v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA540-R-95-146
9200.2-23
PB96-963211
Superfund
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund
Fiscal Year 1993
Report to Congress
-------
Publication 9200.2-23
Progress Toward
Implementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
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-Cw
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
Notice
This Report to Congress has been subjected to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
review process and approved for publication as an EPA document. For further information about this Report,
contact the Office of Program Management, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response at (703) 603-8710.
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.
u
-------
Fiscal Year 1993 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 1993 (FY93). As the Superfund program
completed its thirteenth year, the Agency had begun work at 94 percent of the 1,320 sites proposed to or listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL). EPA is pleased to submit this Report documenting FY93 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 activities and accomplishments and to compare remedial and
enforcement activities with those undertaken in previous fiscal years. The emphasis during FY93 was on
construction activities, and as a result, 68 NPL sites were placed in the construction completion category. This
brought the program total to 217 sites. The Agency or PRPs also started approximately 60 remedial
investigation/feasibility studies, 130 remedial designs (RDs), and 120 remedial actions (RAs) during the
fiscal year.
Continued progress in the enforcement program illustrates EPA' s successful efforts to compel potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) to clean up hazardous waste sites. PRPs financed approximately 65 percent of the
RDs and 80 percent of the RAs started in FY93. EPA entered into 189 enforcement agreements with PRPs
for an estimated value of more than $910 million. The Agency or PRPs have now started more than 3,350
removal actions, including approximately 310 during FY93. Federal facility accomplishments have shown
dramatic increases; 120 of the 123 federal facility sites listed 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. As required by Section 105(f), the Report
describes current minority firm participation in Superfund contracting and EPA's efforts to encourage
increased participation. The Report fulfills the requirement of Section 301(h)(l)(E) by providing an update
on progress being made at sites subject to review under Section 121(c). This Report also satisfies other
reporting requirements of Section CERCLA 120(e)(5), the EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress
Toward Implementing CERCLA at EPA Facilities as Required by CERCLA Section J20(e)(5). Appendix D
consists of a matrix that charts the progress of EPA and other government organizations in meeting
Superfund-related statutory requirements. 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 Timothy Fielos, Jr.
Administrator Acting Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
111
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND __ Fiscal Year 1993
Acknowledgements
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 Joan Barnes, Lynn Beasley (project manager), Gayle Dye, Dave Evans, Lois Gardner, Justin Karp,
and Ed Ziomkoski from the Office of Program Management; Henry L. Longest, II, and Betti VanEpps from
the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Ed Thrasher from the Emergency Response Division;
George Alderson, Marlene Berg, Carolyn Offutt, and Peter Redman from the Hazardous Site Control
Division; Jim Konz and Bob Myers from the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division; Sven-Erik Kaiser from the
Superfund Revitalization Office; and Jeff Heimerman and Meg Kelly from the Technology Innovation
Office.
Additional key contributions from other Environmental Protection Agency offices were provided by
Scott Blair and Delia Ng from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; Pat Weggel and Howard
Wilson from the Office of Administration and Resources Management; Mike Boyd from the Office of Air
and Radiation; Augusta Wills and Jim Woolford from the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office;
Jean C. Nelson from the Office of General Counsel; Joan Colson, Dan Draper, Joseph Greenblott, and Richard
Nalesnik from the Office of Research and Development; and George Mori and Becky Neer from the 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 from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Keith Frye
from the Department of Energy; Lt. Col. Steve Walker from the Department of Defense; Mary Morton from
the Department of Interior.
IV
-------
Fiscal Year 1993 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
Executive Summary xi
Chapter 1: Major Initiatives [[[ 19
1.1 Promoting Equity in Enforcement and Reducing Transaction Costs 19
1.1.1 Fostering Greater Use of Allocation Tools 20
1.1.2 Fostering More Settlements with Small Volume Waste Contributors 20
1.1.3 Fostering Greater Fairness for Owners of Superfund Property 20
1.1.4 Evaluating Mixed Funding Policy 21
1.2 Enhancing Clean-Up Effectiveness and Consistency 22
1.2.1 Streamlining and Standardizing Cleanup 22
1.2.2 Developing Soil Screening Levels 23
1.3 Enhancing Community Involvement 23
1.3.1 Efforts to Facilitate Community Involvement 23
1.3.2 Ensuring Environmental Justice 24
1.4 Enhancing the Role of States 25
1.5 Preparing for Reauthorization of CERCLA 25
1.5.1 National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology 26
1.5.2 Interagency Workgroups 26
1.6 Continuing Initiatives 26
1.6.1 The Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model 26
1.6.2 Achieving Construction Completions 28
1.6.3 Improving Contract Management 28
1.6.4 Ensuring Consistency in Risk Assessment and Risk Management 30
Chapter 2: Site Evaluation Progress 31
2.1 Site Evaluation Process 31
2.2 Fiscal Year 1993 Progress 31
2.2.1 CERCLIS Site Additions: Discoveries and Removals 32
2.2.2 Preliminary Assessments Completed 32
2.2.3 Site Inspections Completed 32
2.3 National Priorities List 34
2.3.1 National Priorities List Updates 34
2.3.2 Relationship between CERCLIS and NPL Data 34
2.4 Site Evaluation Support Activities 34
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
Contents
(continued)
2.5.1 Evaluating Superftind Sites 38
2.5.2 Improving Data Useability 38
2.5.3 Increasing Community Involvement 39
Chapte 3: Removal Progress [[[ 41
3.1 Removal Action Process 41
3.2 Fiscal Year 1993 Progress 42
3.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress 42
3.2.2 Expanding the Use of Removal Actions Through the Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up
Model 43
3.3 Environmental Response Team Activities 45
3.4 Emergency Response Regulations and Guidance 46
3.4.1 Reportable Quantity Regulations 46
3.4.2 Removal Guidance 47
Chapter 4: Remedial Progress 49
4.1 Remedial Process 49
4.2 Fiscal Year 1993 Progress 50
4.2.1 Construction Completion 50
4.2.2 New Remedial Activities 50
4.2.3 Status of Remedial and Enforcement Activities in Progress 51
4.3 Remedial Initiatives 52
4.4 Remedy Selection 54
4.5 Use and Development of Treatment Technologies 54
4.5.1 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program Progress 56
4.5.2 Superfund Technical Assistance Programs 61
4.5.3 Technology Transfer and Interagency Sharing 63
4.6 Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121(c) 66
Chapter 5: Enforcement Progress 69
5.1 The Enforcement Process 69
5.2 Fiscal Year 1993 Progress 70
5.2.1 Settlements for Response Activities 70
5.2.2 PRP Participation in Clean-Up Activities 71
5.2.3 Civil Judicial Penalties and Treble Damages 71
5.2.4 Cost Recovery Progress 72
5.2.5 Success in Reaching and Enforcing Agreements with PRPs 72
5.3 Enforcement Initiatives 72
5.3.1 Greater Fairness for Owners at Superfund Sites 72
-------
Fiscal Year 1993 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
5.3.3 Guidance on "DeMicromis" Settlements 81
5.3.4 Increased Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution 81
5.3.5 Mixed Funding Evaluation 82
5.3.6 Enforcement under the Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model 82
Chapter 6: Federal Facility Cleanups . 83
6.1 The Federal Facilities Program 83
6.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities Under CERCLA 83
6.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role 83
6.1.3 The Roles of States and Indian Tribes 84
6.2 Fiscal Year 1993 Progress 85
6.2.1 Status of Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 85
6.2.2 Status of Federal Facilities on the NPL 85
6.2.3 Interagency Agreements Under CERCLA Section 120 86
6.3 Federal Facility Initiatives 87
6.3.1 Military Base Closure 87
6.3.2 Accelerated Cleanups at Federal Facilities 87
6.3.3 Interagency Forums 87
6.3.4 Innovative Technology Development 88
6.4 CERCLA Implementation at EPA Facilities 89
6.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA Sections 120(e)(5) 89
6.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA Facilities Subject to Section 120 of CERCLA 89
Chapter 7: Superfund Program Support Activities 93
7.1 Community Involvement 93
7.1.1 Fiscal Year 1993 Highlights 94
7.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA Section 117 (e) 95
7.2 A Coordinated Approach to Public Information 95
7.3 EPA's Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 97
7.3.1 Response Agreements and Core Program Cooperative Agreements 98
7.3.2 Fiscal Year 1993 Highlights 99
7.4 Minority Firm Contracting 101
7.4.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 101
7.4.2 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments to Use Minority
Contractors 102
Chapter 8: Resource Estimate for Superfund Implementation 103
8.1 Source and Application of Resources 104
8.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup 105
8.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Clean-Up Effort 105
vu
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Contents
(continued)
8.2 Resource Model Assumptions 105
8.2.1 Active NPL Sites 106
8.2.2 Sites Yet to Begin the Remedial Process 106
8.2.3 Non-Site Costs 106
8.2.4 Factors Related to Remedial Action Costs 107
8.3 Estimated Resources to Complete Cleanup 107
8.4 Estimated Resources for Other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies 108
Appendices
Appendix A: Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial
Actions at Sites on the National Priorities List in Progress
on September 30,1993 A-l
Appendix B: Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30,1993 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
vni
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
List of Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1
Exhibit ES-2
Exhibit ES-3
Exhibit 1.0-1
Exhibit 1.0-2
Exhibit 1.6-1
Exhibit 1.6-2
Exhibit 2.2-1
Exhibit 2.3-1
Exhibit 3.1-1
Exhibit 3.2-1
Exhibit 3.2-2
Exhibit 4.2-1
Exhibit 4.2-2
Exhibit 4.2-3
Exhibit 4.4-1
Exhibit 4.4-2
Exhibit 4.4-3
Exhibit 4.5-1
Exhibit 4.5-2
Exhibit 4.5-3
Exhibit 4.5-4
Exhibit 4.6-1
Exhibit 5.2-1
Exhibit 5.2-2
Exhibit S.2.-3
Exhibit 5.2-4
Exhibit 5.2-5
Exhibit 6.2-1
Exhibit 6.2-2
Exhibit 6.4-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1993 Superfund Activities xii
Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year xiii
Statutory Requirements for the Report xvii
Progress in Classifying Sites as Construction Completions 21
Administrative Improvements 22
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model 27
Superrund Accelerated Clean-Up Model Achievements 29
Status of Sites in the Superfund Inventory 33
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1993 35
Typical Removal Actions 43
Cumulative Removal Action Starts 44
Cumulative Removal Action Completions 45
Work Has Occurred at 94 Percent of the National Priorities List Site 51
Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superrund Program for
Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1993 52
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead for
Fiscal Year 1992 and Fiscal Year 1993 53
Summary of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1993
Records of Decision 55
Percentage Distribution of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1993 Records of
Decision 56
Distribution and Treatment of Contaminated Remedies Selected in
Fiscal Year 1993 Records of Decisions 57
Cost Savings with Innovative Technologies 58
Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technology Program 59
Innovative Technologies in the Demonstration Program 60
START and ESTC Program Assistance 62
Sites At Which Five-Year Reviews Are Required Under CERCLA Section
121(c), Fiscal Year 1993 67
Cumulative Value of Response Settlements Reached with Potentially
Responsible Parties 71
Increase in the Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
Started by PRPs Since the Enactment of SARA 72
Fiscal Year 1993 CERCLA Civil Judicial Penalties and Treble Damages 73
Cumulative Value of Cost Recovery Dollars Achieved and Collected 74
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments 75
Number of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket 86
Distribution of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 86
Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket 90
IX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
Contents
(continued)
Exhibit 7.1-1 Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from Fiscal Year 1988
Through Fiscal Year 1993 96
Exhibit 7.4-1 Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1993 101
Exhibit 7.4-2 Services Provided by Minority Contractors 102
Exhibit 8.1-1 EPA Superfund Obligations 105
Exhibit 8.3-1 Estimate of Total Trust Fund Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites on the
National Priorities List 108
Exhibit 8.4-1 CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal
Departments and Agencies 109
-------
Executive Summary
As the Superfund program entered its thirteenth
year in December 1992, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or "the Agency") continued
to fulfill the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) for protecting public health, welfare,
and the environment. CERCLA requires that EPA
update Congress each year on progress in the
Superfund program. This Report fulfills the
requirement.
EPA is committed to accelerating the pace of
hazardous waste site cleanup. As part of this
commitment, the Agency completed construction
activities to place 68 National Priorities List (NPL)
sites in the construction completion category during
fiscal year 1993 (FY93). By the end of the fiscal year,
work had occurred at more than 94 percent of the
1,320 sites proposed to or listed on the NPL, including
51 sites thathavebeendeleted from the NPL. Leaving
a total of 1,197 sites currently listed on the NPL for
fiscal year 1993. To streamline future cleanups, the
Agency continued implementing the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-Up Model (SACM).
The Agency also continued its successful efforts
to encourage potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
to undertake and finance clean-up efforts at Superfund
sites. PRPs were leading 65 percent of remedial
designs (RDs) and 80 percent of remedial actions
(RAs) started during the fiscal year. Since the
inception of the Superfund program, EPA has reached
agreements worth more than $8.5 billion for PRP
response work at Superfund sites.
This Report identifies Superfund accomp-
lishments, highlighting FY93 accomplishments and
initiatives to improve the program. Exhibit ES-1
presents a summary of FY93 accomplishments.
Exhibit ES-2 provides a comparison of FY93
accomplishments with those of previous years and
presents cumulative program accomplishments.
FY93 accomplishments reflect the Agency's
commitment to, and focus of resources on, activities
required to complete site cleanups.
FY93 Initiatives
Examining ways to further improve the
effectiveness of the Superfund program, the Agency
identified administrative changes that could be made
within the existing statutory and regulatory
framework. An Administrative Improvements Task
Force, appointed by the EPA Administrator, identified
17 areas for improvement, centered around four
themes:
• Promoting Enforcement Fairness and Reducing
Transaction Costs: Superfund settlement
negotiations and litigation have often been
lengthy and costly, resulting in substantial
transaction costs. To reduce transaction costs
and ensure equity in enforcement, EPA worked
in FY93 to foster greater use of allocation tools,
reach more settlements with small volume waste
contributors, ensure fairness for owners of
Superfund sites, and evaluate the use of mixed
funding.
• Enhancing Clean-up Effectiveness and
Consistency: In addition to SACM, EPA
intensified efforts to streamline cleanups by
developing presumptive remedies, addressing
XI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit ES-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1993 Superfund Activities
Remedial Program Activities
Percentage of National Priorities List Sites Where Work Has Begun 94%
Sites Classified as Construction Completions as of September 30,1993 217
Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30,1993 910
Records of Decision Signed1 134
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Starts 2 60
Fund-Financed 60%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 40%
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies in Progress on September 30,1993 919
Remedial Design Starts2 130
Fund-Financed 35%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 65%
Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30,1993 445
Remedial Action Starts2 120
Fund-Financed 20%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 80%
Remedial Actions in Progress on September 30, 1993 386
Removal Program Activities
Removal Action Starts2 310
Fund-Financed 80%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 20%
Removal Action Completions2 290
Fund-Financed 70%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 30%
Site Assessment Program Activities
CERCLIS Sites Added2 1,100
Preliminary Assessments Conducted2 1,100
Site Inspections Conducted2 700
National Priorities List Site Activities to Date 1,320
Sites Proposed for Listing During Fiscal Year 1993 52
Final Sites Listed During Fiscal Year 1993 33
Sites Proposed for Deletion During Fiscal Year 1993 7
Sites Deleted During Fiscal Year 1993 113
Enforcement Program Activities
Settlements for All Potentially Responsible Party Response Activities 189 ($910 million)4
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Settlements5 86 ($810 million)
Unilateral Administrative Orders Issued (All Actions) 127 N/A
Cost Recovery Dollars Collected N/A ($185 million)
Accomplishments at Federal Facility Sites
Records of Decision Signed 2 56
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts 80
Remedial Design Starts2 40
Remedial Action Starts2 20
1 Records of decision signed for Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed sites.
2 Numerical values lor accomplishments based on Information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
3 Does not Include one site that was deleted because It was deferred to another authority for cleanup.
4 Estimated value of work potentially responsbte parties have agreed to undertake.
6 Remedial design/remedial action settlements Include remedial design/remedial action consent decrees and unilateral administrative orders
with which potentially responsible parties have stated their intention to comply.
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; 51-037-100
Federal Register notices through September 30,1993.
xii
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit ES-2
Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year
FY8O-86
Total FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 Total1 Total2
Removal
Completions3
National Priorities
List Sites4
CERCUS Sites3
PA Completions3
SI Completions3
Remedial
Investigation/
Feastxlity Study
Starts3
Records of Decision
Signed
Remedial Design
Starts3
Remedial Action
Starts3
Construction
Completions5
National Priorities
List Deletions6
810 230 320 260 290 270 3407 290 2,810 2,850
901 964 1,194 1,254 1,236 1,245 1,275 1,320 1,320 1,320
25,200 27,600 30,000 31,900 33,600 34,200 36,400 37,500 37,500 37,500
20,200 4,000 2,900 2,200 1,600 1,300 1,900 1,100 35,200 35,200
6,400 1,300 1,200 1,700 1,900 1,900 1,300 700 16,400 16,400
170 70 908 60 1,600 2,220
660
199
120
70
210
77
110
70
170
152
120
70
170
136
180
110
149
130
80
13
11
175 126
160 1709
100 11010
61 88
9 2
134 1,148 1,316
130 1,120 1,270
120 730 830
68 217 217
11 51 51
1 Includes only activities where Fund monies were spent. The total includes Fund monies spent at enforcement-lead sites to
oversee PRP activities.
2 Also includes activities conducted by federal facilities and states where no Superfund resources were used.
3 Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
4 The figures reported in this row represent the cumulative total of proposed, final and deleted National Priorities List sites as
of the end of each fiscal year. At the end of FY93,71 sites were proposed for listing.
5 Adopted as measure of program progress by 1991 30-Day Study Task Force. FY91 value represents FY80 through FY91.
6 FY93 deletions include 11 sites deleted because CERCLA clean-up objectives were met and one site deferred to another
authority for clean-up.
^ The number for Removal Completions in FY92 was 342; it has been rounded for inclusion in the FY93 table so that figures
will add properly. See also note 3.
8 The number for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts in FY92 was 88; it has been rounded for inclusion in the FY93
table so that figures will add properly. See also note 3.
9 The number for Remedial Design Starts in FY92 was 172; it has been rounded for inclusion in the FY93 table so that figures
will add properly. See also note 3.
10 The number for Remedial Action Starts in FY92 was 111; it has been rounded for inclusion in the FY93 table so that figures
will add properly. See also note 3.
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Federal Register notices through September 30,1993.
51-037-19Q
Xlll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
the technical complexities associated with dense
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)
contamination of ground water, and developing
standardized soil screening levels.
• Promoting Increased Community Involvement
and Ensuring EnvironmentalJustice: Because
it is critical for citizens living in direct proximity
to hazardous waste sites to be aware of and
involved in the clean-up process, EPA engaged
in efforts to increase community involvement.
Efforts included developing innovative
community involvement techniques and
soliciting public input.
• Strengthening the Role of the States: Because
EPA alone cannot address all hazardous waste
sites potentially in need of remediation, EPA has
provided funding and technical assistance to
support the development of state Superfund
programs. Currently, EPA has delegated the
lead for CERCLA clean-up activities at NPL
sites through site-specific or multi-site
cooperative agreements. In addition, withEPA's
support, many states have implemented clean-
up programs to address non-NPL-caliber sites,
and as a result, significant numbers of non-NPL
sites have been or are being cleaned up. Due to
the success of this effort, the Agency initiated an
effort in FY93 to enhance the state role in the
cleanup of NPL-caliber sites.
The Agency also continued earlier efforts to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Superfund.
Preparing for full implementation of SACM, the
Agency carried out pilot projects to develop a single
site assessment process, define the role of the Regional
decision teams, and use early actions and long-term
actions for cleanup. Other efforts included focusing
resources on completing the evaluation and cleanup
of sites, ensuring effective management of contracts,
and promoting consistency in assessing and managing
risk.
Site Evaluation
EPA continued its progress in identifying and
assessing newly discovered sites. At the end of
FY93, there were more than 37,500 sites identified in
the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), the
Superfund inventory of potentially hazardous waste
sites. EPA had evaluated more than 95 percent of
these sites for potential threats and determined that
1,320 should be proposed to, listed on, or deleted
from the NPL, the list of sites having highest priority
for remediation. The number includes 33 sites listed
and 52 proposed during the year.
EPA published several guidance documents
during FY93 to address improvements in site
evaluation, facilitate the generation of useable
analytical data to support clean-up decisions, and
increase community involvement throughout the
site assessment process. In addition, the Agency
proceeded with ongoing efforts to address technical
complexities associated with lead and radionuclide
contamination. With regard to lead contamination,
EPA continued to develop a model and guidance for
determining acceptable levels of lead in soil and
analyzed results from a three-city study on lead
contamination. Addressing radioactive sites, EPA
continued to develop guidance and assisted the
Regions with radiation issues.
Removal Progress
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate ornear-term threats, the Agency and
PRPs started 310 removal actions and completed
290 during FY93. Nearly 3,350 removal actions
have been started and 2,810 have been completed
since the inception of the Superfund program.
As proposed under SACM, the Agency continued
its efforts to expand the use of removal authority for
early actions to reduce risks more rapidly and expedite
cleanup at NPL sites. EPA piloted the early action
approach at 16 additional sites duringFY93, drawing
on funds allocated for this purpose.
Other EPA highlights from FY93 include
activities of the Environmental Response Team (100
removal actions, 70 RAs, and responses to 10 oil
spills and 2 international incidents). The Agency
also promulgated final reportable quantity (ROJ
adjustments for 30 hazardous substances.
Remedial Progress
Remedial progress during the fiscal year reflects
xiv
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
the Agency's continuing efforts to accelerate the
pace of clean-up activities and complete cleanups at
Superfund sites. At the end of FY93, work had
occurred at 94 percent of the 1,320 sites proposed to
or listed on the NPL, and construction activities had
been completed to place 217 NPL sites, or more than
16 percent, in the construction completion category.
During the year, the Agency and PRPs started
approximately 60 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), 130 remedial designs (RDs), and
120 remedial actions (RAs). EPA also signed 134
records of decision (RODs) for Fund-financed and
PRP-financed sites. At the end of the year, 919 RV
FSs, 445 RDs, and 386 RAs were in progress at 910
sites.
The Agency continued efforts initiated under the
199130-Day Study to streamline remedial activities.
Streamlining activities included developing
presumptive remedies, establishing soil screening
levels, and issuing policy for technical
impracticability waivers. 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 and other programs to provide technical
assistance, information, and training.
Enforcement Progress
Enforcement progress for FY93 reflects the
Agency' s continuous commitment to maximize PRP
involvement in financing and conducting cleanup,
and to recover Superfund monies expended for
response actions. During FY93, EPA reached
agreements with PRPs worth more than $910 million
in PRP response work. Through its cost recovery
efforts in FY93, EPA achieved $220 million in
settlements and collected $185 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures. Examples
of significant enforcement actions are provided in
Chapter 5 of this Report.
The Agency's administrative improvements
proposed during the year reinforced EPA's goal of
ensuring equity in the enforcement process. As part
of this initiative, the Agency took steps to foster
greater fairness for Superfund site property owners,
encourage early settlements withde minimis and "de
micromis" parties, increase the use of alternative
dispute resolution, and evaluate the increased use of
mixed funding. Continuing preparations for full
implementation of SACM, the Agency also worked
on streamlining the enforcement-related activities
while maintaining high levels of PRP participation
in response work.
Federal Facility Cleanups
Federal departments and agencies are largely
responsible for implementing CERCLA at federal
facility sites. To ensure federal facility compliance
with CERCLA requirements, EPA provides advice
and assistance, oversees activities, and takes
enforcement action where appropriate. At sites on
the NPL, EPA must concur in remedy selection.
At the end of FY93, there were 1,945 federal
facility sites identified on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. Of the sites
on the docket, 143 were proposed to or listed on the
NPL, including 123 final and 20 proposed sites.
Including the six interagency agreements executed
during the year, 120 of the 123 final federal facility
NPL sites were covered by enforceable agreements
for cleanup. Activity during the fiscal year at these
federal facility NPL sites included starting
approximately 80 RI/FSs, 40 RDs, and 20 RAs, and
signing 56 RODs.
In FY93, more than 30 military bases were
selected for closure or realignment, including 5
installations listed on the NPL. This brought the total
numberofNPL sites that are also military installations
being scheduled for closure to 20. During the fiscal
year, the Agency, in conjunction with the Department
of Defense, states, and local citizens, worked on the
President'sFive-PointPlan to accelerate the economic
recovery of communities near military bases that are
scheduled for closure.
The Agency also participated in interagency
workgroups and roundtables to examine issues
specific to federal facility cleanup. The Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue
Committee (FFERDC), established in 1992 as an
advisory committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, provided a forum for identifying
xv
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
and redefining issues related to environmental
restoration activities at federal facilities. During
FY93, the FFERDC published an interim report
describing methods for improving the process by
which federal agencies share information and involve
affected parties in decision making and priority
setting at federal facilities.
Of the sites on the Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket at the end of FY93,20
were EPA-owned, including 4 sites added to the
docket and 1 site removed from the docket during the
fiscal year. None of these EPA-owned sites were
listed on the NPL. This Report provides the status of
these sites, as required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5).
Superfund Program Support Activities
EPA took measures in FY93 to enhance support
activities in the Superfund program. Activities
included improving community involvement,
enhancing public access to information, strengthening
EPA's partnership with states and Indian tribes, and
encouraging minority contractor utilization.
In efforts to help citizens to be more
knowledgeable about the technical and scientific
aspects of Superfund sites and better prepared to
participate in the clean-up process, EPA awarded 32
technical assistance grants (TAGs) to community
groups in eight Regions. The Agency also engaged in
innovative techniques to encourage community
involvement in cleanup. In addition, the Agency
explored ways to increase community involvement
in the Superfund program, enhance outreach between
EPA and communities, and ensure environmental
justice by addressing concerns of minority and low-
income communities.
To enhance public access to Superfund
information, the Agency continued its partnership
with the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) to provide Superfund document distribution
services through NTIS. During FY93, the Agency
expanded the Superfund document collection
available through NTIS and continued outreach to
inform the public of the services available.
To promote its partnership with states and Indian
tribes in the Superfund clean-upprocess, EPA assisted
in developing comprehensive state and Indian tribe
Superfund programs under core program cooperative
agreements (CPCAs), granting CPCAs worth over
$ 1.2 billion since the inception of the program. With
EPA's support through Trust Fund resources under
response agreements, states, and Indian tribes were
engaged in nearly 90RI/FSs, RDs, RAs, and removal
actions in progress during FY93.
To promote small and disadvantaged businesses,
EPA, through direct and indirect procurements,
awarded over $29.3 million worth of contracts and
subcontracts in FY93 to minority contractors to
perform Superfund work. This amount represents
more than 3 percent of the total dollars obligated to
finance Superfund work during the year. EPA
conducted training sessions to help minority
contractors become more successful in winning
Superfund direct prime contract and subcontract
awards. The Agency also hosted minority business
enterprise and women's business enterprise
workshops to familiarize minority and women
business owners with the opportunities available
through Superfund.
Resource Estimate for Superfund
Implementation
Under Executive Order 12580, EPA is required
to estimate the resources needed to implement
Superfund, and CERCLA requires that EPA provide
the estimates in this Report. Since the enactment of
CERCLA in 1980, Congress has provided Superfund
with $ 11.9 billion in budget authority (FY81 through
FY93). This includes $1.7 billion for pre-SARA
(FY81 through FY86) and $10.2 billion for the post-
SARA period, FY87 through FY93.
Estimates of long-term resources to implement
Superfund are based on the Outyear Liability Model
(OLM). The OLM estimate of the cost to complete
cleanup of current NPL sites is more than $15.8
billion for FY94 and beyond, bringing the total
estimated cost for the program to $27.7 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.
xvi
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
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
the preceding fiscal year
Chapter 2
Detailed description of each
feasibility study (FS) at a facility
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Section 4.4
ROD Annual
Report
Status and estimated date of Appendix A
completion of each FS
Notice of each FS which will not Appendix A
meet a previously published
schedule for completion and the
new estimated date for
completion
An evaluation of newly developed Section 4.5
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
Section 4.6
Initiatives to improve the Superfund
program
Site evaluation progress
Removal progress
Remedial progress
Enforcement progress
Federal facility cleanups
Community relations, state and Indian
tribe, and public outreach activities
Overview discussion of RODs signed
during the fiscal year, including the number
of treatment and containment remedies
selected
Appendix C List of RODs signed in the fiscal year
Abstracts of each ROD signed in the fiscal
year
Status and estimated completion date of
each ongoing FS in progress at the end of
the fiscal year
Scheduled completion date published for
the last fiscal year, the scheduled
completion date recorded in CERCLIS as
of end of the current fiscal year, and
identification of schedule changes
Evaluation of newly developed
technologies through the Superfund
Innovative Treatment Evaluation program
Annual update on progress being made on
sites subject to review under CERCLA
Section 121(c)
51-037-17
XV11
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
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 Executive
remedial and enforcement actions Summary
undertaken during the fiscal year, Section 4.2
including a comparison to
remedial and enforcement actions .
undertaken in prior fiscal years Section 5.2
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 8.1
and 8.3
Section 8.4
Appendix E
Section 7.4
Section 6.4
Information on fiscal year remedial activity
starts (including PRP involvement) with a
comparison of fiscal year activities to those
of previous years
Information on fiscal year enforcement
activities with a comparison of fiscal year
activities to those of previous years
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 completion of
CERCLA implementation
Other federal agency's and department's
estimates for completion of 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
51-037-17,1
XV111
-------
Chapter 1
Major Initiatives
Fulfilling its commitment to accelerate the pace
of Superfund cleanup, the Agency completed
construction activities to place 68 National Priorities
List (NPL) sites in the construction completion
category during FY93, bringing the total number of
sites in the category to 217. Exhibit 1.0-1 illustrates
the Agency's progress in completing construction
activities at NPL sites. Of the sites in the construction
completion category, 72 percent achieved the
classification within the last two years, more than
tripling the number of such sites as of the end of
FY91.
To review the program and identify
improvements that could be made within the existing
statutory and regulatory framework, the EPA
Administrator formed the Administrative
Improvements Task Force in April 1993. The task
force included representatives from EPA's Offices
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response;
Enforcement; General Counsel; Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation; Administration and Resources
Management; and Research and Development.
Representatives from EPA Regions 2, 5, 9, and the
Department of Justice also participated in the task
force. In its final report, issued on June 23,1993, the
task force recommended 17 areas for improvement
in the program. The 17 recommendations, illustrated
in Exhibit 1.0-2, included nine new or enhanced
initiatives and eight continuing initiatives. The nine
new or enhanced initiatives center around fourthemes:
• Promoting enforcement fairness and reducing
transaction costs;
• Enhancing clean-up effectiveness and
consistency;
• Fostering increased community involvement;
and
• Strengthening the role of states.
The following sections of this chapter detail the
fiscal year activities under each of these four themes.
Progress being made under continuing initiatives is
highlighted in this chapter and throughout this Report.
1.1 PROMOTING EQUITY IN
ENFORCEMENT AND REDUCING
TRANSACTION COSTS
Through effective use of the enforcement
authority provided in CERCLA and SARA, EPA has
reached settlements with potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) for response work at Superfund sites
cumulatively worth more than $8.5 billion. PRPs
financed approximately 80 percent of the remedial
actions started in the fiscal year.
Settlement negotiations or litigation, however,
can be lengthy and may result in substantial transaction
costs for PRPs. To reduce transaction costs and
ensure equity in enforcement, EPA undertook efforts
to foster greater use of allocation tools, reach more
and earlier settlements under Section 122(g) with
small volume waste contributors, ensure fairness for
owners of Superfund sites, and evaluate the use of
mixed funding for clean-up activities. An overview
of these efforts is outlined below. (A more detailed
discussion may be found in Chapter 5.)
19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 1
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
ADR AJtemalwe Dispute Resolution
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
GCE Independent Government Cost Estimate
NACBT National Advisory Council for Ervircxirrental Policy
and Technology
NFL National Priorities List
PR3 Potentially Ftespordbte Party
FCJ[ Regional Decision Team
FttFS Remedial InvestgatJon^easblrty Study
FFM Remedial Ptpject Manager
SA£M Superfund Accelerated Oean-UpMcdel
SI Site Inspection
SvE Soil Vapor Extraction
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
VX VcteSb Organic Compound
1.1.1 Fostering Greater Use of
Allocation Tools
A key factor that prolongs negotiations or
litigation and results in high transaction costs is
allocating clean-up costs among PRPs. To facilitate
cost allocation, EPA has encouraged greater sharing
of information and increased use of settlement tools
for allocating costs.
For example, the Agency adopted a new policy
to encourage the exchange of information for
allocation and liability issues. In a July 1993
memorandum, the Agency encouraged the Regions
to facilitate information exchange with PRPs by
assisting with information gathering activities.
To facilitate clean-up cost allocation, EPA began
developing guidance on criteria to be considered in
developing an allocation scheme. The Agency also
encouraged increased use of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR), a technique in which a neutral
party helps organize negotiations, facilitates
deliberations, and/or provides negotiating parties
with an impartial opinion. During FY93, EPA
identified 20 sites at which ADR will be demonstrated.
1.1.2 Fostering More Settlements with
Small-Volume Waste
Contributors
Typically, the largerthenumberof PRPs involved
innegotiations or litigation, the greater the transaction
costs. To reduce the number of PRPs involved in
prolonged deliberations, EPA has worked to promote
early settlements under Section 122(g) with small-
volume (de minimis and "de micromis") waste
contributors. Whenmany small-volume contributors
settle early in the process, only a limited number of
PRPs must participate in the later, more intensive
negotiations. Those that remain are primarily large-
volume contributors.
In July 1993, the Agency released guidance to
aid the Regions in reaching de minimis and "de
micromis" settlements. During the fiscal year, EPA
successfully reached 43 de minimis settlements
involving more than 1,500 PRPs at 30 sites. The
Agency plans to offeree minimis and "de micromis"
settlements to PRPs at additional sites in FY94.
1.1.3 Fostering Greater Fairness for
Owners of Superfund Property
In addition to efforts to reduce transaction costs,
EPA sought to promote greater fairness in Superfund
enforcement.
In July 1993, EPA issued federal lien guidance
to clarify its procedures for filing a lien on a Superfund
site to secure reimbursement of Trust Fund monies
expended in response actions at the site. The guidance,
SupplementalGuidanceonFederalSuperfundLiens,
outlines procedures for providing property owners
with sufficient notice and an opportunity to comment
on pending federal Superfund liens on their properties.
Property owners will be notified of the Agency's
intention to file a lien and may comment by either
submitting written documentation or attending an
informal meeting with EPA.
In other action related to property ownership,
EPA began developing guidance that would update
existing Agency policy dealing with the use of
20
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.0-1
Progress in Classifying Sites
as Construction Completions
Year 2000
500
400
300
Cumulative
Completions
Year 2000
I I National Goal 650
D End of
FY93
217
FY93
National Goal 200
200
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/
Office of Program Management and Hazardous Site
Control Division.
covenants not to sue in agreements with prospective
purchasers of Superfund property. Frequently,
prospective purchasers of Superfund properties are
willing to finance or undertake a portion of the
cleanup in return for a covenant not to sue from EPA.
The United States can grant such a party a covenant
not to sue which provides assurance that the United
States will not bring an action for further cost recovery
or response action against such a party. EPA's
experience with covenants not to sue has shown that
they conserve Trust Fund monies and encourage the
redevelopment of an otherwise vacant property. Such
covenants are particularly beneficial in the case of
"brownfields," which are potentially contaminated
properties that have been left unused due to the risk
of future liability to prospective purchasers,
developers, and lenders. In FY94, EPA will evaluate
the application of other mechanisms to remove
barriers to property development.
1.1.4 Evaluating Mixed Funding Policy
Although EPA aggressively works to have PRPs
pay 100 percent of response costs, circumstances
exist where response work may be financed by both
EPA (from the Trust Fund) and PRPs. Using the
Trust Fund to finance a portion of clean-up costs can
encourage viable PRPs to reach an agreement with
EPA to finance the remaining portion of the clean-up
costs.
EPA uses three types of mixed funding
approaches in negotiating agreements with PRPs:
• Preauthorization: PRPs perform the work and
EPA reimburses them for a portion of the costs;
• Cashouts: PRPs fund a portion of the work
performed by EPA; and
• Mixed Work: PRPs and EPA each perform
different aspects of cleanup.
During FY93, the Agency conducted a two-part
evaluation of the use and effectiveness of mixed
funding. As part of the evaluation, EPA estimated
the potential cost of mixed funding alternatives and
options for streamlining the decision-making process.
51-037-15C
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 1.0-2
Administrative Improvements
New and Enhanced Initiatives
1. Greater Use of Allocation Tools
2. Foster More Settlements with Small
Volume Waste Contributors
3. Greater Fairness for Owners at Superfund
Sites
4. Evaluate Mixed Funding Policy
5. Streamline and Expedite the Cleanup
Process
6. Develop Soil Screening Levels
7. Implement an Environmental Justice
Strategy for Superfund Sites
8. Early and More Effective Community
Involvement
9 State Deferral of Certain Site Categories
Continuing Initiatives
10. Implement the Superfund Accelerated
Clean-Up Model (SACM)
11. Achieve Construction Completions
12. Improve Contracts Management
13. Emphasize Enforcement First
14. Accelerate Cleanup at Base Closures
15. Promote Use of Innovative Technology
16. Enhance Compliance Monitoring
17. Improve the Effectiveness of Cost
Recovery
Source: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
51-037-22B
In July 1993, EPA identified sites for pilot testing the
use of mixed funding and will initiate the projects in
FY94. A further discussion of mixed funding
approaches is provided in Chapter 5 of this Report.
1.2 ENHANCING CLEAN-UP
EFFECTIVENESS AND
CONSISTENCY
As recommended by the Administrative
Improvements Task Force, the Agency undertook a
variety of efforts to enhance clean-up effectiveness
and consistency. Efforts focused on developing
measures to streamline and standardize cleanup and
on establishing standardized soil screening levels.
1.2.1 Streamlining and Standardizing
Cleanup
The Agency engaged in efforts to implement
innovative approaches for streamlining and
standardizing cleanup, including the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-Up Model (SACM) and the use
of presumptive remedies. The Agency also addressed
specific areas of concern, such as technical
complexities associated with dense non-aqueous
phase liquid (DNAPL) contamination in ground
water.
To streamline cleanups, the Agency continued
efforts to implement SACM, the new process
proposed for Superfund cleanups. SACM accelerates
cleanup and risk reduction at Superfund sites by
consolidating site assessment functions into a one-
step process, abbreviating clean-up time frames,
using presumptive remedies where appropriate, and
addressing the worst threats to human health and the
environment first. Section 1.6.4 of this Report
provides additional information on the components
of SACM and efforts underway to implement the
new clean-up model.
To standardize remedy selection for specific
types of sites, the Agency is developing presumptive
remedies. Continuing efforts begun in 1991 in
response to the 30-Day Study, the Agency issued
guidance for presumptive remedies for municipal
landfill sites and sites with soil contaminated by
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The guidance
identifies patterns in site characteristics that can be
22
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
used to identify the most appropriate presumptive
remedy. By reviewing remedies at similar sites, EPA
can identify typical technologies or remedies that
can be applied to sites exhibiting particular
characteristics. The guidance will enable EPA and
PRPs to focus data collection and limit feasibility
studies to remedial options that are most appropriate.
During FY94, the Agency will pilot test the
presumptive remedies for municipal landfill sites
and sites with soil contaminated by VOCs. The
Agency will also continue developing presumptive
remedies for other types of sites.
In other efforts, the Agency continued to evaluate
technical solutions to address the pervasiveness of
DNAPL contamination in ground water. Historically,
because of the complex nature of DNAPLs, their
presence went undetected during site characterization.
During the year, EPA developed a methodology for
quickly assessing the presence of DNAPLs,
characterizing site contamination problems, and
addressing DNAPL contamination through remedial
design. In addition, EPA conducted technology
transfer sessions for over 2,550 federal and state
employees to increase their understanding of the
issue. DNAPL evaluation activities will allow EPA
to increase the consistency and quality of decisions
regarding DNAPL contamination, help focus data
collection, and assist in evaluating hazardous waste
sites with DNAPL contamination that are not currently
on the NPL.
1.2.2 Developing Soil Screening
Levels
Because few federal or state soil clean-up levels
for specific pollutants have been established, the
need for and extent of cleanup of soil has historically
been determined on a site-by-site basis. To facilitate
defining the extent of site study required to make
these determinations, the Agency continued efforts
to develop soil screening levels. In FY93, EPA
solicited comment on draft guidance proposing
screening levels for the 30 top-priority chemicals
found at Superfund sites. The screening levels
establish contaminant-concentration levels below
which there is no concern about a threat to human
health or the environment and above which further
site-specific evaluation of the potential threat is
warranted. In some cases, the soil screening levels
may also serve as the clean-up levels. During FY94,
EPA plans to develop soil screening levels for
approximately 60 additional compounds and field
test the soil screening levels at pilot sites.
1.3 ENHANCING COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
As recommended by the Administrative
Improvements Task Force, EPA worked to increase
community involvement in Superfund cleanups and
ensure environmental justice for minority and low-
income communities. It is critical that citizens living
in direct proximity to hazardous waste sites be aware
of and involved in the clean-up process so that their
needs and expectations are clearly articulated and
considered. In addition, working with communities
puts the Agency in a better position to accomplish
effective implementation of clean-up remedies.
1.3.1 Efforts to Facilitate Community
Involvement
The Agency undertook a number of activities
during the year to encourage citizens to take a more
active role in Superfund activities. The Agency
identified and exchanged information about sites
and projects where the community has been involved
successfully, or innovative community involvement
techniques have been used. The Agency also identi fied
16 sites to demonstrate innovative community
involvement techniques. To solicit citizens' ideas,
the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT) held a national
meeting on community involvement.
The Agency also began preparing a new
Superfund public participation plan. This plan will
address aspects of cleanups that are important to
communities, such as the speed of cleanup, economic
redevelopment of property, and ecological restoration
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
of natural resources. The plan will also discuss the
implementation of an information-availability policy,
alternatives to the Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)
program, the role of the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and ways to ensure
better community representation in Superfund
decision making.
Throughout the year, Regions successfully
involved citizens and furthered communications
through a variety of innovative community
involvement techniques:
• Region 1 organized a mediation session between
the public and PRPs cleaning up the Pine Street
Canal site, which is located in Burlington, Vt.
• Region 2 accelerated the remedy selection process
for the Li Tungsten site through its efforts to
involve the community during the remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS). Also,
the Region tailored outreach activities to involve
the St. Regis Mohawk Indian tribe in Superfund
activities, including a newsletter specifically
developed for affected tribal members.
• Several Regions developed teams to provide
technical assistance to communities. Region 3
formed a site team to expedite the flow of
remediation data to the public at the Hyman
Viewner site. Similarly, at the Savannah River
site and the Oakridge Reservation site, Region 4
established Site-Specific Advisory Boards, which
serve as local citizen working groups. At the
ASARCO Smelter site, Region 10 convened a
coordinating forum, which has examined
prelim inary RI/FS data and will assist in involving
the community in remedy selection and decisions
on future land use.
• Region 5 held an industrial outreach day to
facilitate understanding between the public and
private business interests.
• Region 6 broadcasted public service
announcements at several sites to expand
awareness of the Superfund program's
achievements and goals.
• Region 7 developed environmental education
programs about Superfund and other EPA
programs at the Hastings Ground-Water Site.
• Region 8 began a communication dynamics
study that will result in a report on communication
options.
• Region 9 developed a communication strategy
for the Ralph Gray Trucking site. The Region 9
strategy consists of two phases: the first phase is
a community outreach program while the second
phase involves the development of bilingual
communication tools to assist in the relocation
process, such as a toll-free telephone line.
EPA coordinated its community involvement
efforts with other federal agencies and departments
involved in Superfund cleanup. Efforts included
establishing Site-Specific Advisory Boards to foster
community involvement at several Department of
Energy Superfund sites during the year, such as those
mentioned above in Region 4. During FY94, EPA
plans to establish Restoration Advisory Boards for
citizens at several Department of Defense sites.
1.3.2 Ensuring Environmental Justice
Studies have indicated that low-income
communities and minority groups may be exposed to
greater health risks from environmental hazards than
the general population. The increased risks have
been attributed to disproportionate exposure to
industrial pollution, vehicle emissions, hazardous
waste sites, and lead-based paint. During FY93, the
Agency began developing an environmental justice
strategy to ensure that risks to low-income
communities and minority groups are equitably
addressed. Steps in developing the environmental
justice strategy included
• Analyzing the impact of 158 NPL sites on
minority and disadvantaged communities and
publishing, in August 1993, the results in a
report titled Preliminary Analysis of Population
Demographics;
• Conducting a national meeting sponsored by
NACEPT to hear citizens' concerns about
environmental justice;
• Sponsoring environmental justice and
24
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
community involvement sessions in public
forums under the Superfund Revitalization
Conferences sponsored by the Superfund
Revitalization Office in Chicago, San Francisco,
Dallas, and Washington, D.C.; and
• Identifying 21 Regional demonstration projects
for environmental justice action.
To assist low-income communities and minority
groups in accessing technical support in understanding
the potential health risks posed by environmental
hazards, the Agency simplified the TAG application
and issued a pamphlet and fact sheet about the TAG
program. To promote education about the health
risks posed by environmental hazards, EPA sponsored
a Superfund Training Institute for teachers who live
near Superfund sites.
The Agency also analyzed environmental justice
case-studies to identify opportunities for coordinating
with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Labor, and ATS DR.
Future plans include conducting and evaluating
additional Regional demonstration projects,
publishing TAG materials in languages other than
English, and developing and issuing a complete
environmental justice strategy for Superfund sites.
1.4 ENHANCING THE ROLE OF
STATES
As recommended by the Administrative
Improvements Task Force, the Agency took steps to
expand the role of states in Superfund cleanups. State
participation is critical because EPA alone cannot
address all of the hazardous waste sites that may need
remediation. Also, states may help to prevent clean-
up delays that could occur if EPA retains sole
responsibility for assessing and cleaning up sites.
EPA has historically supported states in
developing their Superfund programs by providing
fundingand technical assistance. WithEPA's support,
many states have implemented clean-up programs to
address non-NPL-caliber sites, and significant
numbers of non-NPL sites have been or are being
cleaned up. Because of the success of these cleanups,
the Agency began expanding the state role in FY93
to include responsibility for NPL-caliber sites.
The Agency's program to defer NPL-caliber
sites from listing on the NPL is another method of
enhancing the role of states. Deferring sites from
listing on the NPL is intended to encourage qualified,
interested states and Indian tribes to address, under
their own laws, the large number of sites now under
consideration for listing on the NPL. Through
agreements with EPA, states and Indian tribes would
be responsible for selecting, compelling, and
overseeing response actions conducted and funded
by PRPs. The Agency believes that this program will
accelerate cleanup, minimize the risk of duplicative
state/federal efforts, and offer PRPs a measure of
confidence that only one agency will oversee a
deferred site. Once the necessary response actions at
a site are completed successfully, the site will not be
considered forlistingon the NPL unless EPA receives
new information of a release or potential release that
poses a significant threat to human health or the
environment.
EPA is developing a guidance document that
outlines the deferral process and establishes two sets
of deferral criteria. States must meet one set of
criteria to qualify for the deferral program; specific
sites must meet another set to retain deferral eligibility.
The guidance will also contain other requirements
that address cleanup standards, procedural
requirements, community involvement, oversight,
and financial assistance.
Complementing efforts to develop the deferral
guidance, EPA is piloting the deferral program at 24
NPL-caliber sites in seven states. Experiences at
these sites will be monitored to help identify and
resolve issues quickly.
1.5 PREPARING FOR
REAUTHORIZATION OF
CERCLA
While implementing administrative
improvements to Superfund, the Agency also prepared
for the reauthorization of CERCLA. To identify and
25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
recommend possible legislative improvements, the
Administrator created the Superfund Evaluation
Committee as a subcommittee of NACEPT; formed
Agency legislative workgroups and subgroups; and
convened an interagency task force.
1.5.1 National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and
Technology
In June 1993, the Administrator created the
Superfund Evaluation Committee as a subcommittee
of NACEPT. (NACEPT was formed as an advisory
committee to the Administrator on environmental
issues.) Appointees to the committee reflect the
broad spectrum of Superfund stakeholders, including
representatives from industry, government, and the
environmental community.
The Administrator tasked the Superfund
Evaluation Committee to
• Review the current performance of the Superfund
program;
• Identify the concerns of affected constituencies
about the program's operations;
• Identify possible administrative and legislative
improvements in the program; and
• Assess the advantages and disadvantages of the
proposed improvements.
During a series of meetings held throughout the
fiscal year, the NACEPT Superfund Evaluation
Committee examined the structure and goals of the
Superfund program. The committee considered
specific issues, such as clean-up standards and
technologies, the benefits and drawbacks of the
Superfund liability scheme, the role of the states in
cleanups, the impact on communities when
municipalities are PRPs, the participation of local
communities in clean-up efforts, concerns about
environmental justice, economic redevelopment of
contaminated properties, and voluntary cleanups by
PRPs. In the meetings, which were open to the
public, the committee accepted written comments
and oral presentations from interested parties. To
further foster community involvement, the
committee's final meeting was broadcast and satellite
uplinks were provided to the 10 EPA Regions. The
committee plans to deliver a report containing its
conclusions in FY94.
1.5.2 Interagency Workgroups
To examine federal facility site cleanup and
propose possible legislative changes, EPA convened
an interagency task force in July 1993. EPA'sDeputy
Administrator chairs the task force, which consists
of representatives from EPA, most cabinet agencies,
the White House, and the Office of Management and
Budget. The interagency task force formed four
subcommittees to examine potential issues for the
upcoming reauthorization of Superfund:
• Federal facility cleanups;
• Natural resource damage;
• General legislative options; and
• Urban economic redevelopment.
The first two subcommittees are extensions of
existing interagency workgroups, and the Legislative
Options Subcommittee is an interagency counterpart
to EPA's legislative task force. The interagency task
force is scheduled to present Superfund
reauthorization recommendations in FY94.
1.6 CONTINUING INITIATIVES
EPA has also continued efforts begun in previous
fiscal years to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of Superfund. These efforts included proceeding
with implementation of SACM, focusing on clean-
up activities to achieve construction completion at
sites, ensuring effective management of contracts,
and promoting consistency in assessing and managing
risk.
1.6.1 The Superfund Accelerated
Clean-Up Model
EPA continued efforts to pilot test SACM during
the year, anticipating full implementation of the new
26
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
clean-up model in FY94 when the Agency will issue
Expectations for Full Implementation of SACM.
SACM accelerates cleanup and risk reduction at
Superfund sites by consolidating site assessment
functions into a one-step process and by prioritizing
action to address the worst threats to human health
and the environment first. Exhibit 1.6-1 illustrates
the clean-up process under SACM. The components
of the SACM and the fiscal year efforts taken to
implement the model are described below.
Early and Long Term Actions
SACM distinguishes two types of clean-up
actions, "early actions" and "long-term actions."
Early actions are aimed at addressing immediate
threats to the health and safety of the surrounding
population and environment. Early actions may
include the removal of soil and waste, the prevention
of access to contaminated areas, the capping of
landfills, the relocation of people, and the provision
of alternative drinking water sources. Early actions
will typically average no more than three-to-five
years in duration.
Long-term actions encompass remedial activities
such as ground-water restoration, remediation of
mining areas, extended incineration, and wetland/
estuary restoration. Long-term actions may require
many years, and sometimes decades, to complete.
To determine whether early actions and/or long-
term actions are necessary, SACM calls for creation
of Regional decision teams (RDTs). The RDTs,
composed of personnel from across program areas,
will recommend appropriate action for each site.
Single Site Assessment Process
SACM will reduce the time and cost of cleanup
by consolidating site studies into a single, continuous,
site assessment process. The process combines the
preliminary assessment, which consists of researching
the existence of a potential threat, and the site
inspection, which consists of sampling to assess a
potential threat. At sites where a threat exists, remedial
investigation data will be collected providing
information needed for both early and long-term
actions. The model also focuses on the early
involvement of states and PRPs in the effort to
Exhibit 1.6-1
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
Site Screening
and Assessment
(Assessments combined)
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 51-037-14
eliminate multiple site assessments.
Implementation Efforts
The Agency undertook a variety of projects to
pilot SACM during the year. All 10 Regions
established RDTs to prioritize sites and recommend
appropriate actions. Also, site assessments were
integrated, early actions were taken, and appropriate
long-term clean-up actions were chosen.
The Agency conducted SACM pilots at 34 sites
during FY93, accomplishing cleanup at more than
half of the sites by the end of the year. Exhibit 1.6-2
highlights accomplishments achieved under several
of the pilots. The pilots have demonstrated benefit to
the Superfund program by
• Accelerating Superfund cleanup and improving
efficiency;
• Improving enforcement equity; and
• Increasing the role of states.
27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
These benefits were consistent with the goals
established by the Administrative Improvements
Task Force. Also, EPA will attempt to use the pilots
to increase community involvement, motivate early
PRP involvement, and ensure that data collection
and quality objectives are met at all stages of cleanup.
In the upcoming fiscal year, EPA will work to
share information with states to ensure that SACM
principles are being applied; specify SACM as
standard operating procedure at all Superfund sites;
and provide cross-training to On-Scene Coordinators,
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), and Site
Assessment Managers. The Agency also will continue
its efforts to specify data quality objectives for
integrated site assessments, use presumptive remedies
at appropriate sites, provide constructive notice to
PRPs, and perform early actions at NPL and non-
NPL sites to rapidly reduce risk and expedite cleanup.
1.6.2 Achieving Construction
Completions
Aggressively pursuing progress at Superfund
sites, the Agency completed construction activities
to place the 217th NPL site in the construction
completion category. Fiscal year progress included
completing activities to place 68 sites in the
construction completion category. The total number
exceeds the 1991 30-Day Study recommendation to
place 200 sites in the construction completion category
by the end of FY93. The Agency plans to place at
least 650 sites in the construction completion category
by the year 2000, an additional target recommended
in the 30-Day Study. A site in the construction
completion category is
• An NPL site where all necessary physical
construction activities are complete;
• A site at which EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures
that do not involve construction; or
• A site that qualifies for deletion or has been
deleted from the NPL.
To facilitate achievement of construction
completions, the Agency issued several guidance
documents. The Construction Completion Care
Package compiles all guidance and policy documents
relevant to completing construction activities for
RPMs.
To clarify construction completion criteria at
soil vapor extraction (SVE) and bioremediation
sites, EPA issued NPL Construction Completion
Definition at Bioremediation and Soil Vapor
Extraction Sites. This guidance expands on
construction completion criteria to include sites
undergoing in situ restoration activities. These sites
can be categorized in the construction completion
category when the treatmentunithasbeenconstructed
and is operating as designed, and studies show that
the technology will achieve clean-up goals. For sites
in the category, follow-up work to operate the system
until clean-up goals are reached may continue, but it
must be minimal and limited in nature. All SVE and
bioremediation sites placed in the construction
completion category will also be classified as ongoing
remedial actions until the site meets clean-up goals.
1.6.3 Improving Contract Management
To balance its environmental mission with
effective contract management, the Agency continued
actions in FY93 to monitor contractor costs and
provide guidance for contract management. For
example, EPA issued guidance for preparing remedial
independent government cost estimates (IGCEs) in
July 1993. In the document, Guidance on Preparing
Independent Government Cost Estimates, minimum
requirements regarding the roles and responsibilities
of EPA personnel preparing IGCEs are established.
IGCEs are used under Superfund remedial and
enforcement contracts to review the contractor's
work plan and budget, and to negotiate cost. The
guidance emphasizes the importance of the Contract
Management Team as the leader in preparing IGCEs.
This team will consist of members that have
interdisciplinary skills necessary to prepare the
IGCEs. Generally, the team members will include
the EPA Work Assignment Manager, Project Officer,
Contracting Officer, and others, including contract
specialists, cost estimators/coordinators, technical
experts, Bureau of Reclamation personnel and/or
28
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.6-2
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model Achievements
Region
1
2
3
4
6
8
10
Pilot Name
Kearsarge
Metallurgical, NH
Accelerated Federal
Facilities Agreements
Innovative Data
Validation Approach
Site Assessment
Lightning RODs
Cross Program,
Multi-Media
Approach, Annie
Creek, SD
Allied Plating, OR
Benefits
$300,000-$450,000 and
1-2 years saved.
1-2.5 years saved.
Reduced turnaround time
by an average of 49
days/sample and cost by
$35/sample. Total savings
of $2 million/year.
Cost savings of $300,000
and time savings of more
than 2 years.
Cost savings of 30% and
time savings of
approximately 1 .5 years.
Two years and $250,000
saved.
16.5 months and $500,000
saved.
Description
Joint removal and remedial actions were
able to take place at two separate
operable units allowing time and cost
savings to occur.
Early negotiations decreased time from
SI to signing of the ROD.
Region developed a five-tier data
validation system that decreased
turnaround time and cost without
sacrificing quality.
Different stages of the site assessment
process were integrated to accelerate
cleanup.
Program completes all preparation for
the RI/FS/RD before the site is proposed
for inclusion on the NPL. Defines total
site remedy in the first year. Defines
responsibility for remedial action in
second year after addition to NPL.
Starts remedial action within three years
of proposal to NPL.
Pilot uses alternative clean-up authority
(Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act) to
request information to initiate the Rl.
The Region saves time and money
traditionally spent negotiating Superfund
orders with PRPs.
A pre-ROD removal action was
performed by the Army Corps of
Engineers, eliminating the need for
performance of an RD.
51-037-34
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers personnel. The
guidance emphasizes the necessity of preparing a
clearly defined statement of work before the IGCE is
prepared.
EPA also began work on \heRemedial Contracts
Cost Management Manual. The manual enumerates
a universal set of cost management practices and
procedures for EPA personnel. The techniques
presented by the manual can be employed at each
step of a contractor's work assignment. Checklists
and sample forms will be included in the manual to
assist EPA personnel in monitoring contractor costs.
The manual will be used to improve the oversight of
EPA contractors without creating an unnecessary
administrative burden.
1.6.4 Ensuring Consistency in Risk
Assessment and Risk
Management
During the fiscal year, EPA continued initiatives
begun under the 1991 30-Day Study to ensure
consistency in Superfund risk assessment and risk
management. 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. To target improvements for
risk assessments, a review of Agency-wide risk
characterization practices was performed in 1992.
The Risk Assessment Council, responsible for the
review, published their findings inGuidance on Risk
Characterization for Risk Managers and Risk
Assessors. The Agency began adopting the council's
findings in FY92, and continued these efforts in
FY93. The council's findings call for providing
more thorough characterizations of risk, increasing
comparability among Agency risk assessments, and
highlighting the role of professional scientific
judgement in risk assessment.
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
FY92, the Superfund Risk Management Workgroup
defined areas of risk management that may lead to
inconsistency in decision making, and the Agency
began evaluating these areas. For example, the Agency
examined future land use as it affects remedy selection
to help develop guidance.
30
-------
Chapter 2
Site Evaluation Progress
By the end of FY93, nearly 37,500 potential
hazardous waste sites had been identified and added
to the Superfund inventory. EPA continued its
progress in evaluating these sites; by the end of the
year, EPA and states had evaluated more than 95
percent of these sites for potential threats posed. To
enhance future site evaluation, EPA continued
planning the implementation of the streamlined,
single-assessment process of the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-Up Model (SACM). EPA also
proceeded with ongoing efforts to address technical
complexities associated with lead and radionuclide
contamination, and improved site evaluation
guidance.
2.1 SITE EVALUATION PROCESS
The Superfund site evaluation process begins
when EPA is notified of a potentially threatening
hazardous waste site or incident. The Agency records
basic information about the site in the inventory of
potential hazardous waste sites maintained in the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), which
also tracks subsequent actions and decisions at the
site. At sites that pose an immediate threat to human
health, welfare, or the environment, EPA conducts a
removal action to address the threat. At other sites, a
two-stage assessment is conducted, consisting of (1)
a preliminary assessment (PA) to determine whether
a potential threat exists and (2) a site inspection (SI)
to determine the relative threat posed and to evaluate
the site for possible listing on the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL is the list of sites for long-term
remedial evaluation and response.
At any point in the evaluation process, EPA may
determine that the Superfund evaluation of the site is
complete and that no further steps to list the site on
the NPL will be taken. EPA places such sites in 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), state laws, or other authorities.
A Superfund removal action may be taken after a site
is placed in the NFRAP category or at any time
during the evaluation process if an immediate threat
to human health or the environment is identified.
In planning for implementation of SACM, the
Agency worked to consolidate the assessment steps
of PAs and Sis, as well as other site studies, into a
single, integrated site evaluation process. In addition
to developing guidance on the new SACM process,
EPA conducted pilot projects to explore study
consolidation. (See also Chapter 1.)
2.2 FISCAL YEAR 1993
PROGRESS
During FY93, EPA continued its progress in
identifying and assessing potential hazardous waste
sites. Exhibit 2.2-1 illustrates the status of sites
evaluated through the end of the fiscal year.
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms Referenced in Chapter 2
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
DOE Department of Energy
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HRS Hazard Ranking System
IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
NAREL National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned
NPL National Priorities List
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
ORD Office of Research and Development
ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PA Preliminary Assessment
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SACM Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
SI Site Inspection
SIP Site Inspection Priorization
TIB Toxics Integration Branch
TSC Technical Support Center
2.2.1 CERCLIS Site Additions:
Discoveries and Removals
When the Agency is notified of a site that may
pose a threat, EPA records basic information about
the site in CERCLIS, the national inventory of
potential hazardous waste sites. EPA is notified of
potential hazardous waste sites in a variety of ways.
Information may be provided by states, handlers of
hazardous materials, or concerned citizens. Local
law enforcement officials may submit a formal report
to EPA or facility managers may notify EPA of a
release as required by CERCLA Section 103. Section
103 specifies that a person, such as a manager in
charge of a vessel or facility, must immediately
report to the National Response Center any release of
hazardous substance of an amount that is equal to or
greater than the reportable quantity for that substance.
The National Response Center operates a 24-hour
hotline for immediate notification. Penalties are
imposed for failure to comply with this reporting
requirement.
EPA added approximately 1,100 sites to
CERCLIS during FY93, bringing the total number
of sites under Superfund to nearly 37,500. With the
exception of 400 sites where a removal action was
conducted to immediately address threats posed by
the sites, PAs have been or will be conducted to
assess threats posed by the sites.
2.2.2 Preliminary Assessments
Completed
When notified of a potential hazardous waste
site, EPA or the state will conduct a PA to assess the
threat posed by the site. The PA can include either
on-site or off-site reconnaissance activities, such as
an on-site visit or survey, an off-site perimeter survey,
or collection of data from local authorities. EPA or
the state will also review other existing site-specific
information for such items as past state permitting
activities, local population statistics, and any other
information concerning the site's potential effect
upon the environment. PA activities enable the
Agency or state to determine whether further study
of the site or removal assessment/action is necessary,
or whether the site should be categorized as NFRAP.
If the PA indicates that a potential threat to human
health or the environment is posed by the site, EPA
will perform an SI to determine whether the site
should be proposed for listing on the NPL.
EPA and states conducted more than 1,100 PAs
in FY93. Since the inception of Superfund, EPA and
states have completed PAs at approximately 35,200
sites, which is more than 95 percent of the sites in
CERCLIS where PAs were required; an additional
2,100 sites still require PAs. The Agency has classified
approximately 40 percent of sites where a PA has
been conducted as NFRAP; the remainder have
proceeded to the SI stage for more extensive
evaluation.
2.2.3 Site Inspections Completed
The purpose of the SI is to continue the evaluation
of a site to determine whether a site is appropriate for
listing on the NPL. The SI usually includes collecting
32
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 2.2-1
Status of Sites in the Superfund Inventory
No Further Remedial
Action Planned—site
does not meet criteria
for placement on NPL.
(Sites have been
referred to state or
local governments, the
RCRA program, the
NRC, businesses, or
individuals for cleanup.)
400 Sites
Removal
Only
37,500
CERCLIS Sites
14,400
Sites
PAs
Completed at
35,200 Sites
Sis
Completed at
16,400 Sites
NPL
1,320 NPL Sites Listed,
Proposed, or Deleted
Source: CERCLIS.
and analyzing 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.
During the SI, data are gathered through
increasingly focused collection efforts. At any time
during the SI, EPA may make a NFRAP decision
S1-037-26B
based on the data. For sites judged to be prospective
candidates for the NPL, the data will be used to
calculate a score using the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS). The HRS serves as a screening device to
evaluate and measure the relative threat a site poses
to human health, welfare, or the environment and to
determine whether placement on the NPL is
warranted. The HRS evaluates four pathways through
which contaminants from a site may threaten human
health or the environment: ground water, surface
water, soil, and air.
The Agency completed more thanTOO Sis during
FY93 for a total of more than 16,400 Sis conducted
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
since the inception of the Superfund program.
Approximately 45 percent of these Sis have resulted
in NFRAP decisions. As of the close of the fiscal
year, there were approximately 2,700 sites where,
based on data from the PA, Sis were necessary but
had not yet been completed.
2.3 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
The NPL is the list of sites for long-term remedial
evaluation and response. EPA evaluates the potential
hazard of sites using the HRS. If a site scores 28.50
or higher, the Agency 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 remains on
the NPL until no further CERCLA response action is
appropriate. When these conditions are met, EPA
deletes the site from the NPL.
2.3.1 National Priorities List Updates
At the end of FY93, there were 1,320 NPL sites
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL:
1,197 currently listed sites, 71 proposed sites, 51
deleted sites where all CERCLA clean-up goals have
been achieved, and 1 site that was deferred to another
authority for cleanup. Exhibit 2.3-1 illustrates the
historical number of final sites on the NPL for each
fiscal year since SARA was enacted in 1986.
Of the 1,320 NPL sites at the end of FY93,
• 1,177 were non-federal sites (1,074 currently
listed sites, 51 proposed sites, 51 deleted sites,
and 1 deferred site); and
• 143 were federal facility sites (123 currently
listed sites and 20 proposed sites).
Updates to the NPL during FY93 included current
listing of 33 sites (26 non-federal and 7 federal
facility sites), proposal of 52 sites (34 non-federal
and 18 federal facility sites), deletion of 11 sites
(non-federal sites), and deferral of one site (non-
federal site). Seven sites were proposed for deletion
during the fiscal year, including four of the sites that
were deleted and the one site that was deferred.
Listings and proposals to the NPL were included in
a final rule, published in the Federal Register on
October 14, 1992, and three proposed rules (NPL
Updates 13, 14, and 15), published in the Federal
Register on October 14, 1992, May 10, 1993, and
June 23,1993.
2.3.2 Relationship Between CERCLIS
and NPL Data
CERCLIS is used to track the discovery of
potential hazardous waste sites, including those that
are subsequently listed on the NPL, and to track
actions at these sites. Of the nearly 37,500 sites in
CERCLIS at the end of FY93, 1,320 were either
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from 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
(approximately 3.5 percent), they generally are the
most complex and environmentally significant sites.
Under CERCLA, EPA can only use the Trust Fund
for long-term remedial actions at NPL sites. Fund
money, however, can be used to undertake a removal
action at a site, whether or not it is on the NPL.
Chapter 4 of this Report highlights progress in
remediating NPL sites.
2.4 SITE EVALUATION SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES
EPA manages two support programs dedicated
to addressing lead and radionuclide contamination
since these contaminants present special hazards and
problems. During the fiscal year, EPA continued its
progress under these programs. Under the lead
program, EPA developed a model and guidance for
determining acceptable levels of lead in soil and
analyzed results from a three-city study on lead
contamination. Under the radiation program, EPA
continued to develop guidance addressing radiation
issues, examined environmental fate and transport
modeling for radionuclides, and assisted the Regions
in addressing radioactive sites.
34
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 2.3-1
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1993
Sites Added 99
1,2
Total 80
Sites Added
Previously Listed
This graph illustrates final NPL sites only and reflects the fact that EPA deleted 13 sites from FY80 to FY86,4 sites in
FY88,11 sites in FY89,1 site in FY90,9 sites in FY91,2 sites in FY92, and 11 sites in FY93. At these deleted sites, all
CERCLA clean-up objectives were achieved. In FY93, one additional site was deleted because it was deferred to
another authority for cleanup. Also, in FY93 seven sites were either voluntarily removed from the NPL or removed from
the NPL by court order. The total of final, proposed, and deleted NPL sites as of September 30,1993 was 1,320.
The total number of sites listed final on the NPL from 1983 to 1986 was 703.
Source: Federal Register notices through September 30,1993.
2.4.1 Lead Program Progress
Lead is one of the most frequently found toxic
substances at Superfund sites. Lead is also a major
contaminant and health threat to children in urban
areas that are not associated with Superfund sites.
EPA is attempting to better assess the effects of lead
contamination in three initiatives: developing the
Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK)
Model, revising the Soil Lead Directive, and
conducting the Three-City Lead Study.
The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model
To aid Regional risk managers in establishing
lead clean-up levels forsoil, EPA'sToxics Integration
51-037-130
Branch (TIB) is developing risk assessment
procedures and tools such as the IEUBK Model. This
model estimates blood-lead levels in children who
may have been exposed to lead through air, soil, dust,
drinking water, and paint, or their diet. The IEUBK
Model uses site-specific data or, if no such data are
available, default values that are based on national
averages. Risk managers can also use the model with
reasonable parameter assumptions in order to evaluate
response options where significant threats exist.
During FY93, EPA continued to work on an
IEUBK manual that will provide guidance to risk
assessors and managers for using site-specific data in
the IEUBK Model, and for identifying the most
appropriate methods for collecting data. Fiscal year
activities included validating the IEUBK Model by
studying data from Superfund sites contaminated
35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
with lead from mining and smelting activities. Future
validation studies will be conducted using urban
sites and battery-recycling sites.
Soil Lead Directive
In FY93, TIB began revising the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OS WER) directive
on lead in soil. The revised directive will present a
streamlined approach for determining protective
levels of lead in soil at Superfund and RCRA
corrective action sites. To support the revision, TIB
consulted the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances for information on its regulatory
program for lead in soil, dust, and paint and also with
representatives from the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), the Agency forToxic Substances and Disease
Registry, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The revised directive will establish
lead screening levels, below which no further action
would normally be required, and will outline a
process, using the IEUBK Model, that can be used in
developing site-specific soil clean-up goals. It will
also provide guidance for identifying all potential
sources of exposure to lead in an effort to keep
exposure to the lowest level possible.
Three-City Lead Study
During the fiscal year, EPA analyzed data
generated by \heThree-C ity Lead Study. The purpose
of the study, which is being conducted by EPA with
the support of the CDC and the Department of
Agriculture, is to determine whether reducing lead in
residential soil and dust (interior house dust and
exterior soil dust) results in a decrease of blood-lead
levels of children exposed to the contaminant. Data
were gathered from groups of children in Baltimore,
Boston, and Cincinnati living in selected areas within
each city. Each area was chosen on the basis of
several factors, including the age of the housing, the
reported incidence of lead poisoning, the expected
turnover rate for residents, and the potential for
neighborhood involvement in the project.
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) finalized the reports on the
Baltimore and Cincinnati studies and began analyzing
combined data sets for all three cities. OERR and
ORD prepared a draft report that integrated the
results of \heThree-CityLeadStudy data set, circulated
the draft report for internal review, and provided it
for external review. EPA held a workshop to discuss
comments received.
2.4.2 Radiation Program Progress
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, examining environmental fate
and transport modeling, conducting technology dem-
onstrations and evaluations, and providing other
technical support to the Regions.
Superfund Program Guidance
During FY93, EPA continued its efforts to address
radiation issues through guidance development
including the following:
• Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST): TIB cooperated with the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) to update
toxicity information on radionuclides for the
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST).
• Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment
Manual: ORIA is developing guidance for
environmental pathway modeling and toxicity
assessment for radionuclides. As of the end of
the fiscal year, the draft manual had undergone
peer review.
• Soil Treatability Guidance: ORIA began
developing guidance for determining the
appropriate treatment options for soil
contaminated with radionuclides.
• Development of Clean-Up Levels: ORIA
continued to develop standard clean-up levels
for radioactive materials in soil and ground
water at radionuclide-contaminated federal
facility sites.
36
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Environmental Fate and Transport
Modeling
Representatives from OSWER and ORIA
continued to work with representatives from the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) as part of an
interagency working group evaluating environmental
fate and transport modeling for radionuclides. The
working group completed the following three reports
during the year:
• Computer Models Used to Support Decision
Making at Hazardous and Radioactive Waste
Sites: This report describes and classifies the
types of computer models that are being used to
support decision making at hazardous and
radioactive waste sites.
• Environmental Characteristics of EPA, NRC,
and DOE Sites Contaminated with Radioactive
Substances: This report provides an overview of
general and unique problems prevalent at
radionuclide- contaminated sites. The report also
characterizes NPL and Site Decommissioning
Management Program sites and lists the types of
waste found at the sites.
• Environmental Pathway Models - Ground-
Water Modeling in Support of Remedial Decision
Making at Sites Contaminated with Radioactive
Material: This report addresses the role of and
need for modeling to support remedial decision
making at sites contaminated with radioactive
material.
Regional Assistance
ORIA provided the Regional offices with
assistance to address NPL sites contaminated with
radioactive materials. In addition, the ORIA National
Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
(NAREL), assisted by the ORIA Las Vegas Facility,
continued to serve as an EPA technical support
center (TSC). ORIA and its laboratories provided the
following site-specific support to Regional programs:
• ORIA assisted Region 2 in resolving a
disagreement with DOE concerning appropriate
clean-up levels for radium and thorium and in
evaluating remedial technologies in Maywood,
New Jersey. ORIA also reviewed proposed
alternatives for remedial action and assisted in
remedial technology evaluation for the W.R.
Grace site in Wayne, New Jersey.
In Region 3, ORIA provided a scanner van to
locate radionuclide-contaminated properties in
Lansdowne, Pennsylvania.
ORIA continued to provide assistance to Region
4 for oversight of the DOE remediation efforts in
Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
In Region 5, ORIA supported risk assessment
and document review activities, as well as
decision making on the cleanup of thorium, at
the Kerr-McGee/West Chicago site.
InRegion 7, ORIA assisted inevaluatingremedial
technologies and determining the clean-up level
for thorium at the Weldon Springs site. ORIA
also supported OERR and the Region in
recommending interim safety measures at the St.
Louis Airport site.
ORIA assisted in evaluating remedial
technologies for the Denver Radium site in
Region 8. For the Rocky Flats site, ORIA worked
with the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) on
technical issues associated with the site; NAREL/
TSC provided document review support for the
site.
In Region 9, NAREL/TSC evaluated clean-up
methods and assisted in the remediation activities
at the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard.
In Region 10, ORIA supported technology
evaluations for the NPL site at DOE's Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory. ORIA also
assisted the RPM at the Teledyne Wah Chang
site in reviewing documents and recommending
that the potentially responsible party conduct a
more thorough characterization of the
radioactivity at the site.
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
2.5 SITE EVALUATION
REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE
OERR published several site evaluation guidance
documents during FY93. These documents address
improvements in the site evaluation process, facilitate
the generation of useable analytical data to support
clean-up decisions, and aim to increase public
involvement throughout the site evaluation process.
2.5.1 Evaluating Superfund Sites
To improve the site evaluation process, the
Agency published guidance for implementing the
streamlined SACM process, prioritizing sites for
evaluation, and providing additional information on
the health effects of hazardous substances found at
Superfund sites. Guidance issued during the year
included the following:
• Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST) (EPA 540-R-93-058), March 1993:
This document contains provisional slope factors,
reference doses, and reference concentrations
for chemicals commonly found at Superfund
sites. HEAST is Superfund's secondary source
for toxicity information; the primary source is
the Integrated Risk Information System.
• Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST), Supplement No. 1 to the March 1993
Annual Update (OERR 9200.6-3-3 [93-1]), July
1993: This document supplements the annual
HEAST by providing toxicity information for
additional chemicals and updated information
for previously documented chemicals.
• Additional Guidance on "Worst Sites" and
"NPL-Caliber Sites" to Assist SACM
Implementation, August 1993: This document
provides criteria to guide EPA Regions in
identifying NPL-caliber sites. The document
also defines the types of actions needed to support
the Agency's implementation of SACM, thereby
facilitating data gathering to support NPL listing
and remedial investigation/feasibility study
decisions.
Site InspectionPrioritizationGuidance (9345.1 -
15FS), August 1993: This fact sheet provides
guidance to EPA, state, and contractor staff on
prioritizing sites that require Sis. The fact sheet
also discusses the SI prioritization (SIP) process,
the different levels of activity that a SIP may
entail, and steps in reviewing and evaluating
existing information.
Integrating Removal and Remedial Site
Assessment Investigations (EPA 540-F-93-038),
September 1993: This factsheet provides specific
direction for integrating PAs, Sis, and removal
assessments for planning SACM integrated
assessments.
2.5.2 Improving Data Usability
The Agency developed guidance to ensure the
quality of data generated under the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) and to facilitate the
ultimate use of the data in the site evaluation process.
Guidance issued during the year included the
following:
• Procedures to Ensure that CLP Laboratories
are not Paid for Non-Compliant or Unusable
Data (OSWER Directive 9200.9-02), August
1993: This directive requires the Regions to
actively accept CLP data by submitting completed
data acceptance/rejected/reduced value forms to
Headquarters. Forms must be submitted within
the government inspection and acceptance period
stated in CLP contracts. The directive also
requires each Region to designate a data
acceptance official, who is responsible for
preparing standard operating procedures for the
data review process and for training all CLP
users in program procedures.
• Guidelines for Management of Technical and
Evidentiary Audits of CLP Laboratories
(Analytical Operations Branch Guidance 001-
93), September 1993: This guidance describes
the Technical Project Officer's role in monitoring
CLP laboratory performance, including guidance
for tracking actions that laboratories have
undertaken to correct any deficiencies.
38
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
2.5.3 Increasing Community
Involvement
EPA published guidance for EPA staff,
contractors, and the general public with the intent of
increasing public involvement in the site evaluation
process. The documents assist EPA in addressing
citizens' concerns, answering their questions, and
helping the average citizen understand the site
evaluation process.
• Guide to Community Involvement for Site
AssessmentManagers(9345.4-02FS),September
1993: This fact sheet, directed to EPA staff and
site assessment contractors, suggests ways to
communicate information about Superfund
activities to the public throughout the site
evaluation process. The document discusses the
most effective ways to address citizens' concerns
and provides answers to the most commonly
asked questions.
Site Assessment: Evaluating Risks at Superfund
Sites (9345.4-03FS), September 1993: This fact
sheet, written for the general public, explains the
site evaluation process in nontechnical language
and suggests ways that concerned citizens can
participate.
39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
40
-------
Chapter 3
Removal Progress
Throughout the 13-year history of Superfund,
removal actions have successfully prevented,
minimized, or mitigated threats. EPA and potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) have initiated more than
3,350 removal actions to address threats posed by the
release orthreatened release of hazardous substances,
including nearly 310 undertaken in FY93. The
expanded use of removals, a key element of the
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model (SACM),
was a priority during FY93.
This chapterdiscusses the removal action process,
the progress achieved through Superfund removals
in addressing immediate threats to human health and
the environment, the contributions of the
Environmental Response Team (ERT), and
emergency response rulemaking and guidance
development.
3.1 REMOVAL ACTION PROCESS
Removal actions are taken in response to a
release or threat of release of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant that may present an
imminent and substantial danger to the public health
or welfare. Examples of situations that may warrant
removal actions include chemical spills or fires at
production or waste storage facilities, transportation
accidents involving hazardous substances, and illegal
disposal of hazardous waste (midnight dumping).
Exhibit 3.1-1 presents examples of the kinds of
threats that may be posed by these situations and of
the typical corresponding removal actions that may
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 may 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,
among other factors, to determine the appropriate
extent of the removal action. At any point in this
process, EPA may refer the site for further evaluation
or determine that no further action is necessary.
When the Agency concludes that a removal action is
required, an appropriate response is implemented to
minimize or eliminate the threat.
The Agency defines three kinds of removal
actions based on the time available before a response
action must be initiated. "Emergency" removal
actions require a prompt response at the site. 'Time-
critical" removal actions are conducted when the
lead agency concludes that the action must begin
within six months. For "non-time-critical" removal
actions, the planning period may extend for more
than six months. During this planning period, the
lead agency conducts an engineering evaluation/cost
analysis for the response action.
To document the selection of a response action,
the Agency prepares an action memorandum that
states the authority for initiating the action, the action
to be taken, and the basis for selecting the response.
EPA also establishes an administrative record,
compiling the documents that form the basis for the
selection of the response action.
41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 3
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
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
RA Remedial Action
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RQ Reportable Quantity
SACM Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
SRP Superfund Removal Procedures
The following sections discuss additional aspects
of the removal action process, including community
involvement, the role of the OSC, and CERCLA
limitations on the scope of removal actions.
Community Involvement in Removal
Actions
The removal process provides many opportunities
for community involvement. The Agency appoints
an official spokesperson to keep the public informed
of the progress of a given removal action. The
administrative record file and index of documents
maintained at the central location is made available
to the public (except confidental portions) 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 through such activities as
community interviews and a community relations
plan.
The On-Scene Coordinator
The OSC organizes, directs, and documents the
removal action. The specific responsibilities of the
OSC include conducting field investigations and 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 limitations on removal actions in CERCLA.
The cost of a removal action is limited to $2 million,
and the duration is limited to one year. Congress
established exemptions from these limits for specific
circumstances. A removal action may exceed the
limits if
• Continued response is required immediately to
prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency; there is
an immediate threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment; and such action cannot
otherwise be provided on a timely basis; or
• Continued response action is otherwise
appropriate and consistent with the remedial
action to be taken.
During FY93, EPA granted 11 exemptions for
removal actions to exceed the $2 million limitation.
In addition, EPA granted 15 exemptions allowing
removal actions to continue for more than one year.
3.2 FISCAL YEAR 1993
PROGRESS
Since the inception of Superfund, the Agency
and PRPs have begun more than 3,350 removal
actions at National Priorities List (NPL) and non-
NPL sites to address threats to human health, welfare,
or the environment posed by releases or potential
releases of hazardous substances. Under SACM, the
Agency will expand its use of removal actions to
further expedite response, especially at NPL sites.
3.2.1 Status Report on Removal
Progress
Of the more than 3,350 removal actions
undertaken by EPA and PRPs under the Superfund
program, 310 were started in FY93. (See Exhibit
3.2-1). Of these 310 removal actions, PRPs financed
42
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.1-1
Typical Removal 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.
51-037-12
60 and EPA financed 250. The removal actions
started by PRPs included approximately 20 removal
actions at NPL sites and 40 removal actions at non-
NPL sites. EPA started nearly 30 removal actions at
NPL sites and 220 removal actions at non-NPL sites.
The 310 removal actions begun by EPA and PRPs in
FY93 compare to approximately 380 started in FY92.
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-2, EPA and PRPs have
completed approximately 2,810 removal actions
under the Superfund program, including nearly 290
in FY93. Of the 290 removal actions completed
during the fiscal year, PRPs financed 80, including
20 at NPL sites and 60 at non-NPL sites. EPA
financed approximately 210 of the completed removal
actions, including 20 at NPL sites and 190 at non-
NPL sites. The 290 removal actions completed by
EPA and PRPs in FY93 compare to approximately
340 completed by EPA and PRPs in FY92.
Removal actions that were begun but are not yet
complete are considered "ongoing." Ongoing
removals include actions that have been in progress
less than 12 months and removal actions that have
been granted exemptions from the statutory one-year
duration limit. Sites where a removal action has
taken place but the contaminants have not yet been
transported to a disposal facility are also defined as
having ongoing removals.
3.2.2 Expanding the Use of Removal
Actions Through the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-Up Model
One of the key elements of S ACM is the expanded
use of removal authority to perform "early actions"
that reduce immediate risk rapidly and expedite NPL
site cleanups. Early actions can be emergency, time-
critical, or non-time-critical removal responses or
rapid remedial responses.
To support early actions, the Agency created a
$50 million set-aside fund from the remedial action
budget in FY92. Over $37 million of the set-aside
funding was allocated for early actions at 13 sites in
seven Regions in FY92. In FY93, all of the remaining
43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 3.2-1
Cumulative Removal Action Starts
Source: CERCLIS.
51-037-20B
set-aside funds plus an additional $7.6 million were
distributed to 16 sites in seven Regions. An extra $9
million was requested for seven sites but could not be
provided because funding was allocated on a first-
come, first-served basis, and all available funds had
been distributed. Set-aside funds are not intended to
replace the funds that Regions have historically used
for response actions at NPL sites, but to supplement
them. The additional funding, plus the remedial
funding available directly from Emergency and Rapid
Response Services (ERRS) contracts, has
significantly enhanced EPA's capacity to expedite
responses at key NPL sites. (Further 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 continue to allocate funds in the
remedial action budget for early actions. EPA is also
making progress toward awarding more ERRS
contracts, which are the primary vehicle for
implementing early actions. Regions 1 through 5
currently have ERRS contracts in place; Regions 6
through 10 plan to have ERRS contracts awarded by
1996. The only obstacle to implementing early actions
has been the limited capacity of these contracts. This
situation improved in FY93, and EPA is continuing
to work with the Regions and the Office of Acquisition
Management to expand the Agency's capability to
implement early actions.
An example of an early action at an NPL site is
the SACM pilot at the Better Brite Site in DePere,
Wisconsin. The pilot combined a time-critical
removal response and a remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS). The action, which included
44
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.2-2
Cumulative Removal Action Completions
CO
FV93
Source: CERCLIS.
51-037-21
removing contaminated soil, demolishing buildings,
and containing the spread of contaminants in the
ground-water plume, reduced immediate risk at the
site. The subsequent remedial action (RA) will consist
of construction and implementation of a pump-and-
treat system to clean up the ground-water
contamination. Under this pilot, the early action
reduced immediate risk and expedited the
implementation of an overall remedy at the site.
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
TEAM ACTIVITIES
Under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, EPA manages the ERT.
Over its 15 years of service, this team of EPA experts
has been available to OSCs and Remedial Project
Managers to support removal and remedial actions
24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In addition to its
response support, ERT conducts introductory- and
intermediate-level training courses in health and
safety and other technical aspects of response. ERT
provides expertise in emergency response, hazard
assessment, health and safety, air monitoring,
alternative and innovative technology, site
investigation, ecological damage assessment, clean-
up contractor management, and oil and chemical
spill control.
During FY93, ERT conducted approximately
100 removal actions and 70 RAs, and responded to
10 oil spills and 2 international incidents. ERT also
offered 241 training courses nationwide.
45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
3.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE
Under the importable quantity (RQ) regulatory
program, the Agency proposed adjustments to certain
RQs and to several administrative reporting
exemptions during the fiscal year. In addition, the
Agency continued updating the Superfund Removal
Procedures Manual.
3.4.1 Reportable Quantity Regulations
Section 102(b) of CERCLA, as amended, sets an
RQ of one pound for hazardous substances, except
those substances for which different RQs have been
established in Section 31 l(b)(4) of the Clean Water
Act. Section 102(a) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to
adjust RQs for hazardous substances and to designate
additional CERCLA hazardous substances.
Under CERCLA Section 103(a), the person in
charge of a vessel or facility must immediately notify
the National Response Center upon learning of a
release of hazardous substance in a quantity that
equals or exceeds itsRQ. In addition to this reporting
requirement, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 requires
that a release of a hazardous substance in a quantity
that equals or exceeds its RQ (or one pound if a
reporting trigger is not established by regulation) be
reported to state and local authorities.
Reportable Quantity Adjustments
EPA finalized RQ adjustments for 30 hazardous
substances in a June 30,1993, rule (58 FR 35314).
The substances are
• Lead metal;
• Twelve lead compounds;
• Fifteen lead-containing hazardous wastes listed
underthe Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA);
• RCRA characteristic wastes that show levels of
lead constituents exceeding minimum levels
established for the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure; and
• Methyl isocyanate (MIC).
The RQ adjustments for lead and lead compounds
were based on the neurotoxic effects of lead in
children. The potential adverse reproductive and
respiratory effects of MIC are the basis of its RQ
adjustment.
Reportable Quantity Exemptions
The Agency also proposed a rule to codify four
administrative reporting exemptions from the
requirements of CERCLA Section 103 for naturally
occurring radionuclide releases. The November 30,
1992 proposal would exempt such releases from
• Large, generally undisturbed landholdings such
as golf courses and parks;
• Disturbances of land for purposes other than
mining, such as farming or building construction;
• The dumping of coal and coal ash at utility and
industrial facilities with coal-fired boilers; and
• Coal and coal ash piles at utility and industrial
facilities with coal-fired boilers.
The Agency has determined that administrative
reporting requirements related to these releases serve
no purpose. The rule is in accordance with the
decision of the court ^Fertilizer Institute vs. United
States Environmental Protection Agency (935 F. 2nd
1303 (1991)), which specified that the original
promulgation of the exemptions in a final rule
(54 FR 22524, May 24, 1989) did not provide
sufficient notice and opportunity for public comment.
The purpose of the November 30,1992 proposal was
to provide such notice and opportunity for comment.
On March 5,1993, at the request of several parties,
the Agency reopened the comment period for an
additional 60 days to provide greater opportunity for
the public to evaluate the issues. During the year, the
Agency evaluated the public comments received on
the proposed rule.
46
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
3.4.2 Removal Guidance
The Superfund Removal Procedures (SRP)
Manual covers all procedural and administrative
requirements for removal actions. It is used by
OSCs; removal, remedial, and enforcement person-
nel; and staff from other federal and state agencies.
In FY90, EPA began restructuring the manual into
a series of 10 stand-alone volumes, each address-
ing distinct aspects of Superfund removal actions.
EPA previously completed four volumes of the
series: Consideration ofARARs During Removal
Actions, Removal Enforcement Guidance for On-
Scene Coordinators, Public Participation Guid-
ance for On-Scene Coordinators, and Action
Memorandum Guidance. During FY93, the
Agency continued working on the remaining six
SRP volumes and an overview volume.
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
48
-------
Chapter 4
Remedial Progress
The Agency's progress during FY93 illustrated
its commitment to accelerating and completing
cleanups at Superfund sites. The Agency started a
record of nearly 120 remedial actions (RAs) to
construct remedies, and completed construction
activities to place 68 sites in the construction
completion category. To date under the Superfund
program, the Agency has completed clean-up
activities to place a total of 217 National Priorities
List (NPL) sites in the construction completion
category.
This chapter describes the remedial process and
provides information on
• FY93 progress in remediating NPL sites;
• Remedial initiatives;
• Remedies selected during the year;
• 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
• Sitesrequiringfive-yearreviews.underCERCLA
Section 121(c), where contamination remained
on site after remedial action was completed.
4.1 REMEDIAL PROCESS
The remedial process complements the removal
process (see Chapter 3) by providing appropriate
response for more complicated, long-term actions
for our nation's highest-priority hazardous waste
sites, those placed on the NPL. The process begins
with 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
authority of CERCLA. Remedial activities include
the following key components:
• The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/
FS) to determine the type and extent of
contamination, and evaluate and develop
remedial clean-up alternatives;
• The record of decision (ROD) to identify the
remedy selected, based on the results of the RV
FS and public comment on the clean-up
alternatives;
• The remedial design (RD) to develop plans and
specifications needed for the construction of the
selected remedy;
• The RA to implement the selected remedy,
including the start and completion of the
construction; and
• Operation and maintenance (O&M) to assure the
effectiveness and/or integrity of the remedy for
long-term response actions.
A Remedial Project Manager (RPM) oversees
all remedial activities and related enforcement
activities. Regional Coordinators at EPA
Headquarters assist RPMs by reviewing remedial
and enforcement activities and answering technical
or policy questions.
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 4
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Clearinghouse
BBS Bulletin Board System
CA Cooperative Agreement
CERCUS CERCLA Information System
CLU-IN Ctoan-Up Information
DOE Department of Energy
ERL Environmental Research Laboratory
ETSC Engineering Technical Support Center
MMTP Monitoring and Measurement Technologies
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCS Polychtorinated Biphenyl
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RREL Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
RTDF Remedial Technologies Development Forum
SI Site Inspection
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SSL Soil Screening Level
START Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team
STL Superfund Technical Liaison
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
TIO Technology Innovation Office
TSC Technical Support Center
TSP Superfund Technical Support Project
UST Underground Storage Tank
VISITT Vender Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
4.2 FISCAL YEAR 1993
PROGRESS
The Agency's progress during the fiscal year in
initiating RAs and completing construction activities
to classify sites as construction completion, indicates
its continued commitment to accelerate the clean up
of NPL sites. By the end of FY93, work had occurred
at 94 percent of the 1,320 NPL sites. Sites deleted
from the NPL reflect an activity required to be
reported. Exhibit 4.2-1 illustrates the status of the
work atNPL sites, snowing sites by the most advanced
stage of activity accomplished. The following sections
of this report highlight progress made at the sites
during FY93.
4.2.1 Construction Completion
In response to the recommendations of the 1991
30-Day Study, the Agency has worked to accelerate
and complete cleanup at NPL sites. The Agency
completed construction activities to bring the total
number of sites in the construction completion
category to 217 by the end of the fiscal year, exceeding
the recommended FY93 target of 200. This total
includes 68 sites that achieved classification as
construction completion during FY93. Nearly 72
percent of the sites classified as construction
completion have achieved that status during the past
two years; this achievement illustrates the Agency's
commitment to accelerating and completing clean
up of Superfund sites.
4.2.2 New Remedial Actlvites
As shown in Exhibit 4.2-2, the Agency or
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) had undertaken
approxitmately 1,600 RI/FSs, 1,120 RDs, and 730
RAs under the Superfund program by the close of the
fiscal year. The remedial progress achieved by the
Agency during FY93 reflects the Agency's efforts to
accelerate the pace of cleanup by emphasizing the
initiation and completion of remedy construction at
sites. In comparison to previous fiscal years, the
emphasis on completing sites has resulted in a record
number of new RAs to construct remedies at sites,
and decreases in the number of new, earlier stage,
RDs and RI/FSs. New remedial activities undertaken
this fiscal year include
• RI/FS Starts: EPA initiated more than 30 RI/FSs
during FY93, and PRPs started more than 20, or
40 percent, for a total of nearly 60 RI/FSs started
during the fiscal year. In comparison, EPA and
PRPs each started 50 percent of nearly 90 RI/FSs
in FY92.
• RD Starts: The Agency or PRPs started
approximately 130 RDs during FY93, including
40 financed by EPA and 90 (65 percent) financed
50
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.2-1
Work Has Occurred at 94 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites
Proposed NPL Sites
Final NPL Sites
Subtotal
Deleted - Referred to
Another Authority
Deleted NPL Sites
Total
393
(Includes 143 Federal Facilities)
Source: CERCLIS.
51-037-1D
by PRPs. During FY92, the Agency or PRPs
started approximately 170 RDs, including 50
financed by EPA and 120 financed by PRPs.
RA Starts: The Agency or PRPs started nearly
120 RAs during FY93; EPA financed 30 and
PRPs financed 90, or approximately 80 percent.
During FY92, the Agency or PRPs started
approximately 110 RAs, including 30 financed
by EPA and 80 financed by PRPs.
4.2.3 Status of Remedial and
Enforcement Activities in
Progress
At the end of FY93,1,305 RI/FS and RA projects
were in progress at 727 NPL sites, compared with
1,274 RI/FS and RA projects at 751 NPL sites at the
end of FY92. FY93 projects included 919 RI/FSs
and 386 RAs. As required by CERCLA Sections
301(h)(l)(B), (C), and (F), a listing of the projects in
progress at the end of FY93 is provided in Appendix
A, along with a projected completion schedule for
each project. There were also 445 RDs in progress at
the end of FY93, compared with 412 RDs in progress
at the end of FY92. A listing of all RDs in progress
at the end of FY93 is provided in Appendix B.
Of the 1,305 RI/FS and RA projects in progress
at the end of FY93, 61 percent were on schedule,
ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal year, or
had no previously published completion schedule,
and 39 percent were behind schedule. These projects
include 423 on schedule, 40 ahead of schedule, 259
started during the fiscal year, 71 that had no previously
published completion schedule, and 512 that were
behind schedule. Exhibit4.2-3 compares the number
of projects in progress at the end of FY92 and FY93
at NPL sites, by lead.
PRPs were conducting 471 of the RI/FS and RA
projects in progress at the end of FY93, including
264 RI/FS and 207 RAs. Of these 471 PRP-financed
51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 4.2-2
Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program
for Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1993
730
Remedial Actions
Remedial investigation/Feasibility Studies
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Number of Actions
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS.
51-O37-18
projects, 62 percent were on schedule, ahead of
schedule, started during the fiscal year, or had no
previously published completion schedule, and 38
percent were behind schedule. Projects include 146
on schedule, 14 ahead of schedule, 106 started during
the fiscal year, 26 that had no previously published
completion schedule, and 179 that were behind
schedule.
The status of RI/FSs and RAs in progress at the
end of the fiscal year is based on a comparison of each
project's planned completion date in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS) at the end of FY92
with the planned completion date in CERCLIS at the
end of FY93. 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 by the Regions, and they usually rely on
standard planning assumptions (e.g., 12 quarters for
an RI/FS). As work continues, Regions adjust
schedules for projects to reflect actual site conditions.
4.3 REMEDIAL INITIATIVES
The 1993 Administrative Improvements Task
Force recommended continuing several efforts
initiated under the 30-Day Study to streamline
remedial activities and increase consistency and
efficiency in the Superfund program. The three
primary efforts were developing presumptive
remedies, establishing soil screening levels, and
developing guidance on the technical impracticability
ARAR waiver.
Presumptive Remedies
As part of the administrative improvement
52
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.2-3
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead
for Fiscal Year 1992 and Fiscal Year 1993
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
FY92 FY93
37 28
153 145
15 21
259 219
2 0
51 45
3 2
400 459
920 919
RDS
FY92 FY93
22 25
104 107
4 4
233 238
3 1
15 23
0 1
31 46
412 445
RAS
FY92 FY93
29 26
105 95
2 3
151 186
7 9
20 21
0 0
40 46
354 386
i 1ncludes remedial program-lead projects and enforcement program -lead projects.
1 Projects at which EPA employees, rather than contractors, perform the site clean-up work.
Projects where site clean-up work is financed and performed by the PRPs under state order, with EPA oversight.
Sources: Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY92 (Appendices A and B) and FY93 (Appendices A and B).
51-037-25
initiative, the Agency is continuing to develop
presumptive remedies to streamline the remedy
selection process for certain categories of sites. On
September 30,1993, the Agency issued directives on
presumptive remedies for municipal landfill sites
and sites with soil contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). The Agency also issued a
directive on policies and procedures for using
presumptive remedies.
Additional presumptive remedies directives are
being developed for wood treater, polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB), manufactured gas plant, grain
storage, and ground-water sites. The Office of
Research and Development (ORD) supported the
development of the presumptive remedies by
providing a technical basis for identifying remedies
for these categories of sites.
To trial test the use of presumptive remedies, the
Agency selected sites to demonstrate presumptive
remedies formunicipal landfills and soil contaminated
with VOCs. Demonstrations are also planned for
other categories of presumptive remedies.
Soil Screening Levels
The effort to develop soil screening levels (SSLs)
continued under the administrative improvements
initiative. The Agency issued a draft guidance on
SSLs on September 30,1993, following a review by
EPA Regional offices. The guidance was issued to
the public in draft form to facilitate discussion with
all parties that might be interested, such as states,
environmental groups, and financial lending
institutions. The Agency will also publish a revised
draft in the Federal Register to solicit further
comment.
The draft SSL guidance proposed threshold levels
of chemical concentrations in soil that would generally
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
warrant site-specific study of risks. Levels above the
screening level would not automatically trigger
remedial action, or cause a site to be designated as
"contaminated," but further evaluation of the site
would be required. Generally, where chemical
concentrations fall below the SSL, no further action
or study would be required.
Guidance on the Technical
Impracticability ARAR Waiver
Guidance issued October 4, 1993, provides a
consistent process for invoking the technical
impracticability ARAR waiver. The requirement for
meeting ARARs may be waived when they cannot be
attained using available technology. The waiver is
invoked primarily at ground-water sites, particularly
sites that may be contaminated with dense non-
aqueous-phase liquids (DNAPLs). The waiver can
be invoked before the ROD is signed if sufficient
supporting data is provided. Typically, the waiver is
invoked following implementation of a ground-
water remedy, afterperformance monitoring data are
available.
The guidance stresses the need to develop
alternative remedial strategies where maximum
contaminant levels or other requirements cannot be
reached. Alternative strategies may establish less
stringent goals, a limited area of restoration, or
containment. The guidance incorporates a phased
approach to ground-water restoration, where limited
systems are implemented early to stop plume
migration and test the practicability of restoration,
after which a final remedy decision will be made.
4.4 REMEDY SELECTION
The Agency signed 190RODs in FY93, including
134 new and amended RODs for PRP-financed and
Fund-financed sites and 56 RODs for federal facility
sites.
The ROD documents the results of all studies
performed on the site, identifies each remedial
alternative that the Agency considered, and explains
the basis for selecting one of them as a remedy. The
ROD is signed after completion of the RI/FS and
after the public has had the opportunity to comment
on the remedial alternatives under consideration.
The Agency selected a variety of remedies in FY93
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 4.4-1 lists
the number and types of source-control treatment
and containment remedies selected in FY93 RODs.
It also identifies the number of remedies selected for
addressing contaminated ground water. Exhibit4.4-2
represents the 190 FY93 RODs by percentage
comparison based on the type of remedies selected.
Exhibit 4.4-3 represents the distribution of treatment
and containment remedies selected in the 190 FY93
RODs.
The list of the 190 RODs signed during FY93 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 ROD has been published in the
ROD Annual Report: FY1993.
4.5 USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
In each year since the enactment of SARA, more
than 70 percent of the RODs have contained provisions
for the treatment of wastes. To promote the use of
innovative treatment technologies and to satisfy the
CERCLA requirement for preference of treatment
remedies, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and ORD
established the Superfund Innovative Technologies
Evaluation (SITE) program, administered by ORD.
ORD has also established six technical support centers
(TSCs) to increase the speed and quality of Superfund
cleanups, reduce clean-up costs, address technical
54
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.4-1
Summary of Remedies Selected in Fiscal Year 1993 Records of Decision1
Source Control
Remediation Occurrences
Treatment Technologies
Immobilization
In Situ Vacuum/Vapor Extraction
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
To Be Determined/Unspecified
Treatment Technologies
Bioremediation
Thermal Desorption
Air Sparging
Soil Flushing
Volatilization/Aeration
Dechlorination
Soil Washing
In Situ Vitrification
Solvent Extraction
Chemical Treatment
Total
I uiai
Other Treatment
Decontamination
Recycling/Recovery
Surface Water Treatment
NAPLs Treatment
Gas Flaring
Total
1 WlCII
Containment Only
On Site
Off Site
Total
Other Actions (e.g., Institutional
Controls, monitoring)
25
19
14
13
13
10
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
101
11
10
7
8
6
42
25
11
36
4
1 Based on 190 FY93 RODs, including 56 federal facility
with a ROD.
Contaminated
Ground-Water
Remediation Occurrences
Ground-Water Treatment
Physical
Air Stripping
Carbon Adsorption
Filtration
Oil/Water Separation
Air Sparging
Aeration
Steam Stripping
Chemical
Chemical/Physical
CoagulatiorVFfocculation
Electrochemical Reduction
In Situ Oxidation
Ion Exchange
Neutralization (pH Adjustment)
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
Precipitation
Reduction/Oxidation
Sedimentation/Clarification
UV/Oxidation
Waste Water Treatment Plant
Other Treatments
To Be Determined/Unspecified
Treatment Technologies
Bioremediation (In Situ/Ex Situ)
31
18
16
8
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
4
5
15
11
4
6
1
1
15
3
Total 150
Other Remedies
Natural Attenuation
Plume Management
Alternate Water Supply
Leachate Treatment
Other Ground-Water Actions
(Institutional Controls,
Monitoring)
Total
RODs. More than one remedy may be associated
16
10
8
8
6
48
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Hazardous Site Control Division.
51-037-3BA
55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 4.4-2
Percentage Distribution of Remedies Selected
In Fiscal Year 1993 Records of Decision
No Action/No
Further Action
(41 RODs) 22%
Ground-Water
Control Only
(30 RODs) 16%
Ground-Water and
Source Control
(59 RODs) 31%
Source Control Only
(60 RODs) 32%
Source: EPA Hazardous Site Control Division.
issues encountered in site cleanup, and provide the
Regional Superfund staff with technical resources.
ORD also supports information transfer activities,
including seminars, bulletins, and computersystems,
and supplies technical assistance to the federal, state,
and public sectors in evaluating potentially applicable
treatments.
For Superfund, the Technology Innovation Office
(TIO) has the responsibility of encouraging the use
of innovative technologies. TIO uses booklets,
journals, databases, and conferences to alert project
managers, engineers, academics, contractors, and
other interested parties to the availability of new
technologies.
Within the Agency, TIO works with other offices
to affect policy change, assists the implementation of
demonstrations of technologies under the SITE
program, analyzes trends in technology application,
identifies vendors and remediation markets, and
champions innovative technologies within EPA.
Outside EPA, TIO works with interested parties to
51-037-37
identify opportunities for increased collaboration in
developing technologies.
4.5.1 Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program
Progress
To promote the use of innovative treatment
technologies and to satisfy the CERCLA requirement
for preference of treatment remedies, OSWER and
ORD established the SITE program. ORD's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, administers the
SITE program. The goals of the program are the
development, demonstration, and subsequent
application of new innovative treatment technologies.
As part of this program, ORD invites technology
developers to demonstrate new, innovative
technologies for waste from NPL sites.
The SITE program, in its eighth year as of FY93,
has been an integral part of EPA's research into
56
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.4-3
Distribution of Treatment and Containment Remedies Selected in
Fiscal Year 1993 Records of Decision
2
g
•5
i
Other Actions
Interim
Final
Treatment with or
without Residual
Containment
Treatment and
Containment
Containment Only
Source: EPA Hazardous Site Control Division
51 -037-38
alternative clean-up methods for hazardous waste
sites. Under the program, EPA awards cooperative
agreements (CAs) to technology developers. These
developers then refine a technology during bench- or
pilot-scale tests. With support from EPA, developers
may also demonstrate a technology in the field at a
hazardous waste site. EPA collects and publishes
engineering, performance, and cost data on the
technologies tested through the program to inform
future decision making for remediation of hazardous
waste sites.
EPA's analysis of technologies tested under the
SITE program indicates that innovative treatment
technologies provided a cost savings as compared to
standard remedial treatments. For example, Exhibit
4.5-1 illustrates an analysis of 17 RODs where
remedial technologies under the SITE program were
tested. The average cost savings for innovative
treatment technology versus standard treatment per
site was $21 million dollars or 62 percent.
The successful implementation of innovative
technologies requires a team approach. Accordingly,
SITE program staff members work closely with
EPA's Regional offices, states, technology
developers, the Superfund Technical Assistance
Response Team (START), 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,
at a minimum, proven on the conceptual or bench-
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 4.5-1
Cost Savings with Innovative Technologies1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 5
Region 9
200
Dollars in Millions
250
300
350
Average Savings Per Region = 55%
1990-1992 ROD information: Not including administrative costs
Source: Office of Research and Development
S1-037-23B
scale level. EPA's intent is to advance these
technologies to the more rigorous testing of the
Demonstration Program after initial testing. Under
the EmergingTechnologies Program, the applicability
of particular technologies to Superfund site waste
characteristics is evaluated. Each technology's
performance is documented in a final report, project
summary, and bulletin. In response to the FY92
solicitation, 11 new technologies were accepted in
the Emerging Technologies Program in FY93,
bringing the total numberto 64. Exhibit4.5-2 provides
a percentage breakdown, by treatment technique, of
the technologies tested in the Emerging Technologies
Program through FY93.
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 the
cleanup of a particular site. 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, application to types of
wastes and waste matrices, potential operating
problems, and approximate capital and operating
costs. During FY93, 15 new technologies were
accepted into the Demonstration Program, including
4 from the annual request for proposals, 2 from the
58
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.5-2
Innovative Technologies in the Emerging Technology Program
Physical/Chemtca
34 (53%) ^
Thermal Destruction
9 (14%)
Biological
Degradation
15 (23%)
Materials
Handling
6 (9%)
Source: Office of Research and Development.
EmergingTechnologies Program, 1 from nominations
by EPA Regional offices and other federal agencies,
and 8 from other sources. As of December 1993, the
program included 98 technology projects, 8 of which
were demonstrated in FY93. Exhibit 4.5-3 provides
a percentage breakdown by treatment technique of
technologies in the Demonstration Program as of the
end of FY93. A description of the eight
demonstrations conducted in FY93 is provided later
in this chapter.
Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program
(MMTP)
The goal of this program is to assess innovative
and alternative monitoring, measurement, and site
characterization technologies. During FY93,
demonstrations of six technologies were conducted;
each demonstration included one or more monitoring
and measurement techniques.
51-037-33
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 assessing and
remediating Superfund sites, and to encourage
communication among individuals who require up-
to-date technical information.
Fiscal Year 1993 Demonstrations of
Innovative Treatment Technologies
To evaluate new treatment technologies,
developers completed 8 field demonstrations during
FY93, bringing the total number of demonstrations
that have been completed under the SITE
Demonstration Program to 57. The demonstrations
completed in FY93 are summarized below.
59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 4.5-3
Innovative Technologies in the Demonstration Program
Thermal
Desorption
15 (15%)
Radioactive
2 (2%)
Materials
Handling
4 (4%)
Solidification/
Stabilization
9 (9%)
Physical/Chemical
37 (38%)
Thermal
Destruction
10(10%)
Biological
Degradation
19(19%)
Other
2 (2%)
Source: Office of Research and Development.
CIS/Solution, Inc. developed CIS/Key, a
comprehensive, menu-driven environmental database
management system. CIS/Key consists of six modules
that facilitate collecting, reporting, and analyzing
electronic site data. The system can produce maps,
graphs, tables, and backlogs that are designed to
meet CERCLA and RCRA reporting requirements.
The use of this automated system for site data will
result in significant labor and cost savings. The
technology was accepted into the SITE demonstration
program in summer 1992 and demonstrated in San
Francisco, California, in August 1993.
Hughes Environmental Systems, Inc.'s Steam-
Enhanced Recovery Process removes most VOCs
and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) from
contaminated soil both above and below the water
table. The process accelerates contaminant removal
rates and can be effective in all types of soil. Using
injection wells, it forces steam through the soil to
thermally enhance the recovery process. Extraction
wells pump and treat the ground water and then
transport vaporized contaminants to the surface.
51-037-32
Recovered nonaqueous liquids are separated,
hydrocarbons are collected for recycling, and vapors
are condensed and treated. The demonstration of this
technology began in August 1991 and was completed
in September 1993 in Huntington Beach, California.
Magnum Water Technology's CAV-OX process
uses a synergistic combination of hydrodynamics,
cavitation, and ultraviolet radiation to oxidize organic
contaminants in ground water or waste water. The
process is designed to remove the contaminants
without releasing gaseous VOCs. Treatment costs
are estimated to be about half that of advanced
ultraviolet oxidation systems and substantially less
than carbon absorption. Maintenance costs are also
minimal because the equipment used in the process
has only one moving part. This technology, which
was accepted into the demonstration program in
summer 1992, was demonstrated in March 1993 at
Edwards Air Force Base in Edwards, California.
EPA /?/?£Ldeveloped a process to remediate soil
and sediment contaminated with chlorinated organic
compounds. Through the base-catalyzed
60
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
dechlorination process, chemicals are mixed with
the contaminated matrix and then heated. The process
strips off chlorine from PCBs or other halogenated
material. Off-gases are then treated and released. The
technology was demonstrated at the Koppers site in
Morrisville, North Carolina, in August 1993.
The Illinois Institute of Technology/Halliburton
NUS developed radio frequency (RF) heating, an in
situ process that uses electromagnetic energy to
volatilize organic contamination in soil. The RF
heating technology can heat soil to temperatures up
to 600 degrees Celsius using electrodes embedded in
the soil. Contaminants are then removed by
conventional soil-vapor extraction methods, and the
vapors are treated with existing technologies. The
RF heating process was accepted into the SITE
demonstration program in summer 1992. It was
demonstrated at the Kelly Air Force Base in San
Antonio, Texas, during summer 1993 as part of a
joint project with the U.S. Air Force.
Filter Flow Technology, Inc.'s colloid sorption
method is a polishing-filter process that removes
ionic colloidal, complexed, and chelated heavy-
metal radionuclides from ground water, pond water,
and industrial waste water. The technology involves
pumping and treating the contaminated water and
chemically conditioning it in mixing tanks. Treatment
systems have been designed for application in both
mobile field equipment and fixed installations. The
technology, which was accepted into the SITE
demonstration program in July 1991, was
demonstrated at Rocky Flats in Golden, Colorado, in
September 1993.
Hrubetz Environmental Services, Inc.'s
HRUBOUT™ process is a thermal in situ treatment
process that removes VOCs and SVOCs from
contaminated soil. Heated air is injected into the soil
below the zone of contamination, evaporating the
soil moisture and removing volatile and semivolatile
hydrocarbons. Non-volatiles are removed by slow
oxidation at high temperature ranges. The technology
was accepted into the SITE demonstration program
in July 1992. The process was demonstrated at the
Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, in
January and February 1993.
Eli Eco-Logic International, Inc. developed the
Eco-Logic Process, which uses a gas-phase reduction
reaction of hydrogen with organic and chlorinated-
organic compounds at high temperatures to convert
aqueous and oily hazardous contaminants into a
hydrocarbon-rich gas product. The gas product's
primary components are hydrogen, nitrogen, methane,
carbon monoxide, and water vapor. The
demonstration of this technology was conducted at
the Middleground Landfill in Bay City, Michigan, in
October and November 1992.
4.5.2 Superfund Technical Assistance
Programs
To provide multi-disciplinary technical support
to Superfund cleanups, the Agency sponsors the
ORD TSCs, START, and Superfund Technical
Liaisons (STLs) and the Ground-Water and
Engineering Forums. The goals of these technical
assistance programs are to increase the speed and
quality of Superfund cleanups, reduce clean-up costs,
address technical issues encountered in site cleanup,
and provide the Regional Superfund staff with direct
access to the technical expertise and resources of the
Agency's active researchers.
Technical Support Centers and Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Teams
In FY93, OSWER funded six ORD laboratories
as TSCs to provide site-specific assistance in the
areas of ground-water remediation, risk assessment,
engineering, site characterization, radiological
evaluation, and modeling. The six TSCs include five
administered by ORD (the Environmental Monitoring
Services Laboratory, RREL, the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL), Athens
ERL, and the Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office) and one administered by the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (the National Air and
Radiation Environmental Laboratory). During the
year, the six TSCs responded to over 550 requests for
assistance from RPMs and other Regional technical
staff. The responses ranged from treatability studies,
technical reviews of proposals, toxicity studies, and
radiological and model evaluation.
61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
The increasing use of the TSCs and the Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team (START),
which is designed to provide long-term intensive
engineering assistance to Regional staff, is illustrated
by the increasing number of requests received by the
centers. For example, Exhibit 4.5-4 shows the
significant increase in the number of requests received
by the Engineering Technical Support Center (ETSC)
and START since FY89. Other support centers
experienced similar increases during these years;
requests made to the Robert S. Kerr ERL TSC
increased from 56 in FY89 to 132 in FY93.
In addition to responding to Regional requests
for assistance, the TSCs worked jointly with the
Engineering and Ground-Water Forums to publish
issue papers on the remediation of PCBs, remediation
of light non-aqueous phase liquids, use of pump and
treat technologies, and use of in situ soil treatment.
To address issues and problems in ground-water
sampling, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory TSC also developed and hosted a
workshop for academia, industry, and federal and
state agencies to discuss the topic.
Superfund Technical Liaisons
Through the STL program, seniorORD scientists,
are permanently stationed in Regional offices. The
STLs provide direct technical assistance to Regional
staff, facilitate interaction among ORD laboratories
and Headquarter's offices, promote the application
of good science within the Regional waste programs,
and provide feedback to ORD on Regional technical
needs.
Exhibit 4.5-4
START and ETSC Program Assistance
(Fiscal Year 1989 Through Fiscal Year 1993)
14(H
FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93
START Program
FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93
ETSC Program
Source: Office of Research and Development.
51-037-24
62
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Ground-Water and Engineering Forums
The Ground-Water and Engineering Forums
coordinated activities to address ground-water and
engineering concerns encountered in site remediation.
In addition to issue papers developed in conjunction
with TSCs, the forums provided opportunities for
members to conduct technical reviews of four
guidance documents during the year. Seven forum
members also joined the American Society of Testing
and Materials to help review standards which relate
to EPA's field protocols.
Expanding their interagency coordination, the
forums held joint semi-annual meetings with the
Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Geological
Survey. The semi-annual meetings improve
technology transfer and aid in improving interagency
communication and coordination.
4.5.3 Technology Transfer and
Interagency Sharing
TIO is a widely recognized leader in the
technology innovation arena. For more than four
years, TIO has identified and cataloged information
in many areas, including
• Trends in the use of innovative technology at
Superfund, RCRA, and underground storage
tank (UST) sites;
• Future markets for innovative remediation
technologies;
• Procurement barriers to the use of innovative
technologies;
• Support services for technology developers;
• Screening matrices for technologies; and
• Demonstrations of technologies at other federal
agencies.
TIO has also brought federal agencies, academia,
and the private sector together to demonstrate and
evaluate technologies.
Innovative Technology Forums and
Conferences
To encourage collaboration efforts between EPA,
other Federal agencies, academia, and the private
sector, EPA sponsored forums and conferences for
exchanging information on innovative technologies.
The Agency also participated in international efforts
to exchange information on the technologies.
Through the Federal Remediation Technology
Roundtable, TIO provides an information exchange
network for federal agencies conducting applied
research and development of innovative remediation
techniques. The Roundtable published three
documents on innovative technologies during the
fiscal year: the first highlighting active federal
demonstrations, the second describing federal
databases available, and the third listing new federal
publications on the subject. Interagency
communication through the Roundtable also led to
several joint initiatives to demonstrate technologies
and document their cost and performance.
TIO and ORD organized the Remedial
Technologies Development Forum (RTDF). The
RTDF assists in encouraging collaboration among
companies, public interest groups, states, universities,
DOE, and the Department of Defense in defining,
prioritizing, and funding clean-up technologies. By
consulting on technologies at the earliest stages of
their development, the RTDF seeks to combine the
financial and intellectual resources of consortium
members to promote research coordination and
eliminate duplicative research and development. The
Forum also plans to collaboratively demonstrate
technologies at federal facilities.
Encouraging international exchange of
information on clean-up technologies, EPA's
OS WER and ORD served as project directors for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's)
Committee for the Challenges to Modern Society
pilot study, on the Evaluation of Demonstrated and
Emerging Remedial Action Technologies for the
Cleanup of Contaminated Land and Ground Water.
63
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
This study is the follow-up to a successful first-phase
effort to share information on innovative treatment
technologies. In the first phase, information on 29
soil and ground-water remediation projects was
exchanged. The second phase is continuing this
work for field-demonstrated technologies, while
expanding the scope to include emerging processes
in earlier stages of development. The development of
uniform data-reporting methods to expand
technology-transfer capabilities is also emphasized.
Results from the initial study were accepted by the
NATO Plenary and published by EPA. Fifteen
countries actively participated in this program.
Efforts to Demonstrate and Evaluate
Innovative Treatment Technologies
To encourage increased use of innovative
treatment technologies, TIO worked during FY93 to
improve documentation of cost and performance for
innovative treament technologies. TIO also engaged
in projects, such as the public/private partnership
program, to demonstrate new technologies.
To "benchmark" innovative technologies, TIO
worked to gather data on 17 completed Superfund
projects that used innovative technologies for full-
scale remedies. Coordinated through the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable, the project
aims to standardize cost and performance reporting
by other federal agencies engaged in similar efforts.
In the public/private partnership program, TIO,
the Air Force, Clean Sites, and several technology
end-users are collaborating to evaluate the cost-
effectivenessofremediationtechnologies. The public/
private partnership project is being conducted to
evaluate technology applications, particularly for in
situ processes, at federal facilities with contamination
problems that are similar to those faced by the
participating corporations at their own facilities. The
partnership project is based on the premise that risk-
sharing is a critical incentive to encouraging greater
use of new technologies; PRPs often hesitate to risk
the cost and potential liability of a failed test of a
proposed technology at their site, and this hesitation
slows commercialization. Using federal facilities as
test locations is one of the government's major
contributions to promoting new environmental
technologies. This mutually beneficial arrangement
reassures industry about using the technology and
helps to defray the government's evaluation costs. A
partnership project for joint testing and evaluation of
technologies at McClellan Air Force Base has been
scheduled.
Reference Materials
To encourage use of innovative technologies,
the Agency provides a variety of reference materials
on the technologies. The Agency maintains five
electronic sources of information on innovative
treatment technologies: the Vendor Information
System for Innovative Treatment Technologies
(VISITT) the Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN)
electronic bulletin board the Alternative Treatment
Technology Information Center System (ATTIC),
ORD's electronic bulletin board system (BBS), and
the RREL Treatability Database.
• VISITT contains vendor-submitted performance
and cost information. As of FY93, VISITT 2.0
included information on 231 innovative treatment
technologies offered by 141 developers and
vendors. TIO provides this information on
diskettes to interested potential users of
innovative technologies. Since its initial
development in FY91, TIO has distributed more
than 10,000 copies of the system to requestors in
over 50 countries.
• TIO funds and manages the CLU-IN electronic
bulletin board, designed to serve projectmanagers
and others interested in information on innovative
remediation technologies. This bulletin board
offers a range of technology-related information
that may be read on-line or down-loaded to a
personal computer. In 1993, CLU-IN was
enhanced to includeFederal Register notices on
hazardous wastes, a listing of EPA publications,
a calendar of training programs, Commerce
Business Daily "requests for proposals" for
environmental clean-up work, and a directory of
EPA experts on hazardous site clean-up.
• ATTIC, developed and implemented by ORD,
integrates hazardous waste data in a centralized
searchable source that may be accessed by federal,
64
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
state, and public sector users. It provides a
mechanism for retrieving full-text documents of
key literature. Databases that can be accessed
through ATTIC include the treatment technology
database, the tractability and study database, the
UST database, the oil/chemical spill database,
the Bioremediation in the Field Search System,
and VISITT.
• The ORD BBS, which currently has over 8,000
registered users, is operated by the Center for
Environmental Research Information in
Cincinnati, Ohio. It was set up to improve
communication and technology transfer among
EPA staff, state and local officials and staff,
researchers, and the private sector. One special
feature of the ORD BBS is a text-searchable
database of all ORD publications produced since
1976 (over 20,000 citations). Each citation
contains the publication title, authors, sponsoring
organization, abstract ordering information, and
other information. The BBS can be used to send
and receive messages, upload and download
bulletins and files, and communicate recent ORD
activities.
• The RREL Treatability Database was developed
to provide a thorough review of the effectiveness
of proven treatment technologies in the removal/
destruction of chemicals in various types of
media including, municipal and industrial waste
water, drinking water, soil, debris, sludge, and
sediment. The database contains information on
more than 1,200 chemical compounds and over
15,800 sets of treatability data. The database has
been distributed to approximately 2,800
organizations including federal, state and local
governments, environmental groups, law firms,
and engineering firms. The database can be
obtained from RREL or from ATTIC.
TIO and ORD have also developed several
publications and a display booth that provides
information on new developments and applications
of innovative treatment technologies:
• Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report provides information on the
selection and use of innovative treatment
technologies at Superfund sites and provides
technical background information. The
September 1993 report contains information on
almost 300 innovative technology projects at
Superfund remedial and removal sites. The report
is designed to enhance communication among
vendors, experienced technology users, and those
who are considering using innovative treatment
technologies to clean up contaminated sites.
Tech Trends and Ground Water Currents are
two newsletters distributed by TIO on soil
treatment technologies and ground-water
remediation technologies respectively. These
newsletters are published quarterly and
distributed to over 12,000 interested subscribers,
including federal and state project managers,
consulting engineers, academia, and technology
users.
Citizen's Guides to Innovative Treatment
Technologies is a set of 10 publications that
provide community leaders and the public with
basic, readable information on technologies that
can be used to clean up Superfund, corrective
action, or UST sites. Spanish-language versions
of these guides were completed in FY93.
Selected Alternative and Innovative Treatment
Technologies for Corrective Action and Site
Remediation, updated by TIO, bibliographs EPA
information resources to assist technology users
developers, researchers, and technology users in
identifying publications related to remediation
technologies.
RemediationTechnologies ScreeningMatrix and
Reference Guide, developed by TIO and the Air
Force, summarizes the strengths and limitations
of innovative and conventional technologies for
the remediation of soil, sediment, sludge, ground
water, and emissions.
Bioremediation Resource Guide directs readers
to resource documents, databases, hotlines, and
dockets. The purpose of the guide is to assist
technology users in accessing information on
bioremediation technology and its applications.
65
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
• TIO sponsors several traveling information
booths. These displays, which are sent to
hazardous-waste remediation conferences and
other meetings around the country, are major
outlets for dissemination of EPA materials and
database information on innovative remediation
technologies.
Training and Continuing Education
The Agency sponsored efforts to develop training
resources and materials on technologies and site
remediation:
• OSWER, in cooperation with the American
Association of Environmental Engineers,
continued work on the Waste Monographs that
detail specific innovative technologies. These
monographs will aid consulting engineers' and
technology end users' understanding of state-of-
the-art technologies. They contain design criteria
and performance and cost information.
• EPA developed a series of satellite video
conferences in coordination with the Air Force,
Air and Waste Management Association, and
the Hazardous Waste Action Coalition. The
conferences were downlinked to over 70 sites
nationwide and provided participants state-of-
the-science information on selected innovative
technologies.
• EPA developed a teaching outline and support
materials for a one-semester course on innovative
technologies for use by graduate engineering
departments. The course was developed in
conjunction with the University of Connecticut
and the American Association of Environmental
Engineering Professors. The course book,
published in FY93, is entitled Hazardous Waste
Site Remediation: Source Control.
• TIO in cooperation with the Office of
International Activities developed tiiePrinciples
of Hazardous Waste Site Ranking train-the-trai ner
course to provide basic environmental
management information to the emerging
democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. In
1993, TIO delivered training in Poland and
began negotiations with the government of
Bulgaria to begin training there. The primary
objective of the training course is to assist the
host government in developing programs to
establish hazardous-site-remediation priorities.
The training course helps participants identify
potential threats to public health, welfare, and
the environment; promotes effective use of
limited resources and expertise; encourages
public involvement and support in identifying
and responding to waste-site problems; reassures
those living near low-ranked sites that no
immediate threat to their well-being exists; and
ensures governmental accountability and
consistency in program applications both
nationally and internationally.
4.6 REPORT ON FACILITIES
SUBJECT TO REVIEW UNDER
CERCLA SECTION 121 (c)
Certain remedies, such as containment remedies,
allow hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants to remain on site if they do not pose a
threat to human health or the environment. CERCLA
Section 121(c) requires EPA to conduct a review of
such sites at least every five years after the initiation
of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy fully
protectshumanhealth and the environment. CERCLA
Section 121(c) also requires the Agency to submit a
report to Congress that lists the facilities for which
periodic reviews are required, the results of all the
reviews, and any action taken as a result of the
reviews. FY93 was the third year in which sites were
eligible for five-year reviews. Exhibit 4.6-7 contains
the list of sites where five-year reviews were required
in FY93. In addition, the following FY92 five-year
reviews were completed during FY93: Re-Solve,
Inc (MA), Newport Dump (KY) for a total of six five-
year reviews completed in FY93.
To define the scope of five-year reviews and
identify two types of reviews that may be conducted,
the Agency issued a directive entitled Structure and
Components of Five-Year Reviews. The directive
66
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.6-1
Sites At Which Five-Year Reviews Are Required Under CERCLA Section 121(c),
Fiscal Year 1993
Site Name (State)
Region
Review Date
Beacon Heights Landfill (CT)
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill (MA)
Keefe Environmental Services (NH)
Piccillo Farm (Rl)
GE-Moreau (NY)
Avtex Inc. (VA)
West Virginia Ordnance (WV)
Harvey and Knott Drum Site (DE)
Tysons Dump #1 (PA)
Independent Nail Co. (SC)
Forest Waste Products (Ml)
IMC Terre Haute East Plant (IN)
Northern Engraving Co (Wl)
Metamora Landfill (Ml)
Mid-South Wood Products (AR)
Petro-Chemical Systems Inc. (Turtle
Bayou) (TX)
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek Site (MO)
Syntex Facility-Verona (MO)
John Deere (Dubuque Works) (IA)
Anaconda Co. Smelter (MT)
California Gulch (CO)
Iron Mountain Mine (CA)
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
2/22/93
5/19/93
8/25/93
8/24/93
51-044-32
67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
defines "statutory reviews" as those expressly required
by CERCLA Section 121(c). "Policy reviews" are
defined as discretionary reviews that the Agency
may choose to undertake in circumstances where
they are not required by CERCLA. To reinforce the
five-year review directive, EPA issued a fact sheet in
August 1991 on five-year reviews.
The FY93 policy reviews were conducted at
Winthrop Landfill (ME), Plymouth Harlan/Cannon
Energy Corp (MA), Western Sand and Gravel (RI),
Kellogg-Deering Well Field (CT), Wade (ABM)
(PA), Presque Isle (PA), Mowhray Energy Company
(AL), Triana/Tennessee River (AL), Distler Farm
(KY), Burlington Northern (MN), Oardale Dump
Site (MN), Whittaker Corporation (MN), DesMoines
TCE (IA), LaBounty Dump Site (IA), Aidex
Corporation (IA), Waverly Ground Water
Contamination (NE), Celtor Chemical Works (CA),
United Chrome Products Inc. (OR), and Western
Processing Company, Inc. (WA). A total of 19
policy reviews were completed in FY93.
At all sites where statutory and policy reviews
were conducted during FY93, EPA determined that
the remedies continue to protect human health and
the environment. EPA will continue to conduct
future five-year reviews consistent with CERCLA
Section 121(c) and Agency guidance.
68
-------
Chapter 5
Enforcement Progress
EPA uses the enforcement provisions of
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, to maximize the
involvement of potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
in the clean-up process. The Agency's enforcement
goals are to
• Continue to maintain high levels of PRP
participation in conducting and financing
cleanups through EPA's aggressive use of
statutory authority;
• Ensure fairness and equity in the enforcement
process; and
• Recover Superfund monies expended by EPA
for response actions.
FY93 accomplishments illustrate the continuing
success of EPA's Superfund enforcement efforts.
EPA achieved enforcement agreements worth more
than $910 million in PRP response work. PRPs
financed approximately 65 percent of the remedial
designs (RDs) and 80 percent of remedial actions
(RAs) started during the fiscal year. The Agency also
collected more tha $24.4 million in CERCLA
penalties.Through its cost recovery efforts, EPA
achieved more than $220 million in cost recovery
settlements and collected more than $ 185 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures.
The administrative improvements initiative
announced during the year reinforces the Agency's
goal to ensure fairness in the enforcement process by
reducing transaction costs, accelerating the pace of
cleanups, increasing public involvement, and
enhancing the role of the states in Superfund.
Continuing preparations for full implementation of
the Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model (SACM),
the Agency worked on developing a phased approach
to enforcement at Superfund sites.
5.1 THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
The Superfund program integrates enforcement
and response activities. To initiate the enforcement
process, EPA identifies PRPs, notifies them of
potential liability by issuing special notice letters,
and seeks to negotiate an agreement with them to
perform or pay for the cleanup. If agreement is
reached, the Agency oversees the work performed
under the legal settlement. If the PRPs do not settle,
EPA may issue a unilateral administrative order
(UAO) compelling them to perform the cleanup, or
EPA may conduct the cleanup using Superfund
monies and laterpursue a cost recovery action against
the PRPs for costs incurred. These steps are
fundamental in obtaining PRP involvement in
response activities and in recovering expended Trust
Fund monies. The enforcement process is explained
in more detail below.
• WhenasiteisproposedforlistingontheNational
Priorities List (NPL), or when a removal action
is required, EPA conducts a PRP search to
identify parties that may be liable for site cleanup
and to collect evidence of their liability. PRPs
include present and past owners or operators of
the site, generators of waste disposed of at the
site, and transporters who selected the site for
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, thus beginning
the negotiation process.
• EPA encourages PRPs to undertake clean-up
activities, specifically to start removal actions,
69
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 5
ACL Alternate Concentration Limit
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
CD Consent Decree
DOJ Department of Justice
NPL National Priorities List
PCP Pentachlorophenol
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PAHs Polycyclte Aromatic Hydrocarbons
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
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/
FSs), remedial designs (RDs), or remedial actions
(RAs). If a PRP is willing to do the response
work and capable of doing it, the Agency will
attempt to negotiate an agreement allowing the
PRP to conduct and finance the proposed clean-
up work and to pay for past government costs.
For RAs, the settlement must be in the form of a
judicial consent decree (CD). The CD will be
lodged with the court by DOJ. For other types of
response actions, the agreement may be in the
form of a CD or in the form of an administrative
order on consent (AOC) issued by the EPA
Regional Administrator. Both agreements are
enforceable in a court of law. Under either
agreement, if a PRP conducts the response work,
EPA oversees the PRP's activities. PRPs who
settle may seek contribution toward the cleanup
from non-settling PRPs by bringing suit against
them.
EPA may also use a cash-out settlement to reach
an agreement with PRPs. A cash-out settlement
is a type of mixed funding settlement that requires
PRPs to provide substantial up-front financing
toward the cost of the site clean up that will be
conducted by EPA. Cashout settlements may
also include a premium to partially offset EPA's
risk due to uncertainties, such as remedy failure
or cost overruns.
If settlement is not reached, CERCLA Section
106 provides EPA with the authority to issue a
UAO requiring the PRPs to conduct the cleanup;
EPA may also bring suit through DOJ to compel
PRPs to perform the work. If the Agency issues
a UAO and the PRPs do not comply, the Agency
again has the option of filing a lawsuit to compel
the performance specified in the order or to
perform the work itself and then seek cost
recovery and treble damages. A PRP may also
agree to comply with the order and conduct the
cleanup under the auspices of the order.
If the site is cleaned up using Superfund monies,
EPA will file suit through DOJ, when practicable,
to recover the monies 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.
5.2 FISCAL YEAR 1993
PROGRESS
FY93 progress reflects the continuing success of
Superfund enforcement efforts in securing PRP
participation in undertaking Superfund cleanups and
in recovering Trust Fund monies expended by EPA
in its response efforts.
5.2.1 Settlements for Response
Activities
During FY93, the Agency reached 189
settlements (CDs, AOCs, or UAOs in compliance)
with PRPs for response activities worth more than
$910 million.* As shown in Exhibit 5.2-1, the
cumulative value of PRP response settlements
achieved under the Superfund program exceeds $8.5
billion.
Of the 189 response settlements achieved in
FY93,86 settlements worth more than $810 million
were for remedial design/remedial actions (RD/RAs).
* Although UAOs legally are not settlements, they are included
in this category if the PRP agrees to comply with the order and
perform the required work under the order..
70
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-1
Cumulative Value of Response Settlements Reached
with Potentially Responsible Parties
3
UJ
9,000 ,
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
Total Value of PRP Response
Settlements for Cleanup
Cleanup Design & Construction
(RD/RA)
Other Response Actions
0
FY87
Source: CERCLIS.
These RD/RA settlements included CDs valued at
nearly $370 million, AOCs for more than $20 million,
and UAOs in compliance formore than $420million.
These RD/RA settlements are a result of 96 RD/RA
negotiations started and 80 completed by EPA during
the fiscal year. During FY93, the Agency issued 127
UAOs and entered 108 AOCs, including agreements
for removal actions, RI/FSs, RDs, and RD/RAs.
5.2.2 PRP Participation in Clean-Up
Activities
Exhibit 5.2-2 illustrates the continued high level
of PRP participation in undertaking and financing
RDs and RAs since the enactment of SARA in 1986
and the introduction of the "Enforcement First"
initiative in 1990. InFY93, PRPs financed 65 percent
of new RDs, approximately 80 percent new of RAs,
and 40 percent of new RI/FSs.
5.2.3 Civil Judicial Penalties and
Treble Damages
During FY93, EPA and DOJ achieved nearly
$24.4 million in CERCLA judicial and administrative
penalties. This amount includes approximately $23.9
million in final judgements on cases involving civil
judicial penalties under CERCLA Sections 104(e)(5)
and 106(b) and treble damages under CERCLA
Section 107 (c)(3). Exhibit 5.2-3 lists the CERCLA
71
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 5.2-2
Increase in the Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions Started
by PRPs Since the Enactment of SARA
FY87
Remedial Design Starts
FY89
FY93
Remedial Action Starts
I Fund-Financed • PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS.
civil judicial penaltes and treble damage cases
awarded to the Agency during the fiscal year. The
$24.4 million also includes more than $453,000
achieved in 41 administrative penalty cases.
5.2.4 Cost Recovery Progress
Through improvements in its efforts to recover
Trust Fund monies expended for Superfund cleanups,
the Agency obtained record amounts in cost recovery
settlements and collections. EPA and DOJ reached
204 settlements worth more than $220 million. The
$220 million in FY93 cost recovery settlements
represented 18 percent of the $1.2 billion in cost
recovery settlements achieved since the inception of
Superfund. The Agency collected more than $185
million on cost recovery settlements during FY93,
representing 25 percent of the total $730 million
collected. Exhibit 5.2-4 illustrates Agency progress
in reaching cost recovery settlements and in collecting
monies on these settlements.
51-037-78
5.2.5 Success in Reaching and
Enforcing Agreements with
PRPs
During FY93, 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 numerous enforcement agreements
with PRPs, establishing several major enforcement
precedents. Exhibit 5.2-5 highlights examples of
significant settlements reached during the fiscal year.
5.3 ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES
As part of the administrative improvements
initiative, the Agency engaged in new and continued
efforts to promote equity in the enforcement process.
Fiscal year efforts included activities aimed at
fostering greater fairness for Superfund site property
72
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-3
Fiscal Year 1993 CERCLA Civil Judicial Penalties and Treble Damages
Region
6
5
1
2
10
1
2
5
2
2
5
2
2
Defendant(s)
Roger L. Tannery
Aqua-Tech, Inc.; I.Jones
Partnership; Frederick J. Cook,
Jr.; Thomas J. Hanchar (jointly &
severally liable)
Ethan Allen, Inc.
Randolph Products Co.
Bunker Ltd. Partnership
Interex (now known as Clean
Harbors of Natick, Inc.)
Matlack, Inc.
Peterson Sand & Gravel
W.R. Case & Sons
Genzale Plating Co.
Hyman & Manuel Cohen
Delaware Container
Madison Disposal
Total
Total FY93
Administrative Penalties
Total FY93 CERCLA Penalties
(Judicial and Administrative)
Amount of Penalty
$12,475,000
9,663,885
746,292
300,000
202,000
172,800
125,000
100.0001
50,000
40,000
20,000
10,000
4,075
$23,899,052
453,272
$24,352,324
CERCLA Provision
§104(e)(5)(B)
§107(c)(3)
§106(b)
§106(b)
§104(e)(5)(B)
§106(b)
§106(b)
§104(e)(5)(B)
§106(b)
§104(e)(5)(B)
§104(e)(5)(B)
§106(b)
§104(e)(5)(B)
1An additional $10,000 Clean Water Act penalty was also obtained in this case.
owners, encouraging early settlements with de
minimis and "de micromis" parties, increasing the
use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and
evaluating the increased use of mixed funding. The
Agency also continued preparations for streamlining
the enforcement process to correspond to the
accelerated clean-up activities that will occur under
full implementation of SACM.
5.3.1 Greater Fairness for Owners at
Superfund Sites
In an effort to clarify the potential liability of
Superfund site property owners, EPA addressed
several issues, including the filing of federal liens on
Superfund site properties, and the involvement of
prospective purchasers of Superfund site property in
site cleanups.
Federal Superfund Liens
On July 29, 1993, EPA issued Supplemental
Guidance on Federal Superfund Liens (OSWER
Directive No. 9832.12-1 a). The guidance establishes
procedures for the Regions to follow to provide
owners of Superfund properties with adequate notice
of any federal lien to be filed against their property
and an opportunity to comment on the filing of the
lien.
The guidance states that the Regions will notify
property owners of the Agency's intention to file and
perfect a notice of lien. The notification letter states
the basis for the lien and offers the property owner an
73
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 5.2-4
Cumulative Value of
Cost Recovery Dollars Achieved and Collected
Achieved
Collected
Source: CERCLIS.
51-037-6
opportunity to comment on the filing of the lien. To
comment, a property owner may submit written
documentation to EPA or attend an informal meeting
facilitated by a neutral party.
Prospective Purchaser Guidance
Prospective purchasers of contaminated property
at some NPL sites are willing to conduct or finance
some clean-up work in return for a covenant from
EPA not to sue. Current policy limits the use of the
covenants. EPA is considering options that would
allow greater latitude in negotiating with prospective
purchasers to facilitate the re-use or development of
contaminated or formerly contaminated property.
EPA will seek to issue supplemental prospective
purchaser guidance, prepare a model prospective
purchaser agreement, and consider criteria for and
application of other mechanisms to remove barriers
to property development.
5.3.2 Streamlined Approach for De
Minimis Settlements
Under CERCLA Section 122(g), EPA has the
authority to enter into settlements with PRPs
whose contribution of hazardous waste at a site is
minimal in terms of volume and toxicity, compared
to the total hazardous waste at a site. EPA promotes
the use of these de minimis settlements to resolve
the liability of small waste contributors equitably,
reduce transaction costs for both private parties and
the government, and improve the efficiency of case
management.
74
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-5
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Charles George Landfill
Massachusetts (Region 1)
Settlement: Two CDs (CD01 and CD02) for cost recovery
and future costs—one entered in the District Court on
05/24/93 and one lodged with the District Court on
07/27/93
Estimated Value: $38.6 million
Under the 05/24/93 CD, 54 PRPs, including 12
municipalities, will pay $35.5 million for past and
future response costs incurred in addressing volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), arsenic, and ammonia
contamination of ground water at the site.
Under the 11/12/93 CD, operators, James George
and Charles George, with a transporter, C&J Trucking
Company, Inc., will reimburse EPA $3.1 million for
past and future response costs.
Caldwell Trucking Company
New Jersey (Region 2)
Settlement: One UAO (UAO01) for RA issued on
04/19/93 and one UAO (UAO02) for RD issued on
06/29/93
Estimated Value: $26 million
In compliance with the UAO issued on 04/19/93, 11
PRPs will excavate and dispose of soil and sludge
that are contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals,
including lead, mercury, and arsenic at an estimated
cost of $25 million.
In compliance with the UAO issued on 06/29/93,15
PRPs will conduct studies, valued at $1 million, to
determine the extent of ground-water contamination
at the site.
Preferred Plating Corporation
New York (Region 2)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RA issued on 06/14/93
Estimated Value: $1.4 million
In compliance with the UAO, PRPs will undertake
clean-up efforts, valued at $1.4 million, to excavate
and remove soil contaminated with VOCs and heavy
metals. EPA will then install an on-site system to
treat contaminated ground water.
Endicott Village Well Field Site
New York (Region 2)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA and cfe minimis
settlement referred to DOJ on 09/22/93
Estimated Value: $17.1 million
Four PRPs will conduct work estimated at $16.9
million to cap the landfill and treat leachate seeps to
prevent spread of VOC and metal contamination.
The four PRPs will pay EPA's future oversight costs.
Two de minimis parties will pay $200,000 in past
response costs.
Eastern Diversified Metals
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO03) for RA issued on 06/25/93
Estimated Value: $13.1 million
In compliance with UAO, AT&T Nassau Metals
Corporation and Theodore Sail, Inc., will conduct
clean-up work valued at $13.1 million. To address
heavy metal contamination of site soil, the PRPs will
recycle waste insulation at the site, treat and dispose
of recycling residuals, investigate soil contamination
in the waste insulation disposal area to determine the
extent of soil contamination, and implement erosion
control measures.
The settlement is significant as it is the first under
Superfund to require a recycling remedy.
S1-037-30.1A
75
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 5.2-5
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments (cont.)
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Pike/Artel
West Virginia (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO03) for RA issued on 06/30/93
Estimated Value: $16 million
In compliance with the UAO, 21 PRPs will excavate,
treat, and dispose of approximately 7,000 to 16,000
buried drums from chemical manufacturing operations
at the site. The estimated cost of the activities is $16
million. On-s'rte soil, ground water, and surface water
have been contaminated with VOCs, potychlorinated
biphenyls (RGBs), dioxin, cyanide, asbestos, metals,
and methylmercaptan.
MW Manufacturing
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RA issued on 03/31/93
Estimated Value: $37.4 million
AT&T Nassau Metals Corporation, Pennsylvania
Power & Light Company, and Warehouse 81 Limited
Partnership, in compliance with the UAO, will
undertake $37.4 million in clean-up work to address
VOC, lead, copper, and zinc ground-water
contamination. The PRPs will install a waterline to
connect nearby residences with the public water
supply system and will treat contaminated ground
water using air stripping and chemical precipitation
technologies.
Lackawanna Refuse
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: CD (CD02) for a cte minimis settlement
entered with District Court on 11/23/92
Estimated Value: $1.5 million
Fourteen de minimis PRPs, each of whom contributed
1.3 percent or less of the total volume of waste
received at the landfill, will reimburse EPA $1.5 million
for past and future response costs.
Hazardous wastes disposed of in the municipal landfill
contaminated soil and surface water at the site. To
address the contamination, EPA removed and
disposed of 8,000 drums from the site, and placed a
clay cap over the contaminated area.
Lindane Dump
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA and cost recovery
entered in District Court on 06/28/93
Estimated Value: $14.1 million
Elf Atochem North America, Inc., will pay $14.1 million
for future response costs, EPA's past costs, and
pre-judgement interest. To address pesticide
contamination at the site, Atochem will treat ground
water and cover the landfill.
This landmark judicial settlement included
non-binding mediation for dispute resolution over
additional work required at the site.
Tonolli Corporation
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA referred to DOJ on
09/30/93.
Estimated Value: $16.6 million
Forty-five PRPs will conduct work valued at $16.6
million. To address lead, arsenic, cadmium, and
chromium contamination at the site, the PRPs will
close and cap the landfill, excavate and stabilize
contaminated soil, and take measures to prevent
migration of the contaminated ground water.
61-037-30.2A
76
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-5
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments (cont.)
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
North Carolina (Region 4)
Settlement: 41 UAOs (UAO03 - 05,07- 08) for RA issued
on 05/20/93
Estimated Value: $32 million
Forty-one UAOs were issued to 22 PRPs. In
compliance with the UAOs, the PRPs will cleanup
pesticide-contaminated soils at five different areas of
the site. The estimated cost is $32 million, depending
on whether thermal desorption or incineration is used
to treat contaminated soil.
Koppers Company, IncVBeazers, Inc.
North Carolina (Region 4)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RA issued on 04/21/93
Estimated Value: $11 million
Koppers Company, Inc./Beazer-East, Inc., in compliance
with the UAO, will perform and fund cleanup valued
at $11 million to address soil, ground water, and surface
water contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP),
polychlorinated furans, and dioxins from former wood
treatment operations at the site.
Mathis Bros. Landfill
Georgia (Region 4)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RA issued on 08/19/93
Estimated Value: $12.9 million
In compliance with the UAO, three PRPs will fund and
perform clean up of contamination resulting from the
disposal at the landfill of herbicide production
residues and latex wastes. To clean up contaminated
soil, the PRPs will excavate contaminated waste and
soil, incinerate and dispose of excavated material,
undertake studies to determine whether
bioremediation would be a viable treatment option for
contaminated subsurface soil, and construct a clay
cap over the treated area. Contaminated ground
water will be collected and treated off site.
Berlin & Farro
Michigan (Region 5)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RA issued on 09/24/92,
with notice of PRPs' intent to comply received on
11/23/92. EPA also continued negotiations with de
minimis PRPs.
Estimated Value: $10 million
In compliance with the UAO, 15 PRPs will remove
liquid contaminants from the site at an estimated cost
of $10 million.
EPA is also negotiating with 95 de minimis parties for
a settlement worth $2.5 million for reimbursement of
past response costs and future oversight costs at the
site.
EPA's past clean-up work at the site included
excavating and disposing of soil contaminated with
VOCs and PCBs, constructing a fence around the
site, and upgrading an underflow dam to prevent
migration of contamination from the site.
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Wisconsin (Region 5)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RD/RA issued on
03/23/93
Estimated Value: $14 million
To remove VOC contamination from soil and ground
water and to prevent migration of contaminants into
local wildlife habitats, waterways, and residential and
agricultural areas, Waste Management, Inc., will
comply with the UAO and undertake clean-up actions
valued at $14 million. Work will include conducting
studies of the extent of ground-water contamination,
including sampling of residential wells; pumping and
treating contaminated ground water; capping the land-
fill; and collecting and disposing of subterranean gases.
51-037-30,38
77
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 5.2-5
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments (cont.)
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
Wisconsin (Region 5)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RA issued on 12/09/92
Estimated Value: $9.9 million
Forty-one of 46 parties that were issued the UAO
have agreed to comply with the order to conduct $9.9
million in response work to prevent the spread of
contamination at the site. Under the order, the parties
will control contaminant migration and clean up and
monitor on-site ground water, which is contaminated
with VOCs and heavy metals, including lead and
chromium.
Lemberger Landfill, Inc./Transport and Recycling
Sites
Wisconsin (Region 5)
Settlement: CO (CD01) for RD/RA and cost recovery
entered in District Court on 10/20/92, and an AOC
(AOC01) issued on 07/15/93
Estimated Value: $27 million
Under the CD, 11 PRPs, including one municipality,
will pay $20 million for clean-up and for past and
future EPA costs. To address PCP, pesticide,
arsenic, chromium, lead, and VOC contamination, the
parties will regrade the existing landfill cap at the
Lemberger Landfill site, and contain, treat, and
monitor ground water at both the landfill and the
Transport and Recycling sites.
Under the AOC, parties will conduct work at the
Transport and Recycling site valued at $7 million,
including excavating and disposing of drums, treating
contaminated soil using vapor extraction, and capping
the landfill.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation
Indiana (Region 5)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA and cost recovery
lodged with District Court on 08/10/93
Estimated Value: $18 million
Under the CD, Reilly Industries, Inc., will undertake
clean-up efforts at operable unit 1 valued at $18
million, and will reimburse EPA $256,000 for past
costs. Reilly will install extraction wells to prevent
off-site migration of benzene, pyridine, ammonia, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
EPA signed a record of decision (ROD) for operable
unit 2 on September 30,1993, for the cleanup of
contaminated soil at the site and continued in RD/RA
negotiations with Reilly Industries, Inc. The ROD
requires excavating soil or sludge at five former
disposal areas, treating it by low temperature thermal
desorption or in situ solidification, and covering the
areas with soil or a semi-permeable cap. The value
of this remedy is estimated to be $6 million.
Butterworth Landfill No. 2
Michigan (Region 5)
Settlement: AOC (AOC02) for RD issued on 02/23/93
Estimated Value: $1 million
To investigate and design remediation work for heavy
metal, VOC, semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC),
and PCB contamination at the site, six PRPs will
conduct work valued at $1 million to design a clay
cap, determine locations for monitoring wells, assess
the landfill's ecological impact, plan for the removal of
buried drums, and establish Alternate Concentration
Limits (ACLs) for the ground water.
EPA expects to reach agreement with the parties to
undertake the RA, valued at $12.5 million.
78
61-037-30/4B
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-5
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments (cont.)
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
M.T. Richards, Inc.
Illinois (Region 5)
Settlement: AOC (AOC01) for de minimis settlement
issued on 04/02/93
Estimated Value: $288,000
Under the AOC, 72 de minimis parties will pay
$288,000 toward past costs incurred at the site. This
payment includes a 100 percent premium to cover
cost overruns and any outstanding costs from
non-settlors and parties not eligible to take part in the
de minimis settlement.
EPA performed a removal action at the site to
eliminate the threat posed by deteriorating on-srte
tanks. The tanks were leaking PCB, lead, toxic, and
organic-contaminated oil wastes into the site soil and
a nearby creek. As of the end of FY92, EPA had
incurred response costs in excess of $1.6 million.
Organic Chemicals
Michigan (Region 5)
Settlement: AOC (AOC01) for de minimis settlement
issued 11/17/92
Estimated Value: $1.3 million
Under this settlement, 100 de minimis parties will
reimburse EPA and major waste contributors
approximately $1.3 million for past and future
response costs. This payment covers orphan shares
and includes a 60 percent premium for cost overruns
or other unforeseen expenses incurred during
implementation of the remedy.
As a result of solvent recovery and chemical
manufacturing at the site, chlorinated solvents and a
mixture of benzene, ethylene, toluene, and xylene
(BETX) have contaminated soil and ground water.
Koppers Company, IncVBeazers, Inc.
Texas (Region 6)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RA issued on 03/02/93
Estimated Value: $15 million
To address PCP, arsenic, zinc, and creosote contamination
resulting from wood treatment operations at the site,
Koppers Company, IncVBeazers, Inc., will comply with the
UAO and will demolish houses on the site, remove
contaminated debris, excavate and treat contaminated
soil, and conduct long-term ground-water treatment.
Prewrtt Abandoned Refinery
New Mexico (Region 6)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RD/RA issued on 03/14/93
Estimated Value: $16 million
In compliance with the UAO, Atlantic Richfield
Company and El Paso Natural Gas Company will
conduct $16 million in clean-up work to address lead
and VOC contaminated soil and ground water at the
site. The PRPs will pump and treat the contaminated
ground water at the site and clean up contaminated
soil using a combination of bioremediation, soil-vapor
extraction, excavation, and off-site disposal.
The Navajo Nation, who owned the site from 1966 to
September 1992 and still owns nearby lands, has
worked successfully with EPA in overseeing initiation
of the cleanup of the site. The New Mexico Environment
Department has also cooperated in the remediation
efforts.
51-037-30,50
79
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 5.2-5
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments (cont.)
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Iron Mountain Mine
California (Region 9)
Settlement: UAO (UA004) for RD/RA issued on
11/03/92
Estimated Value: $20 million
In compliance with the UAO, three PRPs will design
and construct an acid mine drainage treatment plant
at the site, at an estimated cost of $20 million. Heavy
metals, such as copper, cadmium, and zinc, are
leaching from the site contaminating run-off water
which flows to a nearby reservoir. Water from the
reservoir is periodically released to the Sacramento
River which supplies drinking water to more than
75,000 people in the City of Redding.
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats
Washington (Region 10)
Settlement: CD (CD08) for RD/RA lodged on
08/19/93
Estimated Value: $37 million
The Port of Tacoma will undertake clean-up work
valued at $25 million to dredge and remediate sediments
contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, lead, zinc,
copper, nickel, and PAHs from two inlets of the Bay.
The dredged and remediated materials will be used
to fill the Milwaukee Waterway, adding 24 acres to the
Port's shipping terminal.
Also, the Port will pay an additional $12 million to
restore area fisheries and wildlife habitats, replacing
the habitat lost in filling the Milwaukee Waterway.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Department of the Interior, the
State of Washington, the Puyallup Tribe, and the
Muckleshoot Tribe will oversee the Port's restoration
efforts.
Gould, Inc.
Oregon (Region 10)
Settlement: CD (CD02) for de minimis settlement
entered in District Court on 02/04/93
Estimated Value: $980,000
Six de minimis parties, each of whom contributed 1.5
percent or less of the total hazardous waste at the
site, will reimburse EPA $980,000 for past costs and a
portion of oversight costs at the site. This payment
includes a premium of almost $280,000 for future
costs.
PRPs who contributed major portions of waste to the
site are performing clean-up work to address lead and
lead-oxide contamination resulting from secondary
lead smelting and battery recycling operations.
Contamination affects site soil, ground water, and
surface water, as well as sediments in a nearby lake.
On July 30,1993, EPA issued guidance entitled,
StreomlinedApproochfor Settlements with de minimis
Waste Contributors under CERCLA Section
122(g)(l)(A). This document supplements and, in
some instances, supersedes existing guidance for de
minimis settlements. The guidance
51-037-30,68
Sets forth the minimum level of information a
Region should have before considering a de
minimis settlement. The new guidance suggests
that the Regions do not have to prepare waste-in
lists identifying specific amounts and types of
waste contributed by each PRP at the site before
80
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
determining a party's eligibility for ade minimis
settlement Instead, the policy suggests that the
Regions need only assess the individual's waste
contribution relative to the overall volume of
waste at the site.
Recommends that Regions streamline the process
of calculating PRP payments. The guidance
identifies factors that the Regions should consider
when establishing baseline payments (a baseline
payment is the value of payment before any
premiums are assigned) and premiums. In cases
where the costs are difficult to estimate, the
guidance describes a payment matrix that can be
used to approximate a range of costs.
Encourages the Regions to become more active
in facilitating de minimis settlements.
Accordingly, Regions should offer individual
de minimis settlements without waiting for
the de minimis group to form; provide
assistance in forming the de minimis group
where there is potential for a de minimis
settlement; and develop a communication
strategy that provides information to both de
minimis and non-de minimis parties on the
terms and benefits of ade minimis settlement.
5.3.3 Guidance on "De Micromis"
Settlements
In addition to guidance on de minimis
settlements, EPA worked to develop guidance on
"de micromis" settlements, for those PRPs whose
waste contribution is minuscule in terms of volume
and toxicity. (The amount of contribution by a "de
micromis" party is smaller than that of
a de minimis party.) Without a settlement
agreement with the Agency, "de micromis" PRPs
are vulnerable to third-party contribution suits by
major waste contributors.
On July 30, 1993, EPA issued Guidance on
CERCLA Settlements with "De Micromis" Waste
Contributors to facilitate the implementation of "de
micromis" settlements. The guidance recommends
that Regions follow certain procedures including
examining relevant information before offering a
"de micromis" settlement; determining the volumetric
cutoff for "de micromis" eligibility; determining
when to enter a "de micromis" settlement and whether
to pursue an administrative or a judicial settlement
with "de micromis" parties; and calculating the
appropriate payment amount for a "de micromis"
party.
5.3.4 Increased Use of Alternative
Dispute Resolution
ADR is a valuable tool for ensuring fairness and
reducing transaction costs. ADR involves the use of
a neutral third party who helps PRPs organize for
negotiations, facilitates settlement deliberations, and/
or provides opinions to the negotiating parties. During
FY93, the Agency increased its case use of ADR,
developed ADR case support systems and training
services, and conducted outreach to the regulated
community on the benefits of ADR. Progress in the
use of ADR during the year included
• Use of ADR mechanisms (primarily mediation
and convening services) in 18 enforcement
actions;
• Initiation of an expansive program in Region 1
involving Regional training and the use of ADR
in cost recovery and RD/RA negotiations;
• Use of ADR for the first time to facilitate a
settlement for a removal action and to assist in
negotiations involving federal facilities;
• Initiation of a pilot program assessing the use of
arbitration to resolve cost recovery cases;
• Start of two major initiatives to provide ADR
support forPRPcost allocationefforts, including
identification of 20 sites where support will be
provided;
• Organization of a national network of ADR
contacts and ADR-experienced staff to provide
advice; and
• Initiation of presentations and training programs
on effective ADR use for EPA Regional and
Headquarters staff, PRPs, professional
organizations, and other federal agencies.
81
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
5.3.5 Mixed Funding Evaluation
Under CERCLA Section I22(b), EPA has the
authority to enter into "mixed funding" settlements
in which both Trust Fund and PRP resources are used
to clean up sites. There are three types of mixed
funding settlements: "preauthorized," in which the
PRPs perform the response action and a portion of
the financing is provided by EPA; "cashout," in
which the Agency performs the response action and
the PRPs pay a portion of the response costs; and
"mixed work," in which EPA and the PRPs perform
separate portions of the response action. In FY93, as
part of the Superfund administrative improvements
initiative, the Agency began a two-part evaluation of
its mixed funding policy to address concerns
expressed by PRPs.
In the first part of the evaluation, which was
completed in FY93, the Agency analyzed the potential
cost to the Trust Fund if Fund-financing was routinely
used to pay for the "orphan share" of clean-up costs
at enforcement-lead sites (sites where PRPs perform
the cleanup). The analysis estimated that (assuming
orphan shares at every enforcement-lead site) the
annual cost to the Trust Fund would be $420 million.
The $420 million total includes $270 million for
funding portions of clean-up costs allocable to
nonviable PRPs and $150 million for waste shares
that cannot be allocated to specific PRPs.
In the second part of the evaluation, the Agency
will examine options for streamlining both the mixed
funding decision-making process and the
documentation requirements associated with
preauthorized mixed funding. EPA will also pilot
several mixed funding settlements.
5.3.6 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 SACM. Preparing for full
implementation of SACM, the Agency undertook
efforts to streamline enforcement-related activities
while maintaining high levels of PRP participation
in response work as follows:
• Initiating a phased PRP search as soon as a
decision is made that a site requires a response;
• Issuing general notice letters, when appropriate,
priorto the start of the expanded site investigation/
remedial investigation phase of the integrated
site assessment;
• Providing 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;
• Ensuring that PRPs participate substantially in
early actions; and
• Making greater use of AOCs with cooperative
PRPs to initiate RDs.
82
-------
Chapter 6
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 are federally or privately
managed, federal installations may be contaminated
with hazardous substances. Generally, contaminated
facilities are subject to CERCLA requirements.
Although federal facilities comprise only a small
percentage of the community regulated under
CERCLA, federal facilities are usually larger and
more complex than their private industrial
counterparts. Because of their size and complexity,
compliance with environmental statutes at times
may present unique management issues for federal
facilities.
6.1 THE FEDERAL FACILITIES
PROGRAM
CERCLA Section 120(a) requires that federal
facilities comply with CERCLA requirements to the
same extent as private facilities. Executive Order
125 80 delegates authority to federal departments and
agencies, which are responsible for clean-up activities
at their facilities. At National Priorities List (NPL)
sites, which are sites having the highest priority for
remediation under Superfund, CERCLA mandates
that cleanups be conducted under an interagency
agreement (IAG) between EPA and relevant federal
agencies. States are often a party to these agreements
as well. To ensure federal facility compliance with
CERCLA requirements, EPA not only provides
technical advice and assistance but takes enforcement
action when appropriate.
Under state statutes, there exists a range of
authority and enforcement tools, in addition to
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.
6.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities
Under CERCLA
Federal departments and agencies are responsible
for identifying and addressing hazardous waste sites
at the facilities that they own or operate. They are
required under CERCLA to comply with all
provisions of federal environmental statutes and
regulations, as well as all applicable state and local
requirements, during site cleanup. This includes
Title III, which requires that information on the use
or disposal of hazardous substances be reported to
EPA and/or the states.
6.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role
EPA works primarily through the Office of
Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) in the Office
of Enforcement (OE) to oversee and assist federal
agencies with clean-up activities. EPA responsibilities
include evaluating sites for the NPL, negotiating or
re-negotiating and amending IAGs, promoting
83
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 6
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
DOIT Develop On-Site Innovative Technologies
Committee
FFERDC Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee
GSA General Services Administration
IAG Interagency Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NPL National Priorities List
OFFE Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
ORD Office of Research and Development
PA Preliminary Assessment
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SI Site Inspection
TIO Technology Innovation Office
community involvement through site-specific
advisory boards, potentially selecting or assisting in
the determination of clean-up remedies, concurring
with clean-up remedies, 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.
To track the status of a federal facility, 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 potential
hazardous waste sites, including federal facility sites.
CERCLIS also contains clean-up project schedules
and achievements for federal facility sites. The list of
federal facility sites potentially contaminated with
hazardous waste, required by CERCLA 120(c), is
made available to the public through the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and
through docket updates published in the Federal
Register approximately every six months.
6.1.3 The Roles of States and Indian
Tribes
Under the provisions of CERCLA Section 120(0.
state and local governments are encouraged to
participate in the planning and selection of remedial
actions taken at federal facility NPL sites within their
jurisdiction. State andlocal government participation
includes, but is not limited to, reviewing site
information and developing studies, reports, and
action plans for the site. EPA encourages states to
become signatories to the lAGs that federal agencies
must enter into with EPA under CERCLA Section
120(e)(2). State participation in the CERCLA clean-
up process is carried out as set forth in CERCLA
Section 121.
Cleanups at federal facility sites not on the NPL
are carried out by the federal agency that owns or
operates the site. Federal agencies use the CERCLA
clean-up process outlined in the National Contingency
Plan at these sites. These cleanups are subject to state
laws regarding removal and remedial actions in
addition to CERCLA. A state's role at a non-NPL
federal facility site therefore will be determined by
that 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. Thus, the role of a qualifying
Indian tribe in a federal facility cleanup would be
substantially similar to that of a state. To qualify, a
tribe must be federally recognized; have a tribal
governing body that is currently performing
governmental functions to promote the health, safety,
and welfare of the affected population; and have
jurisdiction over a site.
84
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
6.2 FISCAL YEAR 1993
PROGRESS
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 identified on the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The
docket contains information regarding federal
facilities where hazardous waste is managed or from
which hazardous substances have been released.
In recent years, the number of federal facilities
listed on the docket and on the NPL has increased. To
distinguish the increasing number of federal facilities
from non-federal NPL sites, NPL updates list federal
facility and non-federal sites separately. This
distinction facilitates public awareness of the
responsible parties at federal facilities.
CERCLA 120(e)(2) requires that EPA negotiate
lAGs at each federal facility listed on the NPL. I AGs
are enforceable documents containing, among other
things, a review of remedy selection alternatives,
schedules of clean-up activities, and dispute reso-
lution provisions.
To keep Congress and the public informed of
remedial progress at federal facilities, CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5) requires that each federal
department or 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 6.4.
6.2.1 Status of Facilities on the
Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Federal facilities that have areas contaminated
with hazardous substances are identified on the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket, which was established under CERCLA
Section 120(c). The docket 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 theFederal Register. At that
time, 1,095 federal facilities were listed. Exhibit
6.2-1 shows the increase in the number of sites on the
docket since its first publication. During FY93,263
sites were added and 59 sites removed in a docket
update on February 5, 1993, and 113 sites were
added and 98 sites removed in a docket update on
November 10, 1993. (Facilities are removed from
the docket for such reasons as incorrect reporting of
hazardous waste activity or transfer from federal
ownership.)
The November 10,1993, update of the docket,
which identifies the status of federal facility sites as
of July 16,1993, listed a total of 1,945 facilities. Of
these sites, the Department of Defense (DOD) owned
or operated 863 (44 percent) and the Department of
the Interior (DOI) owned or operated428 (22 percent).
The 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 6.2-2.
6.2.2 Status of Federal Facilities on
the NPL
The NPL distinguishes federal facilities from
non-federal sites. NPL updates contain language that
clarifies the roles of EPA and other federal
departments and agencies with regard to federal
facility sites. Consistent with Executive Order 125 80
and the National Contingency Plan, EPA is typically
not the lead agency for all federal facility sites on the
NPL; federal agencies are usually lead agencies for
their own facilities. EPA is, however, responsible for
overseeing federal facility compliance with
CERCLA.
As of the end of FY93, there were 143 federal
facility sites on the NPL, including 123 final and 20
proposed sites. These sites included 18 proposed for
listing and 7 sites listed as final during FY93.
85
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 6.2-1
Number of Federal Facilities on the
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
1,095
1,945
Number of Facilities
Note: Dates are those on which updates were published in
the Federal Register.
Source: Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket. 51-037-28A
Federal departments and agencies made
substantial progress during FY93 toward cleaning
up federal facility NPL sites. Activity at federal
facility NPL sites during the year included the start
of approximately SOremedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), 40 remedial designs (RDs) and 20
remedial actions (RAs). Also, 56 records of decision
(RODs) were signed.
6.2.3 Interagency Agreements Under
CERCLA Section 120
lAGs are the cornerstone of the enforcement
program with regard to federal facility NPL sites.
During FY93, six CERCLA lAGs were executed to
accomplishhazardous waste cleanupat federal facility
NPL sites. Of the 123 final federal facility sites listed
on the NPL, 120 were covered by enforceable
agreements by the end of the fiscal year.
lAGs between EPA and each responsible federal
department or agency document some or all of the
Exhibit 6.2-2
Distribution of Federal Facilities
on the Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket
Department of Defense
Department of (he Interior
Department of Agriculture
Department of Transportation
Department of Energy
Ownership Not Yet Known
Tennessee Valley Authority
Corps of Engineers, Civil
Veterans Administration
United States Postal Service
Department of Justice
General Services Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Department of Commerce
Department of Health and Human
Services
Department of the Treasury
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Central Intelligence Agency
Department of Labor
Small Business Administration
TOTAL
863
428
122
111
90
76
42
36
34
24
23
21
20
17
12
11
7
4
2
1
1
1,945
(44%)
(22%)
(6%)
(6%)
(5%)
(4%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(1%)
(0.6%)
(0.6%)
(0.4%)
(0.2%)
(0.1%)
(0.05%)
(0.05%)
Note: Percentages total less than 100% due to rounding.
Source: Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket.
51-037-27
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. I AGs formalize the procedure and
schedule for submittal and review of documents and
include a timeline for remedial activities, in
accordance with the requirements of CERCLA
Section 120(e). They also establish mechanisms to
resolve disputes between the signatories.
Furthermore, EPA can assess stipulated penalties for
non-compliance with the terms of these agreements.
86
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
lAGs must comply with the public involvement
requirements of CERCLA Section 117 and are
enforceable by the states. Citizens may seek to
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 lAGs.
6.3 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 to
maximize cleanups with the finite resources available.
In FY93, OFFE focused on priority issues including
military base closure, acceleration of federal facility
cleanups, interagency forums to address issues, and
innovative technologies for cleanup.
6.3.1 Military Base Closure
Pursuant to the Base Realignment and Closure
Act, 30 major installations were selected in FY93 for
realignment or closure. Five of the installations were
listed on the NPL, bringing the number of closing
installations on the NPL to 20. Concurrent with
Congressional action on the closures, the President
submitted a Five-Point Plan to speed the economic
recovery of communities with military bases slated
for closure. EPA, DOD, the states, and local citizens
are responsible for implementing the plan.
The Fast Track Clean-Up Program, part of the
Five Point-Plan, focuses clean-up efforts on
facilitating reuse of bases scheduled for closure.
Program components, identified in a series of joint
EPA/DOD conferences, include identifying
uncontaminated parcels, accelerating cleanup,
facilitating leasing agreements, encouraging removal
actions, providing technical assistance at non-NPL
bases, enhancing community involvement, and
integrating cleanup with economic development.
The program aims to maximize and expedite the
reuse of bases scheduled for closure in a manner
consistent with the requirements of CERCLA Section
120(h).EPAandDODdeveIopedguidance,published
as a DOD directive on September 9, 1993, for
implementation of the Fast Track Clean-UpProgram.
Clean-up teams, which will be empowered to make
decisions locally and quickly, are to be identified and
trained in November 1993. EPA will dedicate clean-
up teams at sites identified by DOD as priority reuse
candidates and will support the teams by providing
technical experts in areas such as hydrogeology,
toxicology, ecological assessment, field support,
and legal review.
EPA's approach in supporting DOD in the Fast
Track Clean-Up Program was outlined in its Model
Accelerated Clean-Up Program guidance. EPA will
assign a Remedial Project Manager (RPM) to each
installation with a clean-up team. The RPM will
serve as an integral part of the clean-up team, spending
significant amounts of time at the base. DOD
supported EPA's efforts and agreed to commit 100
full-time equivalents to aid in achieving the objectives
of the Fast Track Clean-Up Program. Most of the
DOD resources have been assigned to EPA'sRegional
offices.
6.3.2 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 involvement, and the
effect of accelerated cleanup on existing federal
facility lAGs.
6.3.3 interagency Forums
TheFederalFacilitiesEnvironmentalRestoration
Dialogue Committee (FFERDQ, established in 1992
as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, provides a forum for identifying and
refining issues related to environmental restoration
activities at federal facilities. The goal of the
committee is to develop consensus on
87
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
recommendations for improving the process by which
environmental restoration decisions are made for
federal facilities.
During FY93, the FFERDC published an interim
report (Interim Report of the FFERDC:
Recommendations for Improving the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration Decision-
Making and Priority-Setting Processes) describing
methods for improving the process by which federal
agencies share information and involve affected
parties in decision making and priority setting at
federal facilities. Through the procedures outlined in
the interim report, the FFERDC seeks 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 establish a standard consultation
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 explicitly addresses priority
setting in the event of a funding shortfall. During
FY93, DOD and DOE began implementing many of
the public involvement activities recommended in
the report.
6.3.4 Innovative Technology
Development
OFFE, in conjunction with the Technology
Innovation Office (TIO) and the Office of Research
and Development (ORD), worked toward establishing
federal facilities as field research and development
centers for applying innovative technologies for
source reduction, pollution control, site investigation,
and site remediation.
Through public-private partnership projects, EPA
sought to measure the performance of innovative
technologies. EPA, DOE, and the State of Florida
began a public-private partnership in FY93 for the
remediation of ground water at the DOE Pinellas
Plant. At McClellan Air Force Base, EPA continued
a public-private partnership project with the State of
California, the Air Force, and private firms. OFFE
and TIO also continued to support an ongoing public-
private partnership project with the Air Force for
using bioventing to remediate subsurface
contamination from jet fuel spills. As of the end of
FY93, the Air Force had proposed bioventing for
over 100 sites around the nation.
In other FY93 activity, EPA continued
implementation of the July 1991 memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with DOE, DOD, DOI, and
the Western Governors Association, examining issues
and technology needs for environmental restoration
and waste management in western states. Reports
generated under the MOU identified barriers to
technology development and addressed the need for
a cooperative approach when developing technical
solutions to environmental restoration and waste
management problems. Pursuant to the MOU, the
Develop On-Site Innovative Technologies (DOIT)
Committee, established under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, was formed in 1993.
The DOIT Committee formed workgroups to
address specific problem areas (mixed waste, military
munitions waste, abandoned mine waste, and waste
contaminants at military bases) and one general
workgroup. The workgroups were to analyze
technology demonstrations and solicit stakeholder
involvement at federal facilities. In April 1993, the
proposed Stakeholder Participation Plan was
distributed to possible stakeholders with an invitation
to participate in the five workgroups. After the
workgroups met, the DOIT Committee convened in
June 1993 to review preliminary workgroup reports,
develop an interim management plan, and discuss
project implementation. In addition, two roundtables
(Regulatory and Institutional Barriers,
Commercialization) were held in the fall of 1993 to
assist the workgroups in developing
recommendations.
88
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
6.4 CERCLA IMPLEMENTATION
AT EPA FACILITIES
Of the 1,945 sites on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket at the end of
FY93, 20 were EPA-owned or operated. None of
these EPA-owned or operated sites were listed on the
NPL. A report on clean-up progress at these 20
facilities, as required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5),
is provided below.
6.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA
Section 120(e)(5)
CERCLA Section 120(e)(5) requires an annual
report to Congress from each federal department,
agency, or instrumentality on its progress in
implementing Superfund at its facilities. Specifically,
the annual report to Congress is to include, but need
not be limited to, the following items:
• Section 120(e)(5)(A): A report on the progress in
reaching lAGs under CERCLA Section
120(e)(2);
• Section 120(e)(5)(B): The specificcostestimates
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, by state, of the status
of each facility subject to this 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 or failure to
complete response actions.
EPA has given high priority to maintaining
compliance with CERCLA requirements at its own
facilities. 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 for all
environmental statutes.
EPA has also instituted an environmental auditing
program of EPA facilities to identify potential
violations of federal (including CERCLA), state,
and local requirements. By performing these detailed
facility analyses, EPA is better able to assist facilities
in compliance.
6.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA
Facilities Subject to Section 120
of CERCLA
At the end of FY93, the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket listed 20 EPA-
owned or operated facilities, including 4 sites added
to the docket and 1 site removed from the docket
during the fiscal year. Casmalia Resources in
Casmalia, California; EPA Headquarters in the
District of Columbia; the Brunswick Facility in
Brunswick, Georgia; and the Philadelphia Site in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were added to the docket,
and the Gulf Breeze Environmental Research
Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida, was deleted.
Casmalia Resources, the Brunswick Facility, and the
Philadelphia Site, however, may have been listed in
error, EPA is currently investigating those listings.
EPA is required to report on progress at EPA-
owned or operated sites in meeting Section 120
requirements 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 FY93; therefore, EPA has not entered into
any lAGs for remediation that would require
89
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 6.4-1
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))
IL
KS
Contained soil and
ground-water contamination
AR Combustion Research Facility No contamination
No contamination
Small-quantity generator
CO National Enforcement
Investigation Center
DC EPA Headquarters
Region 5 Environmental Services No contamination
Division Laboratory
EPA Mobil Incinerator
No contamination from
mobile incinerator
KS Region 7 Environmental Services No contamination
Divison Laboratory
MD EPA Central Regional Laboratory No contamination
Ml Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory
NC EPA Tech Center
NJ EPA Raritan Depot
OH AWBERC Facility
OH Center Hill Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory
No contamination
No contamination
No contamination that poses
a threat to the environment
No contamination
No contamination
OH Testing and Evaluation Facility No contamination
OR EPA Laboratory Small-quantity generator
TX EPA Laboratory
WA Region 10 Environmental
Services Divison Laboratory
Small-quantity generator
Soil and sediment
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.
Final removal of hazardous waste
conducted 8/93; EPA to request
change to non-handler generator
status.
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 completed. EPA requested
that site be evaluated for listing on the
National Priorities List.
Source: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and the Office of Administration
and Resources Management.
90
51-037-31
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
reporting underCERCLA Sections 120(e)(5)(A),
(B),(C),or(D).
• Because no EPA-owned or operated sites are
listed on the NPL, EPA has not undertaken any
RI/FSs or remedial activities 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 the 17 EPA
sites on the docket for which it is responsible.
Exhibit 6.4-1 provides the status, by state, of
EPA-owned or operated sites and identifies the
types of problems and progress of activities at
each site, as required by CERCLA Section
120(e)(5)(G).
EPA facilities that have undergone significant
response activities in FY93 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 by EPA's internal auditing program.
Initially, the site was remediated by removing the
accessible contaminated soil and replacing it with
uncontaminated soil. In conjunction with the
Underground Injection Control Program of the
AlabamaDepartmentofEnvironmental 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 soil
contamination.
EPA Headquarters, District of Columbia
EPA Headquarters was reported as a small-
quantity generator of hazardous wastes during FY93
because of the presence of unopened containers of
photographic development chemicals. The final
removal of the containers of hazardous waste occurred
in August 1993. EPA is requesting a change from
small-quantity generator status to non-handler
generator status of this facility.
EPA Central Regional Laboratory,
Maryland
EPA conducted an on-site investigation of
ground-water contamination at the EPA Central
Regional Laboratory in Annapolis, Maryland.
Although the State of Maryland is satisfied that
hazardous substances have not been released into the
environment and that further response action is not
required, the Agency installed a homogenizing tank
and 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
1963, the General Services Administration (GSA)
took possession of the property and, in 1988,
transferred approximately 200 acres of the site to
EPA. Although residual contamination from past
DOD and GSA activities at the facility persists, EPA
has not stored, released, or disposed of any hazardous
substances on the property.
A site investigation was conducted in FY91,
following the discovery of a contaminated surface-
water impoundment. The investigation resulted in
the implementation of interim clean-up actions.
Response activities have included spraying a rubble
pile containing asbestos with a bituminous sealant;
removing the liquid in the surface impoundment,
excavating soil, installing a liner, and backfilling the
impoundment with clean material; excavating and
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
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 former Navy site from DOD in
1970 and used the land to construct an environmental
testing laboratory in 1978. The property adjacent to
the laboratory contains a rubble landfill that was
covered by the Navy. The soil cover on the landfill
has deteriorated, exposing construction material. A
preliminary assessment (PA) and site investigation
(SI), which revealed the presence of hazardous
substances in the soil, sediment, and surface-water
run off, was completed in FY93.
Because the site is a former Navy site, the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program for
Formerly Used Defense sites will provide funding
for evaluating and correcting the hazardous
conditions. EPA requested that the site be evaluated
and proposed for listing on the NPL. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers will lead the clean-up process
and have requested funds to perform the RI/FS.
92
-------
Chapter 7
Superfund Program Support
Activities
In addition to direct clean-up and enforcement
activities, EPA carried out a number of support
activities in FY93. These support activities focused
on improving community involvement, enhancing
public access to Superfund information, and
strengthening EPA's 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
that is required by Section 105(f) of CERCLA.
7.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Superfund's community involvement program
demonstrates EPA's commitment to informing
potentially affected citizens about Superfund sites
and involving them in the clean-up process. EPA
focuses on
• Informing the public of planned or ongoing
actions;
• Giving the public an opportunity to comment on
and provide input for technical decisions; and
• Identifying and resolving conflict.
The guideline for EPA's proactive community
involvement program is "early, often, and always."
EPA is committed to beginning outreach activities
early in the Superfund process, meeting with citizens
on a regular basis, and always listening to citizens'
concerns.
EPA's policy of enhancing community
involvement is demonstrated by its continued efforts
to tailor community involvement activities to each
community's needs and to identify effective
approaches for reaching concerned citizens. There
is no formula for approaching a community; each
community is unique and requires a unique
communication strategy. In tailoring opportunities
for communities, EPA' s strategy satisfies statutory
requirements and also uses the following innovative
communication techniques:
• Sponsoring open houses for local citizens to
meet one-on-one with EPA Superfund site
teams to discuss community concerns or site
information;
• Using various media, such as public access
television and video monitoring equipment, to
convey information from EPA to local citizens
and to promote greater public understanding
of participation in site activities;
• "Superfund 101" courses to educate affected
citizens about the Superfund clean-up process
and the opportunities for involvement in the
process;
• Establishing "store-front offices" in
communities, often staffed by a local resident;
and
• Providing the community real-time access to
data from site-monitoring stations.
EPA, while streamlining the Superfund process
through the Superfund Accelerated Qean-Up
Model (SACM), remains committed to promoting
meaningful community involvement in decision
making during all phases of site cleanup. EPA
views early and frequent public involvement as
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms Referenced In Chapter 7
ASTSWMO Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
CA Cooperative Agreement
CPCA Core Program Cooperative Agreement
CWG Community Working Group
DOI Department of the Interior
GAO General Accounting Office
HSRC Hazardous Substance Research Center
IAG Interagency Agreement
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MOD Memorandum of Understanding
NACEPT National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology
NAMC National Association of Minority Contractors
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
NTIS National Technical Information Service
OSDBU Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RO Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
SACM Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
SBA Small Business Administration
SSC Superfund State Contract
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
WBE Women's Business Enterprise
critical to the success of EPA's mission to protect
human health and the environment. During FY93,
EPA continued to improve the vigorous community
involvement program by emphasizing the importance
of public participation through its Superfund
reauthorization and administrative improvements
efforts. Public participation improvements focused
on ways to increase community involvement in the
Superfund program, enhance outreach between EPA
and communities, and ensure environmental justice
by addressing the concerns of minority and low
income communities.
7.1.1 Fiscal Year 1993 Highlights
EPA enhanced its community involvement
program in FY93 by improving community
involvement guidance, training tools, and outreach
mechanisms:
• National Community Involvement Conferences.
EPA continued to hold semi-annual national
community involvement conferences that
provided Regional personnel an opportunity to
share information and discuss issues of national
concern. Highlights of the two conferences
included sessions on environmental justice,
measurements of success, community
involvement in SACM, and administrative
improvements.
Government Accounting Office (GAO) Support.
Throughout FY93, Headquarters and the
Regional offices provided support to GAO in its
ongoing study of whether communities are
adequately involved in decisions about Superfund
sites.
Enhanced Community Involvement Through
Administrative Improvements. The enhancement
of meaningful public involvement is one of the
17 areas where EPA is changing Superfund
through the administrative improvement
initiative. In FY93, EPA identified 21
demonstration projects where Regions focused
on environmental justice issues. The Regions
also identified 16 sites where innovative
community involvement techniques were
demonstrated including two sites where EPA
convened community working groups (CWGs).
National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy andTechnology (NACEPT). In September
1993,nearly501ocal citizens metwithNACEPT
members to discuss how to improve community
involvement in the Superfund program. EPA
conducted the meeting through the use of a
satellite-video link to 20 cities across the country.
Vision Workgroup/Reauthorization Activities.
The Agency formed the Vision Workgroup to
develop an integrated model of community
involvement, environmental justice, and
economic redevelopment, as well as to address
these issues for Superfund reauthorization. The
workgroup presented analyses to the NACEPT
subcommittee on Superfund and continued to
work on draft proposals for reauthorization in
FY94. The workgroup focused on facilitating
earlier and more meaningful community
94
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
involvement, providing easier access for the
public to technical assistance grants (TAGs),
and fostering CWGs.
Technical Outreach Services for Communities.
The technical outreach program expands EPA's
tools for community outreach by providing an
alternative, independent source of technical
information. EPA's Office of Research and
Development's Office of Exploratory Research
provides a national network of five hazardous
substance research centers (HSRCs). Authorized
by SARA Title III, Section 31 l(d), the HSRCs
are supported by a network of 23 universities
nationwide. Each HSRC supports two EPA
Regions and provides technology transfer and
training. The HSRCs also provide services that
are flexible and tailored to each community's
needs. For example, the technical expert at the
HSRC may review site-related documents, attend
public meetings, explain technical process
information, or provide an independent
assessment of site activities.
Superfund Community Relations Skills Course.
EPA offered this course in FY93 to ensure that
EPA staff members are equipped with the latest
community involvement skills and techniques,
and that they have a thorough understanding of
community relations requirements at Superfund
sites. EPA designed the course to allow
independent Regional presentations, ensure
flexibility to tailor the course to the specific
audience's needs, and reduce travel costs. EPA
offered the community relations skills course to
community relations staff from EPA, other federal
agencies, and state agencies across the country.
The course was held in several Regional offices
and state capitals.
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 proposed or final National Priorities List (NPL)
sites. Using TAG funds, local groups can employ
technical advisors to assist them in understanding the
Superfund clean-up process and the conditions at
specific hazardous waste sites.
EPA's continuing efforts to enhance the TAG
program and encourage increased public participation
reflect a commitment to meaningful public
involvement:
• As a result of the changes contained in the TAG
final rule that was promulgated on October 1,
1992 (51FR 45311), EPA has issued a simplified
TAG application package to help community
groups apply for and receive a grant and hire a
technical advisor to help them manage the grant.
• To better publicize the TAG program, EPA
issued a short brochure (e.g., who can apply and
what can be done with the funds on TAGs), as
well as a quick reference fact sheet containing a
more detailed description of the program. Both
TAG materials identify Regional and
Headquarters contacts for more information about
the TAG program.
• To help promote national consistency in
implementing the TAG program, EPA held a
two-and-one-half day training session for
Regional TAG Coordinators and Grants
Specialists in November 1992.
Since the TAG program began in FY88, EPA
has awarded 135 TAGs worth more than $7 million.
This total includes 32 TAGs awarded in 8 Regions in
FY93. Exhibit 7.1-1 illustrates the increasing number
of TAGs awarded under the Superfund program
since FY88.
7.1.2 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 to participate
7.2 A COORDINATED APPROACH
TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
The Agency's public information outreach
program is built on a system of information
95
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 7.1-1
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from
Fiscal Year 1988 Through Fiscal Year 1993
140 V
(135) .
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
FY93
Fiscal Year Awards
Cumulative Prior Awards
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Hazardous Site Control Division.
51-037-16
coordination and management. All Superfund
documents available to the public are listed in the
Compendium of Superfund Program Publications
and its regular quarterly update bulletins. Single
copies of the compendium and updates are available
free upon request from the Superfund Document
Center or from the Department of Commerce's
National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
Electronic access to the compendium and updates is
also available through Agency electronic bulletin
boards or the NTIS FEDWORLD gateway to the
Internet system.
During FY93, EPA oversaw the full
implementation of the EPA-NTIS Superfund
Partnership, a comprehensive interagency effort to
provide maximum public access to Superfund
documents. Through this partnership, the Agency
and NTIS conduct an outreach and marketing program
to inform the public about the availability of
Superfund documents from NTIS. This outreach
effort has significantly reduced public inquiries
directed to the Agency, conserving EPA resources,
while providing the public with fast, next-day delivery
of Superfund documents requested through NTIS.
Further information on the services provided
through NTIS and Superfund public outreach
activities, including the Superfund Docket and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/
Superfund Hotline, is provided below.
The National Technical Information
Service
The Department of Commerce' s NTIS serves as
a permanent archive and general source of federal
publications, including Superfund documents. Since
the inception of the Superfund program, EPA has
96
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
fulfilled requests formore than twomiUiondocuments
free of charge. 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.
The Agency's joint effort with NTIS to promote
the availability of Superfund documents provides
the public with ready access to the entire Superfund
collection. During FY93.EPA-NTIS efforts included
expanding the Superfund document collection
available through NTIS and to provide distribution
services for documents developed by EPA Regions.
NTIS staff also began operating and managing the
Superfund Document Center, which had previously
been staffed by EPA contractors. Using NTIS
employees provides considerable savings to the
government and facilitates access to the many
production services housed at the NTIS headquarters
in Springfield, Virginia.
In other FY93 efforts, the new Outreach and
Special Projects Office completed its first full year of
operation and began implementing a communications
and outreach plan. In addition to providing
information management and delivery systems, the
office plays a central coordinating role for outreach
efforts, ensuring that the Superfund program "speaks
with one voice."
NTIS has established a Superfund Order Desk
where users may purchase single copies of documents
or customized subscriptions for categories of
documents pertinent to their needs. Pre-publication
documents are available at the Superfund Order
Desk prior to completion of formal printing and
distribution. The joint EPA-NTIS outreach and
marketing effort informed all regularusers aboutthis
service during FY93.
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 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 (RODs) as well as a limited
stock of issues of the Federal Register in which
Superfund regulations are published.
Other Information Sources
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline provides
information to the public and EPA personnel
concerning hazardous waste regulations and policies.
The hotline is a comprehensive source of general
information about ongoing Superfund program
developments.
EPA also maintains the Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection at EPA Headquarters and
Regional libraries. The collection contains documents
ranging from RODs to commercially produced books
on hazardous waste and the Superfund program.
7.3 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. SubpartF of the National
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 121 (f) of CERCLA.
Subpart O describes EPA's authority to transfer
funds and responsibilities to states and Indian tribes
97
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
so that they can undertake response actions in
accordance with the NCP. It also describes the
assurances required from states and Indian tribes
under CERCLA Section 104.
7.3.1 Response Agreements and Core
Program Cooperative
Agreements
Response agreements provide states, Indian
tribes, territories, 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. This section discusses each type of
agreement in detail.
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, territories, and political subdivisions work
with EPA in Superfund response activities.
States must provide the Agency with certain
assurances for remedial (long-term) action to begin.
These include the operation and maintenance of
remedies, meeting the cost-sharing requirement,
assuring a 20-year capacity for disposal or treatment
of hazardous wastes, providing off-site disposal, and
assuring of interests in property, if necessary. Indian
tribes may also need to provide the assurance to
accept interests in property in certain cases.
Superfund State Contracts
SSCs are required when EPA is the lead agency
for remedial actions. These contracts require that
states, Indian tribes, territories, and political
subdivisions provide EPA with assurances for
financial and administrative standards required by
CERCLA Section 104. SSCs specify the process for
the collection of cost-share payments from states,
Indian tribes, and political subdivisions. SSCs must
be signed before EPA can start remedial action. The
SSC cost share is generally 10 percent of the cost of
the remedial action (RA), but does not include the
cost of planning activities such as the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) or remedial
design (RD).
SSCs are also 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.
Remedial Cooperative Agreements
Remedial CAs enable states, Indian tribes,
territories and political subdivisions (with appropriate
hazardous waste management capability and
sufficient resources) to assume responsibility for
many response activities. As the lead agency, the
state, Indian tribe, or political subdivision receives
Superfund monies to plan and manage studies, RDs,
and clean-up activities at specified sites within its
jurisdiction. For an RA, a state-lead CA documents
the state's cost share (i.e., cash or in-kind services)
and other CERCLA Section 104 assurances. All
remedial CA recipients must comply with the financial
management and administrative requirements that
are described in 40 CFR 35, Subpart O.
Pre-Remedial Cooperative Agreements
EPA awards pre-remedial CAs for conducting
pre-remedial activities, such as preliminary
assessments and site inspections.
Removal Cooperative Agreements
Removal CA funds are used by states, Indian
tribes, territories, 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.
Support Agency Cooperative Agreements
Support-agency CAs allow states, Indian tribes,
territories, and political subdivisions that do nothave
lead-agency responsibility to actively participate in
98
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
response activities at sites under their jurisdiction.
The state, Indian tribe, orpolitical subdivision assists
the lead agency by sharing information and expertise,
and also benefits from the experience gained by
participating in a Superfund response action.
Enforcement Cooperative Agreements
Enforcement CA funds may be used by a state to
undertake potentially responsible party searches,
issue notice letters for negotiation activities, undertake
administrative and judicial enforcement actions, or
oversee PRP response actions. To be eligible for
enforcement CA funding, states must submit the
following items to EPA:
• A letter from the state Attorney General certifying
that the state has the capabilities 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
enforcement activities.
Co re-Prog ram Cooperative Agreements
The legislative history of SARA Section 104(d)
indicates Congressional intent to increase the scope
of CERCLA funding to include certain basic, or
core, activities of states, Indian tribes, and territories
that are not attributable to a specific site, but are
important to the improvement of theiroverall response
capabilities. EPA meets the requirements of SARA
Section 104(d) through 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, Indian tribe, or territory program activities.
Approval of the budget request and scope of work is
dependent on the developmental needs of a state,
Indian tribe, or territory 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.
The core program is intended to lay the
groundwork for the implementation of an integrated
EPA-state/Indian tribe territory approach for meeting
Superfund goals. EPA typically budgets and annually
distributes $10 to $13 million among the 10 Regional
offices for CPCAs. Regions have been authorized to
provide additional funding from certain other
categories of funding if monies are available.
7.3.2 Fiscal Year 1993 Highlights
From FY81 through FY93, EPA has awarded
nearly $ 1.2 billion in CAs to states, Indian tribes, and
political subdivisions to assist them in participating
in Superfund response activities. This amount
includes $185 million awarded through site-specific
CAs in FY93. Through remedial, removal, or
enforcement CAs, states, Indian tribes, and political
subdivisions led over 85 new or continuing Fund-
financed removals, RI/FSs, RDs, and RAs, and
enforced 110 PRP responses at Superfund sites
during FY93. This included two RI/FSs, five RDs,
six RAs, and two removal actions initiated during
FY93.
FY93 marked the seventh year of the
implementation of the core program. Since its
inception in FY87, recipients have been awarded
approximately $84 million in CPCA funding. During
FY93,46 states, Puerto Rico, and four Indian tribes
received an estimated $12 million through CPCAs.
EPA also continued the effort begun in FY92 to
evaluate the effectiveness of state and tribal
implementation of the program. During FY93, EPA
assessed the programs of two states and one Indian
tribe. Based on the results of the FY92 and FY93
assessments, EPA determined that the CPCAs are a
valuable tool that has allowed states and Indian tribes
to enhance their involvement in the implementation
of Superfund.
The Agency also continued to offer a seminar on
response agreements to states, Indian tribes,
territories, political subdivisions, and EPA staff. The
three-day seminar provides the skills and information
needed to administer CAs and SSCs. The seminar
also provides information on the contractual
mechanisms of these agreements, including their
purposes and applications. The seminar identifies
steps necessary to fulfill a response agreement,
99
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
explains assurances, assists Project Officers in
calculating the cost share, and describes techniques
for managing response agreements. During FY93,
the Agency conducted two seminars involving more
than 60 state, tribal, and federal participants.
State Highlights
To support increased state involvement in
Superfund, EPA engaged in several efforts to provide
states with information about the program. EPA
produced videotapes of classes from CERCLA
orientation sessions and the On-Scene Coordinator/
Remedial Project Manager Academy and provided
them to the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) for use
by state personnel. EPA continued to meet with state
representatives on topics of interest, such as
establishing screening levels for soil cleanup,
managing site information, and implementing
Superfund administrative improvements.
To provide an electronic on-line information
exchange, EPA funded and developed a state
Superfund network. The network is designed as an
information exchange bulletin board for state
Superfund program representatives. Network services
offered include weekly news updates and electronic
mail services, a document service, and databases that
provide full text-search capabilities. EPA supported
efforts to provide access to the network to EPA
Regional Superfund offices as well as states.
Indian Tribe Highlights
In FY93, 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 FY93 Indian tribe involvement included the
following Regional activities:
• Region 2 negotiated an interagency agreement
with the Department of Interior (DOI) to provide
up to $250,000 for response actions at a landfill
located on the Tonawanda Band of the Seneca
Reservation. The Region also negotiated and
awarded a CPCA worth $151,400 to the St.
Regis Mohawk Tribe.
• Region 5 provided SARA Title III
implementation on Indian land and first-
responder awareness training to Indian tribes.
• Region 6 negotiated and awarded a CPCA for
$400,500 and a multi-site CA for $447,300 to
the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council of
Oklahoma. The Region also negotiated and
awarded a CPCA for $445,000 and a multi-site
CAfor$273,400 to the All-Indian Pueblo Council
of New Mexico. In addition, the Region awarded
$40,000 in management assistance funding to
the Navajo Nation for interaction with EPA at
the United Nuclear and PrewittNPL sites through
a support-agency CA.
• Region 7 sponsored a two-day SARA Title III/
Community Right-to-Know workshop for local
Indian tribes.
• Region 8 awarded a grant to the Crow Tribe for
an introductory course on emergency
management. The Region also awarded grants to
the Standing Rock Sioux and Southern Ute
Tribes for incident-analysis courses.
Region 9 performed emergency removals on the
Augustine Indian Reservation near Thermal,
California, and the Monrongo Indian Reservation
near Banning, California. The Region also
performed a time-critical removal on Navajo
lands near Montezuma Creek, Utah.
• Region lOprovidedmanagementassistancefunds
to the Puyallap Tribe to facilitate tribal
participation in clean-up activities at the
Commencement Bay Superfund site in Tacoma,
Washington, and to support the Puyallap Land
Claims Settlement Act.
In ongoing Headquarters activities, representa-
tives from EPA's Superfund program participated in
the EPA/Indian Tribe Workgroup as well as other
Agency workgroups working on Indian tribe issues.
Superfund program representatives also responded
100
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
to inquiries involving implementation of CERCLA
Subpart O, provided program coordination with
other Agency offices, and served as co-planners for
the 1994 National Tribal Conference on Environ-
mental Management.
7.4 MINORITY FIRM CONTRACTING
Section 105(f) of CERCLA (P.L. 99-499)
requires EPA to consider minority contractors for
procurement opportunities when awarding contracts
annually for Superfund work. EPA' s Of fice of Small
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)
is responsible for ensuring that the Agency complies
with Section 105(f) of CERCLA. EPA contracts
include direct procurements awarded by the Agency
and indirect procurements that result from Superfund
financial assistance awards (i.e., contracts and
subcontracts under CAs awarded to the states, and
those awarded under interagency agreements (lAGs)
between EPA and other federal agencies).
During FY93, contracts worth $29.3 million, or
more than 3 percent of all Superfund contracts, were
awarded to disadvantaged businesses and minority
contractors. As Exhibit 7.4-1 illustrates, EPA's CAs
with states resulted in awards of nearly $1.5 million
to minority contractors; this amount includes a
$300,000 grant for Superfund training awarded to
the National Association of Minority Contractors
(NAMC), a non-profit organization. Other federal
agencies awarded $5.8 million in contracts,
subcontracts, and purchase orders to minority firms
through IAG funding. Under the Agency's direct
procurement program, minority business enterprises
received $22.0 million in Superfund contracts through
various contracting methods (e.g., Small Business
Administration (SBA) 8(a) awards, direct minority
awards, and subcontracts).
Minority firms provide three types of services to
the Superfund program: professional, field support,
and construction. Exhibit 7.4-2 illustrates examples
of tasks performed under each category.
7.4.1 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified
Minority Firms
OSDBU conducted a number of outreach
activities during FY93 to increase the number of
qualified minority firms eligible to seek contract and
subcontract opportunities through the Superfund
program:
• NAMC and OSDBU conducted four training
Exhibit 7.4-1
Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1993
Type of Activity
Direct Procurement
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements 2
Total
Total Dollars
Obligated
$621 ,680,000
113,395,098
191,676,221
$926,751,319
Minority Contractor
Participation 1
$22,000,000
1,495,386
5,825,009
$29,321,009
Percentage of
Total
3.54
1.32
3.04
3.16
1 This does not include women's business enterprise participation.
2 This amount represents the total dollars awarded in FY93 through interagency agreements.
Source: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
51-037-9
101
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 7.4-2
Services Provided by Minority Contractors
Professional
Field Support
Construction
Health Assessments
Community Relations
Feasibility Studies
Data Management Security
Geophysical Surveys
Remedial Investigations
Expert Witness
Editing
Air Quality Monitoring
Drilling/Well Installation
Laboratory Analysis
Site Cleanup
Excavations
Waste Hauling & Drilling
Security
Site Support
Facilities
Source: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
51-037-8A
sessions designed to help minority contractors
become more successful in winning Superfund
prime contract and subcontract awards. One-
hundred twenty-seven attendees participated in
the training sessions. In addition, 50 minority
firms participated in a trade fair held for minority
contractors.
OSDBU, in cooperation with the States of Florida,
New Jersey, Louisiana, California, Ohio, Texas,
Colorado, and South Dakota, hosted minority
business enterprise (MBE) and women's business
enterprise (WBE) workshops to familiarize
minority and women business owners with the
opportunities available through Superfund and
other EPA programs. More than 640 minority
and women business owners participated in these
workshops.
In May 1993, EPA hosted the annual MBE/
WBE workshop focusing on the need for
improving minority contractor utilization.
Representatives from EPA Regional offices and
various Headquarters offices attended the
workshop.
7.4.2 Efforts to Encourage Other
Federal Agencies and
Departments to Use Minority
Contractors
OSDBU continues to work with other federal
agencies and departments to try to increase the
participation of minority contractors in the Superfund
program. Other agencies and departments held
numerous conferences, workshops, and seminars to
encourage minority business participation in the
Superfund program. In addition, OSDBU maintains
communication and coordination with the Superfund
Program Office and other agencies to identify and
resolve potential problems that could hinder the
ability of minority contractors to participate in the
Superfund program. Finally, EPA developed several
publications to promote the use of minority contractor
utilization in Superfund contracting which are
available through NTIS and listed in the
Compendium of Superfund Program Publications
and its regular quarterly update bulletins.
102
-------
Chapter 8
Resource Estimate for
Superfund Implementation
Section 301 (h)(l )(G) of CERCLA requires EPA
to estimate the resources needed by the federal
government to complete Superfund implementation.
The Agency interprets this requirement to be a report
on the cost of completing cleanup at sites currently
on the National Priorities List (NPL). Much of this
work will occur after FY93.
Section 8.1 of this chapter includes annual
information on Trust Fund resources obligated by
EPA and other federal departments and agencies
through FY93. An overview of the method used to
estimate the long-term costs associated with site
cleanup is contained in Section 8.2, and an estimate
of the long-term costs of cleaning up sites on the
existing NPL is contained in Section 8.3. The estimate
includes Trust Fund resource projections for EPA
and other federal departments and agencies funded
through the Trust Fund for FY94 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 8.4 provides information submitted to EPA
by other federal departments and agencies on their
resource needs (from the Trust Fund and within their
agency budgets) from FY90 through FY93, and
describes their Superfund activities.
The long-term estimate provided in Section 8.3
is based primarily on the resources required to carry
out the responsibilities and duties assigned to EPA
and other federal departments and agencies by
Executive Order 12580. To compute the estimate,
EPA must make assumptions about the size and
scope of the Superfund program, the nature and
number of response actions, the level of participation
by states and private parties, and the 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, assumptions are
made about which activities will be necessary to
clean up the sites and delete them from the NPL.
In developing the long-term resource estimate,
EPA considered several sources of information:
• EPA Superfund budgets for FY90 through
FY93, including budget requests from other
federal departments and agencies;
• Data submitted to EPA by other federal
departments and agencies under an approved
General Services Administration (GSA)
Interagency Report Control Number, issued on
Februarys, 1988, as required under the provisions
of 41CFR Part 201-45.6;
• The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket developed under Section
120(c)ofCERCLAandeachfederaldepartment'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.
103
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Acronyms RefMvncad In Chapter 8
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CA Cooperative Agreement
CD Consent Decree
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GSA General Services Administration
IAG Interagency Agreement
MARAD Maritime Administration
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priorities List
NRT National Response Team
OLM Outyear Liability Model
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RD Remedial Design
ROD Record of Decision
RRT Regional Response Team
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration
TCE Trichloroetylene
TV A Tennessee Valley Authority
US DA United States Department of Agriculture
USCG United States Coast Guard
VA Department of Veterans Affairs
Specifically, EPA has estimated resource needs
for FY94 and beyond. The Agency is working to
improve data quality, refine cost estim ating methods,
and collect additional information. This long-term
effort has been coordinated with the development of
the FY95 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 results of this effort are presented in
Section 8.3 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.
8.1 SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF
RESOURCES
Since the enactment of CERCLA in 1980,
Congress has provided Superfund with $ 11.9 billion
in budget authority (FY81 through FY93). This
estimate includes $1.7 billion for FY81 through
FY86, and $10.2 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY93. The FY93 budget allocated
total resources of $1.6 billion for the following
activities:
The Response Program uses 77 percent of
Superfund resources. Response program
activities include site assessment (7%), time-
critical and non-time-critical removals (15%),
long-term clean-up actions (33%), and program
implementation activities (13%). Also included
is support provided by the Office of Water, the
Office of Air and Radiation, and other federal
agencies (9%).
• 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 8 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 4 percent of
Superfund resources for the study and validation
of new environmental technologies.
Exhibit 8.1-1 presents a snapshot of the allocation
of Superfund resources for FY92 and FY93 within
these categories.
104
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 8.1-1
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
Actuals
$1,349.6
1,195.6
154.0
190.1
121.0
65.8
$1,726.5
FY93
Actuals
$1.224.2
1,071.0
153.2
173.0
123.5
64.1
$1,584.8
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation.
51-037-2B
8.1.1 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
• The projected number and average cost of studies,
remedial designs (RDs), and remedial actions
(RAs) undertaken;
• The extent and cost of removal activity; and
• The proportion of direct clean-up actions
undertaken by PRPs.
8.1.2 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 (whethervoluntarily
or under order). When PRPs finance site clean-up
efforts, potential EPA Superfund obligations for
those sites are dramatically reduced and the remaining
principal cost is PRP oversight. EPA continues to
develop and implement policies designed to
encourage PRP cleanups.
In addition to 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.
8.2 RESOURCE MODEL
ASSUMPTIONS
Estimating the cost of cleaning up current NPL
sites depends on a number of factors, many of which
will change as the program continues to mature. The
main factors are
• Changes in Superfund program policies and
procedures because of the revised NCP,
particularly the 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;
Changes in clean-up approaches, such as
implementing more early actions in favor of
remedial actions; and
• The nature of and demand for removal actions.
Based on these factors, EPA uses the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM) to estimate the long-term
resource needs of Superfund. The OLM provides
meaningful long-range forecasts, has the flexibility
to refine forecasts, and can be adjusted for a large
number of program-related variables. Thesevariables
can be individually adjusted to reflect actual or
anticipated changes in the program.
The four primary cost categories used in the
105
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
OLM to estimate the long-term resources required to
clean up the existing NPL are
• Active NPL sites;
• NPL sites where the remedial process has not yet
begun;
• Non-site activities; and
• RA costs.
EPA' s estimate of resources required to clean-up
the existing NPL sites is provided in Section 8.3. 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.
8.2.1 Active NPL Sites
Remedial efforts are underway at most of the
sites on the current NPL. Remedial plans are being
developed for the remaining sites on the NPL, leaving
only 77 sites on the existing NPL that were inactive
attheendofFY93.
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 enforcementapproach. Enforcement-related
variables within the Model include costs, workyears,
and the shift in remedial costs when Superfund
assumes responsibility from, or passes responsibility
to, a PRP. As with remedial activities, most
enforcement costs and workyears are estimated.
8.2.2 Sites Yet to Begin the Remedial
Process
The OLM uses the same general approach for
sites where the remedial process has yet to begin.
Cleaning up an NPL site involves a number of
different activities occurring over time and in
predictable arrangements. For sites where the remedial
process has yet to begin, the OLM must first
approximate the activities that will be involved when
remediation of the sites begins. Approximations are
made by applying several "generic" activity sequences
to the number of sites being estimated. When the
activities have been set, cost and workyear pricing
factors are applied to estimate the necessary resources.
A consistent approach is used for all site activities,
both remedial and enforcement. In the approach,
tradeoffs such as avoiding 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.
8.2.3 Non-Site Costs
Although non-site activities comprise a
substantial portion of the budget, individually they
are fairly small and stable. For these reasons, resource
needs for these activities are estimated by applying
annual factors to the levels included in the requested
budget for the current year.
Aside from the number of sites requiring cleanup
and the cost of individual cleanups, the assumption
of managerial and financial responsibility for a site
has the largest potential impact on the cost of the
Superfund program. There are many factors involved
in establishing who is responsible for a site (referred
to as the site "lead"), including
• Level of emphasis on the enforcement program;
106
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
• Willingness of states to assume financial
responsibility; and
• Cost-sharing arrangements between Superfund
and the states and between Superfund and the
PRPs.
The Model accommodates each of these factors
with one or more variables, allowing the estimation
of Superfund liabilities across a wide range of site-
lead and cost-sharing scenarios. Site variables include
• Proportion of sites addressed by each lead
category (Fund, PRP, state, and state
enforcement);
• Number of sites that are owned and/or operated
by state or local governments; and
• Number of sites that follow each of several
enforcement paths.
Choices among these variables generally affect
both cost and duration of the program. Increases in
PRP leads will ultimately result in lower Fund costs,
but related litigation will substantially extend the
amount of time required to reach deletion of the sites
from the NPL.
8.2.4 Factors Related to Remedial
Action Costs
The method of estimating RA costs is based on
analysis of the records of decision (RODs) signed
from FY87 through FY93. A statistical analysis of
RA cost estimates contained in these RODs identified
eleven 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, control the R A cost module
oftheOLM.
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.
8.3 ESTIMATED RESOURCES TO
COMPLETE CLEANUP
As illustrated in Exhibit 8.3-1, EPA's estimate
of the total Trust Fund liability to complete cleanup
of existing NPL sites is $27.7 billion. This total
includes the OLM long-term estimate of $ 15.8 billion
for FY94 and beyond. Major assumptions shaping
the long-term estimate are as follows:
• Only the Trust Fund cost of the current sites
proposed to or listed on the NPL (1,320 sites,
including 1,197 final, 71 proposed, 1 deferred,
andSl deleted sites as of September 30,1993)is
included.
• Removal activities at sites on the NPL remain at
current levels.
• RA cost factors (choice of technology, site size,
and technology cost) result in an estimated cost
of $12.2 million per RA.
• Program support and other non-site elements are
straightlined at the levels of the current request
year budget (FY95 President'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. (Because oversight
is significantly less expensive than cleanup,
Fund costs dropdramatically when PRPs assume
financial responsibility for more cleanups.)
• No resource and programmatic assumptions for
federal facility sites are included in the OLM.
The OLM does not generate a resource estimate
107
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Exhibit 8.3-1
Estimate of Total Trust Fund Liability
to Complete Cleanup
at Sites on the
National Priorities List
(in Billions)
Total Allocations
FY93 and Prior
FY94 and beyond
TOTAL
$11.9
15.8
$27.7
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation and 51-037-ac
Outyear Liability Model.
for the federal facility program.
Assumptions about the future reflect planning
assumptions from the Superfund Program
Management Manual and historical performance
averages, both of which are revised periodically.
EPA will continue to monitor developments that
affect program costs. Changes will be incorporated
into the model as they occur, improving depiction of
future programmatic direction and refining previous
analysis. OLM estimates will vary over time, as a
result, and subsequent editions of this Report will
most likely contain revised estimates.
8.4 ESTIMATED RESOURCES FOR
OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The second element in fulfilling the requirements
of Section 301 (h)(l)(G) of CERCLA is providing an
estimation of the resources needed by other federal
departments and agencies. The Superfund resource
needs of the other Executive Branch departments and
agencies are met through two sources: the Superfund
Trust Fund and the individual federal department's
or agency's budget.
Trust Fund monies are provided to other federal
departments and agencies through two mechanisms:
• Interagency Budgets: EPA provides Trust Fund
monies to other federal departments and agencies
that support EPA's Superfund efforts. Transfers
are accomplished through an interagency budget
under Executive Order 12580.
• Site-Specific Agreements: EPA also provides
money from the Trust Fund to other federal
departments and agencies through site-specific
agreements.
Federal departments and agencies also provide
support to Superfund activities through CERCLA-
specific funds and general funds of the department or
agency. Exhibit 8.4-1 summarizes reported
expenditures (both Trust Fund and agency funds) of
other federal departments and agencies. There are no
projections of future needs available for other
agencies. The information below 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 more than 100 sites listed on the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket. None of these sites are currently listed on the
NPL, but several have been proposed for listing. 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
inventory and discovery process for USDA-owned
facilities or managed lands with the following
exceptions:
• The Forest Service has not completed an
108
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 8.4-1
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
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
116.3 1107.2
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
132.5 2.157.7
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
149.2 2,703.0
FY93
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
13.3
1.1 1.8
-- 1,638.6
-- 1,150.2
.9
0.7
60.0
51.9
0.8 62.0
33.3
0.4
5.5
3.4
21.0
2.0
148.3 2,898.5
FY90-FY93
Total
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
67.1
7.7 5.1
-- 4,434.3
-- 4,026.4
6.1 2.4
1.1
210.2
181.2
4.3 225.5
130.4
2.8
17.5
7.7
61.3
18.0
546.3 8,866.4
Source: Office of Program Management.
51-037-4C
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 located on national forest lands and
are the result of third-party activities that 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 been
established. As a trustee for natural resources,
the Forest Service acts for USDA in providing
support and assistance to the National Response
System through the National Response Team
(NRT) and 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
reduce risks to coastal habitats and resources from
hazardous chemical releases through preparedness
109
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
and response activities; protect and restore NOAA
trust habitats and resources affected by hazardous
waste sites in coastal areas; and advance 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 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'sScientificSupportCoondinatorsprovide
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and EPA On-
Scene Coordinators with scientific and technical
expertise in planning for and responding to oil
and hazardous material releases. Scientific
Support Coordinators, whose work is funded by
NOAA, seek to mitigate the effects of releases
into coastal areas.
NOAA also undertakes site-specific clean-up
actions at facilities under its control. This program is
relatively new within the agency; NOAA began
receiving money for this specific program in 1993.
Funding increases in this area are directly related to
the number of NOAA sites that are added to the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket.
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DOD) has the
authority and responsibility under CERCLA to clean
up contamination associated with past DOD 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 DOD
activities. DOD is responsible for remediating such
contamination in accordance with the procedures of
the NCP.
At the close of FY93, DOD identified more than
19,500 sites on more than 1,800 installations with
the potential for contamination. DOD is committed
to cleaning up contaminated sites.
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, an integral part of operations at DOE
facilities, ensures that risks to human health and the
environment posed by past, present, and future
operations are eliminated or reduced to safe levels.
During FY93, DOE made significant progress in
reaching and amending agreements with regulatory
entities, undertaking clean-up actions, and initiating
measures to prevent future environmental problems.
In accordance with CERCLA Section 120, DOE
continued 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 are Brookhaven
National Laboratory Site, New York; Fernald
Environmental Management Project(formerlyknown
as Feed Materials Production Center), Ohio; Hanford
Site, Washington; Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory Site, Idaho; Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory-Main Site, California; Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory-Site 300, California;
Maywood Site, New Jersey; Monticello Mill Site,
Utah; Monticello Vicinity Properties, Utah; Mound
110
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 1990, no additional DOE facilities
have been listed on the NPL, and only two sites
(Pantex Plant, Texas, and Paduch Site, Kentucky)
have been proposed for listing.
During FY93, DOE executed one CERCLA
Section 120 interagency agreement (IAG) for the
Savannah River Site, South Carolina. DOE and EPA
also renegotiated existing lAGs for Mound Plant,
Ohio; the Weldon Spring Site, Missouri; and the
Hanford Site, Washington.
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 remainderof FEMA 'shazardous materials clean-
up coordination activities, including those authorized
by SARA Tide 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 for multi-
agency initiatives that support state and local
responsibilities 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 furnishing guidance in the
design and development of hazardous material
exercises to include jurisdictions within and around
Superfund sites; providing guidance in the
development and revision of hazardous material
plans addressing Superfund issues to ensure their
adequacy and consistency with the NCP; supplying
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, though it has initiated and completed
cleanups at non-NPL sites.
Department of Health and Human
Services
Within the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) perform
CERCLA activities.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
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 performing public
health assessments and emergency response actions;
initiating health studies, and maintaining surveillance
and registries; profiling toxic substances; and
educating the public about health risks.
ATSDR significantly expanded its approach to
conducting health assessments during the fiscal year.
When performing assessments, ATSDR focuses on
involving communities, establishing public health
111
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
action plans, and allowing a public comment period.
Also in 1993, ATSDR prepared the following public
health assessment documents: preliminary health
assessments (23 initial release documents, 14 public
comment release documents, and 13 final release
documents); full health assessments (16 initial release
documents, 73 public comment release documents,
and 51 final release documents); and petitioned
health assessments (13 initial release documents, 15
public comment release documents, and 8 final
release documents). ATSDR also conducted 193 site
reviews and updates.
During the fiscal year, ATSDR issued Health
Advisories at the following sites: Raymark Industries
and the Stratford Asbestos sites, Stratford,
Connecticut; North Drive Dump Site/Wyandotte
Cyanide Site, Wyandotte, Michigan; and Tennessee
Products Site, Chattanooga Creek, Tennessee. At
EPA's request, ATSDR personnel and staff evaluated
64 RODs to determine whether the proposed remedial
alternatives would minimize existing and future
impacts of the sites on public health.
ATSDR's emergency response staff are
responsible for providing health-related technical
support to federal, state, and local responders during
emergencies caused by the release of hazardous
substances. ATSDR Emergency Response
Coordinators have immediate access to a wide variety
of professional experts including chemists,
lexicologists, environmental scientists, and medical
professionals. Through its cooperative agreement
(CA) program, ATSDR supported emergency
response activities in nine state health departments,
improving the capacity of participating states to
respond to an emergency involving hazardous
substances. In addition, during the fiscal year ATSDR
staff
• Prepared approximately 500 health consultations
and provided technical assistance to address
approximately 400 other requests from EPA and
other federal, state, and local agencies and
organizations;
• Responded to four on-site emergencies and to
requests for information related to 45 other acute
events;
• Participated in a simulated hazardous substance
emergency involving about 60 participants, with
approximately 400 representatives from federal,
state, and local agencies and organizations
observing; and
• Participated in ten small-scale simulations of
hazardous material events.
ATSDR initiated 13 new human health studies,
continued 50, and completed 6. These studies included
comprehensive health studies to evaluate the
relationship between exposures to hazardous
substances and adverse health effects (8 new studies,
16 continued, and 3 completed). These studies also
included health outcome studies (5 new studies, 34
continued, and 3 completed).
ATSDR continued to update and maintain the
National Exposure Registry files. During the fiscal
year, 2 sites were added to the benzene subregistry,
13 sites to the trichloroethylene (TCE) subregistry,
and 4 sites to the dioxin subregistry. In addition, the
technical and registrant reports of the TCE Baseline
Data were published.
ATSDR conducts surveillance of human health
effects resulting from exposure to hazardous
substances. As a part of the ATSDR comprehensive
surveillance plan, three site-specific projects were
continued and one was initiated in FY93. Also, three
state-based surveillance projects were continued,
and the Hazardous Substances Emergency Events
Surveillance System was expanded from 11 to 12
states.
Incompliance with CERCLA Section 104(i)(3),
which requires ATSDR to prepare lexicological
profiles on the 275 mosl hazardous subslances found
al Superfund sites, ATSDR produced 12 draft profiles
during FY93. ATSDR also continued the substance-
specific data gaps research program in cooperation
wilh the Minorily Heallh Professions Foundation.
ATSDR offers funding and assislance lo state
health departmenis for developing educational
materials and activities in environmenial medicine
for health professionals. More lhan 5,000 health
providers were irained Ihrough these CAs.
A tolal of 17 CAs wilh slales for education of
health professionals were operational in 1993, and
112
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
six risk communication workshops were conducted
through the CA vehicle. ATSDR also distributed
more than 69,000 copies of Case Studies in
Environmental Medicine to health professionals.
Approximately 5,000 health professionals received
credit for their participation in the case studies
program, which was reviewed and accepted for
credit by the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American College of Emergency
Physicians, the American Osteopathic Association,
the American Association of Occupational Health
Nurses, and the American Board of Industrial
Hygiene. Seven case studies were published in the
Journal of the American Family Physician.
Also, nine case studies in environmental medicine
were produced in FY93: Taking an Exposure History,
Toluene Toxicity, Benzene Toxicity, Skin Lesions
and Environmental Exposures—Rash Decisions,
Chlordane Toxicity, Cholinesterase-Inhibiting
Pesticides, Pentachlorophenol Toxicity, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane Toxicity, and Reproductive and
Developmental Hazards.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIEHS uses CERCLA funds to support its
SuperfundResearch Program and its WorkerTraining
Program. The NIEHS Superfund Basic Research
Program, now in its eighth year, continues to provide
research and training grants for coordinated,
multicomponent, interdisciplinary studies aimed at
identifying and reducing the adverse health effects of
exposure to hazardous waste. The program "s primary
objectives are to expand the base of scientific
knowledge, reduce the amount and toxicity of
hazardous substances in the environment, and
ultimately prevent adverse human health effects.
Research sponsored in the fields of ecology,
engineering, and hydrogeology are integrated into
biomedical research programs, designed to provide a
broad and detailed body of scientific information.
This information will be used by local, state, and
federal agencies; private organizations; and industry
in making decisions related to the management of
hazardous substances.
In FY93, 18 research programs encompassing
more than 142 individual research projects were
conducted. The following are examples of fiscal year
research:
• The research program at Texas A&M University
is developing a comprehensive biological/
lexicological and chemical testing protocol that
can be used to evaluate the potential toxicity of
two major classes of chemical waste:
petrochemical waste and wood-preserving waste.
These substances and related compounds are
being ranked based on their toxicity. The
development of this ranking system is an
important advance for assessing the risk posed
by hazardous waste.
• Researchers at Michigan State University are
collaborating with colleagues at the University
of Michigan and Purdue University in an effort
to better understand the potential health hazards
of chemicals contaminating ground water and
soils at hazardous waste sites. Researchers have
developed new clay-based materials for removing
dissolved contaminants from water. These clays
represent a fundamental advance in waste-site
liner technology that is technically and
economically feasible and has the potential of
reducing human exposure to toxic substances.
• Researchers at the University of North Carolina
are developing biomarkers of exposure and
genetic effects as an index of individual exposure
to carcinogens. The hydrogeologic and ecological
factors that contribute to the variance in human
population exposure are being investigated as
well. The understanding gained through this
research provides a scientific basis for prioritizing
chemicals on the basis of the threat they pose to
human health and, consequently, helps determine
the extent to which Superfund sites should be
cleaned up. Specific chemicals under
investigation have been selected due to their
potential for widespread exposure to humans.
In addition to advances in its research program,
NIEHS provided occupational safety and health
training programs during FY93. NIEHS received
$20 million from FY93 appropriations for its
Superfund WorkerTraining Program, which supports
CAs to train workers performing dangerous jobs in
the nation's hazardous waste management and
113
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
remediation programs. The training was also made
available to emergency responders who address
uncontrolled hazardous materials releases. Through
the competitive awarding of CAs, NIEHS supported
the efforts of non-profit organizations in developing
curricula, delivering training courses, evaluating
program quality, and conducting outreach activities
to high-risk populations.
During FY93, the 18 non-profit organizations
supported by NIEHS included five university
consortia, four labor organizations, three labor
management trust funds, one independent public
health consortium, and a national community college
consortium. Through CAs in FY93, NIEHS worker
training awardees presented 2,750 courses to more
than 60,000 hazardous waste workers and emergency
responders, resulting in almost one million contact
hours of training. During the past year, a competitive
contract was awarded for the operation of a national
information clearinghouse. The clearinghouse will
distribute curricula and training materials created by
the awardees and publish a monthly newsbrief of
program-related information.
During the first six years of the Superfund Worker
Training Program (FY87 through FY93), NIEHS
supported 18 primary awardees. These awardees,
which are non-profit organizations coordinating 70
different institutions, have trained more than 345,000
workers across the country. More than 15,000
classroom and hands-on training courses have been
presented, accounting for almost 6 million contact
hours of actual training. Through the encouragement
of multi-state, university-based consortiums and the
development of national non-profit organizations
focusing on specific workforce sectors, NIEHS has
developed technically proficient curriculum materials
and quality-controlled course presentations. The
courses have been delivered to hazardous waste
workers and emergency responders in every region
of the country; they have established national
benchmarks for quality worker-safety and health
training.
Department of the Interior
Each of the nine bureaus and four territorial
elements of the Department of the Interior (DOI)
provides support to the Superfund program, including
assistance to the NRT and RRTs. DOI's role in the
program focuses on three general areas:
• Response management,mdudingRRT 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 for trustee resources,
coordinated with EPA enforcement actions.
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 waste,
including minimizing waste generation through the
use of sound waste management practices. DOI
manages waste materials responsibly 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 toward the clean-
up and restoration of contaminated areas under its
care.
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 amicus curiae on
behalf of EPA, as required to support effective
implementation of the statute. In addition, DOJ
provides support in negotiating consent decrees (CDs)
under Sections 106, 107, and 122 of CERCLA;
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. Superfund money provides
DOJ with the necessary attorneys, support staff,
114
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
expert witnesses, and litigation support vital to the
CERCLA enforcement process.
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 cleanup, are integral pans to EPA's
enforcement strategy.
Civil litigation efforts in support of the Superfund
program have been successful. In the past four years,
for example, DOJ filed 562 civil judicial complaints,
assessed over $915 million through cost recovery
judgments and settlements, and compelled defendants
to undertake various cleanup activities valued at $2.8
billion. The number of active Superfund cases being
litigated rose from 159 cases with 523 parties in
FY87 to 453 cases with more than 6,000 parties at the
endofFY93.
Department of Labor
Funds appropriated under interagency
agreements allow the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to provide EPA with
technical assistance in the area of worker safety and
health. Superfund legislation requires OSHA to issue
specific standards for employees engaged in
hazardous waste operations. As mandated by SARA
Section 126, OSHA is promulgating a standard for
accreditation of training programs for hazardous
waste operations.
Programs operated by OSHA or states with
OSHA-approved plans are designed to protect
workers at Superfund sites. OSHA representatives
conduct compliance inspections at sites where
remedial actions are underway; provide technical
assistance at hazardous waste sites; and assist the
NRT and RRTs in preparedness and training activities.
As a member of the NRT and the associated RRTs,
OSHA assists these teams with completing their
annual workplans and conducts audits of response
plans. In addition, OSHA issues interpretations of
worker health and safety standards and maintains a
computerized system for the interpretations and for
tracking hazardous waste activity.
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 cleanup, 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
activities are being addressed as part of the program,
including studies, assessments, RI/FSs, RDs, and
RAs. During FY93, one NASA-owned site was
listed on the NPL and a federal facilities agreement
was executed to implement clean-up activities. As
ongoing studies and assessments progress and
pending regulatory reviews are completed at other
sites, clean-up activities will continue.
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is
committed to operating and maintaining its facilities
and properties in compliance with statutory
environmental requirements.
TV A has no facilities listed on the NPL, and
none of its facilities have been proposed for listing.
TVA, however, is currently involved in two site
cleanups under 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 research and
development projects involving new remediation
technologies.
Department of Transportation
The Department of Transportation uses funding
from its budget to support CERCLA activities carried
out by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
the USCG, the Maritime Administration (MARAD),
and the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA).
115
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
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
CERCLA through 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 Administratton:RSPA
activities in support of CERCLA requirements
include hazardous waste rulemaking and
technical support, emergency response training,
and hazardous materials/hazardous substances
incident reporting. RSPA also is responsible for
implementing a grant program for the states that
supports SARA emergency planning and training
for accidents and incidents involving hazardous
materials.
Department of Veterans Affairs
From FY89 through FY93, the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) received approximately $23
million for Superfund cleanup and other construction
activity related to hazardous waste. VA may make
additional budgetary requests in the future to cover
its liability under Superfund. At present, VA has
been identified as a relatively small contributor at
approximately 15 Superfund sites.
116
-------
Appendix A
Status of Remedial
Investigations, Feasibility
Studies, and Remedial Actions
at Sites on the National
Priorities List in Progress on
September 30,1993
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
FY93. This appendix also provides notice of RI/FSs
and RAs that EPA presently believes will not meet
its previously published schedule for completion,
and includes new estimated dates of completion, as
required by Section 301(h)(l)(C). These dates were
previously published in Appendix A of Progress
TowardlmplementingSuperfund: Fiscal Year 1992.
In addition to meeting these statutory requirements,
this appendix lists new remedial projects that were
begun in FY93 and were in process at the end of
FY93. Listed activities may include remedial projects
at several operable units on a single site, as well as
first and subsequent activities at a single operable
unit.
Information in the appendix is organized under
the following headings:
• RG — EPA region in which the site is located.
• ST — State in which the site is located.
• Site Name — Name of the site, as listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Location—Location of the site, as listed on the
NPL.
Operable Unit — Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring; a
single site may include more than one operable
unit.
Activity — Type of project in progress on
September 30, 1993.
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);
A-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include federal
financing).
Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS) database.O (other),
SN (state-lead and financed, no Fund money), and
SR (state-ordered PRP response activities), are
excluded from this status report because they do not
include federal financing.
For some activities, the indicated lead is followed
by an asterisk (*), which indicates that funding for
the activity was taken over by the indicated lead
during FY93.
• Funding Start—The date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
• Previous Completion Schedule—For projects
ongoing at the end of FY92 that continued into
FY93, the quarter and fiscal year of the planned
completion date for the activity, as of 9/30/93.
This column is blank for projects that were
begun in FY93.
• Present Completion Schedule — The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion of the
activity, as of 9/30/93. This information was
compiled from CERCLIS on 11/11/93.
Status — Status of the project with respect to
previous (FY92) and present (FY93) 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 areahead 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 FY93 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 FY93 Report. For example,
several activities with the status of DNE were
state enforcement-lead or state-lead and financed
before FY93, and therefore did not fall under the
requirements ofCERCLASection301(h)(l)(B).
During FY93, 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 Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
u>
RG ST
GU
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
1 MA
SITE NAME
Anderson Air Force Base
Barkhamsted-New Hartford
Landfill
Beacon Heights Landfill
Gallup's Quarry
Kellog-Deering Well Field
Old South ington Landfill
Raymark Industries, Inc.
Solvents Recovery Service of New
England
Yaworski Waste Lagoon
Atlas Tack Corp.
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
Fort Devens
LOCATION
YIGO
Barkhamsted
Beacon Falls
Plainfield
Norwalk
South ington
Stratford
South ington
Canterbury
Fairhaven
Ho I brock
Tyngsborough
Fort Devens
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
02
01
03
01
01
03
01
01
02
03
03
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
PRP
F
f
PRP
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/30/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
06/29/93
09/30/91
03/31/92
09/07/93
05/16/90
09/29/87
09/29/93
08/12/88
04/08/91
09/18/89
06/26/90
09/30/91
09/28/90
05/13/91
05/13/91
08/31/92
08/31/92
08/31/92
05/24/93
05/24/93
05/24/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
20
20
20
20
20
20
1 1995
1 1994
20
4 1999
4 1993
20
3 1994
4 1993
1 1994
3 1997
4 1994
1 1995
4 1994
4 1994
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
20
20
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
c
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
2
2
4
2
4
4
3
1
3
4
1
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
CHEDULE
1999
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1995
1994
1996
1999
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1997
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
STATUS
new
new
new
new
new
new
0
-1
new
0
-2
new
-5
-7
-4
0
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
new
new
new
-*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
MA Fort Devens - Sudbury Training Fort Devens
Annex
MA Groveland Wells Grove I and
MA Hocomonco Pond Westborough
MA Industri-Plex (Mark Philips Woburn
Trust)
MA Iron Horse Park Billerica
MA New Bedford Site New Bedford
MA Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump Ashland
MA Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Falmouth
Edwards
MA Re-Solve, Inc. Dartmouth
MA Rose Disposal Pit Lanesboro
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
05
02
02
01
02
01
03
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
MR
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/13/91
05/13/91
05/13/91
06/15/93
06/15/93
11/02/92
06/02/93
05/18/92
05/30/90
07/15/91
01/31/90
02/15/85
12/20/91
09/28/93
02/18/93
07/17/91
10/15/92
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
07/17/91
09/21/93
07/17/91
02/01/93
03/02/93
05/05/93
03/12/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
3
1
2
4
4
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
3
1995
1995
1994
20
20
20
20
1994
1994
1995
1994
1993
1994
20
20
1994
20
1994
1995
1993
1995
20
1995
20
20
20
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
3
4
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1998
1997
1995
1995
1996
1994
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1995
1994
STATUS
0
0
-1
new
new
new
new
-4
-3
0
-2
-3
-4
new
new
-4
new
-8
1
-8
0
new
0
new
new
new
new
^Q
3
8
3
k
3.
•Q
2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
ME
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
SITE NAME
Shpack Landfill
W.R. Grace & Co., Inc.
Wells G&H
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Lor ing Air Force Base
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Saco Tannery Waste Pits
Coakley Landfill
Fletchers Paint Works
Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp.
(once listed as Kearsage
Metallurgical Corp.)
Keefe Environmental Services
Mottolo Pig Farm
LOCATION
Norton/Attleboro
Acton
Woburn
Brunswick
Limestone
Washburn
Saco
North Hampton
Milford
Conway
Epping
Raymond
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
05
06
07
01
02
03
04
05
07
08
09
10
01
01
02
01
02
02
01
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
f
F
S
F
FUNDING
START
09/24/90
09/03/93
09/28/90
09/28/90
06/22/90
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
07/10/90
02/18/93
09/27/90
07/29/90
02/18/93
10/14/91
06/24/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1995
20
3 1994
3 1994
1 1994
4 1993
20
4 1993
4 1994
1 1994
4 1994
3 1994
3 1995
1 1996
3 1996
1 1998
4 1993
20
4 1994
3 1994
20
4 1993
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1995
4 1995
2 1995
2 1995
3 1994
3 1994
1 1995
1 1994
1 1995
2 1995
2 1995
3 1994
3 1995
1 1996
3 1996
1 1998
1 1994
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
2 1995
STATUS
0
new
-3
-3
-2
-3
ONE
-1
-1
-5
-2
0
0
0
0
0
-1
new
0
-1
new
-4
new
a
I
«.
g
>
§
51
I
|"
H
3
|
1
"0
03
$
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND
RG ST SITE NAME
1 NH New Hampshire Plating Co.
1 NH Pease Air Force Base
1 NH Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
1 NH South Municipal Water Supply
Well
> 1 RI Central Landfill
ON
1 RI Davis (GSR) Landfill
1 RI Davis Liquid Waste
1 RI Davisville Naval Construction Batt
Center
1 RI Newport Naval Education/Training
Center
1 RI Rose Hill Regional Landfill
1 RI Western Sand & Gravel
1 VT BFI Sanitary Landfill (Rockingham)
1 VT Bennington Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Merrimack
Portsmouth/Newington
Somersworth
Peterborough
Johnston
Smithfield
Smithfield
North Kingstown
Newport
South Kingstown
Burn" Uvi lie
Rockingham
Bennington
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
04
03
04
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
*
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/14/92
04/17/91
04/17/91
02/25/92
02/25/92
05/21/91
06/16/92
06/16/92
04/28/89
05/03/93
04/03/87
09/27/90
04/27/88
03/23/92
03/23/92
03/23/92
03/23/92
03/23/92
09/30/90
03/29/89
07/24/92
06/28/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
4
2
1
1
3
4
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
4
1
3
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1993
20
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1991
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
4
1
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1994
1995
1996
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
STATUS
-2
-1
-3
-2
0
0
0
-1
-3
new
-1
-3
-3
0
-1
-5
0
-2
-2
-10
-3
-2
5
1
a
i
t""'
a.
!
~
5
*Q
(0
S
Hi
1
0
|5
to
!
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
SITE NAME
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
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Control
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Chemsol, Inc.
LOCATION
Uoodford
Springfield
Lyndon
Burlington
Bermington
Bound Brook
Millington
Howe 1 1 Township
Bridgeport
Bound Brook
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Elizabeth
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Piscataway
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
04
05
02
03
02
01
02
01
01
03
01
02
01
02
02
03
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
SE
SE
F
FF
F
F
F
F
S
S
PRP
PRP
F
F
f
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/27/91
05/27/93
08/10/90
06/27/88
09/12/90
05/28/88
05/28/88
05/30/93
01/24/91
09/27/91
04/19/88
09/29/88
04/12/89
12/07/83
09/30/88
05/12/93
12/31/92
09/28/90
03/29/85
07/15/85
03/15/90
09/28/90
05/17/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
1
3
3
2
4
4
2
3
1
4
4
3
4
4
3
1994
20
1994
1993
1994
1994
1995
20
1994
1993
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995
20
20
1993
1993
1993
1993
1995
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1996
4 1994
4 1994
4 1995
3 1994
3 1997
2 1999
4 1994
2 1994
2 1994
1 1995
3 1994
2 1994
2 1994
4 1995
1 1996
4 1994
4 1993
2 1994
4 1993
4 1993
3 1995
4 1994
STATUS
-6
new
-3
-8
-2
-12
-15
new
0
-2
3
-3
-1
0
new
new
0
-3
0
0
0
new
I
to
?
o
1
VJ
tl
1
%
t~*
*
^
I
3
§
0)
c
5
3]
Tl
C
O
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
>
oo
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
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
SITE NAME
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (TOMS RIVER
CHEMICAL)
Combe Fill South Landfill
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.
Dover Municipal Well 4
Fair Lawn Well Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
Florence Land Recontouring
Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Fried Industries
GEMS Landfill
Garden State Cleaners Co.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Toms River
Chester Township
Saddle Brook
Township
Bayville
Dover Township
Fair Lawn
Atlantic City
Florence Township
Pemberton
Township
East Brunswick
Township
Gloucester
Township
Minotola
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
04
05
07
08
09
10
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
STUDIES
i
30, 1993
LEAD
F
S
PRP
PRP
S
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
FF
FF
FF
FE
PS
F
FUNDING
START
07/05/89
09/28/90
03/29/93
04/29/88
06/26/87
07/06/93
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
OB/06/92
06/19/91
10/01/92
06/28/85
06/05/89
06/30/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1994
4 1995
20
2 1994
1 1994
20
4 1995
1 1995
4 1993
3 1993
4 1993
4 1993
2 1995
4 1994
2 1994
2 1994
2 1994
20
4 1993
1 1995
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
4
2
3
4
1
4
3
3
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
4
1
3
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1993
1993
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1993
1995
1996
STATUS
2
0
new
-2
-1
new
0
0
0
0
-3
-4
0
-2
-1
-3
-3
new
0
0
new
*y
1
^**
%
s
i
5.
%•
i
§
^
Sj
rn
i
C3
3
\
o
%
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
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
2 NJ
SITE NAME
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
JIS Landfill
Jackson Township Landfill
Kauffman & Minteer, Inc.
Kin- Buc Landfill
King of Prussia
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill
LOCATION
Glen Ridge
Plumstead
Township
Mantua Township
Gibbstown
Kingston
Franklin Township
Plumstead
Township
Morganvi lie
Jamesburg/S.
Brunswick
Jackson Township
Jobs town
Edison Township
Uinslow Township
Pemberton
Township
Pitman
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
F
F
F
PRP
F
PS
F
F
PS
S
PS
PS
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
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
08/04/87
08/21/88
04/11/89
06/23/93
02/25/93
09/30/92
09/30/88
09/29/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
4
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
1
4
1
1998
1994
1998
1999
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
20
1994
1993
20
20
1996
1999
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1998
3 1994
4 1998
4 1999
4 1994
1 1995
4 1995
2 1994
2 1994
3 1994
1 1994
3 1994
2 1994
4 1995
3 1994
1 1996
4 1999
1 1997
STATUS
0
-2
0
0
-2
0
-2
-1
0
0
DNE
-2
-3
new
new
0
0
0
|
S
i
CA
$
04
^j
i
8»
*
or
i
1
I
1
S
i
(0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
>
O
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
SITE NAME
Lone Pine Landfill
Maywood Chemical Co.
Meta 1 tec/Aerosystems
Monitor Devices/Intercircuits,
Inc.
Monroe Township Landfill
Monte lair/West Orange Radium
Site
NL Industries
Naval Air Engineering Center
Naval Weapons Station
Pica tinny Arsenal
Radiation Technology Inc.
LOCATION
Freehold Township
Maywood/Rochelle
Park
Franklin Borough
Wall Township
Monroe Township
Montclair/Uest
Orange
Pedricktown
Lakehurst
Colts Neck
Rockaway Township
Rockaway Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
04
05
16
17
18
19
20
21
01
02
02
03
04
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
F
PS
F
f
f
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
FUNDING
START
10/13/89
07/02/93
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
11/06/92
09/30/91
03/16/92
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/27/90
09/27/90
10/01/92
10/01/92
05/28/93
07/24/86
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1994
20
1 1994
4 1994
1 1995
2 1995
1 1994
4 1998
1 1994
4 1998
3 1993
20
1 1997
3 1996
20
20
20
20
20
20
2 1994
4 1995
20
20
20
2 1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
1
4
3
4
1
1
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1993
1998
1994
1998
1993
1994
1997
1996
1994
1994
1994
1996
1997
1997
1995
1995
1997
1995
1998
1994
STATUS
-1
new
-3
0
0
0
2
0
-2
0
0
new
0
0
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
-3
0
new
new
new
-3
I
3
8
t°
3
If
1
32*
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
X
S
f
?
L.
Q.
CO C*
ui (S
co ro
>• at
2S:
1-1 Ot
p
co z
u,-
Z CO
-s
\\
s
0;
1—
1—
CO
O
1— 1— _
Z UJ Z
CO CL £
Ul X X
at o cj
a. u co
CO — UJ
81- _i
UJ 2
> CL £
at o c
CL CJ CO
z
•— 1—
O QC
3 1—
U. CO
0
UJ
1—
Jj
*
1
ae uj i—
UJ — 1 -•
LOCATION
z
UJ
t-
co
CO
(3
Of
^
1
CM
|
^
§
cG
i
a.
gf
CO
•N.
at
°
a.
JC
(—
g
(A
•5
Ul
ii
2
at
z
CM
0 «-
£ i
. .
o! S
«- ro
o* co
v. x.
1 ~
CL
at co
CO CO
>> >.
at at
S 5
a.
j=
M
C
Rockaway Tou
Rockaway
.jj
U. 0)
-- -
Ot 3
^ O.
f 1
O O
m i-
1 Rockaway
1 Rockaway
z z
CM CM
0 0
1 1
ro CM
g I
ro CM
CM «-
CM CM
£& ^"
CO
CO CO
•x x.
ee at
S S
Florence
Sayrevi lie
^
a Z
* I
01 _J
4-»
CO 01
1 Roebling
1 Sayrevi I
z z
CM CM
CM CM
i i
in in
o* o*
«— r-
1 1
ro ro
i 1
o in
«- o
>x *N
CM O
Q.
at co
CO CO
>* -x
at. at
° °
"o>
3
o
Carlstadt
Newfield Bor
f
u>
(A
0)
L.
Q.
^
<0 •
0 0.
i o
5 u
J=
U X
u — •
1 Scientif
1 Shei Id A
z z
CM CM
O T-
1 1
CM CM
i i
CM «-
GO O^
•v. -V
r«- ro
O CM
1 8
a
Q£
2 2
0 0
Pennsauken
South Kearny
o
u
CO
o
1
o m
ed •-
— ' 01
1 §
(A CO
Z Z
CM (M
O
1
ro
|
ro
•s.
CM
§
Q.
Of
Q.
3
o
Tabernacle
Township
0
§
o
01
1 Tabernac
z
CM
CM CM
i i
i &
•* CM
i i
CM -1-
CO O^
o «-
ro CM
u.
CO CO
u. u_
•x -^
"at "at
CM «-
0 0
Q.
JZ
1 I
8 S
e
L.
01
_c
X
3
,
a. —
c.
u d
0 2
"- CO
•0 01
at a o>
U CO
• (J u
CO 0
• at v
=) 3 CO
z z
CM CM
0
S
-
g
*~
*~
c>
o
1
S
o
a
1
i-
i
8
u
o
01
c.
at
tf
1 Waldick ,
Inc.
^
z
CM
2
C
g
-
CM
iM
S
o
S
3
o
Swainton
4J
1
L.
CL
3
Z
CM
CM X
c
r?
--
|o
«- CM
ro
SI5
II
U_ LL.
52
SS
2
a
u
1
o
u
^j
co
«i
j=
i—
American
z
CM
CM (M
i i
C? 1
ro CM
i i
*~ ^
•" •*
| a
CM O
0 0
'*O 00
0 0
Q. CL
CO CO
U. U.
at at
o o
Hicksville
Batavia
(A — '
10 .—
O t-
1 1
Jl~ I
Anchor Cl
Batavia 1
Z Z
CM CM
A-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
N>
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
SITE NAME
Brews ter Well Field
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(USDOE)
Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Circuitron Corp.
Conklin Dumps
Cortese Landfill
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Subdivision
GCL Tie & Treating Inc.
Genzale Plating Co.
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
Griffiss Air Force Base
Hooker (Hyde Park)
Hooker (South Area)
LOCATION
Putnam County
Upton
Port Jervis
East Farmingdale
Conklin
Vil. of Narrowsburg
Elmira
Niagara Falls
Village of
Sidney
Franklin Square
Holbrook
Rome
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
04
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
LEAD
F
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/23/87
05/11/93
11/19/91
02/08/90
01/11/93
01/27/92
07/06/93
09/28/90
05/22/86
09/30/92
09/30/92
09/30/92
09/25/91
06/27/91
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
03/29/90
08/15/87
11/02/90
11/02/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1993
20
1 1996
4 1993
20
2 1994
20
4 1994
3 1992
2 1994
20
20
3 1994
1 1995
2 1994
2 1994
2 1995
2 1995
2 1996
2 1996
2 1997
4 1994
4 1996
4 1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
3
1
4
2
4
3
1
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
4
1993
1997
1996
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1992
1995
1993
1993
1994
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
STATUS
0
new
0
-3
new
-2
new
0
0
-3
Wife
ONE
-1
0
-3
-8
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
\
8
I
»
^
1
I
|
!
^H
^1
•0
c
§
a
1
I
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
SITE NAME
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer
Corp.
Hudson River PCBs
Islip Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Kenmark Textile Corp.
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Li Tungsten Corp.
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Love Canal
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Marathon Battery Corp.
Matt face Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
Nepera Chemical Co., Inc.
LOCATION
Hicksville
Hudson River
Islip
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Farmingdale
Horseheads
Glen Cove
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
Malta
Cold Springs
Glen Cove
Maybrook
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
07
08
01
01
02
02
03
03
01
04
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
S
S
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PS
FUNDING
START
09/21/88
07/25/90
03/15/92
03/29/91
03/26/91
07/31/91
09/28/90
08/08/91
08/26/92
09/28/90
02/09/87
06/26/87
11/10/89
04/01/93
06/28/91
04/01/93
08/30/89
04/01/93
06/30/93
06/30/93
03/22/88
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
1
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
1
3
3
1993
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1993
1995
1994
1993
1994
1994
1994
20
20
20
1993
20
20
20
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1993
2 1995
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
4 1993
1 1995
1 1995
4 1993
1 1995
1 1995
4 1994
3 1996
3 1993
3 1996
1 1994
3 1996
1 1995
3 1996
1 1995
STATUS
0
-3
-1
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
-1
-4
-1
new
DNE
new
-2
new
new
new
DNE
a
8
%
»i
8
J
i
I?
i
i
t
(0
1
O
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year i993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
AND
SITE NAME
Niagra Mohawk Power Corp.
(Saratoga Springs Plant)
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Olean Well Field
Onondaga Lake
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Pollution Abatement Services
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
Radium Chemical
Richardson Hill Road Landfll/Pond
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Sarney Farm
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Saratoga Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Olean
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Oswego
Port Washington
Farmingdale
New York City
Sidney Center
Cortland
Deer Park
Amen i a
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
05
06
07
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
09/27/89
09/21/92
07/27/89
11/13/90
01/27/88
06/25/91
05/10/93
09/30/92
04/23/91
09/30/92
04/23/91
06/04/92
10/01/92
09/28/90
06/09/93
01/31/92
06/29/90
07/22/87
01/04/90
05/17/91
09/30/92
03/31/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
1
4
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
4
3
1
3
2
2
4
1994
1994
1992
1993
1993
1994
20
1993
1994
1995
1994
1994
20
1993
20
1995
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1994
4 1994
4 1992
1 1993
1 1994
4 1994
4 1995
4 1993
4 1993
4 1995
2 1994
4 1994
1 1996
4 1993
4 1995
4 1995
3 1993
1 1995
4 1994
3 1994
1 1995
2 1994
STATUS
1
-3
0
0
-1
-1
new
0
3
0
1
-2
new
0
new
0
0
-4
-1
-1
-3
-2
Tj
i
3
8
3
I
f
§
a
*•*
3"
«Q
0)
c
"0
3
*n
i
o
*»•
Jl
8
8
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 PR
2 PR
: PR
2 PR
2 PR
2 PR
2 PR
SITE NAME
Sea I and Restoration, Inc.
Seneca Army Depot
Sidney Landfill
Sinclair Refinery
Syosset Landfill
Tri-Cities Barrel Co., Inc.
Vestal Water Supply Well
1-1
Volney Municipal Landfill
Warwick Landfill
York Oil Co.
Barceloneta Landfill
Fibers Public Supply Wells
GE Wiring Devices
June os Landfill
Naval Security Group Activity
RCA Del Car i be
Upjohn Facility
LOCATION
Lisbon
Romulus
Sidney
Wellsville
Oyster Bay
Port Crane
Vestal
Town of Volney
Warwick
Warwick
Florida Afuera
Jobos
Juana Dia?
J uncos
Sabana Seca
Barceloneta
Barceloneta
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
F
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
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
09/30/87
09/28/90
02/28/92
05/21/92
09/28/90
09/28/93
05/30/91
11/30/90
03/19/92
10/01/92
03/31/88
04/19/89
02/11/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
4
3
2
4
4
1
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
1
4
1
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1993
1994
1995
1993
1995
20
1995
1994
20
1993
1993
1995
20
1994
1995
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1995
3 1995
3 1995
1 1995
2 1994
4 1993
4 1994
3 1995
3 1993
4 1995
1 1994
4 1995
1 1995
1 1997
? 1993
1 1994
4 1995
4 1995
2 1994
4 1995
2 1994
STATUS
0
-3
-3
-2
0
0
0
-2
0
0
DNE
0
-2
new
0
-2
0
new
-1
0
-1
31
1
1
10
8
**»
5
3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Yeai 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
2 PR
2 VI
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
AND
SITE NAME
Vega Alta Public Supply
Wells
Tutu Uellfield
Army Creek Landfill (Delaware Sand
& Gravel Llangollen)
Coker's Sanitation Service
Landfills
Delaware Sand & Gravel -Llangol I en/A
rmy Creek Landfill)
Dover Air Force Base
Dover Gas Light Co.
Halby Chemical Co.
Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport
Plant)
Standard Chlorine of Delaware,
Inc.
Sussex County Landfill No.
5
Tybouts Corner Landfill
Tyler Refrigeration Pit
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Vega Alta
Tutu
New Castle
County
Kent County
New Castle
County
Dover
Dover
New Castle
Kirk wood
Newport
Delaware City
Laurel
Smyrna
Smyrna
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
02
01
03
02
03
08
09
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
MR
MR
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
MR
PRP
PS
PRP
MR
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/18/92
10/23/90
02/19/92
09/28/90
07/23/91
04/12/93
07/28/93
03/07/92
09/20/93
09/20/93
09/20/93
07/06/90
12/20/91
06/28/93
09/26/91
11/30/87
03/29/91
11/25/92
03/29/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1994
3 1994
4 1994
4 1995
2 1994
20
20
20
3 1993
20
20
3 1993
1 1995
20
4 1994
1 1994
2 1994
20
1 1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
3
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
3
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1993
1996
1996
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1996
1994
1994
1996
1995
STATUS
0
-2
0
5
0
new
new
ONE
-3
new
new
-2
0
new
-8
0
-2
new
-6
5
1
1
i
o1
i
5
¥
i
ss.
a
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
AND
SITE NAME
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
Area)
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
(Michaelsville Landfill)
Bush Valley Landfill
Limestone Road
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
AIW Frank/Mid- County Mustang
AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
Bell Landfill
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Berks Landfill
Berks Sand Pit
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Edgewood
Aberdeen
Abingdon
Cumberland
Hollywood
Exton
Glen Rock
Terry Township
Bridgewater
Township
Denver
Spring Township
Longswamp
Township
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
06
07
08
09
10
11
01
02
03
05
06
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30. 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
12/05/90
03/25/93
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
08/30/91
06/15/90
02/28/90
05/29/92
09/14/90
03/01/89
02/11/91
06/15/92
03/12/90
06/26/91
08/16/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
4
3
4
4
2
4
1993
1996
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
20
1994
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1993
1994
1994
199?
1993
1993
1994
1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1993
1 1996
3 1994
3 1994
2 1994
1 1994
2 1994
1 1995
2 1995
4 1995
4 1995
1 1994
2 1994
3 1994
2 1994
1 1995
4 1994
1 1994
2 1994
4 1995
2 1994
2 1994
4 1994
1 1995
4 1993
STATUS
-1
0
-2
0
0
0
0
0
-3
-7
new
0
-4
-2
0
-4
-2
-2
-1
-4
-3
-2
-4
-3
0
2
8
x
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1993
oo
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
SITE NAME
Boarhead Farms
Brodhead Creek
Brown's Battery Breaking
Butler Mine Tunnel
Centre County Kepone
Craig Farm Drum
Croydon TCE
Douglassville Disposal
Dublin TCE Site
Eastern Diversified Metals
Elizabethtown Landfill
Fischer & Porter Co.
Havertown PCP
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
Heleva Landfill
Henderson Road Site
LOCATION
Bridge ton
Township
Stroudsburg
Shoemakersville
Pittston
State College
Boro
Parker
Croydon
Douglassville
Dublin Borough
Hometown
Elizabethtown
Warminster
Haverford
Weisenberg
Township
North Whitehall
Upper Men' on
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
01
01
02
01
03
01
03
02
04
05
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
STUDIES
30, 1993
LEAD
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
12/05/89
05/29/92
12/27/91
03/30/87
11/07/88
09/27/93
09/30/91
10/04/91
08/15/91
03/31/93
09/28/90
02/20/92
08/03/90
08/15/91
09/29/92
03/31/93
03/15/91
09/12/92
03/15/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1994
2 1994
2 1993
2 1993
1 1994
20
3 1993
2 1993
2 1994
20
4 1994
1 1994
2 1993
2 1993
1 1994
20
2 1994
20
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
2
2
1
4
1
2
4
4
3
2
4
1
4
2
1
4
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1993
1994
1994
1993
1994
1994
1995
1994
1995
1993
STATUS
-5
-2
-3
-4
-1
new
-9
-3
0
new
0
-2
0
-6
0
new
0
ONE
DNE
3
i
i
f"1
a
5
§
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
SITE NAME
Hranica Landfill
Jack's Creek/Sitkin Smelting and
Refining Inc.
Kimberton Site
Lackawama Refuse
Letterkenny Army Depot (Property
Disposal Office Area)
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
Malvern TCE
Metal Banks
Mill Creek Dump
Moyers Landfill
Naval Air Development Center (8
waste centers)
North Pern-Area 1 (Gentle
Cleaners/Granite Knitting
Mill
North Perm- Area 12
LOCATION
Buffalo Township
Maitland
Kimberton
Borough
Old Forge
Borough
Franklin County
Chambersburg
Malvern
Philadelphia
Erie
Eagleville
Uarminster
Township
Souderton
Souderton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
03
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FF
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/17/93
02/14/92
08/28/90
02/26/93
06/02/87
02/03/89
09/08/93
02/03/89
02/03/89
12/16/88
05/29/91
06/30/89
05/04/92
09/29/88
09/20/90
06/30/88
12/23/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
20
20
4 1993
20
3 1993
2 1994
20
2 1994
2 1994
1 1994
4 1993
1 1993
1 1994
1 1995
20
4 1993
1 1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
3
4
2
1994
1994
1994
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1996
1995
1993
1995
1995
1994
1993
1994
STATUS
new
DNE
-2
new
-1
0
new
0
0
-8
-6
-3
-7
-3
DNE
0
-1
JB
sf
1
!
i
i
5
1
I
(0
1
1
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supertuna: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND
RG ST SITE NAME
3 PA North Penn-Area 2 (Ametek, Inc.
Hunter Spring Division)
3 PA North Penn-Area 6 (J.W. Rex/Allied
Paint/Keystone hydra
3 PA Ohio River Park
3 PA Osborne Landfill
3 PA Palmerton Zinc Pile
•^ 3 PA Publicker Industries Inc.
to
O
3 PA Raymark
3 PA Resin Disposal
3 PA Revere Chemical Co.
3 PA River Road Landfill (Waste
Management , I nc . )
3 PA Rodale Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
3 PA Sh river's Corner
3 PA Stanley Kessler
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Hatfield
Lansdale
Neville Island
Grove City
Palmerton
Philadelphia
Hatboro
Jefferson
Borough
Nockamixon
Township
Henc.: tage
Enrnaus Borough
Straban Township
King of Prussia
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
02
02
01
03
02
01
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/31/93
06/30/88
10/16/91
10/31/92
07/31/88
12/13/91
02/24/92
08/12/88
09/21/89
09/23/92
06/17/93
06/17/93
06/24/92
12/16/88
05/05/90
09/22/92
03/10/87
01/07/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
2
2
1
3
4
20
1995
1994
20
1999
1994
1993
1994
1993
1993
20
20
1993
1993
1994
1995
1993
1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
3
1
4
1
3
4
4
1
4
3
1
3
4
1
2
2
1994
1995
1994
1995
1999
1994
1994
1996
1993
1995
1995
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995
1994
1994
STATUS
new
0
-2
new
0
0
-5
-11
-2
-6
new
new
-5
-1
2
0
-3
-2
5
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
AND
SITE NAME
Strasburg Landfi 11
Tobyhanna Army Depot
Tysons Dump
Walsh Landfill
Westinghouse Elevator Co. (Sharon
Plant)
Westinghouse Elevator Co.
Plant
York County Solid Waste and Refuse
Authority Landfill
Atlantic Wood Industries,
Inc.
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
Buckingham County Landfill
C&R Battery Co., Inc.
Culpeper Wood Preservers,
Inc.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Newlin Township
Toby Hanna
Upper Merion
Township
Honeybrook
Township
Sharon
Gettysburg
Hopewell Township
Portsmouth
Front Royal
Buckingham
Chesterfield
County
Culpeper
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
04
01
02
03
01
02
04
01
02
02
01
01
04
05
06
07
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
STUDIES
§
30, 1993
LEAD
F
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
PS
PS
PRP
PS
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/14/92
09/27/90
09/27/90
09/27/90
06/03/88
07/08/92
05/01/90
09/20/88
09/20/88
03/20/92
11/30/87
07/23/87
07/22/91
08/05/93
09/27/90
03/30/93
01/31/91
04/28/92
06/16/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1993
2 1993
20
20
1 1995
2 1994
20
1 1993
1 1994
1 1994
2 1993
3 1993
4 1994
20
3 1994
20
3 1993
4 1993
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
1
4
1
1
1
1995
1994
1993
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
STATUS
-6
-3
DNE
DNE
0
-4
DNE
-8
0
-4
-3
-4
-4
new
-2
new
-2
-1
new
3r
8
i
s
§
%
*
i
i
CO
s
i
5.
3-
|
i
a-
-------
Progress Toward Implementiny Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
to
to
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 VA
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
4 AL
SITE NAME
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
Alabama Army Ammunition
Plant
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Chesterfield
County
Newton
Farrington
Spotsylvania
County
R i chmond
Frederick
County
Saltville
Nitro
Follansbee
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
Chi Idersburg
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
04
06
07
08
03
04
01
02
03
05
01
01
02
03
04
02
01
02
08
09
01
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
f
r
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/21/90
09/21/90
09/21/90
10/11/91
10/11/91
10/11/91
09/30/91
06/11/91
06/30/88
08/07/90
12/14/92
09/06/89
12/31/87
09/29/89
04/27/93
09/15/88
09/15/88
09/22/93
09/27/90
06/04/90
09/28/93
09/28/93
11/10/92
03/15/90
11/30/90
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
4
2
1
3
1
1
1
4
3
1994
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1993
1994
1993
1993
20
1993
1993
1993
20
1993
1994
20
1997
1995
20
20
20
1995
1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
4 1993
3 1994
2 1994
3 1994
4 1994
1 1994
1 1995
1 1994
1 1994
1 1997
1 1994
3 1993
1 1996
3 1994
2 1994
1 1995
4 1994
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
4 1995
3 1994
4 1995
3 1993
STATUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3
-3
-2
-3
new
-1
-1
-12
new
-3
-4
new
8
0
new
new
new
0
0
5
1
^
w
w
H
O
i
3
^
^
5
§
a
i
(0
Sg
3
i
6
33
1
to
i
!
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
N)
OJ
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
AND
ST SITE NAME
AL Anniston Army Depot (Southeast
Industrial Area)
AL Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
AL Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
AL 01 in Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
AL T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
FL Agrico Chemical Co.
FL American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant)
FL Anaconda Aluminum Co./Milgo
Electronics
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS,
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Anniston
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
Axis
Bucks
Montgomery
Pensacola
Pensacola
Miami
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
03
05
02
01
03
01
01
01
02
02
04
01
01
01
02
02
04
01
02
02
01
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
EP
EP*
PRP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
PRP
PRP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/04/92
12/12/90
09/28/89
03/31/92
05/21/93
09/18/89
05/08/90
05/21/93
09/27/89
12/18/92
08/18/93
01/05/90
12/31/92
05/21/93
09/27/89
12/18/92
09/27/93
01/05/90
12/31/92
05/21/93
03/26/91
01/31/92
11/28/89
08/05/92
08/05/92
08/05/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
1
2
2
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
1994
1993
1996
1994
20
1996
1993
20
20
20
20
1994
20
20
20
20
20
1994
20
20
1993
1993
1993
1996
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1997
3 1996
3 1996
2 1994
1 2000
4 1994
2 1994
1 2000
4 1992
3 1995
1 1995
4 1994
4 1994
1 2000
2 1992
3 1995
1 1995
4 1994
4 1994
1 2000
2 1994
2 1994
2 1993
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
STATUS
-12
-12
0
-1
new
6
-4
new
ONE
new
new
0
new
new
DNE
new
new
0
new
new
-3
-3
0
4
4
4
2!
§
i
5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
M-l
S ,M
Cj* CO O*
«— uj o»
c- o
ID O «
>- CO IO
— • >- oc
CO 1— Ul
U —.00
co _i z
.~ 1-1 Ul
— o.
"O < CO
C Ul
3 u. Z
T ,°
1 x is
(/> _ -.I*
O 1— d
T> Z < 0
'J UJ CD QC
•t- Q. i-. Q.
c < z
§UJ ^^
Z I/)
* ;g
TJ a <
!» Z-l
3 Ul <
O Q£ •—
U_ Ul
CO O Z
41 CO Of
D) i— a
o < z
a. co
CO
i—
g
— , Ul
t— t— _J
Z Ul 3
Ul ' Q
co a. ui
Ul Z Z
ac o cj
a. cj co
g
CO —• Ul
8t- — 1
Ul 1}
> a. ui
Ul Z Z
a: 8 u
a. cj co
C3
*-* h-
a or:
^ i—
n yj
g
UJ
~*
h-
>
h-
*
Of Ul 1—
Ul —1 *-•
a. m z
O < 3
LOCATION
Ul
Ul
1—
CO
H-
co
Of
o
1
CM
1
(M
g
K?
«-
g
u_
CO
^
ae
o
Hialeah
•
,,
O
U
"3
u
I
CJ
m
00
03
1
"*
in
1
*~
(M
O
Q
ro
<>
CL
O£
a.
CO
^
ee
o
ID
a.
41
ID
_J
i
c.
X
t-
ca
,
1
•~
O
(\l
S!
(M*
O
ro
"~
CO
^
Of
o
41
ID
Fort Lauderd
t.
8
CO
I
*J
Ul
1
X
*-»
1
CJ
1
m a
s
1
*~
0
5!
Os*
CM
§
a.
oc
a.
Of
0
Gainesvi lie
CO
t_
n
^
4->
ID
CJ
o -*-»-*>* ro CM
• i i i i
RSSllll
«- ro «- «- T- CM CM
in ^t •* in in in ro
OH o« o^ o^ c/^ o^ OH
"~ M *" *" *" *~ ~*
|§|SSS|
CVJ f\J (\l 00 CO 00 f\J
«- *M CM «—«-«— CM
CM O O CM CM CM O
(/)(/>
x^x^ x^-x^x^ ^
" * * * * " "
«- CM ro -* in ^ r*-
o o o o o o o
41
CA
U
ID
g
ID
4^
•
ID
>
ID
Z
|O
"3
u.
^
CJ
o
i
•*
S
*~
•*
1
«-
o
o.
a.
CO
^
Of
o
.E
Pompano Beac
Z
•l
E
c.
O
1
-C
CJ
«- CM
l
st >t
CX Ox
to -*
Ox O>
O^> CN
*~ "~
-J- CM
S »
CO N*l
CM 0
g 8
CL
Of Of
CO
^
Of Of
«- CM
O O
Orlando
Davie
u
c
CA
0) — •
4-» H-
3 C
•a ID
x .2
4-< >
— a
u a
C
i
CM
O
S
^
«-
S
CL
Of
O
Cantonment
0
CJ
CA
(j
^
L.
CL
if
O
01
CO
0
si
>*
g
"
~*
o
o>
w?
^
co
41
CL.
of
CO
^
Of
o
Indiantown
Q.
L.
O
CJ
8
4-*
CO
ra
u
0
11-
«- 0 «-
1 1
in N^- m
8:8:8:
^^•~
g||
*"" ^~ ^~
rostxt
O O CM
O CO O
CO N» i^
CMOCM
>O CM «-
CL
CO CO
•x -X
Of Of Of
«- CM CM
O O O
X
CD
m
£
a
a.
ID
L.
C
C3
C
CD
CL
X
ID
E —
ID 4->
CL Z)
4-*
Q. S
C_ C
O Q.
CJ O
CA 01
L- Q
ID
0 3
41
C
n
«- CM
So
'^ CM
^
SS
fyl y/S
00
i> ^
CL CL
ce ce
CO CO
^ ^t
Of Of
«- CM
O O
t-
o
CJ
^
CD
U
r*
CJ
ID
C
41
"cu
u_
CNJ
1
«~
ro
8:
^~
ro
S!
j>
^>
^
CL
Of
Of
O
4-1
CJ
CD
i^
*n
CD
-j
ID
DC
1
_J
uu
xt
•-t O in >o in
Illss
ro •* >» CM «-
in ro ro ro ro
OS ON (><><>
^ ^ «^ ^ ^
ro CM ro ^» -*
§0000
o o o o
**s ^ *^* ^* "*^
O O O O 0
o o o o o
CO CO CO CO CO
^ ^ ^ t ^
Of Of Of Of Of
«- CM ro >± in
o o o o o
ID
01
CA
41
CA
CD
m
41
U
O
U-
c.
•o
ID
41
CO
u.
A-24
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
FL Jacksonville Naval Air Station Jacksonville
FL Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal Tampa
(once listed as Timber Lake
Battery Disposal)
FL Northwest 58th Street Landfill Hialeah
(Part of Biscayne Aquife
FL Peak Oil Co. /Bay Drum Co. Tampa
FL Pensacola Naval Air Station Pensacola
FL Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc. Medley
FL Petroleum Products Corp. Pembroke Park
FL Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water & Vero Beach
Sewer
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
06
07
08
09
01
02
01
02
01
04
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
10
11
12
13
14
01
01
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F"
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
EP
FUNDING
START
10/01/90
10/01/90
10/01/90
05/21/93
10/08/90
07/01/92
05/27/93
03/26/93
03/22/90
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
06/24/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
03/26/87
06/10/93
09/15/89
(A/29192
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
1994
1994
1994
20
1995
1995
20
20
1995
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1993
20
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
3
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
4
3
2
1
4
4
2
2
1
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1994
1996
1996
1997
1996
1994
1996
1995
1994
STATUS
-4
-4
-4
new
0
0
new
new
3
-3
-9
-10
-10
-11
-10
-3
-2
-3
-2
-5
-3
-6
-5
-4
new
0
5
|
I
j
«*
<§
C4
"Q
Jt
(§
3
(a
Q>
i
§
5.
3"
**
51
3
1
^*
s
m
5
§
-------
Progress Toward implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
N>
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 FL
4 GA
4 GA
4 GA
AND
SITE NAME
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sherwood Medical Industries
Sixty-Second Street Dump
Standard Auto Bumper Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Co (Tarpon
Springs)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Taylor Road Landfill
Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator
Dump
Ze 1 1 wood Ground Water Contamination
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Marine Corps Logistics Base
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Tampa
Cottondale
Plant City
Deland
Tampa
Hialeah
Tarpon Springs
Tampa
Seffner
Fort Lauderdale
Ze 1 1 wood
Cedartown
Cedartown
Albany
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
01
02
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
04
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
*
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
EP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
02/05/88
03/10/93
09/30/90
06/24/92
09/17/93
06/25/93
02/11/93
09/29/93
03/12/91
07/28/92
09/02/92
12/12/92
02/01/93
09/27/91
09/21/92
02/19/93
03/30/90
09/16/91
07/23/91
07/23/91
09/15/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
4
20
20
1994
1994
20
20
20
20
1993
1995
1995
20
20
1995
1994
20
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
3 1995
4 1995
1 1995
1 1995
3 1994
4 1995
1 1996
1 1994
1 1995
1 1995
2 1995
4 1995
4 1994
3 1994
2 1995
1 1994
2 1994
3 1995
3 1995
4 1994
STATUS
DNE
new
-7
-4
new
new
new
new
-1
0
0
new
new
1
0
new
-3
0
-5
-5
0
•o
i
i
rt
o
i
a
**
¥
i
2.
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal /ear 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST SITE NAME
4 GA Mar zone Inc. /Chevron Chemical
Co.
4 GA Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
4 GA T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Co.
4 GA Woolfolk Chemical Works,
Inc.
4 KY Brant ley Landfill
> 4 KY Caldwell Lace Leather Co.,
to Inc.
-J
4 KY Distler Brickyard
4 KY Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone
Qurry
4 KY Green River Disposal, Inc.
4 KY Howe Valley Landfill
KY National Electric Coil/Cooper
Industries
4 KY Paducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plant
4 KY Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Tifton
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Calvert City
Auburn
West Point
Olaton
Macco
Howe Valley
Dayhoit
Paducah
Paducah
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
02
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
11
01
05
07
10
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
I
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
LEAD
PRP
FF
FF
FF
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
12/31/91
09/28/90
05/06/91
01/20/93
04/24/90
04/24/90
01/10/90
03/29/90
09/28/88
09/20/89
05/22/90
03/29/93
05/18/92
02/25/93
06/28/93
04/10/89
09/10/92
07/09/93
04/27/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
1
3
1993
1995
1993
1995
20
1993
20
1994
1993
1996
1994
1994
20
1994
20
20
20
20
20
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
1
4
1
4
3
2
4
4
3
1
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
1994
1995
1993
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1996
1994
1994
1994
"994
1995
1999
1999
1998
1999
1999
STATUS
-3
0
0
2
new
-2
ONE
0
-2
0
-2
-2
new
0
new
new
DNE
ONE
new
new
3
9
8
^
i
-4
tTk
8
I
3
i
a
i
5
B
i
(K
a
3"
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND
RG ST SITE NAME
4 KY Red Penn Sanition Co. Landfill
4 KY Smith's Farm
4 KY Tri-City Disposal Co.
4 MS Flowood Site
4 MS Newson Brothers/Old Reichhold
Chemicals, Inc.
4 NC ABC One Hour Cleaners
4 NC Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
> 4 NC Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
to (Marine Corp Base)
00
4 NC Chemtronics, Inc.
4 NC FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
4 NC Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco,
Inc.
4 NC National Starch & Chemical
Corp.
4 NC North Carolina State University
(Lot 86, Farm Unit #1)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Peeuee Valley
Brooks
Shepherdsvi lie
Flowood
Columbia
Jacksonvi lie
Aberdeen
Ons low County
Swannanoa
Statesville
Charlotte
Salisbury
Raleigh
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
05
06
08
09
10
11
01
02
03
01
01
03
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/18/89
04/14/92
06/22/93
08/09/91
03/12/92
01/04/93
09/28/92
07/10/92
03/01/91
08/21/91
09/29/92
06/30/93
12/02/91
04/13/92
06/30/93
06/10/91
07/20/93
06/25/93
09/25/89
06/27/90
05/04/92
03/31/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
2
1
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
4
4
1993
1995
20
1993
1993
20
1994
1993
1994
1994
1994
20
1995
1996
20
1993
20
20
1999
1999
1993
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
4
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
3
2
3
4
4
4
3
1
2
2
1
4
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1995
1994
1994
1995
1999
1999
1994
1994
STATUS
-3
0
new
-2
-4
new
-2
-1
0
-1
0
new
0
0
new
-6
new
new
0
0
-1
0
5
i
£
H
s
§
^
1
I
1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
RG ST
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
4 SC
nnu
SITE NAME
Beaunit Corp. (Circular Knit and
Dye)
Calhoun Park/Ansonborough
Home
Carol awn, Inc.
Geiger (C & M Oil)
Koppers Co., Inc (Florence
Plant)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston
Plant)
Leonard Chemical Co., Inc.
Lexington County Landfill
Area
Palmetto Recycling, Inc.
Palmetto Wood Preserving
Rock Hill Chemical Co.
Sangamo West on, Inc. /Twelve-Mile
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCS
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
ncncuinu nuii una in
LOCATION
Fountain Inn
Charleston
Fort Lawn
Rantoules
Florence
Charleston
Rock Hill
Cayce
Columbia
Dixiana
Rock Hill
Pickens
Aiken
rKuuitcaa u
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
n acricriDCK
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
JU, 17
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
rj
FUNDING
START
02/21/92
01/22/93
05/12/93
03/31/92
02/29/88
01/14/93
12/13/90
04/14/92
05/06/92
03/25/90
09/25/89
09/25/91
08/31/90
02/28/90
02/28/90
09/10/93
09/10/93
08/06/90
12/06/90
01/09/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
06/07/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
4
1
1
3
4
1
1
1994
20
20
1994
1994
20
1993
1994
1994
1993
1994
1993
1994
1995
1995
20
20
1993
1993
1993
1994
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
1 1995
4 1994
3 1994
2 1994
1 1995
4 1994
3 1994
3 1994
1 1994
4 1994
1 1994
3 1994
4 1994
4 1994
1 1994
1 1994
1 1994
1 1994
3 1993
3 1997
3 1999
1 2000
STATUS
0
new
new
-1
0
new
-5
0
-1
-3
-1
-1
-1
4
4
new
new
-4
-4
0
-11
-18
-20
!
«•>
5
<§
i
a
i
I
,|
&•
i
^
5
4 _
V)
•Q
"1
3
{S
%
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
4 SC Townsend Saw Chain Co. Pontiac 01
4 SC Wamchem, Inc. Burton 01
4 TN American Creosote Works, Inc. Jackson 02
(Jackson Plant) 03
4 TN Mallory Capacitor Co. Waynesboro 01
4 TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant Milan 03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/01/91
07/01/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
07/01/91
08/05/91
10/31/91
10/28/91
03/25/92
10/21/91
02/25/92
02/05/92
07/15/92
08/15/92
09/15/92
10/28/91
09/06/90
07/16/90
08/06/90
12/06/90
08/30/91
12/04/92
12/29/89
07/01/93
06/08/93
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
10/01/89
07/23/90
11/26/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
20
20
20
20
20
1994
20
1994
20
20
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
1
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1999
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
1999
1999
1999
1994
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
STATUS
-16
-18
-9
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-12
-16
-12
ONE
ONE
ONE
DNE
ONE
0
new
-3
new
new
-8
-4
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-8
-1
-4
O
i
a
5
3
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing super fund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
14
4 TN Murray-Ohio Dump Lawrenceburg 01
4 TN North Hollywood Dump Memphis 01
4 TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE) Oak Ridge 02
02
03
03
04
05
07
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
31
33
34
4 TN Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman Toone 02
County)
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/19/93
03/06/90
09/27/93
12/29/89
12/31/92
12/29/89
11/01/91
03/31/90
03/31/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
01/03/90
01/03/90
06/09/90
10/25/86
09/14/90
08/31/93
10/25/86
07/16/90
12/28/90
12/28/90
01/14/91
03/31/90
10/25/86
08/31/92
10/02/91
02/01/93
09/23/93
10/25/86
12/02/92
11/04/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
20
1994
20
1992
20
1992
1994
1997
1995
1998
1998
1994
1997
1999
1999
20
1999
20
20
1998
1998
1999
1999
20
20
20
1996
20
20
20
20
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
1
2
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
1
4
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
4
2
4
1
1994
1994
1995
2000
1994
1992
1995
1997
1999
1998
1998
1995
1994
1999
2000
1999
1999
1994
1996
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
1999
1996
1996
1996
1998
1995
1999
1995
STATUS
new
0
new
-32
new
0
-6
0
-16
0
0
-3
12
0
-4
DNE
0
new
DNE
0
0
0
0
DNE
DNE
DNE
0
new
new
DNE
new
-2
3
8
7
™
<0
<•»
-w
a
(Q
<3
(A
3
3g
i
Q.
^
S
;»
<§
C
TJ
|
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
I
I
<
x
|
Q.
£
0)
L_
Ol
2
Q.
»- O
CA ro
Bl
•_ UJ
03 I—
—• Q.
in uj
< in
UJ
"•*
•i
Sin
UJ
— at
a at
—t O.
SS
Q <
5^^
UJ <
at •—
o
U. UJ
°UJ
C/l Of
S'
(/
c
H
C/l
g
— Ul
1— t- —I
Z UJ 3
UJ -1 C
in a. i
QC O C_
Q. U CO
g
in •— u
§>O.U
V
ejj
o a
o i—
u- in
c
u
1—
S
1-
u
*
1
at uj i—
UJ — 1 fi
&m z
< 3
c
UJ
i—
C/l
1—
C/l
o
Of
1 ?
1 i
-* CM
CM «-
CM
1 1
CM CM
&• O*
0 0
c/> ex
u.
< *••
,_ ,_
0 0
Wrigley
Rockton
*rf
5
ex
CO
o
u
L. •
CO O-
5 is
X °
Ol 4-1
'£ "J
3 en
Z —1
i— *-•
>* in
0 «-
i
II
CM «-
o* ro
o> 9*
o^ o*
^ «—
(M ^t
II
IS
Q.
U.
at
ro N±
o o
c
o
(_
CD
co
Ol
I
CD
C/l
g
£
_i
in
0
i
^
1
sf
1
1
^
Taylorvi lie
01
u
'>
c.
Ol
u
al Illinois Publi
c_
4-*
01 0*
CJ U
_l
in
i
£
-*
0
CM
.2
o
1
a.
at
<
a.
1
i
i
Pembroke Tc
c
>r~
"7^
$
Brothers Pai I Re
V)
1
O
_J
•-1
in
in
i
8:
«-
i
st
1
g
Q.
at
in
V
L.
i_
CO
3
Ol
M
u
*p
™
e County Landfill
t Preserve)
01 ca
CO 01
%fe
a u.
_i
in
0 0
g c?
•- CM
i i
«- CM
1 1
0 O
CM T-
§^
0
a. a.
af 5
C/l M
Antioch
East Cape
Girardeau
. Landfill
Energy Co.
a co
O ~n
_! _j
« —
in in
o
s
ro
c?
ro
1
CM
O
*
O
Rockford
__^
o
i-
c
o
state Pollution C
Ol •
i
in
ro
£
-*
£
«-
1
i
C/l
Of
o
Joilet
4J
C
CO
Q.
t Army Annunition
facturing Area)
r 1
—» *m*
~
in
ro
i
in
~*
in
&
«-
1
o
1
at
o
Joliet
o
jj
c
CO
ex
t Army Ammunition
ly-Packing Area
Ol J3
O CO
-> w
«
in
i
§
^
1?
ro
(M
1
ro
or
o
at
0
X
o
u
Ol
01
CO
o
in
CD
i~
Ol <-
11
at
01
|°
^ CD
-
in
O 0
i £
ro ro
S £
ro ro
1 1
CM CM
in in
0 0
ot at
0 0
o o
Ol Ol
CO CO
o o
5 5
1 I
V (0
— o
1 -
W 01
t 1
0) V
SO)
4)
13 CD
O O
Ts L:
1. L. <_
- «
in in
A-32
-------
Progress Toward Implementir.jj Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
u>
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
Rfi
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
AND
SITE NAME
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
MIG/Dewane Landfill
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Ottawa Radiation Areas
Outboard Marine Corp.
Page I 's Pit
Parsons Casket Hardware
Co.
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge
(USDOI )
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Southeast Rockford Ground Water
Contamination
Velsicol Chemical (Illinois)
Wauconda Sand & Gravel
Yeoman Creek Landfill
Carter Lee Lumber Co.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
LaSalle
Lemont
Belvidere
Granite City
Ottawa
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
Carterville
Savanna
Rockford
Marshall
Wauconda
Waukegan
Indianapolis
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
01
01
03
04
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
S
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
04/11/89
09/29/89
03/29/91
09/30/92
03/26/93
09/26/90
06/27/93
08/13/91
09/29/88
06/30/93
09/13/91
09/13/91
10/22/92
09/29/89
07/10/89
03/29/91
09/30/91
12/22/89
04/09/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1995
2 1994
2 1994
4 1994
20
1 1995
20
4 1993
4 1993
20
1 1995
1 1995
20
1 1994
2 1994
4 1994
3 1993
4 1994
2 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1994
1 1995
2 1995
4 1997
2 1996
1 1996
4 1994
4 1993
1 1994
4 1996
1 1995
1 1995
1 1994
1 1995
1 1995
4 1994
1 1994
4 1994
2 1995
STATUS
4
-3
-4
-12
new
-4
new
0
-1
new
0
0
new
-4
-3
0
-2
0
0
£
1
1
-*
«o
to
**
•Q
i
3
w
3
i
a.
j"
i
i
i
(0
c
•Q
m
2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 195?3
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS.
RG ST
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
SITE NAME
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglas Road/Urn royal, Inc.,
Landfill
Envirochem Corp.
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Galen Meyer's Dump/Drum
Salvage
Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
MIDCO I Site
MIDCO II Site
Weal's Landfill (Bloomington)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Prestolite Battery Division
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Souths ide Sanitary Landfill
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Elkhart
Kokomo
Mishawaka
Zionsville
Fort Wayne
Osceola
Gary
Gary
Gary
Bloomington
Gary
Vincennes
Indianapolis
Seymour
Indianapolis
Lafayette
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
04
05
01
02
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
30, 1993
LEAD
F
S
S
S
F
PRP
PRP
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP*
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/01/90
05/25/90
08/26/91
03/27/92
05/11/93
07/30/93
09/20/90
04/11/89
09/28/87
07/22/93
08/23/93
07/07/88
07/16/91
12/23/88
09/21/92
09/21/92
08/17/87
09/08/89
09/29/89
03/08/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1994
2 1994
1 1995
2 1995
1 1995
20
3 1994
3 1995
1 1993
20
20
2 1989
1 1995
2 1993
1 1995
1 1995
2 1994
3 1995
1 1994
1 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
4
1
1
CHEDULE
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1999
1999
1989
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
STATUS
0
0
0
0
-2
new
-2
0
-4
new
new
0
0
-5
0
0
-5
3
-4
0
>i
3
^
I
S
i
I
M,
1*
3
5
I
(0
c
1
£
2!
a
•^
i
o
o
CO
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
SITE NAME
Tri -State Plating
Waste, Inc. Landfill
Whiteford Sales & Service/Nationale
ase
Albion-Sheridan Township
Landfill
Anderson Development Co.
Auto Iron Chemicals, Inc.
Bendix Corp. /Allied Automotive
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Electrovoice
J & L Landfill
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Metal Working Shop
Metamora Landfill
North Bronson Industrial
Area
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
LOCATION
Columbus
Michigan City
South Bend
Albion
Adrian
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Muskegon
Buchanan
Rochester
Hills
Utica
Lake A';n
Metamora
Bronson
Da I ton Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
S
F
F
PRP
EP
PRP
S
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/29/91
03/31/87
09/29/89
01/07/92
01/05/92
03/16/93
06/01/90
02/13/89
09/25/92
03/31/90
09/15/92
04/24/89
09/30/92
^1/15/90
03/30/93
06/24/87
09/25/91
09/28/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
2
3
1
1
4
4
4
2
1
3
2
4
2
1999
1993
1994
1994
1993
20
1994
1994
1999
1993
1994
1993
1998
1992
20
1994
1995
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1999
4 1993
3 1994
4 1994
2 1994
2 1994
2 1994
3 1994
4 1999
2 1994
1 1995
2 1994
1 1998
3 1992
2 1995
1 1995
4 1995
2 1996
STATUS
0
0
-2
-2
-3
new
-1
-2
0
-2
-1
-4
0
0
new
-3
0
0
§
8
|
«*
I
*Q
s Toward Imf.
1
i
1
S
O
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Vear 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MN
5 MN
AND
SITE NAME
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Packaging Corp. of America
Parsons Chemical Works,
Inc.
Petoskey Municipal Well
Field
Rockwell International Corp.
(Allegan Plant)
Rose Township Dump
Roto- Finish Co., Inc.
Shiawassee River
Sparta Landfill
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem. Inc.
Torch Lake
U.S. Aviex
Verona Well Field
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxte
r Plant)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Grandville
Filer City
Grand Ledge
Petoskey
Allegan
Rose Township
Kalamazoo
Howe 1 1
Sparta Township
Sturgis
Mancelona
Township
Muskegon
Houghton County
Howard Township
Battle Creek
Hermantown
Brai nerd/Baxter
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
LEAD
F
PRP
S
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
04/22/88
05/02/85
09/29/89
10/05/90
06/07/88
09/08/92
12/18/87
06/19/87
09/23/93
05/12/93
01/29/86
09/21/87
09/28/88
09/27/91
06/18/93
08/15/90
03/31/87
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
4 1993
4 1994
1 1995
1 1995
1 1996
1 1994
3 1994
20
20
3 1993
1 1994
1 1994
4 1993
20
4 1993
3 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
1995
1993
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1994
1995
1995
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
STATUS
-5
0
-2
-2
0
0
-4
0
new
new
0
2
0
-3
new
-1
0
5
<§
i
o1
i
1
*4,
|
i
S
;S
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
AND
SITE NAME
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
East Bethel Demolition Landfill
Freeway Sanitary Landfill
Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply
Co.
Koch Refining Co. /N- Ren
Corp.
Koppers Coke
Kurt Manufacturing Co.
LaGrand Sanitary Landfill
Long Prairie Ground Water
Contamination
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bell Lumber
& Pole Co.
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Olmstead County Sanitary
Landfill
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Cannon Falls
East Bethel
Township
Burnsvi I le
Brooklyn Center
Pine Bend
St. Paul
Fridley
LaGrand Township
Long Prairie
New Brighton
Fridley
New Brighton
Oak Grove
Township
Oronco
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
07
09
09
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
S
S
PS
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PS
S
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PS
FUNDING
START
03/29/90
08/11/93
03/01/85
03/27/86
12/31/88
08/03/92
06/29/87
12/15/86
02/23/93
04/11/91
01/15/92
06/14/91
03/28/91
06/28/88
06/21/89
07/02/93
08/05/92
12/20/89
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
1993
20
1992
1993
1993
1994
1992
1993
20
1994
1993
1999
1995
1994
1992
20
1999
1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1993
4 1999
4 1992
2 1994
3 1994
4 1994
4 1993
4 1994
4 1994
2 1997
1 1994
4 1999
2 1995
4 1994
4 1992
2 1994
4 1999
1 1994
STATUS
0
new
0
-2
-3
0
-4
-4
new
-11
-1
0
0
0
0
new
0
-1
i
8
i
m
™
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND
RG ST SITE NAME
5 MN Perham Arsenic
5 MN Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill (once
listed as Pine Bend Sanitary
Landfill/Crosby American
Demolition Landfill)
5 MN Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
5 MN Ritari Post & Pole
5 MN St. Augusta Sanitary Landf ill/Engen
Dump (once listed as St. Augusta
> Sanitary Landf i I l/St. Cloud
u> Dump)
oo
5 MN St. Louis River Site
5 MN University of Minnesota (Rosemount
Research Center)
5 MN Waite Park Wells
5 MN Washington County Landfill
5 MN Waste Disposal Engineering
5 OH Allied Chemical & Ironton
Coke
5 OH A I sco Anaconda
5 OH Big D Campground
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Perham
Dakota County
St. Louis
Park
Sebeka
St. Augusta
Township
St. Louis
County
Rosemount
Waite Park
Lake Flmo
Andover
I ronton
Gnadenhutten
Kingsville
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
02
04
05
01
01
01
02
03
03
02
01
02
01
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
/
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
F
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
05/01/91
05/20/93
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
12/07/92
07/15/93
09/30/91
09/24/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
1994
20
1993
1999
1999
1994
1993
1993
1993
1995
1994
1994
1993
1999
20
20
1993
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
2
1
1
4
1994
1994
1994
1999
1999
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1999
1994
1995
1995
1994
STATUS
0
new
-2
0
0
-3
-2
-2
-1
0
-2
0
-2
0
new
new
-5
ONE
5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
SITE NAME
Dover Chemical Corp.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Dover
Feed Materials Production Center Fernald
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
Industrial Excess Landfill
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Nease Chemical
New Lyme Landfill
Ormet Corp.
Powell Road Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
Plant)
South Point Plant
Summit National
Ashtabula
Uniontown
Miamisburg
Salem
New Lyme
Hannibal
Dayton
Reading
(Dover Dover
South Point
Deerf ield
Township
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
04
05
02
03
01
02
01
02
05
06
09
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/24/88
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
08/06/90
06/21/93
02/04/93
07/17/92
05/22/92
01/27/88
04/11/88
03/27/87
11/12/87
01/22/93
03/29/39
03/31/87
06/22/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
20
1 1994
1 1993
2 1996
3 1993
3 1994
4 1994
3 1994
4 1992
4 1992
3 1995
20
20
4 1999
4 1999
2 1994
2 1993
1 1993
2 1993
20
1 1994
2 1993
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
2
1
4
4
1
4
1
4
2
2
2
3
1995
1994
1995
1996
1993
1994
1995
1995
1992
1992
1995
1997
1997
1999
1999
1996
1993
1994
1993
1994
1994
1994
1997
STATUS
ONE
0
-10
0
0
0
-2
-3
0
0
0
new
new
0
0
-7
-2
-4
-2
new
-1
-4
new
i$
s
I
s
<0
<•»
«.
i
1
|
5
f
1
i
I
c
3D
3
2:
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS.
RG
5
5
5
5
5
>
<=> 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
OH
OH
OH
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
Algoma Municipal Landfill
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
Delavan Municipal Well #4
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District
Mid-State Disposal, Inc.
Landfill
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Troy
Marietta
Dayton
Algoma
DePere
Delavan
Franklin
Stoughton
Will Jams town
Kohler
Menomonee
Falls
Franklin Township
Blooming Grove
Cleveland
Township
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
10
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
STUDIES
30, 1993
LEAD
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
S
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
PS
PS
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/17/92
08/18/90
03/21/91
07/10/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
03/16/93
07/28/93
04/08/93
09/28/90
08/05/91
09/28/90
05/21/93
08/14/91
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/31/92
08/01/90
04/23/91
09/24/92
03/22/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1993
2 1993
2 1994
3 1996
20
20
20
20
20
20
2 1994
3 1997
1 1994
20
1 1994
1 1994
20
20
2 1994
3 1993
3 1994
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1993
4 1993
2 1994
3 1996
2 1996
4 1996
4 1996
4 1997
3 1996
4 1994
2 1996
3 1997
3 1994
1 1995
1 1994
1 1994
2 1994
3 1994
2 1994
3 1993
1 1995
2 1995
STATUS
-2
-2
0
0
new
new
new
new
new
new
-8
0
-2
new
0
0
DNE
DNE
0
0
-2
new
•*
i
i
o1
i
a
V4.
1
1
I
31
0)
c
"0
a
i
°
I?
5.
I
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
5 WI
6 AR
6 AR
6 AR
SITE NAME
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
N.W. Mauth Co., Inc.
National Presto Industries,
Inc.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Onalaska Municpal Landfill
Refuse Hideaway Landfill
Sauk County Landfill
Schmalz Dump
Scrap Processing Co., Inc.
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Tomah Armory
Tomah Fairgrounds
LOCATION
Muskego
Appleton
Eau Claire
Ashippin
Onalaska
Middleton
Excelsior
Harrison
Medford
Sheboygan
Tomah
Tomah
Wausau Ground Water Contamination Wausau
Wheeler Pit
Frit Industries
Gurley Pit
Midland Products
La Prairie
Township
Walnut Ridge
Edmondson
Ola/Birta
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
03
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
S
PRP
F
F
F
S
PS
F
F
PRP
EP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
S
FUNDING
START
08/14/87
09/30/88
06/04/86
09/30/91
09/20/90
02/28/92
03/25/93
09/22/91
09/29/88
05/11/92
04/11/86
05/27/93
05/27/93
06/30/93
05/21/92
09/08/83
03/29/89
06/29/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
1
4
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
1993
1993
20
1995
1994
1994
20
1994
1993
1994
1994
20
20
20
1994
1994
1993
1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
1 1994
3 1994
1 1995
1 1997
4 1994
2 1995
3 1994
1 1994
2 1995
3 1994
1 1995
1 1995
3 1994
1 1998
2 1995
2 1994
1 1994
STATUS
-4
-1
DNE
0
-12
0
new
0
-2
-5
-1
new
new
new
-16
-4
-5
-1
§""
!
i
§
1
a
§
J
I
i
§
'ERFUND
-------
Progress Toward Implement,.ig Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
> 6
^
to
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
AR
AR
AR
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
NM
NM
SITE NAME
Monroe Auto Equipment Co.
(Paragould Pit)
Popile, Inc.
Vertac, Inc.
Bayou Bonfouca
Cleve Reber
Combustion, Inc.
D.L. Mud, Inc.
Dutchtown Treatment Plant
Gulf Coast Vaccuum Services
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
Old Inger Oil Refinery
PAB Oil & Chemical Service,
Inc.
Pet ro- Processors of Louisiana,
Inc.
AT & SF (Clovis)
Cimarron Mining Corp.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Paragould
El Dorado
Jacksonvi 1 le
Slidell
Sorrento
Denham Springs
Abbeville
Ascension
Parish
Abbeville
Doyline
Darrow
Abbevi 1 le
Scot landvi lie
Clovis
Carrizozo
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
03
02
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
STUDIES
f
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
S
S
F
PRP
PRP
EP
EP
FUNDING
START
06/28/91
12/27/91
07/12/89
02/04/91
04/10/91
10/25/88
06/20/90
08/07/89
12/11/92
01/31/89
04/09/90
04/25/86
06/27/90
06/30/87
08/07/89
08/13/91
12/20/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
1 1993
2 1994
4 1997
1 1997
2 1994
4 1993
4 1993
20
2 1994
1 1995
2 1999
3 1993
4 1997
4 1995
1 1993
2 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1995
1 1993
4 1994
4 1997
1 1997
1 1995
2 1994
1 1994
3 1994
2 1994
1 1995
2 1999
3 1993
4 1997
4 1998
1 1994
2 1995
STATUS
-3
0
-2
0
0
-3
-2
-1
new
0
0
0
0
0
-12
-4
0
tl
3
<6
i
s
i
1
**
¥
i
1
0)
S
m
|
i
3
8
•<
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
> 6
L
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
OK
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
SITE NAME
Cleveland Mill
Homestake Mining Co.
Lee Acres Landfill (USDOI)
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Hardage/Criner
National Zinc Corp.
Air Force Plant #4 (General
Dynamics)
Bailey Waste Disposal
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
French, Ltd.
Geneva Industries/'Fuhrmann
Energy
Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
Lone Star Army Ammunition
Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition
Plant
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Silver City
Mi Ian
Farmington
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Oklahoma City
Criner
Bart lesvi lie
Fort Worth
Bridge City
Friends wood
Crosby
Houston
Texarkana
Texarkana
Karnack
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
04
05
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
S
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/29/90
12/31/92
02/25/92
10/04/90
09/12/89
06/29/92
11/20/91
01/04/93
09/22/92
08/20/90
02/19/92
06/29/89
06/28/89
06/28/89
03/31/89
03/31/93
06/18/90
06/18/90
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1993
20
2 1994
1 1993
4 1995
4 1993
1 1995
20
20
1 1995
3 1994
2 1997
4 1996
3 1998
1 1994
20
3 1994
3 1994
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1993
1 1994
4 1994
2 1994
4 1995
1 1994
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
3 1994
2 1995
2 1997
4 1996
3 1998
4 1999
2 1997
4 1995
4 1995
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
STATUS
-1
new
-2
-5
0
-1
0
new
DNE
2
-3
0
0
0
-23
new
-5
-5
2
2
2
2
2
i
S
i
™
S
CO
^
i
i
CO
o1
i
1
S
•53
1
0)
5
3
s
c
€
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
ro
1 ufg
IE §".
Ol h- O
>- co ro
— • >- at
a i— uj
u -co
W ' K
tr- •-« UJ
• i £Q )_
— . a.
• i CO UJ
•D < CO
5 K z
c. »
o> < co co
a. z to
D X O UJ
co ~ •— at
a. i S§
c uj CD ae
•- a. —o.
4-> a. i-
c < co z
Oj UJ *-•
S Z CO
i ~ 0
E J *~*
•— < I—
"- UJ
10 z: _i
1— O
U. UJ
CA OX
CO UJ
a. uj
et a u
a. u co
C9
z
•-« 1—
§1
u. co
UJ
1
^
1—
>
1—
(J
o: uj t-
UJ _l «
SSI
g
K-
g
O
UJ
i
z
UJ
1—
CO
1—
CO
g
CM O 3
1 II
ro ro *~*
*- *- S
*— T—
1 ^^
«- CM ro
ro «- o
~ gg
3C co co
at ct&
«- «- CM
O O O
1 i
ID 4->
1 3
ID O
4-1
0)
4)
4-1
CO
ID
u
ID
g ±
— ID
CJ
d" j=
u «
o o
£ Z
X X
1— >—
Q) 0) Q) 01
iisii
ro ro CM >± >»•
o o o o o
CM CM CM CM CM
ScScSSS!
O O N- O O
»- o »-«-»-
in CO f^ in in
o o o o o
a.
at
CO CO CO CO CO
^^^. ^^
at at at at at
«- CM ro >* in
o o o o o
IA
JO
10
a.
c-
O
CJ
at
CO
at
X
•0
o ro
CM
£ i
CM vt
1 1
CM «-
O «-
CO O
"S, X,
is g
2 2
5 S
X §
.a 4-»
U) (A
2 i
cj a:
(A
L.
O
4-
CA
C
ID
1—
CO — '
4-1 ID
—• CO
ID D
I ?
CO ^
o c
IA —1
01
•p- o
CO CO
X X
1— 1—
-o -o
1
i
*
o
CM
^
CM
in
o
2
o
ID
f.
S
C
t.
01
!8
L.
a.
I
ID
1
L-
(0
X •
0) o
1- 0
X
*~
>0
3 ro
Q^ O^
«- CM
O O*
CM «-
ro
t5 S
g i
g §
a.
at
W Q_
CO
U-
^
o: at
SCM
0
CA
01
C
S i
t-
C CO
O 01
CJ O
CA
ID
5
in
0 01
CJ U
g S
4-> UJ
O CJ
S -
01 CO
c- o>
0 C
T! i~
4-< O
•- CO CJ
C 0) i—
=> 00
X <
1— «-•
«0 K
t
1
>*
1
"*
CM
S
0
a.
°"
2
o
4-*
C
'o
a.
CO
o
CJ
IA
£_
i «
z ^
a. 3
3 O
Q vx
— U
• C
UJ —i
<
t— I
r-
CM
1
-
i
ro
1
t
o
CO
°"
CO
^
at
0
CO
.^
a.
a
oe
c_
ID
"8
u
J
4^
CJ
O
4-*
O
01
UJ
^
•^
^
t
1
sr
1
**
^^
o
CXI
o
a.
at
o.
2
0
a*
c.
(0
u_
C
o
ID
U
H-
co
CO
o
CJ
ai
M- 4->
ig
CO — •
U. CL
<
1— 1
•-
A-44
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
7 IA
7 IA
7 IK
7 IA
7 IA
7 IA
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 KS
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
SITE NAME
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Mason City Coal Gasification
Plant
Northwestern States Portland
Cement Co.
Shaw Avenue Dump
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)
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Middletown
Mason City
Mason City
Charles City
Keokuk
Orange City
Wichita
Cherokee County
Junction City
Hutch inson
Cow ley County
Maiden
Cape Girardeau
Independence
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
05
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
PS
PS
S
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/20/90
10/01/91
06/24/92
03/03/92
10/18/90
05/20/91
09/27/89
07/13/89
05/07/90
04/20/93
08/23/90
01/22/92
03/27/90
03/28/90
09/03/93
02/10/93
08/01/87
08/03/90
04/21/92
06/27/90
09/30/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
2
3
4
4
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
4
1995
20
1994
1995
1993
1994
1993
1993
1993
20
1995
1995
1994
1993
20
20
1995
1999
1994
1994
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1995
4 1994
4 1994
2 1995
4 1993
2 1997
4 1994
4 1994
1 1994
3 1996
1 1995
1 1995
4 1994
1 1994
3 1995
4 1994
2 1996
2 1996
4 1995
1 1996
3 1996
STATUS
0
DNE
0
0
-1
-10
-4
-6
-2
new
0
0
-2
-2
new
new
-2
11
-7
-5
DNE
3
8
|
«*
ft
Cd
^
g
s
|
3
i
a
1
1
1
1
(A
Wf
§
S3
3
o
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
AND
SITE NAME
Lee Chemical
Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt
Quality Plating
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
St. Louis Airport/Hazel wood
Interim Storage/Futura Coat
Syntex Faci lity
Times Beach Site
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
We I don Springs Ordnance
Works
West lake Landfill
10th Street Site
Cleburn Street Well
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Liberty
Jasper County
S ikes ton
Republic
St. Louis
County
Verona
Times Beach
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
Bridgeton
Columbus
Grand Island
Hall County
Hastings
L i ndsay
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
01
01
01
01
06
12
14
16
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
PS
F
S
PS
PRP*
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
12/31/92
04/24/90
12/31/88
09/27/91
06/26/90
09/30/89
09/16/91
03/14/83
06/01/93
10/24/91
02/16/90
03/31/93
12/08/89
09/16/91
03/15/90
11/20/91
08/31/90
09/30/91
02/11/91
09/30/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
2
4
4
2
1
2
2
4
4
3
3
4
4
1
20
1994
1993
1994
1995
1993
1993
1994
20
1994
1995
20
1993
1993
1994
1993
1994
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1994
4 1995
1 1994
2 1994
2 1995
4 1994
3 1994
2 1994
3 1995
4 1995
4 1994
2 1995
1 1994
1 1995
1 1995
2 1994
3 1994
4 1995
4 1995
1 1995
STATUS
new
-6
-2
-1
0
-4
-3
0
new
-7
2
new
-3
-5
-1
-3
0
0
0
0
5
1
'Q
i
Oi
fi
g
|
i
S
1
(0
c
m
35
3
§
3
8
|
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
RG ST
7 NE
7 NE
8 CO
8 CO
8 CO
8 CO
8 CO
8 CO
8 CO
8 CO
8 CO
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
Nebraska Ordnance Plant Mead 01
(Former) 02
Waverly Groundwater Contamination Waverly 01
Air Force Plant PJKS Water-town 01
Broderick Wood Products Denver 01
02
California Gulch Leadville 00
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
04
Central City - Clear Creek Idaho Springs 02
02
Denver Radium Site Denver 06
06
08
08
09
Eagle Mine Minturn/Redcliff 01
01
Lincoln Park Canon City 01
Lowry Landfill Arapahoe County 01
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) Golden 01
02
02
04
05
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI
RI
RA
RI
RI
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
FE
FE
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
FE
PS
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/26/91
08/18/92
12/11/90
02/07/89
09/25/89
06/04/93
06/12/92
04/07/87
04/07/87
08/29/91
08/29/91
08/29/91
09/10/93
08/29/91
12/01/91
03/29/89
09/21/92
08/24/92
08/24/92
10/26/92
03/31/93
06/04/92
09/25/90
09/01/88
03/11/92
12/07/88
02/06/90
04/12/90
09/11/92
06/08/90
04/05/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
4
3
4
1993
1995
1994
1993
20
20
20
1994
1993
1994
1993
1994
20
1993
1994
1991
1993
1993
20
1993
20
1993
1992
1994
1993
1994
1995
1995
20
1995
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
4
4
2
2
1
4
2
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
3
4
1993
1995
1994
1999
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1993
1994
1994
1993
1994
1991
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1992
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1999
STATUS
0
0
0
-27
DNE
new
DNE
-1
-8
0
0
-1
new
0
0
0
0
-5
DNE
-2
new
-3
0
0
-4
0
0
0
DNE
0
0
2!
8
1
•g
s
CO
^
i
3
8
3
5
§
s
1
5"
2
|
(0
Sg
ft)
3
<2
§
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
oo
RG
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
06
07
08
09
10
12
13
14
15
16
CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal Adams County 02
03
04
21
22
25
26
CO Sand Creek Industrial Commerce City 01
04
CO Smelter town Site Salida 01
CO Smuggler Mountain Pitkin County 01
MT Anaconda Co. Smelter Anaconda 07
11
14
MT East Helena Site East Helena 01
02
03
MT Libby Ground Water Contamination Libby 02
MT Milltown Reservoir Sediments Milltown 02
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
t
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
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
11/15/91
11/30/90
03/21/91
11/15/91
09/25/90
03/27/92
04/13/93
09/28/90
09/28/92
06/10/93
09/28/88
03/31/92
06/23/87
06/27/87
10/18/89
02/02/90
02/02/90
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
2
1
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1999
1996
1999
1996
1996
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1991
1995
1993
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
20
20
1991
1994
20
1995
1999
1994
1995
1999
1996
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
4
4
1
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1999
1996
1999
1996
1996
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1991
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
1991
1994
1996
1995
1999
1994
1995
1999
1996
1996
STATUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5
0
0
0
-1
0
DNE
new
0
1
new
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
I
I
o1
§•
"^
§
jjj
a
!f
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
8 MT
8 SD
8 SD
8 SD
8 SD
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
SITE NAME LOCATION
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Silver Bow/Deer
Lodge
Annie Creek Mine Tailings Lead
Ellsworth Air Force Base Rapid City
Whitewood Creek Whitewood
Williams Pipe Line Co. Disposal Sioux Falls
Pit
Hill Air Force Base Ogden
Midvale Slag Hidvale
Monticello Mill Tailings Monticello
(USDOE)
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
04
07
08
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
06
07
08
09
10
12
01
01
01
02
04
05
01
02
01
01
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
T
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/30/91
05/04/90
06/30/92
08/02/91
06/30/92
05/11/92
12/11/92
04/12/93
04/05/93
04/12/93
04/05/93
04/13/90
01/24/92
04/05/93
04/05/93
01/26/93
01/26/93
01/26/93
09/30/92
04/25/91
06/28/91
06/28/91
12/30/91
08/13/91
08/07/89
09/10/91
06/22/92
07/31/93
05/31/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
2
3
1
4
2
4
1
4
1
1
3
3
2
4
1
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1994
20
20
20
20
20
1993
1996
20
20
20
20
20
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1993
1995
1993
20
1998
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
2
3
1
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
1
4
4
3
1
2
1
3
1
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1994
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1993
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1996
1994
1995
1994
1994
1998
STATUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
new
new
new
new
new
0
-2
new
new
new
new
new
0
-2
-1
-3
-3
-4
-2
0
-1
new
0
2!
\
I
8}
«*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
>
o
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
RG ST
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 WY
8 WY
9 AZ
9 AZ
AND
SITE NAME
Monti cello Radioactively
Contaminated Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek
Plant
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings/Smelters)
Tooele Army Depot (North
Area)
Wasatch Chemical Co.
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Mystery Bridge Rd/U.S. Highway
20
Apache Powder Co.
Indian Bend Wash Area
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS,
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Monti cello
Ogden
Salt Lake
City
Midvale
Tooele
Salt Lake
City
Cheyenne
Evansvi lie
St. David
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
04
05
07
08
10
01
01
03
05
01
01
Scottsdale/Ttnpe/Phnx 01
02
03
07
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
F
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F*
FUNDING
START
09/06/84
11/09/90
09/24/93
11/15/91
02/03/92
07/10/92
12/31/84
12/31/84
06/25/92
01/21/93
08/16/90
12/31/91
12/31/91
07/15/93
09/16/91
07/15/93
03/19/93
04/12/93
10/16/92
1 0/22/91
01/25/93
06/23/92
06/09/93
10/05/89
02/20/92
06/30/92
03/14/88
09/26/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1994
2 1996
20
1 1994
4 1997
2 1995
4 1992
4 1992
1 1993
20
3 1994
3 1994
3 1995
20
1 1995
20
20
20
20
3 1994
20
3 1994
20
3 1994
4 1995
1 1995
1 1994
4 1993
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
3
3
4
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1994
1996
1996
1994
1997
1995
1994
1994
1999
1994
1994
1994
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
STATUS
0
0
new
-3
0
0
-5
-5
-24
new
0
-1
-2
new
0
new
new
new
new
2
new
-2
new
1
0
0
-4
-1
5
i
$
o1
i
§_
t
5*
1
I
(0
•o
2
i
6
$
s.
-------
Progress Toward Implementir.d Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
SITE NAME
Luke Air Force Base
Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street
Plant)
Tucson International Airport
Area
Williams Air Force Base
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
Aerojet General Corp.
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics
Base (Nebo Area)
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base
Castle Air Force Base
Cooper Drum Co.
Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Glendale
Phoenix
Tucson
Chandler
Yuma
Rancho Cordova
Barstow
Arvin
San Diego
County
Merced
South Gate
Salinas
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
EP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
EP
FUNDING
START
09/27/90
09/27/90
06/20/89
12/12/91
12/11/90
09/21/90
12/31/92
01/19/93
09/30/91
09/30/91
09/08/88
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
05/03/90
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/21/89
01/04/93
05/29/91
12/16/92
08/12/93
09/18/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
2
4
2
4
4
4
3
1
2
4
1
3
4
1
3
1996
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
20
20
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1993
20
1995
1995
1995
1996
20
1993
20
20
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
2 1994
2 1994
1 1995
4 1995
3 1994
1 1996
1 1996
4 1996
3 1997
4 1996
3 1996
1 1996
2 1997
1 1994
2 1995
1 1995
3 1995
4 1995
1 1996
4 1999
1 1994
4 1995
4 1994
3 1995
STATUS
0
-1
2
-3
-4
-1
new
new
0
-3
0
0
0
0
-1
DNE
0
0
0
0
new
-2
new
new
new
31
to
5
1
to
8
I
<§
(A
<2
o1
i
3.
§"
¥
9
§
§
0)
jjj
|
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1953
>
to
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
Rfi
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST SITE NAME
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 Frontier Fertilizer
CA GBF, Inc., Dump
CA George Air Force Base
CA Hewlett Packard (620-640 Page
Rd.)
CA Hunter's Point Annex
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Los Angeles
Kern County
El Toro
Marina
Fresno
Davis
Antioch
Victorville
Mill Palo Alto
San Francisco
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
02
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
01
02
03
04
05
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
05/07/92
05/07/92
09/26/90
09/26/90
12/18/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/23/90
07/23/90
07/23/90
09/20/90
08/02/93
07/28/93
09/21/90
09/21/90
09/21/90
08/27/91
03/16/89
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
10/01/90
01/22/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
2
2
4
1
2
2
4
1995
1994
1999
1996
20
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1994
1994
20
20
20
1995
1993
1993
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1995
3 1994
3 1999
3 1996
2 1998
2 1996
3 1996
3 1996
3 1996
3 1997
2 1995
3 1994
1 1995
3 1996
3 1995
3 1995
2 1994
2 1995
2 1995
3 1994
4 1995
1 1995
2 1995
2 1995
4 1995
STATUS
0
0
0
0
new
0
0
0
0
0
-2
-1
DNE
new
new
0
-2
-6
0
-1
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
5
1
8
3
i
a.
§•
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1993
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
SITE NAME
Industrial Waste Processing
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(NASA)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
MGM Brakes
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (AC & W
Disposal Site)
McClellan Air Force Base (Ground
Water Contamination)
LOCATION
Fresno
Weed
Pasadena
Oroville
Livermore
Livermore
Oroville
Clove rdale
Riverside
Sacramento
Sacramento
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
01
04
05
06
08
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
f
30, 1993
LEAD
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
12/18/87
05/12/93
07/16/92
12/23/92
07/07/93
08/27/93
09/17/93
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
06/29/92
08/05/92
05/26/92
01/29/91
09/27/90
09/27/90
08/06/91
01/24/92
06/06/91
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
07/21/89
08/21/90
11/23/92
01/13/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1993
20
2 1994
20
20
20
20
3 1994
3 1994
1 1995
2 1995
1 1996
1 1996
1 1996
1 1994
1 1994
1 1997
4 1994
3 1995
2 1996
3 1994
1 1994
2 1993
4 1999
4 1997
4 1999
20
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
4
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
4
3
2
3
4
1
4
4
4
1
1
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1995
1994
1997
1994
1995
1996
1995
1994
1994
1994
1997
1999
1995
1995
STATUS
-2
new
-5
new
new
new
new
-4
-4
-3
-3
0
-1
-4
-6
0
0
0
0
0
-4
-3
-3
20
0
0
new
new
3
^^
•*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
STATUS
APPENDIX A
OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
SITE NAME
McColl
McCormic and Baxter Creosoting
Co.
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
Mont rose Chemical Corp.
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Norton Air Force Base
Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
Ralph Gray Trucking Co.
Riverbank Army Ammunition
Plant
Sacramento Army Depot
LOCATION
Fullerton
Stockton
Modesto
Sunnyvale
Torrance
San Bernadino
San Bernardino
Monterey Park
Malaga
Westminster
Riverbank
Sacramento
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
04
01
02
01
01
02
05
06
07
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
04
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
06
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
STUDIES
1
30, 1993
LEAD
S
F
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
06/11/84
09/27/90
06/30/92
03/24/93
03/21/91
08/08/89
08/08/89
08/08/89
07/06/92
08/08/89
10/10/86
09/25/92
06/29/89
06/29/89
02/14/91
09/15/89
07/18/91
05/11/89
06/29/93
08/30/92
06/19/93
04/05/90
12/16/88
02/16/90
08/05/92
09/21/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1991
4 1995
3 1994
20
2 1994
3 1994
1 1994
1 1995
4 1995
4 1996
4 1993
2 1995
4 1995
3 1993
20
2 1994
2 1994
4 1994
20
1 1994
20
4 1993
4 1996
4 1999
3 1994
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
4
4
2
2
4
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
3
4
4
3
2
1991
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1996
1995
1994
1996
1994
1996
1999
1994
1995
STATUS
0
0
-2
new
-1
-2
-4
0
0
0
-2
0
0
-2
DNE
-3
0
-7
new
0
new
-3
0
0
0
new
Tj
i
a
1
2
n
2_
^
$•
i
§,
-------
Progress Towaid Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
SITE NAME
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 Treating Co.
Sharpe Army Depot
South Bay Basin
Stoker Company
Stringfel low
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
(Thompson- Haywood Chem
Tracy Defense Depot
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
\
LOCATION
Los Angeles
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
Los Angeles/Glendale 01
Glendale
Los Angeles
El Monte
Baldwin Park
Area
Selma
Lathrop
Silicon Valley
Imperial
Glen Avon
Heights
Clear Lake
Co. Fresno
Tracy
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
05
01
02
03
01
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
S
S
S
S
F
F
F
F
FF
F
F
PRP
S
EP
F
EP
PS
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/16/85
08/16/85
08/16/85
08/16/85
09/28/92
06/13/84
08/01/87
07/22/92
03/16/89
01/28/87
05/01/92
09/23/93
10/01/90
09/28/90
11/18/91
09/28/90
02/06/87
06/27/91
08/12/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1995
3 1995
1 1995
1 1995
4 1994
3 1994
20
4 1996
3 1994
20
2 1995
20
20
2 1994
1 1996
3 1994
1 1994
4 1996
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
1
4
2
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
1996
1995
1991
1995
1994
1995
1994
1996
1994
1994
1996
1995
STATUS
-3
-1
-3
-3
-4
-8
DNE
0
-2
DNE
0
new
DNE
-2
-2
-1
-2
0
new
3
8
5
i
i
C4
5
1
to
3
i
1
|
5T
9
S
i
0)
•o
GI
•n
c
o
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
>
Os
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 HI
9 NV
10 AK
10 AK
10 AK
SITE NAME
Travis Air Force Base
United Heckathorn Co.
Waste Disposal, Inc.
Uatkins- Johnson Co. (Stewart
Division)
Western Pacific Railroad
Co.
Schofield Barracks
Carson River Mercury Site (Trust
Territories PC)
Arctic Surplus
Eielson Air Force Base
Elmendorf Air Force Base
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Solano County
R i chmond
Santa Fe Springs
Scotts Valley
Oroville
Oahu
Lyon/Church i 1 1
County
Fairbanks
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Greater Anchorage
Borough
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
02
03
04
05
08
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
STUDIES
30, 1993
LEAD
FF
F
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
f
f
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
09/26/91
12/22/87
07/16/91
09/29/92
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/24/92
01/19/93
06/17/91
05/06/92
05/06/92
05/06/92
01/19/93
05/21/91
01/01/92
04/01/92
04/06/93
02/15/93
04/15/92
08/05/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
3 1994
4 1993
4 1994
2 1995
2 1995
4 1995
3 1996
2 1995
4 1994
20
2 1995
20
2 1994
3 1995
3 1995
3 1995
20
2 1996
1 1994
4 1994
20
20
4 1994
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
4
3
4
3
3
1
3
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
2
4
1
1996
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1997
1996
1997
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1996
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1996
STATUS
-8
-1
-1
0
-1
-2
-7
0
-7
1
DNE
-2
new
0
0
0
0
new
0
-2
0
new
new
0
new
•o
i
i
s»
i
2
*%
i
1
a
<5
0}
S
m
5
C
g
5
8
|
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
£
-j
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
10 AK
10 AK
10 ID
10 ID
10 10
10 ID
10 ID
10 ID
10 OR
10 OR
10 OR
10 OR
AND
SITE NAME
Fort Uainright
Standard Steel and Metals Salvage
Yard
Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination
Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Monsanto Chemcial Co. (Soda
Springs Plant)
Mountain Home Airforce Base
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling
Co.
Gould, Inc.
Martin-Marietta Products
Teledyne Wah Chang
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
Fairbanks N Star 03
Borough
Anchorage
Pocatello
Idaho Falls
Soda Springs
Soda Springs
Mountain Home
Pocatello
Portland
The Dalles
Albany
Hermiston
04
01
01
01
05
08
14
15
19
01
01
03
02
01
02
01
03
04
05
06
07
08
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
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
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1993
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/15/92
11/27/92
09/26/92
05/30/91
12/20/91
09/15/93
01/29/93
12/09/91
12/27/91
09/25/92
09/20/90
03/19/91
05/12/92
07/28/93
03/02/92
05/15/90
05/05/87
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
01/26/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1995
20
1 1995
3 1994
1 1995
20
20
2 1994
1 1995
1 1995
4 1994
4 1994
3 1995
20
4 1995
20
4 1993
4 1993
1 1994
2 1993
4 1993
4 1993
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
4
4
3
2
4
2
1
2
2
4
2
1
4
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1993
1994
1994
1993
STATUS
0
new
0
-5
0
new
new
0
0
0
0
0
0
new
0
DNE
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
-1
DNE
3
^
5
^
-------
Progress Toward Implementing super fund: Fiscal Year 1993
>
oo
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
AND
SITE NAME
American Lake Gardens
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Colbert Landfill
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel
FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit)
Fair-child Air Force Base (4 Waste
Area)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Hamilton Island Landfill
(USA/COE)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Tacoma 01
Silverdale 01
02
03
05
06
Bremerton 01
Colbert 01
Pierce County 03
04
05
07
08
09
11
20
21
23
Tacoma 03
04
06
Yakima 31
Spokane County 03
Tillicum 01
North Bonneville 01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
MR
PS
PS
PS
PS*
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
04/14/93
02/16/90
02/16/90
06/29/90
09/02/90
10/14/91
03/16/93
08/28/89
11/16/90
11/12/91
01/16/90
04/11/91
09/30/89
07/31/92
06/25/93
09/10/86
06/25/92
05/15/92
07/19/90
10/15/90
03/15/92
04/23/92
09/15/92
01/15/92
09/24/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
1
2
4
2
1
4
1
4
20
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
20
1993
20
20
1996
1995
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1993
1995
1997
20
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
4
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
4
4
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1996
1995
1994
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1997
1996
STATUS
new
-2
0
0
-1
0
new
-7
DNE
DNE
0
-4
DNE
DNE
new
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
-1
0
0
new
5
i
*4
«
Qi
i
jj
I
§
^
5"
-------
! regress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
10 WA
AND
SITE NAME
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
Harbor Island (Lead)
Naval Air Station, Uhidbey Island
(Ault Field)
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
(Seaplane Base)
Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
Norths ide Landfill
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Benton County 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
13
14
Benton County 01
02
12
Benton County 01
02
Seattle 03
07
Uhidbey Island 01
02
03
04
Whidbey Island 01
Keyport 01
Spokane 01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1993
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/30/89
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
05/24/93
06/30/93
04/15/91
05/15/89
08/31/92
04/28/93
05/15/89
09/27/89
09/14/90
09/07/88
10/16/90
06/30/91
12/13/91
07/26/93
01/02/91
07/17/90
03/16/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
4
4
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
3
3
2
2
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
20
20
1995
1994
1997
20
1995
1996
1994
20
1993
1994
1994
20
1993
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
3
4
1
3
3
1
1
3
2
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1997
1997
1995
1994
1997
1996
1995
1996
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
STATUS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
new
new
0
-1
0
new
0
0
-1
DNE
-1
-2
0
new
-2
-1
0
jo
§
i
*
«*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
ro
?
L.
CD
4)
CO
U
IA
tt—
u_
1
g. <
D X
CO i—
O
C UJ
•t— ft
4-* O.
c <
w
1
•p
(D
l_
(0
L!
2
0.
CO
z w
O UJ
-i 0£
is
— o.
1—
CO Z
UJ-
Z U)
J °
SB
0 <
UJ
£«!
Of i—
o
Ll_ HI
O X
UJ
en at
P
CO
z>
i—
CO
g
— UJ
1— 1— —I
Z UJ 3
co a. ui
ae O cj
Q. CJ CO
O
CO i-i UI
> a. ui
C£ O CJ
a. cj c/>
C3
«-• 1—
O tt
Z <
3 1—
U. CO
§
UJ
v
»-
^
h-
"*
O£ LLI 1—
UJ — J •-•
O ^ O
.u
o
i
o
ar
^
z
UJ
h-
(/>
1—
M
O
CK
ra «-
i i
it
*~ *~
ro «-
IS
^-*
CM CM
O O
co o
o o
a. a.
ac u.
a. a.
CO
u.
""^
o o
g
(A
L.
0)
>
UJ
JZ
•M
3
CO
L.
O
H-
Cfl
'•^
H* 4-f
CO
IA (A
j^ C
4-> ±£
L. L.
O ID
Z Z
§
O
in
1
1
^~
"*
ro
ro
CM
O>
M
0
O
"
O
CA
Q
8
^
c
ID
§
O
41
^
CO
§
o
3
8
1
^~
^
o
CM
ro
O
CM
§
a.
Of
a.
CO
u-
ae
o
0
~~M.
'>
IA
X
L.
O
»*-
ID
_l
a.
'^
CO
1—
§
O
in
f
^™
m
in
1
CM
CM
t>
CM
O
g
U.
CO
u-
ae
0
L.
Ol
§
o
8
ID
3
g
CO
*-»
[_
o>
o o
3 '*;
L- ID
Ol C
o cl
U 4->
C C
CO O
> u
§
o
c
1
^~
**
0
CM
ro
O
^
o
o
a.
a.
°*
o
•M
01
•
o
CJ
D)
C
IA
01
u
o
a.
c
01
IA O
3 -
§
O
>O «-
>^ in
*~ *~
>» CM
II
CM «-
N. CM
00 O
ro ^
00
u- u-
CO CO
u. u.
at ac
«— CM
O O
Ol
.?
II
ID IA
DQ •-•
^
ID
Ol
Ol
CO
UJ
d
CJ
!£
o
u
3
§
o
A-60
-------
Appendix B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30,1993
This appendix lists the remedial designs in
progress at the end of FY93 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: PHP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the PRP
under a state order (may include federal financing
or federal oversight under an enforcement
document);
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include federal
financing).
Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS) database.O (other),
SN (state-lead and financed, no Fund money), and
SR (state-ordered PRP response activities), are
excluded from this status report because they do not
include federal financing.
• Funding Start—The date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
• Present Completion Schedule — The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion date
for the activity, as of 9/30/93. This information
was compiled from CERCLIS on 11/11/93.
B-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
00
RG
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
CT
CT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
ME
NH
NH
NH
NH
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Kellog-Deering Well Field
Laurel Park Inc. (once listed as
Laurel Park Landfill)
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
Grove I and Wells
Iron Horse Park
Norwood PCBs
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Re-Solve, Inc.
Sullivan's Ledge
Wells G&H
O'Connor Co.
Pinette's Salvage Yard
Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Auburn Road Landfill
Coakley Landfill
Dover Municipal Landfill
Ottati & Goss)
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Norwalk
Naugatuck
Borough
Ho I brook
Tyngsbo rough
Grove I and
Billerica
Norwood
Ashland
Dartmouth
New Bedford
Woburn
Augusta
Washburn
South Hope
Londonderry
North Hampton
Dover
Kingston
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
04
04
01
02
01
02
03
03
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
04
LEAD
PRP
PRP
S
f
f
F
F
F
F
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F*
F
F
FUNDING
START
03/14/91
04/24/91
09/24/91
09/30/88
09/24/92
09/21/92
09/28/90
04/08/92
07/27/93
03/30/89
03/15/91
04/05/93
04/27/90
12/14/90
09/13/89
12/24/91
09/30/90
09/30/90
06/19/92
01/22/92
03/15/89
09/20/90
09/20/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
1
1
3
1
1
4
3
2
1
2
2
3
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
5
i
I
W
S!
i
a.
§•
H
g
1
ir
«Q
<2
i
5
o
2!
&
i
S
i
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
to
£
L.
2
ID
u
CO
u.
"
§
M-
L.
eu co
3 X
00 •-•
T, i
1Z i»i
— a.
Implement
AP
•o
10
1
01
c.
0
0.
g
•_ UJ
t- 1— _1
2 UJ 3
to a! uj
UJ Z =C
ce o u
O. CJ 00
C3
1-1 1—
§3
3 1-
u. CO
Q
UJ
i
*~
O 1
to ce uj i—
ee (L m 2
uj B< =
z
UJ
i—
0.
00
g
00
oo
UJ
CK
g
o:
2
co a
(9 t-
00 U
UJ O
Q -J
_J
<
a
UJ
z
ae
u.
O
J3
£
UJ
UJ
CO
t-
co
C3
II II
•* •* to -*
glgj gg
^^ i^- hO fO
CM CNJ fM CM
II II
a. a.
u- u- at at
u. u. o. Q.
«- CM «- CM
o o o o
§
c
z
1 k
L. g
o o
(X —1
01
«- «- CM
^^ h^> O^
00 0
UL U. U.
CM CM CM
00 0
|
Ifl
H-
jC J=
I I
^
CD
CD
E
3
jj-»
CO
g
01 U
4->
CO — •
CO CO
" 1
'1 £
~" '> t-
10 co 01
> •> v«
CD ID 0)
0 0 CJ
a oe
-
1
o
$
-
a.
gf
0
TO
«#-
1
J=
C.
0
y
•>
C_
§
£
Ol
u
§
10
01
Of
00
"Q "*
C 00
CO — 1
5
^-
1 1
•* to
1- 1
CM «-
a.
£ S.
O 0
T3
H-
4-> CO
O -C
31 t.
01 O
2 2
g -g
c to co
CO " _
c_ —
1- 01 Z
c c co
o o c
'*j ^"i
CO • CO
1 5»
UJ l
— CO (!)
ID ^ —^
> — • ID
ID •— T3
Ifl
4-1 ID Q)
a. 4-» E u. •
0* 01 2«c
5 5
-
!£
8!S
0 «-
CM «-
38
a. a.
a. a.
«- CM
o o
a
!c
ID
4->
il
!
o
a.
o
2
CM
1 £
CM O
0. »
0 O
s s
g g
u. CO
«- CM
O O
Q.
j:
g -
Millingti
Marlboro
1 I
0 x
8— •
u.
CO 4-1
CD C
Ifl 3
2 2
CM f .
t?
(>
•v
-O
£
u.
CM
O
4-
CO
U.
0
CJ
?
1
t-
Caldwel
x
CM
1
S
to
o
V.
0
Q.
oe
Q.
0
v
Bridgepoi
CO
8
_J
M
C
(0
h-
c
1
— 1
Chemica
Inc.
2
CM
1? £
i §
CM IO
I s
CO U.
0 0
Q.
^
Chester '
Beverly
e-
o
o
— ' W
•— o>
**- c
"S -43
5 g
CJ
J=
4-* -^
SCO
0
oo •—
— • JC
•f CJ
u.
U CJ
2 Z
CM CM
1.5
II
II
o o
u. u_
0 0
•r-
«
t-
K ing wood
d
u
ID
U
I
Ol
O
2
CM
B-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
03
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
STATUS
SITE NAME
Diamond Alkali Co.
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ellis Property
Ewan Property
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
GEMS Landfill
Garden State Cleaners Co.
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Higgins Farm
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Industrial Latex Corp.
Kin-Buc Landfill
King of Prussia
Mannheim Avenue Dump
Metal tec/ Ae rosy stems
Monte lair/West Orange Radium
Site
Montgomery Township Housing
Development
Myers Property
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Newark
Dover Township
Evesham Township
Shamong Township
Atlantic City
Gloucester
Township
Minotola
Glen Ridge
Franklin Township
Morganville
Wall ing ton
Borough
Edison Township
Wins low Township
Galloway Township
Franklin Borough
Montclair/West
Orange
Montgomery
Township
Franklin Township
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
03
02
01
LEAD
PRP
F
S
PRP
FF
FF
S
F
F
F
S
S
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
S
PRP
FUNDING
START
12/14/89
07/06/93
06/30/93
10/13/89
03/31/91
12/23/92
05/22/86
03/30/92
09/26/90
02/09/93
09/30/91
03/31/93
07/16/93
12/23/92
05/02/91
06/14/91
03/29/91
09/26/90
03/24/89
05/12/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1994
1996
1994
1994
1993
1994
1994
1995
1998
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
1998
1994
1995
Progress Toward
§•
1
i
1
TJ
3
|
0
31
%
^^
$
SJ
to
to
-------
Progress Toward implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
W
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
NY
NY
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Nascolite Corp.
Pepe Field
Price Landfill
Reich Farms
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
Roebling Steel Co.
Sayreville Landfill
Sharkey Landf i 11
South Jersey Clothing Co.
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
Woodland Route 532 Dump
Woodland Route 72 Dump
Applied Environmental Services
Byron Barrel & Drum
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Millville
Boonton
Pleasantville
Pleasant Plains
Rocky Hill
Borough
Florence
Sayreville
Parsippany/Troy
Hills
Minotola
Pennsauken
Vineland
Wall Township
Woodland Township
Woodland Township
Glenwood Landing
Byron
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
LEAD
PRP
F
F
S
PRP
S
F
PS
S
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
PS
PS
PS
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/16/91
09/27/91
09/30/91
06/26/87
04/05/90
03/24/89
09/25/91
12/31/91
03/31/87
03/30/92
03/30/92
06/07/93
09/30/89
10/02/89
06/28/91
08/30/90
08/31/91
09/24/92
09/25/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
2
1
3
4
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
4
1
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
a
^
1
en
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CO 2
o\
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
STATUS
SITE NAME
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Pol/chemical
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Endicott Village Well Field
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Fulton Terminals
General Motors (Central Foundry
Division)
Genzale Plating Co.
Hertel Landfill
Hooker (102nd Street)
Hooker (South Area)
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesville
Village of
Endicott
Town of Shelby
Elmira
Fulton
Massena
Franklin Square
Plattekill
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Islip
Horseheads
Clayvi lie
Glen Cove
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
03
04
LEAD
F
F
F
PS
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
PS
F
F
FUNDING
START
06/24/91
09/28/90
09/30/92
04/01/91
01/24/92
04/02/93
05/25/93
11/28/90
07/01/92
09/09/92
09/25/91
11/23/92
10/22/91
12/01/86
01/31/91
09/21/90
09/30/92
08/29/91
11/12/89
09/30/92
09/30/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
3
1
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
4
4
2
1994
1993
1995
1994
1993
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1993
Progress Toward
§•
1
3"
$
$
1
3
$
to
1
5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
Rfi
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
W
-la 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
PR
DE
DE
DE
DE
DE
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Pas ley Solvents & Chemicals,
Inc.
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
Ramapo Landfill
Robintech, Inc. /National Pipe
Co.
Sarney Farm
Sinclair Refinery
Solvent Savers
Syosset Landfill
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1
Warwick Landfill
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Front era Creek
J uncos Landfill
Chem-Solv, Inc.
Delaware Sand & Gravel-Llangollen/A
rmy Creek Landfill)
Dover Air Force Base
Halby Chemical Co.
NCR Corp. (Millsboro Plant)
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Hemps tead
Port Washington
Farmingdale
Ramapo
Town of Vestal
Amen i a
Wellsville
Lincklaen
Oyster Bay
Vestal
Warwick
Jobos
Rio Aba jo
J uncos
Cheswold
New Castle
County
Dover
New Castle
Millsboro
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
F
PS
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/31/93
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/30/92
04/16/92
11/25/92
03/29/91
12/09/92
07/02/91
04/03/91
03/28/91
04/18/91
04/20/92
11/18/92
08/19/92
12/21/92
02/22/93
08/26/88
11/05/92
03/16/92
08/04/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
4
2
2
4
2
4
1
2
1
2
2
2
1995
1994
1996
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
3
;
1
to
£
V*
I
i
(0
51
5
1
|
1
1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
DO 3
oo
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
MD
MD
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
STATUS
SITE NAME
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
Area)
Limestone Road
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Austin Avenue Radiation Site
Avco Lycoming (Wi I liamsport
Division)
Bally Ground Water Contamination
Blosenski Landfill
B redhead Creek
Butz Landfill
CryoChem, Inc.
Delta Quarries & Disposal, Inc.
(Stotler Landfill)
Dorney Road Landfill
Dublin TCE Site
East Mount Zion
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Edgewood
Cumberland
Elkton
Deleware County
Wi I liamsport
Bally Borough
West Cain
Township
Stroudsburg
Stroudsburg
Worman
Ant is/Logan
Townships
Upper Macungie
Township
Dublin Borough
Springettsbury
Township
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
05
01
03
04
01
01
01
04
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
LEAD
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
11/04/91
04/13/90
01/05/89
02/21/92
12/31/92
05/08/92
09/25/91
02/14/90
09/02/92
09/29/92
02/22/90
12/28/90
12/31/91
06/01/92
09/26/91
05/11/93
04/27/92
01/09/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
2
1
1
1994
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1993
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
5
i
1
*
9
m
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
w
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
VA
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Eastern Diversified Metals
Hellertown Manufacturing Co.
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Lindane Dump
Lord-Shope Landfill
MW Manufacturing
Middletown Air Field
Modern Sanitation Landfill
Old City of York Landfill
Osborne Landfill
Paoli Rail Yard
Raymark
Resin Disposal
Westinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
Whitmoyer Laboratories
Avtex Fibers, Inc.
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Hometown
Hel lertown
Union Township
Lindane
Girard Township
Valley Township
Middletown
Lower Windsor
Township
Seven Valleys
Grove City
Paoli
Hatboro
Jefferson
Borough
Gettysburg
Jackson Township
Front Royal
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
01
01
01
01
01
03
02
01
01
01
01
04
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/31/93
03/12/92
03/11/92
09/24/93
08/19/91
06/01/93
09/30/90
09/01/93
07/07/93
09/17/92
08/12/91
07/22/93
01/26/89
05/11/92
03/16/93
03/05/92
03/05/92
03/05/92
03/05/92
08/26/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
4
1
1995
1993
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1993
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
3
55
1
i
85
-*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
UV
UV
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Dixie Caverns County Landfill
First Piedmont Corp. Rock Quarry
(Route 719)
Greenwood Chemical Co.
L.A. Clarke & Son
Saunders Supply Co.
U.S. Titanium
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
Agrico Chemical Co.
Cabot/Koppers
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Salem
Pittsylvania
County
Newton
Spotsylvania
County
Chuckatuck
Piney River
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
Mclntosh
Leeds
Axis
Bucks
Pensacola
Gainesville
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
04
01
01
01
01
04
06
02
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/01/93
09/21/92
06/29/90
02/20/92
03/03/90
07/22/92
11/26/90
08/06/90
07/14/92
06/28/91
09/01/91
05/26/92
07/12/93
09/30/91
11/20/92
11/20/92
02/16/93
09/27/91
04/12/91
09/27/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
4
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
3
2
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1996
1996
1996
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
5
i
H
s
fi
|
I
tP
-E
m
3i
|
31
^
2"
<0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
KY
KY
KY
NC
NC
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Florida Steel Corp.
Kassauf-Kimerling Battery Disposal
(once listed as Timber Lake
Battery Disposal)
Madison County Sanitary Landfill
Muni sport Landfill
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
Uhitehouse Oil Pits
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Airco
B.F. Goodrich
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Carolina Transformer Co.
LOCATION
Indiantown
Tampa
Madison
North Miami
Tampa
Plant City
Brandon
Whitehouse
Albany
Calvert City
Calvert City
Paducah
Jacksonville
Aberdeen
Haze I wood
Fayetteville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
04
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
02/10/93
05/23/91
04/23/93
12/12/91
03/26/93
04/22/92
06/23/92
06/23/92
04/27/93
10/12/92
01/05/89
01/05/89
07/22/93
08/11/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
03/14/90
08/24/93
09/24/92
09/30/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
1
3
3
1
4
4
1
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
3
1
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1990
1994
1994
1994
>
<0
&
vi
^
3
1
|
a
**
5
I
1
3
Sf
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
03
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
ST
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
TN
TN
TN
TN
IL
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum
Storage
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen
Plant)
Jadco-Hughes Facility
Koppers Co., Inc (Morrisvi lie
Plant)
Potter's Septic Tank Service
Pits
El more Waste Disposal
Golden Strip Septic Tank Service
Palmetto Wood Preserving
SCRDI Bluff Road
Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mi le
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCS
Savannah River Site (USDOE)
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Carrier Air Conditioning Co.
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman
County)
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc.
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Cordova
Aberdeen
Belmont
Morrisvi lie
Maco
Greer
Simps onvi lie
Dixiana
Columbia
Pickens
Aiken
Arlington
Collierville
Milan
Toone
Morristown
SEPTEMBER 30,
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
03
04
06
07
08
1993
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/09/92
05/21/93
01/31/91
06/14/93
05/17/93
07/16/93
09/30/92
02/08/89
11/01/91
04/15/92
08/12/93
03/30/92
02/24/93
12/24/92
11/27/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
4
1
3
4
1
1
4
3
4
4
4
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1999
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
5
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
w
RG
5
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
MI
MI
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Central Illinois Public Service
Co.
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Pagel's Pit
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI)
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill
#1
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
MIDCO I Site
MIDCO II Site
Neal's Dump (Spencer)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Northside Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Wayne Waste Oil
Adam's Plating
Berlin & Farro
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Taylorvi lie
Granite City
Rockford
Carterville
Columbus
Elkhart
LaPorte
Fort Wayne
Gary
Gary
Spencer
Gary
Zionsville
Indianapolis
Columbia City
Lansing
Swartz Creek
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
LEAD
SE
F
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
01/01/93
03/08/91
12/14/92
05/14/91
04/01/93
08/16/92
05/05/92
11/07/91
12/28/88
06/23/92
06/23/92
08/22/85
09/20/89
03/12/90
06/10/93
08/13/91
08/13/91
09/29/93
12/07/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
4
2
3
2
1
4
2
1994
1993
1995
1994
1993
1994
1996
1995
1994
1998
1998
1996
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
£
5
•»
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
w
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
J
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
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Chem Central
Clare Water Supply
Cliff/Dow Dump
Electrovoice
Forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
H. Brown Co., inc.
Ionia City Landfill
K & L Avenue Landfill
Kentwood Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp
Metamora Landfill
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Northernaire Plating
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Grand Rapids
Sault Sainte
Marie
Detroit
Wyoming Township
Clare
Marquette
Buchanan
Otisville
Utica
Grand Rapids
Ionia
Oshtemo Township
Kentwood
Cadillac
Metamora
Lansing
Cadillac
Grandville
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
02/23/93
05/11/93
02/12/93
04/07/92
09/17/93
09/27/89
09/29/93
06/27/88
09/10/92
03/30/93
09/13/90
09/18/92
11/27/91
05/16/90
04/26/91
05/16/92
05/16/90
01/30/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
Progress Tows
^
§""
3
£
0)
c
^Q
^n
3)
i
3
1
<0
<0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
w
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Peerless Plating Co.
Rasmussen's Dump
Rose Township Dump
Spartan Chemical Co.
Spiegel berg Landfill
Springfield Township Dump
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
East Bethel Demolition Landfill
Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corp.
Kurrmer Sanitary Landfill
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Muskegon
Green Oak
Township
Rose Township
Wyoming
Green Oak
Township
Davisburg
Sturgis
Mancelona
Township
Muskegon
Battle Creek
Pleasant Plains
Twp
Hermantown
East Bethel
Township
Pine Bend
Bemidji
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
03
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
F
S
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
S
PRP
PS
PS
F
FUNDING
START
09/21/92
02/14/92
07/18/89
09/28/93
08/22/90
03/30/92
03/15/91
09/21/93
03/09/93
09/25/92
05/04/92
09/08/92
05/04/92
09/21/93
09/06/91
03/04/93
05/01/92
09/25/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1993
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
§
t
£
1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
SITE NAME
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bel I Lumber
& Pole Co.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
South Andover Site (Andover 's
Sites)
Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base
(Small Arms Range Landfill)
Whittaker Corp.
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
A I sco Anaconda
Arcanum Iron & Metal
Big D Campground
Buckeye Reclamation
Coshocton Landfill
Fields Brook
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Miami County Incinerator
Pristine, Inc.
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Wright-Patterson Air Force
APPENDIX B
DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
New Brighton
St. Louis
Park
Andover
Minneapolis
Minneapolis
I ronton
Gnadenhutten
Drake County
Kingsville
St. Clairsville
Franklin Township
Ash tabu I a
Jackson Township
Union town
Troy
Reading
Troy
Dayton
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
02
01
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
05
01
01
LEAD
S
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FUNDING
START
07/16/93
05/03/93
10/01/92
02/05/93
04/01/92
04/09/85
03/09/89
06/16/93
06/16/93
07/22/93
03/20/87
02/01/93
03/12/92
02/23/90
03/22/89
06/24/92
09/29/89
04/02/93
11/26/91
10/29/91
04/10/89
07/16/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
4
2
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
3
4
4
2
1994
1994
1994
1993
1993
1999
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1992
1994
1993
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
5
i
1
w
s
i
5
|[
i
S
jfc
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
w
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
OH
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Base
Zanesville Well Field
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Hagen Farm
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
Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil
Co.)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Spick I er Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Zanesville
Dunn
Eau Claire
Stoughton
Caledonia
Janesville
Janesville
Kohler
White 1 aw
Franklin Township
Brookf ield
Milwaukee
Muskego
Ashippin
Spencer
Stoughton
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
09/21/92
04/23/93
09/29/88
01/06/93
05/05/92
07/12/91
07/12/91
07/30/92
12/11/92
06/01/92
06/01/92
08/13/91
07/15/91
01/15/93
09/26/90
09/30/92
09/28/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
2
1994
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
3
1
I
«4
tj
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
w
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
AR
AR
AR
AR
LA
NM
NM
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Arkwood, Inc.
Popile, Inc.
South 8th Street Landfill
Vertac, Inc.
American Cresote Works, Inc
(Winnfield)
Preuitt Abandoned Refinery
South Valley
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
National Zinc Corp.
Oklahoma Refining Co. (Pesses
Chemical Co.)
Sand Springs Petrochemical
Complex
Tinker Air Force Base
Crystal Chemical Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
North Calvacade Street
Pet ro- Chemical Systems, Inc.
(Turtle Bayou)
RSR Corp.
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Omaha
El Dorado
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Winnfield
Preuitt
Albuquerque
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Milan
Cyril
Sand Springs
Oklahoma City
Houston
Texarkana
Houston
Liberty County
Dallas
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
06
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
LEAD
PRP
F
F
F
f
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
S
PRP
FF
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
F
F
F
F
FUNDING
START
10/21/91
02/19/92
09/11/92
08/04/93
02/19/92
05/14/93
09/01/89
06/21/93
06/10/93
09/22/92
09/22/92
10/03/88
09/15/93
03/31/92
09/03/92
03/31/93
03/31/93
03/28/91
09/25/92
09/25/92
07/15/93
05/10/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
4
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
1995
1993
1995
1995
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1995
5
1
*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1993
w
RG
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
IA
KS
MO
MO
MO
NE
NE
CO
CO
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Sheridan Disposal Service
South Cavalcade Street
Texarkana Wood Preserving Co.
United Creosoting Co.
Peoples Natural Gas Co.
White Farm Equipment Co. Dump
Pester Refinery Co.
Ellisville Site
Minker/S tout/Roma ine Creek (Area
2: Fills 1 & 2)
Shenandoah Stables (once listed as
Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
Broderick Wood Products
Central City - Clear Creek
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Hempstead
Houston
Texarkana
Conroe
Dubuque
Charles City
El Dorado
Ellisville
Imperial
Moscow Mills
Hastings
Lindsay
Denver
Idaho Springs
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
05
01
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
04
05
01
02
01
02
03
04
09
10
13
02
02
01
03
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
S
S
PRP
PRP
PS
EP
EP
EP
EP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
S
S
FUNDING
START
05/10/93
12/29/89
03/29/90
07/30/90
03/06/91
01/21/93
03/26/92
06/12/92
09/24/92
09/29/93
10/07/91
10/07/91
05/01/91
05/01/91
04/27/93
10/01/92
09/27/90
09/28/90
12/14/88
10/01/92
09/29/93
09/27/93
09/28/92
06/15/88
09/30/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
1
3
2
2
3
4
4
2
1
1995
1995
1997
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
1996
1994
1995
1995
1994
1992
1996
2!
^
i
l
«*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1993
CO
to
o
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
MT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Chemical Sales Co.
Denver Radium Site
Eagle Mine
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Smuggler Mountain
Idaho Pole Co.
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
Midvale Slag
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Ogden Defense Depot
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 &
3)
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tai lings/Smelters)
Uasatch Chemical Co.
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Commerce City
Denver
Minturn/Redcliff
Golden
Pitkin County
Bozeman
Silver Bow/Deer
Lodge
Midvale
Monticello
Ogden
Salt Lake
City
Midvale
Salt Lake
City
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
08
01
02
02
01
01
12
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
01
02
02
01
LEAD
PRP
F
PRP
PS
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
S
S
PRP
FUNDING
START
02/26/92
02/26/92
06/07/92
05/20/88
01/25/91
09/01/92
09/28/90
09/08/93
OS/22/93
04/09/93
12/24/91
10/29/91
12/24/91
01/12/93
10/23/91
05/12/92
07/26/93
01/08/93
03/18/92
08/28/91
12/01/92
09/30/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
4
3
1
3
1994
1994
1992
1994
1993
1994
1991
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1992
1994
1994
3
i
l
W
ri
g
u
^
I
i
o
3
3"
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1993
DO
to
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Hassayampa Landfill
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Williams Air Force Base
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Fairchild Semiconductor/Camera &
(South San Jose Plant)
Hexcel Corp.
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Jasco Chemical Corp.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville
Plant)
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Hassayampa
Phoenix
Goodyear
Tucson
Chandler
Fresno County
Coalinga
South San
Jose
Livermore
Mountain View
Redding
Weed
Mountain View
Orovi lie
Livermore
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
03/19/93
09/28/90
01/04/91
03/16/92
01/04/91
01/23/92
01/07/89
12/31/92
06/08/92
05/02/88
01/02/91
01/02/91
09/15/93
05/14/91
09/21/92
08/19/91
12/16/92
02/21/92
02/21/92
08/05/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
3
1
4
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1994
1994
1994
1994
1996
1998
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1995
2
8
S.
-*
•*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
R(i
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
W
K> 9
to
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Hf.
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
SITE NAME
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
McClellan Air Force Base (Ground
Water Contamination;
McColl
Newmark Ground Water Contamination
Operating Industries, Inc.,
Landfill
Pacific Coast Pipe Lines
Raytheon Corp.
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area 1)
Selma Treating Co.
Sharpe Army Depot
South Bay Asbestos Area (Alviso
Dumping Area)
Stringfellow
Tracy Defense Depot
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
(Sunnyvale Plant)
Eielson Air Force Base
APPENDIX B
DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Richmond
Sacramento
Fullerton
San Bernadino
Monterey Park
Fillmore
Mountain View
Sacramento
Los Angeles
Selma
Lathrop
Alviso
Glen Avon
Heights
Tracy
Turlock
Sunnyvale
Fairbanks N Star
Borough
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
03
01
01
02
04
05
03
02
02
01
04
02
01
01
08
LEAD
PS
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
F
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
06/18/93
09/03/93
08/31/93
09/24/93
04/01/92
09/14/92
05/14/91
05/14/91
12/23/92
08/31/93
07/27/92
09/30/92
01/25/93
12/03/92
07/25/90
08/12/93
06/25/92
02/06/92
11/23/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
1994
1994
1996
1995
1995
1994
1995
1996
1994
1994
1994
1996
1994
1996
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
5
i
*M
21
o
i
|
§
I
0)
s
m
5
5
i
31
8
S?
i
<0
-------
Progress Toward .implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1993
STATUS OF
RG ST SITE NAME
10 ID Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
10 ID Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
10 ID Union Pacific Railroad Co.
10 OR Umat ilia Army Depot (Lagoons)
10 WA Bangor Naval Submarine Base
10 WA Bangor Ordnance Disposal
10 WA Bonneville Power Administration
W Ross Complex
to
'-° 10 WA Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
10 WA Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Waste
Area)
10 WA Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
10 WA McChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/
Treatment Area)
10 WA Naval Air Station, Uhidbey Island
(Ault Field)
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Smelterville
Idaho Falls
Pocatello
Hermi ston
Silverdale
Bremerton
Vancouver
Pierce County
Spokane County
Vancouver
Tacoma
Uhidbey Island
SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
22
23
01
02
07
01
01
06
07
09
11
01
01
01
04
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PS
PS
PS
PRP
FF
F
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/29/93
03/29/93
10/19/92
10/21/92
08/11/92
06/12/92
02/25/93
12/20/91
02/26/92
08/04/93
01/15/93
01/30/91
06/30/92
03/29/91
03/05/93
03/23/88
07/30/93
02/01/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
3
2
4
4
1
3
3
2
1
1994
1996
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
3
1
i
1
«i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
B-24
-------
Appendix C
List of Records of
Decision
This appendix provides a list of FY93 feasibility studies, identifying records of decision (RODs) signed
from October 1, 1992, through September 30, 1993. Detailed descriptions of these feasibility studies, as
required by CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(A), are available in the publication ROD Annual Report FY93.
REGION
1
SITE
Brunswick Naval Air Station (O.U.3)
Brunswick Naval Air Station (O.U.4)
Davisville Naval Construction Battalion Center
Linemaster Switch
Newport Naval Education/Training Center
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump
Otis Air National Guard/Camp Edwards
Pease Air Force Base (O.U.1)
Pease Air Force Base (O.U.2)
Peterson/Puritan
Picillo Farm
Salem Acres
American Cyanamid
Batavia Landfill
FMC-Dublin Road
Janssen
Johnstown City Landfill
Lodi Municipal Wells
Monroe Township Landfill
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.10)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.11)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.12)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.13)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.14)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.15)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.22)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.23)
STATE
ME
ME
Rl
CT
Rl
MA
MA
NH
NH
Rl
Rl
MA
NJ
NY
NY
PR
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
DATE
08/31/93
08/31/93
09/23/93
07/21/93
09/27/93
03/30/93
01/14/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/30/93
09/27/93
03/25/93
03/25/93
03/30/93
03/31/93
09/30/93
03/31/93
09/27/93
03/31/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
C-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
REGION
2
3
4
SITE
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.8)
Naval Air Engineering Center (O.U.9)
Niagara County Refuse
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Preferred Plating Corp.
Reynolds Metals
Robintech/National Pipe
SMS Instruments
Tronic Plating
Universal Oil Products (Chemical Div.)
US Radium
Wilson Farm
Woodland Township Route 532
Woodland Township Route 72
Dover Air Force Base
E.I. Du Pont, Newport
Eastern Diversified Metals
Hunterstown Road
Novak Sanitary Landfill
Occidental Chemical/Firestone
Ohio River Park Neville Island
Recticon/Allied Steel
Rentokil Virginia Wood Preserving Division
Sagertown Industrial Area
U.S. Defense General Supply Center
USN Naval Air Development Center (O.U.1)
William Dick Lagoons
Woodlawn County Landfill
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Anodyne
Beulah Landfill
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination
Cedartown Industries
Chem-Form Inc.
Elmore Waste Disposal
FCX (Statesville Plant)
FCX (Washington Plant)
Firestone Tire & Rubber (Albany Plant)
Helena Chemical Landfill
Hercules 009 Landfill
Kalama Specialty
Koppers (Morrisville Plant)
Mathis Brothers Landfill (S. Marble Top Rd.)
Milan Army Ammunition Plant
National Southwire Aluminum
Para Chem Southern
Peek Oil/Bay Drum (O.U.1)
Peek Oil/Bay Drum (O.U.2)
Peek Oil/Bay Drum (O.U.3)
Redwing Carriers/Saraland
STATE
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
DE
DE
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
PA
VA
PA
PA
MD
NC
FL
FL
NC
GA
FL
SC
NC
NC
GA
SC
GA
SC
NC
GA
TN
KY
SC
FL
FL
FL
AL
DATE
06/21/93
06/21/93
09/24/93
03/31/93
09/24/93
09/27/93
03/30/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
09/29/93
09/21/93
08/02/93
09/28/93
09/28/93
11/04/93
08/26/93
09/29/93
08/02/93
09/30/93
06/30/93
03/31/93
06/30/93
06/22/93
01/29/93
09/29/93
09/29/93
03/31/93
09/28/93
01/26/93
06/17/93
09/16/93
04/20/93
05/07/93
09/16/93
04/26/93
09/27/93
09/15/93
06/24/93
09/08/93
03/25/93
09/28/93
12/23/92
03/24/93
09/29/93
02/19/93
09/27/93
06/21/93
08/09/93
03/31/93
12/15/92
C-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION SITE
4 Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing (O.U.1)
Reeves Southeastern Galvanizing (O.U.2)
Rochester Property
Savannah River Site (USDOE) (O.U.6)
Savannah River Site (USDOE) (O.U.7)
Sherwood Medical Industries
Smith's Farm Brooks
Stauffer Chemical
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition (Albany Plant)
USDOE Oak Ridge Reservation (O.U.1 6)
USDOE Oak Ridge Reservation (O.U.1 7)
USDOE Oak Ridge Reservation (O.U.8)
USDOE Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Reservation (O.U.3)
USMC Camp Lejeune Military Reservation (O.U.4)
5 Adams County Quincy Landfill #2 & #3
Adams Plating
American Anodco
Cardington Road Landfill a.k.a. Sanitary Landfill
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
Duell & Gardner Landfill
East Bethel Demolition Landfill
Hi-Mill Manufacturing
Himco Dump
Lakeland Disposal Service
MacGillis & Gibbs/Bell Lumber & Pole
Mason County Landfill
Muskegon Chemical
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical
Packaging Corporation of America
Powell Road Landfill
Reilly Tar & Chemical (Indianapolis Plant)
Skinner Landfill
Spartan Chemical
US Air Force Wright-Patterson AFB
Wash King Laundry
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
6 America! Creosote Works (Winnfield Plant)
Cleveland Mill
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
PAB Oil & Chemical Services
Popile
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Tinker AFB (Solider Creek/Bldg 3001)
Vertac
7 Chemplex II
Hastings Groundwater Contamination
Kern-Pest Laboratories
McGraw Edison
STATE
FL
FL
SC
SC
SC
FL
KY
AL
GA
TN
TN
TN
KY
NC
NC
IL
Ml
Ml
OH
MN
Ml
MN
Ml
IN
IN
MN
Ml
Ml
MN
Ml
Ml
OH
IN
OH
Ml
OH
Ml
IL
LA
NM
OK
LA
AR
TX
OK
AR
IA
NE
MO
IA
DATE
10/31/92
09/09/93
08/31/93
09/10/93
09/10/93
10/08/92
09/17/93
09/17/93
05/21/93)
09/30/93
10/06/93
10/06/92
07/22/93
09/24/93
09/10/93
09/30/93
09/29/93
09/27/93
09/27/93
06/30/93
09/07/93
03/04/93
09/28/93
09/30/93
09/28/93
12/31/92
09/27/93
03/10/93
09/30/93
09/27/93
09/24/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
06/04/93
06/30/93
07/15/93
03/31/93
06/30/93
04/28/93
09/22/93
09/30/93
09/22/93
02/01/93
09/30/93
09/14/93
06/30/93
05/12/93
06/30/93
02/05/93
09/24/93
C-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
REGION
7
8
9
10
SITE
North U Drive Well Contamination
Red Oak City Landfill
Sherwood Medical
Syntex Facility
WekJon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE)
Chemical Sales
Eagle Mine
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Minot Landfill
Montana Pole and Treating
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (O.U.27)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (O.U.28)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (O.U.29)
Sand Creek Industrial (O.U.2)
Sand Creek Industrial (O.U.3 and O.U.6)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Applied Material
Fresno Sanitary Landfill
Hexcel
Indian Bend Wash Area
Iron Mountain Mine
Liquid Gold Oil
Lorentz Barrel & Drum
McClellan Air Force Base
McColl
Newmark Groundwater Contamination
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area 2) (O.U.2)
San Fernando Valley (Area 2) (O.U.3)
San Gabriel Valley (Area 1) (O.U.2)
Sharpe Army Depot
Tracy Defense Depot
Williams Air Force Base
Alaskan Battery Enterprises
Allied Plating
American Crossarm & Conduit
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex
(USDOE) (O.U.1)
Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex
(USDOE) (O.U.2)
Commencement Bay-Nearshore/Tideflats
Fairchild Air Force Base 4 Areas (O.U.1)
Fairchild Air Force Base 4 Areas (O.U.2)
Fort Lewis Logistic Center
Hanford 1100-Area (DOE)
Harbor Island-Lead
Mountain Home Air Force Base
Queen City Farms
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Lab (O.U.1 2)
STATE
MO
IA
NE
MO
MO
CO
CO
WY
ND
MT
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
UT
CA
CA
CA
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AZ
AK
OR
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
ID
WA
ID
DATE
03/31/93
03/31/93
09/27/93
05/07/93
09/28/93
12/29/92
03/29/93
12/30/92
06/21/93
09/21/93
09/23/93
01/15/93
01/15/93
06/30/93
06/30/93
07/07/93
08/25/93
09/30/93
09/21/93
09/27/93
09/28/93
06/21/93
08/26/93
09/03/93
06/30/93
08/04/93
03/29/93
06/18/93
06/18/93
03/31/92
01/25/93
08/12/93
12/30/92
03/02/93
06/30/93
06/30/93
09/30/93
05/06/93
09/29/93
06/16/93
02/11/93
07/14/93
09/24/93
09/24/93
09/30/93
05/24/93
12/31/92
12/07/92
C-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1993 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION SITE STATE DATE
10 USDOE Idaho National Engineering Lab (O.U.18) ID 09/24/93
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Lab (O.U.4) ID 12/10/92
USDOE Idaho National Engineering Lab (O.U.9) ID 12/31/92
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) (O.U.1) OR 12/31/92
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) (O.U.5) OR 08/10/93
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons) (O.U.8) OR 08/10/93
C-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
C-6
-------
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 (rath-
er 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
34 of the 37 applicable one-time requirements with
specific deadlines have been completed.
Furthermore, 7 of the 12 requirements due
annually have been completed for FY93 and the
biannual requirement for FY93 has not been
completed. Also, 25 of the 26 requirements with
no specific deadline have been completed.
D-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Meeting CERCLA-Related Statutory Requirements,
as Amended by SARA17
CERCLA
Section
102(a)
Statutory
Deadline
12/31/862'
102(a)
12/31/8627
102(a)
04/30/882'
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 05/08/92—EPA
promulgated final RQs for lead and
methyl isocyanate in the Federal
Register (FR) (56 FR 20014).
09/29/86, 08/14/89—EPA
promulgated final RQs for all
hazardous substances (except for
lead metal and methyl isocyanate)
(51 FR 34534, 54 FR 33418, 54 FR
33426).
Completed 03/16/87—EPA
proposed RQs for all hazardous
substances for which proposed RQs
were not published prior to March 1,
1986 (52 FR 8140). EPA proposed
RQs for radionuclides (52 FR 8172).
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.
21 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
D-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
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) 10/17/89*
104(i)(2)(B) lQ/ll/92?
Requirement
States to provide assurances
of availability of hazardous
waste treatment or disposal
facilities.
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
(ATSDR)andEPAto
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.
ATSDR and EPA to revise
list of hazardous substances
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 the 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 10/26/89.10/17/9Qf
10/12/9-1—EPA published three lists
of 25 hazardous substances each (54
FR 43619,55 FR 42067,56 FR
52166).
11/25/91—Corrections to the
10/17/91 list were published (56 FR
59331).
10/17/91—EPA expects to revise the
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).
* Due annually on this date through 1991.
47 Due annually on this date beginning in 1992.
D-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
104(iX2XB)
(cont.)
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/924'
Requirement
10/17/87*
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
Completed 02/28/94—Notice of
availability of revised CERCLA
Priority List of 275 Hazardous
Substances was published (59 FR
9486).
Completed 10/15/87—The first set
of 25 profiles was 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/TC 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
the 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 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
104(i)(3)3
(cont.)
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/875'
Requirement
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 in the fourth set (58
FR 16410).
04/16/93— Notice of availability of
corrections to final profiles was
published (58 FR 19823).
ll/14/94--Notice of availability of
the sixth set of profiles comprised of
6 final and 9 updated finals profiles
was published (59 FR 56498).
ATSDR to revise and
republish toxicological
profiles.
lfl£LZ/21— 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 availability of
six updated drafts and five new draft
profiles was published (58 FR
53739).
y 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.
61 Profiles for hazardous substances must be revised within three years after addition to list.
D-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
2/
21
104(i)(5)(D) 10/17/87
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
10/1/93—Notice of the availability
of 19 final updated profiles from the
fifth set and two from the fourth set
was published (58 FR 51352).
10/21/94—Notice of availability of 8
updated draft profiles and 2 new
draft profiles was published (59 FR
53186).
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 09/11/89—ATSDR
published Decision Guide for
Identifying Substance-Specific Data
Needs Related to Toxicological
Profiles (54 FR 37618).
03/28/90—ATSDR published the
results of a pilot exercise that
identified priority data needs for
specific substances (55 FR 11566).
10/17/91— The Substance-Specific
Research Program was initiated, in
which 38 substances were classified
as priority leads (56 FR 52178).
Completed 03/08/90—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).
61 Profiles for hazardous substances must be revised within three years after addition to list.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-6
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
104(i)(6)(A) 12/10/88*
Requirement
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL prior to
SARA's date of enactment.
Status
Completed 12/08/8K—Health
assessments were performed for 951
facilities.
104(i)(10) 10/17/882'
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 FY93, ATSDR
completed 233 health assessments,
including 19 petitioned assessments.
ATSDR also conducted 193 revisited
assessments.
(See ATSDR Section of Report.)
Completed August 1989r August
1990r February 1992P October
1224—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.
21 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.
y Due biannually from 10/17/88.
D-7
-------
Proaress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
•
Statutory
Deadline Requirement
ATQTYD 4-n. n««AwtWlA n*«
Status
A ra^ no/i I/so ATorvD
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.
created the Division of Health
Education to implement the 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 a
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); and
ATSDR funded the Association of
Occupational and Environmental
Clinics to improve the methodology
for diagnosing injury related to
hazardous substance exposure (56
FR 41691).
11 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-8
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
.
Statutory
Deadline Requirement
ATOTYD **-*. n «io AM* 1*1 A on.
Status
A wai—juin.™ tK<»r> <; nnn h»oitVi
(cont.)
105(b) 04/17/88
105(c)(l) 04/17/88
develop as necessary,
educational materials
(including short courses) on
the medical surveillance,
screening, and methods of
diagnosis and treatment of
injury or disease related to
exposure to hazardous
substances. The material will
be distributed to the states
and upon request to medical
colleges, physicians, and
other health professionals.
EPA to revise the NCP.
EPA to promulgate
amendments to the hazard
ranking system (HRS).
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.
FY93—More than 5,000 health
professionals were trained during the
fiscal year. ATSDR distributed over
69,000 copies of Case Studies in
Environmental Medicine to health
professionals. Seven case studies
were published in the Journal of the
American Academy of Family
Physicians. Nine additional case
studies in environmental medicine
were produced. Seventeen
cooperative agreements with states
were operational in FY93 through
which six communication workshops
were conducted.
(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).
105(c)(l) 10/17/88
EPA to establish effective
date for the amended HRS.
Completed 12/14/90—The revised
HRS became effective 03/14/91,90
days after publication in the Federal
Register.
21 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-9
-------
Proaress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
107(f)(2)(A)
Statutory
Deadline
11
107(f)(2)(B)
2/
107(k)(6)
2/
109(d)
lll(k)
Annually
Requirement
EPA to designate federal
natural resource trustees in
the NCP.
States to designate state
natural resource trustees and
notify the Department of the
Interior (DOI) of such
designations.
Comptroller General to
conduct a study of options for
the management of the
liabilities associated with
hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal sites
after their closure.
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.
Status
Completed 11/20/85—EPA
designated federal natural resource
trustees in Section 307.2 of the NCP
(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.
Completed 06/01/90—The 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 (IFR)
prescribing criteria for citizen awards
for information on criminal
violations under Superfund (53 FR
16086).
06/21/89—EPA published a final
rule identical to the IFR (54 FR
26142).
Completed September 1988.
September 1989P September 1990f
September 1991P September 1992r
September 1993, and September
1224—EPA submitted FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, FY91, FY92, and FY93
reports to Congress.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-10
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
lll(o)
Statutory
Deadline
01/17/87
11
01/01/882'
Requirement
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.
EPA to promulgate
regulations that will establish
procedures for public
participation in the
development of the adminis-
trative record.
EPA to complete preliminary
assessments (PAs) of all
facilities contained on the
CERCLA Information System
(CERCLIS) as of SARA's
date of enactment.
Status
Completed 02/05/87—EPA
published the notice of regulatory
limitations on response claims (52
FR 3699).
09/13/89—Proposed rule for
response claims procedures for
hazardous substances Superfund was
published (54 FR 37892).
01/21/93—Final rule was published
(58 FR 5460).
Completed 01/21/93—EPA
published the final rule (58 FR
5460).
09/13/89—EPA published proposed
regulations to establish response
claims procedures (54 FR 37892).
02/08/93—EPA published the IFR
regarding administrative hearing
procedures for claims asserted
against Superfund (58 FR 7704).
01/03/94—The final rule on
administrative hearing procedures for
claims asserted against Superfund
was published (59 FR 25).
Completed 03/08/90—Regulations
were included in revised NCP
Subpart I (55 FR 8666).
Completed 01/01/88.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
v Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
D-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
116(a)(2) 01/01/892'
10/17/90
H6(d)(l)
H6(d)(2)
10/17/89
10/17/90
10/17/91
10/17/89
10/17/91
Requirement
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 a total of 450
RI/FSs only if 275 starts
deadline not met.
EPA to start a total of 650
RI/FSs only if 275 starts
deadline not met.
EPA to start 175 remedial
actions (RAs) at individual
NPL sites.
EPA to start an additional 200
RAs at individual NPL sites.
Status
Completed December 1994—All
ten Regions have met the
requirement.
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.
Completed 02/01/90
Completed during FY93
D-12
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
H7(e)
Statutory
Deadline
11
09/30/89*
120(c)
120(c)
Semiannually
120(d)
04/17/88
Requirement
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.
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 initial
Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket.
Status
Completed 10/01/92—EPA
published the final rule (57 FR
45311).
Completed 01/25/93—EPA
published the final guidelines (58 FR
5972).
Completed 09/26/89—GAP
published a report entitled
Contractors Are Being Too Liberally
Indemnified by the Government
(GAO/RCED-89-160).
Completed 02/12/88—Notice of the
initial list of 1,095 federal facilities
was published (53 FR 4280). The
public may review and copy specific
documents in the Docket by
contacting the Federal Facilities
Docket Hotline.
Completed 11/16/88.12/15/89.
08/22/90r 09/27/91f 12/12/91.
07/17/92P 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
the statutory deadline.12'
21 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
21 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
M The Administrator's duty was, by April 1988, to reasonably facilitate completion of the preliminary
assessments, not to guarantee that the other agencies would complete them by that date. In fact, EPA
believes that it did take the required steps. We note, however, that a federal district court reached a
different conclusion. (See Conservation Law Foundation of New England v. Reilly).
D-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
120(d)
Statutory
Deadline
04/17/89
Requirement
Following PAs, EPA where
appropriate evaluates 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
EPA evaluates federal facilities
where appropriate. During FY93,18
federal facilities were proposed to
the NPL, bringing the total number
of proposed sites to 20. Seven
federal facility sites were listed as
final, bringing the total to 123.
Hence, there were 143 listed and
proposed federal facility sites at the
endofFY93.
EPA and states to publish
timetable and deadlines for
completion of RI/FSs at
federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Schedules for completion of RI/FSs
at federal facilities are routinely
developed pursuant to interagency
agreements (lAGs), or are published
by EPA and the state when IAG
negotiations are unsuccessful. lAGs
have been signed for 120 of the 123
federal facility sites as of FY93.
120(e)(l)
10/17/87
JO/
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 NPL prior to
SARA's date of enactment.
07/22/87—The first federal facilities
were listed the on NPL (52 FR
27620). CERCLIS reports that
approximately 80 RI/FSs were
started at federal facility sites during
FY93.
21 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
•^ Not later than six months after listing of federal facility on NPL.
D-14
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
120(eX2)
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
Federal departments,
agencies, or instrumental-ities
to enter into lAGs with EPA
for completion of RAs for
federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Sialus
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
FY93, 120 lAGs had been signed
including 6 lAGs signed during
FY93.
(See Federal Facility Cleanups
Section of Report.)
120(e)(2)
120(e)(3)
Annually with
budget
120(e)(5)
Annually
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.
During FY93, approximately 20 RAs
for federal facilities on the NPL
began.
(See Federal Facility Cleanups
Section of Report.)
Completed January 1987f January
1988r January 1989. January 1990f
January 1991r January 1992r
January 1993 — Information is
included in the annual budget
submissions to Congress.
Completed Mav 1989r April 1990,.
September 1990r February 1992f
and February 1994—EPA's reports
were included in FY87, FY88, FY89,
FY90, and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 30 l(h)(l).
Ongoing March 1995—FY92 and
FY93 Reports to Congress are in
review.
Within 180 days after EPA review of RI/FS.
Not later than 15 months after completion of RI/FS.
D-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
120(h)(2)
Statutory
Deadline
04/17/88
Requirement
EPA, in consultation with the
General Services
Administration, to
promulgate regulations on the
form and manner of notice
required whenever any
federal department, agency,
or instrumentality enters into
a contract to sell or transfer
property owned by the United
States on which a hazardous
substance was stored,
disposed, or released.
EPA to report to Congress a
list of facilities for which a
five-year review is required,
the results of all such
reviews, and any actions
taken.
Status
Completed 04/16/90—The final rule
was published (55 FR 14208).
Completed May 1989r April 1990r
September 1990r February 1992f
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 March 1995—FY92 and
FY93 Reports to Congress are in
review.
u
EPA to promulgate
regulations providing for
state involvement in
initiation, development, and
selection of remedial
activities.
Completed 03/08/90—Regulations
are included in the revised NCP
SubpartF(55FK8666).
2/
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-16
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
11
122(e)(3)(A)
2/
123(d)
10/17/87
126(c)
FY88 budget
request
04/17/87
Requirement
EPA to issue procedures for
special notice regarding
negotiation with potentially
responsible parties.
EPA to develop guidelines
for preparing nonbinding
preliminary allocations of
responsibility (NBAR).
EPA to promulgate
regulations for
reimbursement to local
governments for costs
incurred in responding to the
release or threatened release
of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on hazardous waste
sites on Indian lands.
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.
Status
Completed 10/19/87—EPA sent
procedural guidelines to Regional
Administrators from Assistant
Administrator for OSWER (OSWER
Directive #9834.10).
02/23/88—Guidelines 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 OS/28/87—EPA
published the interim final guidelines
(52 FR 19919).
May 1991—EPA published
Summary of "Interim Guidelines for
Preparing NBARs" (OSWER
Directive #9839. IPS).
Completed 01/15/93—EPA
published the 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 were published (53 FR
5166).
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-17
-------
Proaress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
301(g)
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/87
Annually
301(h)(2)
Z/
Requirement
Comptroller General to
submit report to Congress on
the results of the insurability
study.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on CERCLA
implementation.
EPA IG to review EPA's
Report to Congress required
under CERCLA Section
Status
Completed 10/16/87—GAP
published a report entitled Issues
Surrounding Insurance Availability
(GAO/RCED-88-2).
Completed May 1989P April 1990f
September 1990r February 1992f
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 March 1995—FY92 and
FY93 Reports to Congress are in
review.
Completed May 1989. April 1990f
September 1990r and February
1992r September 1993—EPA's
reports included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90 and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(h)(l).
Ongoing March 1995—FY92 and
FY93 Reports to Congress are in
review.
306(a)
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.
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).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
Requirements to be completed by November 17,1986, or at the time each substance is listed or designated
as hazardous under CERCLA, whichever is later.
D-1B
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
Requirement
EPA to issue regulations
describing manner of notice
of citizen suits.
Status
Completed 11/23/92— EPA
published the final rule (54 FR
55038).
12/28/92— Correction to the final
rule was published (51 FR 61612).
Z/
311(a)(6) 07/17/87
2/
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 31 l(a)(l).
HHS, through NIEHS, to
issue a plan to implement the
hazardous substance research
and training program
established under CERCLA
Section 31 l(a)(l).
EPA to carry out a program of
research, evaluation, testing,
development, and
demonstration of alternative
or innovative technologies.
Completed 09/14/87— HHS
published a 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 the
program, including a draft program
description published by HHS on
1 1/28/86 (51 FR 43089); and the 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 FT? 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.
u
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
311(b)(5XB)
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
EPA to publish a solicitation
for innovative or alternative
technologies suitable for full-
scale demonstration at
Superfund sites.
Status
Completed January 1986f January
1987f January 1988r January 1989f
January 1990r January 1991,
January 1992r January 1993,
January 1994—Solicitations were
published.
EPA to initiate or cause to be
initiated at least 10 field
demonstration projects of
alternative or innovative
treatment technologies.
FY87—1 site demonstration was
completed.
FY88—6 site demonstrations were
completed.
FY89—7 site demonstrations were
completed.
FY90—4 site demonstrations were
completed.
FY91—7 site demonstrations were
completed.
FY92—15 site demonstrations were
completed.
FY93—8 site demonstrations were
completed.
First solicitation due January 17, 1987; subsequent solicitations to be published no less often than
annually.
Due in fiscal years 1987,1988,1989, and 1990.
D-20
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
2/
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—
EPA made $1 million grants to each
of five hazardous substance research
centers.
Completed FY92—EPA made two-
year grants to five hazardous
substance research centers for a total
of $1.4 million.
Completed February 1988r March
1989r March 1990,. September
1991. October 1992. October 1993r
July 1994—FY87. FY88, FY89,
FY90, FY91, FY92, and FY93 SITE
program reports were submitted to
Congress.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
CERCLA
Section
t n/_\
Statutory
Deadline
n
Requirement Status
EPA to conduct habitability Completed 07/28/88—The study
and land use study of the was submitted to the NYS
Love Canal Emergency Commissioner of Health.
Declaration Area, and to work September 1988—The
with New York State (NYS) commissioner issued a follow-up
to develop recommendations report.
based upon the study results. 07/10/89—Love Canal Land Use
Advisory Committee issued
recommendations.
May 1990—Love Canal Area
Revitalization Agency published a
final generic environmental impact
statement.
June 1990—The Agency published
the Love Canal Area Master Plan.
21 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-22
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Progress Toward Meeting SARA-Related Statutory Requirements
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
01/17/87
07/01/872'
03/01/872'
1180)
04/17/87
118(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.
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.
Status
Completed 01/15/87—The grant
was made to New Jersey.
Completed 10/26/87—GAO
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 for Transportation 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.
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.
v Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
21 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
02/01/872a2/
H8(n)(l)
04/17/87
Requirement
EPA to submit report on
radon mitigation
demonstration program.
Department of Energy (DOE)
to carry out program at the
Liquified Gaseous Spills Test
Facility. Program to test and
evaluate technologies utilized
in responding to liquified
gaseous and other hazardous
substance spills that threaten
human health or the
environment.
Status
Completed 06/12/87,. 01/18/89f
02/26/90, 01/15/91—The FY86,
FY87, FY88, and FY89 reports have
been submitted to Congress.
Ongoing January 199S—The FY90
and FY91 reports are in the review
process.
Completed 06/30/87—
Memorandum of understanding was
developed among DOE, EPA, and
DOT.
1990—Determinations were made of
aqueous foams' effectiveness in
extinguishing chlorosilane fires and
vapor suppression; and
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 also
made.
1991—Testing of TECP suits
continued.
1992—Testing of TECP suits
continued. Hazardous materials
training was developed for spill
control, mitigation, and cleanup.
Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
Due annually on this date beginning in 1987.
D-24
-------
Fiscal Year 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SARA Statutory
Section Deadline
121(b)(2) 11/17/86
126(a)
10/17/87
126(f)
is/
Requirement
EPA to enter into contracts
and grants with a nonprofit
organization in Albany
County, Wyoming, to carry
out program established
under CERCLA Section
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 for
employees of state and local
government in non-state
program states. The
standards are to be identical
to those contained in the
Occupational Safety and
Health Act regulations
established by DOL under
CERCLA Section 126(a).
Status
Completed 1988—EPA entered into
contract with the Western Research
Institute (WRI) to carry out
technology transfer program
requirements under CERCLA
Sections 118(n)(2)(A), (B), and (D).
September 1990—DOE entered into
a second contract with WRI that is
scheduled to run until 1995, which
continues to address requirements
under CERCLA Section 118(n)(2).
Completed 11/17/86—All three
RODs that were signed comply; no
consent decrees were lodged during
this period.
Completed 03/06/89—POL
published the standards (54 FR
9294).
Completed 06/23/89—EPA
published final standards (54 FR
26654).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
Not later than 90 days after promulgation of DOL final regulations.
D-25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
SARA Statutory
Section Deadline Requirement Status
205(h) 01/17/88 Completed 01/15/88—GAP
published a report entitled Insuring
Underground Petroleum Tanks
(GAO-RCED-88-39).
211(a) Annually Secretary of Defense to Completed March 1988f March
submit report to Congress on 1989r February 1990r March 1991,
progress in implementing February 1992r April 1993. March
Department of Defense 1994—FY87. FY88, FY89, FY90,
Environmental Restoration FY91, FY92, and FY93 reports were
Program. submitted to Congress.
D-26
-------
Appendix E
Report to the EPA Inspector
General
E-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
E-2
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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 Generai.
~-- f :
i. AI*^-
TO: Carol M. Browner V '
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.
r -3 (}& Racyctodfflccyctabl*
L J r~\. t\ Printed on (MpwtM contains
it Vint 50% f0cycwcf flbcr
-------
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 1Q96). 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. E1SFF3-11-0016-3100392. dated September 29, 1993,
Reliability of CERCLIS Data: Superfunc! 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 and 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
SUPPORr 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 requii r.ny 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
Clean Water Act, (1968) 33 U.S.C. 1251-1372.
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. 99-499 (17 October 1986), 42 U.S.C. Section 11001
et. seq.
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (1986).
Rulemakings
Executive Order 12580. January 23,1987.52 FR 2923.
EPA. February 12, 1988. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket; EPA's List of Federal
Facilities under CERCLA Section 120(c). 53 FR 4280.
EPA. May 29,1989. Reportable Quantity Adjustments-Radionuclides. 54 FR 22524.
EPA. October 1,1992. Technical Assistance Grant Program, Final Rule. 57 FR 45311.
EPA. October 14,1992. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Final Rule. 57 FR
47180.
EPA. October 14,1992. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No.
13. 57 FR 47204.
EPA. November 30, 1992. Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Released
Proposed Rule. 57 FR 56726.
F-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
EPA. February 5,1993. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Notice: Notice of Seventh
Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section
120(c). 58 FR 7298.
EPA. May 10,1993. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Proposed Rule No. 14.
58 FR 27507.
EPA. June 23,1993. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No. 15.
58 FK 34018.
EPA. June 30,1993. Reportable Quantity Adjustments for Lead Metal, Lead Compounds, Lead-Containing
Hazardous Waste, Methyl Isocyanate. 58 FR 35314.
EPA. November 30,1993. Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Notice: Notice of Eighth
Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section
120(c). 58 FR 59790.
Memoranda
EPA/OSWER. June 21,1993. Memorandum form Richard Guimond, Assistant Surgeon General, VSPHS,
Acting Assistant Administrator, to Waste Management Division Directors, re: NPL Construction
Completion Definition at Bioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction Sites. OSWER Directive 9320.2-06.
EPA/OSWER. July 29,1993. Memorandum from Timothy Fields, Jr., Director, Superfund Revitalization
Office, and Betty L. Bailey, Director, Office of Aquisition Management, to Division Directors, re:
Guidance on Preparing Independent Government Cost Estimates. OSWER Directive 9202.1-12.
EPA/OSWER. July 29, 1993. Memorandum from William A. White, Enforcement Counsel, Office of
Enforcement, to Bruce M. Diarmond, Director, Office of Waste Program Enforcement, re: Supplemental
Guidance on Federal Superfund Liens. OSWER Directive 9832.12-la.
EPA/OSWER. July 30, 1993. Memorandum from William A. White, Enforcement Counsel, Office of
Enforcement, to Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, re: Transmittal
of Guidance on CERCLA Settlements with De Micromis Waste Contributors. OSWER Directive
9834.17.
EPA/OSWER. January 28,1994. Memorandum from Harry L. Longest II, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, and Bruce Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, to Addressees,
re: Expectations for Full Implementation of SACM. OSWER Directive 9203.1-13.
Reports
EPA. April 1989. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1987.
EPA. April 1990. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1988.
EPA/OERR/OPM. December 1990. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY89 Report to Congress.
9200.2-12.
F-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1993 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA/OSWER/TIO. July 19,1991. Superfund 30-Day Task Force Report; Accelerated 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/OERR. February 1992. Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY90 Report to Congress. 9200.2-
13, updates 9200.2-12.
EPA. February 1993. Interim Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee:
Recommendations for Improving the Federal Facility Environmental Restoration Decision-Making
Process and Setting Priorities in the Event of Funding Shortfalls.
EPA/OAR. March 1993. Computer Models Used to Support Decision-Making at Hazardous and Radioactive
Waste Sites. EPA 402-R-93-005.
EPA/OAR. March 1993. Environmental Characteristics of EPA, NRC, and DOE Sites Contaminated with
Radioactive Substances. EPA 402-R-93-011.
EPA/OAR. March 1993. Environmental Pathway Models ~ Groundwater Modeling in Support of Remedial
Decision-Making at Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Material. EPA 402-R-009.
EPA/OERR. June 23,1993. Superfund Administrative Improvements - Final Report. 9200.0-14-2.
EPA. August 1993. Preliminary Analysis of Population Demographics.
EPA/OSWER. November 1993. Superfund Administrative Improvements: Reinventing Superfund. Publication
9200.0-15 FS.
EPA/ORD. November 1993. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Programs. 540/r-93/526.
Guidance Documents
EPA. February 1988. Superfund Removal Procedures Manual, Revision Number 3. Publication 9360.0-03B.
EPA/OERR/HSED. September 7,1989. Interim Guidance on Establishment of Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at
Superfund Sites. 9355.4-02 and Update 9355.4.02a.
EPA/OERR/ERD. December 1990. Superfund Removal Procedures: Action Memorandum Guidance.
9360.3-01.
EPA/OERR/HSCD. August 1991. Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews. 9355.7-02
EPA/OERR/HSCD. August 1991. Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews. Fact Sheet. 9355.7-
02FS.
EPA/OERR/ERD. August 1991. Superfund Removal Procedures: Guidance on the Consideration of ARARs
during Removal Actions. 9360.3-02.
F-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
EPA/OSWER. April 1992. Removal Enforcement Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators. Directive 9360.3-
06.
EPA. June 1992. Standard Operating Safety Guides. 9284.01 c.
EPA/OERR. My 1992. Guide to Removal Enforcement 9360.06FS.
EPA. July 1992. Superfund Removal Procedures Public Participation Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators:
Community Relations, and the Administrative Record. 9360.3-03B.
EPA/OWPE. July 30,1993. Guidance on CERCLA Settlements with "De Micromis" Waste Contributors.
9834.17.
EPA/OWPE. July 30, 1993. Streamlined Approach for Settlements with de minimis Waste Contributors
under CERCLA Section 122(g)(lXA). 9834.7-1D. Supplements 9834.7-le.
EPA/OSWER. August 1993. Additional Guidance on "Worst Sites" and "NPL Caliber Sites" to Assists ACM
Implementation. 9320.2-07.
EPA/OSWER. August 1993. Procedures to Ensure that CLP Laboratories are not Paid for Non-Compliant or
Unusable Data. OSWER Directive 9200.9-02.
EPA/OSWER. August 1993. Site Inspection Prioritization Guidance. 9345.1-15FS.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Guide to Community Involvement for Site Assessment Managers. 9345.4-
02FS.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Guidelines for Management of Technical and Evidentiary Audits of CLP
Laboratories. Analytical Operations Branch Guidance 001-93.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Integrating Removal and Remedial Site Assessment Investigations. EPA
540-F-93-038.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Site Assessment: Evaluating Risks at Superfund Sites. 9345.4-03FS.
EPA/OSWER. September 30, 1993. Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures. OSWER Directive
9355.0-47 FS.
EPA/OSWER. September 30,1993. Presumptive Remedies: Site Characteristics and Technological Selection
for CERCLA sites with VOCs in Soils. 9355.0-48 FS.
EPA/OSWER. September 30, 1993. Presumptive Remedies for CERCLA Municipal Landfills. OSWER
Directive 9355.0-49 FS.
EPA/OSWER. Cost Management Manual for the Superfund Remedial and Enforcement Programs.
EPA. EPA's Model Accelerated Cleanup (MAC) Program Guidance.
F-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1993 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Other Sources
EPA/NTIS. November 1991. Compendium of Superfund Program Publications. 9200.7-02B
EPA. December 23,1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of a Site From the National Priorities List. 57 FR 61004.
EPA. December 23,1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of a Site From the National Priorities List. 57 FR 61005.
EPA. December 30,1992. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of a Site From the National Priorities List. 57 FR 62231.
EPA. February 5,1993. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of a Site From the National Priorities List. 58 FR 7189.
EPA. February 8,1993. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of the Pioneer Sand Company Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).
58 FR 7492.
EPA. March 22,1993. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of the Woodbury Chemical Company Site from the National Priorities List
(NPL). 58 FR 15287.
EPA/OSWER. March 1993. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). EPA 540-R-93-058.
EPA/OSWER. July 1993. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) Supplement No. 1 to the
March 1993 Annual Update. OERR 9200.6-303 (93-1).
EPA. May 28, 1993. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of the Suffern Village Wellfield Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).
58 FR 30989.
EPA. September 1,1993. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
Update. Notice of Deletion of a Site the National Priorities List. 58 FR 46087.
EPA/OPM. CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS).
F-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1993
F-6
-------
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 atSuperfund
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
with effective contractmanagement, the Agency
G-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
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. Otherefforts
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 (R As) 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, reform ing the remedy selection process,
pursuing liability reforms to reduce transaction costs
and increase fairness and create a fund, the
Environmental Insurance ResolutionFund, 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 TaskForce
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 1993
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Based on evaluationof 94 percent of the sites identified
in CERCLIS forpotential threats, EPA has 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 parties (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. Undcrthe 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 in the 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-financed sites.
Efforts to implement the 1991 30-Day Study
continued during the 1992-1994 period and included
development of presumptive remedies formunicipal
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
sues;
• Implemented guidance for addressing Dense
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL)
contamination of ground water and for invoking
the technical impracticability waiver where
performance standards cannot be achieved.
G-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1993
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 fairness of 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
the Fast Track Clean-up Program to expedite cleanup
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.
Inits community involvementefforts,EPAtailors
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 numberof 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 inFY94 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.
G-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1993 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 Outycar
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
-------
|