
•D
.3-
in
o
in
O
ro
in
o
1
CM
C>
O
u.
to
u_
ot
CM
0
01
4-»
4-t
0>
B-
it Q.
CO ••-
01 C
L. 3
01 O
a. i—
s-
"E
CD
X
c
3
O
CJ
c
0
CO
CD
in
CM
8!
ro
CM
O
o
o
-X
in
j;
a.
Ul
en
u.
ot
o
c
c
01
CD
J
a.
o
cn
D)
c
L.
O
3
CO
in
ro o
•
e>c>
-* ro
ro CM
0 0
CO O
co co
-v -v
r- o
«- C\J
CM O
O O
en cn
eo
u.
ot ot
«- ro
o o
etamora
£
^
*»-
CD
CO
C.
4-*
0)
£
in
in
S
CM
S
co
•x
si-
CM
VD
O
en
cn
ot
o
ronson
m
CO
L.
4-t
%
2
§
CO
c
o
L,
m
j=
4-> CD
C. 0)
O L.
Z <£
£
in
0 ZT
c
cP^cS
*» CM CM
in ro
0 0
«- CM CM
O O O
in co ro
CM CM «-
g§8
u_ u. u.
en
u.
at at at
T- CM ro
o o o
a
j=
s
3
O
t—
i
CD
a
ca
o
JZ
CJ
CD
L.
0
CJ
^*
L.
0
4-*
cn
i— •
h- O
0 CJ
£
in
in
S
CM
8
co
CO
-v.
CM
CM
g
""
cn
u_
at
CM
o
CD
CD
t_
CD
•
U
C
eo"
ID
u
1
CJ
u
'E
CD
D)
0
£
in
IM
S
^
s
CM
in
CO
V.
CM
O
N^
in
o
a.
at
cn
u.
at
o
X
4-*
O
01
u_
CO
u
c_
H-
o
a.
o
u
D)
C
u>
ID
U
CD
a.
£
in
A-35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CM
O «CM
o en o
«- UJ O
CO 3 >
01 (— O
>- en ro
— >• Cf
CO 1— UJ
u —m
in — i £
.— — UJ
u. m h-
— i O.
•• en uj
T3 < en
C UJ
D u- Z
si- O
1 x la
en ~ •— of
O 1— C3
0) Z < O
c ui u o:
— 0. — 0.
4-" Q. t—
C < Crt Z
0> Z CO
t H2
TJ 0 <
C- UJ
!D £ — 1
gLU <
or —
1— Q
u_ ui
en o £
en ui
01 co o:
D> i— a
P 2 z
i- 1 <
a. co
CO
5
1—
en
o
— UJ
H- I- _l
Z UJ Z3
LU _J O
co a. ui
UJ £ z
or o cj
a. cj co
§
CO —i UJ
3 1- -J
O UJ 3
—•-JO
> O. UI
UI £ Z
K O CJ
a. cj co
a
z
— I—
z <
o
UJ
1—
>
H-
ej
or LU i—
UJ — 1 —"
Q. CD Z
O < =J
LOCATION
LU
2
LU
I/
CO
C
in
i
Os
~*
Os
ro
1
Os
CM
O
o
en
en
Of
CO
0)
O)
CD
C.
C3
en
0
3
CO
u
Parsons Chem
Inc.
z
in
CO
Os
*~
g)
*~
o
in
o
o
CO
en
or
o
Petoskey
o>
3
1
U
1
"co -O
So
a. il
m
i
O
*~
Os
*~
§
o
o
o.
CO
z
5
Allegan
d.
t_
o
CJ
1
o
4->
CD
C »•»
C_ 4-1
O C
4-> CO
C — •
•— 0.
— . c
—• CO
H
U — '
0 <
z
in
3 ro
(U i
c
o o.
*~ ^~
S!
CM
CM rs_
Os CO
co a
o «-
O CM
O «-
a. a.
Of Of
en
Of Of
O CO
Q.
in
Rose Town
Ka lama zoo
u
c
1 I
Rose Townshi
Roto- Finish
z z
in in
O* O*
ro ro
ro CM
0 0
*"" *~
ts- SO
CO CO
CJS Os
«- CM
Sv, X^
SO «-
0 0
Q.
en of
en en
Of Of
o o
CO
c a
o —
— • o en
01 u c
?C 2
CD O
1
Shiawassee R
: Tar Lake
in in
UJ UJ
z z
o o
0 Os
*~ "~
rs, co
co co
«- co
CM CM
g g
0. Q.
Of Of
co en
Of Of
o o
4-1
C
o
CJ
Muskegon
Houghton
J
01 01
CJ CO
c. u
£ £
t- t-
tn in
-J LU
i Z
0
OS Os
~* CM
CM
O>
"*
C> CO
rs- t>
CM CM
Sx^ **,
Os 0
o o
U- U.
Of Of
0 0
Q.
JZ
en ^
C 0)
3 01
O c_
1- CJ
TJ 01
CO V
§4->
CO
3: 00
TJ
cu
u-
cu ~o
< CD
C
o
en c-
£ £
in in
LU in
Z i
o
ro 10
Os 0
CM s»
CM
O
ro
r>- o
CO O
o in
0- CO
0 0
Q.
CO Of
en
S 2
o o
en
C
CD
o! c
* I
CO C
CO CD
co E
01 C. t-
— t 01
Q. t- Z
O
CJ
! !
3 *•
[ Wash King La
J Arrowhead Re
in in
SO
LTl
o
ro
Os
*
rs.
co
ro
^s.
s
a.
Of
Of
CO
cu
4-1
CD
CO
Brainerd/
0)
4-*
X
CD
m
T3
0)
c
CO
f
CO
c
0)
-C
c.
0
*l Burlington M
r Plant)
in
Z CM
O i
c
e> e>
CM CM
S!
^
CM O
O Os
ro o>
CM CM
so ro
o o
en en
en
Of Of
T— CM
0 0
CO
li
CO
u_
c
CO
CJ
—
1
CD
L.
CO
'E
CO
en
1
CO
o
£
in
A-36
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
SITE NAME
East Bethel Demolition Landfill
Freeway Sanitary Landfill
Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply
Co.
Koch Refining Co. /N- Ren
Corp.
Koppers Coke
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Kurt Manufacturing Co.
LaGrand Sanitary Landfill
Long Prairie Ground Water
Contamination
MacGi Uis & Gtbbs Co. /Bel I Lumber
& Pole Co.
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Oakdale Dump
Olmstead County Sanitary
LOCATION
East Bethel
Township
Burnsville
Brooklyn Center
Pine Bend
St. Paul
Bemidji
Fridley
LaGrand Township
Long Prairie
New Brighton
Fridley
New Brighton
Oak Grove
Township
Oakdale
Oronco
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
07
09
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PS
PS
PS
PS
RP
S
PS
S
S
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
PS
PS
FUNDING
START
03/01/85
03/27/86
12/31/88
08/03/92
06/29/87
03/26/90
12/15/86
06/30/87
04/11/91
09/29/87
01/15/92
06/14/91
03/28/91
06/28/88
06/21/89
02/21/92
08/05/92
11/10/83
12/20/89
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
4
3
3
4
3
1
3
4
1
2
2
2
92
91
92
93
99
92
94
92
99
95
94
92
93
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
92
93
93
94
92
93
93
92
94
92
93
99
95
94
92
93
99
94
93
STATUS
DNE
-7
-8
new
-1
-1
24
-1
-2
-1
new
0
-1
-2
-2
new
new
DNE
-2
Landfill
-------
Progress Toward i,nplementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
5
5
5
5
5
•>
K^
1
CO
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
SITE NAME
Perham Arsenic
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill (once
listed as Pine Bend Sanitary
Landfill/Crosby American
Demolition Landfill)
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
Ritari Post & Pole
St. Augusta Sanitary Landf ill/Engen
Dump (once listed as St. Augusta
Sanitary Landf ill/St. Cloud
Dump)
St. Louis River Site
University of Minnesota (Rosemount
Research Center)
Uaite Park Wells
Washington County Landfill
Alsco Anaconda
Big D Campground
Bowers Landf i 11
E.H. Schilling Landfill
LOCATION
Perham
Dakota County
St. Louis
Park
Sebeka
St. Augusta
Township
St. Louis
County
Rosemount
Waite Park
Lake Elm-:
Gnadenhutten
Kingsville
Circleville
Hamilton Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
04
05
01
01
01
02
03
03
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
F
PS
RP
RP
RP
S
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
RP*
RP*
RP
RP
F
RP
FUNDING
START
05/01/91
04/15/85
09/30/87
04/01/91
09/04/86
06/30/87
02/15/91
09/04/92
09/30/85
04/15/91
06/12/92
09/20/89
01/16/92
01/16/91
09/30/91
06/03/91
09/05/91
04/17/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
1
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
93
92
99
93
92
93
95
92
92
99
91
92
92
SCHEDULE
2
3
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
3
1
4
94
93
99
99
94
93
93
93
95
94
94
93
99
92
93
96
93
93
STATUS
-2
-6
0
-27
DNE
-3
-1
new
0
-6
new
-4
0
-3
-4
DNE
-1
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND
RG ST SITE NAME
5 OH Feed Materials Production Center
(USDOE)
5 OH Fields Brook
5 OH Industrial Excess Landfill
5 OH Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. (once listed
as
^ 5 OH Mound Plant (USDOE)
i
i*)
VO
5 OH Nease Chemical
5 OH New Lyme Landfill
5 OH Ormet Corp.
5 OH Powell Road Landfill
5 OH Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover
Plant)
5 OH Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial
Waste Disposal Co.Inc
5 OH Skinner Landfill
5 OH South Point Plant
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Fernald
Ashtabula
Uniontown
Jefferson
Townsh i p
Miamisburg
Salem
New Lyme
Hannibal
Dayton
Dover
Dayton
West Chester
South Point
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
05
02
03
01
02
01
01
06
09
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1992
PREVIOUS
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
FUNDING
START
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
03/22/89
09/26/89
09/14/89
08/17/89
03/23/92
08/06/90
07/17/92
05/22/92
01/27/88
04/11/88
03/27/87
11/12/87
03/29/89
12/16/87
12/20/88
03/31/87
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
3
3
3
1
2
4
2
1
1
4
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
91
91
95
93
92
91
92
93
93
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
2
3
4
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
94
93
96
93
94
94
94
92
92
94
95
99
99
94
93
93
93
94
93
93
93
STATUS
1
5
-8
3
-1
-7
-3
-5
-5
new
0
new
new
-5
-4
-5
-4
-4
0
DNE
-6
31
^
1
••*
-------
Progress Toward implc.nenting Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
. 5
^ 5
0 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
OH
OH
OH
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
SITE NAME
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Van Dale Junkyard
Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
Delavan Municipal Well #4
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
N.U. Mauth Co., Inc.
National Presto Industries,
Inc.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Onalaska Municpa I Landfill
LOCATION
Troy
Marietta
Dayton
DePere
Delavan
Stoughton
Will Jams town
Menomonee
Falls
Franklin Township
Blooming Grove
Muskego
Appletr-
Eau Claire
Ashippin
Onalaska
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
04
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
F
F
FF
FF
FF
S
F
PS
RP
PS
PS
F
RP
RP
S
RP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/17/92
08/18/90
03/21/91
03/21/91
07/10/92
09/28/90
08/05/91
09/28/90
08/14/91
09/28/90
08/01/90
04/23/91
09/24/92
08/14/87
09/30/88
06/04/86
09/30/91
09/20/90
02/28/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
4
2
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
1
92
93
93
97
93
94
93
93
93
92
93
95
93
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
4
2
1
1
4
93
93
94
93
96
94
97
94
94
94
94
93
94
93
93
93
95
94
94
STATUS
new
-3
-2
DNE
new
-4
0
-4
0
-2
-5
0
new
-3
-2
DNE
0
-4
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year i992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
f
LA
LA
LA
LA
SITE NAME
Sauk County Landfill
Schmalz Dump
Scrap Processing Co., Inc.
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Wheeler Pit
Frit Industries
Gurley Pit
Midland Products
Monroe Auto Equipment Co.
(Paragould Pit)
Popile, Inc.
South 8th Street Landfill
Vertac, Inc.
American Cresote Works, Inc
(Winnfield)
Bayou Bonfouca
Cleve Reber
Combustion, Inc.
D.L. Mud, Inc.
LOCATION
Excelsior
Harrison
Medford
Sheboygan
La Prairie
Township
Walnut Ridge
Edmondson
Ola/Birta
Paragould
El Dorado
Jacksonvil le
Jacksonville
Winnfield
Slidell
Sorrento
Denham Springs
Abbeville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
05
01
02
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1992
LEAD
PS
F
F
RP
RP
RP
F
S
RP
F
F
RP
RP
F
F
RP
PS
RP
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE
09/22/91
09/29/88 1 93
05/11/92
04/11/86 1 93
05/21/92
09/08/83
03/29/89 4 93
06/29/90 2 96
06/28/91 4 93
12/27/91
06/29/92
07/12/89 2 93
07/12/89 1 93
12/27/91
02/04/91 4 94
04/10/91 1 97
10/25/88 2 93
06/20/90 1 93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
3
2
1
1
4
1
2
4
94
93
94
94
94
94
93
93
94
93
93
94
93
93
97
97
94
93
STATUS
DNE
-2
new
-5
new
DNE
3
10
-2
new
new
-4
0
new
-12
0
-4
-3
2!
•<
S
to
1
s Toward Impit
|
|
1
fT)
30
|
CD
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
.£>.
to
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
OK
OK
SITE NAME
Outchtown Treatment Plant
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
Old Inger Oil Refinery
PAB Oil & Chemical Service,
Inc.
Petro-Processors of Louisiana,
Inc.
AT & Sf (Clovis)
Cimarron Mining Corp.
Cleveland Mill
Lee Acres Landfill (USDOI)
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth Street Abandoned
LOCATION
Ascension
Parish
Doyline
Darrow
Abbeville
Scotlandville
Clovis
Carrizozo
Silver City
Farmington
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
03
01
02
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
FF
S
S
F
RP
RP
EP
EP
S
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
F
F
FUNDING
START
08/07/89
01/31/89
04/25/86
04/09/90
06/27/90
06/30/87
08/07/89
08/13/91
12/20/91
03/29/90
02/25/92
02/25/92
10/04/90
12/28/89
09/12/89
06/29/92
06/29/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
4
94
93
94
92
93
97
95
94
95
93
92
94
97
4
2
2
1
3
4
4
1
2
3
2
4
1
1
4
4
4
93
94
99
95
93
97
95
93
95
93
94
94
93
93
95
93
93
STATUS
2
-4
-20
-12
-1
0
0
7
0
-1
new
new
-2
5
8
new
new
Refinery
6 OK Hardage/Criner
Criner
02
RA
RP
11/20/91
1 95
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
OJ
1
t_
0>
>-
-.
S3
u
CO
u.
•g
t_
8. <
3 x
CO i—
o
•— Q.
4-> a.
c <
0
o
T3
t_
CD
O
I—
CO
CO
0
a>
o
L.
Q.
• CM
CO O
LU O
2o"
co ro
>- a:
— CO
-1 £
_• UJ
CO 1-
— a.
C/> UJ
"".CJ
Z C/)
2 £
1— O
— 0.
H-
co z
UJ — .
Z CO
REMEDIAL I
IAL ACTION
a
• i in
O £
Ul
CO U.
1- 0
< z
1- <
CO
co
i—
»—
CO
g
i— i UJ
t- 1— _J
Z LJJ 3
UJ — 1 O
co a. uj
LU £ z
a: o u
a. u co
g
en — uj
O LU ^
|— — 1 O
> a. LU
£§S
Q- CJ CO
CD
•— 1—
3 H-
u- CO
§
III
iV-
>
l>-
u
1
a: iu i—
UJ _l —
O_ 00 Z
o < =>
a
s
O
_J
£
O OJ
o «—
u- u.
CO
u_
u. ae
o o
X
CJ
.JZ
CD
O
OJ
CO
CO
0)
o
u.
f_
L_
c
1—
^
•o
O 2
& 2
«- to
in
o
-
O OJ
§^~ M
o
u.
u- £
CO
u.
^
oe et
0 0
JC 4J
4J ••-
C. CJ
- &
•M "D
U- CD
(D
0)
C
01
o _-
v (0
CO
•J- 0
CA
C 5
(D
— Of
a. 4-»
CA
O *-* 03
U CO 3
t- U
£| ^
••-X CD
< Q CO
X X
>o ^o
>T O
i
c> a
OJ CM
to f~
CM CM
CO CO
OJ O
^ CM
•>» "v
in xO
o o
0,
2 2
o o
0)
•and Prairi
•iendswood
CD u_
[^ I
~ 1
CO
§ •"
4-" 0
CO CJ
CO O)
c
o> 'E
o •-
— ' H-
0 01
CJ co co
in co co
OJ OJ OJ
ff) \O "O
0
o- a. o.
2 u a:
a: etat
0 00
•iendswood
•osby
U. CJ
u
c
CO
t.
o
CO
CO
01
u
o
t- •
a. TJ
—• _i
O
0) u
X 0)
• >- £_
O u-
X X
-o -o
ro
e>
«-
s
•*
1
ro
CO
2
OJ
o
g
•M
CO
g
3:
c
c
g
1
u_
V.
CA
01
l_
4-*
CA
£
sg;
^0
01 C
CD LU
X
LU -* UJ
a o
ro -» •*
o* o^ o*
ro ro ro
ro
o.
ro
O1 O^ O*
ro co co
S SS
CO CO
V. V.
Ot B£ C£
«— ^- OJ
o o o
g
L. ^N CO
QJ 4J 4-*
a. c 41 c
Q. to c
OJ CM CM OJ OJ
o o o o o
*O ^O "O ^ ^O
00000
CO CO CO CO CO
~^ ~» V, V. ^
a£ c£ oc ae a:
«~ CM ro ** in
o o o o o
o
CD
C
1_
CD
C
o
J
E
>.
t—
c
c_
O
•ss
C CD
O — •
—1 O.
X
•o
co o
1 T—
o? a
«- «-
^ ^
«- ro
CO t~
0 C>
«- OJ
ro ^
OJ O
«~ o
a.
£ C/>
o: a:
0 0
OJ
3
tT C
L- O
CD 4->
CD O
4-1
0)
0)
t-
CO
01
"S
u
CD
U >
£ 'm
u
8 5
5 *
£ z
X X
•O -O
CNJ
5!
ro
o
•-
C\J
en
*
OJ
o
CO
CO
CA
•8
CD
5
.2
o
t_
JZ
CJ
CD
(0
CO
V
°
X
vO
A-43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS. FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
SITE NAME
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Highway)
Pesses Chemical Co.
Sikes Disposal Pits
Sol Lynn/Industrial Transformers
Tex-Tin Corp.
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Co.
United Creosoting Co.
Des Moines TCE (once listed as
DICO)
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
Inc. (County Road)
Electro-Coatings, Inc.
Fairfield Coal Gasification
Plant
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Northwestern States Portland
Cement Co.
Red Oak City Landfill
Shaw Avenue Dump
LOCATION
Odessa
Fort Worth
Crosby
Houston
Texas City
Texarkana
Conroe
Des Moines
West Point
Cedar Rapids
Fairfield
Middletown
Mason City
Red Oak
Charles City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
S
S
S
RP
S
RP
S
S
RP
RP
PS
RP
RP
RP
FF
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
03/30/90
06/27/90
05/04/89
06/12/91
09/10/91
03/30/90
03/28/91
03/26/92
08/08/89
06/05/92
10/17/90
07/20/92
07/20/92
07/20/92
09/20/90
06/24/92
12/04/89
03/03/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1 94
4 93
2 97
4 92
3 94
4 93
1 93
3 92
2 95
4 92
3
4
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
4
3
4
2
1
2
4
1
2
93
93
97
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
95
95
94
93
95
STATUS
2
0
0
-3
2
-1
-1
new
-4
new
DNE
new
new
new
0
new
-1
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-Tuna: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
t-ft
RG
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
NO
MO
MO
SITE NAME
Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal
Vogel Paint & Wax
29th & Mead Ground Water
Contamination
Cherokee County (Tar Creek,
Cherokee County)
Fort Riley
Obee Road
Strother Field Industrial
Park
Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.
Kern-Pest Laboratories
Lake City Army Ammunition Plant
(Northwest Lagoon)
North -U Drive Well Contamination
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Quality Plating
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
LOCATION
Keokuk
Orange City
Wichita
Cherokee County
Junction City
Hutch inson
Cowley County
Maiden
Cape Girardeau
I ndependence
Springfield
Jasper County
Sikeston
Republic
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
03
04
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
ACTIVITY
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
RP
PS
PS
r
RP
RP
FF
FF
PS
PS
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
RP
F
S
PS
FUNDING
START
10/18/90
05/20/91
09/27/89
07/13/89
05/07/90
05/07/90
08/23/90
01/22/92
03/27/90
03/28/90
12/29/88
09/25/91
08/01/87
08/03/90
04/21/92
06/27/90
09/27/85
08/02/91
04/24/90
12/31/88
09/27/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
2
4
3
4
2
2
3
4
93
92
93
93
93
95
93
93
93
93
94
93
92
94
94
93
93
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
2
3
3
1
1
2
3
4
1
4
1
1
4
2
2
2
3
1
93
94
93
93
93
93
95
95
94
93
93
93
95
99
94
94
93
94
94
93
94
STATUS
-2
ONE
-4
0
-2
-2
0
new
-3
1
-3
1
-4
DNE
new
-5
-2
0
0
0
-1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
ST
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
SITE NAME
St. Louis Ai rport/Hazelwood
Interim Storage/Futura Coat
Syntex Facility
Times Beach Site
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
Weldon Springs Ordnance
Works
10th Street Site
Cleburn Street Well
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
Nebraska Ordnance Plant
(Former)
LOCATION
St. Louis
County
Verona
Times Beach
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
Columbus
Grand Island
Hall County
Hastings
Lindsay
Mead
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
02
02
03
01
02
04
05
01
01
01
01
06
07
12
13
14
14
16
01
01
02
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
RP
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
06/26/90
09/30/89
11/28/89
09/18/91
09/16/91
03/14/83
08/22/86
07/15/92
10/24/91
10/24/91
02/16/90
12/08/89
09/16/91
03/15/90
11/20/91
12/10/91
08/31/90
01/03/91
06/15/86
09/30/91
02/11/91
09/30/92
09/26/91
08/18/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
3
4
1
2
1
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
94
92
95
93
92
93
93
92
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
3
4
2
4
3
1
1
2
2
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
4
4
1
4
4
95
93
93
95
93
94
93
94
94
94
95
93
93
94
93
93
94
93
94
95
95
95
93
95
STATUS
-2
DNE
-3
0
0
-9
-2
new
new
new
-9
-3
-1
0
new
new
-2
0
-5
DNE
-10
new
0
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1992
RG
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
NE Sherwood Medical Co. Norfolk 01
NE Waverly Groundwater Contamination Waver ly 01
CO Air Force Plant PJKS Watertown 01
CO Broderick Wood Products Denver 01
CO California Gulch Leadville 01
02
02
02
02
02
03
04
09
CO Central City - Clear Creek Idaho Springs 02
02
03
CO Denver Radium Site Denver 02
02
06
08
09
CO Eagle Mine Minturn/Redcliff 01
01
01
CO Lincoln Park Canon City 01
CO Lowry Landfill Arapahoe County 01
02
03
04
06
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1992
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
FS
RI
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
RP
FF
F
RP
FE
RP
FE
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
F
S
F
F
F
RP
F
F
PS
FE
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
03/21/91
12/11/90
02/07/89
09/25/89
09/04/90
08/29/91
08/29/91
08/29/91
04/07/87
04/07/87
08/29/91
12/01/91
10/04/91
09/21/92
03/29/89
09/30/92
04/02/91
03/30/89
08/24/92
09/08/92
06/04/92
12/31/91
09/01/88
09/25/90
03/11/92
12/07/88
10/23/89
10/23/89
03/25/91
09/27/89
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
93
94
92
92
93
93
93
91
92
92
94
92
93
93
93
93
93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
93
94
93
93
92
94
94
93
94
93
93
94
94
93
91
96
93
93
93
93
93
94
94
92
93
94
94
94
94
94
STATUS
-1
0
-1
-2
4
DNE
DNE
DNE
-4
-1
DNE
new
new
new
0
new
-1
-1
new
new
new
new
0
-1
new
-3
-1
-1
-3
-3
5>
S
§
S
5P
INJ
^
o
5
a
**
•o
§
<&
3
s
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
I
RG ST SITE NAME
8 CO Marshall Landfill
8 CO Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
8 CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal
8 CO Sand Creek Industrial
8 CO Smuggler Mountain
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Boulder County 01
01
Golden 01
02
04
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
12
13
14
15
16
Adams County 02
03
04
05
12
14
17
18
20
21
22
25
26
Commerce City 01
Pitkin County 01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1992
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI
RI
RI
RA
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
Rl/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/16/89
09/30/91
02/06/90
04/12/90
06/08/90
04/20/92
04/05/91
04/19/91
06/08/90
05/01/92
06/08/90
11/26/91
05/08/92
05/15/92
06/26/92
05/27/92
09/24/91
10/27/87
02/15/85
02/15/85
09/10/91
11/25/91
07/10/90
08/05/91
01/02/91
10/01/91
11/15/91
11/30/90
03/21/91
11/15/91
09/25/90
03/29/91
09/28/90
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
4
3
4
4
1
3
4
2
3
4
1
4
1
1
3
3
4
4
91
93
95
95
95
99
99
96
96
91
93
92
92
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
4
3
2
4
4
1
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
3
2
3
4
4
2
2
1
3
4
4
4
93
93
95
95
95
93
99
99
96
99
96
96
99
99
99
99
99
91
95
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
95
95
95
94
94
94
91
STATUS
-8
-2
0
0
0
new
0
0
0
new
0
new
new
new
new
new
ONE
0
-8
-2
-2
new
-1
-3
-3
new
new
-9
-6
new
-5
-4
0
5
1
Hi
§H
3.
1
a
3
,§
-------
Progress Toward Implement,ng Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
vo
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
ND
ND
SD
SD
SD
SD
UT
SITE NAME
Anaconda Co. Smelter
East Helena Site
Libby Ground Water Contamination
Milltown Reservoir Sediments
Montana Pole and Treating
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Arsenic Trioxide Site
Minot Landfill
Annie Creek Mine Tailings
Ellsworth Air Force Base
Whitewood Creek
Williams Pipe Line Co. Disposal
Pit
Hill Air Force Base
LOCATION
Anaconda
East Helena
Libby
Milltown
Butte
Silver Bow/Deer
Lodge
Southeastern
ND
Minot
Lead
Rapid City
Whitewood
Sioux Falls
Ogden
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
07
14
01
02
03
02
02
02
01
01
03
04
07
08
01
01
01
06
06
01
01
01
01
02
04
05
ACTIVITY
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
PS
PS
RP
RP
RP
RP
S
RP
RP
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/92
09/28/88
03/31/92
06/23/87
06/27/87
10/18/89
02/02/90
02/02/90
04/24/90
09/30/91
05/04/90
06/30/92
08/02/91
06/30/92
08/11/89
09/28/90
05/11/92
01/24/92
04/13/90
09/13/91
09/30/92
04/25/91
06/28/91
06/28/91
12/30/91
08/13/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
93
93
93
95
94
94
93
94
93
94
93
93
93
94
94
95
SCHEDULE
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
1
3
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
4
4
4
1
4
1
1
3
94
95
99
94
95
99
96
96
93
95
94
95
95
96
93
93
94
96
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
95
STATUS
new
-8
new
-5
-8
-18
-10
-10
-1
DNE
0
new
-8
new
3
-1
new
new
DNE
-2
new
-4
-2
0
new
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
>
o
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
ST
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
Ul
WY
AZ
AZ
SITE NAME
Midvale Slag
Monti cello Mill Tailings
(USDOE)
Monticello Radioacti vely
Contaminated Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek
Plant
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings/Smelters)
Tooele Army Depot (North
Area)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Apache Powder Co.
Indian Bend Wash Area
LOCATION
Midvale
Monticello
Monticello
Ogden
Salt Lake
City
Midvale
Tooele
Salt Lake
City
Cheyenne
St. David
Scottsdale/Tmpe/Phnx
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
02
02
03
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
05
01
01
05
01
01
02
03
03
07
07
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI
RI
FS
LEAD
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
FF
FF
RP
F*
RP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
IT
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
F
MR
MR
F
FUNDING
START
08/07/89
09/10/91
06/22/92
08/14/91
03/25/92
08/31/92
05/31/91
09/06/84
11/09/90
11/15/91
02/03/92
07/10/92
12/31/84
12/31/84
06/25/92
12/31/91
08/16/90
12/31/91
09/16/91
08/10/90
10/22/91
06/23/92
10/05/89
02/20/92
06/30/92
03/14/88
03/14/88
09/26/90
06/01/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
3
1
3
2
4
4
3
1
4
2
2
2
93
95
92
98
94
96
92
92
94
93
93
93
93
93
SCHEDULE
3
2
4
1
4
2
1
3
2
1
4
2
4
4
1
3
3
3
1
4
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
4
4
93
95
93
93
93
94
98
94
96
94
97
95
92
92
93
94
94
95
95
93
94
94
94
95
95
94
94
93
93
STATUS
0
0
new
-2
new
new
0
0
0
new
new
new
0
0
new
new
0
new
-8
0
new
new
-5
new
new
-3
DNE
-2
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Luke Air Force Base
Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street
Plant)
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport
Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Williams Air Force Base
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
Advanced Micro Devices,
Inc.
Aerojet General Corp.
Applied Materials
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics
Base (Nebo Area)
Beckman Instruments (Portervi lie
Plant)
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
LOCATION
Glendale
Phoenix
Goodyear
Tucson
Chandler
Yuma
Sunnyvale
Rancho Cordova
Santa Clara
Fresno County
Barstow
Portervi lie
Arvin
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
02
01
02
03
01
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
PS
RP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
PS
RP
RP
PS
RP
FF
FF
FF
RP
EP
FUNDING
START
09/27/90
09/27/90
06/20/89
12/09/91
12/12/91
12/11/90
09/21/90
09/30/91
09/30/91
09/11/91
09/08/88
12/12/91
09/28/90
10/16/89
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
12/17/90
05/03/90
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
1
3
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
95
94
92
94
94
95
95
96
91
93
94
93
93
1
1
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
3
1
2
4
4
96
94
94
93
94
94
94
96
96
93
96
94
94
93
96
96
97
93
93
STATUS
-4
0
-9
new
new
-3
0
-4
-4
DNE
0
new
DNE
-6
-11
-8
DNE
-2
-1
Plant)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal 'near 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
>
to
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
^
y
ST SITE NAME
CA Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base
CA Castle Air Force Base
CA Coalinga Asbestos Mine
CA Del Amo Facility
CA Edwards Air Force Base
CA El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station
CA Fort Ord
CA Fresno Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
CA George Air *orce Base
LOCATION
San Diego
County
Merced
Coalinga
Los Angeles
Kern County
El Toro
Marina
Fresno
Victorville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
01
03
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
04
ACTIVITY
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
RP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/21/89
05/29/91
10/16/89
05/07/92
05/07/92
09/26/90
09/26/90
09/28/90
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
3
3
3
1
4
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
1
1
1
3
94
94
95
95
93
91
99
96
93
94
94
97
93
93
93
95
93
94
94
1
3
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
4
2
95
95
95
96
93
93
95
94
99
96
96
96
96
96
97
94
94
93
95
93
93
95
STATUS
-3
-4
-1
-2
-2
-6
new
new
0
0
-10
-9
-8
DNE
-1
-5
-2
0
-2
-3
1
-3
9 CA Hewlett Packard (620-640 Page Mill Palo Alto
Rd.)
01
RI/FS
PS
03/16/89
93
94
-4
9 CA Hexcel Corp.
Livermore
01
RI/FS
PS
05/16/90
93
1 94
-3
-------
Progress fow&id Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
Ul
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
Industrial Waste Processing
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
MGM Brakes
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (AC & W
Disposal Site)
LOCATION
Fresno
Redding
Weed
Orovi I le
Livermore
Livermore
Richmond
San Jose
Oroville
Cloverdale
Riverside
Sacramento
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD
01
01
03
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PS
F
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
F
EP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
09/24/92
12/18/87
08/06/92
07/16/92
01/31/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
08/05/92
09/20/83 1
02/17/88 1
02/08/88 4
05/26/92
01/29/91 3
09/27/90 1
09/27/90 4
08/06/91 3
01/24/92
06/06/91 1
07/21/89 4
07/21/89 3
93
93
91
93
97
94
95
94
93
92
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
4
4
1
1
1
4
3
2
3
1
2
94
93
93
94
93
94
94
95
95
96
96
96
93
93
91
94
94
97
94
95
96
94
94
93
STATUS
new
DNE
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
new
-2
-3
0
new
-2
0
0
0
new
-2
-1
-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION
9 CA Model Ian Air Force Base (Ground Sacramento
Water Contamination)
9 CA McColl Fullerton
9 CA McCormic and Baxter Creosoting Stockton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
04
05
01
02
04
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
08/21/90
06/11/84
02/03/86
09/27/90
06/11/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4
1
4
4
4
1
4
99
95
97
99
91
94
95
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
99
95
97
99
91
93
95
94
STATUS
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
new
Co.
9 CA Modesto Ground Water Contamination
9 CA Moffett Naval Air Station
9 CA Montrose Chemical Corp.
9 CA National Semiconductor Corp.
9 CA Newmark Ground Water Contamination
9 CA Norton Air Force Base
9 CA Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Modesto
Sunnyvale
Torrance
Santa Clara
San Bernadino
San Bernardino
Monterey Park
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
04
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
PS
F
F
FF
FF
F
RP
RP
03/21/91
08/08/89
08/08/89
08/08/89
08/08/89
08/08/89
07/06/92
08/08/89
10/10/86
04/19/89
06/28/90
09/25/92
06/29/89
06/29/89
09/15/89
07/18/91
05/11/89
3
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
93
97
94
93
93
93
95
92
93
94
94
2
3
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
3
2
2
4
94
94
94
94
94
95
95
96
93
94
93
95
95
93
94
94
94
-3
12
0
-7
DNE
DNE
new
DNE
-3
DNE
-?.
n«>!t
0
-3
-2
0
0
9 CA Ralph Gray Trucking Co.
Westminster
01
RI/FS
08/30/92
1 94
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Riverbank Army Ammunition
Plant
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area
1)
San Fernando Valley (Area
2)
San Fernando Valley (Area
3)
San Fernando Valley (Area
4)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
1)
San Gabriel Valley (Area
2)
Selma Treat 'ng Co.
Sharpe Army Depot
South Bay Asbestos Area (Alviso
LOCATION
Riverbank
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Los Angeles/Glendale
Glendale
Los Angeles
El Monte
Baldwin Park
Area
Selma
Lathrop
Alviso
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
05
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
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
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
F
F
F
F
F
FF
RP
FUNDING
START
04/05/90
12/16/88
02/16/90
08/05/92
11/13/90
08/16/85
08/16/85
09/06/89
09/06/89
08/16/85
08/16/85
09/28/92
06/13/84
04/01/87
08/01/87
07/22/92
09/29/92
03/16/89
05/11/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
3
4
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
93
96
99
93
93
93
93
93
93
99
92
92
93
4
4
4
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
1
4
3
2
3
4
1
3
4
93
96
99
94
93
95
95
93
93
95
95
94
94
93
93
96
94
94
93
STATUS
-1
0
0
new
-2
-5
-7
-1
DNE
-5
-5
new
21
-2
-3
new
new
-4
new
Dumping Area)
9 CA Stoker Company
Imperial
01
RI/FS
05/01/92
95
-------
Progress Toward Implementing super fund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
>
o\
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
HI
SITE NAME
Stringfellow
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Thompson- Haywood Chem
TRW Microwave, Inc. (Building
825)
Tracy Defense Depot
Travis Air Force Base
Treasure Island Naval Station -
Hunter's Point Annex
United Heckathorn Co.
Waste Disposal, Inc.
Watkins-Johnson Co. (Stewart
Division)
Western Pacific Railroad
Co.
Schofield Barracks
LOCATION
Glen Avon
Heights
Clear Lake
Fresno
Sunnyvale
Tracy
Solano County
San Francisco
R i chmond
Santa Fe Springs
Scotts Valley
Oroville
Oahu
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
S
EP
F
EP
PS
PS
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
RP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
10/01/90
09/28/90
11/18/91
09/28/90
02/06/87
09/11/91
04/19/89
06/27/91
06/27/91
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
10/01/90
01/22/91
09/26/91
12/22/87
07/16/91
09/29/92
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
4
4
3
2
4
1
2
2
4
3
2
4
2
4
3
93
94
93
91
94
93
94
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
93
95
95
96
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
3
1
2
4
4
4
2
4
1
2
2
4
3
4
4
2
2
4
3
2
95
94
96
94
94
93
91
96
93
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
93
94
95
95
95
96
95
STATUS
-8
-1
new
DNE
-4
DNE
0
-8
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4
-2
-4
new
0
0
0
DNE
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
fM
O
O
CO
__,
(D
U
(A
u.
*O
»4_
& <
U X
(/> —
Q
O) Z
C UJ
4-1 Q.
C <.
ro
>- Of
1- UJ
_. CO
-1 Z
>-~ LJJ
CD 1—
— Q.
cn uj
< cn
UJ
LU Z
O
cn cn
gen
UJ
1— C3
go
Of
— i a.
^
cn z
UJ ~
Z CO
o
1 l_4
< t—
— CJ
0 <
LU
o: —
o
U- UJ
0 £
UJ
cn of
< §
en **"
cn
h-
h—
cn
g
» u
i — i— — i
Z UJ 3
Ul — 1 O
co a. uj
LJJ Z Z
of o cj
a. cj cn
z
O
CO — UJ
SI 1
LU ^
~ _j a
> O- LU
UJ Z 3C
a: o u
o. u cn
o
z
« i—
O CK
Z <
o t—
u. cn
§
in
t—
>
i—
5j
i
Of UJ 1-
UJ — 1 1-1
a. ca z
o < =>
LOCATIOM
LU
z
UJ
1—
cn
1-
cn
CD
Of
^
0-
•*
8
*
o
o.
^
s
Sr
o
u-
co
S^
o:
0
^
^
o
L.
Lyon/Chu
County
Ul
3
L.
cu
4.1
C/>
u
L.
CU ~
CL
t-
CU CO
> cu
Of ^
o
C 4J
o •—
CO C-
L. L-
10 0
CJ 1—
...
z
o
«- 3
i CU
c
ro in
CM CM
8
«-
1 S
O CM
in N-
O 0
CL
co cn
*^ 1^
Of Of
o o
c_
CO
CO
z
co cn
C C
c_ t_
co o ca
u. co LI-
CU
CO
a.
c.
cu
4-1
c
LU
X D.
4-* C-
CD 3
ca cn
CD U
CO 4-i
ca u
— > L.
* *
< <
O O
^ T—
•d- 3 3 3 CM in
i eu cu cu i i
c c c
^3- in in in »o «*
CK 0s O* c7* O* 0s
CM ro ro ro CM «*
ro in ro
o- o e>.
CM •* ro
«- CM CM CM «- «-
o o o o o o
«- O O O CM «-
«O in in in in *O
o o o o o o
en cn cn cn cn cn
-v -^ ^ x» *s >»
Of Of Of Of Of Of
CM ro >* in r— o
o o o o o o
c.
CO
tn
z
ca
c j=
CO CO
SI 3
t- O
••- c.
CD O
LU m
CD
CD
CO
cu
u
L.
O
LU
l_
^f
c.
o
CO
"eu
UJ
^
"*•
o
«~
T ||
o o o
--*-*
f\J
o*
*
CM CM CM
000
«- »- in
0 0 «-
«--*>*
o o o
cn cn en
^ ^ •*»
of of of
r- CM in
o o o
cu
Ul
CD
O
^
U
c
L. JZ
«!§>
(D O
a* (-
I- O
CD CD
a)
CA
CD
ca
0)
u
o
E_
^
H-
t_
o
1
UJ
^
"*
0
»~
1
t>
•*
a
in
o
LU
"•
en
-^
Of
IO
o
L,
CD
C/J
Z
CO
Fairbank
Borough
4-*
.C
O)
c
CD
3
t_
O
u-
^
*
0
^~
3 «-
C
in CM
0 o
«- ro
CM
O
*
CM f»-
O 00
CM O
Sin
0
U-
u- ii-
cn in
^ —
Of Of
o o
cu
CD E
CD 3
o -o
C CO
< Of
cu
at
to
CD '^
cn co
cu
CO CO
CO c!
4-> Q.
CU c.
z cu
•D C
C UJ
CD
c_
— • cu
cu —
CU X
4-1 0)
cn c.
o
TJ ^
L.
-§ 1
C TJ 0
CO t- C-
4-> CO t-
en >- <
^ o
< -
o o
*~ *~
o
a
ro
o
ro
5
o
ro
in
C
a.
Of
CO
•^
Of
o
o
Pocatell
c
o
4.*
a
c
E
CO
4-
§
U
CO
4-1
CD
U.
"i
to
u
JP
c
I-
0
CO
ca
LU
0
"
o
*~
33X33
CU ft) Q) O O
C C C C C
in ^ in ro in
o o o e> o
i- CM «- ro «-
«- r- »- «- CM
o o o o o
o e> N- o> in
CM O CM O CM
CM CM CM CM O
ir- *— r- «— O
en cn cn cn cn
•N. -^ -x •-. -x
of of o: at of
*— ^* in co e>
o «-«-«-«-
CO
—1
ca
LL.
O
j:
CD
•a
ji
CD
D)
C
t_
O
21
O)
c
LU
_,
CO
c
o
4^
CD
Z ^^
oS
-c a
CD en
2 3
a
"
o
*"
o
o
-*
>
^
o
0
CM
I
O-
Of
CO
n
1 —
Of
o
cn
O)
c
•r—
a.
en
ca
cn
CO
•D
o
Q.
O
U
CO
u
• ^
§ ^N
CJ C
CO
(U — *
01 (X
U CA
L_ ••-
L. L.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
>
oo
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
ID
ID
ID
ID
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
SITE NAME
Monsanto Chemcial Co. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Mountain Home Air Force
Base
Mountain Home Airforce Base
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling
Co.
Allied Plating, Inc.
Gould, Inc.
Joseph Forests Products
Martin-Marietta Products
Teledyne Wah Chang
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
United Chrome Products,
Inc.
American Crossarm & Conduit
Co.
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
LOCATION
Soda Springs
Mountain Home
Mountain Home
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Joseph
The Dalles
Albany
Hermiston
Cor vail is
Chehalis
Silverdale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
RP
FF
FF
RP
F
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/19/91
05/12/92
01/16/92
09/22/89
09/24/87
03/02/92
09/21/89
05/15/90
05/05/87
11/06/91
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
10/14/91
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
1
94
93
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
93
92
93
92
94
93
93
94
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
2
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
2
4
4
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
94
95
93
93
93
95
92
93
93
93
93
94
93
93
93
92
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
STATUS
-2
new
new
2
-3
new
0
-5
-2
new
-3
-4
-1
-3
DNE
0
-1
-4
0
-1
-1
0
new
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
>
VO
RG
10
10
10
10
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
WA Bonnevi lie Power Administration Vancouver
Ross Complex
WA Colbert Landfill Colbert
WA Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Pierce County
Flats
WA Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Tacoma
Channel
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
02
04
05
05
05
05
07
01
02
03
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
MR
RP
RP
F
PS
PS
PS
PS
RP
F
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
05/15/90
05/15/90
08/28/89
03/20/92
09/10/86
09/27/89
11/12/91
01/16/90
11/16/90
09/30/89
06/25/92
07/19/90
10/15/90
03/15/92
PREVIOUS PRESENT
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1
4
T>
4
1
1
4
4
4
93
93
93
92
94
93
94
92
93
2
1
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
93
94
93
93
94
93
95
96
94
95
95
93
94
94
STATUS
-1
DNE
0
new
-4
-3
new
-9
-4
-4
new
-2
-1
new
JO
O
10 WA Commencement Bay, South Takoma
Channel
10 WA FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit)
10 WA FairchHd Air Force Base (4 Waste
Area)
10 W/< Fort Lewis Logistics Center
10 WA Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
Tacoma
Yakima
03 RA RP 07/20/90 4 92
01 RA RP 04/23/92
92
93
Spokane County
T i 11 i cum
Benton County
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
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
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
03/27/90
03/27/90
09/15/92
01/15/92
12/01/91
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
04/15/91
1
4
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
93
93
94
93
94
93
93
94
95
94
95
93
95
2
4
1
4
1
3
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
4
4
93
93
95
97
94
95
93
95
95
95
95
96
96
96
95
95
new
-1
0
new
new
0
-9
2
-9
-8
-4
0
-7
-3
-11
-2
DNE
!
5"
1
CO
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
SITE NAME
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Lakewood Site
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
(Ault Field)
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
(Seaplane Base)
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
Northside Landfill
Northwest Transformer (South
Harkness St.)
Pasco Sanitary Landfill
Queen City Farms
Silver Mountain Mine
Vancouver Water Station #4
LOCATION
Benton County
Benton County
Seattle
Lakewood
Whidbey Island
Whidbey Island
Keyport
Spokane
Everson
Pasco
Maple Valley
Loom is
Vancouver
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
14
01
02
01
02
01
03
01
01
02
03
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
RP
f
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
RP
RP
RP
SE
RP
F
F
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
04/15/91
05/15/89 2 94
08/31/92
05/15/89 3 95
09/27/89 2 96
09/07/88 4 92
09/14/90 1 93
09/24/87 4 92
10/16/90 4 92
06/30/91 4 93
12/13/91
01/02/91 3 93
07/17/90 2 93
03/16/92
06/18/92
09/30/92
08/05/92
05/06/88 1 93
04/03/92
04/02/92
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
1
3
3
2
2
1
4
4
1
3
2
95
94
97
95
96
94
94
93
93
94
94
93
94
94
94
93
93
93
93
95
STATUS
DNE
1
new
1
0
-7
-5
-2
-4
-1
new
0
-4
new
new
new
new
0
new
new
Contamination
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX A
RG ST SITE NAME
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
LOCATION
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT ACTIVITY
LEAD
FUNDING
START
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE STATUS
I
-*
JO
<0
10 WA Western Processing Co.,
Inc.
Kent
02
RA
RP
07/06/87 1 92
1 92
10 WA Wycoff Co./Eagle Harbor
Bainbridge
IsI and
01
02
RI/FS
RI/FS
09/03/87 3
09/16/92
92
93
95
-3
new
51
a.
I
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
A-62
-------
Appendix B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30,1992
This appendix lists the remedial designs in
progress at the end of FY92 and their estimated
completion schedule. Activities at multiple operable
units, as well as first and subsequent activities, are
listed.
• RG—EPA Region in which the site is located.
• ST — State in which the site is located.
• Site Name — Name of the site, as listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
• Location—Location of the site, as listed on the
NPL.
• Operable Unit — Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring; a
single site may include more than one operable
unit.
• Lead — The entity leading the activity, as
follows:
EP: Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;
F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;
FE: EPA enforcement program-lead;
FF: Federal facility-lead;
MR: Mixed funding; monies from both the
Fund and potentially responsible parties (PRPs);
PRP: PRP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the PRP
under a state order (may include federal financing
or federal oversight under an enforcement
document);
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include federal
financing).
Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS) database, O
(other), SN (state-lead and state-financed, no
Fund money), and SR (state-ordered PRP
response activities), are excluded from this status
report because they do not include federal
financing.
Funding Start—The date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
Present Completion Schedule — The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion date
for the activity, as of September 30,1992. This
information was compiled from CERCLIS on
November 11, 1992.
B-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CM
1
t-
CO
QJ
>-
CO
u
,,—
u-
•o
3
H-
C_
O to
% X
en •—
a
Implementing
APPENI
-o
CD
i
CO
CO
cu
O)
u
O-
CM
O
O
O
ro
UJ
m
UJ
t—
a.
UJ
en
z
o
en
^y f •«
C- 1_ U
CD CO £
"jj "tU TJ
C_ C- 1-
33 •-
(0 CD nj
— i — i m
u ^.
Ox Ox
ro CM
CO CM
CO O
O >»
ro CM
o o
0 O
u. u-
o 5
JZ
Tyngsboroug
Grove I and
1
I—
C
o
-M
i
CO
o
en
CU — •
D) — •
0 3
S -g
CO — CO
eu — —
— • H- 0)
"- "5 >
CD C O
f CO C-
U -1 (9
* s
s s
ro -*
IX CM
CO O
o w
co e>
o o
c.
ee. u.
CM CM
O O
Westborough
Billerica
^
T3 1-
O CO
U L-
c o
S c
u o
0 C.
3: •—
i i
in xt
«- CM
O CM
O O
CM O
C> xt
0 O
U- u-
*~ CM
O O
Norwood
Ashland
E
o
o
in
CO
3
"CD
u
in ••-
m E
u cu
O. Si
O CO
O N
3 C
c. CO
0 X
z z
§ i
ro in
0 0
xt «-
e> o
CO CO
o o
ro ro
88
a: o:
£ £
00
Dartmouth
1
a
cu"
>
"o
cu
a
fO "tf
o^ o*
ro Nt
O (\I
>o o*
r- CM
§ I
O.
tt Lt,
0 0
Lanesboro
Lowell
.
a
o
u
•— a
a. u
co S
CA ^Z
a °
CO E
O CO
cu
O c-
co —•
o •—
o: en
s s
in ro
o* o*
CM xt
«- O
O O
in CO
ro in
o O
Q. O.
o; a:
0 0
"2
O
**-
"S
s i
j
i_«
en o
•O 0
cu
-1 00
cfl 0)
CO "-
> C3
i i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
W
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
ST
ME
ME
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
RI
RI
RI
RI
VT
NJ
STATUS
SITE NAME
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Auburn Road Landfill
Coakley Landfill
Dover Municipal Landfill
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
(once listed as Kearsage Metallurgi
cal Corp.)
Mottolo Pig Farm
Ottati & Goss)
South Municipal Water Supply
Well
Tinkham Garage
Davis Liquid Waste
Landfill & Resource Recovery, Inc.
(L&RR)
Newport Naval Education/Training
Center
Stamina Mills, Inc. (once listed
as Forestdale - Stamina Mills,
Inc.)
Old Springfield Landfill
A. 0. Polymer
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Washburn
South Hope
Londonderry
North Hampton
Dover
Conway
Raymond
Kingston
Peterborough
Londonderry
Smithfield
North Smithfield
Newport
North Smithfield
Springfield
Sparta Township
SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
02
01
LEAD
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
F
RP
F
F
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
FF
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
09/13/89
12/24/91
09/30/90
09/30/90
06/19/92
01/22/92
09/27/91
03/05/92
03/15/89
09/20/90
09/20/90
09/04/90
09/23/88
09/23/88
07/11/88
11/16/90
09/29/92
08/14/91
12/13/91
04/20/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
4
4
2
1
1
4
2
1
94
94
94
94
94
95
93
93
95
95
94
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
93
94
1
|
Hi
<•*
V)
jo
TJ
5
-------
w
Progress Toward Implementing aupetlund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Asbestos Dump
Burnt Fly Bog
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Chemsol, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (TOMS RIVER
CHEMICAL)
Cinnaminson Township (Block 702)
Ground Water Contamination
Combe Fill South Landfill
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
DeRenewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
Ewan Property
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
GEMS Landfill
Garden State Cleaners Co.
Glen Ridge Radium Site
LOCATION
Millington
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Bridgeport
Pi scat away
Toms River
Cinnaminson
Township
Chester Township
Saddle Brook
Township
King wood Township
Newark
Sh among Township
Atlantic County
Gloucester
Township
Minotola
Glen Ridge
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
03
LEAD
F
F
S
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
S
RP
F
RP
RP
FF
S
F
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/30/92
02/10/92
09/29/89
05/16/91
01/03/91
04/15/92
06/01/89
07/09/91
06/26/87
12/24/91
09/30/89
12/14/89
10/13/89
03/31/91
05/22/86
03/30/92
03/30/92
05/25/89
09/26/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
3
1
2
3
1
4
3
1
1
1
94
93
95
95
95
93
93
98
93
93
94
94
94
94
93
93
95
93
98
-------
Proy.-ess Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
DO
I
o, 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Kin-Buc Landfill
King of Prussia
Lang Property
Li pan" Landfill
Lone Pine Landfill
Mannheim Avenue Dump
Metal tec/Aerosystems
Monte I air/West Orange Radium
Site
Montgomery Township Housing
Development
Myers Property
NL Industries
Nascolite Corp.
Pepe Field
Price Landfill
Reich Farms
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Roebling Steel Co.
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Morganville
Edison Township
Wins low Township
Pemberton
Township
Pitman
Freehold Township
Galloway Township
Franklin Borough
Montclair/West
Orange
Montgomery
Township
Franklin Township
Pedricktown
Millville
Boonton
Pleasantvi lie
Pleasant Plains
Rocky Hill
Borough
Florence
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
03
02
01
02
01
03
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
LEAD
S
RP
RP
F
F
RP
RP
F
F
F
S
RP
RP
Rft
F
F
S
RP
S
F
FUNDING
START
09/30/91
09/30/88
05/02/91
03/20/87
09/29/88
06/26/92
06/14/91
03/29/91
05/25/89
09/26/90
03/24/89
05/12/92
05/21/92
01/16/91
09/27/91
09/30/91
06/26/87
04/05/90
03/24/89
09/25/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
4
1
1
3
3
93
93
94
93
93
94
94
94
93
98
93
95
93
94
94
93
94
94
93
94
JB
-i
ts»
-Q
3
1
8
|
1
.|
i
I
(/>
i
3
•n
c
-------
w
Progress Toward Implementing Super'und: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Sharkey Landfill
South Jersey Clothing Co.
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
Williams Property
American Thermostat Co.
Applied Environmental Services
Byron Barrel & Drum
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychemical
Colesvi lie Municipal Landfill
Endicott Village Well Field
Fulton Terminals
General Motors (Central Foundry
Division)
Genzale Plating Co.
Hooker (102nd Street)
Hooker (South Area)
LOCATION
Parsippany/Troy
Hills
Minotola
Vineland
Wall Township
Swainton •
South Cairo
Glenwood Landing
Byron
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesvi lie
Village of
Endicott
Fulton
Massena
Franklin Square
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
S
F
F
F
F
F
S
F
PS
RP
F
F
F
PS
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
03/31/87
03/30/92
03/30/92
09/30/89
10/02/89
06/28/91
09/30/88
09/30/90
09/24/92
09/25/90
06/24/91
09/30/92
09/28/90
04/01/91
01/24/92
11/28/90
07/01/92
09/09/92
09/25/91
10/22/91
09/21/90
12/01/86
01/31/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
4
1
1
3
4
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
4
2
1
95
94
95
94
94
94
93
93
94
95
94
95
93
94
93
94
95
95
94
94
95
94
94
-------
fregress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
00
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
Ramapo Landfill
Sarney Farm
Solvent Savers
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1
Warwick Landfill
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Frontera Creek
Upjohn Facility
Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfills
Delaware Sand & Gravel -Llangollen/A
rmy Creek Landfill)
Ha I by Chemical Co.
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Islip
Horseheads
Clayville
Glen Cove
Port Washington
Farmingdale
Ramapo
Amen i a
Lincklaen
Vestal
Warwick
Jobos
Rio Abajo
Barceloneta
Kent County
New Castle
County
New Castle
SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
03
04
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PS
RP
PS
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
F
PS
F
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
09/30/92
08/29/91
11/12/89
09/30/91
09/30/92
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/30/92
04/16/92
03/29/91
07/02/91
03/28/91
04/18/91
04/20/92
09/25/92
08/19/92
05/09/89
03/05/91
06/26/92
03/16/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
3
2
4
94
94
94
93
94
93
93
94
96
93
94
94
95
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
94
93
3!
|
§
-------
Progress Toward Implementing aupeifund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
W
co 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
DE
DE
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SITE NAME
Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc.
NCR Corp. (Millsboro Plant)
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edge wood
Area)
Limestone Road
Mid- At I antic Wood Preservers,
Inc.
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Avco Lycoming (Uilliamsport
Division)
Bally Ground Water Contamination
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Blosenski Landfill
Brodhead Creek
Butz Landfill
Craig Farm Drum
CryoChem, Inc.
Delta Quarries & Disposal, Inc.
(Stotler Landfill)
Dorney Road Landfill
LOCATION
Kirkwood
Millsboro
Edgewood
Cumberland
Harmans
Elkton
Williamsport
Bally Borough
Bridgewater
Township
West Cain
Township
Stroudsburg
Stroudsburs
Parker
Worman
Ant is/Logan
Townships
Upper Macungie
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
05
01
01
03
04
01
01
03
03
04
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
LEAD
RP
RP
FF
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
f
RP
F
RP
F
F
F
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
09/14/87
08/04/92
11/04/91
04/13/90
03/18/92
01/05/89
02/21/92
05/08/92
09/25/91
04/19/90
02/14/90
02/14/90
09/02/92
09/29/92
09/26/90
02/22/90
12/28/90
12/31/91
06/01/92
09/26/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
2
2
1
4
2
93
94
93
93
93
93
93
94
95
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
93
93
-------
vO
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
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
Douglassville Disposal
Dublin TCE Site
East Mount Zion
He Her town Manufacturing Co.
Hranica Landfill
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Kimberton Site
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
Lord-Shope Landfill
MW Manufacturing
Modern Sanitation Landfill
Old City of York Landfill
Osborne Landfill
Raymark
Resin Disposal
Walsh Landfill
LOCATION
Douglassville
Dublin Borough
Springettsbury
Township
Hellertown
Buffalo Township
Union Township
Kimberton
Borough
Chambersburg
Girard Township
Valley Township
Lower Windsor
Township
Seven Valleys
Grove City
Hatboro
Jefferson
Borough
Honeybrook
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
01
01
01
04
01
01
LEAD
F
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
FF
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
FUNDING
START
09/27/89
04/27/92
01/09/91
03/12/92
08/26/91
03/11/92
11/01/90
09/25/91
08/19/91
09/30/90
03/02/92
09/17/92
08/12/91
01/26/89
05/11/92
09/26/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
4
2
3
2
2
1
4
1
4
3
3
2
1
2
93
94
93
93
93
94
93
93
93
94
93
94
93
93
94
93
-------
w
o
Progress Toward Implementing Soperfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
ST
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
WV
AL
AL
AL
SITE NAME
Whitmoyer Laboratories
William Dick Lagoons
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
Defense General Supply Center
First Piedmont Corp. Rock Quarry
(Route 719)
Greenwood Chemical Co.
L.A. Clarke & Son
Saltville Waste Disposal Ponds
Saunders Supply Co.
U.S. Titanium
Pike Chemical
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
LOCATION
Jackson Township
West Cain
Township
Front Royal
Chesterfield
County
Pittsylvania
County
Newton
Spotsylvania
County
Saltville
Chuckatuck
Piney River
Nit^-o
Horgantown
Point Pleasant
Mclntosh
Leeds
Axis
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
04
05
01
01
05
01
01
02
04
02
01
01
02
01
01
04
06
02
01
01
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
FF
RP
F
F
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
FF
FF
FF
RP
F
RP
FUNDING
START
03/05/92
03/05/92
03/05/92
03/05/92
09/17/92
08/26/89
07/31/92
09/21/92
06/29/90
02/20/92
03/03/90
07/27/88
07/22/92
11/26/90
02/27/92
08/06/90
07/14/92
06/28/91
09/01/91
05/26/92
09/30/91
06/25/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
3
4
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
7,
2
2
4
1
4
2
3
94
95
94
95
93
95
93
94
93
93
94
93
94
94
92
95
93
93
94
94
93
93
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ro
3 1
"~ cT
L. ro
CO
01 Of
>- UJ
m
— < £
ID 111
O 1—
en a.
.- UJ
z
-g
3 GO
M- GO
I. UJ
0
u-
0
Pensacola
.
ii
American Creosote Works, I
(Pensacola Plant)
—i
ti-
ro ro
e> t>
CM f-
v- CM
0 0
a. cu
CK a:
o o
Gainesville
Cabot/Koppers
_i
u_
5! S!
•* CM
S 5!
CM «-
0 0
it fy
O O
Uhitehouse
Cantonment
O)
.JE
Coleman-Evans Wood Preserv
Co.
Dubose Oil Products Co.
_i —i
u. u.
eSS
CM CM
5> e>
^^ **^
ro ro
CM CM
m in
0 0
Of Of
0 0
ID
I—
.
CO
en
8.
in
Q 01
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery
(once listed as Timber Lai
Battery Disposal)
_i
u_
in ro
e> O
»- CM
c> c>
CM «-
«- O
CM O
Of Of
0 0
L.
North Miami
Pembroke Pa
Munisport Landfill
Petroleum Products Corp.
_i _i
u_ ti-
ro ro
QN ^
ro ro
CM CM
o e>
ro CM
CM CM
o o
Of Of
o o
cu
Jacksonvill
Plant City
Pickettville Road Landfil!
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
u. u-
ro ro
O* O
CM ro
«- CM
IM ro
CM CM
CO -O
0 0
0 0
Tampa
Brandon
1 1
0 c?
4J
801
O>
t- ~a
V 3
en -•
en
i I
Z •£
T X
£ £
.2 -R
GO CO
u_ u-
~» -*
O O
00 CO
in in
0 0
o o
o o
>- X
Calvert Cit
Calvert Cit
Airco
B.F. Goodrich
* *
ro
O
CM
C>
ro
o
o
o
1
o
Howe Valley Landfill
*
B-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
KY
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
SITE NAME
Tri-City Disposal Co.
Newson Brothers/Old Reichhold
Chemicals, Inc.
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
Carolina Transformer Co.
Jadco-Hughes Facility
Carolawn, Inc.
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
Medley Farm Drum Dump
Palmetto Wood Preserving
SCRDI Bluff Road
Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB
Amnicola Dump
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Mai lory Capacitor Co.
North Hollywood Dump
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman
County)
Wrigley Charcoal Plant
LOCATION
Shepherdsville
Columbia
Aberdeen
Haze I wood
Ons low County
Fayetteville
Belmont
Fort Lawn
Simpsonville
Gaffney
Dixiana
Columbia
Pickens
Chattanooga
Arlington
Waynesboro
Memph i s
Toone
Wr i g I ey
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
F
FF
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
S
FUNDING
START
03/31/92
03/12/92
03/14/90
09/24/92
09/30/92
09/30/92
01/31/91
07/16/91
09/30/92
11/26/91
02/08/89
11/01/91
04/15/92
10/08/91
03/30/92
03/30/92
11/14/91
11/27/91
09/25/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
1
4
1
4
2
1
4
3
1
1
3
4
3
4
4
4
93
93
90
94
93
94
93
93
94
93
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
94
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
1L
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc.
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge (USOOI)
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Envirochem Corp.
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
MIDCO I Site
MIDCO II Site
Main Street Well Field
Neal's Dump (Spencer)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Northside Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Wayne Waste Oil
Auto Iron Chemicals, Inc.
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
LOCATION
Morristown
Pembroke Township
Granite City
Cartervi lie
Elkhart
Zionsville
LaPorte
Fort Wayne
Gary
Gary
Elkhart
Spencer
Gary
Zionsville
Columbia City
Kalamazoo
Muskegon
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
06
07
08
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
01
01
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
FF
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP*
RP*
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
FUNDING
START
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
03/13/90
03/08/91
05/02/91
05/14/91
08/16/92
05/05/92
09/25/89
11/07/91
12/28/88
06/23/92
06/23/92
04/07/92
04/07/92
08/22/85
09/20/89
03/12/90
08/13/91
08/28/90
09/27/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
93
93
93
93
94
93
93
93
94
94
96
93
94
93
98
98
93
93
96
94
93
93
93
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Chem Central
Cliff /Dow Dump
Folkertsma Refuse
Forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
Ionia City Landfill
K & L Avenue Landfill
Kentwood Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Metamora Landfill
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Northernaire Plating
Novaco Industries
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Peerless Plating Co.
Rasmussen 's Dump
Rose Township Dump
Spiegelberg Landfill
LOCATION
Wyoming Township
Marquette
Grand Rapids
Otisville
Utica
Ionia
Oshtemo Township
Kentwood
Cadi I lac
Metamora
Lansing
Cadi I lac
Temperance
Grandvi lie
Muskegon
Green Oak
Township
Rose Township
Green Oak
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
LEAD
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
04/07/92
09/27/89
05/29/92
06/27/88
09/10/92
09/13/90
09/18/92
11/27/91
05/16/90
04/26/91
04/26/91
05/22/92
05/16/90
03/16/87
01/30/92
09/21/92
02/14/92
07/18/89
08/22/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
4
2
1
3
3
1
2
95
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
94
94
93
93
94
94
94
94
94
5 Ml Springfield Township Dump
Davisburg
01
RP*
03/30/92
1 94
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Hiscal Year 1992
00
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
SITE NAME
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Verona Well Field
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corp.
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base
(Small Arms Range Landfill)
Whittaker Corp.
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Arcanum Iron & Metal
Big D Campground
Buckeye Reclamation
Coshocton Landfill
Fields Brook
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Summit National
APPENDIX B
DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Muskegon
Battle Creek
Hermantown
Pine Bend
Bemidji
New Brighton
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
Ironton
Drake County
Kingsville
St. Clairsville
Franklin Township
Ash tabula
Jackson Township
Uniontown
Reading
Deerf ield
Township
SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
03
09
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
04
05
01
LEAD
F
S
F
RP
RP
RP
PS
F*
FF
FF
PS
RP
RP
F
RP
F
RP
RP
F
F
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
09/25/92
09/29/89
09/20/92
03/02/92
05/04/92
09/06/91
05/01/92
09/25/91
09/30/92
04/01/92
04/09/85
03/09/89
08/13/91
03/20/87
05/02/90
03/12/92
02/23/90
03/22/89
06/24/92
09/29/89
11/26/91
10/29/91
06/11/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
2
4
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
3
4
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
4
4
2
95
93
94
93
94
94
93
94
93
93
99
93
92
94
93
94
93
94
95
94
93
93
93
JP
1
•^
S
(O
^
<§
<3
8
o1
i
a
f
3
a
o>
Sg
2
2
§
-------
o\
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
ST
OH
OH
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
AR
SITE NAME
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Zanesville Well Field
Algoma Municipal Landfill
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hunts Disposal
Janesville Ash Beds
Janesville Old Landfill
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lemberger Landfill, Inc. (Lemberger
Fly Ash Landfill)
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill
Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil
Co.)
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Spickler Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
Wausau Ground Water Contamination
Arkwood, Inc.
LOCATION
Troy
Zanesville
Algoma
Eau Claire
Franklin
Caledonia
Janesvi lie
Janesville
Kohler
Whitelaw
Franklin Township
Brookf ield
Cleveland
Township
Milwaukee
Ashippin
Spencer
Stoughton
Wausau
Omaha
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
LEAD
F
F
RP
F
RP
RP
RP
RP
PS
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
RP
F
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
04/10/89
09/21/92
08/25/91
09/29/88
09/27/91
05/05/92
07/12/91
07/12/91
07/30/92
06/01/92
06/01/92
08/13/91
08/11/89
08/11/89
07/15/91
09/26/90
09/30/92
09/28/92
05/10/90
10/21/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
4
2
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
95
94
93
92
93
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
93
94
95
93
94
94
93
94
-------
w
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
ST
AR
AR
LA
NM
OK
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
SITE NAME
Popile, Inc.
South 8th Street Landfill
American Creosote Uorks, Inc
(Winnfield)
South Valley
Hardage/Criner
Oklahoma Refining Co. (Pesses
Chemical Co.)
Sand Springs Petrochemical
Complex
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
Crystal Chemical Co.
North Calvacade Street
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Highway)
Pet ro- Chemical Systems, Inc.
(turtle Bayou)
Sheridan Disposal Service
South Cavalcade Street
Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
United Creosoting Co.
Des Hoines TCE (once listed as
LOCATION
El Dorado
Jacksonvi I le
Winnfield
Albuquerque
Criner
Cyril
Sand Springs
Friendswood
Houston
Houston
Odessa
Liberty County
Hemps tead
Houston
Texarkana
Conroe
Des Koines
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
06
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
03
01
02
01
01
03
02
LEAD
F
F
F
RP
RP
S
RP
RP
F
S
RP
F
F
RP
RP
RP
S
S
RP
FUNDING
START
02/19/92
09/11/92
02/19/92
09/01/89
09/09/90
09/22/92
10/03/88
06/29/89
03/31/92
03/28/91
12/09/91
09/25/92
09/25/92
12/29/89
03/29/90
07/30/90
03/06/91
03/26/92
06/25/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
2
2
3
4
2
3
1
3
4
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
2
93
95
93
93
93
94
94
93
94
93
93
94
94
94
97
94
93
93
95
DICO)
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
Rfi
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
£ 7
oo
7
7
8
8
8
8
ST
IA
IA
IA
IA
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
CO
CO
CO
CO
SITE NAME
Mid-America Tanning Co.
Midwest Manufacturing/North
Farm
Peoples Natural Gas Co.
White Farm Equipment Co. Dump
Doepke Disposal (Holliday)
Ellisville Site
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (Area
2: Fills 1 & 2)
Shenandoah Stables (once listed as
Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
Wheeling Disposal Service Co.
Landfill
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Broderick Wood Products
California Gulch
Central City - Clear Creek
Chemical Sales Co.
LOCATION
Sergeant Bluff
Kellogg
Dubuque
Charles City
Johnson County
Ellisville
Imperial
Moscow Mills
Amazonia
Hastings
Denver
Leadville
Idaho Springs
Commerce City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
03
04
09
02
02
01
01
01
03
01
02
04
LEAD
F
F
F
RP
RP
RP
EP
EP
EP
EP
RP
RP
RP
RP
F
r
RP
S
S
S
RP
F
F
FUNDING
START
01/21/92
08/21/91
08/21/91
06/12/92
09/24/92
10/24/90
10/07/91
10/07/91
05/01/91
05/01/91
09/11/91
09/27/90
09/28/90
12/14/88
09/28/92
09/28/92
04/25/89
06/15/88
06/15/88
09/30/91
02/26/92
02/26/92
09/25/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
2
4
3
3
4
2
2
1
4
4
3
93
96
96
94
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
95
93
94
93
92
93
92
96
93
93
93
8 CO Denver Radium Site
Denver
08
RP
06/07/92
92
-------
F/sca/ year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
g
•— LU
1— 1 1
Z LU ^
LU — 1 O
CO CX LU
LU E Z
a: § cj
ex u en
u
•x.
§ *
LU
CM
CM O
*~ O >
L. ro o; LU h-
CO LU —1 •—
o eg ex co z
>- LU O < 3
CO
(D LU
O 1—
ai ex
•^ LU
U. CO
z
•g o
D I/I
H- CO
C_ UJ
0) CO Of
Q. C3
3 x 2
CO •— ' O£
Q ex
CD Z
C LU Z
•— CX •-•
C < CO O
E 3 i-
01 — <
— CO CJ
Q. LU O
6 0 -i
•o <
e_ i-i
CD O
SLU
E
1- LU
Of
CA
CA ii-
CU O
D) 00
0 13
L. H-
IX <
CO
LU
LU
1—
CO
1—
CO
s
•J- tO -» 10 10 tO CM
ON ON o^ o* o* o^ 0*1
N^- %4- CM CM "* r-O •-*
CO ON O* ON O* O^ O^
o in «- NO ** c> in
CM CM O O O CM «-
in «— ON -sj «4- tri CO
o o o o o o o
C/> U- U- U- U_
«- CM fM •«* NO in «—
o o o o «- o o
«4-
*^ X >-
0 X 4-> +*
-Q *j .*. C
0 CUD
D£ DO
•^ o o o
EC u Si c
3O CO O "i-
C — • CD E 4->
.— o T3 O —
a a < cj ex
g
CO ID — •
^i CD "~
C
CD 3 CO
it 5 ? E
CO — 3
CO 4-* O
41 4-< C ^^ E
C CO DO)
.r- _, O C1J C-
E u- E c_ tt)
CJ — •
u X X en
"ij> o o c 3
ID O O CO E
LU o: of co co
o o o o o
O CJ O U U
co co co co co
5
"
v^
o
CM
O
ex
^
Anaconda
u
4-»
1
CO
o
CJ
CD
1
O
1
h-
oo
O» O O» O ON O O ON O*« ON O> O" ON
CM f\i^-«— roro«— CM 'Nf r<^ foro «—
^ ^ -^ -s V. -^ •>, -v -«. --^ «^-s,. -v
O Nf^-OCMrOCM O» ^ >O «~CO O
IO CMCMCM»-CMt- CM O O rOCM M
O CMCMOi-OLn O ~* N- CMCO O
IO «-«-«-t-CMCM CM «- CM CMCM «-
O OOOOOO O O O OO O
o o
QJ O CQ QJ CQ
O U _J — • — 1
c '•- — c ca
ti> V 4JX
C C TJ — • 4J TJ — • *•
O o en eo «•-••- ID ••-
E E OCOCJE OO O
ro
c
LU E
o co oa
CO C CM
Z5 0 CD
^ O 4-» — •
CO ID
w x S £
g -5 ° 2
.!: > c E
0) .•- 4J 4J — O
COCO O O^ .*-vCJ
CO 1- CO Q. vx Q. CO
CO O CD I- L. — •
. >_ ^ 4.1 O O CD
0) — TJ C CJ 4-> CJ
o ••- co w 0> cu — » «^-
c.E a. 0>E
O — C W HI E 01
u. O O -M D CJ 0) 00 x:
_> — ' L. <4- 4J -V CJ
I_ — — . CU 0) "D COCO
._ Hi ua.oc ro j=
- (- 1— 1— 1- I— 1—
= 3 0 = 3- 13 Z3
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
<>
c>
CM
C5
ex
o
cu
Evansvi I
^
2
f
en
=
c/i
^3
e£
0
en
£-
CO
X
c_
eu
CO
xo
SCM
3
CO
s
CM
Ox
o
o
ex
SO
o
x
c
ex
u
i-
^
Scottsda
CQ
cu
4-
^:
CO
ID
3
0)
CO
c
CO
1
CM
0
B-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
03
1
to
o
Rfi
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Fairchild Semiconductor/Camera &
(South San Jose Plant)
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
Raytheon Corp.
LOCATION
Phoenix
Goodyear
Tucson
Fresno County
Coalinga
South San
Jose
Mountain View
Redding
Weed
Orovi lie
Livermore
Monterey Park
Fillmore
Malaga
Mountain View
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
02
LEAD
PS
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
f
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
FF
RP
RP
RP
RP
RP
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
03/16/92
01/04/91
01/07/89
06/08/92
05/02/88
01/02/91
01/02/91
01/02/91
05/14/91
05/14/91
09/21/92
07/10/92
08/19/91
01/15/92
02/21/92
02/21/92
02/21/92
08/05/92
04/01/92
09/14/92
11/14/91
05/14/91
05/14/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
3
4
1
4
3
1
1
94
93
93
94
93
93
95
95
96
95
96
95
94
94
93
93
93
93
94
95
94
93
95
96
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1992
w
RG
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
ID
ID
ID
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
STATUS
SITE NAME
San Fernando Valley (Area 1)
Selma Treating Co.
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
(Sunnyvale Plant)
Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling
Co.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Colbert Landfill
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Los Angeles
Selma
Turlock
Sunnyvale
Idaho Falls
Pocatel lo
Pocatello
Silverdale
Bremerton
Colbert
Pierce County
Vancouver
SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
03
01
01
05
23
01
01
07
01
01
01
03
05
05
05
05
05
01
LEAD
RP
F
F
RP
FF
FF
RP
RP
FF
FF
MR
RP
RP
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
F
FUNDING
START
07/27/92
09/30/92
06/25/92
02/06/92
01/01/92
08/11/92
02/13/92
06/12/92
12/20/91
02/26/92
03/23/89
03/29/91
02/03/89
06/28/91
09/30/89
09/30/89
06/30/92
01/30/91
03/23/88
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
4
2
4
3
4
4
3
1
2
4
4
3
94
96
93
94
93
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
96
94
94
94
a
1
1
S
s
I
1
8
-4
Qi
«E
3
Q,
5
•^
i
1
c
Tl
3
|
o
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
B-22
-------
Appendix C
List of Records of
Decision
This appendix provides a list of FY92 feasibility studies by identifying records of decision (RODs) signed
from October 1, 1991, through September 30, 1992. Detailed descriptions of these feasibility studies, as
required by CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(A), are available in the publication ROD Annual Report -.Fiscal
Year 1992.
REGION
1
STATE DATE
Brunswick Naval Air Station (O.U. 1) ME 6/16/92
Brunswick Naval Air Station (O.U.2) ME 6/16/92
Darling Hill Dump VT 6/30/92
Newport Naval Education/Training Center Rl 9/29/92
Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards (O.U.2) MA 5/20/92
PSC Resources MA 9/15/92
Revere Textile Prints Corp. CT 9/30/92
Tibbetts Road NH 9/29/92
Town Garage/Radio Beacon NH 9/30/92
Action Anodizing, Plating, & Polishing NY 6/30/92
Bioclinical Laboratories Inc. NY 9/30/92
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp. NJ 9/30/92
Dover Municipal Well 4 NJ 9/30/92
Ellis Property NJ 9/30/92
Endicott Village Well Field NY 9/30/92
Evor Phillips Leasing NJ 9/30/92
FAA Technical Center NJ 9/30/92
Facet Enterprises NY 9/4/92
General Motors/Central Foundry Division NY 3/31/92
Higgins Farm NJ 9/30/92
Imperial Oil Co. Inc./Champion Chemicals NJ 9/30/92
Industrial Latex NJ 9/30/92
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill NY 9/30/92
Kin-Buc Landfill NJ 9/28/92
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.5) NJ 1/3/92
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.6) NJ 12/31/91
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.7) NJ 3/16/92
North Sea Municipal Landfill NY 9/28/92
C-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
REGION
2
3
4
SITE
Pasley Solvents & Chemical Inc.
Plattsburg Air Force Base (O.U.1)
Plattsburg Air Force Base (O.U.3)
Preferred Plating Corp.
Ramapo Landfill
Robintech Inc./National Pipe
Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination
Witco Chemical Corp. (Oakland Plant)
Abex Corp.
Brown's Battery Breaking
Butz Landfill
C&D Recycling
Chem-Solv Inc.
Commodore Semiconductor Group
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
Dublin Water Supply
Eastern Diversified Metals
Fike Chemical
Lindane Dump
MW Manufacturing
Paoli Rail Yard
Raymark
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump
Route 940 Drum Dump
Strasburg Landfill
Suffolk City Landfill
Tonolli Corp.
U.S. Defense General Supply Center (O.U.1)
U.S. Defense General Supply Center (O.U.5)
USA Aberdeen, Michaelsville
Westinghouse Elevator Plant
Agrico Chemical Site
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Carrier Air Conditioning Company
Chem-Form Inc.
Ciba Geigy Corp (Macintosh Plant)
Florida Steel Corp.
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen Plant)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Madison County Sanitary Landfill
Marine Corps Logistics Base (O.U.3)
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
National Electric Coil/Cooper Industries
New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit
Potter's Septic Tank Svs Pits
Savannah River Site (USDOE) (O.U. 1)
Savannah River Site (USDOE) (O.U. 2)
Savannah River Site (USDOE) (O.U. 3)
Standard Auto Bumper
STATE
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
VA
PA
PA
PA
DE
PA
VA
PA
PA
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
PA
PA
VA
PA
VA
VA
MD
PA
FL
AL
NC
TN
FL
AL
FL
NC
NC
FL
GA
TN
KY
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
FL
DATE
4/24/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
9/28/92
3/31/92
3/31/92
9/30/92
9/28/92
9/29/92
7/2/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
3/31/92
9/29/92
9/28/92
12/30/91
7/2/92
3/31/92
3/31/92
6/30/92
7/21/92
12/30/91
9/29/92
9/28/92
3/31/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
5/15/92
3/25/92
6/30/92
6/30/92
9/29/92
12/31/91
7/31/92
9/3/92
9/22/92
7/14/92
6/30/92
8/27/92
9/10/92
9/28/92
8/14/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
9/29/92
8/5/92
6/29/92
6/29/92
6/29/92
9/28/92
C-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION
4
5
6
7
SITE
USDOE Oak Ridge Reservation (O.U. 6)
USDOE Oak Ridge Reservation (O.U. 18)
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits (Amendment)
Wilson Concepts of Florida
Woodbury Chemical Company (Princeton Plant)
Yellow Water Road Dump
Alsco Anaconda
American Chemical Service Inc.
Bofors Nobel (Amendment)
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannetton Industries
Central IL Public Service
City Disposal Sanitary Landfill
Clare Water Supply
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill
Electrovoice
Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co.
H. Brown Co. Inc.
Hagen Farm
Kohler Co. Landfill
La Grande Sanitary Landfill
Metal Working Shop
MIDCO I (Amendment)
MIDCO 1 1 (Amendment)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
New Brighton/ Arden Hills
Peerless Plating Co. Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant)
Reilly Tar & Chemical (St. Louis Park)
Savanna Army Depot
Skinner Landfill
South Andover (O.U.1) (Amendment)
South Andover (O.U.2)
Spikier Landfill
Tar Lake
Torch Lake (O.U.1 and O.U.3)
Tri County Landfill Waste Management of Illinois
Twin Cities Air Force Reserve (SAR Landfill)
Cal West Metals
Crystal Chemical (Amendment)
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services (O.U. 1)
Gulf Coast Vacuum Services (O.U. 2)
Koppers (Texarkana Plant) (Amendment)
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Oklahoma Refining Co.
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
29th & Mead Groundwater Contamination
STATE
TN
TN
NC
FL
FL
FL
FL
OH
IN
Ml
Ml
Ml
IL
Wl
Ml
IN
Ml
Ml
Ml
Wl
Wl
MN
Ml
IN
IN
Wl
MN
Ml
IN
MN
IL
OH
MN
MN
Wl
Ml
Ml
IL
MN
NM
TX
OK
OK
LA
LA
TX
OK
OK
NM
KS
DATE
9/30/92
9/30/92
9/23/92
6/16/92
9/22/92
6/25/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
7/22/92
9/29/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
9/29/92
9/16/92
3/31/92
6/23/92
2/3/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
3/30/92
9/30/92
6/30/92
4/13/92
4/13/92
6/12/92
9/30/92
9/21/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
3/31/92
9/30/92
6/9/92
12/24/91
6/3/92
9/29/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
3/31/92
9/29/92
6/16/92
9/28/92
9/28/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
3/4/92
6/29/92
6/9/92
9/30/92
9/29/92
C-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
REGION
7
8
9
10
SITE
Des Moines TCE
Farmers' Mutual Cooperative
Hydro-Flex Inc.
Pester Refinery Co.
Broderick Wood Products
Denver Radium Site (O.U. 8)
Denver Radium Site (O.U. 9)
Hill Air Force Base
Idaho Pole Co.
Ogden Defense Depot (O.U. 1)
Ogden Defense Depot (O.U. 3)
Ogden Defense Depot (O.U. 4)
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 & #3),
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) (O.U.2)
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) (O.U.4)
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Hassayampa Landfill
Iron Mountain Mine
Jasco Chemical Co.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USDOE)
Pacific Coast Pipeline
Purity Oil Sales
Rhone-Poulenc Inc./Zoecon
Sacramento Army Depot (O.U.3)
Sacramento Army Depot (O.U.4)
Westinghouse Electric (Sunnyvale Plant)
Arrcom Corp. (Drexler Enterprise Inc.)
Bangor Ordnance Disposal (USN Submarine Base)
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Complex
Eielson Air Force Base
Elmendorf Air Force Base
Fort Lewis (Landfill No. 5)
Joseph Forest Products
McChord AFB (Wash Rack/Treatment)
Mountain Home Air Force Base
N.A.S. Whidbey Island - Ault Field
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling (Amendment)
Pesticide Lab - Yakima
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (O.U
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (O.U.
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (O.U
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (O.U.
Wyckoff Co ./Eagle Harbor
STATE
IA
IA
KS
KS
CO
CO
CO
UT
MT
UT
UT
UT
UT
CO
CO
MT
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
ID
WA
ID
AK
AK
WA
OR
WA
ID
WA
ID
WA
OR
.2) ID
5) ID
.22) ID
23) ID
WA
DATE
9/18/92
9/29/92
3/9/92
9/30/92
3/24/92
1/28/92
12/23/91
9/25/92
9/28/92
6/26/92
9/28/92
9/28/92
3/31/92
9/1/92
4/6/92
6/30/92
8/6/92
8/6/92
9/30/92
8/5/92
3/31/92
9/30/92
3/4/92
12/9/91
9/30/92
10/16/92
6/30/92
12/10/91
9/22/92
9/29/92
9/1/92
7/10/92
9/25/92
9/28/92
6/16/92
4/21/92
4/29/92
9/30/92
9/25/92
9/28/92
12/5/91
9/30/92
6/2/92
9/29/92
C-4
-------
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 36 of the 39 applicable one-time
requirements with specific deadlines have been
completed. Furthermore, 7 of the 12
requirements due annually have been completed
for FY92 and the biannual requirement for FY92
has been completed. Also, 25 of the 26
requirements with no specific deadlines have
been completed.
D-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Meeting CERCLA-Related Statutory Requirements,
as Amended by SARA1'
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
102(a) 12/31/86*
102(a)
102(a)
04/30/88^
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.
EPA to promulgate final
regulations establishing RQs
for all hazardous substances
for which proposed RQs
were not published prior to
March 1, 1986.
Status
Completed 05/08/91—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).
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).
v In this matrix, requirements of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, precede requirements of SARA that
do not amend CERCLA.
71 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
D-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
104(c)(9) 10/17/89
104(i)(2)(A) 04/17/87
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/88
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/8927
Requirement
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.
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.
Status
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 a list of first set of
100 hazardous substances (52 FR
12866).
Completed 10/20/88—ATSDR and
EPA published a list of 200
hazardous substances which
includes the first and second set of
hazardous substances (53 FR
41280).
Completed 10/26/89. 10/17/90.
in/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 was published (56 FR
59331).
Due annually on this date through 1991.
D-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/92*
ic/17/875'
Requirement
ATSDR and EPA to revise
list of hazardous substances
most commonly found at
NPL sites that pose
significant human health
risks.
ATSDR to prepare
lexicological 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
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 was published (57 FR
48801).
Completed 02/28/94—Notice of
availability of revised CERCLA
Priority List of 275 Hazardous
Substances (59 FR 9486).
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 were published (54 FR
14037, 54 FR 26417, 54 FR
49816).
12/17/90—Notice of availability of
all 25 final profiles was published
(55 FR 51775).
Completed 12/20/88—The second
set of 25 profiles was announced
for public comment (53 FR 51192).
08/14/90—Notice of availability of
final profiles was published (55 FR
33172).
Completed 10/17/89—The third set
of 30 profiles was announced for
public comment (54 FR 42568).
06/13/91—Notice of availability of
final profiles was published (56 FR
27261).
06/26/91—Notice of availability of
correction to final profiles was
published (56 FR 29308).
Due annually on this date beginning in 1992.
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.
D-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
ATSDR to revise and
republish toxicological
profiles.
Status
Completed 10/16/90—The fourth
set of 30 profiles was announced
for public comment (55 FR 41881).
09/12/91—An additional three
fluoride compound profiles were
announced for public comment (56
FR 46436).
Completed 10/17/91—The fifth set
of 19 profiles was announced for
public comment (58 FR 52036).
10/08/92—An additional five
profiles were announced for public
comment (57 FR 46393).
03/26/93—Notice of availability of
final profiles was published for 28
of 30 draft profiles (58 FR 16410).
04/16/93—Notice of availability of
corrections to final profiles was
published (58 FR 19823).
10/1/93—Notice of availability of
19 final updated profiles from the
fifth set and two from the fourth set
was published (58 FR 51352).
10/17/91—The first set of 20
updated draft profiles was published
(56 FR 52086).
11/25/91—Correction to the 20
updated profiles was published (56
FR 59330).
10/08/92—Notice of availability of
10 updated draft profiles was
published (57 FR 46393).
10/18/93—Notice of six updated
drafts and five new draft profiles
was published (58 FR 53739).
61 Profiles for hazardous substances must be revised within three years after addition to list.
D-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
u
104(i)(5)(D) 10/17/87
Requirement
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).
EPA to promulgate
regulations for the payment
and recovery of costs of
health effects research
programs established under
CERCLA Section 104(i)(5).
Status
ATSDR includes assessments in the
"Adequacy of the Database" section
of the lexicological profiles
required by CERCLA Section
104(i)(3). Subsequently, ATSDR
refines these assessments.
Completed 09/1 \ IK9—ATSDR
published Decision Guide for
Identifying Substance-Specific Data
Needs Related to lexicological
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).
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).
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-6
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
104(i)(6)(A) 12/10/882'
Requirement
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL prior
to SARA'S date of
enactment.
Status
Completed 12/08/88—Health
assessments were performed for
951 facilities.
1040X6XA)
s/
104(i)(10) 10/17/8827
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.
Ongoing—During FY92, ATSDR
completed 233 health assessments,
including 19 petitioned assessments.
ATSDR also conducted 118
revisited assessments.
(See ATSDR Section in Chapter 9
of this Report.)
Completed August 19S9. August
1990. February 1992. October
1994—Volumes I and II of the
1987-88 biannual report, the 1989-
90 biannual report and the 1991-92
biannual report were submitted to
EPA and Congress.
y 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.
* Due biannually from 10/17/88.
D-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
11
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.
Status
Completed 09/13/89—ATSDR
created the 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
FR 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).
2/
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-8
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
11
(cont.)
105(b)
105(c)(l)
04/17/88
04/17/88
105(c)(l)
107(f)(2)(A)
10/17/88
107(f)(2)(B)
2/
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 NCR
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.
Status
FY92—More than 5,000 health
professionals were trained during
the fiscal year. ATSDR distributed
over 110,000 copies of Cose
Studies in Environmental Medicine
to health professionals. Five case
studies were published in the
Journal of the American Academy
of Family Physicians. Case Studies
in Environmental Medicine:
Nitrate/Nitrite Toxicity was
distributed to 38,000 members of
the American Academy of
Pediatrics.
(See ATSDR Section of Report.)
Completed 03/08/90—EPA
published the revised NCP (55 FR
8666).
Completed 12/14/90—EPA
published the revised HRS (55 FR
51532).
12/23/88—EPA published the
proposed revisions (53 FR 51962).
Completed 12/14/90—The 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).
48 states and four territories have
officially designated natural
resource trustees as of January
1995.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
107(k)(6)
Statutory
Deadline
2/
109(d)
2/
11100
Annually
lll(o)
01/17/87
11
Requirement
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.
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 06/01/90—General
Accounting Office (GAO)
published a report entitled
Hazardous Waste—Funding of
Post-Closure Liabilities Remains
Uncertain (GAO/RCED-90-64).
Completed 05/05/88—EPA issued
an interim final rule (JFK)
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.
and September 1993.—EPA
submitted FY87, FY88, FY89,
FY90, FY91, and FY92 reports to
Congress.
Completed 02/05/87—EPA
published notice of regulatory
limitations on response claims (52
FR 3699).
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).
TJ
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-10
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
Requirement
Status
EPA to promulgate
regulations that will
establish procedures for
public participation in the
development of the adminis-
trative record.
Completed 03/08/9ft—Regulations
included in revised NCR Subpart I
(55 FR 8666).
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
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.
Completed 01/01/88.
Completed December 1994. All ten
Regions have met requirements.
Following completion of PAs or
Sis, EPA will take appropriate steps
to mitigate, through remedial or
removal authority or both, 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.
D-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
116(e)(l)
116(e)(2)
H7(e)
H9(c)(7)
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/89
10/17/91
119(c)(8) 09/30/89^
120(c)
2/
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.
Completed during FY93.
Completed 10/01/92—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
was published (53 FR 4280). Public
may review and copy specific
documents in the Docket by
contacting the Federal Facilities
Docket Hotline.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
21 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
D-12
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
120(c)
Statutory
Deadline
Semi annually
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.
Status
Completed IT/16/88. 12/15/89.
OS/22/90. 09/27/91. 12/12/91.
07/17/92. 02/05/93. 11/10/93—EPA
published the first eight updates (53
FR 46364, 54 FR 51472, 55 FR
34492, 56 FR 49328, 56 FR 64898,
57 FR 31758, 58 FR 7298, 58 FR
59790).
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 FY92, six federal
facilities were proposed to the NPL,
bringing the total number of
proposed federal facilities to nine.
No facilities were finalized during
FY92. Through the end of FY92, a
total of 116 federal facilities had
been added to the NPL. Additional
sites have been evaluated and
determined not to be appropriate for
the NPL.
D-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
120(e)(l)
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
EPA and states to publish
timetable and deadlines for
completion of RI/FSs at
federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Status
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 104 of the
116 federal facility sites as of
FY92.
120(e)(l) 10/17/87
120(0(1)
is/
Federal departments,
agencies, or instrumental-
ities 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.
Not applicable—No federal
facilities were listed on the NPL
prior to SARA's date of enactment.
07/22/87— The first federal facilities
were listed on NPL (52 FR 27620);
CERCLIS reports that more than
100 RI/FS were started at federal
facility sites during FY92.
120(0(2)
Federal departments,
agencies, or instrumental-
ities to enter into lAGs with
EPA for completion of RAs
for federal facilities listed on
NPL.
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 FY92, 104 lAGs had
been signed with 12 lAGs signed
during FY92.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
127 Not later than six months after listing of federal facility on NPL.
w Within 180 days after EPA review of RI/FS.
D-14
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
120(e)(2) ^
120(e)(3) AnnuaUy
with budget
120(e)(5) Annually
120(h)(2) 04/17/88
Requirement
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.
Federal agencies,
departments, or
instrumentalities to submit
reports to Congress on
progress in implementing
CERCLA federal facility
requirements.
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.
Status
During FY92, nearly 30 RAs for
federal facilities on the NPL began.
Completed January 1987. .January
1988. January 1989. January 1990.
.January 1991. January 1992.
January 1993—Included in annual
budget submissions to Congress.
Completed May 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992.
and February 1994—EPA'S reports
were included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
Ongoing January 1995—FY92
Report to Congress is in review.
Completed 04/16/90—Final rule
was published (55 FR 14208).
Not later than 15 months after completion of RI/FS.
D-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
2/
2/
2/
122(e)(3)(A)
11
Requirement
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.
EPA to promulgate
regulations providing for
state involvement in
initiation, development, and
selection of remedial
activities.
EPA to issue procedures for
special notice regarding
negotiation with potentially
responsible parties.
EPA to develop guidelines
for preparing nonbinding
preliminary allocations of
responsibility (NEAR).
Status
Completed Mav 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. February 1992.
and February 1994—EPA's reports
were included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
Ongoing January 1995—FY92
Report to Congress is in review.
Completed 03/08/90—Regulations
are included in the revised NCP
Subpart F (55 FR 8666).
Completed 10/19/87—EPA sent
procedural guidelines to Regional
Administrators from Assistant
Administrator for OSWER
(OSWER Directive #9834.10).
02/23/88—Guidelines were
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).
Completed 05/2S/87—EPA
published interim final guidelines
(52 FR 19919).
May 1991—EPA published
Summary of "Interim Guidelines for
Preparing NBARs" (OSWER
Directive #9839.IPS).
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-16
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
123(d)
10/17/87
126(c)
FY88 budget
request
04/17/87
301(g)
10/17/87
301(h)(l) Annually
Requirement
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.
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 01/15/93—EPA
published final rule (58 FR 4816);
10/21/87—IFR was published (52
FR 39386).
Completed 11/06/87—Report
entitled Hazardous Waste Sites on
Indian Lands was submitted to
Congress.
Completed 02/22/88—Final
regulations published (53 FR 5166).
Completed 10/1 It/87—GAP
published the 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
were included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90 and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
Ongoing January 1995—FY92
Report to Congress is in review.
D-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
301(h)(2)
Statutory
Deadline
TJ
306(a)
137
Requirement
EPA IG to review EPA's
Report to Congress required
under CERCLA Section
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.
EPA to issue regulations
describing manner of notice
of citizen suits.
Status
Completed Mav 1989. April 1990.
September 1990. and February
1992. September 1993—EPA's
reports were included in FY87,
FY88, FY89, FY90 and FY91
Reports to Congress, required under
CERCLA Section 301(h)(l).
Ongoing January 1995—FY92
Report to Congress is in review.
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 FR
34666).
11/07/90—RSPA published
additional revisions to the list in the
HMR (55 FR 46794).
Completed 11/23/92—EPA
published final rule (54 FR 55038);
12/28/92—Correction to the final
rule was published (51 FR 61612).
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
127 Requirements to be completed by November 17, 1986, or at the time each substance is h'sted or
designated as hazardous under CERCLA, whichever is later.
D-18
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
2/
Z/
311(a)(6) 07/17/87
Requirement
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to
establish and support a basic
hazardous substance research
and training program.
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.
Status
Completed 09/14/87—HHS
published the 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: draft program
descriptions published by HHS on
11/28/86; first public meeting to
solicit comments on 12/15/86.
Completed 03/13/87—HHS
appointed the NIEHS Advisory
Council on Hazardous Substances
Research and Training
(52 FR 7934).
07/20/87—Advisory Council was
first convened.
Completed 09/14/87—Notice of
availability of the final version of
the NIEHS Hazardous Substances
Basic Research and Training Plan
was published (52 FR 34721).
Completed December 1986—EPA
published the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Strategy and Program Plan
(EPA/540/G-86/001). The program
is ongoing.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
311(b)(5)(B) 01/17/87*"
Requirement
EPA to publish a solicitation
for innovative or alternative
technologies suitable for
full-scale demonstration at
Superfund sites.
Status
Completed January 1986. .January
19R7r January 1988. January 1989.
January 1990. .Tannarv 1991.
January 1992. January
1993—Solicitations published.
is/
EPA to initiate or cause to
be initiated at least 10 field
demonstration projects of
alternative or innovative
treatment technologies.
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.
FY92—15 site demonstrations
completed.
First solicitation due January 17, 1987; subsequent solicitations to be published no less often than
annually.
157 Due in fiscal years 1987, 1988,1989, and 1990.
D-20
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
2/
311(4)
z/
Annually
with budget
Requirement
In carrying out the SITE
program established under
CERCLA Section 311(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.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on progress of the
SITE program established
under CERCLA Section
Status
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.
FY9?—EPA made two-year grants
to five hazardous substance research
centers for a total of $1.4 million.
Completed February 1988. March
1989. March 199fl.
1991. October 1992. October
1222.—FY87, FY88, FY89, FY90,
FY91, and FY92 SITE program
reports were submitted to Congress.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
CERCLA
Section
312(e)
Statutory
Deadline
2/
Requirement
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.
Status
Completed 07/28/88—Study was
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 the
final generic environmental impact
statement.
June 1990—The Agency published
the Love Canal Area Master Plan.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-22
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Progress Toward Meeting SARA-Related Statutory Requirements17
SARA
Section
118(1)
Statutory
Deadline
01/17/87
07/01/872'
03/01/87*
H8(j)
04/17/87
H8(k)(l)
10/17/87
Requirement
EPA to grant $7.5 million to
New Jersey for removal and
temporary storage of radon
contaminated soil.
Comptroller General to
submit report to Congress on
study of shortages of skilled
personnel in EPA.
ATSDR to submit report to
Congress on the nature and
extent of lead poisoning in
children from environmental
sources.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on joint use of
vehicles for transportation of
hazardous and non-
hazardous substances.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on radon site
identification and
assessment.
Status
Completed 01/15/87—The grant
was made to New Jersey.
Completed 10/26/87—GAP
published a report entitled Improve-
ments Needed in Work Force
Management (GAO/RCED-88-1).
Completed 07/12/88—The report
entitled Nature and Extent of Lead
Poisoning in Children in the United
States was submitted to Congress.
Completed 04/20/87—The report
entitled A Study of Joint Use of
Vehicles of Hazardous and Non-
Hazardous Materials was submitted
to Congress (OSWER Directive
#9360.6-01).
Completed 02/23/90—The report
was submitted to Congress.
v In this matrix, requirements of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, precede requirements of SARA that
do not amend CERCLA.
21 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
D-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
11
118(k)(2)(B)
Requirement
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.
Status
Completed September 1985—EPA
established the 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—The FY86,
FY87, FY88, and FY89 reports
have been submitted to Congress.
Ongoing January 1995—The FY90
and FY91 report are in the review
process.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
21 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
•^ Due annually on this date beginning in 1987.
D-24
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SARA Statutory
Section Deadline
04/17/87
2/
Requirement
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.
EPA to enter into contracts
and grants with a nonprofit
organization in Albany
County, Wyoming, to carry
out program established
under CERCLA Section
Status
Completed 06/30/87—A
memorandum of understanding was
developed among DOE, EPA, and
DOT.
1990—Determination was made of
aqueous foams' effectiveness in
extinguishing chlorosilane fires and
vapor suppression. Determination
was made of near field behavior
and aerosol formation from
pressurized releases of Superfund
liquids. An assessment of totally
encapsulated chemical protective
(TECP) suits' effectiveness in very
high concentrations of
toxic/hazardous chemicals was
made.
1991—Testing of TECP suits
continued.
1992—Testing of TECP suits
continued. Hazardous materials
training was developed for spill
control, mitigation, and cleanup.
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).
2/
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
11/17/86
126(a)
10/17/87
126(f)
205(b)
07/17/87
205(h)
01/17/88
Requirement
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.
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).
States to develop and submit
to EPA inventories of all
underground storage tanks
containing regulated
substances.
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.
Status
Completed 11/17/86—All three
RODs that were signed comply; no
consent decrees were lodged during
this period.
Completed 03/06/89—DOL
published standards (54 FR 9294).
Completed flfi/23/89—EPA
published final standards (54 FR
26654).
Completed 07/17/87—All 50 States
submitted inventories to EPA.
Completed 01/15/88—GAO
published a report entitled Insuring
Underground Petroleum Tanks
(GAO-RCED-88-39).
Not later than 90 days after promulgation of DOL final peyoXccuova.
D-26
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SARA Statutory
Section Deadline Requirement Status
211 (a) Annually Secretary of Defense to Completed March 1988. March
Submit report to Congress on 1989. February 1990. March 1991r
progress in implementing February 1992. April 1993—FY87,
Department of Defense FY88, FY89, FY90, FY91, and
Environmental Restoration FY92 reports were submitted to
Program. Congress.
D-27
-------
Appendix E
Report of the EPA Inspector
General
E-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
E-2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 20 1996
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of The Superfund Annual Report To Congress
For Fiscal Years 1992, 1993 and 1994
Audit Report E1SFF5-1 1-0029-7100062
FROM: John C. Martin
Inspector General- /
TO: Carol M. Browner
Administrator
Background and Summary of Results
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Section 301 (h)(l), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) requires EPA (the Agency) to submit, by January 1st of each year, a report on the
progress in implementing Superfund during the prior fiscal year. The Inspector General is
required to review the report for reasonableness and accuracy and submit to Congress, as part of
the Agency's report, a report on the results of the review (as cited in Section 301 (h)(2)).
We have completed a review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Annual Report to
Congress (Annual Report), Progress Toward Implementing Superfund. This review covers fiscal
years 1992, 1993 and 1994. We found that the Annual Reports for these years included the
information required by the applicable statute as interpreted by the Agency. We believe the
Annual Reports were generally accurate and reasonable, and displayed consistent data for the
three fiscal years under review. Additionally, we followed up on our 1994 follow-up review
report Superfund Performance Measures. We found that the Agency had acted on our
recommendations to our satisfaction.
.E-3
Fteeycled/RAcydabl*
Printed on paper that contains
at toast 50% recycled flb«r
-------
Objectives and Scope
The objective of our review was to determine whether the Agency's Annual Reports, Progress
Toward Implementing Superfund. are reasonable and accurate, as required by the statute We
began our review on September 20, 1995, and completed our work on October 31, 1996. We
performed our review at EPA Headquarter's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
We received draft versions of each of the three Annual Reports as follows: 1) the Fiscal Year
1992 Annual Report (September 1994); 2) the Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Report (October 1995);
and 3) the Fiscal Year 1994 Annual Report (May 1996). In early September, we received the
Fiscal Year 1992, Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year 1994 Annual Reports that would later be sent
to the Administrator for signature.
We conducted a limited scope review of the three Annual Reports to examine the internal
consistency within each report and the consistencies between all three reports. We did not review
CERCLIS data printouts. We did not perform in-depth audit work in the areas we examined in
our past reports. Detailed reviews were reported in Consolidated Report regarding Fiscal 1992
CERCLIS Data Audit Report No. ElSFF3-11-0016-3100392. dated September 29, 1993,
Reliability of CERCLIS Data: Superfund Performance Measures for Fiscal 1993 Audit Report
No. E1SFF3-11-0029-4100229. dated March 30, 1994 and Follow-up Review Report No.
E1SFG5-11-5005-5400014 Superfund Performance Measures, dated November 15, 1994. Due
to the rigorous examinations performed during these ;.nd other previous reviews, we believe our
review of the three Annual Reports coupled with the above-mentioned reports is sufficient to
meet the requirements of the Act.
We began our field work by individually examining 100 percent of the numerical data in each
Annual Reports' executive summary exhibits ("Summary of Fiscal Year 1992 or 1993 or 1994
Superfund Activities," "Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year" and "Statutory
Requirements for the Report") and comparing the exhibits to data within the body of the
Reports. We reviewed the data in each exhibit and made determinations whether that data was
supported by and consistent to the data in the body of the Annual Reports. We then looked at the
consistency between the three Annual Reports. We made determinations on whether Fiscal Year
1992 information in the Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Report was reasonable and consistent with
information in the Fiscal Year 1992 Annual Report and used the same method of analysis for the
Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year 1994 Annual Report and among the three Annual Reports. We
also performed general calculations on selected data within the exhibits and body of the Annual
Reports to verify their accuracy.
We also followed up on the status of actions taken on our recommendations following the
issuance of our 1994 follow up review report on Superfund performance measures. We met with
Agency officials to discuss their progress in completing our recommendations and obtained the
relevant supporting documentation.
E-4
-------
Results of Review
During our review of the exhibits of the three Annual Reports, we requested clarifications be
made to minor portions of the Annual Reports' wording. Some of the items questioned did not
warrant a change in the report; however, for those items that did require a change, the Agency
agreed to the data corrections. The chart below summarizes the 26 items questioned.
QUESTIONED ITEMS IN ANNUAL REPORTS' EXHIBITS
YEAR
1992
1993
1994
QUESTIONED
ITEMS
4
10
12
SATISFACTORY
SUPPORT OR
CORRECTION PROVIDED
4
10
12
The items we questioned were mostly ones where numbers in the exhibits did not agree with the
corresponding information in the body of the Annual Reports. Other items needed further
clarification with the addition of a sentence or change in wording. The Agency provided us with
other supporting documents for two of the questioned items. To support the numbers in the
Fiscal Year 1992 Annual Report for "Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30,
1992" and "Sites Proposed for Deletions During FY92," the Agency provided us with
documentation from the Federal Register listings. Also, for the Fiscal Year 1992 Annual Report,
the Agency provided us with a list indicating that 24 sites required 5-year reviews. As indicated
in the Fiscal Year 1992 Annual Report, the Agency conducted 6 reviews for the fiscal year. The
remainder of questioned items did not require iriy further action.
We also followed up on the progress of actions taken on recommendations from our 1994 follow
up review report on the Superfund performance measures. We found that the Agency's
documentation for a change in CERCLIS to prevent certain inaccuracies from being recorded in
the system is still in draft. However, we were informed that plans in the documents were being
implemented. Other actions resulting from our Reliability of CERCLIS Data Superfund
Performance Measures for Fiscal 1993 audit report, were in process or implemented at the time of
our 1994 follow up review.
We were told that the Mateer model, a strategy to stress accurate data management on the part of
Remedial Project Managers and On-Scene Coordinators, had been terminated. The
recommendation regarding this strategy was satisfied through other actions the Agency took to
improve accomplishment reporting.
E-5
-------
The Agency took the necessary actions to correct and clarify information and obtain necessary
documentation during this review. Agency officials were responsive to our inquiries concerning
the Annual Reports and recommendations from the follow up review report.
E-6
-------
Appendix F
List of Sources
The following is a list of reference sources that were used in the preparation of this Report. Sources for
data used in graphics within the text are cited on the graphics and also listed below. Reference sources are
listed in chronological order by the date of publication.
Statutes
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 94-580 (21 October 1976), 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et. seq.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, P.L. 96-510 (11 December
1980), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et. seq.
Super-fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 94-580 (17 October 1986), 42 U.S.C. Section 11001
et. seq.
Federal Technology Transfer Act, P.L. 99-502 (20 October 1986) 15 U.S.C. Section 210 et. seq.
Base Closure Act, P.L. 100-526 (12 October 1988), U.S. Code: Congressional and Administrative News,
Volume 5, p. 3355.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, P.L. 101-510 (5 November 1990), U.S. Code:
Congressional and Administrative News. p. 104 Stat. 1485.
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act, P.L. 95-31, (19 October 1992), 42 U.S.C. Section
2396 et. seq.
Rulemakings
Executive Order 12580. January 23,1987. 52 FR 2923.
EPA. February 12,1988. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket; EPA's Initial List of Federal
Facilities under CERCLA Section 120(c). 53 FR 4280.
EPA/OSWER. May 23,1991. Structures and Components of Five-Year Reviews. Publication 9355.7-02.
F-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
EPA. June 24,1991. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Lender Liability
Under CERCLA. 56 FR 28793.
EPA. December 4,1991. Notice to Change Policy Regarding Five-Year Reviews. 56 FR 66601.
EPA. December 12, 1991. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Notice: Notice of Fifth
Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section
120(c).57F/?31758.
EPA. February 7,1992. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No.
2. 57 FR 4824.
EPA. February 20,1992. Superfund Program; Settlement Policy on the Performance of Risk Assessments at
Superfund Sites. 57 FR 6116.
EPA. April 29,1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Lender Liability
Under CERCLA. 57 FR 18344.
EPA. May 8,1992. Reportable Quantity Adjustments for Lead Metal, Lead Compounds, Lead-Containing
Hazardous Wastes, and Methyl Isocyanate. 57 FR 20014.
EPA. June 25,1992. Reportable Quantity Adjustments for Lead Metal, Lead Compounds, Lead-Containing
Hazardous Wastes, and Methyl Isocyanate, Correction. 57 FR 28471.
EPA. July 17,1992. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Notice: Notice of Sixth Update
of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120(c).
57 FR 31758.
EPA. October 1,1992. National Priorities Sites List (Superfund Program); Technical Assistance Grants to
Groups. Final Rule. 57 FR 45311.
EPA. March 2,1993. Notification of Policy Change; Categorization of Superfund Sites. 58 FR 12142.
Memoranda
EPA/OSWER. May 23,1991. Structures and Components of Five-Year Reviews. Memorandum from Henry
L. Longest II to Addressees.
EPA/OSWER. October 3,1991. Five Point Action Plan. Note from Henry Longest to All OERR Staff.
EPA/Office of Administration and Resources Management October 18,1991. Report on ContractLaboratory
Program Review. Memorandum from Willis E. Greenstreet to F. Henry Habicht II.
EPA/OSWER. January 31,1992. Implementation of the ARCS TaskForce Recommendation: Appointment
of ARCS Council. Memorandum from Richard J. Guimond and Edward Hanley to Addressees.
F-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA/OSWER. February 10, 1992. Environmental Growth Initiative. Memorandum from Don R. Clay to
William K. Reilly.
EPA/OSWER. February 19,1992. Update No. 2 to the Procedures for Completion and Deletion of NPL Sites.
Memorandum from Henry L. Longest II to Addressees.
EPA/OSWER. February 26,1992. Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors.
Memorandum from F. Henry Habicht II to Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators.
EPA/OSWER. March 10,1992. Piloting the New Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)... aka
the New Superfund Paradigm. Memorandum from Richard Guimond to Addressees.
EPA/OSWER. April 7,1992. Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). Memorandum from Don R.
Clay to All Superfund Staff, Managers, Regions, and Headquarters.
EPA/OSWER. April 14,1992. Superfund Revitalization Team Retreat. Memorandum from Timothy Fields,
Jr. to Present and Future Superfund Revitalization Team (SRT) Members.
EPA/OSWER. June 12,1992. Documentation of Close Out Requirements at Sites Where There Is a No Action
Record of Decision. Memorandum from Jerry Clifford to Superfund Regional Branch Chiefs,
Regions 1-10.
EPA/OSWER. August 4, 1992. Regional Headquarters Roles and Responsibilities Matrix. Memorandum
from Ulrike A. Joiner to ARCS Council Members.
EPA/OSWER. September 4,1992. Initiatives to Streamline the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
(ARCS) Contracts' Award Fee Process. Memorandum from Timothy Fields, Jr. and David J.
O'Connor to Addressees.
Reports
EPA. April 1989. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1987.
EPA. March 28,1990. Report of Audit on Superfund Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts: Audit Report Number
El SFF9-03-0144-010022.
EPA. April 1990. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1988.
EPA. December 1990. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1989. 9200.2-12.
EPA/OSWER/TIO. January 1991. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Semi-Annual Status Report, January
1991. EPA 540-2-91/001.
EPA/OSWER/TIO. May 1991. Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Remediation
Technologies. EPA/540/8-91/009.
F-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
EPA/OSWER. July 19,1991. Superftind 30-Day Task Force Report; Accelerating Superfund Cleanups and
Evaluating Risk at Superfund Sites.
EPA/OSWER. July 26,1991. Three City Urban Soil-Lead Demonstration Project; Midterm Project Update.
Publication 21S-2001.
EPA/Office of the Administrator. October 1991. Implementation of Superfund Alternative Remedial
Contracting Strategy (ARCS): Report of the Administrator's Task Force 1991. Executive Summary
21T-2001.
EPA/Office of the Administrator. October 3, 1991. Statement of William K. Reilly, Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives.
EPA/OERR. February 1992. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1990.9200.2-13.
EPA/OSWER. February 19,1992. ARCS Study - Implementation Status as of 2/19/92. Directive 9201.0-01.
EPA/OSWER. May 1992. Considerations in Ground Water Remediation at Superfund Sites and RCRA
Facilities - Update. Directive 9283.1-06.
EPA. June 1992. Contracts Management at EPA: Managing Our Mission. Recommendations of the Standing
Committee on Contracts Management. EPA 200-R-92-001.
EPA. June 1992. Contracts Management at EPA: Managing Our Mission. Staff Report of the Standing
Committee on Contracts Management. EPA 200-R-92-001.
EPA/HSCD. June 1992. Impact of the Core Program on State Involvement.
EPA/OSWER. September 1992. Superfund: Report of the EPA Superfund Revitalization Public Meeting
Held on June 24,1992. Volumes 1 and 2. 9202.1-07.
EPA/OSWER. September 30,1992. Annual FY92 Superfund Historical Performance Report (Management
Report).
EPA. November 13,1992. Annual FY 1992 Superfund Historical Performance.
EPA. November 23,1992. Annual FY 1992 Targets and Accomplishments.
EPA. December 14,1992. Annual FY92 Trends Analysis.
EPA/OSWER. June 1993. Status of Regional Superfund Pilots: Mid-Year Report.
EPA/OSWER. October 1993. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program: Annual Report to
Congress 1992.
F-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA/OSWER. December 1993. ROD Annual Report: Fiscal Year 1992.
EPA. February 1994. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1991. 9200.2-17.
Guidance Documents
EPA. February 1988. Superfund Removal Procedures Manual, Revision Number 3. Publication 9360.0-03B.
EPA/OSWER. June 1988. Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook. Directive 9230.0-3B.
EPA/HSED/TIB. March 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume 2: Environmental
Evaluation Manual, Interim Final. Publication 9285.7-01A.
EPA. December 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Volume 1 (Part A). Document 9285.7-01B.
EPA/HSED/TIB. April 1990. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Part A. Fact Sheet. 9285.7-01FS.
EPA/OERR/HSED. September 1990. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment.
Publication 9285.7-05.
EPA/TIO. 1991. Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: A Developer's Guide to Support
Services. 540-2-91-012.
EPA/OS WER/TIO. May 1991. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-UpTechnologies.
EPA/540/8-91/008.
EPA. November 14,1991. Limiting Lead Transfers to Private Parties During Discrete Phases of the Removal
Process. Directive 9800.1-01.
EPA/ORIA. 1992. Guidance for Performing Site Inspection Under CERCLA. 9345.1-05.
EPA. 1992. Guidance on Risk Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk Assessors.
EPA/TIO. March 1992. Citizen's Guide to Innovative Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Soils,
Sludges, Sediments, and Debris. 542-F-92-001.
EPA/OSWER. April 1992. Removal Enforcement Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators.
Directive 9360.3-06.
EPA. April 2,1992. Accelerating PRP RD Starts-Implementing the 30-Day Study. Directive 9835.4-2B.
EPA/OERR. April 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A). 9285.7-09A.
F-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
EPA/OS WER. May 1992. Characterization Protocol for Radioactive Contaminated Soils. Directive 9380.1-
10FS.
EPA/OSWER. May 1992. Considerations in Ground-Water Remediation at Superfund Sites and RCRA
Facilities. 9283.1-06.
EPA/OSWER. May 1992. Contracting and Subcontracting Guide to the Superfund Program. Publication
9200.5-402A.
EPA/OERR/HSED. May 1992. Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part B). Publication
9285.7-09B.
EPA/HSEDAIB. May 1992. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual.
Supplemental Guidance: Calculating the Concentration Term. Publication 9285.7-081.
EPA/DOD/State of CA. June 1992. DOD Guidance on the Environmental Review Process to Reach a Finding
of Suitability to Transfer.
EPA/OSWER. June 1992. Criteria for Early Starts of Remedial Investigations. Fact Sheet.
EPA/OWPE/PE. June 26,1992. Methodology for Early de minimis Waste Contributor Settlements Under
CERCLA Section 122(g)(l)(A). Directive 9834.7.
EPA/OSWER. July 1992. Public Participation Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators: Community Relations
and the Administrative Record. Directive 9360.3-05.
EPA/OSWER. July 29,1992. Use of Time and Materials and Cost Reimbursement Subcontracts for Remedial
Actions Under the Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy Contracts. Directive 9242.3-09.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Guidance for Performing Site Investigations Under CERCLA. Publication
9345.1-05.
EPA/OSWER. November 1992. The Superfund Innovative Technology Program: Technology Profiles, Fifth
Edition. EPA/540/R-92/007.
EPA/HSED/TIB. ECO Updates. Series 9345.0-051.
Other Sources
EPA/OSWER/TIO. September 1989. Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies:
Domestic and International. EPA 540/2-89/056.
EPA. February 1991. National Priorities List, Final Sites, Route Scores (by Region).
F-6
-------
Fiscal Yean992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA/OSWER/TIO. May 1991. Bibliography of Federal Reports and Publication Describing Alternative and
Innovative Treatment Technologies for Corrective Action and Site Remediation. EPA/540/8-91/007.
EPA. September 10,1991. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List. 56 FR 46143.
EPA/OSWER. October 1,1991. Superfund 30-Day Study Task Force Implementation Plan: Accelerating
Superfund Cleanups and Evaluating Risk at Superfund Sites.
EPA/NTIS. November 1991. Compendium of Superfund Program Publications. EPA/540/8-91/041.
EPA. December 24,1991. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Deletion of
Sites from the NPL; Five Year Reviews. 56 FR 66601.
EPA. January 6, 1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List Update. 57 FR 355.
EPA. January 16, 1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List Update. 57 FR 1872.
EPA/OSWER. February 4,1992. CERCLA Reporting Requirements forEthylene Glycol from Airplane De-
icing. Directive 9360.4-12.
EPA. February 14, 1992. Improved Pump-and-Treat Processes for Remediation of Superfund Sites.
57 FR 5453.
EPA. February 14, 1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List. 57 FR 5410.
EPA/TIB/ORIA. March 1992. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables.
EPA/OSWER. April 1992. Superfund: Qualified Disadvantaged Business Utilization In State Response. Fact
Sheet. 9375.5-13FS.
EPA. April 14, 1992. Proposed Establishment and Organizational Meeting of the Federal Facilities
Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. 57 FR 12931.
EPA. May 15,1992. Superfund Revitalization Team: Approaches for Speeding Up the Superfund Process;
Open Forum. 57 FR 20827.
EPA. May 20,1992. OSWER Procedures for Contract Laboratory Program Investigations. 57 FR 21576.
EPA. June 29,1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities
List. 57 FR 28817.
F-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1992
EPA/HSED/TIB. July 1992. Understanding Superfund Risk Assessment. Fact Sheet. 9285.7-06FS.
EPA/Office of Communications, Education, and Public Affairs. July 1,1992. Environmental News. "EPA
Overhauls Contracting Management."
EPA. July 9,1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities
List; Intent to Delete Big River Sand Company Site. 57 FR 30452.
EPA. August 1992. Information Repository. Fact Sheet.
EPA. August 1992. Information Repository (for Libraries). Fact Sheet.
EPA/OS WER. August 1992. Site Assessment under the Superfund Cleanup Model. Fact Sheet.
EPA/OERR. August 4, 1992. Superfund Response Alert: Bartlesville, Oklahoma, National Zinc Site,
Superfund Removal Start.
EPA. August 6,1992. Recovery of Costs for CERCLA Response Actions. 57 FR 34742.
EPA. August 24, 1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plans; National
Priorities List. 57 FR 38289.
EPA/OS WER. September 1992. Smart Moves in Superfund - Regional Pilots and Initiatives. Fact Sheet.
EPA/OSWER. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) Final Rule. Fact
Sheet.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Arsenic. 9230.0-05FSa.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Benzene. 9230.0-05FSd.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Community Inverviews. 9230.0-05FSi.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Exposure Pathways. 9230.0-05FSb.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Identifying Sites. 9230.0-05FSk.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: PCB. 9230.0-05FSf.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Public Involvement. 9230.0-05FSJ.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: The Remedial Program. 9230.0-05FSm.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: The Removal Program. 9230.0-05FSg.
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Superfund: An Overview. 9230.0-05FSh.
F-8
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA/OERR. September 1992. Superfund Fact Sheet: Trichlorethylene. 9230.0-05FSc.
EPA/SRO.March4,1993. Compendium of Good Idea: Models of Success and Lessons Learned, Volume 1.
9202.1-10-1.
EPA/OPM. CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS).
EPA. Environmental News. "EPA Announces Program to Revitalize Superfund.
EPA/TIO. Ground Water Currents Bulletins. EPA/Office of Administration and Resources Management;
Financial Management Division. Integrated Financial Management System.
EPA/OERR. Superfund Response Alerts.
EPA/OWPE. Superfund at Work.
EPA/TIO. Tech Trends Bulletins.
F-9
-------
Appendix G
Summary of the Superfund
Program [1992-1994]
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
committed to accelerating the pace of hazardous
waste site cleanup. As part of this commitment the
Agency has concluded construction activities at 237
National Priorities List (NPL) sites over fiscal years
1992-1994.
Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated
Clean-up Model (SACM), the result of the 1991 30-
Day Study Task Force1 recommendations to
streamline the activities in the clean-up process,
changed the paradigm of doing business in Superfund.
SACM allows forrapid reduction of risks at Superfund
sites and restoration of the environment over the long
term. SACM introduced significant improvements
to the existing clean-up process by:
• eliminating sequential and duplicative studies as
site assessment and investigation activities are
combined;
• removing the existing overlap between the types
of clean-up actions done under the Superfund
removal program and those done under the
remedial program, to save time and money; and
• redefining Superfund clean-up actions as early
actions and long-term actions with
complementary applications.
EPA Regions initiated SACM pilot projects
during fiscal year 1992 to explore the benefits of the
new clean-up model. The model implementation
efforts continued through fiscal year 1993 to be fully
operational in 1994.
1 Superfund 30-Day Task Force Report; Accelerating
Superfund Cleanups and Evaluating Risk at Superfund Sites. July
19,1991.
The 30-Day Study Task Force also made a
number of recommendations which have provided
the framework for the continuous efforts to accelerate
the pace of cleanup and streamline the Superfund
program. Key recommendations implemented in
fiscal year 1992 included:
• streamlining remedy planning, selection, and
design;
• development of presumptive remedies,
technology-based standards, and soil-trigger
levels to standardize remedy planning and
selection;
• shortening the remedy design phase for sites
where the extent of remedial action cannot be
readily determined;
facilitate the resolution of site-specific issues
that commonly cause delays in the clean-up
process; and
accelerating private party clean-ups.
The Agency also implemented measures to
improve other aspects of the Superfund program:
• A National Superfund Director was appointed
and the Superfund Revitalization Office created
to strengthen program management and
accountability, improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of Superfund clean-up and
administration, and ensure equity in Superfund
enforcement.
• To better balance its environmental mission
witheffective contract management, the Agency
G-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
focused on improving contract management and
accountability, eliminating excess contract
capacity, controlling costs and securing quality
work from contractors.
• A National Superfund Risk Management
Workgroup was established to review Superfund
risk assessment guidance and characterization
practices, target areas needing improvement and
coordination with other programs, and promote
consistency in deciding the appropriate clean-up
actions for sites.
• Demonstration of innovative treatment
technologies and centralized access to
information was designed to promote increased
use of the technologies.
• New measures of Superfund progress and the
development of informative publications
enhanced public outreach and communications.
In fiscal year 1993, the Agency continued
progress in improving the effectiveness of the program
by further refining initiatives and identifying
administrative changes that could be made within the
existing statutory and regulatory framework.
Continuing initiatives included preparing for full
implementation of SACM and pilot projects to
develop a single site assessment process and defining
the role of the Regional decision teams. Other efforts
included focusing resources on completing the
evaluation and clean-up of sites, ensuring effective
management of contracts and promoting consistency
in assessing and managing risk. A special Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force identified
seventeen specific areas centered around four themes:
• Promoting enforcement fairness and reducing
transaction costs;
• Enhancing clean-up effectiveness and
consistency;
• Promoting increased community involvement
and ensuring environmental justice; and
• Strengthening the role of the states.
Commencing in fiscal year 1993 and continuing
on to 1994, the Agency successfully encouraged
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to undertake
and finance clean-up efforts at Superfund sites. By
the end of fiscal year 1994, PRPs were leading more
than 75 percent of remedial designs (RDs) and
remedial actions (RAs) started during the fiscal year.
Fiscal year 1994 initiatives anticipated the
reauthorization of the CERCLA taxing authority and
an opportunity to propose revisions to other provisions
of the statute. The Agency focused efforts on
identifying possible legislative amendments that
would improve the efficiency and equity of the
program. The Agency solicited input from advisory
committees, stakeholders, and Agency and inter-
Agency work groups to draft proposed legislation.
The focus of the proposed legislation was on
enhancing community involvement, expanding the
role of states, reforming the remedy selection process,
pursuing liability reforms to reduce transaction costs
and increase fairness and create a fund, the
Environmental Insurance Resolution Fund, to resolve
coverage disputes between PRPs and their insurers.
Working within the existing statutory and
regulatory framework, the Agency also continued to
implement the recommendations of the 1993
Superfund Administrative Improvements Task Force
as well as on-going initiatives including implementing
SACM, achieving construction completion at sites,
strengthening contracts management, promoting
enforcement first, accelerating clean-up at military
bases slated for closure, promoting the development
and use of innovative technologies, enhancing
compliance monitoring, and improving the
effectiveness of cost recovery. The Agency set and
achieved a goal to implement most of the task force's
recommendations by the end of fiscal year 1994.
The major areas of progress in the Superfund
Program include: Site Evaluation, Removal,
Remedial, Enforcement, Federal Facility Clean-ups
and Superfund Program Support activities.
Site Evaluation
Over the past three fiscal years, 1992-1994,
EPA's progress in identifying and assessing newly
discovered sites has resulted in a total of over 38,300
sites identified in the CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS). CERCLIS is the Superfund inventory
of potentially threatening hazardous waste sites.
G-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1992
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Based onevaluation of 94 percent of the sites identified
in CERCLIS forpotential threats, EPAhas determined
that 1,355 of those sites should either be proposed to,
listed on, or deleted from the NPL. To date, a total
of 64 sites have been deleted from the NPL.
During the 1992-1994 time period the Agency
has undertaken projects to address the technical
complexities associated with both lead- and
radionuclide-contaminated sites. The Integrated
Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model (IEUBK) and
the Three City Lead Study have been used to assess
lead contamination. The IEUBK model is a tool to
aid the development of risk assessment procedures
for lead contaminated soil. The Three City Lead
Study will determine whether a reduction of lead in
residential soil will result in a decrease of blood-lead
levels in children exposed to the contaminant. To
improve assessment of sites involving radionuclide
contamination, EPA generates guidance documents
for conducting assessments, conducts technology
demonstrations and increases Headquarters assistance
to the Regions.
Removal
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, the Agency and
potentially responsible panics (PRPs) started nearly
1,000 removal actions and completed more than 870
during the fiscal years 1992-1994. More than 3,660
removal actions have been started and nearly 3,050
have been completed since the inception of the
Superfund program.
Since 1992, the removal authority for "early
actions," has been expanded to reduce immediate
risks and expedite cleanup at NPL sites. The
expansion was a key element of SACM. Early
actions may include emergency, time-critical or non-
time critical removal responses or quick remedial
responses. By the end of 1994, EPA had piloted the
early actions approach at 38 sites. Underthe reportable
quantities (RQ) regulatory program, the Agency
promulgated final RQ adjustments for 62 hazardous
substances and added 5 to the list. The Agency also
continued to work on regulations to establish
administrative reporting exemptions for naturally
occurring radionuclide releases.
Remedial
Accomplishments during fiscal years 1992-1994
reflect the Agency's continued efforts to accelerate
the overall pace of clean-up and complete clean-up
activities at an increasing number of sites. During
the period clean-up activities resulted inthe placement
of 217 additional NPL sites in the construction
completion category for an overall total of 278 NPL
sites in the category. Also started by the Agency or
PRPs were nearly 220 remedial investigation/
feasibility studies (RI/FSs), more than 410 remedial
designs (RDs), and more than 350 remedial actions
(RAs). The Agency signed 359 records of decision
(RODs) at Fund-financed or PRP-fmanced sites.
Efforts to implement the 1991 30-Day Study
continued during the 1992-1994 period and included
development of presumptive remedies for municipal
landfill, wood-treating, contaminated ground-water,
solvent contaminated sites, and issuing policy for
technical impracticability waivers. The Superfund
Innovation Technology Evaluation Program and
others designed to provide technical assistance,
information and training were also encouraged for
use at Superfund sites.
Towards the end of the period, the 1993
Administrative Improvements Task Force was a
significant influence in the progress of remedial
activities. The Agency:
• Demonstrated presumptive remedies developed
for municipal landfills and sites contaminated
with volatile organic compounds, while working
to develop presumptive remedies for wood-
treater, polychlorinated biphenyl.manufactured-
gas-plan, grain storage, and polluted ground
water sites;
• Released draft soil screening levels (SSLs) for
100 chemicals commonly found at Superfund
sites;
Implemented guidance for addressing Dense
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL)
contamination of ground water and forinvoking
the technical impracticability waiver where
performance standards cannot be achieved.
G-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1992
Enforcement
Accomplishments during the 1992-1994 period
reflect the Agency's continuous commitment to
maximize PRP involvement in financing and
conducting cleanup and recovery of Superfund monies
expended for response action. Over the three year
period, the Agency has achieved enforcement
agreements worth more than $3.3 billion in PRP
response work. Through its cost recovery effort,
EPA achieved approximately $676.6 million in
settlements and collected more than $570.3 million
for reimbursement of Superfund expenditures. By
the end of fiscal year 1994, the Agency has collected
over $5.7 million in CERCLA penalties.
The Agency has been working towards improving
theefficiency and fairnessof Superfund enforcement
and through SACM, Administrative Improvements
and promotion of "enforcement first" to secure PRP
involvement in financing a significant goal has been
to seek to reduce transaction costs. Over the three
years de minimis settlements and most recently "de
micromis" settlements have been encouraged as well
as an increased use of alternative dispute resolution
and increased use of mixed funding (EPA + PRP).
Federal Facility Clean-up
Federal departments and agencies are largely
responsible for implementing CERCLA at Federal
Facility sites. To ensure Federal Facility compliance
with CERCLA requirements, EPA provides advise
and assistance, oversees activities, and takes
enforcement action where appropriate. At sites on
the NPL, EPA must concur in remedy selection. By
the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,945 Federal
Facilities sites identified on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Of the sites
on the docket, 160 were proposed to or listed on the
NPL, including 150 final and 10 proposed sties.
During the 1992-1994 period the closure of
military bases became an important issue. The
President announced a Five-Point Plan in 1993 to
accelerate the economic recovery of communities
near military bases scheduled for closure. Through
1994 the Agency, in conjunction with the Department
of Defense, states and local citizens, implemented
theFastTrackClean-upProgramtoexpeditecleanup
and reuse of bases scheduled for closure. Guidance
was issued that identified SACM components that
provide opportunities for speeding cleanup.
Superfund Program Support
Through out 1992-1994, EPA has taken measures
to enhance support activities in the Superfund
program, including efforts to improve community
relations, enhance public access to information,
strengthen EPA's partnership with states and Indian
tribes, and increase minority contractor utilization.
In its community involvement efforts, EPA tailors
activities to the specific needs of individual
communities and identifies ways to enhance
community involvement efforts. The Agency
emphasized the importance of effective community
involvement in its administrative improvements and
reauthorization efforts. The Agency also continued
to provide technical outreach to communities, hold
national conferences on community involvement,
offer training and workshops, and facilitate
community access to technical assistance grants
(TAGs). To aid communities in obtaining technical
assistance, EPA awarded 85 TAGs during the 1992-
1994 fiscal years, bringing the total number of TAGs
awarded since FY88 to 151, for a total worth more
than $8.6 million.
To enhance public access to Superfund
information, the Agency continued its partnership
with the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), which provides Superfund document
distribution services. The Agency has expanded the
Superfund document collection available through
NTIS, continued outreach to inform the public of the
services available, and began implementing a
communications and outreach plan using NTIS
services.
To support state and tribal involvement in the
Superfund response activities, EPA has awarded
nearly $1.3 billion in cooperative agreements (CAs),
including $79 million awarded in FY94 through site-
specific CAs.
Overall, EPA has granted Core Program CAs
(CPCAs) worth nearly $103 million in its continuing
efforts to assist states and tribes in developing
comprehensive Superfund programs.
G4
-------
Fiscal Year 1992 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
To promote small and disadvantaged business
participation in Superfund contracting, EPA, through
direct and indirect procurement, awards contracts
and subcontracts to minority contractors to perform
Superfund work. Direct procurement involves any
procurement activity in which EPA is a direct party
to a contractual arrangement for supplies, services or
construction. Under financial assistance programs
(indirect procurement), EPA awards grants and/or
cooperative agreements to states, local municipalities,
universities, colleges, non-profit or profit-making
institutions or firms, hospitals and individuals or
otherwise known as recipients. This amount
represents more than 4.3 percent of the total dollars
obligated to finance Superfund work during the year.
Resource Estimates
Under Executive Order 12580, EPA is required
to estimate the resources needed to implement
Superfund. Since the enactment of CERCLA in
1980, Congress has provided Superfund with $13.6
million in budget authority (FY81 through FY94).
Estimates of the long-term resources required to
implement Superfund are based on the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM). The OLM estimate of the
cost of completing cleanup of current NPL sites is
more than $17.4 billion for FY95 and beyond,
bringing the total estimated cost for the program to
$31.0 billion.
G-5
-------
|