United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
EPA540-R-95-U7
9200.2-24
PB96-963212
Superfund
Progress Toward
Implementing Superfund
Fiscal Year 1994
Report to Congress
-------
Publication 9200.2-24
Progress Toward
Implementing
SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
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. It 60604-3590
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
51-037-Cw
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
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.
n
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 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 1994 (FY94). As the Superfund program
completed its fourteenth year, the Agency had begun work at 94 percent of the 1,355 sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL), and completed construction on 278 of them. EPA is pleased to submit this Report
documenting the fiscal year's achievements.
Through administrative improvements inplemented during the year, the Agency accelerated the pace of
cleanup, enhanced the fairness of the Superfund program, reduced transaction costs, and expanded public
involvement. The Agency also focused on these aspects of the program as it drafted legislative amendments
introduced as the Superfund Report Act of 1994.
Section 301(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, or Superfund), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
requires the Agency to report annually on response activities and accomplishments and to compare remedial
and enforcement activities with those undertaken in previous fiscal years. During the fiscal year, the Agency
or portentially responsible parties (PRPs) started approximately 70 remedial investigation/feasibility studies,
110 remedial designs (RDs), and 120 remedial actions (RAs). PRPs began 75 percent of these RDs and RAs.
Continuing its successful efforts to compel PRPs to undertake cleanup, EPA entered into 230 enforcement
agreements worth more than $ 1.4 billion in response work. The Agency and PRPs have also now undertaken
more than 3,660 removal actions, including approximately 310 duringFY94. Federal facility accomplishments
have shown dramatic increases; 129 of the 150 federal facility sites listed as final 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. These three aspects of the program were highlighted in the Agency's
administrative improvement inititative.
In addition to providing an overall perspective on progress in the past fiscal year, this Report contains the
information Congress specifically requested in Section 301 (h) of CERCLA, including a report on the status
of remedial actions and enforcement activity in progress at the end of the fiscal year and an evaluation of newly
developed feasible and achievable treatment technologies. The Report also includes a description of current
minority firm participation in Superfund contracts and EPA's efforts to encourage increased participation, as
required by Section 105(f). The Report fulfills the requirement of Section 301 (h)( 1)(E) by providing an update
on progress being made at sites subject to review under Section 121 (c). Appendix D consists of a matrix that
charts the progress of EPA and other government organizations in meeting Superfund-related statutory
requirements. This Report also satisfies certain reporting requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5), the
EPA Annual Report to Congress: Progress Toward Implementing CERCLA at EPA Facilities as Required
by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5). The EPA Inspector General's report on the reasonableness and accuracy of
the information in this Report, as required by CERCLA Section 301(h)(2), is included as Appendix E.
Appendix G is included to give an overall summary of the Superfund Program in fiscal years 1992 through
1994.
Carol M. Browner Timothy Fields, Jr.
Administrator Acting Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
in
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
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: Lynn Beasley (project manager), Erin Conley, Gayle Dye, Joanna Gibson, Rafael Gonzalez, Walter
Johnson, Justin Karp, Trudy Link, Robin Richardson, Tom Sheckells, Suzanne Wells, and Ed Ziomkoski
from the Office of Program Management; Bruce Gruenewald, from the Office of the Assistant Administrator,
Esther Coleman, Lucy McCrillis, and Jim Woolford, from the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office; Deb Duffy, Terry Keidan, Jim Konz, and Robert Myers, form the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division;
George Alderson, Diana Hammer, Marlene Berg, Hugo Fleischman, Andrea McLaughlin, Carolyn Offutt,
Peter Redmond, and Alan Youkeles, from the Hazardous Site Control Division; Mark Mjoness and Ed
Thrasher, from the Emergency Response Division; Katie Daly and Cheryl Hawkins, from the Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response's Outreach and Special Projects staff; and Tim Fontaine, from the
Acquisition Staff (OSWER).
Additional key contributions from other Environmental Protection Agency offices were provided by:
Mike Boyd and Mike Eagle, from the Office of Air and Radiation; Sally Dalzell from the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's (OECA's) Federal Facilities Enforcement Office; Scott Blair from
OECA's Office of Site Remediation William Frietsch, John Martin, and Donald E. Sanning, from the Office
of Research and Development's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory; Ann Eleanor, from the Technology
Innovation Office; and Becky Neer, from the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
Contributions from other federal agencies and departments were provided by: Mike Greewell, from the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Ann Dablin, from the Department of Defense; and Mary
Morton from the Department of Interior.
IV
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
Executive Summary xi
Chapter 1: Major Initiatives 21
1.1 Reauthorization Activities 22
1.1.1 National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology 22
1.1.2 Agency Workgroups 23
1.1.3 Interagency Workgroups 23
1.1.4 Legislative Activities 23
1.2 Administrative Improvements 23
1.3 Improving Clean-up Effectiveness and Consistency 24
1.3.1 Streamlining and Expediting the Clean-up Process 24
1.3.2 Developing Soil Screening Levels 26
1.4 Enhancing Community Involvement 27
1.5 Expanding the Role of States 28
1.6 Increasing Fairness in Enforcement and Reducing Transaction Costs 28
1.6.1 Promoting Greater Use of Allocation Tools 29
1.6.2 Fostering More Settlements with Small-Volume Waste Contributors 29
1.6.3 Increasing Fairness for Owners of Superfund Property 30
1.6.4 Evaluating Mixed-Funding Policy 30
1.7 Ensuring Environmental Justice 31
1.8 Continuing Initiatives 32
1.8.1 Implementing the Superfund Accelerated Clean-up Model 32
1.8.2 Achieving Construction Completions 34
1.8.3 Strengthening Contracts Management 35
1.8.4 Promoting Enforcement First 35
1.8.5 Accelerating Cleanup at Closing Military Bases 36
1.8.6 Promoting the Development and Use of Innovative Technologies 37
1.8.7 Enhancing Compliance Monitoring 38
1.8.8 Improving the Effectiveness of Cost Recovery 38
Chapter 2: Site Evaluation Progress . 41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
(continued)
2.1 Site Evaluation Process [[[ 41
2.2 Fiscal Year 1994 Progress [[[ 41
2.2.1 CERCLIS Site Additions: Discoveries and Removals .................................................. 42
2.2.2 Preliminary Assessments Completed [[[ 42
2.2.3 Site Inspections Completed [[[ 42
2.2.4 Site Inspection Prioritization [[[ 43
2.3 National Priorities List [[[ 43
2.3.1 National Priorities List Updates [[[ 43
2.3.2 Relationship between CERCLIS and NPL Update [[[ 43
2.4 Site Evaluation Support Activities [[[ 44
2.4.1 Lead Program Progress [[[ 45
2.4.2 Radiation Program Progress [[[ 46
2.4.3 Site Evaluation Regulations and Guidance [[[ 48
Chapte 3: Removal Progress ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .......................... 49
3.1 Removal Action Process [[[ 49
3.2 Fiscal Year 1994 Progress [[[ 51
3.2.1 Status Report on Removal Progress [[[ 51
3.2.2 Expanding the Use of Removal Authority [[[ 51
3.3 Environmental Response Team Activities [[[ 53
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
(continued)
4.3.3 Addressing Technical Complexities of Ground- Water Cleanup .................................... 62
4.4 Remedy Selection [[[ 63
4.5 Use and Development of Treatment Technologies [[[ 63
4.5.1 Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program Progress ................................. 64
4.5.2 Superfund Technical Assistance Programs [[[ 73
4.5.3 Technology Transfer and Interagency Sharing [[[ 77
4.6 Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121(c) ................................. 82
Chapter 5: Enforcement Progress -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 85
5.1 The Enforcement Process [[[ 85
5.2 Fiscal Year 1994 Progress [[[ 86
5.2. 1 Settlements for Response Activities [[[ 86
5.2.2 PRP Participation in Clean-Up Activities [[[ 87
5.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements [[[ 87
5.2.4 Success in Reaching and Enforcing Agreements with PRPs .......................................... 88
5.3 Enforcement Initiatives [[[ 88
5.3.1 Greater Use of Allocation Tools [[[ 89
5.3.2 Foster More Settlements with Small- Volume Waste Contributors ................................ 99
5.3.3 Greater Fairness for Owners at Superfund Sites [[[ 99
5.3.4 Evaluate Mixed-Funding Policy [[[ 100
5.3.5 Compliance Monitoring [[[ 100
5.3.6 Improved Effectiveness of Cost Recovery [[[ 100
5.3.7 Superfund Accelerated Clean-up Model [[[ 101
Chapter 6: Federal Facility Cleanups ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 103
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUHD Fiscal Year 1994
Contents
(continued)
6.3.2 Accelerated Cleanups at Federal Facilities 107
6.3.3 Interagency Forums 107
6.3.4 Innovative Technology Development 108
6.4 CERCLA Implementation at EPA Facilities 109
6.4.1 Requirements of CERCLA Sections 120(e)(5) 109
6.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA Facilities Subject to Section 120 of CERCLA 110
Chapter 7: Superfund Program Support Activities 113
7.1 Community Involvement 113
7.1.1 Fiscal Year 1993 Highlights 114
7.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA Section 117 (e) 115
7.2 A Coordinated Approach to Public Information 117
7.2.1 The National Technical Information Service 117
7.2.2 The Superfund Docket 117
7.2.3 Other Information Sources 118
7.3 EPA's Partnership with States and Indian Tribes 118
7.3.1 Response Agreements and Core Program Cooperative Agreements 118
7.3.2 Fiscal Year 1994 Highlights 120
7.4 Minority Firm Contracting 121
7.4.1 Minority Firm Contracting During Fiscal Year 1994 121
7.4.2 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms 122
7.4.3 Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments to Use Minority
Contractors 123
Chapter 8: Resource Estimate for Superfund Implementation 125
8.1 Source and Application of Resources 126
8.1.1 Estimating the Scope of Cleanup 127
8.1.2 PRP Contributions to the Clean-Up Effort 127
8.2 Resource Model Assumptions 127
8.2.1 Active NPL Sites 127
8.2.2 Sites Yet to Begin the Remedial Process 128
viu
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Contents
(continued)
8.2.3 Non-Site Costs 128
8.2.4 Factors Related to Remedial Action Costs 129
8.3 Estimated Resources to Complete Cleanup 129
8.4 Estimated Resources for Other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies 130
Appendices
Appendix A: Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and Remedial
Actions at Sites on the National Priorities List in Progress
on September 30, 1994 A-l
Appendix B: Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1994 B-l
Appendix C: List of Records of Decision C-l
Appendix D: Progress Toward Meeting Supcrfund-Rclatcd 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 11992-1994] G-l
List of Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Fiscal Year 1994 Superfund Activities xii
Exhibit ES-2 Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year xiii
Exhibit ES-3 Statutory Requirements for the Report xix
Exhibit 1.0-1 Progress in Classifying Sites as Construction Completions 22
Exhibit 1.2-1 Superfund Administrative Improvements: Highlights of New and
Continuing Initiatives 25
Exhibit 1.8-1 Superfund Administrative Improvements: Highlights of Continued
Initiatives 33
Exhibit 1.8-2 Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model 34
Exhibit 2.3-1 Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1994 44
Exhibit 3.1-1 Typical Removal Actions 50
Exhibit 3.2-1 Cumulative Removal Action Starts 52
Exhibit 3.2-2 Cumulative Removal Action Completions 53
Exhibit 4.2-1 Work Has Occurred at 94 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites 58
Exhibit 4.2-2 Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program for
Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1994 59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Contents
Exhibit 4.2-3
Exhibit 4.5-1
Exhibit 4.5-2
Exhibit 4.5-3
Exhibit 4.5-4
Exhibit 4.5-5
Exhibit 4.5-6
Exhibit 4.5-7
Exhibit 4.6-1
Exhibit 5.2-1
Exhibit 5.2-2
Exhibit S.2.-3
Exhibit 5.2-4
Exhibit 6.2-1
Exhibit 6.2-2
Exhibit 6.4-1
Exhibit 7.1-1
Exhibit 7.4-1
Exhibit 7.4-2
Exhibit 8.1-1
Exhibit 8.3-1
Exhibit 8.4-1
(continued)
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead for
Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year 1994 60
Cost Savings Associated with the Use of Innovative Technologies at 17 Sites 65
Emerging Technology Program Projects by Treatment Category 66
SITE Emerging Technology Projects Accepted into Program In
Fiscal Year 1994 67
Projects Completed Under the SITE Emerging Technology Program in
Fiscal Year 1994 68
New Technologies Accepted into SITE Demonstration Program in
Fiscal Year 1994 70
SITE Demonstration Projects Completed in Fiscal Year 1994 72
Requests for SITE Documents 74
Sites At Which Five-Year Reviews Are Required under CERCLA Section
121(c), Fiscal Year 1994 83
Cumulative Value of Response Settlements Reached with Potentially
Responsible Parlies 87
Increase in the Percentage of Remedial Designs and Remedial Actions
Started by PRPs 88
Cumulative Value of Cost Recovery Dollars Achieved and Collected 89
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments 90
Number of Federal Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 105
Distribution of Federal Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket 105
Status of EPA Facilities on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket Ill
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded From Fiscal Year 1988
Through Fiscal Year 1994 116
Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1994 122
Services Provided by Minority Contractors 123
EPA Superfund Obligations 126
Estimate of Total Trust Fund Liability to Complete Cleanup at Sites on the
National Priorities List 129
CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for Other Federal
Departments and Agencies 130
-------
Executive Summary
As the Superfund program entered its fourteenth
year in December 1993, 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 ts committed to accelerating the pace^f
hazardous waste site cleanup. As part of this
commitment, the Agency completed construction
activities to place 61 National Priorities List (NPL)
sites in the construction completion category during
fiscal year 1994 (FY94). By the end of the fiscal
year, work had occurred at more than 94 percent of
the 1,355 sites proposed to, listed on, or deleted from
the NPL, including a total of 278 sites (21 percent)
that have achieved construction completion. Leaving
a total of 1,226 sites currently listed on the NPL for
fiscal year 1994. Reflecting the Agency's increasing
emphasis on completing site cleanups, more than 78
percent of the construction completions have been
achieved in the past three years.
The Agency also continued its successful efforts
to encourage potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
to undertake and finance clean-up efforts at Superfund
sites. PRPs were leading more than 75 percent of
remedial designs (RDs) and remedial actions (RAs)
started during the fiscal year. Since the inception of
the Superfund program, EPA has reached agreements
worth more than $10.0 billion for PRP response
work at Superfund sites, including $1.4 billion
achieved this year.
This Report summarizes Superfund FY94
progress, highlighting accomplishments and
initiatives to improve the program. Exhibit ES-1
presents a summary of FY94 accomplishments.
Exhibit ES-2 provides a comparison of FY94
accomplishments with those of previous years and
presents cumulative program accomplishments.
FY94 accomplishments reflect the Agency's
commitment to, and focus of resources on, activities
required to complete site cleanups.
Fiscal vear 1994 Initiatives
In FY94, 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 workgroups to draft the proposed Superfund
Reform Act of 1994. The proposed legislation
focused on enhancing community involvement,
expanding the role of states, reforming the remedy
selection process, pursuing liability reforms to reduce
transaction costs and increase fairness, and creating
a fund, titled the Environmental Insurance Resolution
Fund, to resolve coverage disputes between PRPs
and their insurers. The Superfund Reform Act of
1994 completed extensive hearings and mark-ups,
but did not come up for a final vote on the House or
Senate floor.
Working within the existing statutory and
regulatory framework, the Agency also continued to
implement the recommendations of the 1993
Superfund Administrative Improvements TaskForce.
The task force recommendations included
implementation of nine new or enhanced initiatives
XI
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit ES-1
Summary of Fiscal Year 1994 Superfund Activities
Remedial Activities
Percentage of National Priorities List Sites Where Work Has Begun 94%
Sites Classified as Construction Completions as of September 30, 1994 278
Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30, 1994 867
Records of Decision Signed1 99
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Starts 2 70
Fund-Financed 60%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 40%
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies in Progress on September 30,1994 873
Remedial Design Starts2 110
Fund-Financed 25%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 75%
Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1994 447
Remedial Action Starts2 120
Fund-Financed 20%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 80%
Remedial Actions in Progress on September 30, 1994 447
Removal Activities
Removal Action Starts2 310
Fund-Financed 70%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 30%
Removal Action Completions2 240
Fund-Financed 80%
Potentially Responsible Party-Financed 20%
Site Assessment Activities
CERCLIS Sites Added2 1,100
Preliminary Assessments Conducted2 900
Site Inspections Conducted2 600
National Priorities List Site Activities to Date 1,355
Sites Proposed for Listing During Fiscal Year 1994 36
Sites Listed During Fiscal Year 1994 43
Sites Proposed for Deletion During Fiscal Year 1994 10
Sites Deleted During Fiscal Year 1994 13
Enforcement Activities
Settlements for All Potentially Responsible Party Response Activities 230 ($1.4 billion)3
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Settlements4 88 ($960 million)
Unilateral Administrative Orders Issued (All Actions) 110 N/A
Cost Recovery Dollars Collected N/A ($200 million)
Accomplishments at Federal Facility Sites
Records of Decision Signed 2 60
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Starts 60
Remedial Design Starts2 50
Remedial Action Starts2 40
1 Records of decision signed for Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed sites.
2 Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
3 Estimated value of work potentially responsible parties have agreed to undertake.
4 Remedial design/remedial action settlements include remedial design/remedial action consent decrees and unilateral administrative orders
with which potentially responsible parties have stated their intention to comply.
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; 51-0*4-210
Federal Register notices through September 30,1994.
xii
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit ES-2
Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year
FY80-86
Total FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 Total
Removal
Completions1'2
CERCLIS Sites1
PA Completions1
SI Completions1
National Priorities
List Sites3
Remedial
InvestigatiorV
Feasibility Study
Starts1-2
Records of Decision
Signed2
Remedial Design
Starts1 *
Remedial Action
Starts1-2
Construction
Completions4
National Priorities
List Deletions5
810
230
320
260
290
270
6
340
290 240 3,050
25,200 27,600 30,000 31,900 33,600 34,200 36,400 37,500 1,100 38.600
20,200 4,000 2,900 2,200 1,600 1,300 1,900 1,100 900 36,100
1,700 1,900 1,900 1,300 700 600 17,000
1,236 1,245 1,275 1,320 1,355 1,355
6,400 1,300 1,200
964 1,194
901
660
199
120
70
210
77
110
70
170
152
120
70
1,254
170
136
180
110
170
149
130
80
13
11
70
175
160
100
61
9
90'
126
60
134
1708 130
9
110
88
2
120
68
11
70 1,670
99 1,247
110 1,230
120 850
61 278
13 64
1 Numerical values for accomplishments based on information from CERCLIS have been rounded.
2 Includes Fund-financed and potentially responsible party-financed activities; excludes federal facility activities and state-lead
activities where no Fund monies were spent.
3 The figures reported in this row represent the cumulative total of proposed, final, and deleted National Priorities List sites as
of the end of each fiscal year.
4 Adopted as measure of program progress by 1991 30-Day Study Task Force. FY91 value represents FY80 through FY91.
5 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 FY94 table so that figures
will add properly. See also note 3.
7 The number for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Starts in FY92 was 88; it has been rounded for inclusion in the FY94 table
so that figures will add properly. See also note 3.
8 The number for Remedial Design Starts in FY92 was 172; it has been rounded for inclusion in the FY94 table so that figures
will add property. See also note 3.
* The number for Remedial Action Starts in FY92 was 111; it has been rounded for inclusion in the FY94 table so that figures
will add properly. See also note 3.
Sources: CERCLIS; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Federal Register notices through September 30,1994.
51-044-22D
Xlll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
and the continuation of eight ongoing initiatives.
The nine new initiatives center around five themes:
Improving Clean-up Effectiveness and
Consistency: EPA worked to streamline and
expedite clean-up effectiveness and consistency
by developing presumptive, or standard,
remedies; standardizing non-site specific
components of RDs; developing strategies for
addressing the technical complexities associated
with dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)
and lead contamination; and developing
standardized soil screening levels (SSLs) to
facilitate soil study and cleanup.
Enhancing Community Involvement: EPA
worked to promote earlier and increased
community involvement in Superfund clean-up
activities and decision-making. To this end,
EPA facilitated public access to site information
and site decision-makers, improved outreach
materials, and used innovative techniques to
involve and inform communities.
• Expanding the Role of the States: EPA worked
to expand state involvement in Superfund
cleanups to use limited resources more effectively
and help accelerate the pace of cleanup. EPA has
historically provided funding and technical
assistance to support the development of state
Superfund programs, and many states are cleaning
up non-NPL-caliber sites under their own laws.
During FY94, EPA developed draft deferral
guidance for states, or other qualified governing
bodies, for meeting criteria to conduct oversight
of cleanups at NPL-caliber sites. Piloting the
concept in seven states, EPA deferred 22 NPL-
caliber sites to the states for oversight of the
cleanup.
Increasing Enforcement Fairness and Reducing
Transaction Costs: EPA worked to reduce
transaction costs and ensure equity in enforcement
by promoting greater use of allocation tools,
fostering more settlements with small-volume
(de minimis and "de micromis") waste
contributors, increasing fairness for owners of
Superfund sites, and evaluating the use of mixed
funding policy. As a result of the Agency's
emphasis on earlier and increased use of de
minimis settlements, for example, the Agency
has reached 86 de minimis settlements in the last
two years. While enhancing fairness to all
involved PRPs by reducing transaction costs,
the Agency also resolved the liability of more
than 5,500 de minimis PRPs in these 86
settlements.
Ensuring Environmental Justice: EPA worked
to ensure that risks posed to low-income and
minority populations in communities are
adequately addressed by EPA's waste programs,
including the Superfund program. Specifically,
the Agency began implementing strategies to
identify communities with potential
environmental justice concerns and engaged in
efforts to conduct outreach and address
environmental hazards in these communities.
The eight ongoing initiatives included
implementing the Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up
Model (SACM), achieving construction completion
at sites, strengthening contracts management,
promoting enforcement first, accelerating cleanup 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 FY94.
Site Evaluation Progress
EPA continued its progress in identifying and
assessing newly discovered sites. At the end of
FY94, there were more than 38,600 sites identified in
the CERCLA Information System, the Superfund
inventory of potentially hazardous waste sites. EPA
had evaluated more than 94 percent of these sites for
potential threats. The assessment activities included
approximately 36,100 preliminary assessments and
17,000 site inspections. Based on these evaluations,
EPA has determined that 1,355 of the sites should be
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL. For
a total of 1,226 remaining on the NPL for FY94.
These sites include 46 proposed to, 43 listed on, and
13 deleted from the NPL during FY94. To date, a
total of 64 sites have been deleted from the NPL.
xiv
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
To enhance site evaluation efforts, the Agency
proceeded with ongoing efforts to address technical
complexities associated with lead and radionuclide
contamination, which could pose special hazards
and problems. To address lead contamination, EPA
continued to validate the Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model and develop guidance for
determining acceptable levels of lead in soil. The
Agency also analyzed results from a three-city study
on the affects of lead contamination in the blood-lead
level of children exposed to the contaminant To
address sites with radioactive contamination, EPA
continued to develop guidance, examined
environmental fate and transport modeling, conducted
clean-up technology demonstrations and evaluations,
and provided technical support to the Regions.
Removal Progress
To protect human health and the environment
from immediate or near-term threats, the Agency and
PRPs started nearly 310 removal actions and
completed 240 during FY94. More than 3,660
removal actions have been started and nearly 3,050
have been completed since the inception of the
Superfund program.
Through S ACM, 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. Early actions may include
emergency, time-critical, or non-time-critical removal
responses or quick remedial responses. To support
the use of early actions inFY94, EPA distributed set-
aside funds to conduct nine early actions in six
Regions.
The Environmental Response Team (ERT)
continued to provide expert support for Superfund
response actions. During the fiscal year, ERT
conducted 103 removal actions and 79 RAs,
responded to 10 oil spills and 2 international incidents,
and conducted 203 training courses nationwide.
Response to international incidents are not paid for
using Superfund dollars.
Under the reportable quantities (RQ) regulatory
program, the Agency promulgated final RQ
adjustments for 62 hazardous substances and added
5 to the list. Also, the Agency continued to work on
regulations to establish administrative reporting
exemptions for naturally occurring radionuclide
releases.
In other efforts, the Agency continued to develop
the remaining volumes of the Superfund Removal
Procedures Manual.
Remedial Progress
Remedial progress during the fiscal year reflects
the Agency's continuing efforts to accelerate the
pace of clean-up activities and complete cleanups at
Superfund sites. At the end of FY94, work had
occurred at 94 percent of the 1,355 sites proposed to,
listed on, or deleted from the NPL, and construction
activities had been completed to place 278 NPL sites
(21 percent) in the construction completion category.
During the year, the Agency and PRPs started nearly
70remedial investigation/feasibility studies (RI/FSs),
1 lORDs, and 120RAs. EPA also signed 99 records
of decision (RODs) for Fund-financed and PRP-
financed sites. At the end of the year, 873 RI/FSs,
447 RDs, and 447 RAs were in progress at 867 sites.
As recommended by the 1993 Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force, EPA
continued several efforts to streamline remedial
activities and increase the consistency and efficiency
in Superfund cleanups. The Agency
Demonstrated presumptive remedies developed
for municipal landfills and sites contaminated
with volatile organic compounds, while working
to develop presumptive remedies for wood-
treater, polychlorinated biphenyl, manufactured-
gas-plant, grain storage, and polluted ground-
water sites;
Released draft soil screening levels (SSLs) for
100 chemicals commonly found at Superfund
sites;
Implemented guidance for addressing DNAPL
contamination of ground water and for invoking
the technical impracticability waiver where
performance standards cannot be achieved.
In efforts to encourage the development and use
of innovative treatment technologies to cleanup
Superfund sites, the Agency took measures to
demonstrate the technologies and provide information
xv
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
about them to potential users. To this end, EPA
continued the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation Program, sponsored seven technical
support centers and the Superfund Technical
Assistance Response Team, and provided access to
information and training. Working together with
other federal agencies, academics, and the private
sector, EPA conducted technology transfer efforts
that included conferences and forums, demonstration
and evaluation of innovative technologies, preparation
of reference materials, and development of training
and continuing education opportunities.
Enforcement Progress
Enforcement progress for FY94 reflects the
Agency's continued commitment to maximize PRP
involvement in financing and conducting cleanup,
and to recover Superfund monies expended for
response actions. During FY94, EPA reached
agreements with PRPs worth more than $1.4 billion
in PRP response work. Through its FY94 cost
recovery efforts, EPA achieved $206 million in
settlements and collected more than $200 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures. Examples
of significant enforcement actions are provided in
Chapter 5 of this Report.
While continuing to promote "enforcement first"
to secure PRP involvement in financing and
conducting cleanups, the Agency also worked to
ensure equity in the enforcement process and to seek
ways to reduce transaction costs. To support these
goals during FY94, the Agency focused on increasing
the use of allocation tools such as alternative dispute
resolution, encouraging early settlements with de
minimis and "de micromis" parties, fostering greater
fairness for owners and prospective purchasers of
Superfund sites, and evaluating the increased use of
mixed funding. The Agency also took steps to
increase the effectiveness of compliance monitoring,
improve cost recovery efforts, and expedite
enforcement activities to support accelerated cleanups
under SACM.
Federal Facility Cleanups
Federal departments and agencies are largely
responsible for implementing CERCLA at federal
facility sites. To ensure federal facility compliance
with CERCLA requirements, EPA provides advice
and assistance, oversees activities, and takes
enforcement action where appropriate. At sites on
the NPL, EPA must concur in remedy selection.
At the end of FY94, there were 1,945 federal
facility 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 sites.
During FY94,10 sites were proposed to and 24 were
listed on the NPL.
With the interagency agreements executed during
the year, a total of 121 of the 150 federal facility sites
had enforceable agreements for cleanup in place.
Activity during the fiscal year at federal facility sites
listed on the NPL, included starting approximately
60 RI/FSs, 50 RDs, and 40 RAs; signing 60 RODs;
and achieving construction completion at 17 sites.
In FY94, the Agency, in conjunction with the
Department of Defense (DOD), states, and local
citizens, implemented the Fast Track Clean-Up
Program to expedite cleanup and reuse of bases
scheduled for closure under the Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) Act. BRAC was enacted to
promote economic recovery of communities near
closing bases. EPA, DOD, and the states established
BRAC clean-up teams (BCTs) at 75 bases in FY94.
Also during the fiscal year, EPA, DOD, and the
Department of Energy (DOE) published guidance
identifying SACM components that provide
opportunities for speeding cleanup. In addition to
the BCTs, EPA participated in several interagency
forums to support federal facility cleanups; these
included the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee, the Federal Facility
Policy Group, the Defense Environmental Restoration
Task Force, and DOE's Environmental Management
Advisory Board. Through the Federal Facilities
Forum, Multisite Technology Confirmation
Initiative, public-private partnerships, and the
Develop On-Site Innovative Technologies
Committee, EPA coordinated efforts to establish
federal facilities as testing and development centers
for innovative technologies.
CERCLA Section 120(3)(5) requires an annual
xvi
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
report to Congress from each federal department
or agency on its progress in implementing
Superfund at its facilities. EPA's progress at its
sites is provided in Section 6.4 of this Report. Of
the sites on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket at the end of FY94,20 were
EPA-owned.
Superfund Program Support
Activities
EPA took measures in FY94 to enhance
community involvement, public access to
Superfund information, and EPA's partnership
with states and Indian tribes. As required by
CERCLA Section 105(f), the Agency also engaged
in efforts to encourage minority firm participation
in Superfund contracting.
In its community involvement efforts, EPA
continued measures to tailor activities to the
specific needs of individual communities and to
identify ways to enhance community involvement
efforts. The Agency emphasized the importance
of effective community involvement in its
administrative improvements and reauthorization
efforts. The Agency also continued to provide
technical outreach to communities, hold national
conferences on community involvement, offer
training and workshops, and facilitate community
access to technical assistance grants (TAGs). To
aid communities inobtaining technical assistance,
EPA awarded 16 TAGs during the fiscal year,
bringing the total number of TAGs awarded since
FY88 to 151, for a total worth of 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. During FY94, the Agency
expanded the Superfund document collection
available through NTIS, continued outreach to
inform the public of the services available, and
began implementing a communications and
outreach plan using NTIS services.
To support state and tribal involvement in the
Superfund response activities, EPA has awarded
nearly $1.3 billion in cooperative agreements (CAs),
including $79 million awarded in FY94 through site-
specific CAs! With Trust Fund resources provided
by EPA under these response agreements, states and
Indian tribes were leading more than 75 RI/FSs,
RDs, and RAs and enforcing more than 110 PRP
responses at Superfund sites during the year.
Continuing to assist states and tribes in developing
comprehensive Superfund programs, EPA also
granted Core Program CAs (CPCAs) worth nearly
$16 million during the year, for a total of $103
million awarded to states and tribes in CPCA funding.
To further support state and tribal Superfund
programs, EPA engaged in outreach activities,
provided technical assistance, and began developing
guidance for a state deferral program for NPL-
caliber sites.
To promote small and disadvantaged business
participation in Superfund contracting in FY94, EP A,
through direct and indirect procurement, awarded
contracts and subcontracts valued at more than $32.2
million to minority contractors to perform Superfund
work. Direct procurement involves any procurement
activity in which EPA is a direct party to a contractual
arrangement for supplies, services or construction.
Under financial assistance programs (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.
To help minority contractors become more successful
in winning Superfund contracts and encourage them
to participate in the Superfund program, EPA
conducted training sessions, conferences, and
seminars throughout the year.
Resource Estimate for Superfund
Implementation
Under section 301(h)(l)(c) of CERCLA, EPA is
required to estimate the resources needed to
implement Superfund, and CERCLA requires that
EPA provide the estimates in this Report. Since the
enactment of CERCLA in 1980, Congress has
xvu
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
provided Superfund with $13.6 billion in budget
authority (FY81 through FY94). This includes $1.7
billion for the pre-SARA period (FY81 through
FY86) and $11.9 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY94.
Estimates of the long-term resources required to
implement Superfund are based on the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM). The OLM estimate of the
cost of completing cleanup of current NPL sites is
more than $17.4 billion for FY95 and beyond,
bringing the total estimated cost for the program to
$31.0 billion.
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.
xvni
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
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 Superf und 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
Appendix C
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 Section 4.6
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
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. [ROD summarizes and builds on
the FS]
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)
51-044-15A
XIX
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
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
51-044-15,1
XX
-------
Chapter 1
Major
The Agency continued to achieve progress in
remediatingournation's hazardous waste sites under
the Superfund program. The Agency also focused
efforts on the anticipated reauthorization of the
CERCLA taxing authority by Congress and
opportunities to provide suggestions for changing
provisions of the CERCLA statute to enhance its
efficiency and equity. Also, continuing to implement
administrative changes proposed in June 1993 by the
Superfund Administrative Improvements Task Force,
the Agency implemented measures for
• Improving clean-up effectiveness and
consistency;
• Expanding community involvement in cleanup;
• Expanding the role of states;
• Increasing enforcement fairness and reducing
transaction costs;
• Ensuring environmental justice; and
• Continuing initiatives to streamline the clean-up
process (e.g., the Superfund Accelerated Clean-
up Model (SACM)), achieve construction
completions, strengthen contracts management,
promote enforcement first, accelerate clean-up
at closing military bases, promote the
development and use of innovative technologies,
enhance compliance monitoring, and improve
the effectiveness of cost recovery.
The Agency's progress in these areas targeted
by the Superfund Administrative Improvements Task
Force is highlighted in this chapter. Most notably the
Agency's progress during FY94 is evident in
achieving construction completions, reaching
enforcement agreements with potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) for cleanup, and increasing use of
settlement tools, such as early de minimis settlements
which resolve the liability of small-volume
contributors, to reduce transaction costs for all
involved PRPs.
• Fulfilling its commitment to accelerate the pace
of cleanup at Superfund sites, EPA completed
construction activities to place 61 additional
National Priorities List (NPL) sites in the
construction completion category during FY94.
As shown in Exhibit 1.0-1, this achievement
brought the total number of NPL sites classified
as construction completions to 278, exceeding
the Agency's national target of 265. Because of
the Agency's aggressive efforts,more than 78
percent of the total sites were placed in the
construction completion category in the past
three years.
• Through aggressive use of the enforcement
authority provided in CERCLA and SARA, the
Agency has reached agreements with PRPs to
undertake more than $10 billion in response
work at Superfund sites. Settlements for FY94
alone totalled over $1.4 billion.
• The Agency' s emphasis on earlier and increased
use of de minimis settlements has resulted in 86
de minimis settlements in the last two years;
more de minimis settlements than were achieved
in the previous twelve years of the Superfund
program. While enhancing fairness to all PRPs
by reducing transaction costs, the Agency also
resolved the liability of more than 5,500 de
minimis PRPs in these 86 settlements.
21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 1.0-1
Progress in Classifying Sites
as Construction Completions
Year 2000
500
400
300
Cumulative
Completions
Year 2000
National Goal 650
End of
FY94
278
FY94
National Goal 265
200
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/ 61'044"1
Office of Program Management and Hazardous Site
Control Division.
1.1 REAUTHORIZATION ACTIVITIES
With CERCLA's taxing authority set to expire
after December 31, 1994, Agency efforts during
FY94 focused on identifying aspects of the program
where legislative amendments would improve the
efficiency and equity of the program. Seeking to
involve all Superfund stakeholders, EPA established
a committee of the National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
as a forum to solicit input from the public, state and
local governments, and private industry. The Agency
also initiated internal and interagency workgroups to
deliberate on specific aspects of the program. Using
the recommendations of these groups, the Agency
and other Federal Agencies and Offices, drafted
legislation to be introduced in the House and Senate.
1.1.1 National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and
Technology
The Agency created a committee of the
NACEPT, an advisory committee to the
Administrator, as a forum to solicit input on views
and concerns about Superfund and other
environmental policies. The committee members
reflect the diversity of stakeholders in the Superfund
program, with representatives from state and local
governments, private industry, environmental groups,
local community organizations, and academia.
NACEPT provided a forum for the Agency to
gain further perspective on Superfund stakeholder's
positions on various topics, such as community
involvement, the role of states, liability of lenders,
funding of "orphan shares," concerns associated
with municipal landfills, and remedy selection. In
the course of seven meetings held from June through
November of 1993, the committee reviewed the
current performance of the Superfund program and
suggested options for administrative and legislative
improvements. In addition, NACEPT proposed
changes that would help foster increased state and
local involvement in Superfund decisions and actions.
NACEPT documented its findings in a report
published in December 1993.
22
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Public participation was a critical component of
the NACEPT meetings. The NACEPT committee
invited the public to submit papers for presentation
during its meetings, and all seven committee meetings
were open to the public. Also, the meeting on
community involvement was broadcast to the ten
EPA Regions so that local citizens could express
their views and present their proposals for
improvements.
1.1.2 Agency Workgroups
The Agency established a number of workgroups
to analyze reauthorization proposals, prepare
legislative proposals, and develop the
Administration's position on Superfund
reauthorization. Focusing on such issues as liability,
remedy selection, community involvement, and the
role of states, the workgroups developed materials
for the Agency's Legislative Task Force, chaired by
the Director of the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement. The workgroups also reported directly
to the Deputy Administrator, who served as chairm an
of the Superfund Steering Committee. The steering
committee was charged with overseeing Agency
task forces in evaluating the Superfund program and
developing legislative reform proposals.
1.1.3 Interagency Workgroups
The Agency provided NACEPT's report and
legislative suggestions to the Interagency Policy
Committee, which was established and chaired by
White House personnel. The committee included
agencies and departments with an interest in
Superfund legislation, such as EPA, the Department
of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE),
the Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Interior, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Using the NACEPT report and the
legislative suggestions, the Interagency Policy
Committee developed the Administration's position
on Superfund reauthorization. The committee's
deliberations resulted in the Administration's bill,
the Superfund Reform Act of 1994.
1.1.4 Legislative Activities
The Administration's proposed Superfund
Reform Act of 1994 was introduced in Congress on
February 3, 1994. It was referred to the House
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on
Transportation and Hazardous Materials as H.R.
3800 and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee's Subcommittee on Superfund,
Recycling, and Solid Waste Management as S. 1834.
The proposed legislation was intended to produce a
faster, fairer, and more cost-effective Superfund
program. Suggested amendments focused on
enhancing community involvement, expanding the
role of states, reforming the remedy selection process,
pursuing liability reforms to reduce transaction costs
and increase fairness, and creating a fund titled, the
Environmental Insurance Resolution Fund, to resolve
coverage disputes between PRPs and their insurers.
The proposed Superfund Reform Act of 1994
completed 16 legislative milestones between February
1994 and September 1994, including hearings and
mark-ups, but the House Rules Committee did not
clear the proposed legislation for a final vote on the
House Floor. The Administration believes the reforms
contained in the compromise House bill represent
the best package of reforms for Superfund; the
Agency will use the bill to measure the effectiveness
of future reform efforts.
1.2 ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPROVEMENTS
In June 1993, EPA established the Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force to examine
and propose enhancements to the Superfund program
that could be accomplished within the existing
regulatory framework. During FY93 and FY94, the
Agency implemented recommendations made by the
task force; the Agency set and achieved its goal to
implement most of the task force's recommendations
bytheendofFY94.
The Superfund Administrative Improvements
Task Force proposed implementation of nine new or
23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
enhancedinitiativesandcontinuationof eight ongoing
initiatives. The nine new or enhanced initiatives
center around the five themes shown in Exhibit
1.2-1.
The eight ongoing initiatives include
implementing the Superfund Accelerated Qean-Up
Model (SACM), achieving construction completion
at sites, strengthening contracts management,
promoting "enforcement first," accelerating cleanup
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 published quarterly reports during
FY94 on its progress in implementing each initiative.
The Agency also developed a close-out report to
provide a description of each initiative, summarize
accomplishments, describe the resultant benefits,
and identify "lessons learned." Highlights of progress
achieved in these initiatives are provided in the
remainder of this chapter.
1.3 IMPROVING CLEAN-UP
EFFECTIVENESS AND
CONSISTENCY
Capitalizing on the experience gained during
the 14 years of the program, the Agency examined
the historical selection and performance of remedies
to identify ways to standardize decision-making in
remedy selection. Two of the most promising efforts
are the development of presumptive, or standard,
remedies and the development of soil screening
levels (SSLs). Initial analysis of the results of
presumptive remedy pilot efforts has already shown
savings of time and money, as well as increased
effectiveness and consistency in remedy selection.
1.3.1 Streamlining and Expediting the
Clean-up Process
Following the recommendations of the
Superfund Admini strati ve Improvements Task Force,
the Agency engaged in four specific efforts to
streamline and expedite cleanup: developing
presumptive remedies, standardizing remedial design
(RD) specifications, enhancing strategies to address
technical complexities encountered with dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) contamination, and
improving strategies for addressing lead
contamination. Through these efforts, the Agency
shared information among sites to eliminate
duplication of effort, facilitate site characterization,
and simplify analysis of clean-up options.
Developing Presumptive Remedies
The Agency evaluated historical patterns of
selecting and implementing remedies to identify
presumptive or standard remedies for specific types
of sites. Through site demonstrations, the Agency
began testing the presumptive remedies.
During FY94, the Agency conducted seven
demonstration projects to pilot presumptive remedies
developed for municipal landfill sites and for sites
with volatile organic compounds in soil. Observed
benefits from the use of presumptive remedies in
these demonstrations include streamlined feasibility
study analyses, streamlined negotiations leading to
PRP acceptance, focused sampling and risk
assessments for municipal landfills, and shortened
RDs. At one of the municipal landfill demonstration
sites, the Agency esti mates that use of the presumptive
remedy will cut three to six years from the period
between the start of the remedial investigation/
feasibility study and construction of the remedy.
By the end of FY94, the Agency was examining
additional presumptive remedies. These new
remedies include presumptive remedies for wood-
treater, ground-water, polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated, manufactured-gas-plant, and
grain-storage sites.
Standardizing Specifications for Remedial
Designs
Through an interagency agreement, EPA and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
developed standardized RD specifications for non-
site-specific portions of remediation work.
Throughout FY94, EPA and USAGE produced 15
standardized design documents, including
24
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
standardized design components for air stripping
systems, site clearing and grubbing, therm al treatment
systems, and health and safety requirements. By
using standardized specifications for these
components, not only is the design process
streamlined, but increased uniformity and consistency
is achieved across projects. EPA has advertised the
availability of the completed design specifications
through the Agency's Engineering Forum.
Addressing DNAPL Contamination
Because of their complex fate and transport
characteristics, DNAPLs in the ground water present
difficulties in site characterization and cleanup.
Reflecting advances in the understanding of these
complexities, the Agency released two technical
guidance documents on characterizing DNAPL sites
and on providing technical impracticability (TI)
waivers for sites where complete restoration is not
feasible. The Agency's guidance on characterizing
Exhibit 1.2-1
Superfund Administrative Improvements: Highlights of New and Continuing Initiatives
Improving Clean-up Effectiveness and Consistency
Streamlining and expediting the clean-up process through the use of presumptive remedies
and standardized remedial design specifications;
Enhancing strategies to address technical complexities encountered with DNAPL and lead
contamination; and
Developing soil screening levels to provide more consistent standards for soil study and cleanup.
Enhancing Community Involvement
Pursuing activities for increased and earlier community involvement in clean-up actions; and
Facilitating public access to site information and site decision-makers.
Enhancing the Role of States
Expanding the role of states in Superfund cleanups, allowing more effective and efficient use
of available federal and state resources; and
Deferring NPL-caliber sites to states for cleanup.
Increasing Enforcement Fairness and Reducing Transaction Costs
Increasing use of settlement tools such as ADR, early de minimi's settlements, and mixed
funding to reduce transaction costs and expedite settlements; and
Increasing fairness for owners of Superfund property, including prospective purchasers who
will clean up the site and return it to productive use.
Environmental Justice
Ensuring health risks from environmental hazards are adequately addressed for low-income
and minority populations; and
Improving communication with and involvement of communities in clean-up areas with
environmental justice concerns.
51-044-37
25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
sites with DNAPL contamination presents a strategy
for locating and evaluating the extent of the DNAPL
contamination, and provides advice on initiating
appropriate responses. The guidance forTI waivers
addresses situations, such as are found at some
DNAPL sites, where ground-water remediation will
not achieve performance standards. Both guidance
documents place special emphasis on early actions to
prevent exposure, to contain contaminant ground-
water plumes and DNAPL sources, and to prevent
migration of DNAPLs. Implementation of the
recommended strategies has resulted in better
technical evaluations, more consistency among
remedial approaches, and greater protection of public
health and the environment due to better site
management.
During FY94, the Agency conducted seminars
involving more than 2,500 participants to further
examine policy issues for addressing DNAPL
contamination. The Agency also continued to
encourage development of innovative technologies
that can effectively address DNAPL contamination.
Improving the Strategy to Address Lead
Contamination
EPA continued to work to assist risk managers
in making accurate risk estimates and selecting
effective clean-up methods for sites with lead
contamination. Lead is a highly toxic metal that can
adversely affect the nervous and reproductive systems,
and can retard cognitive and behavioral development
in children. It contaminates many Superfund sites,
particularly large-area mine-tailing or smelting sites.
Lead contamination is also a primary concern in
urban areas not associated with Superfund sites. At
such sites, lead exposure may result from inhalation
or ingestion of lead in air, soil, dust, drinking water,
or paint.
During FY94, the Agency issued a guidance
document titled, Revised Interim Soil-Lead Guidance
for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action
Facilities, to assist riskmanagers at lead-contaminated
sites. This guidance considers the activities and
requi rements of Agency offices, such as the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, which is working
to promulgate health-based standards for lead in soil,
paint, and dust. The guidance also reflects careful
consideration of strategies for large-area lead sites
and preliminary results from EPA's analysis, the
Three City Study, that concerns blood-lead levels in
children who were exposed to the contaminant in
Baltimore, Boston, and Cincinnati.
1.3.2 Developing Soil Screening
Levels
EPA continued to develop SSLs to address the
need for more consistent standards in soil cleanup.
Historically, soil clean-up levels for contaminants
have been set on a site-specific basis, requiring a
detailed examination of each Superfund site. By
using established SSLs, EPA intends to streamline
soil investigations, thereby reducing the time and
cost to accomplish cleanup. The use of SSLs will
also enhance consistency across soil cleanups.
SSLs identify contaminant levels below which
there is no concern and above which further site-
specific evaluation is warranted. Thus, the SSLs can
be used to identify soils that pose little risk and soils
that require additional study to determine the actions
required for cleanup. During the fiscal year, EPA
continued to develop draft guidance for developing
risk-based, site-specific SSL values. The draft soil
screening guidance, released in August 1994,
provided SSLs for 100 common contaminants in
soil.
As part of its effort to develop the draft SSL
guidance, EPA solicited comments from Superfund
stakeholders and initiated projects to evaluate the
proposed exposure pathways and sampling methods
used in establishing the SSLs. During the fiscal year,
EPA completed a pilot study, involving ten sites, and
determined that exposure pathways proposed in the
soil screening guidance are sufficient to model
exposure in a residential area. The Agency also
initiated a SSL demonstration project to evaluate the
proposed sampling methods.
26
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
1.4 ENHANCING COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
Community awareness and involvement is often
crucial for achieving effective and speedy
implementation of Superfund clean-up actions and
for ensuring that communities are satisfied with the
results of these actions. Early involvement of
communities in the process is important so that they
can agree on the scope and nature of clean-up actions.
Moreover, better informed communities can provide
more input for site decision-making and, in many
cases, enable clean-up efforts to take place earlier.
To increase and enhance community involvement,
the Agency improved public access to site information
and site decision-makers, revised outreach materials,
and used innovative techniques to involve and inform
communities. As discussed later in this chapter, the
Agency also expanded its commitment to, andefforts
in, addressing environmental justice concerns at
Superfund sites.
To make information more accessible to people
near Superfund sites, EPA has worked with affected
citizens to set upcommunity advisory groups (CAGs)
and participated in site-specific advisory boards at
DOD sites. By the end of FY94, the Agency had
selected 11 CAG pilot sites. CAGs and advisory
boards, comprised of Regional environmental groups,
PRPs, and city, county, and Regional planning boards,
allow the stakeholders and regulating agencies to
work together to understand each other's needs and
requirements during site cleanup. Each CAG and
advisory board is designed to fit the needs of the
particular community.
The Agency also implemented simplified
procedures for obtaining technical assistance grants
(TAGs). TAGs provide funds that the communities
can use to hire a technical advisor. To facilitate TAG
awards to communities, EPA reduced the paperwork
involved in obtaining a TAG and revised TAG
materials and application forms to make them easier
to use. During the fiscal year, EPA convened a series
of community involvement focus groups, comprising
community members, TAG recipients and applicants,
and local govemmentofficials, to get direct feedback
on the TAG program and on proposals for enhanced
community involvement activities. Using footage
from the focus groups, EPA began producing a video
to summarize the main points made by the
participants. The Agency completed the video during
FY94 for distribution to the Regional community
involvement offices for their use in community
outreach.
To communicate the technical nature of the
Superfund program in a way that all parties can
comprehend, EPA also worked to improve its outreach
materials.
• EPA revised a course that informs community
members about the goals of the Superfund
program and the stages a site must go through
before cleanup is completed. The course is
designed for community groups of less than 20
people. Initially designed by Region 6, it has
been modified to apply to all Regions. The
course also incorporates SACM and the
Superfund administrative improvements
initiatives.
• The Agency published fact sheets to explain
Superfund topics in non-technical terms, answer
commonly asked questions, and identify contacts
at EPA Headquarters and Regional offices. One
fact sheet series describes common contaminants,
their health effects, and recommendations for
protecting human health. Also, the Agency has
developed fact sheets describing common
treatment technologies and the site assessment
process.
• EPA developed a short guide and 10-minute
video about the Superfund program entitled,
This is Superfund: A Citizen's Guide to EPA's
Superfund Program. The guide and video were
sent to the Regions for their use in community
outreach.
• EPA translated numerous documents, guides,
fact sheets, and site-specific materials into
Spanish to increase the involvement of Spanish-
speaking communities near Superfund sites. The
Agency also translated site-specific materials
into other languages, such as Vietnamese and
Portuguese, to meet the needs of specific
communities.
27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
In other efforts, Regions continued to simplify
the ways in which they interact with the public.
Some Regions invited community members to short
discussions on the nature of clean-up activities at a
site, followed by site tours. For several sites, the
Agency set up a toll-free number that citizens could
call to hear a recording about the clean-up progress
EPA was making. Throughout the year, Regions
shared information about successful community
involvement efforts and targeted several sites where
they will initiate additional innovative community
involvement techniques.
1.5 EXPANDING THE ROLE OF
STATES
Greater state involvement in Superfund cleanups
allows states and the Agency to use available resources
more effectively and efficiently and to clean up
hazardous waste sites more quickly. EPA has
historically supported state Superfund programs by
providing funding and technical assistance. With
this support, many states have developed clean-up
programs under their own laws and have addressed
contamination at a large number of non-NPL-caliber
sites. To expand the role of qualified states to include
responsibility for oversight of PRP-financed cleanups
at NPL-caliber sites, as recommended by the
Superfund Administrative ImprovementsTaskForce,
the Agency began implementing a deferral program.
Under the program, EPA defers listing of a site on the
NPL while interested and qualified states enforce
and oversee PRP response actions. The Agency
offers a similar opportunity for involvement in the
program to qualified territories, commonwealths,
and federally recognized Indian tribes.
During FY94, a State Deferral Workgroup,
comprised of representatives from every Regional
office and several Headquarters offices, developed
draft guidance outlining the criteria that a state, or
other qualified governing body, must meet in order
to participate in the deferral program. The guidance
establishes the characteristics necessary for including
a site in the program and addresses procedural
requirements, EPA oversight, the availability of
financial assistance, clean-up levels that must be
achieved to protect human health and the environment,
and community involvement.
Piloting the deferral program, EPA deferred 22
NPL-caliber sites in seven states for state oversight
of the cleanup, including three sites added to the
deferral program during FY94. Initially, to assess
the success of the deferral program, EPA will evaluate
four measures at the pilot sites: the existence of an
agreement between EPA and the state specifying
roles, responsibilities, and schedules of performance;
the existence of an agreement between the state and
PRPs describing work to be performed; the response
action(s) taking place at the site; and community
support for the deferral. The Agency will monitor
experiences at pilot sites through the State Deferral
Workgroup.
1.6 INCREASING FAIRNESS IN
ENFORCEMENT AND REDUCING
TRANSACTION COSTS
Through effective use of enforcement authority
provided by CERCLA and SARA, EPA has reached
settlements with PRPs for response work
cumulatively worth more than $10 billion. In FY94
alone, PRPs were financing 75 percent of new RDs
and remedial actions (RAs). Although it
recommended that the Agency continue its
"enforcement first" approach to maximize PRP
involvement in financing and conducting cleanups,
the Superfund Administrative Improvements Task
Force also suggested that the Agency take steps to
ensure fairness in its enforcement and look for ways
to reduce transaction costs. The task force outlined
specific measures for
• Promoting greater use of allocation tools;
• Fostering more settlements with small-volume
waste contributors;
Increasing fairness for owners of Superfund
property; and
• Evaluating the Agency's mixed-funding policy.
28
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
An overview of efforts in each of these four
areas is provided below; a more detailed discussion
of these efforts can be found in Chapter 5 this Report.
1.6.1 Promoting Greater Use of
Allocation Tools
Under CERCLA, PRPs are responsible for the
cost of cleaning up sites. When more than one PRP
is responsible for paying clean-up costs, settlement
negotiations include allocation of the clean-up costs
among the PRPs. PRPs frequently incur high
transaction costs when efforts to allocate clean-up
costs are unsuccessful or prolonged. To facilitate
allocation of clean-up costs, the Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force
recommended that EPA increase its use of alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) tools for creating proposed
allocations. The task force also suggested that the
Agency take steps to facilitate the sharing of
information that can be used in allocations with and
among the PRPs and to provide guidance for
developing allocations.
In response to task force recommendations, the
Agency has sought to increase the use of ADR for
creating proposed allocations. ADR involves the use
of a neutral third party to organize negotiations,
facilitate settlement deliberations, and provide an
opinion to the parties in negotiation. During FY93
and FY94, the Agency assisted PRPs in employing
ADR and non-binding allocation techniques at
approximately 30 sites. To communicate the uses of
ADR to support Superfund program activities, the
Agency held a national Superfund ADR Workshop
in November 1993. This workshop was attended by
nearly 100 government and private parties.
The Agency also worked to facilitate PRP access
to site information that can be used to develop a cost
allocation, such as information about PRPs' waste-
in contributions. Implementing a June 1993
memorandum, Regions worked to make such
information available to PRPs as soon as possible,
preferably before the special notice letter is issued
requesting that the PRPs undertake the response
action. By sharing the information with PRPs early
in the Superfund process, the Agency seeks to develop
cost allocations more efficiently.
To provide guidance for developing cost
allocations, the Agency evaluated historical cost
allocation efforts and began identifying factors to be
considered in developing the allocations. In August
1994, the Agency issued a white paper on the
availability of waste-in volumetric information at
NPL sites and its impact on site settlements. In
September 1994, the Agency issued a report on
currently used allocation methods and common
implementation issues. The Agency will incorporate
the findings of these studies in developing guidance
on factors to consider in allocating costs.
1.6.2 Fostering More Settlements with
Small-Volume Waste
Contributors
To provide greater fairness for small-volume
(de minimis and "de micromis") waste contributors,
the Agency encourages more, early, and expedited
settlements with these parties. Early settlements not
only reduce transaction costs for such PRPs but also
for PRPs who remain in later, more intensive
negotiations, because fewer PRPs are involved.
To encourage settlements with the small-volume
contributors, the Agency streamlined the de minimis
settlement process, established a new policy
protecting "de micromis" parties (extremely small-
volume waste contributors, and developed a
communications strategy to assist PRPs in
understanding the settlement process. EPA, as a
matter of enforcement discretion, has typically not
pursued "de micromis" parties, but they have
increasingly been subject to lawsuits from major
contributors. The Agency also issued guidance on
"de micromis" settlements in FY93. Implementing
the streamlined de minimis process, which was
outlined in a July 1993 guidance, the Agency reached
86 de minimis settlements involving 5,500 PRPs
during the past two years. This total includes 43 de
minimis settlements reached with more than 4,000
PRPs at 39 sites in FY94.
The Agency' s communication strategy was key
to the Agency's success in reaching de minimis
settlements. The strategy recommends a variety of
29
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
approaches to ensure successful communication with
parties prior to, during, and following de minimis
settlement negotiations. To inform de minimis parties
who may be unfamiliar with the Superfund program
and the de minimis settlement process, the Agency
developed a model notice letter and prepared a
brochure describing the process. EPA has also used
innovative communications tools, such as a toll-free
telephone information line that parties can use to ask
questions and request information from EPA.
Early and effective communication with major
parties has also been demonstrated to be essential in
ensuring that they will support, and not oppose, a de
minimis settlement. The major parties have
substantial interest in ensuring that the Agency obtains
a fair and reasonable settlement with small-volume
contributors, so that their total liability will be
appropriately reduced.
1.6.3 Increasing Fairness for Owners
of Superfund Property
The Superfund Administrative Improvements
Task Force recommended that EPA seek ways to
increase fairness for owners of Superfund property,
including prospective purchasers intending to
redevelop the property. Under CERCLA, past and
current owners of properties where there has been a
release or threatened release of a hazardous substance
are liable for cleanup of the property. Prospective
purchasers of contaminated property may be reluctant
to purchase the property with associated but undefined
liabilities. In some cases, however, prospective
purchasers are willing to purchase the property and
conduct or finance some clean-up work in return for
a covenant-not-to-sue from EPA.
During FY94, the Agency drafted expanded
criteria for evaluating circumstances in which EPA
may provide an administrative covenant-not-to-sue
in agreements with prospective purchasers. Where
the Agency can successfully reach agreements with
prospective purchasers, the Agency, local
communities, and the regulated community will
benefit from the cleanup and redevelopment of a site
as well as the creation of jobs and the return of the
property to productive use. The prospective
purchasers also will benefit by gaining access to a
prime business location.
As a defense to CERCLA liability, a property
owner can claim that it is an "innocent landowner"
and had no knowledge of releases or threatened
releases at the property prior to its acquisition. To
claim this defense, the property owner must show
that itmade"all appropriate inquiry" into the previous
ownership and uses of the property. To assist
prospective property purchasers in conducting "all
appropriate inquiry," the Agency developed a report
describing publicly available information sources
that can be used to research prior ownership and use.
EPA also reviews "all appropriate inquiry" standards
and related materials developed by other federal
agencies, states, and organizations. Through this
effort, the Agency is supplementing efforts of private
professional organizations that are developing
standards for conducting property assessments.
In other efforts, the Agency continued to
implement supplemental guidance on federal liens
that was issued in FY93. Under the guidance, when
EPA intends to file a federal lien to secure
reimbursement of response costs that the Agency has
incurred at a property, the Agency provides notice to
the owner thereby expanding the opportunity for the
owner to comment on the lien before it is filed. These
actions are designed to increase fairness to a Superfund
property owner.
1.6.4 Evaluating Mixed-Funding
Policy
The Agency uses mixed funding in situations
where it is appropriate to recover less than 100
percent of the site costs from PRPs. EPA uses three
types of mixed-ftinding approaches: preauthorization,
in which PRPs perform the work and the Agency
agrees to reimburse them for a portion of the costs;
cashouts, in which the PRPs fund a portion of the
work that EPA performs; and mixed work, in which
the PRP and the Agency perform different aspects of
the cleanup.
In response to a recommendation by the
SupernindAdministrativelmprovementsTaskForce,
the Agency identified measures to streamline the
30
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
mixed-funding decision-making process and the
requirements for preauthorization mixed-funding.
The Agency assessed the proposed streamlining
measures at seven mixed-funding demonstration
sites during FY94. At six of the seven sites, the
Agency and PRPs reached settlements. Results of
the demonstrations indicated that the use of mixed
funding was instrumental in helping the Agency
reach the settlements. Further, the Regions found
that the streamlined processes used in the
demonstration projects simplified the use of mixed
funding. To streamline the decision-making
component of the process, the Regions obtained
Headquarters approval to use mixed funding for the
demonstration projects earlier than in the standard
process (i.e., pre-approval). The Agency also
streamlined application and documentation
requirements for preauthorized mixed funding by
using model preauthorization language in the
settlement and decision documents, by providing
guidance to PRPs on preauthorized response actions,
and by conducting training for EPA staff on the
preauthorization process.
The demonstration projects were the second of
a two-phase evaluation of mixed funding. The
demonstrations follow a first-phase study conducted
in FY93 to evaluate different mixed-funding options
and estimate the cost implications to the Trust Fund
if EPA routinely paid for the "orphan share" of clean-
up costs.
1.7 ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
Studies have indicated that low-income 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 multiple contaminant
sources, such as industrial pollution, vehicle
emissions, hazardous waste sites, and lead-based
paint.
To ensure that these risks to low-income and
minority populations are adequately addressed by
EPA's waste programs, the Agency convened the
Environmental Justice Task Force in November
1993. The Environmental Justice Task Force included
representatives from all Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response program areas, the Regions,
and other EPA offices with an interest in waste
programs and environmental justice. The task force
produced a report in April 1994 that included
recommendations to ensure environmental justice in
each of the waste programs, including Superfund.
Based on the task force's recommendations, the
Agency began developing a series of initiatives to
address environmental justice concerns. In one
initiative, the Agency began a demographic analysis
of Superfund sites using geographic information
systems. The analysis is intended to ensure
identification of sites in areas with low-income and
minority populations that warrant Superfund
attention. Also, the Agency analyzed site assessment
priority-setting to ensure that environmental justice
concerns are considered. In other efforts, the Regions
began identifying geographic areas where community
groups have expressed concerns about potential
environmental justice issues. The Regions will work
with state and local governments to assess the impacts
of the Superfund sites within these geographic areas
and develop strategies for appropriate actions.
To improve communications and build trust
between EPA and affected communities, EPA
established the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC) under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. The NEJAC subcommittee
on waste and facility siting held meetings in August
and October 1994. As of the end of the fiscal year,
the subcommittee was reviewingdraftEPAguidelines
for identifying and aiding communities with
environmental justice concerns.
The Agency also helped communities in areas
with environmental justice concerns to participate
more fully in the Superfund remedial process. The
Agency drafted guidance on the formation of CAGs
and, in cooperation with the Regions, identified 14
potential environmental justice sites where CAGs
will be established. To enhance the ability of Native
Americans to respond to hazardous waste sites, the
Agency co-sponsored the second National Tribal
Conference on Environmental Management in May
31
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
1994. The Agency also sponsored a teacher's
institute to educate teachers from areas where there
are hazardous waste concerns about key
environmental issues. The teacher's institute provides
instruction on developing an environmental action
plan and obtaining scientific information. To enhance
public outreach to communities in areas of
environmental justice concerns, the Agency translated
informational materials into the common languages
of the communities.
In other efforts, the Agency developed
interagency partnerships to address environmental
justice concerns:
• EPA worked with the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and
the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences to conduct community outreach in low-
income and minority areas with serious health
concerns. As of the end of the fiscal year, EPA,
HHS, and ATSDR were working on three medical
assistance pilots at the Del Amo/Montrose site in
California, the Old Reichold Bros, site in
Missouri, and the Southern Wood/Piedmont site
in Georgia. Through these pilots, the agencies
are providing technical assistance, health
education, medical testing, and medical
monitoring.
• EPA worked with the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) Lead Abatement
Program to address lead problems in housing in
low income and minority communities. EPA
initiated aone-year detail foran Agency employee
to HUD's Lead Abatement Program. The Agency
also began developing a list of Superfund sites
eligible for HUD lead abatement grants.
• The Agency explored ways to employ residents
in conducting clean-up activities around certain
environmental justice sites. EPA examined an
apprenticeship program sponsored by HUD and
HHS as a model for an apprenticeship program
for site cleanup.
1.8 CONTINUING INITIATIVES
As recommended by the Administrative
Improvements Task Force, EPA continued several
ongoing efforts designed to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of the Superfund program. Exhibit
1.8-1 highlights these initiatives.
1.8.1 Implementing the Superfund
Accelerated Clean-Up Model
SACM accelerates cleanup and risk reduction
at Superfund sites by
• Consolidating site-assessment functions into a
single, continuous process;
Using early actions to address the worst threats
to people and the environment first;
Carrying out early actions while Regional
decision teams (RDTs) assess the need for long-
term actions;
• Implementing presumptive remedies, where
appropriate; and
• Initiating earlier enforcement and community
involvement activities.
Early actions may include removing soil and
waste, preventing access to contaminated areas,
capping landfills, relocating people, and providing
alternative drinking water supplies. Long-term
actions m ay include addressing contaminated ground
water and preserving wetlands and estuaries. Exhibit
1.8-2 illustrates the SACM process.
During FY94, EPA completed a series of SACM
pilots. The Agency documented the performance
and benefits of the pilots in Status of Superfund
Regional Pilots: End-of-Year Report, published in
December 1993. Through the pilots, the Agency
explored forming RDTs to prioritize sites and select
appropriate actions. Actions included integrating
site assessments, taking early actions, and choosing
32
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 1.8-1
Superfund Administrative Improvements: Highlights of Continued Initiatives
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
Accelerating cleanup and more rapidly reducing risks to human health and the environment;
and
Allowing for earlier and more meaningful community involvement, encouraging earlier
enforcement, and increasing the role of states.
Construction Completions
Increasing number of sites where any necessary remedial construction has been completed
(from 61 at the beginning of FY92 to 278 in FY94).
Contract Management
Enhancing cost controls and tools and saving government monies; and
Increasing flexibility and strengthening contract management through decentralization.
Enforcement First
Majority of new remedial actions are being financed by PRPs (75 percent in FY94); and
PRP response settlements reached over $1.5 billion in FY94, achieving more than $10 billion
in total PRP commitment under the program.
Base Closure
Enabling more than 50 parcels of base property to be leased for reuse and property at six
bases to be transferred by deed; and
Focusing on accelerating cleanup at closing bases.
Innovative Treatment Technologies
Enhancing efforts to assemble and distribute information about technologies to users; and
Increasing use of federal facilities as testing grounds for new technologies.
Compliance Monitoring
Minimizing delays in cleanup due to PRP non-compliance with orders and agreements.
Cost Recovery
Prioritizing cases where the statute of limitations is an issue to recovering the costs; and
Proposing a rule that will aid in resolving common cost recovery issues, reducing transaction
costs and minimizing potential for litigation.
appropriate long-term actions. The pilots
demonstrated the effectiveness of SACM concepts
through measurable time and cost savings. For
example, Region 8 shortened the timeframe for site
assessment at a site in Utah from three years to one
year. In another pilot, Region 10 saved more than 15
months and $100,000 at a site in Washington by
using an early action. In addition to time and cost
S1-044-30A
savings, the SACM pilots achieved more rapid
reduction of risk to human health and the environment,
earlier community involvement in cleanup, and an
increased role for states.
In addition to the pilots, the Agency undertook
a number of other actions to carry out the
implementation of SACM. In June 1994, the Agency
sponsored a national workshop in Dallas, Texas, to
33
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
communicate the success of the SACM pilots and to
discuss full implementation of the model. The
Agency issued various guidance documents to support
implementation efforts, including Focusing
Resources on Worst Sites First, Site Inspection
Prioritization Guidance, Guidance on Conducting
Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under
CERCLA, SACM Coordination Strategy, Integrating
Removal and Remedial Site Assessment
Investigations, and the SACM Update. The Regions
prepared supplementary guidance to foster their
efforts. In other efforts, some Regions invited state
representatives to act as members of RDTs and
conducted cross-training activities between On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial ProjectManagers
(RPMs). Finally, EPA revised its program
management measures to reflect SACM
accomplishments.
The Agency expects that full implementation of
SACM will cut years off the clean-up process at sites.
Although Regions are finding that SACM
implementation requires more front-end resources,
the end result is that cleanups are completed more
quickly. SACM's initiative to involve communities
early in the clean-up process also assists the Agency
and citizen groups in arriving at a clean-up plan that
is acceptable to both parties.
1.8.2 Achieving Construction
Completions
The Agency's focus on activities to complete
remedial construction resulted in the Agency placing
its 278th NPL site in the construction completion
category during FY94. A site is placed in the
construction completion category when
• Any necessary physical construction is complete,
whether or not final clean-up levels or other
requirements have been achieved;
• EPA has determined that the response action
should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or
• The site qualifies fordeletion or has been deleted
from the NPL.
Exhibit 1.8-2
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model
Site Screening
and Assessment
(Assessments combined)
Regional
Decision
Team
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 51-037-14
FY94 is the third consecutive year in which the
Agency has exceeded its targets for construction
completion. In FY92, the Agency more than doubled
the number of construction completion sites from 61
to 149, exceeding the target of 130 sites. By the end
of FY93, the Agency had more than tripled the
original number of construction completion sites to
217, exceeding its target of 200 sites. The Agency
quadrupled the number of construction completion
sites to 278 by the end of FY94, exceeding its target
of 265 sites.
To support Regions in completing construction
activities, EPA maintained a comprehensive list of
all potential construction completion sites and
monitored the status of each site. Regional efforts to
achieve construction completions were aided by
Agency efforts to streamline the documentation
requirements for completions and to clarify the
completion procedures.
34
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
1.8.3 Strengthening Contracts
Management
In its ongoing effort to strengthen its
management of Superfund contracts, the Agency
focused on continued implementation of the
Superfund Long-Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS)
and development of guidance to improve cost
planning and cost oversight. From these efforts, the
Superfund program began to realize benefits of cost
savings in areas such as program management and
improved contractor performance.
LTCS supports a "one program" approach to
assessment, enforcement, and cleanup at Superfund
sites by basing contract design on functional rather
than program-specific lines. The strategy also
decentralizes contracts management functions from
Headquarters to the Regions to increase flexibility
and strengthen oversight, management, and
accountability. Moving forward with the LTCS
during FY94, the Agency awarded new Regionally
based Enforcement Support Services Contracts and
issued solicitations for other new Regionally based
contracts. In March 1994, EPA also completed the
Long-Term Contracting Strategy Review Final
Report, making adjustments to the strategy. For
example, specific adjustments include allocating
additional resources for contract management in the
Regions.
To improve cost planning and oversight, EPA
completed the Cost Management Manual for
Superfund in June 1994. The manual describes
procedures for preparing detailed statements of work,
conducting thorough reviews of contractor invoices,
reducing program management costs, and applying
more stringent contract controls. The manual also
incorporates guidance for preparing and using
independent government cost estimates. The Agency
has incorporated these procedures into the contract
management procedures for the new Enforcement
Support Services Contracts and will also include
them in the new Regionally based Response Action
Contracts.
1.8.4 Promoting Enforcement First
The 1989 ManagementReview of the Superfund
Program, also known as the 90-Day Study,
recommended measures to strengthen enforcement
and increase PRP response. These measures involved
increased use of CERCLA and SARA enforcement
and settlement authorities, better integration of
enforcement and Fund-financed clean-up activities,
improved case management and case support,
enhanced PRP oversight and cost recovery, and
better interagency coordination. As a result of the
emphasis on enforcement, PRP involvement in
Superfund response work increased. The percentage
of RAs financed by PRPs increased from 30 percent
in FY87 to 60 percent in FY90 and to 75 percent in
FY94. During that same seven-year period, the value
of PRP response settlements increased from less than
$0.5 billion a year to over $1.4 billion per year.
As recommended by the Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force, EPA
continued to identify ways to encourage, or if
necessary, to compel PRPs to undertake cleanup.
The Agency
• Encouraged the use of settlement tools such as
ADR, mixed funding, de minimis settlements,
and cashouts to reduce the time required to
achieve settlements;
• Increased the use of CERCLA Section 106
unilateral administrative orders (UAOs) to
compel PRP response;
• Improved case support by increasing the
comprehensiveness of the administrative record
and cost recovery documentation for each case;
• Emphasized bringing PRPs into negotiations as
early as possible;
• Worked closely with the Department of Justice
and other governmental bodies to facilitate
administrative decision-making and expedite
settlements; and
35
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
• Emphasized more complete communication
among EPA offices to coordinate and speed up
enforcement activities.
EPA's effective use of the enforcement and
settlement authorities provided in CERCLA and
SARA has encouraged greater PRP participation in
response work. The strict, joint, and several liability
scheme of CERCLA has proven to be a strong
incentive for settlement. Likewise, through the
treble damages provision of CERCLA Section
107(c)(3), PRPs are encouraged to comply with
U AOs. The Agency' s successful enforcement efforts
result in the saving of taxpayer dollars, allow for
more cleanups, and conserve government resources.
Cumulatively, PRP commitments for response work
at Superfund sites exceeded $10 billion through
FY94.
1.8.5 Accelerating Cleanup at Closing
Military Bases
Closure or realignment of military bases has a
potentially significant impact on the economies of
states and local communities. Responding to the
need for quick transfer of the base properties to non-
federal owners for reuse, the Agency worked with
DOD to accelerate cleanup of these properties. FY94
was the first year of EPA's implementation of the
five-year Model Accelerated Clean-up Program to
"fast-track" cleanup at installations selected for
closure or realignment.
By the end of FY94, DOD had identified 77
major base closure installations to receive priority
attention. EPA, DOD, and state representatives
formed a base realignment and closure team (BCT)
at each installation to oversee clean-up efforts and to
integrate the environmental cleanup with reuse needs.
EPA worked with DOD in developing guidance and
issuing policy to provide direction to the BCTs.
Efforts included guidance on leasing base property,
transferring title to base property, and accelerating
cleanup.
• EPA provided input to DOD for "Finding of
Suitability to Lease" (FOSL), a guidance
document that was issued in late FY93. The
FOSL guidance defines a process for identifying
parcels of land suitable to lease, preventing
leases from interfering with ongoing clean-up
actions, and ensuring compliance with applicable
environmental requirements. In some cases,
leasing has provided a means to allow reuse of
base property prior to remediation; more than 50
parcels of land were leased under FOSL leasing
procedures by the end of FY94.
• During FY93 and FY94, EPA provided input to
DOD for "Finding of Suitability to Transfer"
(POST) guidance. Similar in scope to FOSL,
this guidance defines a process for identifying
parcels of land suitable to transfer. Under POST,
parcels suitable for transfer are those with no
contamination that requires remediation orthose
that have been remediated. Although DOD issued
the final POST guidance in June 1994, EPA
continued working with DOD to more fully
integrate the position developed jointly by EPA
and DOD into the guidance. By the end of FY94,
title transfer by deed had occurred at six bases.
• EPA, DOD, and DOE issued policy on improving
outreach and coordination efforts with federal,
private, and community stakeholders. This policy
was documented in Guidance on Accelerating
CERCLA Environmental Restoration at Federal
Facilities, which was signed by the three agencies
in August 1994. The guidance institutionalizes
accelerated clean-up approaches already in place
at federal facilities and encourages further efforts
by federal agencies to develop streamlined clean-
up approaches and use innovative technologies.
Incorporating SACM, the guidance recommends
using removal actions and interim response
actions, conducting sampling to support both the
site investigation and response investigation,
and applying standardized technical and field
methodologies.
By the end of FY94, several federal facilities
had been selected for demonstrating ways to expedite
cleanup. DOE had selected four sites: the Hanford
site in Washington, the Mound site in Ohio, the Oak
Ridge site in Tennessee, and the Savannah River site
in South Carolina. At the Langley site in Virginia,
36
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
signed an interagency agreement for cleanup before
the site was listed as final on the NPL; work is
proceeding at the site at an accelerated pace.
1.8.6 Promoting the Development and
Use of Innovative Technologies
Innovative technology solutions can improve
the timeliness and consistency of remedy selection
and facilitate cleanup. Comprehensive, readily
accessible information on innovative treatment
technologies is needed, however, to obtain market,
regulatory, and public acceptance for their use.
To promote the use of innovative treatment
technologies, the Agency engaged in efforts to test
these technologies in large-scale demonstrations and
to improve access to data on their cost and
performance. To overcome the shortage of facilities
available for full-scale testing of innovative
technologies, the Agency has increasingly encouraged
the use of federal facilities, "orphan" sites, and,
where appropriate, PRP-lead sites as candidates.
EPA Policy for Innovative Environmental
Technologies at Federal Facilities, issued in August
1994, reaffirmed EPA policy that federal facilities,
in particular, should be used as test and demonstration
centers, and encouraged their use.
At federal facilities, the Agency emphasized the
use of public-private partnerships to demonstrate
and evaluate innovative treatment technologies. The
partnerships involve federal agencies such as EPA,
DOD, and DOE; states; and private parties in
demonstrations of innovative technologies that focus
on contamination problems of mutual concern. The
demonstrations are designed to test innovative
technologies, determine their capabilities and
limitations, and identify any required modifications,
based on the operating experience. EPA's Technology
Innovation Office sponsors the partnership project
through a cooperative agreement (CA), and EPA's
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory provides
technical support. At the end of FY94, there were six
active sites where public-partnerships were in place.
Technology demonstrations were underway at one
of the sites, McQellan Air Force Base.
At McClellan, EPA's first public-private
partnership continued with numerous
participants. In addition to EPA and DOD,
private companies included AT&T, BeazerEast,
Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, Southern California
Edison, and Xerox. Two demonstrations were
implemented at the site between July and October
1994. The demonstration of a two-phase
extraction process for treating soil and ground
water contaminated with volatile organics
successfully extracted the contaminants,
minimizing the need for surface treatment of
extracted water. The demonstration of a
photolytic destruction process to treat off-gases
from soil vapor extraction was suspended due to
mitigating factors at the site. The process will be
modified, however, for future demonstration. In
outreach efforts to communicate the results of
the demonstrations, the McQellan site held a
public visitors' day in October 1994 that was
attended by 250 people.
Together with the Remedial Technology
Development Forum, EPA, DOE, and private
parties were working to demonstrate an
innovative remediation technology at DOE's
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky.
Private parties in the partnership included General
Electric, Dupont and Monsanto. This consortium
is currently developing the treatment train testing
electrosmosis and is identifying a second site to
test other components of the process. [Verify
that "currently" refers to the end of FY94.] DOE
was providing significant funding for the Paducah
test.
As of the end of FY94, efforts were underway to
establish partnerships with the Joliet Army
Ammunition Plant in Illinois, the Massachusetts
Military Reservation, and the Otis Air National
Guard Site and the Naval Air Station North
Island in California.
Also in FY94, EPA concluded an agreement
with DOE at the Pinellas Plant in Florida, and the
partnership project involving General Electric,
Exxon, and Phillips Petroleum, reached the
implementation phase.
37
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
EPA continued ongoing activities to assess
technology information systems and to generate
reports about the cost and performance of innovative
treatment technologies. Currently, the Agency
maintains the Alternative Treatment Technology
Information Clearinghouse and the Vendor
Information System of Innovative Treatment
Technologies for information on remediation
technologies. The Agency also worked to develop
the Decision Document Database to address
information shortcomings in the existing databases.
To provide reports about the cost and
performance of innovative technologies, EPA began
preparing summaries of 17 completed Superfund
RAs that used innovative technologies. DOD was
sponsoring similar efforts for 17 remediation projects
at military facilities. The reports will be prepared
using a consistent set of cost and performance data
elements developed in conjunction with the Federal
Remediation Technologies Roundtable.
1.8.7 Enhancing Compliance
Monitoring
In order to ensure that PRP cleanups are being
performed satisfactorily and in a timely manner, the
Agency must be effective in its compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities. During the
fiscal year, the Agency continued to implement a
long-term strategy for developing Regional
compliance monitoring and enforcement capabilities.
The strategy calls for each Region to develop
compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures,
and to install an enhanced tracking system for
monitoring PRP compliance with consent decrees
(CDs), administrative orders on consent (AOCs),
UAOs, and enforceable work-planmilestones. Under
the strategy, Regions may develop their own
procedures, as long as the procedures define roles
and responsibilities for staff; provide documentation
of non-compliance and recommended Agency
responses; allow formanagement review; and provide
notification to Regional financial management staff
when a stipulated penalty assessment is made.
Each Region has issued compliance monitoring
guidance. These guidances explain how OSCs and
RPMs should conduct compliance monitoring and
the level and type of tracking required to monitor
PRP compliance. Each Region also issued
enforcement response guidance that specifies the
Regional procedures for handling non-compliance.
To evaluate Regional compliance monitoring
efforts, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) began a review in FY94 of
Regional compliance reporting measures. As part of
this review, OECA's Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement was also reviewing each Region's
compliance monitoring approach to ensure that the
Regions were tracking the most appropriate
compliance indicators.
The Agency has found that aggressive
compliance monitoring and enforcement has reduced
the time required to clean up a site by minimizing the
number of delays due to PRP non-compliance with
AOCs, UAOs, and CDs. Region-specific compliance
monitoring and enforcement guidance has clarified
the roles and responsibilities, methods, and procedures
to be used within each Region. The development of
Regional guidance has also increased the inter-
Regional exchange of information, furtherenhancing
the efficiency and effectiveness of Regional
compliancemonitoring and enforcement capabilities.
1.8.8 Improving the Effectiveness of
Cost Recovery
CERCLA provides for recovery of federal
monies spent at a site. EPA is responsible for
recovering the monies, as fully and expeditiously as
possible. During FY94, EPA engaged in several
activities to increase the efficiency, timeliness, and
effectiveness of the Agency's cost recovery efforts.
Fiscal year activities focused on improving systems
to track cost recovery data and prioritize cost recovery
cases, and continuing to develop a regulation to
standardize the cost recovery process.
EPA developed the Cost Recovery Targeting
Report that combines CERCLA Information System
planning obligations with Integrated Financial
Management System expenditure data to present a
complete picture of the statute of limitations date and
past costs associated with each site. Thus, the
38
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Agency is readily able to identify sites where the
statute of limitations is near expiration. The Agency
is using the report to provide a more complete picture
of recoverable past costs and the status of all past,
ongoing, and planned efforts to address those costs.
Using the report as a tool, the Agency revised the cost
recovery prioritization process to target all cases
greater than $200,000 where expiration of the statute
of limitations is an issue.
To standardize cost recovery documentation
requirements, clarify the duration of the statute of
limitations, and specify the types of recoverable
indirect costs, the Agency also continued to work
toward finalizing its proposed cost recovery rule.
Through the rule, the Agency aims to resolve common
cost recovery issues, thus reducing transaction costs
by minimizing the potential for litigation.
39
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
40
-------
Chapter 2
Site Evaluation Progress
By the end of FY94, more than 38,300 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 to human
health and the environment. To enhance site
evaluation, EPA continued implementing 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; the assessment
consists of (1) a preliminary assessment (PA) to
determine whether a potential threat exists, and (2) a
site inspection (SI) to determine the relative threat
posed and to evaluate the site for possible listing on
the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is the
list of sites designated for long-term remedial
evaluation and response.
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
"archival category, "no further remedial action
planned"" This decision does not necessarily mean
that there is no hazard associated with the site; it
merely means that, based on available information,
the site does not meet the criteria for placement on
the NPL. Sites not considered appropriate for the
NPL might be addressed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), state laws,
or other authorities. A Superfund removal action
may be taken after a site is placed in the "no further
remedial action planned" category or at any time
during the evaluation process if an immediate threat
to human health or the environment is identified.
With full implementation of SACM in FY94,
the Agency identified appropriate candidate sites
and subsequently conducted many integrated
assessments. Integrated assessments involve
consolidating some or all of the assessment steps, as
well as other site studies, into a single, integrated site
evaluation. EPA also created new fields in CERCLIS
to track the various integrated assessments, and
issued directions on the use of these fields.
2.2 FISCAL YEAR 1994
PROGRESS
During FY94, EPA continued its progress in
identifying and assessing potential hazardous waste
sites.
41
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
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 CERCL A Section 103. Section
103 specifies that a person, such as a manager in
charge of a vessel or facility, immediately report to
the National Response Center any release of a
hazardous substance of an amount that is equal to or
greater than the reportable quantity for that substance.
The National Response Center operates a 24-hour
hotline for immediate notification. Penalties are
imposed for failure to comply with this reporting
requirement.
EPA added more than 1,100 sites to CERCLIS
during FY94, bringing the total number of sites
under Superfund to more than 38,600. 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 "no
further remedial action planned". 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 900 PAs in
FY94. Since the inception of Superfund, EPA and
states have completed PAs at approximately 36,100
sites. The Agency has classified approximately 44
percent of sites where a PA has been conducted as
"no further remedial action planned;" 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 site
evaluation to determine whether a site is appropriate
for listing on the NPL. The SI usually includes
collecting and analyzing environmental and waste
samples to identify
• The hazardous substances present at the site;
• The concentrations of these substances;
• Whether the substances are being released or
there is potential for their release; and
• Whether the identified hazardous substances are
attributable to the site.
During the SI, data are gathered through
increasingly focused collection efforts. For sites
judged to be prospective candidates for the NPL, the
data will be used to calculate a score using the Hazard
Ranking System (MRS). 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. At any
time during the SI, EPA may make a "no further
remedial action planned" decision based on the data.
The Agency completed nearly 600 Sis during
FY94 for a total of more than 17,000 Sis conducted
since the inception of the Superfund program. Based
on these assessments, more than 1,355 sites have
been proposed to, listed on or deleted from the NPL.
42
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Sites deleted from theNPL reflect an activity required
to be reported. Approximately 28 percent of these
Sis have resulted in "no further remedial action
planned" decisions.
2.2.4 Site Inspection Prioritization
When the revised MRS was promulgated in
March 1991 in response to a mandate in SARA, EPA
could no longer use the original HRS for making
NPL determinations. At that time, final decisions
were pending for several sites that were evaluated
through the SI stage under the original HRS, (A final
decision may be to list a site on the NPL or make a
"no furhter remedial action planned" determination.)
To expedite final decisions for the remaining sites,
EPA developed the SI prioritization (SIP) process.
The SIP process is designed to gather additional
data required under the revised HRS to evaluate sites
for listing on the NPL. The SIP also may assist in
identi fy ing candidates for early actions under S ACM.
SIPs are limited to 6,600 sites where an SI was
conducted prior to August 1, 1992.
EPA completed more than 1,500 SIPs in FY94.
EPA also determined that more than 700 sites did not
require a SIP, reducing the number of sites where
SIPs are still required to 2,700. Most SIPs completed
have resulted in "no further remedial action planned"
decisions; in the past three years, 70 percent of the
SIPs completed have resulted in "no further remedial
action planned" decisions.
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 "no further remedial action
planned"). A site remains on the NPL until no further
CERCLA response action is appropriate. When this
condition is met, EPA deletes the site from the NPL.
2.3.1 National Priorities List Update
At the end of FY94, there were 1,355 sites
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL:
1,226 currently listed sites, 64 proposed sites, 64
deleted sites where all CERCLA clean-up goals have
been achieved, and 1 site that was deleted because it
was deferred to another authority for cleanup. Sites
deleted from the NPL reflect an activity required to
be reported. Exhibit 2.3-1 illustrates the historical
number of final sites on the NPL for each fiscal year
since SARA was enacted in 1986. At the end of
FY94, the 1,355 sites proposed to, listed on, or
deleted from the NPL consisted of the following:
1,195 non-federal sites (1,076 currently listed
sites, 54 proposed sites, 64 deleted sites, and 1
site that was deferred); and
160 federal sites (150 currently listed sites and
10 proposed sites).
Updates to the NPL during FY94 included
proposal of 36 sites (22 non-federal and 14 federal
facility sites), final listing of 43 sites (19 non-federal
and 24 federal facility sites, that include 3 re-classified
sites) and deletion of 13 sites (non-federal). Ten sites
were proposed for deletion during the fiscal year,
including 7 of the 13 sites that were deleted. These
proposals to and listings on the NPL were included
in two proposed rules (NPL Proposals 16 and 17) and
two final rules. The proposed rules were published
in the Federal Register on January 18,1994 (16 non-
federal sites and 10 federal sites) and August 23,
1994 (6 non-federal sites and 4 federal sites). The
final rules were published in the Federal Register on
February 23,1994 (1 non-federal site) and May 31,
1994 (18 non-federal sites and 24 federal sites).
2.3.2 Relationship Between CERCLIS
and NPL Update
CERCLIS is used to track the discovery of
potential hazardous waste sites, including those that
are subsequently listed on the NPL, and to track
actions at these sites. Of the more than 38,600 sites
in CERCLIS at the end of FY94,1,355 were either
43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 2.3-1
Final NPL Sites for Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1994
Sites Added
Total
1,2
Sites Added
Previously Listed
1 This graph illustrates final NPL sites only and reflects the fact that EPA deleted 13 sites from FY80 to FY86, 4 sites in
FY88,11 sites in FY89, 1 site in FY90, 9 sites in FY91, 2 sites in FY92, 11 sites in FY93, and 13 sites in FY94. 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, eight sites were either voluntarily removed from the NPL or removed
from the NPL by court order (seven sites in FY93 and one in FY94). The total of final, proposed, and deleted NPL sites
as of September 30, 1994 was 1,355.
2 The total number of sites listed final on the NPL from 1983 to 1986 was 703.
Source: Federal Register notices through September 30, 1994.
proposed to, listed on, or deleted from the NPL.
Although the sites on the NPL are a relatively small
subset of the inventory in CERCLIS (approximately
3.5 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 conduct a removal action at
a site, whether or not it is on the NPL. Chapter 4 of
this report highlights progress in remediating NPL
sites, and Chapter 3 of this report discusses removal
actions at NPL and non-NPL sites.
2.4 SITE EVALUATION SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES
51-O44-19
EPA manages two support programs dedicated
to addressing lead and radionuclide contamination
because these contaminants present special hazards
and problems. During FY94, EPA continued its
progress under these programs. Under the lead
program, EPA continued to work on risk assessment
procedures and tools, revised a model and guidance
that establish a soil-screening level for residential
exposure scenarios, and continued to analyze results
from a three-city study on lead contamination. Under
the radiation program, EPA continued to develop
Superfund guidance, examined environmental fate
and transport modeling for radionuclides, and
provided technical support to the Regions in
addressing radioactive sites. The Agency also worked
to enhance site evaluation guidance.
44
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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 soil-lead guidance, and conducting
the Three-City Lead Study.
The Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic Model
To aid Regional risk managers in establishing
lead clean-up levels, EPA' s Toxics Integration B ranch
(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, 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 to evaluate clean-up options.
During FY94, EPA continued to work on a
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. FY94
activities also included further validation of the
IEUBK Model by studying data from Superfund
sites contaminated with lead from battery recycling,
mining, and smelting activities.
Soil-Lead Directive
In FY94, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) released a revised
guidance document, Revised Interim Soil-Lead
Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective
Action Facilities. The guidance presents a streamlined
approach for determining protective levels forlead in
soil at Superfund and RCRA corrective action sites.
Rather than setting a national clean-up level, the
guidance establishes a soil-screening level for
residential exposure scenarios. The guidance also
describes how to develop site-specific preliminary
remediation goals for Superfund sites and media
clean-up standards at RCRA corrective action sites.
The process proposed in the revised guidance is more
protective of human health and the envi ronment than
the original guidance because it considers multiple
sources of lead exposure and accounts for special
situations involving ecological sensitivity orsensitive
subpopulations. The guidance also encourages
voluntary cleanups of lead contamination.
The Revised Interim Soil-Lead Guidance sets a
screening level of 400 parts per million for residenti al
exposure scenarios and recommends use of the
IEUBK Model for predicting residential exposure.
Sites with soil-lead levels below the screening level
generally require no further action; sites with soil-
lead levels above the screening level require further
study.
The guidance also takes into account the potential
role of multiple sources of lead (e.g., interior and
exterior paint and indoor dust) in contributing to
elevated blood-lead levels at a site. The guidance
offers a flexible approach that allows for remediation
of lead sources, other than soil, that may contribute
significantly to elevated blood-lead levels.
The Interim Final Soil-Lead Guidance also
clarifies the relationship between guidance on
Superfund and RCRA corrective action cleanups and
EPA's guidance on lead-based paint hazards. When
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics releases
its health-based standards for soil, paint, and dust
under the Toxic Substances Control Act Title IV,
Section 403, OSWER will issue the final soil-lead
directive.
Three-City Lead Study
EPA continued to analyze data generated by the
Three-City Lead Study. The purpose of the study,
which is being conducted by EPA with the support of
the Center for Disease Control and the Department of
Agriculture, is to determine whether reducing lead in
residential soil and dust (e.g., 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 selected
45
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
areas of Baltimore, Boston, and Cincinnati. 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.
During FY94, EPA's Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) analyzed
combined data sets for the three cities. OERR and
ORD prepared a draft report that integrated the
results of the data set, circulated the draft report for
internal review, and provided it to external peer
reviewers. EPA also held a number of public forums
to discuss comments received on the report and
began preparing the final draft.
2.4.2 Radiation Program Progress
During the fiscal year, EPA made progress in
addressing technical complexities associated with
site assessment, risk1 assessment, and clean-up
technology evaluation for sites contaminated with
radionuclides. Specific activities included developing
Superfund guidance, examining environmental fate
and transport modeling, conducting technology
demonstrations and evaluations, and providing
technical support to the Regions.
Site Assessment
Through an interagency agreement with the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
ORIA provided assistance in conducting site
evaluations and health assessment in areas near DOE
nuclear weapons productions facilities, including
the San Ildefonso Indian Pueblo near the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, the environs surrounding the
Fernald Envionmental Management Project, and the
areas surrounding the Mound Laboratory site.
Superfund Program Guidance
During FY94, EPA continued itseffortsto address
radiation issues through guidance development in
the following areas:
• Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
(HEAST): TIB cooperated with the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) to continue
updating toxicity information on radionuclides
for HEAST.
• Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment
Manual: ORIA is developing guidance for
radionuclide toxicity assessment. At the end of
FY94, the draft manual was undergoing peer
review.
• Soil Treatability Guidance: ORIA continued
development of guidance for determining the
appropriate treatment options for soil
contaminated with radionuclides. ORIA
assembled a technical review team with
representatives from ORIA, OERR, and DOE,
and incorporated their comments and suggestions
into the draft guidance.
• Development of Clean-Up Levels: ORIA
continued to develop standard clean-up levels
for radioactive materials in soil and ground
water at federal facility sites. The draft technical
support document for the proposed Radiation
Site Clean-Up Regulation was submitted to the
Science Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory
Committee for review.
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 as part of an interagency
workgroup evaluating environmental fate and
transport modeling for radionuclides. In 1994, the
workgroup completed a guidance document entitled
A Technical Guide to Ground-Water Model Selection
at Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Substances.
The document addresses the selection of ground-
water flow and contaminant transport models. The
workgroup also continued to prepare three additional
technical documents:
• Evaluating Technical Capabilities of Ground-
Water Models Used to Support the Cleanup of
46
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Sites: An
Illustrative Critique of Three Representative
Models: This draft report describes a process for
critically evaluating the technical capabilities of
ground-water models, using three models that
have been used in remedial investigation/
feasibility studies.
• Draft Report: Three Multimedia Models Used
in Support of Cleanup Decision making as
Hazardous, Mixed, and Radioactive Waste Sites:
A Technical Evaluation of MEAS, MMSOILS,
and PRESTO-EPA-CPG. Reviews three
multimedia models of interest to the participants
based on documentation published in reviews,
personal interviews with the model developers,
and on model summaries extracted from computer
databases and expert systems.
• Draft Report: A Review Guide for Model
Application at Sites Contaminated with
Radioactive Substances, Hazardous, and Mixed
Waste Substances. Documents a process by
which ground-water flow and transport models
may be applied, and how applications by others
may be systematically reviewed during each
phase of the remedial process.
Regional Assistance
ORIA provides technical assistance to Regional
On-Scene Coordinators and Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs) in addressing NPL sites
contaminated with radioactive materials. In FY94,
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) in the areas of site-specific
remedial technologies, detection and measurement
of radioactive contamination, site remediation
oversight, risk assessment, and document review.
ORIA and its laboratories provided the following
site-specific support to Regional programs:
• In Region 1, ORIA provided analytical support
for the Finberg Field Assessment.
• In Region 2, ORIA continued to assist the Region
in addressing cleanup issues at the Maywood,
New Jersey NPL. 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 4, ORIA continued to provide
assistance for oversight of the DOE remediation
efforts in Paducah, Kentucky, and Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. OIRA provided support for the
characterization of the David Witherspoon site
in Knoxville, 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. ORIA
provided analytical support for the
characterization of the Kerr-McGee/West
Chicago Sites; the Ottawa, IL site; the Dial
Services site in Coleveland, OH; and the
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
In Region 6, ORIA provided analytical support
for the characterization of the Tex Tin Corporation
site located in Texas City, TX.
In Region 7, ORIA assisted in evaluating remedial
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 site.
InRegion 8, ORIA assisted inevaluatingremedial
technologies for the Denver Radium site. For
the Rocky Flats site, ORIA worked with the
RPM on technical issues associated with the site;
ORIA provided document review support for the
site.
In Region 9, ORIA provided support for the
characterization of the King Tutt Mesa Aggregate
site in Oak Springs, NM and soil characterization
techniques for the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard
Annex. ORIA completed and transmitted to the
Region the report "Confirmatory Study of
Plutonium in Soil from the Southeast Quadrant
of the Lawrence Livermoore National
Laboratory." ORIA provided analytical support
47
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
in the analysis of samples from a disposal site in
George Air Force Base. At the request of the
RPM, ORIA will provide, during FY95, technical
support for quality assurance and quality control
oversight of radiation surveys in preparation for
closure at the Marc Island 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 Wan Chang
site in reviewing documents and recommending
that the potentially responsible party conduct a
more thorough characterization of the
radioactivity at the site.
2.4.3 Site Evaluation Regulations and
Guidance
OERR published the following site evaluation
guidance during FY94:
• Deletion Policy for Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Facilities, published in the Federal
Register on March 20, 1995 (60 FR 14641).
This policy allows sites meeting certain criteria
to be deleted from the NPL in order to defer them
to RCRA authority. Fewer than 30 final NPL
sites are likely to qualify for deferral under this
policy.
48
-------
Chapter 3
Removal Progress
Throughout the 14-year history of Superfund,
removal actions have successfully prevented,
minimized, or mitigated threats to human health,
welfare, or the environment. EPA and potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) have initiated more than
3,360 removal actions to address threats posed by the
release or threatened release of hazardous substances,
including nearly 310 undertaken in FY94. The
expanded use of removals to more rapidly reduce
risks posed by Superfund sites is a key element of the
Superfund Accelerated Clean-up Model (SACM).
This chapter discusses the removal action
process, the progress achieved through Superfund
removals in addressing threats to human health and
the environment, the contributions of the
Environmental Response Team (ERT), and
emergency response rulemaking and guidance
development.
3.1 REMOVAL ACTION PROCESS
Removal actions are taken in response to a
release or threat of release of a hazardous substance
or of a pollutant or contaminant that may present an
imminent and substantial danger to the public health
or welfare. Examples of situations that may warrant
removal actions include chemical spills or fires at
production or waste storage facilities, transportation
accidents involving hazardous substances, and illegal
disposal of hazardous waste (midnight dumping).
Exhibit 3.1-1 presents examples of the kinds of
threats that may be posed by these situations and the
types of corresponding removal actions that may be
taken. Managed by a federal On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC), a removal action is often short-term, and
addresses the most immediate threats. Removals
comply with substantive applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) to the extent
practicable, given the exigencies of the situation.
ARARs are substantive requirements of federal and
more stringent state environmental laws.
When notified of a release or threat of release
that may require a removal action, the Agency (or
lead-Agency) conducts a removal site evaluation to
determine the source and nature of the release, the
threat to public health and the environment, and
whether an appropriate response has been initiated.
A removal site evaluation could be completed in
minutes or months, depending on the specific incident
and the information available to determine the need
fora removal action. When the removal site evaluation
is completed, the Agency reviews the results and
other factors to determine the appropriate extent of a
removal action. At any point in this process, EPA
may refer the site for further evaluation or determine
that no further action is necessary. When it concludes
that a removal action is required, the Agency
undertakes an appropriate response to minimize or
eliminate the threat.
The Agency defines three kinds of removal
actions based on the time available before a response
action must be initiated. "Emergency" removal
actions require a prompt response at the site. 'Time-
critical" removal actions are conducted when the
Agency (or lead-Agency) concludes that the action
must begin within six months. For"non-time-critical"
removal actions, the planning period may extend for
more than six months; during this planning period,
the lead agency conducts an engineering evaluation/
cost analysis for the response action and seeks public
comment on the response options.
49
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
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.
51-044-20
To document the selection of a response action,
the Agency prepares an action memorandum that
states the authority for initiating the action, the action
to be taken, and the basis for selecting the response.
EPA also establishes an administrative record,
compiling the documents that form the basis for the
selection of the response action. The following
sections discuss additional aspects of the removal
action process, including community involvement,
the role of the OSC, and CERCLA limitations on the
scope of removal actions.
Community Involvement in Removal
Actions
EPA provides many opportunities for
community involvement during the removal process.
The Agency appoints an official spokesperson to
keep the public informed of the progress of a given
removal action. The administrative record file and
index of documentsmaintained at the central location
is made available to the public (except confidential
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,
monitoring on-scene activities, 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.
Fund-Financed 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,
50
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
welfare, or the environment. Accordingly, Congress
included limitations on removal actions in CERCLA.
The cost of a removal action is limited to $2 million,
and the duration is limited to one year. Congress
established exemptions from these limitations for
specific circumstances. A removal action may exceed
the monetary and time limits if
• Continued response is required immediately to
prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency; there is
an immediate threat to public health, welfare, or
the environment; and such action cannot
otherwise be provided on a timely basis; or
• Continued response action is otherwise
appropriate and consistent with the remedial
action (RA) to be taken.
During FY94, EPA granted 16 exemptions for
removal actions to exceed the $2 million limitation.
In addition, EPA granted 26 exemptions allowing
removal actions to continue for more than one year.
3.2 FISCAL YEAR 1994
PROGRESS
Since the inception of Superfund, the Agency
and PRPs have begun more than 3,360 removal
actions at National Priorities List (NPL) and non-
NPL sites to address threats to hum an health, welfare,
or the environment posed by releases or potential
releases of hazardous substances. Under S ACM, the
Agency is expanding 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 3,660 removal actions
undertaken by EPA and PRPs under the Superfund
program, nearly 310 were started in FY94 (see
Exhibit 3.2-1). Of these 310 removal actions, PRPs
financed 70 and EPA financed 240. The removal
actions started by PRPs included 20 removal actions
at NPL sites and 50 removal actions at non-NPL
sites. EPA started nearly 40 removal actions at NPL
sites and 200 removal actions at non-NPL sites. The
nearly 310 removal actions begun by EPA and PRPs
in FY94 compare to 270 started in FY93.
As shown in Exhibit 3.2-2, EPA and PRPs have
completed 3,050 removal actions under the Superfund
program, including 240 in FY94. Of the 240 removal
actions completed during the fiscal year, PRPs
financed more than 50, including more than 10 at
NPL sites and nearly 40 at non-NPL sites. EPA
financed nearly 190 of the completed removal actions,
including approximately 30 at NPL sites and 160 at
non-NPL sites. The 240 removal actions completed
by EPA and PRPs in FY94 compare to nearly 290
completed by EPA and PRPs in FY93.
Removal actions that were begun but are not yet
complete are considered "ongoing." Ongoing
removals include actions that have been in progress
less than 12 months at the end of a fiscal year and
removal actions that have been granted exemptions
from the statutory one-year duration limit. Sites
where a removal action has taken place (including
thermal treatment) but the contaminants have not yet
been transported to a disposal facility are also defined
as having ongoing removals.
3.2.2 Expanding the Use of Removal
Authority
One of the key elements of SACM is to expand
the use of removal authority to perform "early actions"
that reduce immediate risk more rapidly and expedite
NPL site cleanups. Early actions can be emergency,
time-critical, or non-time-critical removal responses
or quick remedial responses.
As an incentive to implement this approach
under SACM, the Agency set aside $50 million in the
RA budget to fund early actions. Although the
directive announcing the availability of the set-aside
funding was not issued until February 1992, over
$37 million was allocated for early actions at 13 sites
in 7 Regions in FY92. In FY94, all of the set-aside
funds plus an additional $4.6 million was distributed
to nine sites in six Regions. The funding, which was
allocated on a first-come, first-serve basis, is intended
to supplement, not replace, the Regions' removal
funds that have been traditionally used for response
actions at NPL sites. The additional funding, coupled
51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 3.2-1
Cumulative Removal Action Starts
E
4000 q
3500^
3000^
2500^
2000^
1500^
1000^
500 J
Through FY94
[™j PRP-Financed 880
| Fund-Financed 2,780
Total 3,660
•^« •
I I
I I
II
II
I I
I I
III
I I I
II I
FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94
Source: CERCLIS.
51-044-26B
with the use of remedial funding directly under the
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS)
contracts, has significantly enhanced EPA's ability
to expedite responses at key NPL sites. For example,
the set-aside funding forFY94 allowed the Superfund
program to initiate the additional nine early actions.
(Additional information on SACM and the use of
early actions is provided in Chapter 1.)
Due to the success of the approach, the Agency
will continue to set-aside funds in the RA budget for
early actions. The Agency is also making progress in
awarding Regional 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 continue to work on
establishing ERRS contracts. The major obstacle to
implementing early actions to date has been the
limited capacity of the ERRS contracts.
An example of an early action at an NPL site is
the SACM pilot at the Better Brite site in DePere,
Wisconsin. This pilot combined a time-critical
removal response and a remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS). Through early action, the
Agency reduced immediate risk at the site by
removing contaminated soils, demolishing buildings,
and controlling the spread of contaminates in the
ground-water plume. The early action also expedited
the implementation of the overall site remediation. A
subsequent RA will be taken to implement a pump-
and-treat system to clean up the ground-water
contamination.
52
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 3.2-2
Cumulative Removal Action Completions
i
8
3
3500-
3000^
2500^
2000-
1500^
1000^
500 J
0
PRP-Financed
Fund-Financed
Total
Through FY94
670
2,380
3,050
• ~l I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I III II
FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94
Source: CERCLIS.
51-044-25A
Another example of an early action is the
Raymark site in Stratford, Connecticut. At this site,
set-aside funding is being used to continue time-
critical removal excavation activities at residential
properties contaminated with lead, asbestos, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The
contamination is a result of the use of contaminated
material from the Raymark facility as fill material
throughout the surrounding area. Through the early
action, contaminated material isbeing removed from
residential properties and transported back to the
Raymark facility where it will be dealt with as part of
the overall RA for the facility. This early action is
quickly and completely reducing immediate risk,
while contributing to the acceleration of the overall
site remediation.
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE
TEAM ACTIVITIES
Under the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, EPA
manages the ERT. Over its 14 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
53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
monitoring, alternative and innovative technology,
site investigation, ecological damage assessment,
clean-up contractor management, and oil and chemical
spill control.
During FY94, ERT conducted approximately
103 removal actions and 79 RAs, and responded to
10 oil spills and 2 international incidents. ERT also
offered 203 training courses nationwide.
3.4 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE
Under the reportable quantity (RQ) regulatory
program, the Agency proposed adjustments to certain
RQs and to several administrative reporting
exemptions. In addition, the Agency continued
updating the Superfund Removal Procedures (SRP)
Manual.
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 311 (b)(4) of the Clean Water
Act. Section 102(a) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to
adjust RQs for hazardous substances and to designate
additional CERCLA hazardous substances.
Under CERCLA Section 103(a), the person in
charge of a vessel or facility must immediately notify
the National Response Center upon learning of a
release of hazardous substance in a quantity that
equals or exceeds its RQ. In addition to this reporting
requirement, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 requires
that a release of a hazardous substance in a quantity
that equals or exceeds its RQ (or one pound if a
reporting trigger is not established by regulation) be
reported to state and local authorities.
Reportable Quantity Adjustments
On October 23,1993, EPA proposed changes to
the designation, RQ, and notification requirements
for hazardous substances under CERCLA (58 FR
54836). The proposed changes revise the table of
hazardous substances to
• Add 47 hazardous air pollutants and adjust their
RQs;
• Add five other hazardous air pollutants that are
broad generic categories of substances;
• Add and adjust the RQs for 10 hazardous wastes
listed or proposed to be listed under RCRA;and
Adjust the RQs for five hazardous wastes that
were already on the table.
Reportable Quantity Exemptions
On November 30,1992, the Agency proposed
a rule to codify four administrative reporting
exemptions for naturally occurring radionuclide
releases from the requirements of CERCLA Section
103. The proposal would exempt such releases from
• Large, generally undisturbed land holdings, such
as golf courses and parks;
• Disturbances of land for purposes other than
mining, suchas farming orbuilding 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 in Fertilizer Institute v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency 935 F.2d
1303 (D.C. Cir., 1991), wherein the court 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.
54
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
3.4.2 Removal Guidance
The SRP Manual covers all procedural and
administrative requirements for removal actions. It
is used by OSCs; removal, remedial, and enforcement
personnel; and staff from other federal and state
agencies. In FY90, EPA began restructuring the
manual into a series of 10 stand-alone volumes, each
addressing distinct aspects of Superfund removal
actions. EPA previously completed five volumes of
the series: Consideration ofARARs During Removal
Actions, Removal Enforcement Guidance for On-
Scene Coordinators, Public Participation Guidance
for On-Scene Coordinators, Action Memorandum
Guidance, and Response Reporting: POLREPs
(pollution reports) and OSC Reports. During FY94,
the Agency continued working on the remaining five
SRP volumes and an overview volume.
55
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
56
-------
Chapter 4
Remedial Progress
The Agency's progress during FY94 illustrated
its commitment to accelerating and completing
cleanups at Superftind sites. The Agency started
more than 120 remedial actions (RAs) to construct
remedies, and completed construction activities to
place 61 sites in the construction completion category.
To date under the Superfund program, the Agency
has completed clean-up activities to place a total of
278 National Priorities List (NPL) sites in the
construction completion category. This chapter
describes this andotherexamplesof remedial progress
during the year. Specifically, this chapter provides
information on
• FY94 progress in remediating NPL sites;
• Remedial initiatives;
• Remedies selected during the yean
• Efforts to develop and use innovative treatment
technologies, including an evaluation of newly
developed and achievable permanent treatment
technologies, as required by CERCLA Section
301(h)(l)(D); and
• Results of five-year reviews under CERCLA
Section 121 (c) at sites where contamination
remained after the initiation of the RA.
4.1 REMEDIAL PROCESS
The remedial process complements the removal
process (see Chapter 3) by addressing more
complicated, long-term evaluation and response for
hazardous waste sites on the NPL. The remedial
process is preceded by the site evaluation process,
which consists of the discovery or identification of a
potential site, the preliminary assessment of the site,
and the site inspection (SI). During the SI, the site is
evaluated for possible listing on the NPL. If a site is
listed on the NPL after the SI, the Trust Fund can be
used to finance clean-up activities at the site under
the remedial authority of CERCLA.
The remedial process to clean up NPL sites is
comprised of the following activities:
• The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/
FS) to determine the type and extent of
contamination and to evaluate and develop
remedial clean-up alternatives;
• The record of decision (ROD) to identify the
remedy selected, based on the results of the RI/
FS and public comment on the clean-up
alternatives;
• The remedial design (RD) to develop the plans
and specifications required to construct the
selected remedy;
• The RA to implement the selected remedy, from
the start through the completion of construction
of the remedy; and
• Operation and maintenance (O&M) to ensure
the effectiveness and/or integrity of ihe remedy.
O&M occurs after implementation of a response
action.
A Remedial Project Manager (RPM) oversees
all remedial activities and related enforcement
activities. Regional coordinators at EPA Headquarters
assist RPMs by reviewing remedial and enforcement
activities and by answering technical and policy
questions.
57
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
4.2 FISCAL YEAR 1994
REMEDIAL PROGRESS
The Agency's progress during the fiscal year in
initiating RAs and completing construction activities
to classify sites as construction completions indicates
its continuing commitment to accelerate the cleanup
of NPL sites. By the end of FY94, work had occurred
at 94 percent of the 1,355 NPL sites. Sites deleted
from the NPL reflect an activity required to be
reported. Exhibit 4.2-1 illustrates the status of the
work at NPL sites, showing sites by the most advanced
stage of activity accomplished. The following
sections of this chapter highlight progress made at
the sites during FY94.
4.2.1 Construction Completions
Responding to the recommendations of the 1991
30-Day Study and the 1993 Superfund Administrative
Improvements Task Force, the Agency has worked
to accelerate and complete cleanup at NPL sites. The
Agency completed construction activities at 61 sites
during FY94, bringing the total number of sites in the
construction completion category to 278. This
exceeded the recommended FY94 target of 265.
More than 78 percent of the construction completions
have been achieved in the past three years.
4.2.2 New Remedial Activities
As shown in Exhibit 4.2-2, the Agency or
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) had undertaken
approximately 1,670 RI/FSs, 1,230 RDs, and 850
RAs since the inception of the Superfund program
through the end of the FY94.
The remedial activities started during FY94
reflect the Agency's emphasis on accelerating the
pace of cleanup and focusing resources on RAs. New
remedial activities undertaken this fiscal year include
• RI/FS Starts: The Agency or PRPs started
nearly 70 RI/FSs during FY94, including nearly
40 (60 percent) financed by EPA and more than
Exhibit 4.2-1
Work Has Occurred at 94 Percent of the National Priorities List Sites
Proposed NPL Sites 64
Final NPL Sites 1,226
Subtotal 1,290
Deleted - Referred to
Another Authority 1
Deleted NPL Sites 64
Total
430
(Includes 160 Federal Facilities)
Source: CERCLIS.
51-044-27
58
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
30 (40 percent) financed by PRPs. In FY93 the
Agency or PRPs started nearly 60 RI/FSs,
including more than 30 (60 percent) financed by
EPA and more than 20 (40 percent) financed by
PRPs.
RD Starts: The Agency or PRPs started
approximately 110 RDs during FY94, including
nearly 30 (25 percent) financed by EPA and
more than 80 (75 percent) financed by PRPs. In
FY93 the Agency or PRPs started approximately
130 RDs, including nearly 50 (40 percent)
financed by EPA and more than 80 (60 percent)
financed by PRPs.
RA Starts: The Agency or PRPs started more
than 120 RAs during FY94. EPA was financing
approximately 30 (20 percent) and PRPs were
financing more than 90 (80 percent). In FY93,
the Agency or PRPs started approximately 120
RAs, including nearly 30 (25 percent) financed
by EPA and 90 (75 percent) financed by PRPs.
4.2.3 Status of Remedial and
Enforcement Activities in
Progress
At the end of FY94, 1,767 RI/FS, RA, and RD
projects were in progress at 867 sites, compared to
1,750 RI/FS, RA, and RD projects in progress at 910
sites at the end of FY93. Projects in progress at the
end of FY94 included 1,320 RI/FS and RA projects
and 447 RD projects. As required by CERCLA
Sections 301(h)(l)(B),(C), and (F), a listing of the
RI/FS and R A projects in progress at the end of FY94
is provided in Appendix A, along with a projected
completion schedule for each project. A listing of all
RDs in progress at the end of FY94 is provided in
Appendix B.
Of the 1,320 RI/FS and RA projects in progress
at the end of FY94, 54 percent were on schedule,
ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal year, or
Exhibit 4.2-2
Remedial Accomplishments Under the Superfund Program
for Fiscal Year 1980 Through Fiscal Year 1994
850
Remedial Actions
1,230
Remedial Designs
;1,670
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
I ' ' ' I ' ' • I ' ' ' I • • ' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Number of Actions
Fund-Financed
PRP-Financed
Source: CERCLIS
51-044-7A
59
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
had no previously published completion schedule,
and 46 percent were behind schedule. These projects
include 299 on schedule, 51 ahead of schedule, 276
started during the fiscal year, 90 that had no previously
published completion schedule, and 604 that were
behind schedule. Exhibit 4.2-3 compares the number
of projects in progress at NPL sites at the end of
FY93 with the number in progress at the end of
FY94, by lead.
PRPs were conducting 441 of the RI/FS and R A
projects in progress at the end of FY94, including
202 RI/FSs and 239 RAs. Of these 441 PRP-
financed projects, 51 percent were on schedule,
ahead of schedule, started during the fiscal year, or
had no previously published completion schedule,
and 49 percent were behind schedule. Projects
include 82 on schedule, 9 ahead of schedule, 117
started during the fiscal year, 19 that had no previously
published completion schedule, and 214 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 FY93
with the planned completion date in CERCLIS at the
end of FY94. 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
As recommended by the 1993 Superfund
Administrative Tmprovements Task Force, EPA
continued seven*1 efforts to streamline remedial
activities and increase the consistency and efficiency
in Superfund cleanups. EPA's FY94 efforts included
Exhibit 4.2-3
Projects in Progress at National Priorities List Sites by Lead
for Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year 1994
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
FY93 FY94
28 21
145 160
21 11
219 204
0 1
45 27
2 2
459 485
919 911
RDs
FY93 FY94
25 26
107 108
4 4
238 242
1 2
23 16
1 2
46 56
445 456
RAs
FY93 FY94
26 28
95 98
3 2
186 222
9 7
21 25
0 0
46 75
386 457
1 1ncludes remedial program-lead projects and enforcement program-lead projects.
\ Projects at which EPA employees, rather than contractors, perform the site clean-up work.
Pro ects where site clean-up work is financed and performed by the PRPs under state order, with EPA oversight.
Sources: Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: FY93 (Appendices A and B) and FY94 (Appendices A and B). 51-044-BA
60
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
developing presumptive remedies, establishing soil
screening levels (SSLs), and implementing guidance
on dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)
contamination and on the technical impracticability
(TI) waiver.
4.3.1 Presumptive Remedies
The Agency is developing presumptive remedies
to streamline the remedy selection process forcertain
categories of sites. The objective of the presumptive
remedy initiative is to use the program's past
experience to streamline site investigation and speed
up identification of appropriate clean-up activities.
Presumptive remedies can foster consistency in
remedy selection and reduce the cost and time required
to clean up similar types of sites.
During FY94, the Agency monitored the
implementation of presumptive remedies at seven
sites. At these sites, the Agency piloted the
presumptive remedies developed for municipal
landfills and sites contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). The seven projects included
five municipal landfills and two sites with VOC
contamination in soil.
For example, EPA selected the BFI-Rockingham
Landfill NPL site in Rockingham, Vermont, as a
national pilot for the evaluation of the presumptive
remedy guidance for CERCLA municipal landfill
sites. The Agency used existing historical data to
streamline the risk assessment and RI/FS and to
establish an initial basis for action. The Agency
further accelerated the RI by eliminating a complete
chemical characterization of the landfill, focusing
instead on collecting geotechnical information (i.e.,
landfill cover quality and soil settlement and stability)
needed for designing the source control remedy
recommended as the presumptive remedy. PRPs
undertook a non-time-critical removal action to begin
implementing components of the presumptive
remedy, including a landfill cap. By quantifying
potential ground-water risks and other pathway risks
during the RI/FS, the Agency also streamlined the
RA for actions outside the scope of the presumptive
remedy (i.e., ground-water and surface-water
cleanup).
Using a presumptive remedy approach at the
BFI-Rockingham Landfill site decreased the time
period from RI/FS start to construction initiation
from the typical 5 to 8 years to 2 years. In addition,
the Agency reduced the time period from RI/FS start
to ROD signing for those activities outside the scope
of the presumptive remedy from the typical 3 to 5
years to 2 years.
The Agency is also working to develop additional
presumptive remedies for wood-treater,
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated,
manufactured gas plant, grain storage, and
contaminated ground-water sites. The Agency will
continue efforts to develop these presumptive
remedies and identify demonstration sites. The
Agency will also monitor the demonstration projects
and integrate the results into additional guidance on
the use of presumptive remedies.
4.3.2 Soil Screening Levels
To facilitate investigation and cleanup of soil
contamination, EPA continued efforts to develop
SSLs. SSLs identify contaminant levels below
which there typically is no concern and above which
further site-specific evaluation is warranted.
Generally, where chemical concentrations fall below
the SSL, no further federal action or study would be
required, provided that the risks posed by the site are
only for those pathways addressed by the soil
screening guidance. If other risks are posed, such as
ecological risks, the site may require further study.
Levels above the screening level would not
automatically trigger an RA or cause a site to be
designated as "contaminated" but would indicate
that further evaluation of the site was required.
EPA continued to work on the soil screening
guidance that will provide guidelines for developing
risk-based, site-specific SSL values. The SSL values
can be compared to samples taken from a site to
determine whether a site poses a risk from a soil
contaminant and would warrant further study. The
soil screening guidance will assist in focusing
investigation efforts on significant contaminants and
exposure pathways of concern. The guidance will
also provide a standard method of ruling out certain
61
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
areas of a site from further concern and study.
During FY94, the Agency held numerous
outreach meetings with the Department of Energy
(DOE), Department of Defense (DOD), Department
of Housing and Urban Development, lenders,
auditors, insurers, industry, and environmental groups
to discuss SSLs. In addition to the stakeholder
meetings, the Agency met frequently with Association
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, who represent state interests.
The Agency conducted several projects to
technically evaluate the exposure pathways and
sampling methods proposed in the guidance. For
example, EPA completed a pilot study of 10 sites.
From the results, the Agency determined that exposure
pathways used in the guidance are sufficient to
model exposure pathways of residential areas and
that additional exposure pathways do not need to be
incorporated into the SSL process. The Agency also
initiated a SSL demonstration project to verify that
the sampling methods described in the draft guidance
are adequate. Through the project, the Agency will
analyze soil obtained from a Superfund site using the
proposed sampling methods.
Based on stakeholder input and the technical
analyses, the Agency revised the draft soil screening
guidance and, in August 1994, distributed a revised
draft of the guidance to Regions and the states for
additional review. The August 1994 draft of the soil
screening guidance established threshold levels for
100 chemical concentrations in soil that warrant site-
specific study of risks. On December 30,1994, the
Agency also published a Notice of Availability of the
draft soil screening guidance in faeFederal Register
to solicit further public comment,
EPA began developing an outreach document
for the general public to explain the soil screening
process in clear and concise language. EPA also
asked community groups to comment on the clarity
of the draft soil screening guidance for a non-technical
audience.
4.3.3 Addressing Technical
Complexities of Ground-Water
Cleanup
EPA continued to evaluate technical and policy
solutions that are designed to address the
pervasiveness of DNAPL contamination in ground
water. DNAPLs are contaminants, such as chlorinated
solvents, thathave extremely complex characteristics,
do not mix with water, and typically accumulate at
the bottom of a contaminated ground-water source.
Because of these characteristics, DNAPLs are difficult
to detect and complicate the cleanup of ground water.
Agency research indicates that approximately 85
percent of all Superfund sites have ground-water
contamination, and 60 percent of all Superfund sites
are likely to have DNAPL contamination.
To address the technical difficulties associated
with DNAPL contamination, the Agency continued
to develop a comprehensive strategy for detecting
and addressing the contamination. The strategy
focuses on locating contaminant ground-water plumes
and DNAPL sources within plumes, evaluating the
extent of DNAPL contamination, and initiating
appropriate responses using a phased approach. The
strategy places special emphasis on the use of early
actions to prevent exposure, contain plumes and
DNAPL sources, and preventmigration. In addition,
the strategy encourages continued efforts to develop
innovative technologies for addressing DNAPL
contamination.
The Agency also issued guidance on October 4,
1993, providing a consistent process for invoking the
TI waiver. The waiver is invoked primarily at
contaminated ground-water sites, particularly sites
that may be contaminated with DNAPLs. In situations
where currently available technology will not achieve
performance standards for remediation, the Agency
may invoke the waiver, and further actions will be
focused only on preventing migrationof, and exposure
to, the contaminants. Since issuing the TI waiver
guidance, EPA has focused on broadening Regional,
62
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
state, and PRP awareness and understanding of the
guidance and on developing an implementation
strategy. Based on its analysis of the site-specific TI
evaluations, the Agency drafted an implementation
strategy that was near completion at the end of the
fiscal year.
To further examine the various policy issues
involved in addressing DNAPL contamination, the
Agency conducted technical training seminars in all
10 Regions during FY94. Over 2,500 participants
attended, including representatives from states, other
federal agencies, and academia; private and public
contractors; and PRPs.
4.4 REMEDY SELECTION
The Agency signed 99 RODs in FY94, including
39 new and amended RODs for PRP-financed and
Fund-financed sites and 60 RODs for federal facility
sites. The ROD documents the results of all studies
performed on the site, identifies each remedial
alternative that the Agency considered, and explains
the basis for selecting the remedy. The ROD is
signed after the RI/FS is completed and the public
has had the opportunity to comment on the remedial
alternatives that are being considered to clean up the
site.
The Agency selected a variety of remedies in
FY94 RODs, based on a careful analysis of
characteristics unique to each site and the proximity
of each site to people and sensitive environments
(wetlands and endangered wildlife are examples of
environmental resources that are taken into
consideration when evaluating remedies). Congress,
with the enactment of SARA, indicated that EPA
should give preference to permanent remedies, such
as treatment, rather than temporary remedies, such as
containment.
A list of the 99 RODs signed during FY94 is
provided in Appendix C. To fulfill the statutory
requirement of CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(A) to
provide an abstract of each feasibility study (i.e.,
ROD), a summary of each ROD will be published
separately in the ROD Annual Report: Fiscal Year
1994.
4.5 USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
In SARA, Congress amended CERCLA to
require that EPA favor the use of permanent remedies
over containment or disposal in selecting remedies
for Superfund sites. In each of the past six years,
more than 70 percent of the RODs have contained
provisions for the treatment of at least some waste.
To support the Agency's efforts to develop and
improve treatment remedies, the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) administers the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
for developing, demonstrating, and evaluating new
treatment, monitoring, admeasurement technologies
and disseminating unbiased and validated information
about them. Cooperatively, ORD and the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
have also established six technical support centers
(TSCs) and the Superfund Technical Liaison (STL)
program. A seventh TSC has been established with
the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). The purpose
of the TSCs and STL program is to increase the speed
and quality of Superfund cleanups and reduce clean-
up costs by providing Superfund staff with direct
technical support from the Agency's scientists and
technical experts. ORD also supports information
transfer activities, such as seminars, bulletins, and
electronic information sources, and supplies technical
assistance to the federal, state, and public sectors for
evaluating potentially applicable treatment
technologies.
Within OSWER, the Technology Innovation
Office (TIO) is responsible for encouraging the use
of innovative technologies under Superfund. TIO
produces a variety of reports, journals, databases,
and conferences to inform project managers,
engineers, academics, contractors, and other interested
63
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
parties about the availability of new technologies
and their potential applications. TIO works with
other offices within the Agency to affect policy
change, analyze trends in technology application,
identify vendors and remediation markets, collect
cost and remediation data, and champion innovative
technologies. Outside EPA, TIO works with other
federal agencies and the private sector in collaborative
efforts to demonstrate technologies and coordinate
research activities.
4.5.1 Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation Program
Progress
Historically, the use of innovative treatment
technologies at contaminated sites has been impeded
by a lack of reliable cost and performance data. To
overcome this impediment and to respond to the
increased demand for validated hazardous waste
treatment technologies, SARA directs EPA, "to carry
out a program of research, evaluation, testing,
development, and demonstration of alternative or
innovative treatment technologies...which may be
utilized in response actions to achieve more permanent
protection of human health and the environment""
(CERCLA Section 311(b)l, as amended by SARA
Section 209(b)). The SITE program was established
by ORD and OSWER to satisfy these statutory
requirements and to support the Agency's efforts to
develop and implement faster, more effective, and
less costly treatment remedies.
The program, which completed its ninth year in
FY94, is considered the pioneer and model program
for demonstrating and evaluating full-scale, viable,
innovative treatment technologies at hazardous waste
sites. It serves as an integral part of the EPA's
research into alternative methods for cleaning up the
sites. It is also the first program to provide cost
sharing opportunities for the private sector by
awarding cooperative agreements (CAs) to
technology developers and sharing the costs of
evaluating participating technologies.
The SITE program supports all stages of
technology development, from bench-scale and pilot
tests to full-scale field demonstrations. EPA
documents and publishes engineering, performance,
and cost data on the technologies tested as part of the
program to assist the user community in making
selections for site characterization and remediation,
and assists developers incommercialization activities.
From its inception in 1986 through FY94, 88
technologies have successfully been demonstrated
through the SITE program. As of the end of FY94,
there were 86 technology developers participating in
the program.
As intended, the Agency's continuing efforts
under the SITE program to compile and communicate
data to the user community has increased the number
of innovative technologies being employed. This
upward trend exemplifies the program's effectiveness
in implementing the Congressional mandate. EPA's
analysis of technologies evaluated under the SITE
program also indicates that innovative treatment
technologies are more cost-effective than standard
remedial treatments. For example, Exhibit 4.5-1
illustrates the cost savings identified in a limited
study of 17 RODs under which remedial technologies
in the SITE program were tested. The average cost
savings for using innovative treatment technology
versus standard treatment per site was $21 million,
representing a savings of 62 percent.
Successful implementation of innovative
technologies requires a team approach. To ensure
the timely introduction of new technologies into the
marketplace, the SITE program maintains flexibility
and maximizes the efficient use of available resources
by working with other federal and state agencies, the
private sector, EPA Regional offices, the Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team (START),
OSWER, and technology developers. The Test and
Evaluation Facility and the Center Hill Facility in
Cincinnati, Ohio are also used to evaluate innovative
technologies.
Operational Areas
The SITE program consists of the following four
components:
• The Emerging Technology program;
• The Demonstration program;
• The Characterization and Monitoring program;
64
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.5-1
Cost Savings Associated with the Use of Innovative Technologies at 17 Sites1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 5
Region 9
150 200
Dollars In Millions
250
i
300
i
350
Average Savings Per Region = 55%
1
1990-1992 ROD information: Not including administrative costs
Source: Office of Research and Development.
51-044-30
and
• Technology Transfer.
The Emerging Technology and Demonstration
programs are administered by the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati (RREL-Cin),
Ohio. The Characterization and Monitoring program
is administered by the Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas (EMSL-LV),
Nevada. Technology Transfer is an integral
component of each of the SITE operational programs.
Emerging Technology Program: The SITE
Emerging Technology program is EPA's first
program to provide an opportunity to the private
sector to share costs in technology development.
Through CAs under the program, EPA provides
technical and financial support to developers for
researching, developing, and advancing promising
technologies from proof of concept, bench-, and
pilot-scale to field demonstration and
commercialization. Approximately 97 percent of
the developers in the program are small businesses.
Under the Emerging Technology program, the
applicability of particular technologies to Superfund
site waste characteristics is evaluated, and
technologies showing promise may be considered
for more rigorous testing in the SITE Demonstration
program. Each technology's performance is
documented in a final report, project summary, and
bulletin. Since the program's inception in 1987, the
Agency has accepted 72 technologies into the
program. Forty-two of the technology projects have
been completed and 30 are ongoing. Exhibit 4.5-2
categorizes the completed and ongoing technology
projects by treatmenttype. Technology development
projects range from bench-, pilot-, and field-levels of
65
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
research, with over 20 of the 30 on-going technologies
involved in field development.
Technologies in the Emerging Technology
program include eight technologies accepted in the
program during FY94. Exhibit 4.5-3 describes these
eight technologies. Exhibit 4.5-4 describes the nine
projects that were completed under the program in
FY94.
Demonstration Program: The SITE Demonstration
program develops reliableengineering, performance,
and cost data on innovative, alternative technologies
so that potential users can evaluate a technology's
applicability for a specific waste site. The goal of the
SITE Demonstration program is to encourage the
commercial use of promising innovative treatment
technologies that are better, faster, and more cost-
effective than available treatment technologies.
Demonstrations are conducted on hazardous waste
sites, including NPL and non-NPL sites, or under
simulated hazardous waste site conditions at
developer or federal test and evaluation facilities.
Data collected from SITE demonstrations and its
analysis provide technology users with both
quantitative and qualitative information on the
technology's performance, potential need for pre-
and post-processing, applicable waste and media
types, potential operating problems, and approximate
capital and operating costs. Technology evaluations
also provide valuable insight into long-term O&M
costs and risks.
Seventeen new technologies were accepted into
the Demonstration program in FY94, including five
from the SITE program's annual requests for
proposals, eightfrom nominations by EPA'sRegional
offices and other government agencies, and four
from the SITE Emerging Technology program.
Exhibit4.5-5 provides a summary of new technologies
accepted into the SITE Demonstration program in
Exhibit 4.5-2
Emerging Technology Program Projects by Treatment Category
25^
20-
15-
10-
Materials Solidification/ Thermal Chemical Physical Biological
Handling Stabilization
Source: Office of Research and Development.
51-044-29
66
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.5-3
SITE Emerging Technology Projects Accepted Into Program In Fiscal Year 1994
Treatment Category: Chemical
Institute of Gas Technology, Illinois, developed a supercritical extraction/liquid phase oxidation process
to remove and destroy contaminants in soil and sludge. The process uses supercritical fluid extraction
and wet-air oxidation steps to treat chlorinated and nonchlorinated PAHs, RGBs, and other organic
compounds. The process is suitable for both high and low concentrations of organic contaminants.
Membran Corp., Minnesota, developed a membrane apparatus to transfer gases into water without
bubble formation and VOC emissions. The device will be tested in bioreactors that require the transfer
of oxygen, methane, and hydrogen into the water phase to biodegrade petroleum hydrocarbons and
chlorinated solvents. The device is also applicable to in situ ground-water treatment.
M.L Energia, New Jersey, uses reductive thermal oxidation and reductive photo-thermal oxidation to
convert chlorinated hydrocarbons into environmentally benign and useful materials such as hydrocarbons,
hydrogen chloride, and carbon dioxide. The process is applicable to the treatment of air streams
contaminated with chlorinated hydrocarbons.
IT Corporation, Ohio, developed a process that removes heavy metals from contaminated soil and sludge
by forming a soluble chelate that can be separated, leaving clean soil. The technology is potentially
applicable to the treatment of a wide variety of metal-contaminated hazardous wastes.
University of Houston, Texas, invented a concentrated aqueous salt solution to extract lead from
contaminated soil. The technology is especially applicable to battery waste sites. The project will also
evaluate uses of the technology to extract other heavy metals.
Treatment Category: Biological
ABB Environmental Services, Massachusetts, created an in situ biological treatment for compounds such
as tetrachloroethylene and trichlorethylene in saturated soils and aquifers. Advanced anaerobic/aerobic
sequential biodegradation is a key element in the process.
Geo-Microbial Technologies, Oklahoma, uses anaerobic biotreatment to release toxic metals from
contaminated soil. The process has advantages over aerobic biotreatment, which can produce waste
streams containing sulfuric acid and soluble heavy metals. The process is applicable to the treatment
of soil, sludge, and sediment contaminated with metals, hydrocarbons, and organic pollutants.
Treatment Category: Materials Handling
TMA Eberline (Thermo Analytic), New Mexico, developed a material handling process to automatically
separate radioactive material from otherwise clean soil. The process may dramatically reduce the
overall amount of material requiring disposal by minimizing the amount of clean soil that is co-mingled
with radioactive material.
51-044-33
67
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 4.5-4
Projects Completed Under the SITE Emerging Technology Program
in Fiscal Yearl994
Treatment Category: Chemical
Cognis, California, developed the TERRAMET® soil remediation system, that leaches and recovers
lead and other metals from soil, dust, sludge, or sediment. An aqueous leachant is used to remove
most types of lead contamination: metallic lead, soluble ions, and insoluble lead oxides and salts.
The project has achieved greater than 98 percent lead removal. Based on initial results, this project
was also accepted into and evaluated in the SITE Demonstration program.
ART International, New Jersey, created a special combination of organic solvents in an innovative
chemical process to extract organic pollutants from soil, sediment, and sludge. The technology, known
as the LEEP® process has application for a wide range of contaminants including tar, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, PAHs, RGBs, pesticides, and wood-preserving compounds. A pilot plant has been
constructed and commercialization activities for a full-scale unit are underway.
Matrix Photocatalytic, Canada, developed a process to destroy organic contaminants in air using a
titanium dioxide photocatalytic reactor. The system can treat a wide range of chlorinated and
nonchlorinated VOCs, including more resistant compounds such as carbon tetrachloride. The project
has been invited into the SITE Demonstration Program where both air and water waste streams will
be evaluated.
Treatment Category: Physical
Pulse Sciences Inc., California, uses high-energy x-rays to destroy organic contaminants, leaving only
nontoxic by-products. The technology treats groundwater and wastewater contaminated with chlorinated
and nonchlorinated organic compounds, and substances that can deplete the ozone layer, such as
freon.
Treatment Category: Biological
New Jersey Institute of Technology, New Jersey, integrated two innovative techniques—pneumatic
fracturing of soil and bioremediation-^to enhance in situ remediation of soil contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons and BTEX compounds. The project was successful and a full-scale demonstration is
anticipated. A two-year field development effort was completed at a British Petroleum site in Maryland.
Treatment Category: Materials Handling
Montana College of Mineral Science, Montana, uses a specially designed hydrocyclone to treat mining
wastes containing heavy metals. The wastes are a source of ground- or surface-water contamination.
The process is especially applicable to heavy metal sulfides. Currently, investigators are in search
of waste sites to demonstrate this technology.
EA Technology, United Kingdom, developed a comprehensive soil-separation and washing process
to remove metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. This process
may also be applicable to sediment and sludge. This technology can provide stand-alone treatment
or be incorporated in a treatment train.
51-044-34J
68
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.5-4
Projects Completed Under the SITE Emerging Technology Program
in Fiscal Year 1994, cont.
Treatment Category: Thermal
University of Dayton, Ohio, created an air-treatment process using photothermal reactions conducted
at moderate temperatures (200-500°F) to destroy a wide range of organic compounds including PCBs
and chlorinated solvents. The process offers much higher throughput than other photo-oxidation
processes. In addition, no dioxin or furan was formed, which can be problematic by-product of
conventional thermal oxidation processes. A full-scale demonstration is anticipated.
Treatment Category: Solidification/Stabilization
Western Product Recovery, Texas, invented a chemical bonding and adsorbtion process to convert
heavy metals in soil, sediment and sludge to non-leaching ceramic silicate pellets that can either be
left on site or used as an aggregate for concrete or other applications. The process can also oxidize
organics in the waste stream; the resulting ceramic pellets will be organic free. Efforts are underway
to design a transportable production unit.
FY94. As of the end of FY94, the SITE Demonstration
program included 117 accepted, ongoing, and
completed technologies. Thirteen of the technologies
were evaluated in the field in FY94 and are described
in Exhibit 4.5-6.
Characterization and Monitoring Program: The goal
of the Characterization and Monitoring program is to
validate the performance of innovative and alternative
monitoring, measurement, and site characterization
technologies. This validation accelerates the
recognition of technologies that have the potential to
provide cost-effective, high quality, faster, or safer
means of detecting, quantifying, and monitoring
contaminants at Superfund sites.
Through FY94, the program has involved more
than 32 different characterization and monitoring
technologies. During FY94, the program received
peer review comments from the FY93 demonstration
of PCB screening technologies and incorporated
these changes into a revised report format. Also
during the fiscal year, nine technologies were
demonstrated forpentachlorophenol (PCP) and cone-
penetrometer-deployed sensors. The PCP
demonstration involved five technologies, including
four immunoassay test kits and a field analytical
51-044-34_2
screening technology, that were demonstrated in
conjunction with a remediation technology, base
catalyzed decomposition process. Cone-
penetrometer-deployed sensors demonstrated
included resistivity, pH, seismology, and temperature;
soil, water, and vapor sampling; and two laser
fluorescence screenings for polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) and BTEX. hi addition, EMSL-
LV initiated plans for demonstrating and evaluating
a field portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometer.
Technology Transfer Program: Technical
information from the three innovative technology
programs described above is disseminated through
various activities to increase awareness and promote
the commercial use of innovative technologies for
assessment and remediation of Superfund sites. These
activities include publishing and distributing SITE
program documents such as project-specific fact
sheets, bulletins, capsules, application reports, peer
review journal articles, and technical data packages;
conducting community outreach activities such as
presentations at conferences, program-specific
brochures, on-site visitor's days, demonstration
videotapes, and exhibits; participating in forums,
interagency task forces, and associations; and
69
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 4.5-5
New Technologies Accepted Into the SITE Demonstration Program
In Fiscal Year 1994
Treatment Category: Physical/Chemical
SIVE Services, California, created an enhanced steam-injection and vacuum extraction method designed
for in situ treatment of contaminated soil at relatively shallow depths.
Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., California, created a batch electrokinetig remediation (BEKR) process
that uses ceramic electrodes to move contaminants through soil. Water is circulated through the electrode
casings to collect and remove contaminants. The BEKR process is designed to remove both toxic
anions and cations from soil, mud, and sludge. Regeneration of the system produces a concentrated
contaminant brine that can be treated further or disposed.
Morrison Knudsen, Corp., Idaho, created a clay-based grouting technology that integrates three primary
phases: obtaining detailed information about site characteristics, developing a site-specific grout
formulation, and placing the grout. The technology, developed by a Ukrainian firm, is being evaluated
at an abandoned mine in Montana.
Process Technologies, Inc., Idaho, developed a photolytic destruction process that photolyses vapor-
phase halogens. Key features of the technology include that there are no moving parts, and its modular
design allows for easy scale-up. A demonstration of the technology was initiated in late September,
1994 at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California, to treat off-gases from an existing soil-
vapor extraction system.
Electro-kinetics, Louisiana, developed the Electro-Klean electrokinetics soil process that separates and
extracts heavy metals and organic contaminants from soil. This technology may be applied in situ or
ex situ, and uses direct currents with electrodes placed on each side of the contaminated mass. Several
studies of this technology have been previously conducted under the Emerging Technology Program.
Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, created the Electrokinetic remediation technology, an in-
situ process designed to treat cadmium in arid soil. A demonstration of the technology is planned for
mid-1995 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Xerox, Corp., New York, developed a two-phase extraction process that uses a high-vacuum source
applied to an extraction tube within a water well to increase ground-water removal rates and to volatilize
and extract that portion of contaminant from the sorbed or free-product phases. A demonstration of this
process began in August 1994 at the McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, California.
EET, Inc., Texas, created the TECHXTRACT™ process, employing proprietary chemical formulations
in successive steps to remove PCBs, toxic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and radionuclides from the
subsurface of porous materials such as concrete, wood, brick, and steel.
RKK, Ltd., Tennessee, developed CRYOCELL®, a frozen soil barrier that completely contains waste,
preventing migration to the soil, or isolates a contaminated area during an in situ remediation program.
Preliminary tests of the technology have been conducted at the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The demonstration is planned for the DOE Hanford facility in Richland, Washington.
51-W4-35_1
70
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.5-5
New Technologies Accepted Into the SITE Demonstration Program
in Fiscal Year 1994, cont.
Treatment Category: Physical/Chemical, cont.
BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc., Virginia, developed the Biogenesis3" process that uses specialized
equipment, surfactants, and water to dean soil and sediment contaminated with PCBs. The PCB
sediment washing system will be tested in early 1995 at the Alameda Naval Station in Alameda,
California. Another version of the Biogenesis3" system was successfully tested on hydrocarbons under
the SITE program in 1992.
Matrix Photo-catalytic, Ltd., Canada, developed a photocatalytic oxidation system that removes and
destroys dissolved organic contaminants from water in a continuous flow process at ambient temperatures.
The system also treats chlorinated compounds such as PCBs. A demonstration of the technology is
planned at the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Matrix Photo-catalytic, Ltd., Canada, created a photocatalytic oxidation system that removes and
destroys organic contaminants from air.
TriWaste Reduction Services, Inc., Canada, developed the TriWaste Reduction system that combines
a thermal phase separation system with a soil-washing treatment system. The system is designed
to treat metals and chlorinated organic compounds.
Treatment Category: Biological
Pintail Systems, Inc., Colorado, created a technology that uses microbial detoxification of cyanide in
heap leach processes to reduce cyanide levels in spent ore and process solutions. Two full-scale
cyanide detoxification projects have been completed, and a demonstration is planned for the Summitville
Mine Superfund site in Colorado.
SBP and Environmental Laboratories, Inc., Connecticut, created the vacuum-vaporized well system
consisting of a specially adapted ground-water well, a negative-pressure stripping reactor, an in situ
bioreactor, and an above-ground vapor-phase bioreactor. The technology is a part of the demonstration
jointly sponsored with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) and
the New York State Center for Hazardous Waste Management.
RE Wright Associates, Inc., Pennsylvania, developed a process using a bioventing technology in which
injection and extraction wells enable the developer to regulate oxygen and nutrient levels to stimulate
the native bacteria in the soil to biodegrading the contaminants of concern. The technology is a part
of the demonstration jointly sponsored with the NYDEC and the New York State Center for Hazardous
Waste Management.
ENSR Consulting & Engineering and Larson Engineering, Texas, developed a process that treats VOC-
soils in biovaults. Nutrients, moisture, and oxygen levels can be controlled within the constructed
vaults. The technology is a part of the demonstration jointly sponsored with NYDEC and the New York
State Center for Hazardous Waste Management.
Treatment Category: Thermal
Vortec, Corp., Pennsylvania, developed a system that oxidizes and vitrifies soil, sediment, sludge, and
mill tailings that have organic, inorganic, and heavy-metal contamination. The technology was previously
tested under the Emerging Technology Program. Transportable systems are being developed for soil
remediation at DOE facilities.
51-044-35_2
71
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 4.5-6
SITE Demonstration Projects Completed in Fiscal Year 1994
Treatment Category: Physical/Chemical, cont.
Cognis, Inc., California, demonstrated the Cognis TERRAMET® soil-remediation system for leaching
and recovering lead and other metals from contaminated soil, dust, sludge, or sediment. Appropriate
sites include contaminated ammunition testing areas, firing ranges, battery-recycling centers, scrap
yards, metal-plating shops, and chemical manufacturers. The technology was demonstrated at the
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant in New Brighton, Minnesota.
North American Technology/Aprotek, California, demonstrated a hydrocarbon-recovery technology that
uses an oleophilic amine-coated ceramic chip to separate suspended and dissolved hydrocarbons, and
some chemical emulsions from aqueous solutions. The technology is effective on gasoline, crude oil,
diesel fuel, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene compounds, as well as PAHs, and a variety of
chlorinated hydrocarbons. This technology was demonstrated in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
ROCHEM, California, demonstrated the ROCHEM Disc Tube Module System™ that uses membrane
separation to treat aqueous solutions ranging from waste water to leachate contaminated with organic
solvents. Many types of waste material can be treated with this system, including sanitary and hazardous
landfill leachate containing both organic and inorganic contaminants. The Disc Tube Module System
was demonstrated in Johnston, Rhode Island.
Roy F. Weston, California, demonstrated the Unterdruck-Verdampfer Brunnen (UVB) vacuum-vaporizing
well, an in-situ system for remediating contaminated aquifers, especially those contaminated with VOCs.
Depending on the circumstances, the UVB system may also remediate semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) and heavy metals. The demonstration was conducted at March Air Force Base in Ontario,
California.
Billings & Associates, Inc. New Mexico, demonstrated the subsurface volatilization and ventlation system
(SVVS®) technology that uses a network of injection and extraction wells to treat subsurface organic
contamination using soil vacuum extraction in combination with in-situ biodegradation. The system
applies to sites with leaks or spills of gasoline, diesel fuels, and other hydrocarbons, including halogenated
compounds. The SVVS® was demonstrated in Buchanan, Michigan.
Terra Kleen Response Group, Inc., Oklahoma, demonstrated a solvent extraction treatment system,
a waste minimization process designed to remove SVOCs, VOCs, and chlorinated compounds from
soils. The system was demonstrated in San Diego, California.
Dynaphore Inc., Virginia, created the Dynaphore FORAGER® Sponge; an open-celled cellulose sponge
with an amine-containing polymer that has a selective affinity for aqueous heavy metals in both cationic
and anionic states. The sponge can scavenge metals in concentration levels of parts per million and
parts per billion from industrial discharges, municipal sewage, process streams, and acid mine-drainage
waters. The sponge was demonstrated in Pedricktown, New Jersey.
51-044-36 1
72
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.5-6
SITE Demonstration Projects Completed in Fiscal Year 1994, cont.
Treatment Category: Biological
J.R. Simplot, Idaho, demonstrated the Simplot anaerobic biological remediation (SABRE™) process
designed to treat soils contaminated with nitroaromatic pollutants. The technology was demonstrated
on trinitrotoluene at the Weldon Springs Ordnance Works, an abandoned manufacturing site in Weldon
Springs, Michigan.
Grace Dearborn, Inc, Canada, demonstrated the organic amendment-enhanced bforemediation technology
(DARAMEND™), designed to degrade organic contaminants, including PCP, PAHs, and petroleum
hydrocarbons in industrial soil and sediment. The technology treats batches of soil by incorporating
DARAMEND™ amendments into the soil using conventional agricultural methods. The technology was
demonstrated in Ontario, Canada.
Treatment Category: Thermal
KAI Technology, Massachusetts, demonstrated a radio frequency heating (RFH) in situ process, that
uses electromagnetic energy to heat soil and improve soil vapor extraction. The RFH technique has
been tested in removing petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs and SVOCs from soil. It was demonstrated
at Kelly Air Force Base as part of a joint project with the U.S. Air Force Armstrong Laboratory in San
Antonio, Texas.
Maxymillian Technology, Inc., Massachusetts, demonstrated a portable thermal-desorption system
(IDS) that uses rotary kiln technology to remove contaminants from soil. The TDS is designed to
remediate soil contaminated with VOCs, SVOCs, and PAHs, and was demonstrated in Utica, New York.
Texaco Syngas, Inc., New York, demonstrated an entrained-bed gasification process, a noncatalytic,
partial oxidation process in which carbonaceous substances react at elevated temperatures and
pressures, producing a gas containing primarily carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This gas can be used
to produce other chemicals or burned as fuel. The system can treat soil, sludge and sediment
contaminated with both organic and inorganic constituents, chemical wastes, and petroleum residues.
The process was demonstrated in Fresno, California.
Geosafe, Corporation, Washington, demonstrated an in situ vitrification system that uses electric currents
to melt soil or other earthen materials at high temperatures, destroying organic pollutants by pyrolysis.
Inorganics are incorporated within the vitrified glass and crystalline mass. This technology was
demonstrated in Grand Ledge, Michigan.
providing technical assistance to Regions, states, si-o44-36_z
^T^^zrrssr «•* su.^.^.^^ AS*,^
requesters in FY94, including approximately 1,000 Programs
technical evaluation reports, 78,000 summaries, Superfund projects require broad technical
109,000 application reports, 16,500 profiles, and knowledge and expertise. To provide multi-
119,000 bulletins. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5-7, the disciplinary expertise and technical support for
highest percentage of requests (44 percent) came Superfund cleanups, the Agency sponsors TSCs,
from engineering consulting firms.
73
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 4.5-7
Requests for SITE Documents
Industry 15%
EPA 3%
Other Federal Agencies
17%
Universities
Media,
Professional/Trade
Organizations 11%
Other 3%
Consulting Firms 44%
Source: Office of Research and Development.
51-044-28
START, the ORD STL program, 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 Regional Superfund
staff with direct access to the technical expertise and
resources of the Agency's researchers.
Technical Support Centers and Superfund
Technical Assistance Response Team
In FY94, the Agency funded seven TSCs: five
ORD laboratories, the OERR Environmental
Response Team (ERT), and one OAR laboratory.
ORD also sponsored the START program. The
purpose of the TSCs and the START program,
described in detail below, is to provide site-specific
technical assistance in the areas of release response,
site characterization, human health risk assessment,
ecological assessment, radiological evaluation,
ground-water remediation, and engineering. The
TSCs and START program responded to
approximately 430 technical support requests at
more than 400 Superfund sites in FY94. The TSCs
and START program are invaluable to the Agency's
Superfund effort, fulfilling a critical niche in
developing and delivering the best expertise available
in support of faster, better, and more cost-effective
cleanups.
Monitoring and Site Characterization TSC: ORD-
EnvironmentalMonitoring Systems Laboratory-Las
Vegas, Nevada : The EMSL-LV TSC provides
scientific and technical assistance for contaminant
detection, sampling/monitoring design, hydrological
74
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
monitoring, site characterization, data interpretation,
and geophysics. The EMSL-LV TSC delivers a
range of services for application at Superfund sites,
including saturated and unsaturated zone modeling;
remote sensing, mapping, and geostatistics; analytical
methods and quality assurance; bore-hole and surface
geophysics; x-ray fluorescence field survey methods;
sampling and monitoring design assistance; mixed
waste assistance; and radiological analysis.
In FY94, the EMSL-LV TSC provided technical
assistance for 44 Superfund sites, typically providing
multiple support activities at individual sites. In
addition, the EMSL-LV TSC responded to 123
short-term requests fortechnical support (i.e., requests
that can be completed within a 40-hour period) and
12 requests for remote sensing support. EMSL-LV
TSC scientists also wrote an issue paper titled
Identifying Background Levels of Naturally
Occurring Inorganics and Man-Made Substances in
Soils and Sediments. In response to a request to
EPA's Office of International Activities (OIA)
received through the U.S.-Asia Environmental
Partnership program, the EMSL-LV TSC assisted
the Republic of Palau in identifying methods to
determine whetherhazardous leachate from alandfill
was migrating into, and damaging, the surrounding
sensitive environment.
Health Risk Assessment and Toxicology TSC::ORD-
Environmental Health and Criteria Office-
Cincinnati, Ohio: The Environmental Health and
Criteria Office-Cincinnati (ECAO-Cin) TSC
functions as a focal point to coordinate Agency-wide
assistance in the area of human health risk assessment.
Coordinating with OERR's Toxics Integration
Branch, ECAO-Cin identifies future research issues
and ensures consistent dissemination and use of risk
assessment toxicity values and other guidance.
Technical services available from the ECAO-Cin
TSC include chemical-specific and chemical-mixture
toxicity information; support for the Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST); support for
thzRiskAssessmentGuidanceforSuperfund-Human
Health Evaluation Manual; technical review and
comment on site-specific Superfund risk assessments;
and coordination of information for the risk
assessment teleconference for Superfund.
In FY94, the ECAO-Cin TSC responded to
approximately 2,500 requests for individual chemical
toxicity values. In addition, the ECAO-Cin TSC
updated 25 risk assessment issue papers, reviewed
and revised 22 subchronic assessments for the annual
update of HEAST, and processed 360 support
questions from HEAST users.
Ecological Assessment TSC: ORD-Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Cincinnati, Ohio:
The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-
Cincinnati (EMSL-Cin) TSC develops indicators of
ecological conditions and provides technical
assistance in aquatic and terrestrial ecological
assessment, including technical reviews, biological
collection and assessment of aquatic and terrestrial
systems, physical habitat assessment, and ecotoxicity
assessments. Ecotoxicity assessments include
toxicity testing of water, sediment, and soil with
vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants. The EMSL-
Cin TSC conducted 130 water-column and 48 toxicity
tests at nine hazardous waste sites in FY94.
Bioassessments using fish, macroinvertebrates, and
periphyton were also conducted at three of these
sites.
In addition to providing direct technical support,
the EMSL-Cin TSC conducts important ecological
research into how contaminants from hazardous
waste sites affect ecological resources. Forexample,
EMSL-Cin ecologists have constructed 12 artificial
streams to function as mesocosms that can be used to
study the impacts of mine wastes on water plants and
fish communities. Using these artificial streams,
EMSL ecologists have begun evaluating the impact
on aquatic ecology of zinc, a major metal of concern
in hard rock mining.
Ground-Water Characterization and Remediation
TSC: ORD-R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory-Ada, Oklahoma: The R.S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL) is
EPA's center for fate-and-transport research; it
focuses its efforts on contaminants in the vadose and
saturated zones of the subsurface, methodologies
relevant to protection and restoration of ground-
water quality, and evaluation of subsurface processes
for the treatment of hazardous waste. The RSKERL
75
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
TSC provides technical assistance in the areas of
pump-and-treat aquiferremediation, bioremediation
of soil and ground water, subsurface geochemistry,
contaminant transport modeling, subsurface
contamination transformation, and in situ treatment
processes.
The RSKERL TSC completed its seventh year
of service in FY94. In addition to its numerous
technology-transfer activities, the TSChas 666 active
or completed site-specific projects at more than 320
Superfund sites. In FY94, the RSKERL TSC
responded to 112 requests for assistance and added
64 new sites to its roster, including 7 federal facilities.
The RSKERL TSC also operates the Center for
Subsurface Modeling Support (CSMoS) and the
Subsurface Remediation Information Clearinghouse
(SRIC). CSMoS provides direct technical support to
EPA and state decision-makers in subsurface model
applications. In addition, CSMoS manages,
distributes, and supports the ground-water and vadose
zone models and databases researched and developed
at RSKERL. CSMoS has distributed more than
3,474 models in response to 1,717 requests, 65
percent of which were from private institutions such
as consulting firms. SRIC provides a forum for
rapidly developing, highly specialized scientific
information. Activities include developing,
collecting, evaluating, coordinating, and
disseminating information related to the fate and
transport of contaminants in soil and ground water.
In FY94, SRIC distributed more than 6,932
publications in response to 2,554 requests. In addition,
11 technology transfer activities were provided for
EPA Regions, states, other federal agencies, and the
private sector. These activities focused on ground-
water monitoring, modeling, and investigations;
mechanical integrity of injection wells; ground-water
sampling methods; and bioremediation.
Engineering and Treatment TSC: ORD-Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory-Cincinnati, Ohio:
The RREL-Cin TSC plans and conducts engineering,
research, and development related to treatment of
solid and hazardous wastes. RREL-Cin TSC staff
provide technical services involving specific
treatment technologies and Superfund response
processes, including treatability studies, RD/remedy
selection review, construction quality-assurance/
quality-control methods, and source control and
geotechnical test methods.
The RREL-Cin TSC responded to over 80
requests for engineering assistance in FY94, including
assistance in 26 treatability studies, 3 treatment
screening option reviews, 13 technology evaluations,
6 RI/FS engineering reviews, and 27 requests for
RD/RA engineering assistance. The RREL-Cin
TSC also published an engineering issue paper on in
situ treatment of unsaturated soil.
Environmental Response TSC: OERR-
Environmental Response Team, Edison, New Jersey:
The ERT TSC provides support for responses to
releases of hazardous waste, chemicals, and oil.
ERT also provides support in risk assessment, multi-
media sampling and analysis, health and safety,
clean-up techniques, and training for response
personnel. Services include response techniques for
emergency hazardous chemical releases; treatment
technologies, sampling plans, and contaminant
assessment; technical review of remedial and removal
technologies, safety, and preparedness; the Hazardous
Material Incident Response Training program; and
site-safety plans, personnel protection, and safety.
During FY94, ERT conducted 103 removal actions
and 79 RAs, responded to 10 oil spills and 2
international incidents, and conducted 203 training
courses nationwide.
Radiological and Chemical Assessment TSC: OAR-
National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory, Montgomery, Alabama: The National
Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory
(NAREL)TSC can assess, characterize, and remediate
radiologically and chemically contaminated sites. In
addition, the laboratory offers an expanding capability
for analyzing heavy-metal and organic-waste
contaminants. Specific NARELTSC services include
conducting and monitoring radiological assessment
of sites; designing, evaluating, and demonstrating
remediation technologies; analyzing samples for
radionuclides; calculating and assessing dose and
risk; evaluating, calibrating, and providing quality
assurance for radon field measurements and
instruments; and providing a nuclear emergency
response team.
76
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team:
ORD-Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory-
Cincinnati, Ohio: In addition to the Engineering and
Treatment TSC, RREL sponsors the START
program. The START program provides intensive,
long-term, site-specific technical and engineering
support to provide better, faster, and more cost-
effective remediation at Superfund sites with difficult
engineering problems or sites of national significance.
Sites admitted into the START program are
nominated by EPA's Regional offices. In FY94, the
START program provided assistance for 60
Superfund sites through more than 300 separate
technical support activities. The START program
also supported 50 treatability studies through design
review and implementation and oversight of
laboratory and field studies. In addition, the START
program published four engineering bulletins on
specific technologies, as well as two technical-
resource documents on site types, such as pesticide-
and solvent-contaminated sites, to help Regional
staff evaluate and select the most appropriate
remediation technologies.
Superfund Technical Liaison Program
Under the STL program, senior ORD scientists
are permanently stationed in Regional offices.
Through these ORD scientists, the STL program
provides direct technical assistance to Regional staff,
facilitates interaction among ORD laboratories and
Headquarters' offices, promotes the application of
good science within the Regional waste programs,
and provides feedback to ORDon Regional technical
needs.
Ground-Water and Engineering Forums
The Ground-Water and Engineering Forums,
chaired byTIO.helped coordinate activities between
Regional technical staff and the ORD laboratories
for addressing ground-water and engineering concerns
encountered in site remediation. In conjunction with
the TSCs, the Ground-Water and Engineering Forums
published issue papers on the remediation of PCBs,
remediation of DNAPLs, use of pump-and-treat
technologies, and use of in situ soil treatment. The
forums also provided opportunities for members to
conduct technical reviewsof four guidance documents
during the year. In addition, seven forum members
joined the American Society of Testing and Materials
to help review standards that relate to EPA's field
protocols.
To expand interagency coordination, the forums
held joint semi-annual meetings with DOE and the
United States Geological Survey. The meetings
improve technology transfer and aid in interagency
communication and coordination.
4.5.3 Technology Transfer and
Interagency Sharing
TIO, as a producer of technological information,
is widely recognized as a leader in the technology
innovation arena. For more than five years, TIO has
identified, cataloged, and disseminated information
to users on many issues, including
• Trends in the use of innovative technology at
Superfund.Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (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 by other federal
agencies.
TIO has also brought federal agencies, academics,
and the private sector together to demonstrate and
evaluate technologies. The following sections detail
FY94 technology transfer and interagency
information sharing efforts, including forums and
conferences, demonstrations and evaluations of
innovative technologies, reference materials, and
training and continuing education opportunities.
77
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Innovative Technology Forums and
Conferences
To encourage collaborative efforts across EPA,
other federal agencies, academics, and the private
sector, EPA sponsored forums and conferences for
exchanging information on innovative technologies.
The Agency also participated in international
information exchanges.
• Fifth Forum on Innovative Hazardous Waste
Treatment Technologies: Domestic and
International: TIO and ORD sponsored this
conference to increase awareness of technologies
that are ready for application to clean up sites.
This three-day conference introduced and
highlighted innovative treatment technologies
that produced significant performance results.
The conference showcased results of selected
international technologies, the SITE program
technologies, and case studies from the SITE
program.
• Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable:
Through this forum, TIO provided an information
exchange network for federal agencies that were
conducting applied research and developing
innovative remediation techniques. The
roundtable published the annual updates of three
documents that describe federal technology
demonstrations, databases, and publications
about innovative technologies. Interagency
communication through the roundtable also led
to several joint initiatives to demonstrate
technologies and create a uniform format for
documenting cost and performance information.
• Remedial Technologies Development Forum
(RTDF): The RTDF, organized by TIO and
ORD, encourages collaboration among
companies, public interest groups, states,
universities, DOE, and DOD 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 RTDF formed four
workgroups to look at specific research areas: in
situ remediation technologies, bioremediation
of chlorinated solvents, site characterization,
and in situ soil flushing. The in situ remediation
group initiated field work in the "Lasagna"
process at DOE's Paducah facility in 1994 and
will continue to develop the process. The
"Lasagna" process is a treatment train that
integrates hydrofracturing, electro-osmosis, and
in situ treatment of VOCs in soils containing
clay. The bioremediation group is planning six
research projects on intrinsic bioremediation,
anaerobic bioremediation, and co-metabolic
bioventing. The other two groups are working to
establish protocols for testing that will lead to
field demonstrations of technologies for site
characterization and in situ flushing. The RTFD
is exploring the possibility of establishing two
additional focus areas: permeable treatment
walls and w situ treatment of metal-contaminated
soils.
Marketplace Conferences: TIO conducted two
marketplace conferences during FY94, one in
the Northeast and the other in the Rocky Mountain
region. The purpose of these conferences was to
highlight business opportunities and markets for
vendors and developers of innovative treatment
technologies. The conferences brought together
top-level state, EPA, DOD, DOE, and
Department of Commerce officials with business
executives from technology firms. TIO plans to
conduct at least two additional conferences, one
on the west coast and another in the Southeast.
Efforts to Encourage Small Businesses: To
encourage sm all-business innovative technology
vendors and users, EPA and the Small Business
Administration (SB A) signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU). Through the MOU, SBA
and EPA will engage in efforts to encourage
small businesses to develop, market, and/oradopt
cost-effective environmental technologies,
helping facilitate both economic growth and
environmental compliance. In efforts to identify
mechanisms to improve access to capital for
78
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
small businesses, OSWER and SBA financed a
study of small business developers and users of
technology. Also under the MOU, SB A initiated
a study of the environmental assistance capability
of its Small Business Development Center
network. This study assessed the national
network's potential to deliver environmental
compliance, pollution prevention, and
environmental development assistance for the
small business community and provided a plan
to implement such a program.
• International Efforts: To encourage international
exchange of information on clean-up
technologies, representatives of OSWER and
ORD served as project directors of a pilot study
for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's
Committee forthe Challenges to Modem Society.
This study, a follow-up to a successful effort to
share information on innovative treatment
technologies, evaluated both demonstrated and
emerging remedial technologies forthe cleanup
of contaminated land and ground water. In the
first phase of the study, participants discussed
and exchanged information on 29 soil and ground-
water remediation projects. The second phase
continues work on field-demonstrated
technologies, and also expands the scope to
include emerging processes in earlier stages of
development. Eighteen countries actively
participated in this program and, at the end of
FY94, 46 case study projects were underway.
Efforts to Demonstrate and Evaluate
Innovative Treatment Technologies
To encourage increased use of innovative
treatment technologies, TIO improved the
documentation of cost and performance data for
innovative treatment technologies. TIO also engaged
in projects such as the public-private partnership
program to demonstrate new technologies.
To measure performance or "benchmark"
innovative technologies, TIO continued gathering
data on 17 completed Superfund RAs that used
innovative technologies for full-scale remedies.
Coordinated through the Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable, the project also 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 potential users of
innovative treatment technology collaborate to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remediation
technologies. The partnership project is based on the
premise that risk-sharing is a critical incentive to
encourage increased use of new technologies.
Commercialization of new technologies is often
hampered by the hesitation of PRPs to risk the cost
of, and potential liability arising from, a failed test of
a proposed technology at their site. The public-
private partnership project evaluates 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. Using federal
facilities as test locations is one of the government's
major contributions to promotingnewenvironmental
technologies. This mutually beneficial arrangement
reassures industry about the commercial use of 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 started in late FY94. At McClellan,
the partnership is evaluating two-phase extraction
and photolytic destruction.
Reference Materials
To encourage use of innovative technologies,
the Agency provides and maintains a variety of
reference materials on the technologies. Examples
include three electronic sources of information on
innovative treatment technologies: the Alternative
TreatmentTechnology Information Center (ATTIC),
the Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies (VISITT), and the Clean-
Up Information (CLU-IN) electronic bulletin board.
The Agency is also developing a fourth electronic
information source, the Vendor Field Analytical and
Characterization Technologies System (Vendor
FACTS).
• ATTIC is a comprehensive information network
on alternative methods of hazardous waste
treatment, developed and maintained by ORD,
79
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
that is available through any modem-equipped
IBM-compatible PC or Macintosh computer
using standard communication software. The
core of the on-line system is the ATTIC database,
a relational database that contains technical
information from a variety of sources, including
EPA's SITE program, states, industry, RODs,
and treatability studies. ATTIC also provides
access to the Treatment Technology Database,
which contains abstracts from literature on all
types of treatment technologies and highlights
literature viewed as best by experts; the
Treatability Study Database, which provides
performance information derived from
treatability studies on technologies that remove
contaminants from wastewaters and soil; the
UST Database, which presents information on
underground storage tank corrective actions,
surface spills, emergency response, and remedial
actions; and the Oil/Chemical Spill Database,
which provides abstracts on treatment and
disposal of spilled oil and chemicals. In addition,
ATTIC allows immediate access to other disk-
based systems such as VISITT and the
Bioremediation in the Field Search System.
Overall, FY94 statistics on ATTIC use clearly
indicate an increasing demand for this valuable
information service. InFY94,10,308 calls were
made to the ATTIC system, of which about
1,599 were first-time users. Callers copied
(downloaded) information directly from ATTIC
more than 2,900 times in FY94, indicating
ATTIC'S contents are valued and used.
VISITT contains vendor-submitted performance
and cost information. As of the end of FY94,
VISITT 3.0 included information on 277
innovative treatment technologies offered by
171 developers and vendors. TIO provides this
information on diskettes to interested potential
users of innovative technologies. Since
developing the system in FY91, TIO has
distributed more than 10,000 copies of the system
to requestors in over 60 countries.
The CLU-INelectronicbulletinboard is designed
to serve project managers and others interested
in information about innovative remediation
technologies. This bulletin board, which TIO
funds and manages, offers a range of technology-
related information that may be read on-line or
down-loaded to a personal computer. In 1994,
access to CLU-IN was enhanced by providing
multiple pathways to connect to CLU-IN. Dial-
in users can now connect directly by pushing a
few keys on a standardized menu, and Internet
users may access CLU-IN by a number of routes
including direct TELNET access. To provide
more information to the states, TIO included
CLU-IN information for two new special interest
groups: the owners or operators of leaking USTs
and members of the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
• VendorFACTS, under development, will provide
cost and performance and other related
information submitted by vendors on 22
categories of measurement and monitoring
technologies.
TIO has developed several publications that
provide information on new developments and
applications of innovative treatment technologies:
• In December 1993, TIO published a monograph
titled, Profile on Innovative Technologies and
Vendors for Waste Site Remediation (Profile).
The Profile documents the findings of a review
of vendors who supply innovative technologies.
The study was conducted to gain a better
understanding the characteristics of the
companies in this field.
• To assist innovative technology developers and
investors in the soil and ground-water market,
TIO published a benchmark survey that provides
information on the future demand for remediation
services. The survey, Cleaning Up the Nations
Waste Sites; Technology & Market Trends,
addresses site characteristics, market size, and
other demand factors for the major waste site
clean-up programs in the U.S. The market
survey helped complete information on this
fragmented market and address future demand
for remediation services for all major clean-up
80
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
programs in the U.S., including Superfund,
RCRA, UST, and other federal agency programs.
Thelnnovotive Treatment Technologies: Annual
Status Report provides technical background
information and information on the selection
and use of innovative treatment technologies at
Superfund sites. The report is designed to enhance
communication among vendors, experienced
technology users, and those who are considering
using innov ative treatment technologies to clean
up contaminated sites. The September 1994
report contains information on almost 300
innovative technology projects at Superfund
remedial and removal sites.
Tech Trends and Ground Water Currents are
two newsletters distributed by TIO that address
soil treatment technologies and ground-water
remediation technologies, respectively. These
newsletters are published quarterly and are
distributed to over20,000interested subscribers,
including federal and state project managers,
consulting engineers, academics, and technology
users.
The 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.
Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and
Reference Guide, Version 2, which was
developed by TIO and members of the Federal
Remediation Technology Roundtable, profiles
55 innovative and established technologies for
the remediation of soil, sediment, sludge, ground
water, and air/off gas treatment processes. This
document presents a detailed discussion of the
properties and behavior of five common
contaminant groups including VOCs, SVOCs,
fuels, inorganics, and explosives.
Three treatment technology guides, Physical/
ChemicalResourceGuide,SoilVapor Extraction
Guide, and Ground-Water Resource Guide,
provide abstracts of guidance documents,
overview/program reports, research studies, field
demonstration results, and computer resources.
These guides are designed to assist site project
managers in screening and selecting innovative
treatment technologies.
• The Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment
Technologies: A Developer's Guide to Support
Services (Third Edition) was developed by TIO
to provide information to technology developers
and vendors on grant funding and technical
assistance, incubators/test/evaluation facilities,
and university-affiliated research centers offering
technology development and evaluation services.
TIO also sponsored several traveling information
booths that were sent to hazardous waste remediation
conferences and other meetings around the country.
These displays were major outlets for dissemination
of EPA materials and database information on
innovative remediation technologies.
Training and Continuing Education
In FY94, 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 monographs that detail
specific innovative technologies. These
monographs provide information to consulting
engineers and other potential users about the use
of state-of-the-art technology. In FY94, five
monographs were completed containing state-
of-the-practice design criteria and performance
and cost information. The WASTECH steering
committee is currently forming task groups to
update and complete the monograph series.
• TIO, in cooperation with the Office of
International Activities (OI A), developed a train-
the-trainer coursefrinciples of Hazardous Waste
Site Ranking, to provide fundamental
environmental management information to the
emerging democracies of central and eastern
Europe. In 1994, TIO completed training for
81
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
instructors and government managers in Poland
and transferred this training effort to the Polish
government. TIO and OIA also negotiated with
the government of Bulgaria and will 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, nationally and internationally.
TIO, with assistance from ORD, developed the
Innovative Treatment Technologies Workshop
in FY94 as an advanced level course for
experienced On-Scene Coordinators and RPMs.
The workshop provided an opportunity to
understand the operation, applicability,
adaptability, and cost and performance data for
selected innovative treatment technologies for
Superfund site remediation.
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 RA to ensure that the remedy fully protects
human health and the envi ronment. CERCLA Section
121 (c) also requires the Agency to submit a report to
Congress that lists the facilities for which periodic
reviews were conducted, the results of all the reviews,
and any action taken as a result of the reviews. FY94
was the fourth year in which sites were eligible for
five-year reviews. A total of 39 sites required five-
year reviews in FY94. Exhibit 4.6-1 contains the list
of sites where five-year reviews were required in
FY94. In addition, the following FY92 and FY93
five-year reviews were completed during FY94:
Chisman Creek (VA) due FY92; Central City/Clear
Creek (CO) due FY92; Denver Radium (CO) due
FY92; GE-Moreau (NY) due FY93; and Tysons
Dump #1 (PA) due FY93 for a total of 15 five-year
reviews completed in FY94.
Of 14 sites that were reviewed during FY94,
EPA determined that the remedies continue to protect
human health and the environment at nine of the
sites. At the remaining five sites, the Agency is
continuing to implement the remedies required to
protect human health and the environment. These
sites include Delaware Sand & Gravel, L.A. Clarke
and Sons, Southern Maryland Wood Treating,
Strasburg Landfill, Tysons Dump (due FY93), and
Washington County Landfill. EPA will continue to
conduct future five-year reviews consistent with
CERCLA Section 121(c) and Agency guidance.
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
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 FY94 policy reviews were conducted at
Sylvester (NH), Kimberton Site (PA), Middletown
Road Dump Site (MD), Davie Landfill (FL), Pepper
Steel & Alloys (FL), Cemetery Dump Site (MI),
Charlevoix Municipal Well Field (MI), Kurt
Manufacturing (MN), Tar Creek (Ottawa Co) (OK),
and Triangle Chemical Co (TX). A total of 10 policy
reviews were completed in FY94.
82
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 4.6-1
Sites At Which Five-Year Reviews Are Required Under CERCLA Section 121(c), Fiscal Year 1994
Site Name (State)
Region
Review Date
Baird & McGuire (MA)
Laurel Park, Inc. (CT)
Nyanza Chemical Waste Dump (MA)
Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum (NH)
Bog Creek Farm (NJ)
Endicott Village Well Field (NY)
Sealand Restoration (NY)
Swope Oil & Chemical Co. (NJ)
Upjohn Facility (PR)
Vestal Water Supply 1-1 (NY)
Fike Chemical (WV)
Henderson Road Site (PA)
Kane & Lombard Steel Drums (MD)
Delaware Sand & Gravel (DE)
L.A. Clarke & Sone (VA)
Southern Maryland Wood Treating (MD)
Strasburg Landfill (PA)
American Creosote Works (Jackson) (TN)
Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber) (NC)
Martin-Marietta-Sodyeco Inc. (NC)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek) (AL)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant) (AL)
Northwest 58th Street Landfill (FL)
Alpha Chemical Corp (FL)
Gold Coast Oil Corp. (FL)
Johns-Manville Corp. (IL)
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Illinois) (IL)
Washington County Landfill (MN)
Windom Municipal Dump (MN)
Waite Park Wells (MN)
AT & SF (clovis) (NM)
Bayou Sorrel Site (LA)
Brio Refinery (TX)
United Nuclear Corp. (NM)
French Limited (TX)
Lawrence Todtz Farm (IA)
Monticello Radioactively Contamin (UT)
Pacific Hide & Fur Recycling Co. (ID)
Martin-Marietta Aluminum Co. (OR)
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
10
10
11/10/93
12/15/93
04/13/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
03/02/94
05/16/94
01/06/94
02/09/95
83
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
84
-------
Chapter 5
Enforcement Progress
The Agency uses the enforcement provisions of
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, to maximize the
involvement of potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
in the cleaning up of Superfund sites. The Agency's
enforcement goals are to
• Maintain high levels of PRP participation in
conducting and financing cleanups through
EPA's aggressive use of statutory enforcement
authority;
• Ensure fairness and equity in the enforcement
process; and
• Recover Superfund monies expended by EPA
for response actions.
FY94 accomplishments illustrate the continuing
success of EPA's Superfund enforcement efforts.
EPA achieved enforcement agreements worth more
than $1.4 billion in PRP response work. PRPs
financed approximately 75 percent of the remedial
designs (RDs) and remedial actions (RAs) started
during the fiscal year. Through its cost recovery
efforts, EPA achieved over $206 million in settlements
and collected more than $200 million for
reimbursement of Superfund expenditures. The
Agency collected over $5.7 million in CERCLA
penalties.
Under the Superfund administrative
improvements initiative, the Agency reinforced its
goal to ensure fairness in the enforcement process by
reducing transaction costs and accelerating the pace
of cleanups. Efforts included increasing the use of
allocation tools, encouraging early settlements with
de minimis and "de micromis" parties, fostering
greater fairness forowners and prospective purchasers
of Superfund sites, and evaluating increased use of
mixed funding. Implementing other administrative
improvement measures, the Agency also worked to
enhance compliance monitoring, increase the
effectiveness of cost recovery efforts, and implement
the Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model (S ACM).
As it implemented SACM to streamline cleanup and
accelerate risk reduction the Agency worked to
streamline and expedite enforcement activities.
5.1 THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
The Superfund program integrates enforcement
and response activities. To initiate the enforcement
process, EPA identifies PRPs, notifies them of their
potential liability, and seeks to negotiate an agreement
with them to perform or pay for the cleanup. If an
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.
If PRPs do not comply with the UAO, EPA may
conduct the cleanup using Superfund monies and
pursue cost recovery action against the PRPs for
costs incurred. These steps are fundamental to
obtaining PRP involvement in conducting response
activities and recovering expended Trust Fund
monies. The enforcement process is explained in
more detail below:
• When a site is being proposed to the National
Priorities List (NPL), or when a removal action
is required, EPA conducts a PRP search to
identify parties thatmay be liable forsite cleanup
and to collect evidence of their liability. PRPs
include present and past owners or operators of
85
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
a site, generators of waste disposed of at a site,
and transporters who selected the site for the
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 between the Agency and
the PRPs.
EPA encourages PRPs to settle and undertake
clean-up activities, specifically to start removal
actions, remedial investigation/feasibility studies
(RI/FSs), or remedial design/remedial action
(RD/RAs). If PRPs are willing and able to do the
response work, the Agency will attempt to
negotiate an agreement allowing the PRPs to
conduct and finance the proposed clean-up work
and to pay for past government costs. For RD/
RAs, the settlement must be in the form of a
judicial consent decree (CD) that is lodged with
a court by the Department of Justice (DOJ). For
other types of response actions, the agreement
may be in the form of a CD or an administrative
order on consent (AOC) issued by an EPA
Regional Administrator. Both agreements are
enforceable in a court of law. Under either
agreement, PRPs conduct the response work
under EPA oversight. PRPs who settle may later
seek contribution toward the cleanup from non-
settling PRPs by bringing suit against them.
EPA also may 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 a site cleanup that will be
conducted by EPA or other PRPs. Cashout
settlements also may include a premium to
partially offset EPA's risk due to uncertainties,
such as remedy failure or cost overruns.
If negotiations do not result in a settlement,
CERCLA Section 106 provides EPA with the
authority to issue a UAO requiring the PRPs to
conduct the cleanup; EPA may also bring suit
through DOJ to compel PRPs to perform the
work. If the Agency issues a UAO and the PRPs
do not comply, the Agency again has the option
to file a lawsuit to compel the performance
specified in the order (and to seek penalties up to
$25,000 per day) or to perform the work itself
and then seek cost recovery and treble damages.
If the site is cleaned up using Superfund monies,
EPA will file suit through DOJ, when practicable,
to recover 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 1994
PROGRESS
FY94 progress reflects the continuing success of
Superfund enforcement efforts to secure 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 FY94, the Agency reached 230
settlements (CDs, AOCs, or UAOs in compliance)
with PRPs for response activities worth over $1.4
billion. As shown in Exhibit 5.2-1, the cumulative
value through FY94 of PRP response settlements
achieved under the Superfund program exceeds $10
billion. (Although UAOs strictly speaking are not
settlements they are included in this category if the
PRP notifices the Agency of their intent to comply
with the order and perform the required work under
the order.)
Of the 230 response settlements achieved in
FY94, 88 settlements worth almost $960 million
were for RD/RAs. These RD/RA settlements included
35 CDs referred to DOJ for approximately $585
million, 18 AOCs for almost $80 million, and 35
UAOs in compliance for more than $295 million.
These RD/RA settlements are the result of 58 RD/
RA negotiations started and 82 RD/RA negotiations
86
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-1
Cumulative Value of Response Settlements Reached with
Potentially Responsible Parties
12-1
10
<0
CO
.c
•w
i
4-
I Cleanup Design and
Construction (RD/RA)
| Other Response Actions
Total Response Settlements $10.2 Billion
Through FY94
$7.9 Billion
$2.3 Billion
I I
rMmmmmt**®*' mm
SBS3m ••§& ^^^B ^^^1
I I I
I I I
FY87
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
FY93
I
I I
I I
FY94
Source: CERCLIS.
51-044-14
completed by EPA during the fiscal year.
During FY94, the Agency issued 110 UAOs,
including 42 for RD/RAs. The Agency also signed
154 AOCs. The 110 UAOs issued and 154 AOCs
signed include agreements for removal actions, RV
FSs, RDs, and RD/RAs.
5.2.2 PRP Participation in Clean-up
Activities
Exhibit 5.2-2 illustrates the continuing high
level of PRP participation in undertaking and
financing RDs and RAs since the implementation of
the "enforcement first" initiative in 1989. In FY94,
PRPs continued to finance and conduct a high
percentage of the remedial work undertaken at
Superfund sites: 75 percent of new RDs, 75 percent
of new RAs, and 46 percent of new Rl/FSs.
5.2.3 Cost Recovery Achievements
Through pursuit of cost recovery actions, EPA
and DOJ reached 237 settlements worth more than
$206 million. The FY94 cost recovery settlements
represent over 14 percent of the total $1.4 billion
achieved in cost recovery settlements since the
inception of Superfund. More than 70 percent of the
total $1.4 billion has been achieved in the past five
87
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 5.2-2
Increase in the Percentage of Remedial Designs
and Remedial Actions Started by PRPs
FY90
Remedial Design Starts
FY92
FY94
Remedial Action Starts
Fund-Financed H PRP-Financed
Source: CERCUS.
51-044-16
years. Exhibit 5.2-3 illustrates cost recovery
settlements collected to date.
EPA collected over $200 million through cost
recovery settlements, bankruptcy settlements, and
other sources during the fiscal year. These FY94
collections represent more than 20 percent of the
approximately $934 million collected by EPA to
date; more than 80 percent of the $934 million has
been collected in the past five years.
5.2.4 Success in Reaching and
Enforcing Agreements with
PRPs
During FY94, the EPA Offices of Regional
Counsel and Regional Waste Management Divisions,
working in conjunction with the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
and DOJ, entered into numerous enforcement
agreements with PRPs. Exhibit 5.2-4 highlights a
cross section of the most successful enforcement
settlements reached during the fiscal year.
5.3 ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES
During FY94, the Agency's Headquarters
enforcement offices went through a major
reorganization. Superfund enforcement, which was
formerly administered through the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, was shifted to the new Office
of Site Remediation Enforcement - Superfund
Division within OECA. The reorganization had
little impact on program progress, and ongoing
Superfund enforcement activities continued under
the new organization.
As recommended by the Superfund
Administrative Improvements Task Force, the
88
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUNO
Exhibit 5.2-3
Cumulative Value of
Cost Recovery Dollars Achieved and Collected
tr
Q
E
UJ
0-
FY87 FY88
1 r
FY89 FY90
FY91
FY92 FY93
FY94
Source: CERCLIS.
51-044-13A
Agency engaged in efforts to promote equity in the
enforcement process. FY94 activities were focused
on increasing the use of allocation tools such as
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), encouraging
early settlements withrfe minimis and "de micromis"
parties, fostering greater fairness for owners and
prospective purchasers of Superfund sites, and
evaluating the increased use of mixed funding. Also,
as recommended by the task force, the Agency
continued efforts to improve compliance monitoring
efforts, enhance cost recovery efforts, and implement
SACM.
5.3.1 Greater Use of Allocation Tools
During FY94, the Agency worked to promote
greater use of allocation tools and thereby reduce
transaction costs. PRPs must pay transaction costs,
such as legal and investigative costs, as part of the
expenditures involved in cleaning up a site. PRPs
frequently incur high transaction costs when
settlement efforts to allocate clean-up costs are
prolonged or unsuccessful.
89
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUNO
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Savage Municipal Water Supply
New Hampshire (Region 1)
Settlement: CD (C001) for RA, and past and future
costs lodged with the District Court on 04/07/94 and
entered on 06/27/94
Estimated Value: $14.9 million
Three PRPs will conduct the cleanup of the site, at an
estimated cost of $11 million. Also, the PRPs will pay
EPA $900,000 in past response costs and $3 million for
future oversight costs. To address heavy metal
contamination of ground water, soil, sediment, and an
on-site stream, the cleanup will include sampling to
determine the extent of contamination, removal activities
for highly contaminated areas, and construction of a
ground-water pump-and-treat system.
Caldwell Trucking Company
New Jersey (Region 2)
Settlement: CD (CD02) for RA including natural resource
restoration, payment for natural resource damages,
assessment and monitoring costs, and past and future
costs lodged with the District Court on 03/31/94
Estimated Value: $35.5 million
Nine PRPs will perform cleanup of ground water
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and work to restore natural resources, at an estimated
cost of $32 million. The PRPs will also pay EPA $2.46
million for past and future response costs, and pay the
State of New Jersey $1 million for natural resource
damages, including the loss of an aquifer. In addition,
the PRPs will pay the Department of the Interior $40,000
for its assessment and monitoring costs.
Ciba-Geigy Corporation
New Jersey (Region 2)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RA, past and future
response costs, and future oversight costs lodged
with the District Court on 10/18/93 and entered on
04/21/94
Estimated Value: $68.4 million
Ciba-Geigy Corporation will perform a $60 million
cleanup of contaminated ground water, reimburse EPA
$8.4 million for past response costs, and pay EPA's
future response costs, including oversight costs. On-
site disposal of manufacturing wastes in at least 17
known or suspected areas of the 1,400-acre site
contaminated soil and ground water with VOCs and
heavy metals. EPA is investigating the disposal areas
as part of a second operable unit.
Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corporation
New York (Region 2)
Settlement: UAO (UAO03) for RA issued on 06/30/94;
PRPs notified EPA on 07/26/94 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value: $13.25 million
In compliance with the UAO, Occidental Chemical
Corporation and Ruco Polymer Corporation will sample
soil to determine the extent of contamination, flush
and excavate soil contaminated with VOCs and semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and install a
ground-water pump-and-treat system. The estimated
cost of these activities is $13.25 million. Under previous
orders, the PRPs have excavated and cleaned up
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated soil and
are investigating the extent of ground-water
contamination.
51-044-31 1
90
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments, cont.
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Lipari Landfill
New Jersey (Region 2)
Settlement: CD (CD03) for reimbursement of past
response costs lodged with the District Court on 03/16/94
and entered on 04/15/94; CD (CD04) for clean up of
off-site locations lodged with the District Court on 03/16/94
Estimated Value: $52.9 million CD03,
$48 million CD04
In one of the largest Superfund settlements to date,
Rohm & Haas, Owens-Illinois, and ManorCare agreed
to reimburse EPA and the State of New Jersey $52.9
million for past response costs at the site. In a second
settlement, Rohm & Haas also agreed to undertake a
$ 48 million cleanup of off-site contamination.
VOCs, heavy metals, and phthalates contaminated on-
site soil, ground water, surface water, and sediment.
EPA constructed an underground wall around the site,
capped the contained area, and installed injection wells
to flush out contaminated ground water, which is then
treated at the site. Rohm & Haas is excavating a nearby
marsh, a lake, and two streams affected by the
contaminated ground water. Material from the marsh
will be treated and then used in the reconstruction of
the marsh.
Niagara County Refuse
New York (Region 2)
Settlement: de minimis ADC (AOC02) for past and
future response costs signed on 09/23/94
Estimated Value: $794,000
Eleven de minimis PRPs will pay EPA nearly $794,000
for past and future response costs at the site.
Individual payments are based on the volumetric
shares of waste contributed to the site and include a
premium for any unforeseen future costs.
Rockaway Borough Well Field
New Jersey (Region 2)
Settlement: CD (CD02) for RD/RA, operation and
maintenance, payment of past costs, and payment of
future oversight costs lodged with the District Court
on 01/20/94
Estimated Value: $13.5 million
Thiokol Corporation will perform a RD for the site and
undertake cleanup for a portion of the ground water
known as the Klockner Plume. The estimated cost of
the cleanup is $12 million. Additionally, Thiokol
Corporation will reimburse EPA $1.5 million for past
response and will pay EPA's future oversight costs.
VOCs from three source areas, including a facility
operated by Thiokol, polluted the aquifer, which is the
sole source of ground water for the Rockaway Borough
and surrounding communities.
Sharkey Landfill
New Jersey (Region 2)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RD/RA, payment of past
response costs, and payment of future oversight costs
lodged with the District Court on 07/05/94
Estimated Value: $45.6 million ($1.4 million de minimis
contribution)
At an estimated cost of $43.3 million, 31 major PRPs
will perform the RD and cleanup of the site. The cleanup
will include capping the landfill and installing and
operating ground-water extraction systems to remove
heavy metals and VOCs. In addition, the PRPs will
reimburse EPA $1.75 million and the State of New
Jersey $300,000 for past response costs, and pay up
to $250,000 for EPA's future oversight costs. Also,
twelve de minimis parlies will contribute approximately
$1.4 million toward the site clean-up costs.
51-044-31_2
91
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments, cont.
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Blosenski Landfill
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO04) issued to 14 PRPs on
12/27/93 for RD/RA; 11 PRPs notified EPA on 01/31/94
of their intent to comply, and the remaining PRPs have
resolved their liability
Estimated Value: $12.5 million
In compliance with the UAO, 11 PRPs will design and
build a ground-water pump-and-treat system and
construct an impermeable cap over the landfill to
address VOC, heavy metal, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination at the site. The
estimated value of this work is $12.5 million. EPA also
is negotiating with the PRPs to pay $5.5 million in past
response costs.
C & D Recycling
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) issued on 08/09/94 for RA;
PRP notified EPA on 09/14/94 of its intent to comply
Estimated Value: $9 million
In compliance with the UAO, AT&T Nassau Metals
Corporation will clean up the site, at an estimated cost
of $9 million. The PRP will remove, treat, and dispose
of ash, soil, and sediment contaminated with heavy
metals as a result of wire recovery operations at the
site. The company also will conduct periodic surveys
to ensure that contaminants do not migrate into ground
and surface waters.
Columbia Gas Pipeline
North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia,
Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York,
and New Jersey (Regions 2, 3, 4, and 5)
Settlement: AOC (AOC01) for RA signed on 09/23/94
Estimated Value: $15 million per year for 16 years, for
a total of $250 million
Columbia Gas Transmission Company will identify and
clean up contaminated sites along its 19,000-mile
natural gas system, which covers 10 states in four EPA
Regions. The company estimates that compliance
with the order will cost $15 million a year for 16 or
more years, for an estimated total cost of approximately
$250 million. EPA has already identified PCB
contamination at several locations along the pipeline.
Also, EPA and the company negotiated a consent
agreement and consent order requiring the company
to pay a $4.9 million penalty for violations of Toxic
Substances Control Act regulations for improperly using
and disposing of PCBs.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company (Newport Landfill)
Delaware (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) issued on 04/19/94 for site
RA; PRPs notified EPA of their intent to comply on
05/23/94
Estimated Value: $47.7 million
In compliance with the UAO, E.I. Du Pont de Nemours
and Company and Ciba-Geigy Corporation will perform
clean-up work estimated to cost $47.7 million. Work
will include capping two on-site landfills, stabilizing on-
site soil, cleaning up area wetlands, containing ground
water on the north side of the Christiana River, dredging
river sediments, and performing long-term monitoring
of the wetlands and river. Waste from past Du Pont
operations, including radioactive waste, was disposed
of in two landfills at the site. Heavy metals and
chlorinated solvents have been detected in site soil,
ground water, wetland sediments, and the river.
51-044-31 3
92
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments, cont.
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Occidental Chemical Corporation
Pennsylvania (Region 3)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) issued on 06/23/94 for RA;
PRPs notified EPA on 07/25/94 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value: $11 million
In compliance with the UAO, Occidental Chemical
Corporation and Bridgestone/ Firestone, Inc., will clean
up the site at an estimated cost of $11 million. To
address VOC-contaminated ground water, the PRPs
will install and operate ground-water extraction wells
and air strippers, monitor ground-water contamination
levels, and excavate and backfill former waste-water
lagoons.
Rentokil
Virginia (Region 3)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RA and reimbursement of
past response costs lodged with the District Court on
07/21/94 and entered on 09/30/94
Estimated Value: $11.3 million
Virginia Properties, Inc., will perform clean-up work
valued at approximately $11 million and will reimburse
EPA nearly $279,000 in past response costs. Ground
water, soil, and surface water are contaminated with
pentachlorophenol (PCP), creosote, copper, chromium,
arsenic, and dioxin as a result of on-site disposal of
chemical waste from wood preserving operations. The
PRP will treat contaminated soil, place a cap over and
install a slurry wall around the entire she, and construct
a de-watering system underneath the cap.
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
North Carolina (Region 4)
Settlement: Two UAOs (UAO09 and UAO10) for RA
issued on 06/22/94; PRPs notified EPA on 07/29/94
and 08/08/94 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value: $11 million
In compliance with the two UAOs, PRPs will clean up
pesticide-contaminated ground water at three of the five
areas of the site used for manufacturing pesticides and
disposing of pesticide waste. The estimated cost of the
cleanup is $11 million.
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination
North Carolina (Region 4)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RA and reimbursement of
past response costs lodged with the District Court on
08/03/94
Estimated Value: $36.5 million
EPA reached agreement with 82 PRPs to clean up the
site; the CD included a preauthorization mixed-funding
agreement, a separate de minimis settlement, and a
"de micromis" settlement. Under the mixed funding
agreement, EPA will contribute up to $10.1 million, and
the PRPs will contribute an estimated $32 million to
clean up lead-contaminated soil and ground water. The
cost of the cleanup could increase to as much as $100
million, however, depending on the amount of
contaminated soil treated. In addition, the PRPs will
reimburse EPA $4.5 million in past response costs.
51444-31 4
93
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments, cont.
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Smith's Farm
Kentucky (Region 4)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RD/RA issued on 04/22/94;
PRPs notified EPA on 05/25/94 of their intent to comply
Estimated Value: $33 million
In compliance with the UAO, 10 PRPs will perform
RD/RA work estimated to cost $33 million. To address
VOC, SVOC, and heavy metal contamination at the site,
the PRPs will consolidate contaminated soil and waste,
construct a leachate collection and treatment station,
and cap and recontour a 35-acre landfill located at the
site.
American Chemical Service, Inc.
Indiana (Region 5)
Settlement: de minimishOC (AOC02) for past and future
response costs signed on 09/27/94
Estimated Value: $27 million
In one of the largest Superfund de minimi's settlements
in terms of the number of participating parties and amount
of money recovered, EPA reached agreement with 1,006
de minimis PRPs to reimburse EPA and the State of
Indiana more than $27 million in past and future response
costs, including a premium for unforeseen future costs.
The settlement represents approximately 35 percent of
the estimated site clean-up costs.
EPA also issued a UAO on September 30,1994, requiring
major generators and some non-settling parties to
implement a remedy for the site.
Motor Wheel Disposal
Michigan (Region 5)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RA, reimbursement of past
costs, and payment of future costs lodged with the
District Court on 02/16/94 and entered on 04/22/94
Estimated Value: $40 million
Six PRPs will implement the site remedy at an estimated
cost of $40 million, reimburse EPA for response costs
incurred since May 26,1992, and pay the Agency's future
oversight costs.
Under a 1987 AOC, PRPs conducted a site study that
revealed that ground water was contaminated with VOCs.
Under the CD, the PRPs will place a cap over a former
waste disposal area and pump and treat the contaminated
ground water.
Gulf Coast Vacuum
Louisiana (Region 6)
Settlement: de minimis AOC (AOC01) for past and future
response costs signed on 09/26/94
Estimated Value: $2.3 million
Fifty-four de minimis PRPs will reimburse EPA more than
$287,000 for past response costs and pay approximately
$2.01 million for future response costs. The payment
for future response costs includes a 67.5 percent premium
for unforeseen future costs.
EPA found that on-site disposal pits were contaminated
with heavy metals and VOCs and that on-site soil was
contaminated with heavy metals. EPA response actions
have included removing and treating water accumulated
in the disposal pits and building a containment levee to
prevent run off onto adjacent farmland.
51-044-31 5
94
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments, cont.
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
Oklahoma (Region 6)
Settlement: UAO (UAO01) for RA issued on 01/28/94;
the PRP notified EPA on 02/15/94 of its intent to comply;
de minimis AOC (AOC02) signed on 06/13/94
Estimated value: $12 million (UAO01),
$1.3 million (AOC02)
Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc., will comply with
the UAO to repair an existing clay cap on the landfill,
install a landfill gas recovery system, restore near-
surface ground water as a drinking water source, and
monitor ground water. These actions, which are
estimated to cost $12 million, focus on preventing the
migration of soil contaminants (pesticides, industrial
solvents, sludge, waste chemicals, and emulsions) into
an underlying aquifer that serves as a high-quality
drinking water source for many Oklahoma City residents.
Also, 19 de minimis parties will contribute $1.3 million
toward the Agency's past and future response costs at
the site.
Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou)
Texas (Region 6)
Settlement: UAO (UAO02) for RD/RA issued on 12/22/93
to six PRPs; three PRPs notified EPA on 1/18/94 of their
intent to comply
Estimated value: $27 million
In compliance with this UAO, three PRPs will perform
RD/RA work estimated to cost $27 million. The PRPs
will field test, design, and implement a remedy for the
site to address VOC- and SVOC-contaminated soil and
ground water.
EPA also is seeking to recover approximately $17 million
for past and future response costs from a former operator
and a former waste generator.
California Gulch
Colorado (Region 8)
Settlement: CD (CD12) for RA lodged with the District
Court on 05/16/94 and entered on 08/26/94; CD (CD10)
for reimbursement of past response costs and RA entered
in the District Court on 12/15/93
Estimated value: $70.8 million (CD12),
$1.1 million (CD10)
Under CD12, Resurrection Mining Company and
ASARCO, Inc., will address all sources of contaminant
releases at the site, including waste rock, mine tailings,
and slag from lead smelting operations conducted in the
area since the 1860s. EPA estimates that the remedial
work required under this settlement will cost approximately
$70.8 million, although specific clean-up actions have
not yet been defined.
Also, under CD10, the Denver & Rio Grande Western
Railroad Company will reimburse EPA $1.1 million in
past response costs and will clean up slag piles, rail
works, easements, and parts of a railyard in the area.
Portland Cement (Kiln Dust #2 & #3)
Utah (Region 8)
Settlement: CD (CD04) for reimbursement of past and
future response costs lodged with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York on 07/11 /94.
Estimated Value: $18.5 million
Lone Star Industries, formerly known as Portland Cement
Company of Utah, will reimburse EPA and the State of
Utah approximately $18.5 million in cash and securities
for past and future clean-up costs. The State of Utah
plans to excavate and dispose of site wastes. Currently,
the state is conducting a Rl and focused FS of ground-
water contamination at the site.
51-044-31 6
95
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments, cont.
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Iron Mountain Mine
California (Region 9)
Settlement: UAO (UAO06) for RD/RA issued to three
PRPs on 04/19/94; one PRP notified EPA on 05/26/94
of its intent to comply
Estimated Value: $40 million
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., has notified EPA of its intent to
comply with a UAO to enhance treatment facilities for
acid mine drainage. Rhone-Poulenc will modify an
existing treatment plant, construct additional facilities to
treat drainage from the Old #8 Mine Seep, and operate
and maintain the treatment plant for 30 years. The
cleanup is estimated to cost $40 million.
Sulfuric acid in the mine drainage leaches an average
of a ton of copper, cadmium, zinc, and other toxic metals
from the Iron Mountain Mine every day. These
contaminants eventually enter the Sacramento River,
resulting in fish kills and chronic adverse impacts on
fisheries, including the winter run of the chinook salmon.
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Idaho (Region 10)
Settlement: CD (CD03) for RAand reimbursement of
past and future costs with five PRPs, including two de
minimis PRPs lodged with the District Court on 05/10/94;
AOC (AOC07) for RD issued on 07/19/94
Estimated Value: $48 million (CD03) ($1.23 million de
minimis contribution), $2 million (AOC07)
PRPs have begun RD work valued at an estimated $2
million and will undertake cleanup valued at $40 million
to address heavy metal contamination at the site. Also,
the PRPs will pay up to $8 million for EPA's past costs
and the cost of oversight by EPA and the State of Idaho.
Two de minimis PRPs involved in the clean-up
settlement will pay $1.23 million to the other three
settling PRPs.
The PRPs will remove and replace the top layer of
lead-contaminated soil from approximately 1,350
residential yards, commercial properties, and rights-of-
way. The PRPs also will close all existing water wells
in the Main Valley Aquifer and any other contaminated
wells. In addition, the PRPs will finance an institutional
controls program to support property owners in
protecting the clean soil covers, educate the community
about the control measures being put in place, provide
health intervention, and provide loans to residents to
use in acquiring high-efficiency vacuums for controlling
dust within their homes.
51-044-31 _7
96
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 5.2-4
Highlights of Successful Enforcement Accomplishments, cont.
Settlement
Terms of the Settlement
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats
Washington (Region 10)
Settlement: Two AOCs (AOC09 and AOC10) for pre-
RD and RD signed on 11/29/93 and 03/23/94
Estimated Value: $6 million (AOC09),
$3.7 million (AOC10)
Through two AOCs, PRPs will conduct design work for
the cleanup of three waterways at the site. The
waterways are contaminated with a variety of organic
and inorganic pollutants as a result of 100 years of
industrial activity.
Six PRPs will conduct pre-RD sampling and analysis to
select a waste disposal site and develop a comprehensive
remediation plan for the Hylebos Waterway, which is
contaminated with metals and high concentrations of
PCBs, in addition to organic and inorganic pollutants.
The estimated value of this work is $6 million.
The City of Tacoma will design the sediment cleanup for
the Thea Foss and Wheeler Osgood Waterways, which
are part of the city's waterfront and the focus of its long-
term revitalization and development plans. The estimated
value of this work is $3.7 million.
Queen City Farms
Washington (Region 10)
Settlement: CD (CD01) for RA and reimbursement of
past and future response costs entered in the District
Court on 09/09/94
Estimated Value: $22.5 million
The Boeing Company will perform clean-up activities
estimated to cost $22 million, reimburse EPA more than
$566,000 for its past response costs, and reimburse
EPA for its future oversight costs.
Ground water and surface water at the site are
contaminated with VOCs, and the soil is contaminated
with PCBs and metals. Boeing will remove liquid waste
from, and construct a vertical barrier around, a previously
capped area to prevent contaminants from entering the
ground water, remove 10,000 cubic yards of soil and
debris from the site, and conduct long-term ground-
and surface-water monitoring. If these measures are
not successful, Boeing also may extract and treat
contaminated ground water.
51-044-31_8
97
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Alternative Dispute Resolution
ADR is a tool that is used to create proposed
allocations of responsibility among negotiating
parties. ADR involves use of a neutral third party to
organize negotiations, facilitate settlement
deliberations, and provide an opinion to the patties
in negotiations.
During FY94, OECA and the Offices of Regional
Counsel made substantial progress toward
standardizing and implementing the use of ADR
mechanisms for enforcement actions. Activities
included issuing guidance entitled Final Guidance
on Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques
in Enforcement Action, implementing the "ADR
Act" and Executive Order on Civil Justice Reform,
increasing case use of ADR mechanisms, developing
case support systems, providing training and internal
ADR services, and supporting outreach to the
regulated community. Specific accomplishments
are discussed in more detail below:
• Regional offices encouraged the use of ADR
mechanisms and provided ADR services at 29
sites during FY94. In particular, the Regional
offices encouraged PRPs to use ADR to assist
settlements. ADR mechanisms were used
successfully by the Regional offices to assist
enforcement negotiations for 13 civil actions.
Encouraging the use of ADR as a tool for
increasing the efficiency of settling future
disputes, the Agency included mediation in the
dispute resolution provisions of several judicial
and administrative settlement documents.
• Region 1 assumed responsibility for developing
standard ADR use and consideration procedures
in civil actions. Region 1 used ADR in six cost
recovery and RD/RA actions. Regions 2 and 3
used ADR professionals to obtain agreement on
major de minimis settlements involving over
1,000 parties. A pilot on the use of arbitration to
resolve Superfund cost recovery cases resulted
in the drafting of proposed case selection criteria
and hearing procedures.
As part of the Superfund administrative
improvements effort, Regional offices
participated in two pilots supporting the use of
ADR professionals in private allocation disputes
at Superfund sites. The highly successful pilots
explored the use of ADR to support both non-
binding and binding allocation methods.
The Headquarters ADR liaison and various
Regional ADR contacts provided assistance to
EPA Headquarters and DOJ staff in drafting the
allocation and ADR provisions of the proposed
Superfund Reform Act of 1994. As a result of
these activities, the Agency developed a
comprehensive model for the use of allocation
procedures to resolve allocation and settlement
disputes at Superfund sites.
EPA Headquarters worked with DOJ and the
Regional offices to develop an innovative ADR
strategy to increase the use of ADR in program
operating procedures. Innovations include the
inclusion of information on ADR use in pre-
referred negotiation documents and participation
of ADR-knowledgeable staff in case and docket
reviews.
All Regional offices and EPA Headquarters had
training on the effective use of mediation and
other ADR techniques during FY94. The training
was designed for legal and program staff who
participate in enforcement settlement activities.
Training also was provided to several state
environmental agencies.
Progress was made during FY94 in educating
the regulated community on the Agency's support
for the use of ADR techniques to reduce both
private and government transaction costs. The
Headquarters ADR liaison, several Regional
ADR contacts, and EPA management made
presentations and provided training programs on
effective ADR use for numerous professional
and PRP organizations and several other federal
agencies. In addition, in November 1993, a
98
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
national workshop explored opportunities to use
ADR in increasing the effectiveness and fairness
of the Superfund program.
Developing and Sharing Allocation
Information
On August 12, 1994, to facilitate developing
and sharing of allocation information, the Agency
issued a white paper on the availability of volumetric
waste information atNPL sites and its impact on site
settlements. The paper contains findings from the
evaluation of 554 multi-party generator/transporter
NPL sites.
Guidance on Developing Allocation
Methods
The Agency also conducted an assessment of
currently used allocation methods and allocation
implementation issues. The assessment was
conducted through interviews with nine parties from
across the country who conduct or participate in
allocations. The results of the assessment were
published in September 1994 in a report entitled,
Allocations Among Potentially Responsible Parties
for the Costs of Superfund Site Cleanups.
5.3.2 Foster More Settlements with
Small-Volume Waste
Contributors
To provide greater fairness for small-volume de
minimis and "de micromis" waste contributors at
Superfund sites, EPA is encouraging more, early,
and expedited settlements that will reduce the
transaction costs for all parties. To simplify
determining a PRP's eligibility for a de minimis
settlement and to streamline the settlement process,
the Agency reduced the amount of information that
a Region requires before offering a de minimis
settlement. EPA issued guidance, Streamlined
Approach for Settlements with de minimis Waste
Contributors under CERCLA Section 122(g)(l)(a),
OSWER Directive9834.7-ID, thatprovided amethod
for preparing payment matrices and encouraged
Regions to take a more active role in facilitating a de
minimis settlement.
The Agency also has worked with the Regions
on settling with extremely small volume waste
contributors ("de micromis" parties) and moving
aggressively to settle with "de micromis" parties
who are subject to contribution actions by major
waste contributors. By using EPA's existing
settlement authority in an expeditious manner, the
Agency can resolve the liability of "de micromis"
parties so that they may gain the full extent of
contribution protection available under the statute.
In addition, the Agency continued to work on a
Regional communications strategy that includes
developing a model notice letter for assisting and
informing de minimis parties about the settlement
process. Effective communication with all concerned
parties early in the settlement process can serve
manyuseful functions, including limitingtransaction
costs and improving the possibility that a settlement
offer will be accepted. The communications strategy
recommends a variety of approaches to ensure
successful communications with parties prior to,
during, and following de minimis settlement
negotiations. For example, EPA developed abrochure
that describes the basic concepts and steps of the
Superfund program and the de minimis settlement
process. The brochure is included in mailings to de
minimis parties, distributed at PRP meetings, and
provided to elected officials as introductory
information about de minimis settlements. The
Agency also implemented a toll-free telephone
information line for small-volume contributors who
have questions about the settlement process.
5.3.3 Greater Fairness for Owners at
Superfund Sites
When prospective purchasers of Superfund sites
know of contamination priorto purchasing property,
they may be liable for clean-up work under Superfund.
Prospective purchasers are willing, in some instances,
to conduct or finance some cleanup of the property
99
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
in return for a covenant from EPA not to sue. When
an agreement for cleanup is reached between EPA
and a prospective purchaser, the Agency, local
communities, and the regulated community can
benefit in several ways. The Agency can gain
additional funding to finance cleanup at the site. The
local communities and economies benefit from the
redevelopment of the site, which creates jobs and
returns the property to productive use. The
prospective purchaser benefits by gaining access to
a prime location for business, without fear of possible
Superfund liability.
EPA is focusing more effort on negotiating
agreements that will facilitate or assist in the re-use
or development of contaminated property.
5.3.4 Evaluate Mixed-Funding Policy
The Agency uses mixed funding in situations
where it is appropriate to recover less than 100
percent of the site costs from PRPs in a particular
settlement. There are three types of mixed funding
settlements: preauthorization (where PRPs perform
the work and the Agency agrees to reimburse them
for a portion of the costs), cashouts (where the PRPs
fund a portion of the work that EPA performs), and
mixed work (where the PRP and the Agency perform
different aspects of the cleanup).
The Agency surveyed the opinions of
organizations and individuals, including PRPs,
regarding mixed-funding agreements. Many of
those surveyed noted that the procedures and
documentation required to enter into a mixed-funding
settlement, or to assert a claim against the Trust
Fund, are burdensome. During FY94, the Agency
responded by conducting mixed-funding
demonstration projects to explore options for
streamlining the mixed-funding decision-making
process, and the application and documentation
requirements.
To evaluate the mixed-funding demonstration
projects, the Agency defined "measuresof success""
These measures relate to the overall number of
settlements achieved using mixed funding and the
timeliness and quality of the settlement process.
Where the use of mixed funding (either mixed work
or preauthorization) resulted in settlement without a
large expenditure of resources (such as would be
expended going to trial), the pilot was considered
successful. Forpurposesof the evaluation, settlement
was defined as an agreement on the specific language
of the settlement document. Based on the evaluation
of demonstration projects, EPA will continue to
recommend measures for streamlining
preauthorization procedures and requirements.
5.3.5 Compliance Monitoring
Through ongoing oversight of PRP activities,
EPA monitors PRPs' compliance with AOCs.UAOs,
and CDs. EPA monitors PRP activities at sites to
ensure that the activities are performed correctly and
on schedule.
EPA is continuing to develop and implement
procedures for increasing the effectiveness of its
compliance monitoring. The Agency implemented
Regional compliance tracking systems to monitor
compliance with CERCLA enforcement actions/
settlements. EPA's OECA also began reviewing
Regional compliance reporting measures and plans
to determine whether national compliance guidelines
are appropriateornecessary. OSREbegan conducting
a review of each Region's approach to ensure that the
Regions are tracking the most appropriate indicators
of compliance. Preliminary results of EPA Regional
compliance monitoring reviews indicate that
improved compliance monitoring procedures are
increasing Regional enforcement of AOCs, UAOs,
and CDs, including use of stipulated penalties.
5.3.6 Improved Effectiveness of Cost
Recovery
EPA has completed several significant activities
to improve its effectiveness in recovering Trust
Funds expended for cleanup. Agency efforts have
focused on developing more effective reports and
revising the cost recovery prioritization process.
The Cost Recovery Targeting Report was developed
to combine CERCLA Information System planning
obligations with data from the Integrated Financial
100
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Management System to present a complete picture
of the statute of limitations date and the past costs
associated with each site. The Cost Recovery
Targeting Report combines data from the two systems
to resolve potential problems related to comparability
and access to data, and to enable EPA to identify
sites where the statute of limitations is near expiration.
The report also presents a complete picture of past
recoverable costs and the status of all past, ongoing,
and planned efforts to address these costs. With the
report as a tool, EPA revised the cost recovery target
process to target all cases with unrecovered costs
exceeding $200,000, where the statute of limitations
is an issue. Under the revised process, the Regions
are required to provide documentation for all cases
where the statute of limitations is an issue, including
those where the deadlines have expired. The revised
process should help Regions to better prioritize their
cost recovery work.
In other efforts, the Agency continued to work
toward finalizing its proposed cost recovery rule.
The rule seeks to standardize cost recovery
documentation requirements, clarify statute of
limitations issues, specify the types of costs that
constitute recoverable indirect costs, and explain the
methodology used to calculate indirect costs. As of
the end of FY94, the rule was still in process.
5.3.7 Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up
Model
As the Agency implemented S ACM to streamline
and accelerate risk reduction and cleanup at Superfund
sites, it also worked to expedite Superfund
enforcement activities. To support SACM, the
Agency is starting earlier PRP searches, using "non-
time critical" removals at PRP-lead sites, and
increasing the use of AOCs for RDs. The settlement
at the Columbia Gas Pipeline, highlighted in Exhibit
5.2-4, is one example of the use of a non-time-critical
removal at a PRP-lead site.
The increased use of AOCs for RDs allows PRPs
to initiate the RD while continuing to negotiate on
the settlement (CD) for conducting the cleanup.
Further, the use of the AOC for RD allows the PRPs
to perfect the clean-up design prior to finalizing the
settlement. During FY94, EPA issued 18 AOCs for
RDs.
101
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
102
-------
Chapter 6
Federal Facility Cleanups
Departments and agencies of the federal
government manage a variety 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 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. Generally, Executive
Order 12580 delegates the President's authority under
CERCLA to federal departments and agencies,
making them responsible for all clean-up activities at
their facilities. At federal facilities that are National
Priorities List (NPL) sites, which are sites having the
highest priority for remediation under Superfund,
CERCLAmandatesthatcleanups be conducted under
interagency agreements (lAGs) between EPA and
relevant federal agencies. States are often a party to
these agreements as well. To ensure federal facility
compliance with CERCLA requirements, EPA not
only provides technical advice and assistance, but
also takes enforcement action when appropriate.
In addition to CERCLA, there exists a range of
authority and enforcement tools under state statutes
that apply to non-NPL federal facility sites. Indian
tribes may also be involved in federal agency
compliance with environmental regulations when
acting as either lead or support agencies for Superfund
response actions.
6.1.1 Federal Facility Responsibilities
Under CERCLA
Federal departments and agencies ate responsible
for identifying and addressing hazardous waste sites
at the facilities that they own or operate. They are
required under CERCLA to comply with all
provisions of federal environmental statutes and
regulations and all applicable state and local
requirements during site cleanup.
6.1.2 EPA's Oversight Role
EPA oversees and assists federal agencies with
clean-up activities. EPA responsibilities include
evaluating sites for the NPL, negotiating or re-
negotiating and amending lAGs, promoting
community involvement through site-specific
advisory boards and restoration 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. This includes personnel from the Federal
103
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) in the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OEC A)
and the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office (FFRRO) in the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
To track the status of a federal facility, EPA uses
a number of information systems. The Facility Index
System provides an inventory of federal facilities
subject to environmental regulations. Through the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS), EPA
maintains a comprehensive list of all reported
potentially 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 regular docket
updates published in the Federal Register.
6.1.3 The Roles of States and Indian
Tribes
Undertheprovisions of CERCLA Section 120(f),
state and local governments are encouraged to
participate in planning and selecting remedial actions
to be taken at federal facility NPL sites within their
jurisdiction. State and local government participation
includes, but is not limited to, reviewing site
information and developing studies, reports, and
action plans for the site. EPA encourages states to
become signatories to the I AGs 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 under the provisions of
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. In addition to CERCLA, these
cleanups are subject to state laws regarding response
actions. A state's role at a non-NPL federal facility
site, therefore, will be determined both by that state's
clean-up laws and CERCLA.
CERCLA Section 126 mandates that federally
recognized Indian tribes be afforded substantially
the same treatment as states with regard to most
CERCLA provisions. Thus, the role of a qualifying
Indian tribe in a federal facility cleanup would be
substantially similar to that of a state. To qualify, a
tribe must be federally recognized; have a tribal
governing body that is currently performing
governmental functions to promote the health, safety,
and welfare of the affected population; and have
jurisdiction over a site.
6.2 FISCAL YEAR 1994
PROGRESS
FFEO and FFRRO, in conjunction with various
other EPA Headquarters offices, Regional offices,
and states, ensure federal department and agency
compliance with CERCLA and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act requirements.
Progress in achieving federal facility compliance
may be measured by the status of federal facility sites
on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket and on the NPL, and by the execution of
lAGs for federal facility sites.
6.2.1 Status of Facilities on the
Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Federal facilities where hazardous waste is
managed or from which hazardous substances have
been released are identified on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. The docket
was established under CERCLA Section 120(c) and
functions as a comprehensive record of the Superfund
federal facilities program. It includes the compliance
status of each federal facility. Information submitted
to EPA on identified facilities is compiled and
maintained in the docket and then made available to
the public.
The initial federal agency docket was published
in theFederal Register on February 12,1988. Atthat
time, 1,095 federal facilities were listed on the
104
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Exhibit 6.2-1
Number of Federal Facilities
on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
2/12/88
11/16/88
12/15/89
8/22/90
9/27/911
I
12/12/91
I
7/17/921
1.095
1,170
1.268
1,296
1,602
1,652
1,709
2/5/93 M::::..h:i
11/10/93
1,930
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. 5i-o*4-»A
docket. Exhibit 6.2-1 shows the increase in the
numberof sites on the docket since its first publication.
Most recently, the docket update of November 10,
1993, listed a total of 1,945 facilities. Of this total,
the Department of Defense (DOD) owned or operated
863 (44 percent) of the facilities and the Department
of the Interior (DOT) owned or operated 428 (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
To distinguish the increasing number of federal
facility NPL sites from non-federal NPL sites, NPL
updates list federal facility sites separately from non-
federal sites. NPL updates also contain language that
Exhibit 6.2-2
Distribution of Federal Facilities
on the Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Department of Defense 863 (44%)
Department of the Interior 428 (22%)
Department of Agriculture 122 (6%)
Department of Transportation 111 (6%)
Department of Energy 90 (5%)
Ownership Not Yet Known 76 (4%)
Tennessee Valley Authority 42 (2%)
Corps of Engineers, Civil 36 (2%)
Veterans Administration 34 (2%)
United States Postal Service 24 (1%)
Department of Justice 23 (1%)
General Services Administration 21 (1%)
Environmental Protection Agency 20 (1%)
National Aeronautics and Space 17 (1%)
Administration
Department of Commerce 12 (0.6%)
Department of Health and Human 11 (0.6%)
Services
Department of the Treasury 7 (0.4%)
Department of Housing and Urban 4 (0.2%)
Development
Central Intelligence Agency 2 (0.1%)
Department of Labor 1 (0.05%)
Small Business Administration 1 (0.05%)
TOTAL 1,945
Note: Percentages total less than 100% due to rounding.
Source: Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket.
S1-044-SA
clarifies the roles of EPA and other federal
departments and agencies with regard to federal
facility sites. Consistent with Executive Order 12580
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan, EPA is typically not the
lead agency for federal facility sites on the NPL;
federal agencies are usually lead agencies for their
own facilities. EPA is, however, responsible for
overseeing federal facility compliance with
CERCLA.
At the end of FY94, there were 160 federal
facility sites proposed to or listed on the NPL,
105
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
including 150 final and 10 proposed sites. These
totals included 10 sites that were proposed for listing
and 24 proposed sites that were listed as final during
FY94.
Federal departments and agencies made
substantial progress during FY94 toward cleaning
up federal facility NPL sites. Activity at federal
facility NPL sites during the year included the start
of approximately 60 remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs), 50 remedial designs (RDs), and 40
remedial actions (RAs). Also, 60 records of decision
(RODs) were signed, and 17 sites achieved
construction completion. Ongoing activities at the
end of FY94 included 486 RI/FSs, 60 RDs, and 79
RAs.
6.2.3 Interagency Agreements Under
CERCLA Section 120
IAGs are the cornerstone of the enforcement
program for federal facility NPL sites. They are
enforceable documents and contain, among other
things, a description of remedy selection alternatives,
schedules of clean-up activities, and provisions for
dispute resolution. During FY94, nine CERCLA
IAGs were executed to accomplish hazardous waste
cleanup at federal facility NPL sites. Of the 150 final
federal facility sites listed on the NPL, 129 were
covered by enforceable agreements by the end of the
fiscal year.
IAGs between EPA and each responsible federal
department or agency, to which states maybe
signatories, document some or all of the phases of
remedial activity (RI/FS, RD, RA, operation and
maintenance) to be undertaken at a federal facility
NPL site. IAGs formalize the schedule and procedures
for submission and review of documents and include
a timeline for remedial activities in accordance with
the requirements of CERCLA Section 120(e). They
also must comply with the public involvement
requirements of CERCLA Section 117.
Included in IAG provisions are mechanisms for
resolving disputes between the signatories. EPA can
also assess stipulated penalties for noncompliance
with the terms of IAGs. The agreements are
enforceable by the states, and citizens may seek to
enforce them through civil suits. Penalties may be
imposed by the courts against federal departments
and agencies in successful suits brought by states or
citizens for failure to comply with IAGs.
6.3 FEDERAL FACILITY INITIATIVES
The growing awareness of environmental
contamination at federal facilities has increased the
public demand for facility cleanup. To address this
demand, EPA has worked to establish priorities for
clean-up programs and thereby maximize the cleanups
that can be accomplished with the finite resources
available. In FY94, EPA reorganized its federal
facility enforcement offices (FFRRO and FFEO) to
make them more effective. The Agency also
continued efforts to clean up closing military bases,
accelerate cleanup, address issues through interagency
forums, and promote the use of innovative
technologies at federal facility sites.
6.3.1 Military Base Closure
During the fiscal year, DOD with EPA and the
states began implementing the Fast Track Clean-Up
Program that was developed in response to the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act and published
as a DOD directive in September 1993. The Fast
Track Clean-Up Program focuses clean-up efforts on
facilitating reuse of bases scheduled for closure and
speeding the economic recovery of communities
associated with those bases.
Under the Fast Track Clean-Up Program, EPA,
DOD, and the states established BRAC clean-up
teams (BCTs) at 75 bases in FY94. BCTs were
identified and trained in November 1993. EPA,
DOD, and the states focused efforts on the BRAC
bases with the greatest potential for economic reuse.
Of the 75 bases with BCTs, 24 are final NPL sites, 3
are sites proposed to the NPL, and 19 are sites likely
to be proposed to the NPL.
Major components of the Fast Track Clean-Up
Program include identifying uncontaminated parcels,
accelerating cleanup, enhancing community
involvement, facilitating leasing agreements,
106
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
encouraging removal actions, providing technical
assistance at non-NPL bases, 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).
EPA's approach in supporting DOD in the Fast
Track Clean-Up Program was outlined in the Model
Accelerated Clean-Up Program guidance. In
compliance with the terms of the guidance, EPA
assigned a Remedial Project Manager (RPM) to each
installation with a BCT. The RPM serves as an
integral part of the clean-up team and spends a
significant amount of time at the base. EPA also
provided technical experts in areas such as
hydrogeology, toxicology, ecological assessment,
field support, and legal review to support the effort.
DOD supported EPA by committing approximately
100 full-time equivalent personnel to aid in achieving
the objectives of the Fast Track Clean-Up Program.
Most of the DOD resources were assigned to EPA's
Regional offices.
6.3.2 Accelerated Cleanups at Federal
Facilities
EPA, with DOD and the Department of Energy
(DOE), published Guidance on Accelerating
CERCLA Environmental Restoration at Federal
Facilities in August 1994. The guidance identifies
Superfund Accelerated Clean-Up Model components
that provide opportunities for speeding cleanup at
federal facility NPL sites. The guidance also addresses
site assessment, innovative technology, the impact
of accelerated cleanup on the NPL, presumptive
remedies, early and long-term actions, public
involvement, Regional decision teams, and the effect
of accelerated cleanup on sites with existing federal
facility I AGs. Also in conjunction with other federal
agencies, EPA initiated the development and
promotion of presumptive remedies at closing military
bases. Presumptive remedies are preferred
technologies for common categories of sites based
on historical patterns of remedy selections, as well as
scientific and engineering evaluations of performance
data on technology implementation. Presumptive
remedies are expected to reduce the cost and time
required to clean up similar sites, to promote
consistency in remedy selection, and to facilitate the
expeditious reuse of properties by surrounding
communities.
6.3.3 Interagency Forums
Through its participation in interagency
organizations, EPA made significant progress in
addressing concerns associated with federal facility
cleanup.
Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee (FFERDC), established in 1992
as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, provided a forum for identifying
and refining issues related to environmental
restoration activities at federal facilities. During
FY94, FFERDC contributed to the debate on
Superfund reform and held national discussions on
improving the federal government's approach to
environmental management.
Defense Environmental Restoration Task
Force
EPA continued to participate in the Defense
Environmental Restoration Task Force (DERTF).
The goals of DERTF and DOD are to examine
environmental issues associated with the cleanup
and reuse of closing military installations and to
identify and recommend ways to expedite and
improve environmental response actions at military
installations scheduled to be closed. To support its
activities, DERTF established five working groups.
Each working group is addressing one of the following
topics: fast track clean-up implementation,
environmental baseline surveying, leasing, future
land use, and environmental justice.
BRAG Clean-Up Teams
With DOD and the states, EPA formed BCTs at
all major installations scheduled for closure and
107
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
conducted three training conferences for BCT
members. EPA and DOD prepared and conducted
bottom-up reviews of 77 BRAC clean-up plans for
closing installations, established restoration advisory
boards (RABs) at closing installations, provided
seven RAB training workshops, and determined, by
consensus, the suitability of property to transfer or
lease for reuse. As mandated by the Community
Environmental Response Facilitation Act, EPA
reviewed and where appropriate concurred in the
identification of uncontaminated parcels of property
that are part of an NPL site.
Environmental Management Advisory
Board
With DOE, EPA participated in the Department's
Environmental Management Advisory Board. The
board consists of representatives from industry,
academia, and the environmental community. It
provides information, advice, and recommendations
on issues confronting the national environmental
management program. These issues include clean-
up criteria and risk assessment, land use, priority
setting, management effectiveness, cost-versus-
benefit analyses, and strategies for determining the
future national configuration of waste management
and disposal facilities.
6.3.4 Innovative Technology
Development
FFRRO and FFEO, in conjunction with the
Technology Innovation Office (TIO), the Office of
Research and Development, and the Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, coordinated efforts to
establish federal facilities as testing and development
centers for innovative technologies. In August 1994,
the EPA Administrator signed and issued a policy
document, the EPA Policy for Innovative
Environmental Technologies at Federal Facilities.
This policy advocates and reaffirms EPA's
commitment to promote the use and development of
innovative technologies at federal facilities. EPA,
along with DOD and DOE, also signed an interagency
guidance document on accelerating CERCLA
environmental restoration at federal facilities. The
guidance includes a provision encouraging
accelerated cleanup at federal facilities through the
use of innovative technologies. It also gives EPA
discretion to allow changes in scheduled activities
and to provide technical support to federal agencies
to facilitate the use of innovative technologies.
Decisions about using innovative technologies are to
be made with the support of EPA, state agencies, the
lead federal agency, and the public.
TIO, FFRRO, and FFEO engaged in several
other efforts to promote the use of innovative
technologies at federal facility sites. For example,
TIO.FFRRO.and FFEO formed the Federal Facilities
Forum to serve as a venue for problem-solving and
exchanging information between EPA Regions and
federal agencies on improved technology to help
accelerate restoration and reuse of federal facilities.
TIO, FFRRO, and FFEO also initiated efforts to start
the Multisite Technology Confirmation Initiative.
Through this initiative, the Agency seeks to identify
innovative technologies thathave been demonstrated
at the full-scale level and to facilitate their use at
additional sites. By developing information on the
cost and performance of innovative technologies,
this initiative should enhance the acceptability and
use of innovative technologies for remediation at
federal facilities. In other efforts, the Agency
participated in public-private partnerships and the
Develop On-Site Innovative Technologies (DOIT)
Committee.
Public-Private Partnerships
Through the use of public-private partnerships,
EPA has demonstrated and evaluated various
innovative hazardous waste technologies. For
example, EPA, DOE, and the State of Florida
continued to implement a public-private partnership
through DOE's Innovative Treatment Remediation
Demonstration Program for the remedi ation of ground
water at the DOE Pinellas Plant in Florida. The
parties are working to select the appropriate
technology for the site. At McClellan Air Force
Base, EPA continued a public-private partnership
project with the State of California, the Air Force,
and several private firms. Two technology
demonstrations were held at McClellan between
July and October of 1994.
108
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Through a cooperative agreement between TIO
and Clean Sites, Inc., additional public-private
partnerships between federal agencies, federal
regulators, state regulators, and private companies
are being established. Efforts are underway to
establish a public-private partnership at the Joliet
Army Ammunition Plant, in Illinois, for the
remediation of explosives-contaminated soil, using
an innovative technology. Clean Sites, Inc., is
working with the Remedi al Technology Development
Forum to demonstrate an innovative technology at
DOE's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky.
Public-private partnerships are also being established
at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, the Otis
Air National Guard Site, and the Naval Air Station/
North Island.
Develop On-Site Innovative Technologies
Committee
In other FY94 activity, EPA continued to work
closely with DOE, DOD, DOI, and the Western
Governors Association (WGA) to bring about
environmental regulatory reform at the state and
federal level. EPA is represented on the DOIT
Committee, a federal advisory committee created to
implement a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
signed by DOD, DOE, DOI, EPA, and WGA.
Pursuant to the MOU, the signatories are cooperating
to expedite waste site cleanups and advance better
technologies. The DOIT Committee, seeking to
analyze technology demonstrations and solicit
stakeholder involvement at federal facilities, has
four working groups (mixed waste, mining waste,
munitions, hazardous waste at military bases). In
FY94, the workgroups identified a number of sites
for technology demonstrations and made suggestions
for new approaches.
6.4 CERCLA IMPLEMENTATION
AT EPA FACILITIES
Of the 1,945 sites on the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket at the end of
FY94, 20 were EPA-owned or operated. Of these
EPA-owned or operated sites, one was listed on the
NPL. A report, required by CERCLA Section
120(e)(5), on clean-up progress at these 20 facilities
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 specific cost estimates
and budgetary proposals involved in each IAG;
• Section 120(e)(5)(C): A brief summary of the
public comments regarding each proposed IAG;
• Section 120(e)(5)(D): A description of the
instances in which no agreement (IAG) was
reached;
• Section 120(e)(5)(E): A progress report on
conductingRI/FSsrequiredby CERCLA Section
120(e)(l) at NPL sites;
• Section 120(e)(5)(F): A progress report on
remedial activities at sites listed on the NPL; and
• Section 120(e)(5)(G): A progress report on
response activities at facilities that are not listed
on the NPL.
CERCLA also requires that the annual report
contain a detailed description, by state, of the status
of each facility subject to Section 120(e)(5). The
status report must include a description of the hazards
presented by each facility, plans and schedules for
initiating and completing response actions,
enforcement status (where applicable), and an
explanation of any postponement or failure to
complete response actions. EPA gives high priority
to maintaining compliance with CERCLA
109
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
requirements at its own facilities. To ensure
concurrence with all environmental statutes, EPA
uses its environmental compliance program to
heighten regulatory awareness, identify potential
compliance violations, and coordinate appropriate
corrective action schedules at its laboratories and
other research facilities.
EPA also has instituted an internal program
review process to identify facilities with potential
environmental violations of federal (including
CERCLA), state, and local requirements. By
performing these detailed facility analyses, EPA is
better able to assist facilities in complying with
federal, state, and local requirements.
6.4.2 Progress in Cleaning Up EPA
Facilities Subject to Section 120
of CERCLA
At the end of FY94, the Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket listed 20 EPA-
owned or operated facilities, including one that has
been listed on the NPL (the Old Navy Dump/
Manchester NPL site in Washington). Three of the
sites (Casmalia Resources in Casmalia, California;
the Brunswick Facility in Brunswick, Georgia; and
the Philadelphia Site in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
may have been listed on the docket in error. EPA is
currently investigating those listings. EPA has
evaluated and, as appropriate, undertaken response
activities at the 17 EPA sites on the docket for which
it is responsible, including the site on the NPL. As
required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5), Exhibit
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. EPA facilities
that have undergone significant response activities in
FY94 are discussed in detail below. As required for
EPA-owned or operated NPL sites, the information
presented below for the Old Navy Dump/Manchester
NPL Site provides a report on progress in meeting
Section 120 requirements for reaching lAGs,
conducting RI/FSs, and providing information on
the status of remedial activities. For other EPA-
owned or operated sites on the docket, the information
presented below provides a report on progress in
conducting response activities at the facilities.
National Air and Radiation Environmental
Laboratory, Alabama
EPA's air and radiation laboratory formerly
operated at a site near its current location at Gunter
Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. During
operations at the original site, waste solvents,
including xylene and benzene, were discharged into
a pit adjacent to the laboratory building. The releases
were identified by EPA's internal auditing program.
The site was remediated initially by removing the
accessible contaminated soil and replacing it with
uncontaminated soil. Then EPA, in conjunction with
the Underground Injection Control Program of the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
determined the extent of the remaining contamination
and developed an appropriate mitigation program.
EPA is monitoring the ground-water wells on the
property regularly and initiating a program to pump
ground water from the contaminated area.
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. Through
pollution prevention and waste minimization
initiatives undertaken in FY94, EPA Headquarters is
attempting to eliminate this small quantity
wastestream.
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 continued to maintain monitoring wells at the
site. During FY94, EPA continued monitoring of
the wells with no contamination found.
110
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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)
AR Combustion Research Facility
CO National Enforcement
Investigation Center
DC EPA Headquarters
Contained soil and
ground-water contamination
No contamination
No contamination
Small-quantity generator
IL Region 5 Environmental Services No contamination
Division Laboratory
KS EPA Mobil Incinerator
No contamination from
mobile incinerator
No contamination
KS Region 7 Environmental Services
Divison Laboratory
MD EPA Central Regional Laboratory No contamination
Ml Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory
NC EPA Tech Center
NJ EPA Edison Facilities
OH AWBERC Facility
OH Center Hill Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory
No contamination
No contamination
PA completed; ongoing monitoring
and response activities.
PA completed 4/89; no further
remedial action planned.
PA completed 4/88; no further
remedial action planned.
EPA undertaking pollution prevention
and waste minimization efforts to
eliminate wastestream.
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.
No contamination that poses PA/SI prompted additional
a threat to the environment investigative work.
No contamination
No contamination
OH Testing and Evaluation Facility No contamination
OR EPA Laboratory Small-quantity generator
TX EPA Laboratory Small-quantity generator
WA Old Navy Dump/Manchester NPL Soil and sediment
Site (formerly known as the contamination attributable to
Region 10 Environmental DOD ownership
Services Divison Laboratory)
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.
Site listed on the NPL in 5/94; IAG
negotiations initiated 7/94; RI/FS to
be performed in FY95.
Source: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and the Office of Administration
and Resources Management.
51-044-6
111
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
EPA Edison Facilities, New Jersey
The EPA Edison Facilities site was formerly the
Raritan Depot, which was owned by DOD and used
for munitions testing and storage. In 1963, the
General Services Administration (GSA) took
possession of the property and, in 1988, transferred
approxim ately 200 acres of the site to EPA. Although
residual contamination from past DOD and GSA
activities at the facility persists, EPA has not stored,
released, or disposed of any hazardous substances on
the property.
A site inspection was conducted in FY91,
following the discovery of a contaminated surface-
water impoundment. The investigation resulted in
the implementation of interim 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
storingmunitions; and removing underground storage
tanks. EPA expects that DOD will pursue additional
clean-up work at the site.
Old Navy Dump/Manchester NPL Site,
Washington
EPA acquired this former Navy site from DOD
in 1970 and used the land to construct an
environmental testing laboratory in 1978. The
property is also used for two other environmental
laboratories run by the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
The property adjacent to the laboratories had
been used by the Navy to conduct firefighting training
exercises, maintain metal anti-submarine nets, and
serve as a Navy landfill. Investigations of the
property history revealed that in the 1940s and
1950s, the Navy had used a lagoon on the property to
dispose of metal debris and other waste from the
nearby Bremerton Naval Shipyard. Also, chemical
residues from the Navy firefighting training school
had been allowed to drain into the ground. In FY93,
a preliminary assessment and site inspection of the
property revealed the presence of hazardous
substances in the soil, sediment, and surface-water
run off. In January 1994, EPA proposed the site to
the NPL, and in June 1994, EPA listed the site on the
NPL.
Because the site is a former Navy site, the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program for
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) will provide
funding for evaluating and correcting the hazardous
conditions. Negotiations for an IAG for site cleanup
were initiated in July 1994 and were ongoing as of
the end of the fiscal year. Also during the year, the
Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
was authorized under the Department of Defense's
Environmental Restoration Program for FUDs to
perform an RI/FS of the Old Navy Dump/Manchester
NPL Site (FUDS Site No. F10WA011900) and to
prepare a proposed plan and ROD. Initiation of the
RI/FS is scheduled for FY95.
112
-------
Chapter 7
Superfund Program
Support Activities
7.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Superfund's community involvement efforts
demonstrate EPA's commitment to informing
potentially affected citizens about Superfund sites
and involving them in the 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 conflicts.
The guideline for EPA's proactive community
involvement effort is "early, often, and always""
EPA is committed to beginning outreach activities
early in the Superfund process, meeting with citizens
on a regular basis, and always listening to citizens'
concerns.
EPA's policy of enhancing community
involvement is demonstrated by its continued efforts
to tailor community involvement activities to each
community's needs and to identify effective
approaches for reaching concerned citizens. Each
community is unique and requires an individual
communication strategy. EPA's strategy, while
satisfying statutory requirements, 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 public monitoring equipment, to
convey information from EPA to local citizens,
promote greater public understanding, and
encourage public participation in site activities;
• Conducting introduction to Superfund workshops
and video presentations to educate affected
citizens about the Superfund clean-up process
and opportunities forinvolvement in the process;
• Establishing "store-frontoffices" in communities,
often staffed by local residents; and
• Providing the community with direct access to
data from site-monitoring stations.
As EPA implements the Superfund Accelerated
Clean-Up Model, the Agency remains committed to
promoting meaningful community involvement in
decision-making during all phases of site cleanup.
EPA views early and frequent community
involvement as critical to the success of EPA's
mission to protecthum an health and the environment.
FY94 community involvement efforts reflect the
Agency's commitment to identify and implement
ways to enhance community involvement. The
Agency also continued offering technical assistance
grants (TAGs) to communities to enable them to
participate more fully in Superfund cleanup and
decision making.
113
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
7.1.1 Fiscal Year 1994 Highlights
During FY94, EPA continued to improve the
vigorous community involvement efforts by
emphasizing the importance of public participation
through its Superfund administrative improvements
and reauthorization efforts. Efforts focused on
identifying ways to increase community involvement
in the Superfund program, enhance outreach between
EPA and communities, and ensure environmental
justice by addressing the concerns of minority and
low-income communities. The Agency also provided
support to the General Accounting Office (GAO) in
an analysis of the effectiveness of Superfund
community involvement efforts. In addition, the
Agency continued to provide a technical outreach
program for communities, hold national conferences
on community involvement, and offer training and
workshops to communities.
Enhanced Community Involvement
Through Administrative Improvements
The enhancement of meaningful community
involvement is one of the 17 areas where EPA is
changing Superfund through the administrative
improvement initiative. In FY94, EPA continued 21
demonstration projects where Regions focused on
environmental justice issues. The Regions also
worked on 16 sites where innovative community
involvement techniques were demonstrated,
including two sites where EPA continued to work
with community working groups (CWGs).
Reauthorization Activities
In December 1993, NACEPT released a report
on five meetings held to obtain public comment on
the reauthorization of Superfund, including ameeting
of more than 50 local citizens who met with NACEPT
members in September 1993 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.
The Vision Workgroup, which the Agency
formed to develop an integrated model of community
involvement, environmental justice, and economic
redevelopment, continued to address these issues
with respect to Superfund reauthorization. The
workgroup presented analyses to the National
Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and
Technology (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
involvement, providing easier access for the public
to TAGs, and fostering CWGs.
General Accounting Office Support and
Response
Headquarters and the Regional offices provided
support to GAO, which released a report in April
1994entitiedSuperfundCommunity Relations Could
Be More Effective. This report was a result of a
special review on whether communities are
adequately involved Superfund site decisions and
included recommendations for earlier community
involvement, improving fact sheets, improving the
graphics used in public notices, improving the site
information repositories, and evaluating the work
load of Regional community involvement staff.
Technical Outreach Services for
Communities
The Agency continued support for the technical
outreach program that 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 311(d), the
HSRCs are supported by a network of 23 universities
nationwide. Each HSRC supports two EPA Regions
and provides technology transfer and training. The
HSRCs also provide services that are flexible and
tailored to each community's needs. For example,
the technical expert at the HSRC may review site-
related documents, attend public meetings, explain
technical process information, or provide an
independent assessment of site activities.
114
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
National Community Involvement
Conferences
EPA continued to hold semi-annual national
community involvement conferences that provided
Regional personnel with an opportunity to share
information and discuss issues of national concern.
Highlights of the two conferences (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in January 1994 and Denver, Colorado,
in July 1994) included sessions on environmental
justice, administrative improvements, working with
the Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), GAO recommendations, and
reauthorization.
Superfund Community Relations Skills
Course
EPA offered the Superfund Community Relations
Skills course seven times in FY94 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 and technical staff
from EPA, other federal agencies, and state agencies
across the country. The course was held in five
Regional offices and twice at the CERCLA Education
Center in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Introduction to Superfund Workshop
Development
Community involvement staff in Headquarters
and the Regions revised and updated an introductory
workshop for citizens. The three-hour workshop for
citizens, originally developed by Regional staff, was
revised for national distribution and delivery. The
workshop is supplemented by the video This Is
Superfund: A Citizen's Guide to EPA's Superfund
Program, which was also developed in FY94.
7.1.2 Technical Assistance Grants
Under CERCLA Section 117(e)
The TAG Program, an EPA grant program
authorized by CERCLA Section 117(e), as amended
by SARA, is designed to foster community
involvement among citizens affected by Superfund
sites listed on or proposed to the National Priorities
List (NPL). These $50,000 grants enable
communities to become more knowledgeable about
the technical and scientific aspects of a Superfund
site and to participate more effectively in the clean-
up process. Using TAG funds, the TAG recipient
can hire technical advisors to assist them in
understanding the site-specific strategies under
Superfund and then be better able to participate as a
stakeholder throughout the Superfund process. The
community as a whole benefits from a TAG since the
information acquired through technical advisors is
shared with the entire community.
EPA continues to improve the TAG Program by
establishingefficientlinesofcommunicationbetween
potential TAG recipients and the Agency, including
communication between the Regional offices and
Headquarters. Improvements throughout FY94
included:
• Monthly TAG Conference Calls. TAG
Coordinators from each Region and Headquarters
discussed pertinent TAG issues and reported on
Regional/Headquarters TAG activity. These
calls aid in promoting national consistency in
implementing the TAG Program.
Community Involvement Focus Groups. EPA
convened a series of focus groups in San
Francisco, Dallas, and Boston. Participants in
the groups included community members, TAG
recipients and applicants, and local government
officials. Participants discussed their views on
Superfund legislative changes, primarily focusing
on the proposed changes to the TAG Program
and other community involvement initiatives.
EPA produced a 30-minute video comprised of
comments made by the focus group participants.
115
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 7.1-1
Number of Technical Assistance Grants Awarded from
Fiscal Year 1988 Through Fiscal Year 1994
160-/
FY88
FY89
FY90
FY91
FY92
FY93
FY94
Fiscal Year Awards
Cumulative Prior Awards
Source: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response/Hazardous Site Control Division.
51-044-18
Superfund National Community Involvement
Conference. The July 1994 conference, held in
Denver, Colorado, included discussions of the
TAG Program. The conference attracted over
100 participants. Participants discussed TAG
close-outs, audits, and the expansion of the TAG
Program under Superfund reauthorization.
Dialogue Between EPA and the Department of
Defense (DOD) Concerning TAGs at federal
facilities. EPA participated in the DOD Technical
Assistance for Public Participation Workgroup
to discuss the development of a memorandum of
understanding between EPA and DOD
concerning the financing of TAGs at federal
facilities. There are currently 25 TAGs awarded
to communities affected by federal facilities
listed on the NPL.
ElectronicTAG Application. In ordcrto facilitate
the application process for citizens, EPA
developed an electronic TAG application. With
a laptop or an accessible personal computer,
Regional TAG Coordinators are able to visit a
site and, working one-on-one with the citizens,
assist them in the completion of the TAG
application.
As illustrated in Exhibit 7.1-1, since the TAG
program began in FY88, EPA has awarded 151
TAGs, which are worth more than $8.6 million
to support community involvement in Superfund
cleanup. This total includes 16 TAGs awarded
in seven Regions during FY94. Because of the
benefits of the TAGs, many TAG recipients
choose not to close-out their grant award as they
mature, but rather request additional funds
through a waiver or deviation. There are 17
TAGs that exceed the initial $50,000 award with
waivers and deviations.
116
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
7.2 A COORDINATED APPROACH
TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
The Agency's public information outreach
program is built on a system of information
coordination and management Under this program,
EPA is committed to providing quick public access
to high-quality documents.
All Superfund documents available to the public
are listed in the Catalog of Superfund Program
Information Products and its regular update bulletins.
Copies of the catalog and updates are available from
the Superfund Document Center or from the
Department of Commerce's National Technical
Information Service (NTIS). Electronic access to
the catalog and updates is available through Agency
internal electronic bulletin boards or through the
NTIS FEDWORLD gateway to the Internet system
which is advertised nationwide to the general public.
During FY94, EPA managed the full
implementation of the EPA-NTIS Superfund
partnership, a comprehensive interagency effort to
provide maximum public access to Superfund
documents. Through this partnership, the Agency
and NTIS conduct an outreach and marketing program
to inform the public about the availability of
Superfund documents from NTIS. This partnership
effort has provided the public with rapid delivery of
Superfund documents and has conserved EPA
resources.
The public can also access information about
Superfund through other information sources, such
as the Superfund Docket and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCR A)/Superfund
Hotline. Further information on public information
services is provided below.
7.2.1 The National Technical
Information Service
The Department of Commerce's NTIS serves as
a permanent archive and general source of federal
publications, including Superfund documents. Before
the EPA-NTIS partnership, EPA had fulfilled requests
for more than two million documents free of charge.
Due to resource constraints, however, free document
distribution was no longer possible. To fulfill its
commitment to ensure that Superfund documents
are available to the public, EPA has worked to
maximize public access to and promote the
availability of Superfund documents through NTIS.
The Agency's joint effort with NTIS provides
the public with ready access to the entire Superfund
collectioa During FY94, EPA-NTIS efforts included
expanding the collection of Superfund documents
available through NTIS by providing distribution
services for documents developed by EPA Regions.
NTIS staff also operated and managed the Superfund
Document Center, which had previously been staffed
by EPA contractors. Using NTIS employees provided
considerable savings to the government and facilitates
access to the many production services housed at the
NTIS headquarters in Springfield, Virginia.
NTIS also maintains a Superfund Order Desk
where users may purchase single copies of documents
or customized subscriptions for categories of
documents pertinent to their needs. Prepublication
documents are available at the Superfund Order
Desk prior to being formally printed and distributed.
The EPA-NTIS personnel involved in the joint
outreach and marketing program informed all regular
users about this service during FY94.
In other FY94 efforts, EPA's Outreach and
Special Projects Office began implementing a
communications and outreach plan during its first
full yearof operation, relying on the services provided
by NTIS. With the assistance of NTIS, the office
provides information management and delivery
systems. The office also plays a central coordinating
role for outreach efforts, ensuring that the Superfund
program "speaks with one voice".
7.2.2 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
117
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Register. The Superfund Docket is located at EPA
offices in Crystal City, Virginia.
7.2.3 Other Information Sources
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline, managed by EPA
Headquarters, provides information to the public
and EPA personnel concerning hazardous waste
regulations and policies. The hotline is a
comprehensive source of general information about
ongoing Superfund program developments.
EPA also maintains the Hazardous Waste
Superfund Collection at EPA Headquarters and
Regional libraries. The collection contains documents
ranging from records of decision to commercially
produced books on hazardous waste and the
Superfund program.
7.3 EPA's PARTNERSHIP WITH
STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES
EPA continues to promote and maintain its
partnership with states, federally recognized Indian
tribes, commonwealths, territories, and political
subdivisions in the Superfund clean-up process.
(States, commonwealths, and territories will be
referred to as states for the purposes of this Report.)
Subpart F of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
provides mechanisms for ensuring meaningful state
and tribal involvement in implementing Superfund
response activities, as required by Sections 104 and
121(0 of CERCLA. Subpart O of 40 CFR Part 35
provides additional detail on requirements for
transferring funds and responsibilities to states and
Indian tribes to undertake response actions, as well
as on building their overall program capabilities.
The following sections describe response
agreements and Core Program cooperative
agreements(CPCAs)betweenEPAandstates,tribes,
or political subdivisions. Also, fiscal year highlights
of EPA efforts to promote involvement of states and
Indian tribes in Superfund response activities are
provided.
7.3.1 Response Agreements and Core
Program Cooperative
Agreements
Response agreements provide states, tribes, and
political subdivisions with the opportunity to
participate in response activities at sites under their
jurisdiction. Superfund CPCAs assist states and
tribes in developing their overall Superfund response
capabilities. This section discusses each type of
agreement in detail.
Response Agreements
Response agreements fall into two categories:
Superfund state contracts (SSCs) and cooperative
agreements (CAs). Both serve as the contractual
tools through which states, tribes, and political
subdivisions work with EPA to conduct or support
Superfund response activities.
SSCs and most CAs document assurances
required by CERCLA Section 104, from a state,
tribe, or political subdivision. Before EPA provides
funding to conduct a remedial action (RA) in a state
(i.e., a Fund-financed RA), for example, the state
must provide the Agency with the following
assurances, required by CERCLA Section 104 and
formalized in the SSC or remedial CA:
• Provide for 100 percent of RA operation and
maintenance;
• Provide 10 percent of the RA cost;
• Ensure the availability of a 20-year capacity for
the disposal or treatment of hazardous wastes;
• Provide for off-site disposal, if necessary; and
• Acquire or accept transfer of interest in property,
if necessary.
Assurances are generally not required for Fund-
financed response actions that are not RAs. Where
a state or a political subdivision was an operator at
the facility at the time when hazardous substances
were disposed, however, the state must provide at
least 50 percent of the cost of the removal, remedial
planning, and RA in cases where a CERCLA-funded
RA is conducted. Tribes are exempt from providing
most of the CERCLA assurances, but may need to
118
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
provide the assurance to acquire or accept interest in
property in certain cases. The following sections
describe SSCs and CAs.
Supertund State Contracts: A state or tribe must
enter into an SSC with the Agency when EPA
conducts (i.e., is the lead for) a Fund-financed RA.
The SSC, which must be signed before EPA conducts
the RA, documents the CERCLA assurances that
have been made with a state and Indian tribe. The
SCC also includes provisions detailing the cost share
required and specifying the process for the collection
of cost-share payments.
A three-way SSC is required when a political
subdivision assumes the lead for remedial activities.
The three-way SSC parties include EPA, the state,
and the political subdivision. The SSC must be in
place before EPA can transfer funds, through a
remedial CA, to the political subdivision. Also,
although the political subdivision will conduct the
remedial activity, the state still is responsible for
providing the required CERCLA assurances in the
SSC.
Cooperative Agreements: Superfund CAs are the
vehicle through which EPA provides funds to states,
tribes, and political subdivisions to ensure their
meaningful involvement in implementing Superfund.
The following five types of response CAs, described
in 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O, are available for site-
specific response activities.
• Pre-remedial CAs are awarded to states, tribes,
and political subdivisions to conductpre-rcmedial
activities, including preliminary assessments
(PAs) and Site Investigations (Sis).
• Remedial CAs allow states, tribes, or political
subdivisions to receive Superfund money for
taking the lead in remedial planning, remedial
design (RD), and RAs at specified sites within
their jurisdiction. When a state or tribe takes the
lead for an RA, the remedial CA documents the
stateortribe's CERCLA Section 104 assurances,
and an SSC is not required. When a political
subdivision takes the lead for a remedial activity,
a three-way SSC must be signed. This three-way
SCC documents the state's CERCLA assurances.
• Removal CAs are awarded to states, tribes, or
political subdivisions that lead anon-time-critical
removal action (NTCR). Such actions allow for
a planning period of more than six months. Cost
share payment is not required (unless the facility
was operated by the state or political subdivision,
as described above), but EPA encourages cost
sharing for removal actions that cost more than
$2 million.
• Enforcement CA funds may be used by a state,
tribe, or political subdivision to conduct
potentially responsible party (PRP) searches,
issue notice letters for negotiation activities,
implement administrative and judicial
enforcement actions, or oversee PRP response
actions. Subpart O contains specific enforcement-
related criteria that an applicant must meet to be
eligible for an enforcement CA.
• Support agency cooperative agreements (SACAs)
allow states, tribes, and political subdivisions
that do not have lead-agency responsibility to
actively participate in response activities at sites
under their jurisdiction. SACAs may assist the
state, tribe, or political subdivision in facilitating
investigations, response selection, and
implementation through the sharing of
information and expertise. They may not be
used, however, to document CERCLA
assurances.
In addition to describing response CAs, 40 CFR
Part 35 Subpart O also specifies financial,
administrative, and other requirements with which a
state, tribe, or political subdivision must comply in
order to receive funds. A multi-state cooperative
agreement, which has the same requirements as the
other types of agreements, is a multi-purpose
agreement that has been used to consolidate funding
for various response activities at different sites.
Core Program Cooperative Agreements
Congress has expressed the intent to include
CERCLA funding to states and tribes for certain
basic, or core, activities that are not attributable to a
specific site but are important to the improvement of
119
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
their overall response capabilities. The legislative
history of CERCLA Section 104(d), as amended,
demonstrates this intent Through CPCAs, EPA
offers states and tribes the opportunity to develop
comprehensive, self-sufficient Superfund programs.
CPCAs have a single budget and scope of work
designed to enhance state ortribal program activities.
Approval of the budget request and scope of work is
dependent on the developmental needs of a state or
tribal program, demonstrated progress in meeting
previous coreobjectives, and fund availability. States
are required to provide a 10 percent cost share for
core program awards.
The core program is intended to lay the
groundwork for the implementation of an integrated
EPA/state/tribal approach for meeting Superfund
goals. EPA typically budgets and annually distributes
$10 million to $13 million among the ten Regional
offices for CPCAs. Regions also may provide
additional funding if resources are available.
7.3.2 Fiscal Year 1994 Highlights
From FY81 through FY94, EPA has awarded
nearly $1.3 billion in CAs to states, tribes, and
political subdivisions to assist them in participating
in Superfund response activities. This total includes
$79 million awarded in FY94 through site-specific
CAs. Through remedial, removal, or enforcement
CAs, states, tribes, and political subdivisions led
more than 75 new or continuing Fund-financed
remedial investigations and feasibility studies, RDs,
and RAs, and enforced nearly 110 PRP responses at
Superfund sites during the fiscal year.
FY94 marked the eighth year of the
implementation of the Core Program. Since its
inception in FY87, recipients have been awarded
over $103 million in CPCA funding. During FY94,
41 states, Puerto Rico, and a consortium of four
tribes received nearly $16 million through CPCAs.
The Agency also continued to offer a seminar on
response agreements to states, tribes, political
subdivisions, and EPA staff. The three-day seminar
provides information on SSCs and CAs as contractual
mechanisms, including their purposes, applications,
and administration. During FY94, the Agency
conducted two seminars involving more than 70
state, tribal, and federal participants. Further
highlights of EPA fiscal year efforts to support states
and Indian tribes in conducting Superfund response
activities are detailed in the following sections.
State Highlights
EPA continued to build the state/EPA partnership
through outreach initiatives with states. These
initiatives included meetings with states on special
topics of interest, such as soil screening levels,
integrated assessments, and communications between
EPA and state removal managers. EPA also provided
states with assistance to enhance their Superfund
programs by funding the participation of 150
representatives from 40 states in CERCLA training.
The state representatives attended two sessions of
state site managers' training in the basics of the
federal Superfund program.
EPA facilitated state information exchange by
publishing the 1993 update to the 50-State Study.
The update provides information about states'
accomplishments in developing their own cleanup
programs. EPA also supported peer matches that
enable states to meet and exchange information with
other states that have expertise in particular aspects
of Superfund. In addition, EPA supported the third
biannual Superfund managers' conference in August
1994, which provided a focused forum for information
exchange on Superfund issues among 215 participants
from various federal agencies and 48 states and
territories.
Underthe administrative improvements initiative
to enhance states' role in cleanup, the Agency
continued developing guidance on implementing
the Superfund state deferral program. Under this
program, EPA may defer consideration of certain
sites for listing on the NPL, while interested states or
tribes compel and oversee response actions conducted
and funded by PRPs. Twenty-two sites in seven
states are serving as pilots for the deferral program.
Tribal Highlights
In FY94, the Superfund program was actively
involved in addressing hazardous waste problems on
Native American lands and in assisting tribes to
120
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
assume regulatory and program management
responsibilities. Tribes received funding, technical
assistance, and training for Superfund
implementation through SSCs, CAs, SACAs, CPCAs,
and other agreements. For example, EPA Region 5
began work to develop a SACA with the Bad River
Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa and another for
the St. Regis Paper/Champion and Cass Lake Dump
sites within the Leech Lake Reservation at Cass
Lake, Minnesota. The Region also successfully
closed out a CA with the Oneida Tribe in Wisconsin.
In addition, Region 5 conducted several presentations
for tribes on Title III implementation on Native
American land and on the first responders training.
EPA 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
(ITEC). The Region also negotiated and awarded a
CPCA for $445,000 and amulti-site CA for $273,400
to the All-Indian Pueblo Council of New Mexico. In
addition, the Region awarded a SACA for $40,000 to
the Navajo Nation for interaction with EPA at the
United Nuclear and Prewitt NPL sites. Region 6 also
provided technical assistance to the Pueblo Office of
Environmental Programs, which conducted 22 PAs
and 2 Sis in FY94, and to ITEC, which conducted 20
PAs and 8 Sis.
In ongoing Headquarters activities,
representatives from EPA's Superfund program
participated in the EPAATribal Workgroup as well as
other Agency workgroups working on tribal issues.
Headquarters also co-sponsored the second National
Tribal Conference on Environmental Management
in Cherokee, North Carolina, in May 1994, at which
more than 500 persons registered and more than 300
tribes were represented. The Agency also developed
the local government reimbursement module for
tribes, as part of the first responders training course.
In addition, Superfund program representatives
responded to inquiries involving implementation of
40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O, coordinated efforts with
other Agency offices, and provided expertise
regarding tribal issues during development of the
proposed Superfund Reform Act of 1994.
7.4 MINORITY FIRM CONTRACTING
EPA's Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization (OSDBU) is responsible for
ensuring that the Agency complies with Section
105(f) of CERCLA. Section 105(0 of CERCLA
requires EPA to consider minority contractors for
procurement opportunities when awarding Superftmd
contracts, encourage the participation of such firms
in the Superfund program, and report annually on the
number and types of minority contractors receiving
Superfund contracts.
7.4.1 Minority Firm Contracting
During Fiscal Year 1994
EPA awards contracts to minority firms through
direct and indirect procurements that result from
Superfund financial assistance awards to states and
other federal agencies (i.e., contracts and subcontracts
resulting from CAs awarded to the states and from
interagency agreements (lAGs) with other federal
agencies). 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
insitutions or firms, hospitals and individuals or
otherwise known as recipients. Through direct and
indirect procurement, EPA awarded $43.3 million in
FY94 to minority contractors to perform Superfund
work. This amount represents 4.3 percent of total
contract awards during FY94.
Through the Agency's direct procurements,
minority business enterprises (MBEs) received $32.2
million in Superfund contracts and subcontracts.
This total was awarded through various contracting
methods (i.e., Small Business Administration 8(a)
awards and subcontracts). In addition, EPA awarded
a $300,000 grant for Superfund training to the
National Association of Minority Contractors
(NAMC), a non-profit organization.
Through the Agency's indirect procurements,
121
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Exhibit 7.4-1
Minority Contract Utilization During Fiscal Year 1994
Type of Activity
Direct Procurement
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements 2
Total
Total Dollars
Obligated
$672,080,000
13,440,134
321,885,110
$1,007,405,244
Minority Contractor
Participation 1
$32,200,000
253,334
10,879,358
$43,332,692
Percentage of
Total
4.79
1.88
3.38
4.30
1 This does not include women's business enterprise participation.
2 This amount represents the total dollars awarded in FY94 through interagency agreements.
Source: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
51-044-9
MBEs received more than $11.1 million in Superfund
contracts and subcontracts. As Exhibit 7.4-1
illustrates,EPA 's CAs with states resulted in contracts
worth $253,334 to minority contractors. Otherfederal
agencies awarded nearly $10.9 million in contracts,
subcontracts, and purchase orders to minority firms
with funds transferred from the Superfund program
under lAGs.
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.
7.4.2 EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified
Minority Firms
OSDBU conducted a number of outreach
activities during FY94 to encourage qualified minority
firms to seek contract and subcontract opportunities
through the Superfund program. These activities
included the following:
• NAMC and OSDBU conducted five training
sessions designed to help minority contractors
become more successful in winning Superfund
direct prime contract and subcontract awards. A
total of 170 attendees participated in the training
sessions. In addition, 100 firms participated in
a trade fair held for minority contractors.
OSDBU, in cooperation with the State of
Colorado, hosted an MBE and women business
enterprise (WBE) workshop to familiarize
minority and women business owners with
opportunities available through Superfund and
other EPA programs. More than 100 minority
and women business owners participated in the
workshop.
EPA hosted a disadvantaged business utilization
workshop for officials from the States of
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont to
provide technical assistance in Superfund and
other program areas. A total of 65 state officials
attended the workshop.
EPA hosted its annual MBE/WBE and all-states
workshop in August 1994, addressing the need
for improving minority contractor utilization.
Representatives from EPA Regional offices,
Headquarters offices, and 37 states attended.
122
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
7.4.3 Efforts to Encourage Other
Federal Agencies and
Departments to Use Minority
Contractors
OSDBU continues to work with other federal
agencies to try to increase the participation of minority
contractors in the Superfund program. Throughout
the fiscal year, federal agencies held numerous
conferences, workshops, and seminars to encourage
minority business participation in the Superfund
program. Examples of these conferences include the
Small and Disadvantaged Business Council Meeting;
Minority Business Enterprise Week; Second Federal
Procurement Conference and Fair; Procurement
Opportunities Expo '94; Congressional Black Caucus
Foundation Federal Procurement Fair; and Minority
Business Enterprise Awareness Conference.
lAGs between EPA and any agency or department
that involve Superfund monies also contain provisions
to ensure that agencies or departments are aware of
the requirements of CERCLA Section 105(f). In
addition, special provisions require that agencies or
departments undertaking Superfund work submit an
annual report to EPA on minority contractor
utilization.
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.
51-044-10
123
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
124
-------
Chapter 8
Resource Estimate for
Superfund Implementation
Section 301(h)(l)(G)ofCERCLA requires EPA
to estimate the resources needed by the federal
government to complete Superfund implementation.
The Agency interprets this requirement 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 FY94.
Section 8.1 of this chapter includes annual
information on Trust Fund resources needed by EPA
and other federal departments and agencies through
FY94, and on the allocation of the resources for
FY93 and FY94. 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
for FY95 and beyond. 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 FY91 through FY94 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
numberof 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 forFY91 through FY94,
including budgets 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
February 5,1988, as required under the provisions
of 41 CFR Part 201-45.6;
• The Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket developed under Section
120(c) of CERCLA and eachfederal department's
and agency's annual report to Congress on federal
facility cleanup as required under Section
120(e)(5) of CERCLA; and
• Various EPA information systems, primarily the
CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) and
the Integrated Financial Management System.
Specifically, EPA has estimated resource needs
for FY95 and beyond. This long-term effort has been
coordinated with the development of the FY95 budget.
In conjunction with the revised National Oil and
125
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) and its policies affecting program direction
and scope, EPA continues to refine the complete cost
estimate for implementing CERCLA. The Agency
is working to improve data quality, refine cost
estimating methods, and collect additional
information.
EPA's ability to project the federal resource
requirement forCERCLA 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
also will 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 $13.6 billion
in budget authority (FY81 through FY94). This
estimate includes $1.8 billion for FY81 through
FY86 and $11.8 billion for the post-SARA period,
FY87 through FY94. The FY94 budget allocated
total resources of $1.7 billion for the following
activities:
• Response Activitiesuse 68 percent of Superfund
resources. Response activities include site
assessment (9%), time-critical and non-time-
critical removals (21%), long-term clean-up
actions (25%), and program implementation
activities (13%). Also included is support
provided by the Office of Water, the Office of
Indoor Air and Radiation.
• Other Federal Agencies use 10% of Superfund
respources. Agencies included are: Department
of Agriculture, Department of Commerce,
Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
Federal Emergency Management Agency,
General Services Administration, Department
of Health and Human Services, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
Department of the Interior, Departmentof Justice,
Departmen of Labor, National Aeomautics and
Space Administration, Tennessee Valley
Authority, Department of Transportation, and
Department of Veterans Affairs
• EPA's Enforcement Activities use 3 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 technical support and
for developing and evaluating faster, better and
less expensive methodologies and technologies
in the areas of site characterization, risk
assessment, monitoring, remedy selection and
remedy design, construction and operations.
Exhibit 8.1-1 presents a snapshot of the allocation of
Superfund resources for FY93 and FY94 within
these categories.
Exhibit 8.1-1
EPA Superfund Obligations
(in Millions)
Program Area
Response Activities (Total)
EPA
Other Federal Agencies
Enforcement Activities
Management and Support
Research and Development
TOTAL SUPERFUND
FY93
Actuals
$1,224.2
1,071.0
153.2
173.0
123.5
64.1
$1,584.8
FY94
Actuals
$1,304.5
1,143.0
161.5
174.1
129.0
68.9
$1,676.5
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation.
51-044-12
126
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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
• Theprojectednumberandaveragecostof 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 conducting
and financing response actions (whether voluntarily
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 response actions actually performed
by PRPs, a portion of the costs of certain Fund-
financed response actions will be recovered from
PRPs through enforcement activities. Typically, there
are delays of several years between expenditures
from the Trust Fund and recovery of costs.
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 the Superfund program. The OLM
provides meaningful long-range forecasts, has the
flexibility to refine forecasts, and can be adjusted for
a large number of program-related variables. These
variables can be individually adjusted to reflect
actual or anticipated changes in the program. The
four primary cost categories used in the OLM to
estimate the long-term resources required to clean up
the existing NPL sites are
• Active NPL sites;
• NPL sites where the remedial process has not yet
begun;
• Non-site activities; and
• RA costs.
EPA's estimate of resources required to clean up
the existing NPL sites is provided in Section 8.3. To
develop this estimate, the Agency has concentrated
on remedial and removal activities. These activities
are the major components of the Superfund program
and account for the majority of Fund expenditures by
the Agency.
8.2.1 Active NPL Sites
Remedial efforts are underway at most of the
127
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
sites on the current NPL. Remedial plans are being
developed for the remaining sites on the NPL, leaving
78 sites on the existing NPL pending study at the end
ofFY94.
Data on the active NPL sites are stored in
CERCLIS and incorporated into the OLM to present
the most accurate picture of planned activities. The
OLM estimates ancillary activities for sites at which
some level of planning or remediation activity is
underway. Because most of the existing NPL sites
are active, they constitute a large portion of the total
liability estimate.
In addition to planned remedial activities,
enforcement activities have a significant impact on
the costs of addressing Superfund sites. All
enforcement activities are estimated by the model
according to past program experience and several
standard sequences of activities, each representing a
different enforcement approach. Enforcement-related
variables within the model include costs, workyears,
and the shift in remedial costs when Superfund
assumes responsibility from, or passes responsibility
to, a PRP. As with remedial activities, most
enforcement costs and workyears are estimated.
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 remediationof 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 growth factors to the levels included
in the requested budget for the current year.
Aside from the number of sites requiring cleanup
and the cost of individual cleanups, the assumption
of managerial and financial responsibility for a site
has the largest potential impact on the cost of the
Superfund program. There are many factors involved
in establishing who is responsible for a site (referred
to as the site lead), including
• Level of emphasis on enforcement;
• Willingness of states to assume financial
responsibility; and
• Cost-sharing arrangements between Superfund
and the states and between Superfund and the
PRPs.
The model accommodates each of these factors
with one or more variables, allowing the estimation
of Superfund liabilities across a wide range of site-
lead and cost-sharing scenarios. Site variables include
• Proportion of sites addressed by each lead
category (Fund, PRP, state, and state
enforcement);
• 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
128
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
amount of time required to reach deletion of a site
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 FY94. A statistical analysis of
RA costestimates contained in these RODs identified
11 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
use of each technology, control the RA cost module
of the OLM. Adjustments within the RA cost
module make it possible to estimate the fiscal impact
of
• Policies affecting the selection of technological
approach (e.g., using more treatment and less
containment);
• Changes in the contaminants found on site (e.g.,
if remaining sites have higher levels of heavy
metals than prior sites, incineration would be
less effective);
• Changes in technology costs; and
• Changes in site size.
Exhibit 8.3-1
Estimate of Total Trust Fund Liability
to Complete Cleanup
at Sites on the
National Priorities List
(in Billions)
Total Allocations
FY94 and Prior
FY95 and beyond
TOTAL
$13.6
17.4
$31.0
Source: Superfund Budget Documentation and
Out/ear Liability Model.
51-044-11A
8.3 ESTIMATED RESOURCES TO
COMPLETE CLEANUP
As illustrated in Exhibit 8.3-1, EPA's estimate
of the total liability to complete cleanup of existing
NPL sites is $31 billion. This total includes the OLM
long-term estimate of $17.4 billion for FY95 and
beyond. Major assumptions shaping the long-term
estimate are as follows:
• Only the cost of the sites currently proposed to or
listed on the NPL (1,355 sites, including 1,226
final, 64 proposed, 1 deferred, and 64 deleted
sites as of September 30, 1994) is included.
• Removal activities at sites on the NPL remain at
current levels.
• R A 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
straighflined 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 75 percent of the RAs. (Because oversight
is significantly less expensive than cleanup,
Fund costsdropdramaticallywhenPRPs assume
financial responsibility for more cleanups.)
• No resource and programmatic assumptions for
federal facility sites are included in the OLM.
The OLM does not generate a resource estimate
for the federal facility program.
Assumptions about the future reflect planning
assumptions from the Superfund Program
Management Manual and historical performance
averages, both of which are revised periodically.
EPA will continue to monitor developments that
affect program costs. Changes will be incorporated
into the model as they occur, improving depiction of
future programmatic direction and refining previous
analysis. OLM estimates will vary over time as a
129
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
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)(lXG) 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
moniestootherfederal 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.
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
FY91
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
12.8
2.2 1.1
-- '1,369.0
-- '1,000.0
2.4 1.4
„
48.5
44.4
1.2 59
32.9
0.9
3.9
..
11.9
2.0
132.5 '2461.1
FY92
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
27.7
2.2 1.3
-- '2,090.0
-- '1,444.6
2.1
0.4
56.5
51.1
1.2 70.4
35.5
0.6
2.4
4.3
15.2
2.0
149.2 '3,658.3
FY93
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
13.3
1.1 1.8
-- '1.750.0
-- '1,150.2
.9
0.7
60.0
51.9
0.8 62.0
33.3
0.3
5.5
3.4
20.6
2.0
148.3 '3,009.5
FY94
Actual
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
13.5
2.2 3.4
- '2,487.0
-- '1,150.0
1.5
0.1
67
52.9
0.6 60.7
32.3
0.3
7.0
2.2
16.8
..
156.8 '3,740.7
FY91-FY94
Total
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
67.3
7.7 7.6
-- 7,696.0
-- '4.744.8
6.9 1.4
6.9 1.2
23.2
200.3
3.8 252.1
134
2.1
18.8
9.9
64.5
6.0
586.8 '12,869.6
Source: Office of Program Management.
51-044-17A
130
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
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. EPA is currently proposing to add 40 more
USDA sites to the docket as part of the ninth update.
One of these sites is currently listed on the NPL, and
several others have been proposed for listing. The
USDA sites on the docket are primarily the
responsibility of the Agricultural Research Service,
Rural Housing and Community Development
Service, and Forest Service. Other USDA agencies,
including the Commodity Credit Corporation, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, and Natural Resources
Cc.'iotfivation Service, also have a 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
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
lliese sites are located on national forest lands
id are the result of third-party activities that
occurred in the past under authorizing statutes,
regulations, or permits. Cleanup at these sites
will 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 also acts for the USDA in
providing support and assistance to 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
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 not funded through CERCLA.
• NOAA's Scientific Support Coordinators provide
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.
131
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
NOAA also conducts 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. FY94 expenditures in this area, which
includes both Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and CERCLA cleanups, totaled $3.1
million.
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 FY94, DOD identified more than
21,454 potientially contaminated sites on more than
1,769 installations with the potential for
contamination. DOD is committed to cleaning up
contaminated sites and plans to spend about $2.1
billion from the Defense Environmental Restoration
and Base Realignment and Closure Accounts during
FY95 to continue this effort.
Department of Energy
As a result of nearly 50 years of weapons
development and energy research, the Department of
Energy (DOE) faces an enormous task in
characterizing and remediating numerous facilities
across the country. This task is complicated by the
nature of the activities associated with ensuring that
each remedial action complies with federal, state,
Native American and local regulations. In addition
to this complex regulatory process, DOE faces other
complicating factors such as multiple contaminants,
contaminants that are unidentified because of
incomplete historical records or lack of
characterization data, and lack of proven technologies.
Compliance with environmental laws,
regulations, and requirements is central to the
operation of DOE facilities. The fundamental goal
of DOE's cleanup program is to ensure that risks to
human health and the environment posed by past,
present, and future operations are either eliminated
or reduced to prescribed, safe levels. DOE is
committed to addressing these concerns as quickly,
safely and efficiently as possible.
During FY94, three new DOE sites were added
to the NPL: the Laboratory for Energy-Health
Research located in Davis, California; the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant situated in Paducah,
Kentucky; and the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas.
The addition of these sites brings the total number of
DOE sites on the NPL to 23. Other DOE sites listed
on the NPL are Brookhaven National Laboratory
Site, New York; Femald Environmental Management
Project (formerly known as Feed Materials Production
Center), Ohio; Hanford 100 Site, Washington; Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory Site, Idaho;
LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory-Main Site,
California; Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory-Site 300, California; May wood Site, New
Jersey; Monticello Mill Site, Utah; Monticello
Vicinity Site, Utah; Mound Plant, Ohio; Oak Ridge
Reservation, Tennessee; Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado;
Ross Complex, Washington; Savannah River Site,
South Carolina; St. Louis Site, Missouri; Wayne
Site, New Jersey, and Weldon Spring Site Remedial
Action Project, Missouri. - ....
During FY94, DOE renegotiated the Hanford
Tri-Party Agreement and continued the process of
amending the interagency agreement (IAG) at the
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Also,
work began on the execution of lAGs for the three
DOE sites added to the NPL in FY94. Progress
continued on the completion of RI/FSs at all DOE
sites. Significant progress in conducting RAs and
removal or interim actions was also made at several
of the sites.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The enactment of SARA in 1986 made many of
the voluntary preparedness and planning activities
132
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) ineligible for funding under the Superfund
budget after September 30,1987.
To continue the ongoing Superfund assistance to
state and local governments and to support efforts to
implement Title III of SARA, FEMA consolidated
funding requests under two separate appropriation
authorizations. Funding for Superfund activities
was requested under the Superfund interagency
budget. The remainder of FEMA's hazardous
materials clean-up coordination activities, including
those authorized by SARA Title III, was incorporated
into FEMA's own operating budget (under its
technological hazards budget). Since FY87, no
additional funds have been requested under CERCLA
Section 301 (h)(l)(G) to carry out Superfund activities.
Funding received under Superfund is used to
provide guidance, technical assistance, and
interagency coordination for FEMA and for multi-
agency initiatives that support state and local
responsibilities under Superfund. Interagency
coordination is accomplished primarily through the
NRT/RRT structure. FEMA 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; although, 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. These activities are described
below.
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; conducting emergency
response actions; conducting health studies,
surveillance, and registries; profilingtoxic substances;
and educating the public about health risks. ATSDR
significantly expanded its approach to conducting
health assessments during the fiscal year. Major
areas of expansion included exposure investigations,
exposure dose reconstruction activities, community
outreach, and public health action plans.
In 1994, ATSDR completed 38 public health
assessment documents; 238 health assessments; and
17 petitioned health assessments. In addition, ATSDR
prepared approximately 500 health consultations,
provided technical assistance to address
approximately 400 other requests from EPA and
other federal, state, or local agencies and
organizations, conducted 101 site reviews and
updates, and prepared 2 lead initiative summary
reports.
ATSDR's emergency response staff are
responsible for providing health-related technical
support, 24 hours per day, to federal, state, and local
responders, as well as to private citizens and health
care providers, during emergencies caused by the
release or threatened release of hazardous substances.
ATSDR Emergency Response Coordinators have
133
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
immediate access to a wide variety of professional
experts includingtoxicologists, physicians, chemists,
environmental scientists, and health physicists. In
FY94, ATSDR emergency response staff was
involved in 51 acute release events (e.g., spills, fires,
etc.) and 421 other activities.
Incompliance with CERCLA Section 104(i)(3),
which requires ATSDR to prepare lexicological
profiles on the first 275 most hazardous substances
found at Superfund sites, ATSDR was working on
47 CERCLA-funded lexicological profiles during
FY94. ATSDR also continued filling priority data
needs for 38 of these substances through initiation of
a voluntary research program and continuation of a
substance-specific data gaps research program in
cooperation with the Minority Health Professions
Foundation.
National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences
The NIEHS uses CERCLA funds to support its
Superfund Basic Research Program and its Worker
Training Program. The NIEHS Superfund Basic
Research Program, continues to provide research
and training grants for coordinated multicomponent,
interdisciplinary studies aimed at identifying and
reducing adverse health effects of exposure to
hazardous wastes. 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 to be used by local,
state, and federal agencies; private organizations;
and industry in making decisions related to the
management of hazardous substances.
In FY94, NIEHS supported 18 research programs
at 29 universities or institutions encompassing more
than 142 individual research projects.
NIEHS received $20 million from FY94
appropriations to support Cooperative Agreements
(CAs) for providing model occupational safety and
health training for workers that perform dangerous
jobs in the nation's hazardous waste management
and remediation programs, as well as for emergency
responders to uncontrolled hazardous materials
releases. The model program encourages innovation
for training difficult-to-reach populations by
addressing issues such as literacy, adult education
techniques, and other areas unaddressed by the market
place.
During the first seven years of the Superfund
Worker Training Program (FY87 through FY94),
NIEHS has successfully supported 18 primary
awardees. These represent over 70 different
institutions that have trained over 433,000 workers
across the country and presented over 20,700
classroom and hands-on training courses, which
have accounted for almost 7.3 million contact hours
of actual training. Through CAs in FY94, the
NIEHS worker training awardees presented 5,348
courses to 87,205 hazardous waste workers and
emergency responders, resulting in almost 1.5 million
contact hours of 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, including RRT
assistance activities, incident-specific activities,
and NPL site remedial response activities;
• Emergency response preparedness, including
RRT participation, 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.
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
134
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
protect the natural resources and the people who live,
work, and enjoy its lands and facilities. DOI is
committed to moving aggressively toward the cleanup
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 litigation activities; and keeps EPA
informed of other CERCLA actions consistent with
the national program. Superfund money provides
DOJ with the necessary attorneys, support staff,
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 recoverclean-upcosts and replenish
the Trust Fund, and actions to compel PRPs to
conduct cleanup are integral parts of EPA's
enforcement strategy.
Civil litigation efforts in support of the Superfund
program have been highly successful. In the past
four years, for example, DOJ filed 527 civil judicial
complaints, assessed over $1.1 billion through cost
recovery judgements and settlements, and compelled
defendants to conduct various cleanup activities
valued at over $2.5 billion. The number of active
Superfund cases being litigated rose from 451 cases
with over 3,000 parties in FY91 to 464 cases with
over 8,000 parties at the end of FY94.
Department of Labor
Funds appropriated under lAGs allow the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) to provide EPA with technical assistance in
the area of worker health and safety. 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,
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
being addressed as part of the program, include
studies, assessments, RI/FSs, RDs, and RAs. The
figures shown in Exhibit 8.4-1 represent resources
dedicated solely to clean-up activities under the
CERCLA program, not including pollution abatement
or clean-up activities under other environmental
programs such as RCRA.
During FY94, two NASA sites were jointly
listed on the NPL along with two DOD sites. A
federal facilities agreement was executed for one of
the sites, while negotiations are ongoing for the other
site. As ongoing studies and assessments progress
and pending regulatory reviews are completed at
other sites, clean-up activities will continue.
135
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is
committed to operating and maintaining its facilities
and properties in compliance with statutory
environmental requirements. TVA has no facilities
listed on the NPL, and none of its facilities has been
proposed for listing. TVA, however, is currently
involved in three site cleanups under RCRA corrective
action. In addition, TVA began 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).
• Federal Aviation Administration: CERCLA
activities of FAA involve pollution abatement
and hazardous waste cleanup at regional facilities.
• United States Coast Guard: 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 Administration:
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 forSuperfundcleanupandotherconstruction
activity related to hazardous waste. No additional
funding was appropriated for FY94 because sufficient
funds were available to cover anticipated needs. 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.
136
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Appendix A
Status of Remedial
Investigations, Feasibility
Studies, and Remedial Actions
at Sites on the National
Priorities List in Progress on
September 30,1994
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
FY94. 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 1993.
In addition to meeting these statutory requirements,
this appendix lists new remedial projects that were
begun in FY94 and were in process at the end of
FY94. 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, 1943.
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 1994
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include federal
financing).
Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (GERCLIS) 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 FY94.
• Funding Start—The date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
• Previous Completion Schedule—For projects
ongoing at the end of FY93 that continued into
FY94, the quarter and fiscal year of the planned
completion date for the activity, as of 9/30/94.
This column is blank for projects that were
begun in FY94.
• Present Completion Schedule — The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion of the
activity, as of 9/30/94. This information was
compiled from CERCLIS on 11/15/94.
• Status — Status of the project with respect to
previous (FY93) and present (FY94) 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 FY94 Report. For example,
several activities with the status of DNE were
state enforcement-lead or state-lead and financed
before FY94, and therefore did not fall under the
requirements of CERCLA Section 301(h)(l)(B).
During FY94, 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 1994
m
•renuiA M
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
GU
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
NEW LONDON SUBMARINE BASE
Raymark Industries, Inc.
Solvents Recovery Service of New
England
Atlas Tack Corp.
Baird & McGuire
Charles-George Reclamation Trust
Landfill
Fort Devens
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
YIGO
Barkhamsted
Beacon Falls
Plainf ield
Norwalk
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Stratford
South ing ton
Fairhaven
Ho I brook
Tyngsborough
Fort Oevens
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
04
05
06
01
02
01
03
01
02
03
04
05
01
03
03
01
02
03
03
01
02
03
04
05
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
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
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/20/93
09/20/93
08/12/88
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
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
2
2
4
4
1
3
4
1
4
4
1
1
1
1999
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1995
1994
1996
1999
1995
1995
1997
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 2001
3 2000
3 1997
3 2000
3 2002
3 2003
3 1995
4 1995
2 1996
4 1999
3 1995
4 1997
3 1996
4 1997
4 1998
2 1995
3 1996
2 1996
3 1996
3 1997
4 1995
4 1995
2 1995
3 1995
4 1995
1 1995
1 1996
STATUS
-7
-3
0
-3
-11
-15
-2
-6
0
0
new
new
new
new
new
ONE
DNE
-2
-6
0
0
-3
-2
-3
-3
0
-4
§
to
|
•4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
«*
*~ l~ *c
fe § .
CU 1— O
— • >- at
a i— ui
U —CD
CO —IX
if- »^ n i
u- CO *—
1-1 Q.
• • CO UJ
•D < CO
C UJ
3 " Z
**- o
(u < co co
Q. Z CO
D X O UJ
co —• i— at
O 1— C3
J> z < O
c ui do:
.— a. —a.
4-> a. i—
C < M Z
CU UJ r-f
V Z CO
g- ~°
•D 0 <
fQ JJT |
3 UJ <
O Of. — •
1— O
u- UJ
CO OK
CU CO eg
O) 1- Q
O < Z
O. CO
1-
1—
z
_• UI
1— H- _ 1
Z UJ 3
UJ _l O
co a. ui
ae o o
a. u co
§
en ~ uj
51 1
in ID
> a. ui
UJ Z Z
c£ o cj
a. ej co
z
•-• i—
iSe
ID I—
u. (/)
Q
2
5
£
u
Q2 Ul 1—
UJ -1 —
SSI
o
1-
^
1
2
III
1—
CO
1—
CO
u
at
e>ot>o>o
xxTNi-xi-^. romtoinin
inmincM inminvONO
ooo<- o o o o o
co co to co tocococnco
^ilxV.^X ^XxNN«N,-N.
oc a: at a: at at et at at
xQ ^" CO 0s ^~ e\j ro x^ m
cu
Co
o
4-<
0
U-
C
'E
'a
L.
1—
x^
3
CO
1
c
CU
cu
o
X
o c
u. <
^
«-
N- *O >* •«* 00 O
g: 1 II 11
«- M -xf f\J *- xj-
in tn in in xj- oo
Q^ Q^ O* Q^ Q^ O*
tM «- x» CM «- -*
ro CM «- o in M
O^ O O O CO O
<\i co in «- in eo
i? N^ xT «x^ N^ x,^
xo in rx. «- CM o
o o o o o o
a. a. a.
at at at
CO CO
^ S
at at at at u. at
{M «- »- K> «- IO
0 0 00 00
j: T>
D CO 0
O O «4-
L. — TJ
jD L. cu ca
J^ cu
ca z
Q.
—
j^
a.
t_
eo
JC 'N Z CU
E co 4J ca
O 3 Bl C
8~O 3 O 3
C e. L. cu
1 " *~ " z
g i g i
^ ^ ^ T-
1? s:8,!H!!£!!
10 IO^^-OjNTx,»-CM^M
O^ O* O^ Q^ O^ O^ O* 0s 0s 5* O^
r- eMT-^NtNt«-^fo^(0
O C>OC>C>C>5-OC>OO
oa ^x.m^-^x.^x.^N.«-^x.^-(\l
NX, *N, NX, Xx^ NX, NX, x^, Xx^ Xx^ N^, NX,
o o«-oooooooo
CO CO C/1COCOCO COCOCO
_ 1^4 ^ ^^f _ ,_ _ ^ _ p_ _
at atatatctotatatatatat
o ooooooooo«-
32 *"*
ca o
'to "co
«< LU
1
^)
CO
Q. ID
| .
o -o
. '4^ •§
Z O UJ
i s
- -
in
1
CM
I
ro
8
IA
?
IA
O
O£
DC
CM
O
^
•M
t_
CD
O
.
£
•— •
o
o
en
cu
"^
s
«-
A-4
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST SITE NAME
1 MA Shpack Landfill
1 MA W.R. Grace & Co., Inc.
1 MA Wells G&H
1 ME Brunswick Naval Air Station
1 ME Loring Air Force Base
1 ME Winthrop Landfill
1 NH Fletcher's Paint Works
1 NH New Hampshire Plating Co.
1 NH Pease Air Force Base
1 NH South Municipal Water Supply
Well
1 NH Tinkham Garage
LOCATION
Norton/Attleboro
Acton
Woburn
Brunswick
Limestone
Winthrop
Mi I ford
Merrimack
Portsmouth/Newington
Peterborough
Londonderry
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
02
07
03
04
05
06
08
09
10
03
01
01
01
02
04
05
06
07
08
01
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
F'
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/24/90
09/03/93
09/28/90
09/28/90
08/22/94
06/22/90
05/09/91
05/09/91
05/09/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
01/30/91
04/28/94
07/29/90
07/14/92
09/20/94
09/20/94
04/17/91
02/25/92
02/25/92
05/21/91
06/16/92
05/03/93
02/07/94
02/07/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
3
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1996
1996
1998
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
1
4
2
2
3
1
4
2
1
1996
1996
1997
1997
1996
1995
1997
1996
1996
1994
1996
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
1997
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1999
STATUS
-4
-4
-8
-8
new
-1
-8
-5
-8
DNE
-3
-1
5
new
-4
-4
new
new
-3
0
0
-2
0
-2
new
new
2!
S.
•<
c
^H
•Z
3
CJ
-------
Progress Toward Implementing ^operfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
1 RI
1 RI
1 RI
1 RI
1 RI
1 RI
1 RI
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
AND
SITE NAME
Central Landfill
Davis (GSR) Landfill
Davis Liquid Waste
Davisville Naval Construction Batt
Center
Landfill & Resource Recovery, Inc.
(L&RR)
Newport Naval Education/Training
Center
Rose Hill Regional Landfill
Bennington Municipal Sanitary
Landfill
Burgess Brothers Landfill
Parker Landfill
Tansitor Electronics Inc.
A. 0. Polymer
American Cyananrid Co.
Asbestos Dump
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Johnston
Smithfield
Smithfield
North Kingstown
North Smithfield
Newport
South Kingstown
Bennington
Uoodford
Lyndon
Bennington
Sparta Township
Bound Brook
Millington
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
03
04
05
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
05
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
SE
SE
F
F*
FUNDING
START
08/25/94
09/27/90
04/27/88
03/23/92
03/23/92
03/23/92
03/23/92
06/23/94
12/27/93
03/23/92
03/23/92
09/30/90
06/28/91
08/27/91
08/10/90
09/12/90
05/11/94
05/28/88
05/28/88
08/31/93
01/24/91
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
4
3
3
2
4
2
1995
1996
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1994
1994
1997
1999
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
2 1996
2 1996
1 1996
2 1995
4 1995
4 1997
1 1996
4 1997
1 1996
4 1995
4 1995
1 1996
2 1996
2 1995
2 199?
2 1995
4 1996
4 1997
4 1995
2 1996
STATUS
new
-5
-1
-4
-3
-2
DNE
new
new
-3
-5
-3
-4
0
-2
-3
new
3
6
-4
-8
I
I
H
o
I
3.
I
i
1
-------
•'•regress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
Rfi
2
2
2
2
2
2
> 2
•Lj
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Bog Creek Farm
Bridgeport Rental & Oil
Services
Burnt Fly Bog
Caldwell Trucking Co.
Chemical Control
Chemical Insecticide Corp.
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Chemsol, Inc.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (TOMS RIVER
CHEMICAL)
Combe Fill South Landfill
Cosden Chemical Coatings
Corp.
Curcio Scrap Metal, Inc.
D1 Imperio Property
Denzer & Schafer X-Ray Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
LOCATION
Howe 1 1 Township
Bridgeport
Marlboro Township
Fairfield
Elizabeth
Edison Township
Bridgeport
Pi scat away
Toms River
Chester Township
Beverly
Saddle Brook
Township
Hamilton Township
Bayvi I le
Newark
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
03
02
01
02
02
01
01
02
01
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
F
F
F
S
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
S
F
PRP
PRP
S
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/27/91
04/19/88
09/29/88
09/30/88
05/12/93
12/31/92
09/28/90
03/29/85
12/03/93
07/15/85
09/28/90
05/17/93
07/05/89
09/28/90
09/29/94
06/02/93
05/10/94
06/26/87
04/20/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
1 1995
3 1994
4 1995
1 1996
4 1994
4 1993
2 1994
4 1993
3 1995
4 1994
2 1994
4 1995
4 1994
2 1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1995
1 1996
3 1994
4 1996
1 1996
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
2 1995
4 1993
1 1996
2 1995
2 1997
3 1996
1 1996
1 1995
4 1997
1 1995
1 1997
STATUS
-6
-4
0
-4
0
0
-4
-2
new
0
-2
-2
-12
-3
new
-1
new
-3
new
|
f
a
2
I
c
m
•n
c
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supt-rfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
RG
2
2
2
2
2
> 2
oo
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
SITE NAME
Dover Municipal Well 4
Ewan Property
Fair Lawn Well Field
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
Florence Land Recontouring
Landfill
Fort Dix (Landfill Site)
Garden State Cleaners Co.
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Goose Farm
Helen Kramer Landfill
Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown
Plant)
Higgins Disposal
Hopkins Farm
LOCATION
Dover Township
Sh among Township
Fair Lawn
Atlantic City
Florence Township
Pemberton
Township
Minotola
Glen Ridge
Plumstead
Township
Mantua Township
Gibbstown
Kingston
Plumstead
Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
07
08
09
10
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
ACTIVITY LEAD
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
PS
F
PS
FUNDING
START
07/06/93
08/16/94
09/30/92
08/19/92
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
06/01/87
09/29/89
OB/06/92
06/19/91
10/01/92
06/30/93
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/30/92
08/27/92
09/23/88
07/02/86
05/17/90
02/03/87
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
3
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
4
4
1
4
2
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1998
1994
1998
1999
1994
1995
1995
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
2
3
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
4
2
4
4
4
1
1
3
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1995
1998
1999
1994
1996
1996
1994
STATUS
-3
new
-2
-2
-5
-5
-3
-3
-5
-4
-4
-4
0
0
-3
0
0
0
-4
-1
-1
-------
Pi ogress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
SITE NAME
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Industrial Latex Corp.
Kauffman & Minteer, Inc.
Kin-Sue Landfill
King of Prussia
LANDFILL & DEVELOPMENT CO
Lang Property
Lipari Landfill
Mannheim Avenue Dump
Mayuood Chemical Co.
Metal tec/Aerosystems
Monte lair/ West Orange Radium
Site
NL Industries
Naval Air Engineering Center
LOCATION
Morganville
Wellington
Borough
Jobstown
Edison Township
Winslow Township
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Pemberton
Township
Pitman
Galloway Township
Maywood/Rochel le
Park
Franklin Borough
Montclair/West
Orange
Pedricktown
Lakehurst
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
02
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
02
05
11
13
14
16
18
19
20
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
S
S
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
F
F
PRP
PRP
FF
F
f
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/29/94
09/28/84
09/30/93
04/11/89
06/23/93
06/10/94
07/22/94
10/03/86
09/30/92
09/30/88
11/16/93
09/21/87
07/21/90
03/29/91
09/15/89
03/30/90
09/30/92
10/19/92
03/16/92
07/18/94
07/18/94
07/18/94
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
09/25/89
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
4
1
4
4
4
1
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
1994
1994
1995
1996
1999
1994
1994
1995
1998
1994
1998
1994
1996
1994
1994
1996
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
3 1995
4 1996
2 1995
2 1996
2 1996
1 1995
2 1995
4 1996
4 1999
1 1995
3 1995
3 1995
4 1996
4 1998
2 1995
4 1998
1 1995
3 1995
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
2 1996
2 1996
3 1997
STATUS
new
-4
DNE
-4
-2
new
new
DNE
-3
0
new
-3
-3
-7
0
-3
0
-2
4
new
new
new
-4
-8
0
0
i
S.
X
<0
S
i
i
(0
•H
O
i
jj
I
3"
0)
s
m
2
i
§
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
2 NJ
SITE NAME
Naval Weapons Station
Picatinny Arsenal
Reich Farms
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Roebling Steel Co.
Sayreville Landfill
Scientific Chemical Processing
Sheild Alloy Corp.
Swope Oil & Chemical Co.
Syncon Resins
I'.S. Radium Corp.
Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
WR Grace & Co. Inc. /Wayne Interim
Storage Site
Waldick Aerospace Devices,
Inc.
LOCATION
Colts Neck
Rockaway Township
Pleasant Plains
Rockaway Township
Florence
Sayreville
Carlstadt
Newfield Borough
Pennsauken
South Kearny
Orange
Vineland
Wayne Township
Wall Township
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
21
01
02
02
03
04
01
03
02
04
02
02
03
02
01
01
0?
05
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F*
F
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
S
F
F
ff
F
FUNDING
START
09/25/89
09/27/90
09/27/90
10/01/92
10/01/92
05/28/93
09/28/94
09/30/92
09/20/94
09/29/92
11/26/91
12/19/88
12/19/88
10/05/88
09/07/88
05/23/89
09/30/89
09/30/94
07/21/90
09/30/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
4
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
1
1997
1995
1995
1997
1995
1998
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1994
1994
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1997
1 1996
1 1996
3 1997
1 1996
1 1998
3 1995
1 1996
2 1995
3 1995
1 1995
1 1996
4 1995
1 1996
2 1996
2 1994
2 1995
4 1996
3 1995
3 1995
STATUS
0
-4
-1
0
-1
0
new
-4
new
ONE
-3
-4
ONE
-4
0
0
-2
new
-1
-2
Progress
I
^
I
1
So
$
o
33
1
w*
<0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
SITE NAME
Williams Property
American Thermostat Co.
Anchor Chemicals
Applied Environmental Services
Brewster Well Field
Brookhaven National Laboratory
(USDOE)
Carrol & Dubies Sewage Disposal
Circuitron Corp.
Claremont Polychemical
Colesville Municipal Landfill
Conklin Dumps
FMC Corp. (Dublin Road Landfill)
Facet Enterprises, Inc.
Forest Glen Mobile Home
Subdivision
Fulton Terminals
LOCATION
Swainton
South Cairo
Hicksville
Glenwood Landing
Putnam County
Upton
Port Jervis
East Farmingdale
Old Bethpage
Town of Colesville
Conklin
Town of Shelby
Elmira
Niagara Falls
Fulton
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
03
04
05
06
02
01
03
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
f
30, 1994
PREVIOUS PRESENT
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
S
F
F
PRP
PS
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
f
F
PS
PS
PS
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/30/93
08/07/92
06/30/93
06/02/89
03/28/94
09/23/87
05/11/93
06/30/94
11/19/91
10/29/93
06/02/94
07/31/92
09/30/94
09/30/94
09/30/93
07/14/94
07/06/93
05/02/94
05/22/86
09/30/92
09/29/94
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
1 1995 2
1 1995 2
1 1995 4
3 1994 4
1
4 1993 3
1 1997 1
3
1 1996 1
4
2
1 1995 1
4
4
4
3
2 1995 1
4
3 1992 3
1 1995 2
2
1995
1995
1996
1995
1998
1995
1997
1998
1996
1997
1997
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1992
1996
1999
STATUS
-1
-1
-7
-5
new
-7
0
new
0
new
new
-4
new
new
DNE
new
-3
new
0
-5
new
i
8
-<
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
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
SITE NAME
GCL Tie & Treating Inc.
Genzale Plating Co.
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.
Griffiss Air Force Base
Hooker (Hyde Park)
Hooker (South Area)
Hudson River PCBs
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Jones Sanitation
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Li Tungsten Corp.
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Love Canal
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Village of
Sidney
Franklin Square
Ho I brook
Rome
Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls
Hudson River
Caledonia
Hyde Park
Horseheads
Glen Cove
Farmingdale
Niagara Falls
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
03
01
01
07
08
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
F
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
S
S
FUNDING
START
09/30/92
09/30/94
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
12/09/93
07/25/90
03/29/91
03/26/91
08/08/91
08/26/92
09/28/90
02/09/87
06/26/87
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1993
1994
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1993
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1995
3 1996
3 1995
3 1995
1 1996
2 1996
2 1996
2 1996
2 1996
2 1996
2 1997
1 1996
4 1996
4 1996
2 1997
1 1996
1 1996
4 1995
2 1995
3 1996
3 1995
3 1998
1 1996
STATUS
-7
new
-3
-2
-4
0
-4
-4
0
0
0
-4
0
0
new
-3
-4
-3
-1
-6
-7
-14
-4
5
1
3
i
5?
1
a
|
§•
i
a:
-------
Piogrtus Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
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
Malta Rocket Fuel Area
Marathon Battery Corp.
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
Nepera Chemical Co., Inc.
Niagra Mohawk Power Corp.
(Saratoga Springs Plant)
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Old Bethpage Landfill
Onondaga Lake
Plattsburg Air Force Base
Port Washington Landfill
Preferred Plating Corp.
Ramapo Landfill
Richardson Hill Road Landfll/Pond
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/Dump
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Malta
Cold Springs
Glen Cove
Maybrook
Saratoga Springs
North Sea
Oyster Bay
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Port Washington
Farmingdale
Ramapo
Sidney Center
Cortland
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
04
05
06
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
05
06
07
01
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
F
F
F
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PS
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
11/10/89
06/28/91
06/30/93
09/30/93
06/30/93
06/30/93
03/22/88
09/27/89
09/21/92
07/27/89
11/13/90
05/10/93
04/23/91
09/30/92
04/23/91
06/04/92
10/01/92
06/09/93
01/31/92
06/20/94
07/22/87
01/04/90
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
1
3
1
3
4
4
1
4
4
4
2
4
1
4
4
1
4
1994
1993
1995
1996
1995
1994
1994
1992
1993
1995
1993
1995
1994
1994
1996
1995
1995
1995
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1995
3 1996
4 1995
1 1997
4 1995
4 1995
3 1995
2 1995
4 1994
4 1992
1 1993
4 1998
2 1995
4 1995
3 1995
1 1996
1 1996
2 1995
2 2007
2 1996
2 1996
3 1995
STATUS
-3
-12
-3
-2
ONE
ONE
-2
-3
0
0
0
-12
-6
0
-5
-5
0
2
-46
new
-5
-3
8^"
^
•^
|
o
u
M
5
S
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
^
1
t_
g
V
"S
u
(0
U.
-J
H-
t_
3 X
at z
c ui
•— Q.
c
S1"" "~
»
to
£ UJ
M« UJ
CD h-
•-* a.
V> UJ
UJ
-g
en en
SSJ
— a:
ii
•— a.
z
UJ — '
— • z
O
!§
ui
Ss
fel
UJ
en ae
P- o
< z
in
£
I—
§
.-• Ul
>— 1— _l
Z UJ O
Ul J O
CO Q. UJ
& O CJ
a!8
Ul Z 1C
ex O u
a. o co
19
S£
u. en
§
Ul
>_
i—
^
i—
i
Ce UJ 1—
Ul -1 >->
LOCATION
Ul
UJ
i—
en
t—
ea
ae
o st ro
1 '
i s s
•^ *$• m
£ £ &
M f\l «-
«r- CM O
£ s a
Sro ^
o o
en
u.
•x^
of ae ae
»- «- CM
000
t_
CO
a. co c
t. 'c 3,
o < J
^
c cT
»-« o
eo" co
C O
i E to
5 E o>
<- a ae
4-> U.
g X ?
•— 01 O
eo E «
y ->->-
z z z
CM CM CM
0 0
c$,f
»t?
M fO
|5
SiR;
iss
u. u.
C/) VI
u. u.
O£ Of
5S
3
ae
*-•
*
Q
|
CO
en
>_
z
CM
1 1
l/l ^4*
Os O»
S i
*~ ~*
O CM
CO O
«- CM
o^ in
a o
a.
«
en
u.
De ae
5 S
0)
Sidney
Wellsvill
x
S 1
H- H-
73 0)
C Of
CO
_1 L.
X '5
1 1
en en
^_ >_
z z
CM CM
i
ii
1
•*
§
in
J~
Q.
J*
O-
en
S
0
CO
e-
0
I
H-
CO
_J
4-1
01
CO
en
^
z
CM
in 3 3
, o g
ll^l
i
M
tv- -» >*
CO CK 0^
O 0 O
o* o* o^
o o o
a.
ae
222
5SS
o
I
^
^>.
g
L.
0>
4J
3
"ca
01 «-
CU i
> ^
>-
z
CM
«- r- ^ ,- O
II it
II II 1
in in in s* »*
5c* 21 St1 5t ^
•«* N* <•* «M '-a-
fM fM O CM OJ
Qv Q\ CO 0s O*
O* *™* O^ *~ 00
«- o «- «- ^-
82 SS i
O- a. CL
u- u- ae ae at
en en
u. u-
25 22 2
o o o o o
CO CO
U 4^
cv o co
: i s
C o ra
en m >
4^
'J
^ X
» i
o to
o o
.? i i
e. — ex
3 8
CJ U_ 4-»
^ | *.
Z = > 31
fV f\f HV
a. a. a.
f\J fM CM
2 N±
NO in
9* 0s
O* 0s
*— ^-
1
-*
•J1 CM
e> e>
^s ^s
CM «-
gCM
O
a. a.
ee ae
0. (X
en en
u. u.
oe ae
5 0
^
u.
Ul
a
O
Ul 4-1
Ul 3
Z 1—
*^
a.
t ^
_i
" "3
3E •-
Ul 4-
U — •
01
O 3
< I 3
- ej i-
« «
> >
CM CM
CM ro
gg
II
tO IM
O «-
|s
e> f^
o o
oe ce
X X
ae ae
«- CM
o o
01
en
cj £~
01 O
z u
"8
CO
en
eu
x
CO
'eu
o
IP- «^
^ "o
c en
* J
I. 01
"S
?«
< ««
Ul
o
ro
o
1
1
ro
S
^
o
a.
""
oe
S
01
4V
CO
CO X
U 4->
3 §
0) O
Z U
S
"o
O)
c
ID
-?
1
fQ XX
1 *
CJ — •
C CO
CO -J
en
01 4)
!~ 01
CO (-
3 U
**
oi e
o <-
Ul
a
ro
A-14
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 DE
3 MD
AND
SITE NAME
Dover Air Force Base
Ha I by Chemical Co.
Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport
Plant)
NCR Corp. (Millsboro Plant)
New Castle Spill (once listed as
TRIS Spill)
Standard Chlorine of Delaware,
Inc.
Sussex County Landfill No.
5
Tybouts Corner Landfill
Tyler Refrigeration Pit
Aberdeen Proving Ground (Edgewood
Area)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Dover
New Castle
Kirkwood
Newport
Millsboro
New Castle
County
Delaware City
Laurel
Smyrna
Smyrna
Edgewood
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
05
06
07
08
09
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
04
06
07
08
09
10
11
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
f
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
MR
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/09/94
09/20/93
09/30/93
09/20/93
09/20/93
09/20/93
12/20/91
06/28/93
09/26/91
09/16/94
09/29/92
11/30/87
03/29/91
11/25/92
03/29/91
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
12/05/90
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
1
1
4
1
4
1
3
1
3
2
1
2
1
2
4
1996
1995
1995
1995
1994
1996
1994
1994
1996
1995
1996
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1996
2 1995
2 1997
2 1997
2 1997
2 1997
4 1995
2 1995
3 1997
2 1997
1 1999
1 1995
1 1995
3 1995
2 1997
1 1996
3 1994
2 1996
2 1995
4 1996
1 1996
1 1996
1 1996
STATUS
0
DNE
DNE
DNE
-8
-8
-3
-5
-3
new
DNE
-4
-1
2
-7
0
0
-8
-5
-10
-4
-3
-1
§
•«.
i
s
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfursa: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
SITE NAME
Aberdeen Proving Grounds
(Michaelsville Landfill)
Bush Valley Landfill
Limestone Road
Southern Maryland Wood Treating
AIW Frank/Mid-County Mustang
AMP, Inc. (Glen Rock Facility)
Bendix Flight Systems Division
Berkley Products Co. Dump
Berks Landfill
Boarhead Farms
Brodhead Creek
Brown's Battery Breaking
Butler Mine Tunnel
CRATER RESOURCES/KEYSTONE
COKE
CROSSLEY FARM
LOCATION
Aberdeen
Abingdon
Cumberland
Hoi lywood
Exton
Glen Rock
Bridgewater
Township
Denver
Spring Township
Bridgeton
Townsh i p
Stroudsburg
Shoemakersville
Pittston
NEED TO IDENTIFY
NEED TO IDENTIFY
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
05
06
01
01
02
01
01
02
04
05
01
01
01
01
0?
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
03/27/90
03/27/90
03/27/90
08/30/91
06/15/90
03/29/94
05/29/92
09/14/90
03/01/89
06/15/92
03/10/94
06/23/94
03/12/90
06/26/91
12/05/89
05/04/94
05/29/92
12/27/91
03/30/87
09/07/94
09/27/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
3
2
1
1
2
4
2
4
1
2
4
1
2
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
2 1995
4 1994
1 1995
4 1995
2 1995
1 1995
3 1995
1 1996
1 1995
3 1996
2 1996
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
3 1995
2 1995
2 1996
2 1995
2 1996
1 1996
STATUS
-8
-4
-1
-3
-3
new
-4
-5
-1
-3
new
new
-2
-1
0
new
-9
-4
new
new
!
Toward Implemen
I
i
\T\
3Q
|
o
i
%
•<
<0
2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1994
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
Centre County Kepone
Craig Farm Drum
CryoChem, Inc.
Douglassville Disposal
Dublin TCE Site
East Mount Zion
Eastern Diversified Metals
Elizabethtown Landfill
Fischer & Porter Co.
Havertown PCP
Hellertown Manufacturing
Co.
Henderson Road Site
Jack's Creek/Si tkin Smelting and
Refining Inc.
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Letterkenny Army Depot (Property
Disposal Office Area)
Letterkenny Army Depot (Southeast
Area)
LOCATION
State College
Boro
Parker
Worman
Douglassville
Dublin Borough
Springettsbury
Township
Hometown
Elizabethtown
Warminster
Haverford
Hel lertown
Upper Merion
Township
Haiti and
Union Township
Franklin County
Chambersburg
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
02
01
01
01
02
03
01
02
02
01
02
02
01
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
PRP
PRP
f
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
f
f
PRP
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
11/07/88
09/27/93
09/30/93
10/04/91
08/15/91
09/30/94
10/19/87
09/28/90
02/20/92
08/15/91
05/11/93
09/22/93
03/15/91
08/28/90
04/21/94
02/03/89
09/08/93
02/03/89
02/03/89
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
1
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1995
3 1995
1 1996
1 1995
4 1995
4 1997
3 1993
1 1995
3 1995
4 1995
1 1995
2 1997
1 1995
2 1995
1 1996
2 1995
4 1994
2 1995
2 1996
STATUS
-3
-2
DNE
-4
-6
new
DNE
-1
-4
-4
DNE
DNE
-3
-4
new
-4
0
-4
-8
i
1
>
«*
(0
s
^
1
s Toward It
|
3
1
!
§
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supertuna: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
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
AND
SITE NAME
Lord-Shope Landfill
METROPOLITAN MIRROR AND
GLASS
McAdoo Associates
Metal Banks
Middletown Air Field
Mill Creek Dump
Moyers Landfill
Naval Air Development Center (8
waste centers)
North Penn-Area 6 (J.W. Rex/Allied
Paint/Keystone hydra
Ohio River Park
Osborne Landfill
Palmer ton Zinc Pile
Publicker Industries Inc.
Raymark
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Girard Township
NEED TO IDENTIFY
McAdoo Borough
Philadelphia
Middletown
Erie
Eagleville
Warminster
Township
Lansdale
Neville Island
Grove City
Palmerton
Philadelphia
Hatboro
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
02
01
02
04
05
01
03
01
02
01
02
04
02
02
04
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
STUDIES
*
30, 1994
LEAD
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
07/20/94
09/19/94
08/02/94
05/29/91
04/25/94
02/28/94
06/30/89
05/04/92
09/29/88
06/14/94
12/28/93
06/27/94
06/30/88
09/28/93
10/16/91
10/31/92
07/31/88
12/13/91
08/12/88
09/21/89
09/23/92
05/23/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1995
4 1993
4 1995
4 1995
1 1995
3 1994
1 1995
4 1999
1 1994
4 1996
4 1993
1 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
3
1
4
2
3
3
4
4
1
3
1
1
4
1996
1996
1995
1995
1997
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1999
1994
1997
1995
1995
1995
STATUS
new
new
new
0
new
new
-5
0
-1
new
new
new
-1
ONE
-4
-3
0
0
-3
-5
0
new
5
i
3
1
5?
i
^
|
|^
3
i
8
ni
ft)
3Q
i
o
3
1
1
to
-------
ess Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
\0
RG ST SITE NAME
LOCATION
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
Resin Disposal
Revere Chemical Co.
River Road Landfill (Waste
Management , I nc . )
Rodale Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.
Shriver's Corner
Strasburg Landfill
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,
Jefferson
Borough
Nockamixon
Township
Hermi tage
Emmaus Borough
Straban Township
Newlin Township
Toby Hanna
Upper Her ion
Township
Honeybrook
Township
Sharon
Gettysburg
Hopewell Township
Portsmouth
02
02
01
01
01
04
01
02
03
01
01
04
01
02
01
01
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
PS
PRP
PS
PRP
06/24/92
12/16/88
05/05/90
09/22/92
03/10/87
01/14/92
09/27/90
09/27/90
09/27/90
06/03/88
07/15/93
05/01/90
09/20/88
03/20/92
11/30/87
07/23/87
1
4
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
2
1
1
1
3
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1993
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
3
4
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1997
1994
1996
1995
1995
1994
1997
1996
1995
1995
1995
-1
ONE
-3
-5
-4
-10
-3
-11
0
0
DNE
-11
-4
-1
-4
-2
Inc.
-------
F/sca/ rear 1994
1 rf*
«- mo-
a § -
Al I- O
>- (A ro
-• >- os
a i— ui
u •— m
• r- >-l Ul
"~ -• a.
*D < (A
C ui
3 u- z
M- O
Q <
t- UJ
a. uj
a: o o
a. u —
>
1—
*
Of Ul 1-
UJ _1 —,
SCO Z
•< 3
g
i^
UJ
Ul
1—
(A
1-
00
C3
ae
O> (vi in
OO 00 N.
8:8:8:
«-«-«-
in in in
8:8:8:
•» — >*
||S
(vi (vi ro
r-- Ox ro
o o o
*
a. a.
Of Of
u. a. a.
(A 00
irf ^^ i— i
Of Of Of
-* xO K
o o o
1
Of
1
u.
o
c
^
(0
L.
u-
I
§
ro
1
z
1
*~
(VI
Ox
-v
r\i
^
a.
Of
a.
Of
o
2
"01
hesterf
ounty
U U
_
£
•—
(.
o
u
X
01
ID
m
ae
s
5
ro
(Vj J ^ ** >J
S? 5?* 2* jc S2^ 2^
r\j *j- K» ru ro N*
§§§5ss
(VI (VI (VI «- «- «-
o> o> o> o o o
0 0 0 «- «- ^
CO OO 00 00 00 00
« — ^« — —
K C£ U K Of Of
rvi ro >* xO r>- oo
o ^ o o o o
"3
H-
C.
01 X
m c
01 3
JE o
u u
£_
01
£
u
X
a
^
(D
01
C
s
01
CO
g
H-
0)
0
5
ro
3
(U
C
i
$
in
§
o.
5
0
f
ID
cn
^
,^_
M-
1
X
1
o
u
(D
U
01
yt.
0
5
ro
3
01
C
1
ro
--»
o
°
a.
Of
Of
o
(D
'E
(a
>
"x x
4-* C
4-* 3
CL U
t
a
3
0
U
o
Of
a.
L.
o
u
£
•O o>
CL
41
in 3
L. O
«t— ^
$
ro
3 -J
g ,
xO xO
8:8:
in
«-
"^* •**
R £
go"
(A
xt
25
0 O
ewton
z
o
o
a
u
I
u
g
0)
L.
(3
%
ro
f
8
1
•~
1
ro
1
oo
xt
Of
0
§
arringt
u.
4J
°-
c
03
y
i
5
ro
«* 0
in r*.
8:8:
II
*~ "~
*~ *~~
O (VI
o «-
OO f\f
o «-
Q. O.
Of Of
ss
ss
(0
c
(D
>
fr£
4-* C
8.3
(A U
C
O
(A
00
0>
L.
(0
U
.J
5
ro
2 3US2
S Illl
ro ro ro ro ro
•-» ^. »^ -x •->
*Q ro ro ro ro
(VI (VI f\J (VI (VI
CO CO CO CO 00
•x -x-^^-x
fv »v pg ^ ^
K> «- fvi ro >t
0 O O O O
U- U.
1— I—
Ul Ul
a a
O o
i— i—
a o
Ul Ul
Ul UJ
z z
ft.
UJ
1—
Z
UJ
U UJ
Of Of
Ul u-
Ul <
QC 3
>- Ul
Ul U
u u-
z ae
_l (A
f li
Z Z 0
i $
i~. ro
Ul 2
z ai
o c
^K O*
(VJ >*
^ in
O (M
>O |x-
0 0
(A (A
X.-X
a: of
«- (VI
o o
£
1 —
Ul
a
O
fr-
iii
Ul
2
t—
i—
(A
(A
Ul
3
O
11
5
ro
A-20
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
ST
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
WV
WV
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
SITE NAME
Rinehart Tire Fire Dump
Saltville Waste Disposal
Ponds
U.S. Titanium
Fike Chemical
Follansbee Site
Ordnance Works Disposal
Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
Alabama Army Ammunition
Plant
Anniston Army Depot (Southeast
Industrial Area)
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Frederick
County
Saltville
Piney River
Nitro
Fol tansbee
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
Chi Idersburg
Anniston
Mclntosh
Leeds
Mclntosh
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
03
02
03
04
01
02
04
01
02
08
09
11
01
04
05
01
01
02
01
03
05
03
01
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
EP
F
PRP
PRP
EP
FUNDING
START
09/29/89
08/26/94
06/17/94
04/27/93
09/15/88
09/15/88
08/18/94
09/22/93
09/30/94
09/27/90
06/04/90
09/28/93
09/28/93
01/04/94
11/10/92
09/27/94
09/29/94
05/04/92
08/01/94
12/12/90
09/28/89
03/31/92
05/21/93
07/22/94
05/08/90
06/17/94
05/21/93
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
3 1994
2 1994
1 1995
4 1994
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
4 1995
3 1994
4 1997
3 1996
3 1996
2 1994
1 2000
2 1994
1 2000
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
1 1995
1 1996
3 1995
1 1995
4 1996
3 1997
2 1995
1 1996
1 1996
3 1996
3 1998
2 1998
3 1998
2 1995
2 1996
1 1996
4 1997
1 1998
3 1996
3 1996
1 1995
1 2000
2 1996
1 1995
4 1995
1 2000
STATUS
0
new
new
-4
-3
-7
new
-2
new
-4
-6
-14
-10
new
-3
new
new
0
r*w
0
0
-3
0
new
-3
new
0
1
»
i
a
0
s
TJ
1
3
<3
gl
I
*•
3
a
|
a
§
(A
c
"0
JQ
3
D
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND
RG ST SITE NAME
4 AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemovne
Plant)
4 AL Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
4 AL T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
(Montgomery Plant)
>• 4 FL Agrico Chemical Co.
N>
10 4 FL Broward County --21st Manor
Dump
4 FL CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO. (ORTHO
DI
4 FL Cabot/Koppers
4 FL Cecil Field Naval Air Station
4 FL Dubose Oi I Products Co.
4 FL ESCAMBIA UOOD-PENSACOLA
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Axis 01
01
02
02
04
Bucks 01
01
02
02
04
Montgomery 01
02
Pensacola 01
Fort Lauderdale 01
NEED TO IDENTIFY 01
Gainesville 01
01
02
Jacksonvi 1 1 r 01
03
04
05
07
Cantonment 01
NEED TO IDENTIFY 00
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
09/27/89
08/18/93
01/05/90
12/31/92
05/21/93
09/27/89
09/27/93
01/05/90
12/31/92
05/21/93
03/26/91
07/14/94
09/23/94
03/02/93
01/25/93
09/29/93
12/29/93
05/17/94
12/12/89
10/22/90
02/18/92
02/18/92
06/02/94
02/16/93
09/20/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
4
1
2
1
4
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1992
1995
1994
1994
2000
1992
1995
1994
1994
2000
1994
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
3
3
1
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
1
4
4
3
2
1
1
3
4
2
1999
1999
1995
1995
2000
1999
1999
1994
1995
2000
1994
1995
1997
2000
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1999
1995
1996
STATUS
-28
-19
-3
-3
0
-30
-19
0
-1
0
-2
new
new
-20
ONE
0
new
new
-2
-5
0
0
new
14
new
I
1
i
x
i
a.
I
«•
2
«Q
c»
S
nj
JJ)
lf\
§
^3
31
to
i
8!
••4
to
<0
•b.
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
ol
-- UJ CJ»
1- O
CD 3 *•
0) t- O
>- ro
— < >- Of
CO 1— UJ
u — en
.2 « £
"• 2 it
| S*
1 ":s
J- x 32!
S "a
i? S 3l
•- CL -• CX
«J CL 1—
C < Crt Z
£ Z I/)
1 -s
o oe i—
i- a
U- II 1
tfl O Z
(A UJ
i- a
i- i- <
CL 00
i—
t—
v>
g
_ U)
t- 1— _J
Z UJ 3
UJ -J O
en a. uj
Of O CJ
g
GO — • UJ
81 1
UJ =J
> CL UJ
of O o
CL o to
u
z
•— I—
5 S
U- VI
UJ
_j
t-
>
h-
U
i
Of UJ t—
1
t—
_J
UJ
t-
tfl
t—
v>
a
ac
C
1
*~
-x
(M
g
O
a.
CL
2
0
i
1
a.
o
u
1
«
•£
o
u.
u.
^
£
*"
(\t
I
*~
*~
»•«
(NJ
•s.
O
a.
oe
CL
I/)
•v
"
S
it
IB
CD
CL
CD
L.
ir
^
(0
CL
V
CQ ^\
e ^
ID 4"1
a. 3
4-1
a. (/>
-X V.
ae ae
oS
1
i—
o
u
"3
u
I
u
CD
g
1)
X
_J
u.
Nt
it i i i i i 0)
c
Q\ Q\ Q\ O\ O\ OH O^ O^ &*
iimiii?
fO *4" fNJ *~ *-" f\l N^1 tO
§§§§§§§S|
OOOOOOOCNCM
oooooooinru
v>v>U)v>u>v>ia
•X«VW>>V.V.N<.V.
aeaeaeaeuaeoeaeo:
5 2 2 S § fe 8 g 2
1
w
I
ca
0)
CD
u
o
u.
1.
1
f
AJ
1
X
-J
u.
^
c
III
oj ro ^
if i
s* >*
§sg
00 «~ ^
O 0 «-
O S. (M
vi at v>
^•^.•^.
u. te.ee.
«- CM M
000
o
U)
jx:
o
CD
—t
S
CD
*->
C.
i
*
0)
1
ro O 03
^ *^ OD
U.
^
3 (M
C
in in
o\ o*
OK O*
f\J 1^
8
•"
c\J r\?
«- CM
0 S
CL CL
of ee
CL CL
S^
2
o o
1
; j
L- CD
O •—
z z
i
H-
?
a 0)
—i »f-
*• i
a> &
0) <
—* L.
— • 4-10)
? "x
•b jz co
C 4-» O
CD 00 CO
_) in —
CO
4J 4-1
<- CO •*-
O Q) O
CA J= 4->
§L- .
CM
u_
CO
t
*
O
t
K
UI
0
o
1—
a
UJ
UJ
z
UJ
h-
(/>
_1
UJ
ll_
_J
_J
S
UJ
X
a
UJ
UI
UJ
CL
U.
^
O O O O O
mil
CM ff>
inn
CM i*> M «» ro
§1111
«- o o o o
to in co co GO
*> -x >x ^ ^
at at at at at
00000
CO
1
t
u
CL
i
CD
4-1
I/I
L.
"*
1
CD
CD
CD
C
0)
a.
u.
^
CM 0 0
III
^_
III
M CM (O
in ui in
"V V, V
o o o
U) Crt CO
-V ^ >x
of of a:
o o o
A-23
-------
Progress Toward Inclement ing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
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
SITE NAME
Pepper Steel & Alloys, Inc.
Petroleum Products Corp.
Pickettville Road Landfill
Sapp Battery Salvage
Schuylkill Metal Corp.
Sherwood Medical Industries
Sixty-Second Street Dump
Standard Auto Bumper Coi g.
Stauffer Chemical Co (Tarpon
Springs)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Tampa
Plant)
Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Medley
Pembroke Park
Jacksonville
Cottondale
Plant City
Deland
Tampa
Hiairah
Tarpon Springs
Tampa
Brandon
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
01
01
03
01
01
01
01
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/24/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
10/01/91
11/29/93
11/29/93
11/29/93
03/26/87
06/10/93
09/15/89
09/30/93
03/10/93
09/30/90
06/24/92
09/17/93
06/07/94
06/25/93
02/11/93
09/29/93
07/28/92
09/02/92
12/12/92
06/20/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
2
1
4
4
2
2
3
4
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
2
1994
1996
1996
1997
1996
1994
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1996
3 1996
2 1996
1 1997
4 1996
4 1997
4 1997
4 1997
4 1995
2 1995
3 1996
1 1996
3 1996
4 1995
3 1996
3 1995
1 1997
2 1995
4 1995
1 1995
2 1995
3 1995
4 1995
3 1995
STATUS
-6
0
0
0
0
new
new
new
-4
4
-5
DUE
-4
0
-6
-2
new
-3
0
4
-1
-2
-2
new
§
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Mscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND
RG ST SITE NAME
4 FL Taylor Road Landfill
4 FL Tower Chemical Co.
4 FL Whitehouse Oil Pits
4 FL Wingate Road Municipal Incinerator
Dump
4 FL Zellwood Ground Water Contamination
4 GA Firestone Tire & Rubber
Co.
> 4 GA Marine Corps Logistics Base
N>
(•A
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 Distler Brickyard
4 KY Fort Hartford Coal Co. Stone
Qurry
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Seffner
Clermont
Whitehouse
Fort Lauderdale
Zel I wood
Albany
Albany
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Calvert City
West Point
Olaton
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
04
05
01
03
02
02
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP*
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
02/01/93
03/22/94
04/15/94
09/27/91
09/21/92
02/19/93
07/27/94
07/23/91
07/23/91
11/29/93
09/15/92
06/20/93
12/31/91
05/06/91
01/20/93
04/24/90
01/10/90
09/28/88
09/20/89
COMPLETION
c
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
4
1
4
3
4
4
CHEOULE
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1996
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
4
4
4
2
2
4
2
3
3
2
1
1
4
1
3
4
1
4
4
CHEDULE
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
STATUS
0
new
new
-2
-3
-2
new
-4
-4
new
-5
DNE
-4
-4
-3
DNE
-2
0
0
2!
i
f
•A
(ft
*
•o
a
i
-H
i
1
§•
"5,
i
3"
Cn
^ft
tf\
j\
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
N)
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
MS
NC
NC
NC
SITE NAME
Green River Disposal, Inc.
National Electric Coil/Cooper
Industries
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
Red Penn Sanition Co. Landfill
Smith's Farm
Tri-City Disposal Co.
CHEMFAX, INC.
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
BATTERY TECH CDURACELL-LEXINGT
APPFunix A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Macco 01
Dayhoit 01
Paducah 01
02
04
05
07
10
11
12
13
Peewee Valley 01
Brooks 01
Shepherdsville 01
NEED TO IDENTIFY 01
Aberdeen 05
NEED TO IDENTIFY 01
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation Ons I on County 01
(Marine Corp Base)
05
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
30, 1994
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
ff
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
05/22/90
02/25/93
04/10/89
03/24/94
08/12/93
09/10/92
07/09/93
04/27/93
06/28/93
01/28/94
07/25/94
08/18/89
05/20/93
06/22/93
09/07/94
03/21/94
09/09/94
09/30/93
08/21/91
06/08/94
06/30/93
12/02/91
04/13/92
06/30/93
04/04/94
04/04/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1994
3 1995
4 1999
3 1998
4 1999
4 1999
3 1999
3 1994
3 1995
4 1995
1 1995
2 1995
3 1995
4 1996
4 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
4
4
2
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
1
4
1
4
1
3
3
1
1
4
3
1
1
1995
1995
1999
1995
1995
1998
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1994
1996
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
STATUS
-2
0
0
new
ONE
0
0
0
0
new
new
-1
-3
3
new
new
new
DNE
-2
new
-3
-2
0
1
new
new
I
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
^
s
CL U
Ul Z Z
Of O O
cx cj en
CJ
Q Of
u_ cn
§
UJ
"""
h-
2>
*-
1
u uj t~
UJ _J <—
a. oa z
O < 3
§
g
_j
i
LU
1—
1—
cn
u
Of
3 1
CJ 0)
c c
0 0
o o
o o
(M CM
CM «-
cx cx
CM CM
e> ^>
o o
a.
Of
Ot Of
o o
"
en ID
4-" O
5L ?
ta o
LL. O
§
0> L.
. °
C.
Ol C
I/I O
cu o
C. D)
CX CD
Jr
0
u
CD 0! «J
U. V O>
—» ID
01 t_ c-
Q. (DO
(0 JC 4J
cj u cn
u u
z z
-* >*
~» (M CM
< i i
in in in
Ot Q^ ^
O* O^ O^
•J- ^Kl
1 il?
>* ro •-
5; !5S
o o in
«- CM CM
O
0 00
ex cx
°"
in in
u- u.
Of Of Of
«— CM ro
0 00
V
CO — •
c >
c a
CD ID
3 4->
cn cn
£
c
CD
ex
V
• 01
U 01
c «-•
— CO
- cn
Chemtronics
PCX, Inc. (
CJ CJ
z z
XT ^
3 O
c
in cx
OK O*
-J- (M
i
CM
£ 1
*- in
f\J (M
~ §
a.
tx.
c/)
u.
5 2
5 o
u.
~
Z
UJ
a „
° ?
O 1-
UJ CD
LU -C
Z CJ
g
UJ
3:
(X
LU O
3= U
d t
u cn
CJ -
•— eo
Of 4J
CJ V
GENERAL ELE
Martin-Mari
Inc.
u u
z z
-» •*
o
1
(M
i
CM
§
CM
I
cx
oc
Of
o
5
U)
CO
cn
.
CO
u
I
CJ
oB
JZ
CJ
ID
+-•
cn
— a.
4-* L-
co o
Z CJ
CJ
z
^
c
1
^~
c5
ra
1
Of
o
o
u
ID
a>
'>
t-
—
'»-
a
Potter's Se
Pits
u
z
XT
I
CM
st
1
CM
Si
JM"
S
£
in
u-
Of
o
E
c
CO
§
u-
ID
'£
(Circular
cx
5
4-»
§«
SSL
03 O
CJ
in
*
(M
i
1
m
s
«-
s
CM
CM
O
g
cn
u_
Of
o
g
1
CD
CJ
D)
nsonborou
<
^j
c.
(D
a.
x: a
"io o
u x
u
cn
sr
CM I
c
II
(M (M
g
•*
ss
(M CM
r- «—
cn **
o o
&CX
07
U_
s s
»- CM
O O
CD
4-»
e.
O
u-
•
2
CO
'b
&.
<0
u
CJ
in
*
C EC
in s* »o in
CM s* «- CM
i
IO
-41 CM ^ xf
O O CX O
CM m r- CM
*x ^^ *^. *v
N- ro «- CM
0 00 0
a.
< < < <
of ac 6£ of
*- v- CM T—
o o o o
cu
CA ••-
"r o
u o w
I. CO <—
u of en
g
o •-
(A U
8. c -z
.2 o 8-
a cn
cu o_
4-1 00
ea c.
CO CJ 4->
3: «^ in
a>
cu c. c u
[_ QJ Q> i^-
Q O> "O >
— *S "o fc
ll I {J f n yj
U O CJ
cn cn cn
sr xr
-------
Process Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
SJ
oo
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST SITE NAME LOCATION
SC Koppers Co., Inc (Florence Florence
Plant)
SC Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Charleston
Plant)
SC Leonard Chemical Co., Inc. Rock Hill
SC Medley Farm Drum Dump Gaffney
SC Palmetto Recycling, Inc. Columbia
SC Palmetto Wood Preserving Dixiana
SC SCRDI Bluff Road Columbia
SC Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile Pickens
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCB
SC Savannah River Site (USDOE) Aiken
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
04
05
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
f
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
02/29/88
01/14/93
12/13/90
09/30/93
05/06/92
09/25/89
06/22/94
11/22/93
02/28/90
02/28/90
08/06/90
12/06/90
01/09/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
06/07/91
07/01/91
07/01/91
03/06/91
05/08/91
07/01/91
08/05/91
10/31/91
10/28/91
03/25/92
10/21/91
02/25/92
02/05/92
07/15/92
08/15/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
1
4
3
4
4
4
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
2
1994
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1993
1997
1999
2000
1999
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
2000
2000
1999
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
1
4
3
3
4
2
2
4
1
1
3
3
4
4
1
4.
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
1999
1997
1997
1997
1998
1998
1996
STATUS
-2
-1
-1
DNE
-2
-4
new
new
-a
-8
-5
-5
-8
0
10
13
11
13
3
8
8
6
6
2
9
9
9
5
5
10
*«
i
§
c?
i
a
§•
H
i
2.
S1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
>
N)
4 SC Wamchem, Inc.
Burton
01
RA
PRP 12/04/92
1994
1995
4 TN Mai lory Capacitor Co.
4 TN Milan Army Ammunition Plant
Waynesboro
Milan
01
RA
PRP
06/08/93 1 1995
1996
4 TN North Hollywood Dump
4 TN Oak Ridge Reservation (USDOE)
Memphis
Oak Ridge
01
RA
PRP
09/27/93
1995
1996
-5
4
TN
American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Jackson Plant)
Jackson
02
03
RI/FS
RI
f 12/29/89
F 07/01/93
4
4
1994
1994
1
2
1994
1995
3
-2
-6
-4
3
?
B
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
28
30
71
32
33
34
36
37
44
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/15/92
09/06/90
07/16/90
08/06/90
09/23/94
09/23/94
12/29/89
08/05/91
12/29/89
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1999
3 1993
2 1994
2 1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1998
4 1994
3 1998
1 1997
4 1994
4 1994
1 1996
1 1996
4 1999
STATUS
4
-5
-17
-11
new
new
DNE
DNE
DNE
^%
<0
2
01
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
'2
13
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
11/15/93
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
10/01/89 1
07/23/90 1
11/26/91 1
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1
1
1
1
1
1
1998
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
new
0
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
03
03
04
05
07
09
10
12
13
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
12/29/89
11/01/91
03/31/90
03/31/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
06/05/90
01/03/90
06/09/90
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1992
1995
1997
1999
1998
1998
1995
1999
2000
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1992
1995
1997
1999
1998
1998
1995
1999
2001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4
5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 19»<*
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OJ
O
OPER-
ABLE
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT
14
15
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
4 TN USA DEFENSE DEPOT MEMPHIS NEED TO IDENTIFY 01
02
03
04
4 TN Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman Toone 02
County)
4 TN Urigley Charcoal Plant Wrigley 01
5 IL AMOCO CHEMICAL (JOLIET LANDFIL NEED TO IDENTIFY 01
5 IL Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Morristown 03
Inc. 06
07
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F*
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
10/25/86
09/14/90
07/13/94
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
10/04/93
09/23/93
09/30/93
10/25/86
12/02/92
02/02/94
03/31/94
03/30/90
12/30/91
01/11/94
02/09/94
03/10/94
05/09/94
11/04/91
09/29/93
04/07/94
09/20/94
09/29/94
06/13/94
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
4
2
4
1
4
1999
1999
1996
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
1999
1996
1996
1996
1998
1995
1999
1995
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
4
1
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1997
1999
1997
1999
1998
1998
1999
1999
1995
1999
1996
1996
1996
1999
1998
1999
1996
1999
1999
1999
1998
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
2000
1995
STATUS
9
0
new
-11
0
0
0
-1
18
-1
0
-1
0
new
0
ONE
-4
0
new
new
DNE
DNE
new
new
new
new
0
-1
new
new
new
new
I
o1
0)
I
§
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
:L
IL
IL
IL
AND
SITE NAME
Beloit Corp.
Byron Salvage Yard
Central Illinois Public Service
Co.
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling
DuPage County Landf ill/Blackwell
Forest Preserve)
H.O.D. Landfill
Ilada Energy Co.
Interstate Pollution Control,
Inc.
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant(Load-A
ssembly-Packing Area
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West
Branch of Dupage River)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler
Park)
Kerr-McGee (Residential
Areas)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treat
Plant)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Rockton
Byron
Taylorvi 1 le
Pembroke Township
Warrenvi 1 le
Antioch
East Cape
Girardeau
Rockford
Joilet
Joliet
DuPage County
West Chicago
West Chicago/DuPage
Cnty
West Chicago
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
PS
f
EP
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
FF
FF
F
F
f
f
FUNDING
START
09/27/90
09/04/92
12/29/89
09/12/90
02/22/94
09/21/93
09/29/89
08/20/90
06/19/89
09/27/90
06/09/89
06/09/89
09/30/92
05/20/92
09/17/93
05/20/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1995
2 1999
1 1994
4 1992
4 1995
1 1995
1 1995
2 1993
3 1995
4 1995
4 1995
4 1995
3 1995
3 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1996
2 1999
3 1995
4 1992
2 1995
4 1995
3 1995
3 1995
2 1993
3 1995
2 1995
4 1995
3 1996
4 1996
4 1997
4 1996
STATUS
-4
0
-6
0
new
0
-2
-2
0
0
2
0
-3
-5
DNE
-5
5
to
f
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1:94
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
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
IN
IN
IN
SITE NAME
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Ottawa Radiation Areas
Outboard Marine Corp.
Pagel's Pit
Parsons Casket Hardware
Co.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
LaSalle
Lemont
Granite City
Ottawa
Waukegan
Rockford
Belvidere
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard Carterville
National Wildlife Refuge
(USDOI )
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Southeast Rockford Ground Water
Contamination
Wauconda Sand & Gravel
Yeoman Creek Landfill
Carter Lee Lumber Co.
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill
#1
Continental Steel Corp.
Savanna
Rockford
Wauconda
Waukegan
Indianapolis
Columbus
Kokomo
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
02
01
01
03
04
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
LEAD
S
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
PRP
PRP
F
PS
S
S
S
FUNDING
START
04/11/89
09/29/89
09/30/92
09/30/93
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
09/30/91
12/22/89
04/09/92
10/22/93
05/25/90
08/26/91
03/27/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1994
1 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
1 1994
4 1994
2 1995
2 1994
1 1995
2 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 2005
3 1995
4 1997
1 1995
2 1996
1 1996
2 1995
1 1995
1 1995
4 1996
2 1996
3 1996
1 1995
1 1995
2 1995
1 1995
2 1995
2 1995
1 1995
1 1998
2 1996
2 1996
STATUS
-44
-2
0
ONE
0
0
-2
-5
-4
0
-5
-6
-4
0
-1
-4
-2
0
new
-15
-5
-4
"O
S
1
<*J
g»
3
i
3.
I
S
1
g
$
•0
i
o
^,
£
to
-,
•*
-------
Progress Towaro Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
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
SITE NAME
Douglas Road/Uni royal. Inc.,
Landfill
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Galen Meyer's Dump/Drum
Salvage
MIDCO I Site
MIDCO II Site
Main Street Well Field
Neal's Landfill (Bloomington)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Northside Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Souths ide Sanitary Landf'll
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill,
Inc.
Tri-State Plating
Wayne Waste Oi I
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Mishawaka
Fort Wayne
Osceola
Gary
Gary
Elkhart
Bloomington
Gary
Zionsville
Indianapolis
Seymour
Indi»~ jpo1 is
Lafayette
Columbus
Columbia City
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
01
04
05
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
F
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/02/93
09/20/90
04/11/89
07/22/93
08/23/93
09/30/93
07/07/88
07/16/91
09/30/94
09/21/92
09/21/92
08/17/87
09/08/89
09/29/89
03/08/90
03/29/91
05/09/94
06/20/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
2
1995
1995
1995
1999
1999
1989
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1999
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1995
2 1995
3 1995
3 1995
3 1995
1 1995
2 1989
1 1995
2 1999
2 1995
2 1995
3 1995
3 1995
1 1995
2 1995
2 1999
1 1995
2 1995
STATUS
0
-1
0
16
16
DNE
0
0
new
-1
-1
0
-3
0
-1
0
new
new
3
^
i
S
to
S
4h
T)
*»
i
3
5
a
5
•o
S^1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Whiteford Sales & Service/Nationale
ase
Adam's Plating
Albion-Sheridan Township
Landfill
Auto Iron Chemicals, Inc.
Bendix Corp./Allied Automotive
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Electrovoice
Folkertsma Refuse
Kentwood Landfill
LOWER ECORSE CREEK DUMP
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Metamora Landf i 1 1
North Brorron 'ndustrial
Area
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Parsons Chemical Works,
LOCATION
South Bend
Lansing
Albion
Kalamazoo
St. Joseph
Muskegon
Buchanan
Grand Rapids
Kentwood
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Utica
Metamora
Bronson
Da I ton Township
Grandville
Grand Ledge
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
S
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
S
F
F
PRP
F
S
FUNDING
START
09/29/89
07/07/94
01/07/92
06/01/90
02/13/89
09/25/92
03/31/90
09/15/92
09/30/93
03/17/94
03/14/94
09/30/92
03/30/93
06/24/87
09/25/91
09/28/92
02/09/94
04/22/88
09/29/89
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
3
4
2
1
1
2
1
4
2
3
2
1994
1994
1994
1994
1999
1994
1995
1998
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
1
4
3
1
2
3
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
2
1995
1995
1995
1994
1996
2000
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1998
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
STATUS
-2
new
-1
-2
-8
-1
-8
-2
ONE
new
new
0
0
-4
-1
0
new
-1
-4
Inc.
-------
Progress, Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
5 MI
5 MI
S MI
5 MI
5 Ml
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MI
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
5 MN
AND
SITE NAME
Rockwell International Corp.
(Allegan Plant)
Rose Township Dump
Roto-Finish Co., Inc.
SCA INDEPENDENT LDFL
Shiawassee River
Sparta Landfill
Spartan Chemical Co.
Spiegel berg Landfill
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Thermo- Chem, Inc.
U.S. Aviex
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxte
r Plant)
Koppers Coke
Kurt Manufacturing Co.
Long Prairie Ground Water
Contamination
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Allegan
Rose Township
Kalamazoo
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Howe 1 1
Sparta Township
Wyoming
Green Oak
Township
Sturgis
Muskegon
Howard Township
Hermantown
Brai nerd/Baxter
St. Paul
Fridley
Long Prairie
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
i
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
S
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
S
S
S
FUNDING
START
06/07/88
09/08/92
12/18/87
10/20/93
06/19/87
09/23/93
02/16/94
07/19/94
05/1 2/93
09/21/87
09/27/91
08/15/90
03/31/87
06/29/87
12/15/86
04/11/91
04/11/91
12/09/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
4
4
2
1995
1996
1995
1994
1995
1995
1993
1994
1994
1995
1993
1994
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1995
1 1996
3 1995
1 1997
3 1995
4 1997
1 1996
3 1995
1 2000
3 1993
1 1995
1 1996
4 1995
4 1993
1 1996
2 2021
2 2021
3 1995
STATUS
-2
0
-2
new
-4
-9
new
new
-20
0
-2
-8
-1
0
-5
-96
ONE
new
a
»
5?
•»
<0
S
44,
T)
i
i
CO
i
a
5
I
s
i
CO
c
JO
5
z.
6
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supertund: Fiscal Year 1994
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 OH
5 OH
5 OH
AND
SITE NAME
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bell Lumber
& Pole Co.
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance
Plant
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill (once
listed as Pine Bend Sanitary
Landfill/Crosby American
Demolition Landfill)
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
South Andover Site (Andover 's
Sites)
University of Minnesota (Rosemount
Research Center)
Washington County Landfill
Wast' Disposal Engineering
Allied Chemical & Ironton
Coke
A I sco Anaconda
Big D Campground
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
New Brighton
Fridley
Oak Grove
Township
Dakota County
St. Louis
Park
Andover
Rosemount
Lake Elmo
Andov i
I ronton
Gnadenhutten
Kingsville
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
02
01
02
03
04
05
02
03
01
02
01
01
02
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30. 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
S
FF
FF
PRP
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PS
FE
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/94
06/14/91
03/28/91
08/05/92
05/20/93
09/30/87
05/09/94
04/01/91
09/04/86
06/16/94
06/12/92
10/18/93
12/07/92
07/15/93
09/30/91
09/28/94
05/11/94
09/24/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
4
1999
1995
1999
1994
1999
1999
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1996
4 1999
2 1996
4 1999
1 1995
1 1996
2 1995
4 1999
2 1995
3 1995
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
2 1995
1 1996
1 1996
1 2016
1 1995
STATUS
new
0
-4
0
-2
15
new
0
-2
new
-1
new
T
-1
-4
new
new
-1
5
i
^*4
$
-------
Progijss Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
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
SITE NAME
Coshocton Landfill
Dover Chemical Corp.
LOCATION
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
Franklin Township 01
Dover
Feed Materials Production Center Fernald
(USDOE)
Fields Brook
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Nease Chemical
New Lyme Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
Plant)
Summit National
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base
Ashtabula
Miamisburg
Salem
New Lyme
Reading
(Dover Dover
Deerf ield
Township
Troy
Dayton
01
02
03
05
02
03
01
02
05
06
09
01
01
04
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
09
10
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
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
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
f
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
12/03/93
08/24/88
04/09/90
04/09/90
04/09/90
03/22/89
09/26/89
08/06/90
06/21/93
02/04/93
07/17/92
05/22/92
01/27/88
04/11/88
05/30/94
03/29/89
06/22/93
09/17/92
03/21/91
07/10/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
10/01/92
03/16/93
06/28/94
01/10/94
07/28/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
1
4
4
1
4
2
3
4
2
3
2
4
4
4
3
1995
1995
1996
1994
1995
1995
1995
1997
1997
1999
1999
1996
1993
1994
1997
1993
1994
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1996
2 1996
3 1995
2 1996
2 1995
2 1995
2 1995
3 1995
3 2000
4 1997
1 2001
1 2008
3 1995
1 1995
2 1995
4 1995
3 1997
4 1995
3 1994
3 1996
1 1996
4 1996
1 1996
4 1997
4 1997
3 1998
3 1996
STATUS
new
-5
0
0
-3
0
0
0
-13
-3
-5
-33
2
-5
new
-6
0
-8
-1
0
1
0
3
0
new
new
0
2S
i.
i
•<
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
Rn
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
>
1
<>> C
OO
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
SITE NAME
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome
and Zinc Shops
Delavan Municipal Well #4
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Kohler Co. Landfill
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage
District
Master Disposal Service
Landfill
Mid- State Disposal, Inc.
Landfill
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
National Presto Industries,
Inc.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co.,
Inc.
Onalaska Municpal Landfill
Refuse Hideaway Landfill
Scrap Processing Co., Inc.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
DePere
Delavan
Franklin
Stoughton
Williamstown
Kohler
Blooming Grove
Brookf ield
Cleveland
Townsh i p
Muskego
Eau Claire
Ashippin
Onalaska
Middleton
Medford
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
S
F
PS
PRP
PRP
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
F
F
S
F
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
08/05/91
09/28/90
05/21/93
08/14/91
09/28/90
07/31/92
09/24/92
03/29/94
03/22/93
10/07/93
08/14/87
11/12/93
06/04/86
09/30/91
05/12/94
09/20/90
02/28/92
03/25/93
05/11/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1996
3 1997
3 1994
1 1995
1 1994
2 1994
3 1994
1 1995
2 1995
2 1994
3 1994
1 1995
1 1997
4 1994
2 1995
2 1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1996
3 1997
1 1996
2 1994
1 1997
1 1995
3 1995
2 1995
3 1995
2 1995
2 1995
1 1995
2 1999
3 1995
2 1995
3 1996
1 1997
1 1995
2 1995
2 1995
STATUS
0
0
-6
3
-12
-3
-4
-1
new
0
new
-3
new
-4
-1
new
0
-1
0
0
•o
S
Q.
|
S|
a
i
OJ
c
t)
S3
|
o
2!
i
i
(0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
> 6
® 6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
WI
WI
UI
WI
WI
WI
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
LA
LA
LA
SITE NAME
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Spickler Landfill
TOMAH MUNICIPAL SAN LDFL
Tomah Armory
Tomah Fairgrounds
Wheeler Pit
Frit Industries
Gurley Pit
Midland Products
Monroe Auto Equipment Co.
(Paragould Pit)
Popile, Inc.
ROGERS ROAD MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
Vertac, Inc.
American Cresote Works, Inc
(Winnfield)
Bayou Bonfouca
Cleve Reber
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Sheboygan
Spencer
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Tomah
Tomah
La Prairie
Township
Walnut Ridge
Edmonds on
Ola/Birta
Paragould
El Dorado
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Jacksonville
Winnfield
Slidell
Sorrento
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
06
01
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
FUNDING COMPLETION
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
EP
EP
PRP
PRP
F
S
PRP
F
F
F
F
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
START SCHEDULE
04/11/86 3
02/23/94
01/11/94
05/27/93 1
05/27/93 1
05/21/92 1
09/08/83 2
03/29/89 2
06/29/90 1
06/28/91 1
12/27/91 1
09/27/94
01/19/94
09/26/94
07/12/89 4
07/12/89
09/28/93
02/04/91 4
04/10/92 1
1994
1995
1995
1998
1995
1994
1994
1995
1993
1994
1997
1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
1 1995
2 1996
2 1996
1 1996
1 1998
2 1995
1 1995
1 1995
3 1995
1 1995
1 1999
2 1995
2 1996
1 1995
4 1995
1 1996
4 1997
1 1997
STATUS
-6
new
new
-5
-4
0
0
-3
-4
-2
-8
new
new
new
-1
ONE
DNE
0
0
1
s*.
3?
•^
<0
2
•o
«•
i
,j
o
1
§"
^
i
S
I
0}
c
n\
T|
Q
0
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 199<»
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
6 LA
6 LA
6 LA
6 LA
6 LA
6 LA
6 LA
6 NM
6 NM
6 NM
6 NM
6 NM
6 NM
6 NM
6 OK
6 OK
SITE NAME
Combustion, Inc.
Dutch town Treatment Plant
Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant
OLD CITGO REFINERY(BOSSIER
CIT
Old Inger Oil Refinery
Petro-Processors of Louisiana,
Inc.
SOUTHERN SHIPBUILDING, INC.
AT & SF (Clovis)
AT&SF (ALBUQUERQUE)
Cal West Metals (USSBA)
Cimarron Mining Corp.
Lee Acres Landfill (USDOI)
South Valley
United Nuclear Corp.
Fourth Street Abandoned
Refinery
National Zinc Corp.
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Oenham Springs
Ascension
Parish
Doyline
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Darrow
Scotlandvi lie
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Clovis
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Lemitar
Carrizozo
Farmington
Albuquerque
Church Rock
Oklahoma City
Bartlesvi lie
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
LEAD
PS
PRP
FF
FF
F
S
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
EP
EP
FF
PRP
PRP
F
F
FUNDING
START
10/25/88
08/07/89
01/31/89
09/30/93
09/22/94
04/25/86
06/30/87
06/24/94
08/07/89
06/06/94
09/29/93
08/13/91
12/20/91
02/25/92
10/04/90
09/12/89
09/20/94
09/22/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
2
4
4
1
2
4
2
4
1
1995
1994
1994
1999
1997
1998
1994
1995
1994
1994
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
1 1995
4 1995
4 1995
4 1996
2 1999
4 1997
1 1995
4 1998
4 1995
2 1995
1 1995
2 1995
1 1996
1 1995
4 1995
1 1996
1 1995
STATUS
-4
-4
-6
ONE
new
0
0
new
0
new
DNE
-4
0
-5
-3
0
new
0
i
<5
§
5
S
3.
|
i
S
3
3"
«Q
0)
£
rrj
3J
|
o
as
$
Q)
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
6 OK
6 OK
6 OK
6 OK
6 TX
6 TX
6 TX
6 TX
6 TX
6 TX
6 TX
6 TX
SITE NAME
RAB VALLEY WOOD PRESERVING
Sand Springs Petrochenical
Complex
TAR CREEK (OTTAWA COUNTY)
Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard
ALCOA (POINT COMFORT )/LAVACA
B
Air Force Plant #4 (General
Dynamics)
Bailey Waste Disposal
Brio Refining Co., Inc.
French, Ltd.
Geneva Industries/Fuhrmann
Energy
Lone Star Army Ammunition
Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition
Plant
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Sand Springs
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Oklahoma City
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Fort Worth
Bridge City
Friends wood
Crosby
Houston
Texarkana
Karnack
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
02
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
05
06
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI
RA
RI/FS
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES,
30, 1994
LEAD
F
PRP
F
F
PRP
FF
MR
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/27/94
09/16/94
08/25/94
09/28/94
03/31/94
08/20/90
02/19/92
06/29/89
06/28/89
06/28/89
03/31/89
06/18/90
06/18/90
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
10/16/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1994
2 1995
2 1997
4 1996
3 1998
4 1999
4 1995
4 1995
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
4 1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
1
1
2
4
3
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
1995
1996
1995
1996
1997
1995
1996
1997
1996
1998
1999
1996
1996
1995
1995
1997
1995
1997
1995
1997
1997
1997
STATUS
new
new
new
new
new
-5
-5
0
0
0
0
-4
-4
-4
-1
DNE
-3
DNE
-3
DNE
-10
DNE
?
S.
1
s
2
*•
•o
1
i
-------
Progress Toward Inclementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
K)
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
ST
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
IA
SITE NAME
MOTCO, Inc.
North Calvacade Street
Odessa Chromium #1
Odessa Chromium #2 (Andrews
Highway)
RSR Corp.
Sikes Disposal Pits
Sol Lynn/ Industrial Transformers
Texarkana Wood Preserving
Co.
United Creosoting Co.
Des Moines TCE (once listed as
DICO)
Fairfield Coal Gasification
Plant
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
Mason City Coal Gasification
Plant
LOCATION
La Marque
Houston
Odessa
Odessa
Dallas
Crosby
Houston
Texarkana
Conroe
Des Me ires
Fairfield
Middletown
Mason City
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
02
01
02
02
02
03
01
02
03
04
05
01
02
01
03
03
02
04
01
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
30, 1994
LEAD
PRP*
PRP
S
S
S
S
PRP
F
PRP
F
F
F
S
S
S
S
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
12/31/88
12/13/93
09/12/91
09/03/93
09/27/89
03/30/90
04/18/93
05/10/93
08/09/93
07/17/93
05/10/93
05/10/93
05/04/89
09/10/91
05/21/93
09/17/93
09/17/93
08/08/89
04/15/94
07/20/92
09/20/90
10/01/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1996
3 1996
1 1998
2 1997
2 1997
4 1996
3 1994
3 1994
2 1995
4 1994
4 1994
2 1997
4 1999
4 1999
1 1996
2 1994
4 1994
2 1995
4 1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3 1996
3 1996
3 1996
1 1998
2 1998
2 1997
2 1998
2 1995
2 1995
3 1995
3 1995
3 1995
3 1996
4 1999
4 1999
4 1997
2 1998
2 1995
4 1995
4 1995
4 1996
4 1996
STATUS
0
new
0
0
-4
0
-6
-3
-3
-1
-3
-3
3
0
0
-7
ONE
-4
new
-4
-6
-8
5
i
a
i
S
S
^
¥
i
s*
*
0>
1
§
e
31
|
o
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEfJFUNO
„
Q\ J/J Qv
T— LU cS
t, Q
- OS
O — • CO
~ — • UJ
u. CO 1—
•-. Q.
•• CO LU
~Q < CO
C UJ ^
L. •.
} s II
a i— ca
O) Z < O
C uj a ce
.~ o, — • a.
4-> Q. h-
c < co z
£ Z (O
'a "* o
iT _i —
"E S5*
ID Z — 1
SUJ <
« —
t- 0
u. LU
IA O E
V) Ul
CJ CO OS
t- 3
O) t- O
o < z
a. co
a
H
H-
CO
2uj
1— 1— _
Z Uj -
c/> a. u
UJ £ X
as o o
a. cj c/j
g
CO —• LU
81- -
UJ ^
> OL U
a: o c.
a. cj co
u
z
i~i i—
13 H
U. CO
•d
U
1-
>
o
oe ui t—
UJ —I "
SSI
g
c
c
z
Ul
1—
CO
t-
co
a
ee
c
1
**
S
1
M
O
Q.
Z
^
O
»
CO O ^
«- CM CM
o in ^>
«- 0 0
0. O-
a co oe
a, a. o.
CO
u_
•^s
et oc at
o o o
X 4J
S "
« « 8
1 § 1
* o cj
"3
V)
&
5 3
« C
Q. m
L- X E
O ID Q.
- : i
It:
o •- E
i ID a
t. a. u.
^ "5 £0.
cu a> •— E*
5 5 ill
< S <
K N- IV
15
~*
1
"*
S
"N,
1
CO
a.
u.
oe
o
ca
4-1
U
3*
,.
S
V
•3
& Mead Gro
mination
ID
-C 4-*
a°
CO
^
C
1
•*
g
in
1
u.
CO
u.
Of
0
^
u.
z
Ul
Q
0
a
UJ
UJ
z
i
§
Of.
ca
X
>—
|
a
UJ
t *
in -
LU
CJ X
x at
i—
§c.
O
u- u.
CO CO
l-w Ik-
c.
1
sf
€
CM
a.
CO
Lt_
S
S
!
o
o
UJ
(
o
CJ
X
at
4J
a.
S2
^
CO «- •* M CM
i i
1 ill!
•* «-'*'»«
if lil 1
-» CM^-M
M Is- CM O CM
O CO O O O
0 .^^NTo
«- 0 CM CM M
u- u- u- u.
CO CO CO CO
Ik Ik Ik U.
QC fy y of *V
S 5SSS
i
fj4l
g
S |
O (U
1 f
CJ —
v
a
O-
S
4->
« '-
V C
i 1 ?
o jc
a. *-•
» 01 L.
E ^£0
S ax
i i
i^ r>.
-j- ro uj
O
R II
^~ to ro
st in
•" •*
CM O «-
O O O
«- •* CM
tO CM O
0_
CO Oi
Q- u- Q.
CO (O
2 S S
0 00
§
CJ
4-> L.
k. QJ
J5 V)
-J -I
4J
"S
CD
'^
^
1
(0 flJ
U 3
1 1
cj o
g §
-1 0
i i
&
*•
i
*~
«-
i
CM
CO
CO
n
at
O
§
en
01
CO
I
4-1
ID
a.
—
ID
3
O
i
A-43
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 MO
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
7 NE
AND
SITE NAME
Solid State Circuits, Inc.
St. Louis Airport/Haze I wood
Interim Storage/Futura Coat
Syntex Facility
Times Beach Site
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
Weldon Springs Ordnance
Works
West lake Landfill
10th Street Site
AMERICAN SHIZUKI/OGALLALA
ELEC
Cleburn Street Well
Cornhusker Army Ammunition
Plant
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Lindsay Manufacturing Co.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Republic
St. Louis
County
Verona
Times Beach
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
Bridgeton
Columbus
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Grand Island
Hall County
Hastings
Lindsay
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
05
01
01
01
01
01
01
05
12
14
16
17
19
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
LEAD
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
f
F
F
FF
r
f
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/27/91
06/26/90
09/30/89
09/30/94
10/24/91
02/16/90
03/03/93
12/08/89
09/29/94
09/16/91
03/15/90
09/30/93
08/31/90
09/30/91
02/11/91
09/30/93
03/22/85
09/30/92
06/20/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
3
4
4
1
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2 1994
1 1996
4 1995
1 1996
4 1996
2 1995
4 1996
4 1994
1 1996
1 1995
1 1997
4 1996
1 1996
2 1996
2 1996
4 1995
3 1999
1 2015
2 1996
STATUS
0
-3
-4
new
-4
-2
-6
-3
new
0
-8
DNE
-6
-2
-2
DNE
DNE
-80
new
5
1
8
|
§
3.
|
i^
i
I
c
rn
ti
i
D
2!
S.
x
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
RG ST
7 NE
7 NE
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 Watertown 01
California Gulch Leadville 00
00
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
Central City - Clear Creek Idaho Springs 02
02
03
03
Denver Radium Site Denver 08
09
Eagle Mine Minturn/Redcliff 01
01
Lincoln Park Canon City 01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
RI
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
FS
RA
FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FE
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FE
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
PRP
F
FE
PS
F
FUNDING
START
09/26/91
08/18/92
12/11/90
02/07/89
06/12/92
04/07/94
03/29/94
04/07/87
04/07/87
09/10/93
08/29/91
08/29/91
09/15/94
08/29/91
03/02/94
08/17/94
12/15/92
03/30/94
08/26/94
12/01/91
03/29/89
09/21/92
07/25/94
09/29/93
03/31/93
06/04/92
09/25/90
09/01/88
03/11/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
1993
1995
1994
1999
1994
1994
1995
1994
1993
1994
1993
1994
1991
1993
1994
1994
1992
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
c
3
2
4
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
4
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
4
CHEDULE
1995
1996
1994
1999
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1997
1997
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
STATUS
-7
-2
0
0
-3
new
new
-3
0
-4
-7
-3
new
-6
new
new
DNE
new
new
-4
-13
-5
new
DNE
-3
-4
-9
-5
0
55
i
i?
II
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
1
«0
CJ
_j
<0
U
•^
u.
1
M-
I *
O
O) Z
C UI
•— Q.
*•" O.
C <
|
L.
(D
2
O
I—
U
'*)
•J
1
0.
tvTos
UJ O>
i".
1— O
en KI
>- Of
!-• co
— J £
*-> UI
m H-
— a.
en uj
n i
U- Z
O
gen
UJ
•-* a
I— U
3O
of
—• a.
i—
en z
u,~
z en
-g
— u
o <
Z-l
UI <
Of —
U. UJ
0 X.
UJ
en oe
it
1-
1—
en
z
o
1-1 UJ
zljj^
UJ — J O
a. ui
of o ej
a. o en
z
a u
u. en
o
UJ
i—
C£
1^1
i—
*
Of UJ 1—
UI -1 •-•
0 *S 1
o ^ ^
G
1—
c
UJ
^
UJ
1—
1—
en
a
Of
in^jooooooooooooo
i i
1 ii & & I II i 1 II i i i i
cM~»-*io-*>*^-*roro^~»~*^-*
Hiilllllllllll
«--*-*IO>.t-*-^tOM-*~*^^-*
OCMOO* -**
>S ^ ^ ^ >^ ^ V ^ *V V V %H ^H ^ X. V V *VV
(\j^-«-o«-rof\i«-*-«-o i^^-»-o(\io «-CM
a.
t/) V) (/)(/) Crt
LL. Uu U_ tl_ U- U-
rvi ro "J1 m v— (\i in *o ^O *O *O o o «~ M ro **3" v rvi
^D O ^3 ^~ ^ ^U W W ^J ^ W O ^3 ^3 O O O ^3 C3
^~
~
>• z
4-> UJ
c a
" °
« -s
£ a —
n uj — *
T3 HI 0)
< z crt
1
<• UJ (V
z *-•
.E i en
CO
<-> uj c
* 5 1
Z 1-41
^ I -^
of en en
O O O
U (J (J
CO CO 03
A-46
-------
Progress Toward Implementing S>upe, fund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
RG ST SITE NAME
8 CO Smuggler Mountain
& MT Anaconda Co. Smelter
6 MT East Helena Site
8 MT Libby Ground Water Contamination
8 MT Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
8 SO Annie Creek Mine Tailings
8 SD Ellsworth Air force Base
8 UT Hill Air Force Base
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Pitkin County 01
Anaconda 04
07
11
16
East Helena 01
02
03
Libby 02
Silver Bow/Deer 04
Lodge 10
12
Lead 01
Rapid City 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
Ogden 01
05
06
07
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/28/90
09/30/94
05/19/94
06/10/93
09/30/94
03/31/92
06/23/87
06/27/87
10/18/89
06/30/92
09/19/94
05/18/94
05/11/92
12/11/92
04/12/93
04/05/93
04/12/93
04/05/93
01/24/92
04/05/93
04/05/93
01/26/93
01/26/93
02/03/94
01/26/93
06/28/91
08/13/91
09/10/92
05/15/92
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
3
3
3
4
1
1
4
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1991
1996
1999
1994
1995
1999
1995
1994
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1993
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1995
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
3
2
1
3
1
3
4
2
4
1
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1996
1996
1998
1996
1996
1999
1998
1996
1999
1997
1996
1997
1999
1996
1996
1997
1996
1997
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1998
1997
1996
1996
1997
1996
STATUS
-17
new
new
0
new
0
-14
-4
0
-9
new
new
-23
0
0
0
0
0
-11
0
0
0
0
new
0
-6
0
ONE
DNE
<0
2
I
I
I
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
oo
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
8 UT
AND
SITE NAME
KENNECOTT - BINGHAM/SOUTH
ZONE
KENNECOTT TAILINGS/NORTH
ZONE
MURRAY SMELTER
Midvale Slag
Monticello Mill Tailings
(USDOE)
Monticello Radioactive!. y
Contaminated Properties
Ogden Defense Depot
Petrochem Recycling Corp./Ekotek
Plant
SANDY SMELTER SITE
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings/Smelters)
Tooele Army Depot (North
Area)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
NEED TO IDENTIFY
NEED TO IDENTIFY
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Midvale
Monticello
Monticello
Ogden
Salt Lake
City
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Midvale
Tooele
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
00
01
00
01
01
01
03
01
02
03
05
01
02
02
03
04
01
00
01
01
02
02
02
02
04
05
08
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
Rt/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
S*
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F*
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
S
S
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/29/94
08/16/94
09/14/93
08/05/94
08/07/89
06/22/92
07/31/93
05/31/91
09/06/84
11/09/90
11/23/93
01/07/94
09/24/93
11/15/91
02/03/92
10/25/93
11/01/93
07/10/92
11/15/93
11/15/93
12/31/84
06/25/92
11/22/93
09/20/94
12/31/91
07/15/93
09/16/91
03/19/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
1
3
2
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
1994
1994
1994
1998
1994
1996
1996
1994
1997
1995
1994
1999
1996
1996
1995
1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1996
2 1995
2 1995
4 1996
1 1995
1 1994
3 1994
1 1998
1 1996
1 1997
3 1996
2 1998
4 1997
2 1995
4 1997
3 1995
1 1997
3 1995
1 1995
1 1995
1 1995
1 1999
2 1995
1 1997
3 1997
3 1996
3 1996
3 1996
STATUS
new
new
ONE
new
-4
0
0
0
-6
-3
new
new
-4
-2
0
new
new
-1
new
new
-4
0
new
new
-6
0
-6
0
I
3
i
51
2
a
3.
|
If
i
5
«»
o>
^
^n
^n
^^
3>
o
3!
£.
<0
!§
.*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
RG ST
8 UT
8 UT
8 WY
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
'•> AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
9 AZ
AND
SITE NAME
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
Wasatch Chemical Co.
F.E. Warren Air Force Base
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area
Luke Air Force Base
Phoenix- Goodyear Airport
Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Williams Air Force Base
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS,
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Salt Lake
City
Salt Lake
City
Cheyenne
Hassayampa
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
05
06
07
08
09
10
01
Scottsdale/Tmpe/Phnx 01
Glendale
Goodyear
Tucson
Chandler
Yuma
03
06
06
07
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
05
01
02
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
07/23/94
09/10/93
10/22/91
01/06/94
01/25/93
06/23/92
03/09/94
03/23/94
01/01/94
01/01/94
01/01/94
04/14/94
02/20/92
03/14/88
02/08/94
07/11/94
09/26/90
09/27/90
09/30/94
04/19/94
12/12/91
12/11/90
12/31/92
01/19/93
09/01/93
09/30/91
09/30/91
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1995
3 1995
1 1995
4 1995
1 1995
1 1994
1 1996
1 1995
4 1995
1 1996
1 1996
4 1996
3 1997
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
4
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
3
1995
1995
1995
1997
1995
1995
1997
1997
1996
1996
1997
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1996
1996
"•95
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
STATUS
new
ONE
-2
new
0
-2
new
new
new
new
new
new
0
-3
new
new
-15
-2
new
new
-1
-2
0
-1
ONE
0
0
i
2
I
•<
^
5
<§
5
<8
H
I
a
f
§•
3
§.
5*
(0
Sg
5
2
2
o
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
>
o
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS.
RG
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
SITE NAME
Aerojet General Corp.
Atlas Asbestos Mine
Barstow Marine Corps Logistics
Base (Nebo Area)
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps
Base
Castle Air Force Base
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Cooper Drum Co.
Crazy Horse Sanitary Landfill
Del Amo Facility
Edwards Air Force Base
El Toro Marine Corps Air
Station
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Rancho Cordova
Fresno County
Barstow
Arvi n
San Diego
County
Merced
Coa I i nga
South Gate
Salinas
Los Angeles
Kern County
El Toro
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
02
01
02
03
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
0<
01
02
03
07
01
02
03
04
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
STUDIES
30, 1994
LEAD
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
F
EP
MR*
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
09/08/88
06/22/94
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/30/92
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
07/21/89
01/04/93
11/12/93
12/16/92
01/11/94
08/12/93
09/18/93
05/07/92
OS/07/92
09/26/90
09/26/90
12/18/92
06/03/94
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
09/28/90
PREVIOUS
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1996
3 1996
1 1996
2 1997
2 1995
1 1995
3 1995
4 1995
1 1996
4 1999
4 1995
4 1994
3 1995
3 1995
3 1994
3 1999
3 1996
2 1998
2 1996
3 1996
3 1996
3 1996
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4 1996
2 1996
3 1996
2 1996
2 1997
2 1997
1 1996
3 1996
4 1996
1 1996
4 1999
4 1999
2 1996
2 1995
1 1997
4 1995
2 1996
1 1996
4 2004
2 1997
1 1999
4 1999
2 1996
3 1996
3 1996
3 1996
STATUS
0
new
0
-1
0
-8
-4
-4
-4
0
0
new
-2
new
-9
-1
-3
-6
-21
-3
-3
new
0
0
0
0
5
1
a
i
H
2
s
a.
1
1
3"
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
^
o
^~
L.
CO
_^
ID
U
10
""
I
4-
i_
CO <
3 X
en •—
0, i
C UJ
•— o.
w o.
5
"a
I
1
in
M
01
L.
O)
o
L_
Q.
en t>
M ^
s .
>- o
en to
>- ct
H- UJ
—. CO
t-i UJ
00 H-
— • CL
< en
UJ
en"en
Sen
UJ
C3 CK
— i CL
K-
en z
UJ «-«
z en
~ 0
< i—
~ o
0 <
UJ
Z —1
UJ <
Ci
U. UJ
O X
UJ
en oc
H- o
< z
1- <
en
en
^
i —
en
g
•_ UJ
t- t- -j
z uj o
UJ ' Q
CO Q. LU
LU z =
a 5 ej
CL U CO
g
—• UJ
O LU a
«-« — J Q
> Q. LU
LU z a:
a: o o
a. ej en
u
z
a a:
3 i—
u- en
Q
LU
_J
>
£
**
OS UJ 1—
UJ -1 —•
Q_ CO Z
O < U
g
1
-J
I
UJ
1—
en
en
13
ac
O r- 31 UJ
i CU Z
c o
N- in in in
8:8:8:8:
1*1 1*1 «- Kl
c5c?
M CM
ro c\i o cvj
o o o o
U» U- U- U_
U- U- U- U.
en en en
^.x. -x
S 5 o: 5
*- CM >t in
0 0 O 0
(0
c
a
T3
o
t.
o
Lt_
g
0
o
1
Kl
•O
1
M
ca
o
§
u-
en
-x
5
0
CA
ID
0
t_
H
^
f_
CU
ii-
eu
o
U-
g
o
CM
1
*""
§
Kl
N.
r^
o
en
a.
en
V.
*•
0
.fZ
u
o
I
«
o
^
U-
C3
U
0
(M ^*
(M i
i
II
~» CM
II
L-
o
u
CU
CA
m
u
i.
0
e.
CU
O)
fc
eu
C3
g
0
ro
i?
•"
1
ro
V-
o
en
a.
en
-~.
5
0
o
ID
d.
^
CU
0)
ID
Q.
O
O
S
TJ
t_
(D
U
ID
a.
4-*
CU
15
x oe.
CJ
O
O ^
tn *o
s*M
in in
&L ^
"^ *•"
II
oo eo
(M (M
§.
o
4-1
CD
U
"§
-1
g
01
L
si
-i ^.
g
0
II
•— r*
O* O*
CM oa
II
CM «-
is
a. a.
of ae
gg
o o
CU
1
o
..^
-*
1
L.
0
2
o
CJ
CA
II
V CV
g
0
1 I 1 1 1 1
laim
^- -^ ** -r- s* (M
sisiiii
M M •* *~ •" ^
CM CM CM CM CM CM
O O O> O O O
Rj CM ro ro CM CM
issicls
en c/> en eo en en
^•^•v-^^^
rf nf ns /\* ff ry
•~ CM to -* en >o
O 0 O 0 0 0
CU
[_
I
ca
g
ID
A-51
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Yei.r 1994
>
to
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
RG ST
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
9 CA
f CA
9 CA
9 CA
AND
SITE NAME
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (USDOE)
Liquid Gold Oil Corp.
Louisiana-Pacific Corp.
MGM Brakes
March Air Force Base
Mather Air Force Base (AC & W
Disposal Site)
McClellan Air Force Base (Ground
Water Contamination)
McColl
McCormic and Baxter Creosoting
Co.
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Moffett Naval Air Station
APPENDIX A
INVESTIGATIONS.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Livermore
Richmond
Oroville
Cloverdale
Riverside
Sacramento
Sacramento
Fullerton
Stockton
Modesto
Sunnyvale
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
02
03
01
04
05
06
08
09
01
01
02
01
01
02
05
06
06
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RA
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI
LEAD
FF
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
S
F
F
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
08/05/92
01/11/94
05/26/92
01/29/91
09/27/90
09/27/90
08/06/91
01/24/92
06/06/91
07/21/89
06/21/94
07/21/89
07/21/89
08/21/90
11/23/92
01/13/93
07/21/89
06/11/84
06/30/92
03/24/93
03/21/91
08/08/89
08/08/89
08/08/89
08/08/89
07/06/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
1
4
3
2
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
4
1997
1995
1994
1997
1994
1995
1996
1995
1994
1994
1997
1999
1995
1995
1991
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 2000
1 1995
1 1996
4 1995
1 1997
1 1995
1 1996
3 1997
1 1996
3 1995
1 1996
2 1995
1 2001
1 2001
3 1996
3 1996
3 1996
4 1991
2 19^7
1 1996
2 1995
1 1996
2 1995
1 1996
4 1996
4 1995
STATUS
-12
new
-2
-7
0
-1
-2
-5
-2
-3
new
-2
-13
-5
-6
-6
DNE
0
-9
-3
-3
-4
-1
-4
-4
DNE
5
1
«2
$
|
S
^
^
S"
i
1
0)
c
m
3]
2j
5
O
2!
n
1
•«*
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
„
§
S
V
CO
u
CO
u-
•g
M-
L.
3 X
en •-
a
D) Z
C UJ
c <
I
CD
I
Ul
in
0)
01
o
t.
ex
UJ (>
II-
>- at
1- UI
•-I m
t-^ UJ
CO »-
— ex
en ui
< en
Ul
u- z
o
en" c/i
Sen
UJ
— Of
O OS
— IX
en z
z en
_l M
2S
g*
Z —1
Ul <
0- »
u- S
0 X
UJ
en at
i— a
55*
en
Zl
i—
r-
cn
3
— UJ
Z UJ D
c/i ex ui
ce o u
ex u en
z
O
en ~ ui
31- _i
uj z>
> CX Ul
at O u
a. u en
u
a a:
u. en
Ul
i—
>
i—
O£ Ul 1—
UJ — 1 •-•
S
g
2
UJ
z
UJ
1—
en
en
at
UJ
a
in
-
c>
v>
1
en
Q.
2
o
01
g
en
CO
0)
I
U
4-»
£
z
u
o
1
-
S
rvj
g
o
i
ex
gf
en
u_
at
0
0)
CO
L.
1.
0
1-
§
Q.
O
U
Chemica
eu
C
=
2
e>
UJ
0
in
to
5
^
i
2
2
o
CO
CD
U
CO
4-f
C
CD
en
Q.
L.
O
u
o
4-*
U
i
en
§
4^
CO
U
0
C
11$
K,^
in
rsi
8JS
in O
CM O
SIM
0
en en
u_ u_
at at
S3
i
Bernadi
c
cn
g
ID
C
'i
CO
g
ej
0)
CO
3
0
(_
5
0)
z
S
0
3 0 -O
c '
If II
^* K> M
st in
8:8:
^- r-
st e> «-
O» 00 O*
sis
u. u. li-
en en
u. u_
u ae oe
«- CM fO
O O O
i
L.
E
01
m
c
CO
en
0)
CO
CD
03
01
u
o
u.
c_
<
I
L.
o
z
2
o
eo in o
i i
N- in Q
O* O^ &•
«- ro Nt
in >t in
8:8: 8:
«- CM -»
85 g!
in CO O
»- .- CM
gh«« *o
0 0
Q- Q.
tt u
en
u.
2 < 2
o o o
£
ID
O.
I- CD
0) D)
JJ CD
O ID
X Z
fc
u
c
2
o> —.
i. «•
3 1
T3 "CD
c en
c -• 'o
Z ."^ x
CD S- 4->
Q) C 1—
0 " 2
u ej
0 o
o
1
-
&
*~
g>
^
e>
1
en
UL
oc
0
minster
4-»
3
B
O
U
O>
C
c_
f-
X
2
CD
;§.
CD
at
2
o
O vt 3
CM 0)
•«* »* CM
cf8:
>»>*
§§2
>o 1 ^
^ 0 O
u. u_ ii-
en
u.
ac at oc
«- CM in
000
O
u
CO
en
g
Q
0
4-*
L.
U
ID
en
g
o
3 3
c c
in O
«- CM
ss
C\J ^~
0. 0.
s. s.
O- Q.
CK at
«- to
o o
S
01
I
_1
CD
0)
l_
^
«•
I
1
i
01
c
CO /•>
C/l «-
S
o>
o
in
^
in
**
8!
V,
co
CM
S
en
u-
at
CM
0
8
c
I/I
o
CO
0)
I.
*•
fr
I
E
0)
u_
c
ID r*
en -j-
C-)
o
UJ
z
i
-
oS
V,
to
1
en
u.
at
0
o
0)
4-*
|
UJ
2
<
fr
CO
01
I.
CO
u
c
CD »•»
2
0
Ul
0
8:
-
£
O
i
Q.
gf
C/l
U.
5
o
1
ex
CO
s
c_
X
CO
01
L-
ID
(3
C
CO r*
en -4-
2
0
o
1
sr
f
•*
8!
V,
(M
CM
2
0
J
en
o
u
5
*-•
L.
|—
1
0)
en
2
o
A-53
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfuna: Fiscal Year 1994
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 HI
SITE NAME
Sharpe Army Depot
South Bay /.sbestos Area (Alviso
Dumping Area)
South Bay Basin
Stoker Company
Stringfellow
Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co.
( Thompson- Hayuood Chem
Tracy Defense Depot
Travis Air Force Base
United Heckathorn Co.
watkins- Johnson Co. (Stewart
Division)
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
(Sunnyvale Plant)
PEARL HARBOR NAVAL COMPLEX
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
LOCATION
Lathrop
Alviso
Silicon Val ley
Imperial
Glen Avon
Heights
Clear Lake
Fresno
Tracy
Solano County
Richmond
Scotts Valley
Sunnyvale
IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
01
01
04
05
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
01
NEED TO IDENTIFY 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
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
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
EP
F
EP
PS
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
03/16/89
10/15/93
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
09/28/90
04/01/94
05/19/94
09/26/91
07/16/91
06/28/94
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
09/30/93
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
1991
1995
1994
1995
1994
1996
1994
1994
1996
1995
1996
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1 1996
1 1997
4 1991
4 1996
1 1995
4 1996
2 1995
3 1996
2 1995
1 1995
1 1997
2 1996
2 1997
4 1996
1 1998
1 1995
1 1995
2 1996
1 1999
1 1997
1 1998
1 1999
1 1999
1 1999
1 1999
STATUS
DNE
new
0
-6
-3
-4
-2
0
-2
-2
-1
-2
-4
new
new
-1
-1
new
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
DNE
5
a
1
as
i
a.
1
3
I
1
JS
c
\T\
jQ
i
6
5?
!a
*•
S?
to
«•*
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
RG ST
9 HI
9 NV
10 AK
10 AK
10 AK
10 AK
10 AK
10 AK
10 ID
SITE NAME LOCATION
Schofield Barracks Oahu
Carson River Mercury Site {Trust Lyon/Churchill
Territories PC) County
ADAK NAVAL AIR STATION NEED TO IDENTIFY
Arctic Surplus Fairbanks
Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Elmendorf Air Force Base Greater Anchorage
Borough
Fort Uainright Fairbanks N Star
Borough
Standard Steel and Metals Salvage Anchorage
Yard
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Smelterville
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
08
10
01
02
03
04
01
02
01
01
03
04
05
07
08
02
03
04
05
06
08
01
02
03
04
01
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
30, 1994
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
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
F
FF
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/93
08/23/94
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/27/91
09/28/90
09/28/90
11/24/93
07/24/92
05/06/92
05/06/92
05/06/92
05/21/91
05/05/93
04/01/92
04/06/93
02/15/93
04/15/92
01/18/94
08/05/93
08/10/94
11/01/93
09/15/92
11/27/92
09/26/92
09/27/94
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
3
3
1
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
4
4
2
4
1
4
1
1
1995
1997
1996
1997
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1994
1995
1995
1994
1996
1995
1996
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
4
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
3
2
4
1
2
2
4
1
3
1
1999
1999
1997
1997
1996
1997
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1996
1995
1996
1995
2002
STATUS
DNE
new
-5
0
0
0
-3
-5
new
0
-1
-1
-1
0
DNE
-1
-1
-1
-2
new
0
new
new
0
0
-2
new
g
i.
i
8!
ot
2
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Supenund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
UA
SITE NAME
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN
LOCATION
Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination Pocatello
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.
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Gould, Inc.
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOS.
CO.
4art' vMarietta Products
Teledyne Wah Chang
UmatiUa Army Depot (Lagoons)
American Crossarm & Conduit
Co.
Idaho Falls
Soda Springs
Soda Springs
Mountain Home
Pocatello
Pocatello
Portland
NEED TO IDENTIFY
The Dalles
Albany
Hermiston
Chehalis
PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
02
08
15
22
24
01
01
03
02
01
01
01
«'
03
01
02
01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
*
30, 1994
PREVIOUS PRESENT
ACTIVITY
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
LEAD
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
F
FUNDING
START
05/30/91
12/20/91
02/11/94
01/29/93
12/27/91
11/02/93
12/14/93
09/20/90
03/19/91
05/12/92
07/28/93
05/19/94
03/02/92
09/07/94
05/15/90
05/05/87
02/15/94
06/20/94
09/01/94
COMPLETION COMPLETION
SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
4 1995 4
1 1995 1
4
1 1996 1
1 1995 1
1
4
4 1994 4
4 1994 1
3 1995 3
2 1995 2
1
4 1995 4
4
2 1995 2
4
1
3
4
1996
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1998
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
STATUS
-4
0
new
0
0
new
new
-4
-5
0
0
new
-12
new
0
ONE
new
new
new
5
i
^*«
(0
3
S
a
I
2
-------
F-. ogress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG ST
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
10 UA
AND
SITE NAME
American Lake Gardens
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Bangor Ordnance Disposal
Bonneville Power Administration
Ross Complex
Colbert Landfill
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma
Channel
FairchUd Air Force Base (4 Waste
Area)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Hamilton Island Landfill
(USA/COE)
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
Tacoma 01
Silver-dale 06
07
Bremerton 01
Vancouver 01
02
Colbert 01
Pierce County 04
05
06
07
08
09
11
20
21
22
23
Tacoma 03
06
Spokane County 01
02
03
Tillicum 01
North Bonneville 01
Benton County 01
02
03
04
05
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES,
30, 1994
PREVIOUS
ACTIVITY
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
RI/FS
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
MR
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
04/14/93
10/14/91
02/04/93
03/05/93
01/18/94
09/19/94
08/28/89
11/12/91
01/16/90
12/17/93
04/11/91
09/30/89
07/31/92
06/25/93
09/10/86
06/25/92
12/21/93
05/15/92
07/19/90
03/15/92
03^16/93
03/07/94
09/15/92
01/15/92
09/24/93
06/30/89
06/30/89
10/27/89
04/09/90
04/09/90
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
2
2
3
2
2
1
4
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
1
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1994
1994
1995
1997
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
2
2
1
4
2
2
2
1
4
3
4
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
1
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1998
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1997
1995
1995
1995
1996
1997
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
STATUS
-3
-3
DNE
DNE
new
new
-13
0
0
new
0
0
0
-6
-3
0
new
-2
-3
-3
DNE
new
-2
8
5
1
1
1
0
0
i
§
a
i
*!
„.
3
i
I
31
^
§
i
Sg
2
§
-------
Progress Toward Implementfng otiperfund: Fiscal Year 1994
>
oo
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS,
RG
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
AND
ST SITE NAME
WA Hanford 200-Area (USDOE)
WA Hanford 300-Area (USDOE)
WA Harbor Island (Lead)
WA McChord Air Force Base (Wash Rack/
Treatment Area)
WA Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
(Ault Field)
WA Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
(Seaplane Base)
WA Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering
Stn. (4 Waste Area)
WA Norths ide Landfill
REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS
OPER-
ABLE
LOCATION UNIT
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Benton County 01
02
11
12
13
14
Benton County 01
02
Seattle 07
Tacoma 01
Whidbey Island 03
04
05
Whidbey Island 01
Keyport 01
Spokane 01
FEASIBILITY
ON SEPTEMBER
STUDIES
1
30, 1994
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
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
RI/FS
RA
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/05/90
06/05/90
10/12/90
10/12/90
04/15/91
05/24/93
10/28/93
06/30/93
04/15/91
05/15/89
08/31/92
01/31/94
04/28/93
02/25/93
03/20/94
05/15/89
09/27/89
09/07/88
07/30/93
12/13/91
07/26/93
07/14/94
08/12/94
07/17/90
03/16/92
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
2
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
4
3
1
3
2
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1997
1997
1995
1994
1997
1996
1995
1996
1994
1994
1995
1994
1994
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
2
4
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
1
4
1
2
2
1995
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1997
1997
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
ivcc.
1995
1995
1995
STATUS
2
0
0
0
-1
5
new
7
-5
-4
0
new
0
ONE
new
-2
2
-4
ONE
-3
0
new
new
-3
-4
5
a
$
«
i
Q_
|
8f
1
3
3
3"
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 199it
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS, FEASIBILITY STUDIES,
AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS IN PROGRESS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER- PREVIOUS PRESENT
ABLE FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
RG ST SITE NAME LOCATION UNIT ACTIVITY LEAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
10 UA Northwest Transformer (South Everson 01 RA PRP 09/30/92 1 1994 1
Harkness St.)
10 UA PACIFIC SOUND RESOURCES NEED TO IDENTIFY 01 RI/FS PRP 09/29/94 4
10 UA SPOKANE JUNKYARD/ASSOCIATED NEED TO IDENTIFY 01 RI/FS F 07/19/94 3
PR
10 UA Tulalip Landfill Marysville 01 RI/FS PRP 08/12/93 4 1996 4
10 UA Vancouver Uater Station #4 Vancouver 01 RI/FS F 04/02/92 3 1996 3
Contamination
10 WA Uestern Processing Co., Kent 03 RA PRP 07/01/93 4 1994 1
Inc.
w» 10 WA Wvcoff Co./Eagle Harbor Bainbridge 02 RI/FS F 09/16/92 2 1995 2
Island
1995 -4
1997 new
1995 new
1996 0
1996 0
1995 -1
1996 -4
2!
I
«*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
A-60
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Appendix B
Remedial Designs in Progress
on September 30,1994
This appendix lists the remedial designs in
progress at the end of FY94 and their estimated
completion schedule. Activities at multiple operable
units, as well as first and subsequent activities, are
listed.
• RG — EPA region in which the site is located.
• ST — State in which the site is located.
• Site Name — Name of the site, as listed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
• Location—Location of the site, as listed on the
NPL.
• Operable Unit — Operable unit at which the
corresponding remedial activity is occurring; a
single site may include more than one operable
unit.
• Lead — The entity leading the activity, as
follows:
EP: Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;
F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;
FE: EPA enforcement program-lead;
FF: Federal facility-lead;
MR: Mixed funding; monies from both the
Fund and potentially responsible parties (PRPs);
PRP: PRP-financed and conducted;
PS: PRP-financed work performed by the PRP
under a state order (may include federal financing
or federal oversight under an enforcement
document);
S: State-lead and Fund-financed; and
SE: State enforcement-lead (may include federal
financing).
Remaining terms used in the CERCLA
Information System (CERCLIS)database.O (other),
SN (state-lead and financed, no Fund money), and
SR (state-ordered PRP response activities), are
excluded from this status report because they do not
include federal financing.
• Funding Start—The date on which funds were
allocated for the activity.
• Present Completion Schedule — The quarter
and fiscal year of the planned completion date
for the activity, as of 9/30/94. This information
was compiled from CERCLIS on 11/15/94.
B-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Z UJ
LU —I O
CO Q. UJ
Ul I Z
a: O o
Q. u
§2
u. (/)
1
H-
I
f
•o
i_
ID
a.
ca
X
i
UJ
a.
a.
o
ro
0.
UJ
s
o
S:
Ul
O£
U-
o
S
r~
O
^
Q)
LU
V
.1
a
*
01
"
1
f\J
5*
(M
S
ae
rt
(M
O
augatuck
orough
Z CO
w
ID
1
«
0)
C '^
<4_
ni
22
^s "». -~. "-,
Sfe S S3 3
a: DC DC u
SS 8 5S 5
•D
t,
£. 0
4J **-
? | "8
J5 I * 3
JC t- 3 J5
. Cl 3 0)
f i S i
H£ S S
O r- O ~» -*
ro o ro •- fM
ON N- o rvj rvj
o o o «- «-
U- U. U- QC DC
; 1
o ax
4J 4J
Ti < w
.
u
01 ^-^
ID -
a •
o
o> u
o
u —
O ID
d .S
i 5 i
* o 5
5 I S
L. U '^
O C
-1 O 3
» tt S
1
1
^*»
O
g
a
rvi
o
{
_l
H-
?
ID
^
or
C
i
<
^
in
£
Ok
§
Of
o
i
•M
!
L.
O
•f-
?
ID
^
X
ID
O
U
Z
•o
£
(M
f\J
(M
0
ae
o
1
0
_
— 1
(f.
(D
— 1
1
u
1
Q
Z
in ^o in
^ 9* 5*
v* O» &»
«- C\J K»
Sg 1
J) u. It
ss s
I
.1
2
*x
JC
4-t
I I
! I
v a.
n
^L
C/l
L.
OJ
4->
(0
rs
1
u
IT)
ID
-------
Progress Toward Iroplemerging Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
03
RG
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
RI
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
STATUS
SITE NAME
Davis Liquid Waste
A. 0. Polymer
Burnt Fly Bog
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines,
Inc.
Cinnaminson Township (Block 702)
Ground Water Contamination
Combe Fill South Landfill
DeRenewal Chemical Co.
Diamond Alkali Co.
Dover Municipal Well 4
EVOR PHILLIPS LEASING
Ellis Property
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center
Fried Industries
GEMS Landfill
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Smithfield
Sparta Township
Marlboro Township
Bridgeport
Cinnaminson
Township
Chester Township
King wood Township
Newark
Dover Township
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Evesham Township
Atlantic City
East Brunswick
Township
Gloucester
Township
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
02
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
LEAD
PRP
F
F
PRP
S
PRP
PRP
S
F
F
PRP
F
SE
S
S
FF
F
S
FUNDING
START
04/28/94
07/11/88
07/11/88
04/20/92
09/29/89
01/03/91
07/09/91
06/26/87
09/30/89
09/30/89
12/14/89
07/06/93
05/02/94
06/30/93
09/30/93
12/23/92
09/30/94
05/22/86
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
2
4
1
1
4
4
3
1
3
1
2
2
1
4
2
4
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1998
1994
1995
1998
1995
1996
1995
1995
1997
1995
1996
1994
J
X
1
«•*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal tear 1994
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
NJ
NJ
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Garden State Cleaners Co.
Glen Ridge Radium Site
Global Sanitary Landfill
Hi 99 ins Farm
Imperial Oil Co., Inc. /Champion
Chemicals
Industrial Latex Corp.
Metal tec/Aerosys terns
Monte I air/West Orange Radium
Site
Montgomery Township Housing
Development
Myers Property
Nascolite Corp.
Naval Air Engineering Center
Reich Farms
Rockaway Borough Well Field
Rockaway Township Wells
Rocky Hill Municipal Well
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Minotola
Glen Ridge
Old Bridge
Township
Franklin Township
Morganvi I I e
Wai lington
Borough
Franklin Borough
Monte I air/West
Orange
Montgomery
Township
Franklin Township
Millville
Lakehurst
Pleasant Plains
Rockaway Township
Rockaway
Rocky Hill
Borough
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
03
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
03
02
01
02
23
02
02
01
01
LEAD
F
f
SE
F
S
S
F
F
F
F
S
PRP
F
FF
PRP
PRP
PS
S
FUNDING
START
03/30/92
09/26/90
11/15/93
02/09/93
09/30/91
03/31/93
07/16/93
07/16/93
03/29/91
09/26/90
03/24/89
05/12/92
09/27/91
04/01/94
04/05/90
07/14/94
04/20/94
03/24/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
1
3
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
4
2
3
1
1
1
4
4
1995
1998
1996
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1998
1994
1998
1995
1995
1996
1997
1994
1994
5
1
H9
S
S
1
5-
i
a
I
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
1
H-
I
a>
c
m
x
a.
LU
tn
v>
tn
LU
to
LU
a
ILU
i- i 1
Z LU 3
LU ~-l O
co a. LU
o. cj tn
a
•x.
2K
HI
i
K UJ h-
IU —1 «-«
S
S
o
— J
LU
X
z
LU
1—
CO
o
ot
1
^
tn
CM
I
8
01
L.
O
0
u
1
I*
tn
\ Roebling
z
IM
ss
t> l>
o o
10 tO
88
5S
R)
"o
|
JE
O
U
S
U
to
t_
01
-S
.C
•M
i
CO
Z
(M
s £ 1
B SS S
h~ O »»
O M O
2 g 3
fl.
tf W
IM w- w-
o o o
"O
L.
H-
1 1
(0 Q> tt
tfl O)
0) L. (0
cu O UJ
0
U
I
u
o
u to
^o .3
u "6
let
.c o
— -O CO C
o a to o
CL U .-
ta> to
to .J'>
z z z
(M CM IM
in in
co co
II
S°
«- CM
O O
•g
CO
1
>
y
%
o
u
"3
u
8
5
1 Vineland
z
CM
III
J> § 5
GO O «—
CM (0 tO
i i i
u. a ci.
IM nj CM
o o o
a a
Ic !c
CO I- 1-
i— a co
- 1 i
co So
3 33
8
U 3*
'ill
o o
IM
a> ro CM
1 £ £
- "8 ?
U CO CD
"5 • Tl TJ
— O g o
ss | s
T ^ ^
z z z
CM rg CM
S II
tfl O CM
O O O
o CM ro
? Is
a.
at
0 00
01
D>
1
1 I
2 -B
CD —>
CO O
CD
U
i S
' Batavia 1
' Claremon
^ ^
Z Z
CM IM
1
c>
o
s
to
0
4.
...
>
8
'o
u
o
1
H"
-
i
(0
_J
I
'o
cu
\ Colesvil
f-
Z
(M
II
S S!
CM CM
~0
a. a.
« a:
O 0
•s
4->
D) O
H?
> LU
^
0)
U.
"^
£
&
CO
>
r Endicott
^
Z
CM
% g
5 |
IM CM
S -
a. o.
ff £
0 O
2 i
I 1
UJ U.
a
s «
to — •
I 1
c t-
: §
0) -M
8 3
U- U-
^" "^"
z z
(NJ C>
00
0§
0. 0.
££
o o
i
to
a
x
t.
1
ii-
ia
•M
5
o
tfl
f General 1
Division
z
IM
**• in
5 5!
CM IO
§ s
u_ u.
S 0
0)
CD O
— • U
( Genzale
( Haviland
z z
CM IM
B-5
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: fiscal Year 1994
CO
RG
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ST
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
PR
PR
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Hertel Landfill
Hooker (102nd Street)
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Kentucky Avenue Well Field
Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc.
Pasley Solvents & Chemicals,
Inc.
Port Washington Landfill
Robintech, Inc. /Nations I Pipe
Co.
Roue Industries Ground Water
Contamination
Sarney Farm
Sinclair Refinery
Solvent Savers
Syosset Landfill
Warwick Landfill
Fibers Public Supply Wells
Frontera Creek
GE Wiring Devices
J uncos Landfill
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Park
Plattekilt
Niagara Falls
Islip
Horseheads
Glen Cove
Hemps tead
Port Washington
Town of Vestal
Noyack/Sag
Harbor
Amenta
Wellsville
Lincklaen
Oyster Bay
Warwick
Jobos
Rio Aba jo
Juana Diaz
J uncos
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
02
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PS
PRP
F
F
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
11/23/92
10/22/91
09/30/92
08/29/91
09/30/92
09/30/92
03/31/93
09/28/90
09/28/90
11/25/92
01/26/94
03/29/91
12/09/92
07/02/91
04/03/91
04/20/92
11/18/92
08/19/92
09/14/94
12/21/92
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
4
3
1
3
3
4
4
3
4
1
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
4
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
5
1
"**
H
Q
i
a
1
i
1
c
JO
5
|
•+•
i
to
!
i
-------
Progress 'uward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
w
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
DE
DE
DE
MD
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Chem-Solv, Inc.
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.(Newpo
rt Pigment plant LdF
Ha I by Chemical Co.
Sand, Gravel & Stone
Aladdin Plating, Inc.
Avco Lycoming
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SuperfurxJ: Fiscal Year 1994
RG
3
3
3
3
3
CO 3
oo
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
ST
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Keystone Sanitation Landfill
Lindane Dump
MU Manufacturing
Modern Sanitation Landfill
Occidental Chemical Corp. /Firestone
Co.
Old City of York Landfill
Osborne Landfill
Paoli Rail Yard
Rect icon/Allied Steel Corp.
Resin Disposal
Saegerton Industrial Area
Strasburg Landf i 11
Tonolli Corp.
Westinghouse Elevator Co. Plant
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Union Township
Lindane
Valley Township
Lower Windsor
Townsh i p
Lower Pottsgrove
Twp.
Seven Valleys
Grove City
Paoli
East Coventry
Twp.
Jefferson
Borough
Saegertown
Newlin Township
Nesquehoning
Gettysburg
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
01
01
03
04
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
03
01
01
02
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/11/92
03/11/92
09/24/93
06/01/93
09/30/90
06/01/93
07/07/93
08/23/94
09/17/92
08/12/91
07/22/93
05/11/94
05/11/94
05/11/94
05/11/92
10/18/93
09/27/94
06/23/94
12/21/93
03/16/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
Progress Towai
3.
a
§
*Q
0)
Cj
lt\
t\
%
Q
2!
1
•<
-------
Pro&ress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
RG
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WV
WV
WV
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
FL
FL
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Whitmoyer Laboratories
William Dick Lagoons
Arrowhead Associates/Scovill
Corp.
Greenwood Chemical Co.
L.A. Clarke & Son
Rentokil, Inc. (Virginia Wood
Preservation Division)
Saunders Supply Co.
Fike Chemical
Ordnance Works Disposal Areas
West Virginia Ordnance
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
Interstate Lead Co. (ILCO)
Redwing Carriers, Inc. (Saraland)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Clemoyne
Plant)
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
Airco Plating Co.
American Creosote Works, Inc.
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Jackson Township
West Cain
Township
Montross
Newton
Spotsylvania
County
Richmond
Chuckatuck
Nitro
Morgantown
Point Pleasant
Mclntosh
Leeds
Saraland
Axis
Bucks
Miami
Pensacola
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
04
05
01
01
02
04
01
01
03
01
04
02
04
01
01
01
03
03
01
02
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
F
F
PRP
F
FUNDING
START
03/05/92
03/05/92
03/05/92
09/17/92
09/07/94
02/20/92
03/03/90
05/02/94
07/22/92
10/07/93
08/06/90
06/28/91
05/26/92
07/12/93
09/30/91
11/16/93
11/20/92
03/08/94
03/08/94
09/20/94
04/18/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
1
3
4
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
4
3
4
1
1
1
2
1998
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
1996
1996
1997
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
31
_
T
^
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
03
O 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
ICY
ICY
ICY
ICY
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
(Pensacola Plant)
Anodyne, Inc.
Madison County Sanitary Landfill
Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach Water &
Sewer
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing
Corp.
Cedartown Industries, Inc.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Hercules 009 Landfill
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Mathis Brothers Landfill (South
Marble Top Road)
Robins Air Force Base (Landfill
#4/ Sludge Lagoon)
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition
Co.
Wool folk Chemical Works, Inc.
Airco
B.F. Goodrich
NATIONAL SOUTHWIRE ALUMINUM
CO
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(USDOE)
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
North Miami
Beach
Madi son
Vero Beach
Tampa
Cedartown
Albany
Brunswick
Albany
Kensington
Houston County
Albany
Fort Valley
Calvert City
Calvert City
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Paducah
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
06
LEAD
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PRP
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
FUNDING
START
08/12/94
04/23/93
09/22/94
03/26/93
11/03/93
03/16/94
10/07/93
08/22/94
10/14/93
08/01/91
07/15/94
11/01/93
06/28/94
01/05/89
01/05/89
05/02/94
07/18/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
2
4
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
4
3
2
3
3
1
2
1996
1995
1997
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1997
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
ST
KY
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
SC
SC
SC
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Smith's Farm
ABC One Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Benfield Industries, Inc.
Camp Lejeune Military Reservation
(Marine Corp Base)
Carolina Transformer Co.
FCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
FCX, Inc. (Washington Plant)
Geigy Chemical Corp. (Aberdeen
Plant)
JFD Electronics/Channel Master
Jadco-Hughes Facility
(Coppers Co., Inc (Morrisville
Plant)
New Hanover County Airport Burn
Pit
El more Waste Disposal
Helena Chemical Co. Landfill
Kalama Specialty Chemicals
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Brooks
Jacksonville
Aberdeen
Hazel wood
Ons low County
Fayetteville
Statesville
Washington
Aberdeen
Oxford
Belmont
Morrisville
Wilmington
Greer
Fairfax
Beaufort
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
03
04
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
LEAD
PRP
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
FF
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/01/94
08/11/93
09/06/94
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/24/93
08/25/94
08/24/93
09/24/92
08/15/94
09/30/92
08/03/94
02/23/94
05/21/93
08/20/93
01/31/91
06/14/93
04/18/94
07/16/93
06/23/94
08/09/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
4
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
2
5
•*
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
RG
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
CO
i
10 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
TN
TN
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
SITE NAME
Para-Chem Southern, Inc.
SCRDI Bluff Road
Sangamo Weston, Inc. /Twelve-Mile
Creek/Lake Hartwel PCS
Townsend Saw Chain Co.
Wamchem, Inc.
Arlington Blending & Packaging
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Hardeman
County)
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc.
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead
Smelter
Pagel's Pit
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI)
Tri-County Landfill Co. /Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc.
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Lakeland Disposal Service,
Inc.
Weal's Dump (Spencer)
Ninth Avenue Dump
APPENDIX B
DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Simpsonvi lie
Columbia
Pickens
Pontiac
Burton
Arlington
Toone
Morristown
Granite City
Rockford
Cartervi lie
South Elgin
LaPorte
Fort Wayne
Claypool
Spencer
Gary
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
04
08
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
08/09/94
08/04/94
11/01/91
06/30/92
06/13/94
01/31/89
03/30/92
11/27/91
11/18/91
11/18/91
03/08/91
12/14/92
05/14/91
02/02/94
11/07/91
12/28/88
05/25/94
08/22/85
09/20/89
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
4
3
2
3
4
1
1
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1995
1995
1996
1995
1993
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1996
1996
1995
5
i
1
(N
Q
i
31
•6
§^^
(6
3
I
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1?94
03
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
IN
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
SITE NAME
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp.
(Indianapolis Plant)
Berlin & Farro
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Chem Central
Clare Water Supply
Cliff/Dow Dump
Duel 1 & Gardner Landfill
Electrovoice
Forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Hi-Mill Manufacturing Co.
Ionia City Landfill
K & L Avenue Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Metamora Landfill
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Northernaire Plating
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Indianapolis
Swartz Creek
Grand Rapids
Sault Sainte
Marie
Detroit
Wyoming Township
Clare
Marquette
Da I ton Township
Buchanan
Otisville
Utica
Grand Rapids
Highland
Ionia
Oshtemo Township
Cadillac
Metamora
Lansing
Cadillac
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
03
02
01
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
01
02
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
06/10/93
09/14/94
12/07/92
02/23/93
05/10/93
02/12/93
04/07/92
09/17/93
09/27/89
07/29/94
09/29/93
06/27/88
09/10/92
03/30/93
09/20/94
09/13/90
09/18/92
05/16/90
04/26/91
05/16/92
05/16/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1995
1996
1995
1995
3
5
-*
1
^j
Cj
1
*
1
f
1
1
0)
§
RFUND
-------
Progress Towaiu Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
00
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
SITE NAME
OTT/Story/Cordova Chemical
Co.
Peerless Plating Co.
Rasmussen's Dump
Rose Township Dump
Spartan Chemical Co.
Springfield Township Dump
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Torch Lake
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
AGATE LAKE SCRAP YARD
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bel I
& Pole Co.
APPENDIX B
STATUS OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
Dalton Township
Muskegon
Green Oak
Township
Rose Township
Wyoming
Davisburg
Sturgis
Mancelona
Township
Muskegon
Hough ton County
Battle Creek
Pleasant Plains
Twp
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Hermantown
Lumber New Brighton
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
01
01
01
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
LEAD
F
F
PRP
PRP
S
F
S
PRP
F
F
F
PRP
S
S
PS
PRP
S
S
F
FUNDING
START
01/12/94
09/21/92
02/14/92
07/18/89
09/28/93
03/15/91
09/21/93
03/09/93
09/25/92
09/01/94
09/08/92
05/04/92
09/21/93
09/21/93
01/13/94
09/06/91
07/16/93
09/30/94
05/03/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
1
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1993
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
3
<§
i
(0
o
m
|
H
i
1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Hscai Year 1994
03
RG
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
ST
MN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
WI
WI
WI
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
New Brighton/Arden Hills
Perham Arsenic
Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base
(Small Arms Range Landfill)
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Buckeye Reclamation
Fields Brook
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Miami County Incinerator
Powell Road Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial
Waste Disposal Co.Inc
Skinner Landfill
Van Dale Junkyard
Zanesville Well Field
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Hagen Farm
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
New Brighton
Perham
Minneapolis
I ronton
St. Clairsville
Ash tabu I a
Jackson Township
Uniontown
Troy
Dayton
Reading
Dayton
West Chester
Marietta
Zanesvi I le
Dunn
Eau Claire
Stoughton
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
07
01
01
02
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
05
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
02
LEAD
FF
F
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
T
f
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP*
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/93
09/19/94
04/01/92
06/16/93
06/16/93
07/23/93
03/12/92
03/22/89
06/24/92
09/29/89
09/29/89
04/02/93
06/21/94
10/29/91
06/06/94
03/29/94
03/29/94
09/23/94
09/21/92
11/30/93
04/23/93
09/29/88
01/06/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
3
4
1
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
4
1995
1995
1993
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1997
1996
1995
3
1
i
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Z UJ _/
IU —I O
co a. uj
a
u
CA
3 X
in -*
o
at
UJ
i
. m :
' < :
0£
o
at
Q.
O)
C UJ Z
.^ Q. —•
4-> O.
C < CO
<
Q
O
CO
S
-
CM
O
in
o
in
0
Q.
Of
o
Caledonia
CO
CA
8.
CA
O
01
4-»
C
D
3
in
1
-
«—
o>
CM
^~
O
o.
at
o
0)
Janesvi 1 1
7
s
m
f
CA
JJ
'>
(A
-a
3
in
g
-
o
CM
^-
O
0.
at
o
01
Janesvill
Id Landfill
o
_0>
~
CA
O)
g
-a
3
in
n
**
CM CM
O O>
x> x.
O «-
to «-
^CNI
0 r-
CO CO
O O
Kohler
H-
(0
d
u
L.
01
1
3
in
S
-
CM
x.
o
§
Q.
at
o
Whitelaw
L.
0)
O)
£_
_J
t
^
H- — *
•2E
-
4-> C
i i
Z U
3 3
CO
Z CO
3 3
in in
1
fNJ
O^
OQ
O4
1
o
Stoughton
ty Landfill
CJ
c
o
4-1
f
u>
o
4-*
CO
3
in
S 1
- -
O* Os
O^
«—
i-i .c
4-*
f *
'if i
Q. CO
< <
•O -O
£
ru
iS
oT
«_
^
fl_
u*>
o
01
^
Jacksonvi
0
u
CO
C-
0>
>
<
vO
s
-
SI
(V
«_
s
5
Winnfield
£
j*
§
0>
4-*
O
C ^N
55
O M-
— C
t_ c
15
-j
^o
-» CM
o- o.
a. CL
et et
a. a.
I
3
U
u
5
4->
0)
S
CJ
B-16
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superrund: Fiscal Year 1994
W
RG
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
ST
LA
NM
NM
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
STATUS
SITE NAME
OLD CITGO REFINERY(BOSSIER
CIT
Prewitt Abandoned Refinery
South Valley
Double Eagle Refinery Co.
Fourth Street Abandoned Refinery
Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill
National Zinc Corp.
Oklahoma Refining Co. (Pesses
Chemical Co.)
Crystal Chemical Co.
Koppers Co., Inc. (Texarkana
Plant)
North Calvacade Street
Pet ro- Chemical Systems, Inc.
(Turtle Bayou)
RSR Corp.
Sheridan Disposal Service
South Cavalcade Street
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS
LOCATION
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Prewitt
Albuquerque
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Bart lesvi lie
Cyril
Houston
Texarkana
Houston
Liberty County
Dallas
Hemps tead
Houston
ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
06
01
02
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
05
01
02
01
LEAD
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
F
f
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
S
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
S
PRP*
PRP*
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/22/94
05/14/93
05/14/93
09/01/89
06/21/93
06/02/94
03/28/94
01/28/94
01/28/94
01/28/94
09/22/92
09/22/92
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
05/10/93
12/29/89
03/29/90
07/30/90
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
4
4
2
4
3
2
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1997
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1995
1997
1997
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1995
2!
£
|
-------
erogrt-ss Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1994
W
I
oo
RG
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
ST
TX
KS
KS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
United Creosoting Co.
29th & Mead Ground Water Contaminat
ion
Pester Refinery Co.
Ellisville Site
MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek (Area
2: Fills 1 & 2)
Shenandoah Stables (once listed as
Arena 1: Shenandoah Stables)
Weldon Spring Quarry (USDOE/Army)
Weldon Springs Ordnance Works
Hastings Ground Water Contamination
Broderick Wood Products
Central City - Clear Creek
Chemical Sales Co.
Denver Radium Site
Eagle Mine
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Conroe
Wichita
El Dorado
Ellisville
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Imperial
Moscow Mills
St. Charles
County
St. Charles
County
Hastings
Denver
Idaho Springs
Commerce City
Denver
Minturn/Redcliff
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
03
03
02
01
04
05
01
01
02
02
03
03
01
01
02
04
02
01
03
02
08
01
01
LEAD
S
S
PRP
PS
EP
EP
MR
EP
EP
FF
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
PRP
F
S
S
F
PRP
PS
PRP
FUNDING
START
03/26/92
03/26/92
05/18/94
09/29/93
10/07/91
10/07/91
09/26/94
05/01/91
05/01/91
05/20/94
11/09/93
10/11/93
04/04/94
04/27/93
10/01/92
09/28/90
09/28/92
06/15/88
09/30/91
02/26/92
06/07/92
05/20/88
06/08/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1997
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1996
1995
1997
1995
1995
1996
1995
1996
1995
1995
«2f
1
^•»
*
«
i
3.
&>
1
§
1
to
?
3
i
D
5
0
X
1
••*
-------
w
i
ND
RG
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
ST
CO
CO
CO
CO
MT
MT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
Progress Toward
STATUS OF REMEDIAL
SITE NAME
Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE)
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
SUMMITVILLE MINE
Smuggler Mountain
Idaho Pole Co.
Montana Pole and Treating
Hill Air Force Base
KENNECOTT TAILINGS/NORTH ZONE
Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE)
Monticello Radioactively Contaminat
ed Properties
Sharon Steel Corp. (Midvale
Tailings/Smelters)
Utah Power & Light/American Barrel
Co.
Implementing auptcfund:
APPENDIX B
DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Golden
Adams County
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Pitkin County
Bozeman
Butte
Ogden
NEED TO IDENTIFY
Monticello
Mont ice 1 1"
Midvale
Salt Lake
City
Fiscal Year 1994
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
02
27
29
00
01
02
01
01
01
01
04
09
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
03
05
02
02
02
01
LEAD
FF
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
PRP
PRP
F
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
S
S
S
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/01/92
09/24/93
12/09/93
09/16/94
09/30/94
09/16/94
09/28/90
09/08/93
09/08/93
08/16/94
06/14/94
09/13/93
12/24/91
10/29/91
12/24/91
01/12/93
10/23/91
05/12/92
07/26/93
11/23/93
10/23/93
08/28/91
09/03/93
09/27/93
09/30/93
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
2
2
1
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1991
1995
1996
1996
1996
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
i
5
1
s
-Q
3
«Q
3
in
„,.
or
i
1
§•
H
3
§
3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1994
RG
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
ST
UT
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
STATUS
SITE NAME
Wasatch Chemical Co.
Hassayampa Landfill
Indian Bend Wash Area
Luke Air Force Base
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport Area
Tucson International Airport
Area
Williams Air Force Base
Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin
Plant)
Castle Air Force Base
Fair-child Semiconductor/Camera &
(South San Jose Plant)
Fort Ord
George Air Force Base
Intel Corp. (Mountain View
Plant)
Iron Mountain Mine
J.H. Baxter & Co.
APPENDIX B
OF REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Salt Lake
City
Hassayampa
Scottsdale/Tmpe/Phnx
Glendale
Phoenix
Goodyear
Tucson
Chandler
Arvin
Merced
South San
Jose
Marina
Victorville
Mountain View
Redding
Weed
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
07
02
01
01
01
01
01
01
03
01
02
03
04
01
01
02
01
02
03
01
01
LEAD
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
PS
PRP
PRP
PRP
FF
F
FF
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
FF
PRP
PRP
F
PRP
PRP
PRP
PRP
FUNDING
START
09/30/91
04/26/93
05/31/94
04/01/94
09/28/90
01/04/91
01/23/92
01/07/89
07/25/94
04/19/94
03/01/93
01/02/91
01/02/91
09/15/94
05/17/94
03/07/94
05/14/91
05/14/91
09/21/92
01/27/93
09/21/94
08/19/91
08/19/91
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
1
3
1
3
1
4
4
1
3
3
2
3
2
4
1
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1998
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1995
1995
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
5
§
i
^*<
S"
§
i
a
&>
.3
I
i
I
tO
Sg
2
5
§
a
^
i
-*
<0
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
$
*4" Ch
O
t- ro
(0
ft» a:
>- UJ
s
co ui
O 1—
CO CL
iZ en
? g
§ en
H- en
<~ Ul
4> m of
§• x g
in ~~ u.
O CL
Ol Z
: ui z
.- CL ~
4-> CL
c < in
92 z
S ea
-z. ">
I S
"E S
So
LLf
O Z
1— UJ
CO U-
4. 0
at en
2 S
O- <
en
2u,
i— i— —i
z Ul 3
in a. ui
Ul £ Z
o£ o ej
CL O 00
19
z
Q a:
§2
u- in
§
Ul
,
a: ui >-
Ul —1 «—
LOCATION
Ul
Ul
t-
10
h-
VI
a
at
8
CM
CM
O
CM
DC
0
1
Mountain '
o Chemical Corp.
u
«
co
~"
g
Ox
S c5
CM «-
gg
CM CM
CM CM
CL CL
Of. Of
0 0
Oroville
.2
o
c_
0
g
o
u
10
e_ ^^
0 -2
M Q.
g
l>
1
CM
l>
S
1
Uk
0
Livermore
1
CO
ence Livermore N
ratory (USDOE)
a m
-1 J
g
0
1
§
ro
§
CL
CM
O
Fullerton
o
CJ
u
X
g
o
S
C
I
u_
CM
O
Sunnyvale
g
CO
4-1
V)
L.
1
0)
*f-
M-
o
g
Ox
£
ro
S
c^
1
O
I
•5
§
4)
ca
c
ID
(n
g
4-*
C
1
g
u
i
u
g
z
g
0
1 8 1 HI 88
K) CM CM Kl «- CM -»
^« V. V. ^ •>» X,, «^
«— •«* in >* ^t ro PA
O «- CM «- «- CM CM
•.» e> o in in ro ro
o o <— o o o o
CL CL CL CL CL
o£ ctf eK DC: of u. u.
IO «- CM •- CM «- «-
O O O O O O O
i- 41
(0 •-
CL >
3£
X 4) C C
4> L. -i- ffl
t- 0 (0 CD J3
41 6 en 4J u
v — •
•— co o —
£ u- I I oe
4-*
C
a
CL
IB « g
CO —1 C C
'L O. I
4J •— 01 <
•n 4-» to o. &
C co en i- t-
~ CO O <
O — 0
Ol U »- -*
c — o c c
• ^ _ 0 S ID
*/ — .^ X 0) U
(B
Q. CO ID 3 <0 •-
O-t CL CL ce Of
g g g g g
O* 0s O* 0s O^
$8. II
CM m ^j- si-
os O* O* O*>
X,^ ^^
r\j KI o o
^i ctis
CL CL
U. 11. K CK
5S 38
41
10
1
C3
4-» — •
C 41
I I
U CO
00 -J
CM
s
4-» «^
amento Army Depo
Fernando Valley
u C
CD CO
g g
o o
in in
o* o*
o ro
o* o*
>» «x
in CM
CM «-
£ £
0 0
CL
CK u.
iS g
1 .
Sen u
— ID
OS 1-
1
a
01
3 to
— - 41
— • H-
41 41
"6,
C X
•— o
t. ID
4^ U
en i-
g g
O O
B-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing Super-fund: Fiscal Year 1W4
03
N>
N>
RG
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
ST
CA
CA
ID
ID
OR
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
STATUS OF
SITE NAME
Valley Wood Preserving, Inc.
Waste Disposal, Inc.
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical
Idaho National Engineering Lab
(USDOE)
Umatilla Army Depot (Lagoons)
American Crossarm & Conduit
Co.
Bangor Naval Submarine Base
Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide
Flats
Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Waste
Area)
Fort Lewis Logistics Center
Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Hanford 100-Area (USDOE)
Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island
(Ault Field)
APPENDIX B
REMEDIAL DESIGNS IN PROGRESS ON
LOCATION
Turlock
Santa Fe Springs
Smelterville
Idaho Falls
Hermiston
Chehalis
Si Iverdale
Pierce County
Spokane County
Tillicum
Vancouver
Benton County
Whidbey Island
SEPTEMBER 30. 1994
OPER-
ABLE
UNIT
01
01
01
02
14
18
03
04
06
07
01
01
02
06
07
12
13
02
02
01
01
01
02
LEAD
f
PRP
PRP
F*
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
PS
PS
PRP
PRP
FF
FF
F
FF
FF
FF
FUNDING
START
06/25/92
09/27/94
03/29/93
03/29/93
02/17/94
09/24/93
09/12/84
09/02/94
09/02/94
07/19/94
01/14/94
09/28/94
09/13/94
01/15/93
01/30/91
05/18/94
06/22/94
11/18/93
10/15/93
03/23/88
06/13/94
06/30/94
08/05/94
PRESENT
COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
4
1
1
4
3
1
2
2
2
3
4
2
1
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
1995
1996
1995
1997
1995
1996
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1998
1997
1995
1996
1996
1995
1995
1995
5
i
i
w
S
i
|
H
i
s
I
1
m
Jj
t\
£•
|
S
to
•<
to
2
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CJ
5 Of
^. <
z> I-
u. (/)
a. m z
o < Z)
00
00
oo
m
x
o
to
UJ
Q
_
a
00
13
r^ in
§;§:
O O>
O O
a. QU a.
of o: a:
a. a. o.
"a.
0)
O)
T3
(D (A
a. -H
§
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
B-24
-------
Appendix C
List of Records of
Decision
This appendix provides a list of FY94 records of decision (RODs) signed from October 1,1993, through
September 30, 1994. Detailed descriptions of the feasibility studies, as required by CERCLA Section
301(h)(l)(A), are available in the publication ROD Annual Report FY94.
REGION
1
SITE
BFI Sanitary Landfill (OU1)
Brunswick NAS (OU6)
Central Landf ill (OU1)
Coakley Landfill (OU2)
Loring AFB (OU2)
Loring AFB (OU6)
Loring AFB (OU7)
Old Southington Landfill
Pease AFB (Site 8)
Pease AFB (Sites 9 & 11)
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill
Brook Industrial Park (OU1)
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines
Circuitron Corp
Cortese Landfill
Federal Aviation Admin. (OU4)
Federal Aviation Admin. (OU5)
Fried Industries
GCL Tie & Treating
Hooker ChenVRuco Polymer Corp (OU1)
Jackson Township Landfill
Juncos Landfill (OU2)
Kenmark Textile Corp
Naval Air Engineering (OU17)
NL Industries
Pollution Abatement Services
Radiation Technology (OU1)
RCADelCaribe(Olh)
Renora, Inc (OU2)
STATE
VT
ME
Rl
NH
ME
ME
ME
CT
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
PR
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
PR
NJ
DATE
09/21/94
09/30/94
06/17/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
04/04/94
09/30/94
09/22/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
06/21/94
09/30/94
10/05/93
09/30/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
08/17/94
06/27/94
09/30/94
01/28/94
09/26/94
10/05/93
03/30/94
09/26/94
07/08/94
12/29/93
05/09/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
C-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
REGION
3
4
SITE
Rockaway Township Wells
Aladdin Plating (OU2)
Austin Ave Radiation Site
Bell Landfill
Buckingham County Landfill
Dover Gas Light
Hranica Landfill (OU2)
Naval Weapons Sta. - Yorktown (OU1)
North Penn - Area 1
Revere Chemical Co
Stanley Kessler
ABC One-Hour Cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
Agrico Chemical (OU2)
Airco Plating (OU1)
American Creosote (Pensacola) (OU2)
B&B Chemical
BMI Textron
Caldwell Lace Leather
Cedartown Municipal Landfill
Davie Landfill
Diamond Shamrock
Florida Steel
General Tire & Rubber (Mayfield)
Lexington County Landfill
Marzone/Chevron Chemical
Milan Army Ammo Plant
Murray-Ohio Dump (OU1)
National Starch & Chemical (OU3)
Peak Oil/Bay Drum (OU4)
Piper Aircraft/Vero Beach
Reeves Southeast Galvanizing (OU3)
Rock Hill Chemical
Sangamo Weston/Twelve Mile/Hartwell
Standard Auto Bumper
Townsend Saw Chain
USDOE Oak Ridge Reservation
USDOE Paducah Gas Diffusion
USDOE Savannah River (OU33)
USDOE Savannah River ((OU34)
USA Alabama Army Ammo Plant
USAF Homestead AFB (OU3)
USAF Robins AFB (OU2)
USMC Camp Lejeune (OU1)
USMC Camp Lejeune (OU5)
USMC Camp Lejeune (OU10)
USMC Logistics Base (OU1)
USN Air Sta. Cecil Field (OU2, Site 17)
STATE
NJ
PA
PA
PA
VA
DE
PA
VA
PA
PA
PA
NC
NC
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
KY
GA
FL
GA
FL
KY
SC
GA
TN
TN
NC
FL
FL
FL
SC
SC
FL
SC
TN
KY
SC
SC
AL
FL
GA
NC
NC
NC
GA
FL
DATE
10/05/93
12/30/93
06/27/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
08/16/94
05/26/94
09/29/94
09/30/94
12/27/93
09/30/94
09/06/94
10/07/93
08/18/94
10/01/93
02/03/94
09/12/94
08/11/94
06/30/94
11/02/93
08/11/94
05/03/94
03/30/94
10/01/93
09/29/94
09/30/94
09/30/94
06/17/94
10/07/93
06/28/94
12/23/93
06/28/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
12/10/93
12/22/93
09/12/94
03/28/94
09/23/94
09/23/94
08/30/94
09/16/94
03/29/94
09/15/94
09/15/94
09/15/94
09/24/94
09/30/94
C-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
REGION
5
6
7
8
SITE
USN Air Sta. Cecil Field (OU2, Site 5)
USN Air Sta. Cecil Field (OU6)
USN Air Sta. Cecil Field (OU7)
USN NAS Jacksonville (OU2)
USN NAS Jacksonville (OU1)
WooHolk Chemical Works (OU1)
Agate Lake Scrap Yard
Auto Ion Chemicals (OU2)
Conrail Railyard Elkhart (OU2)
Feed Materials Prod. Ctr.
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
J&L Landfill
Kent City Mobile Home Park
Lemberger Transport & Recycling (OU2)
MacGillis & Gibbs/Bell (OU3)
NW Mauthe Co.
Olmsted County Landfill
Ormet Corp
Perham Arsenic
Prestolite Battery
Rrtari Post & Pole (OU1)
Sauk County Landfill
Torch Lake (OU2)
USAF Wright-Patterson AFB (OU1)
Van Dale Junkyard
Waite Park Wells
Waste Inc. Landfill
D.L Mud, lnc(OU1)
Double Eagle Refinery (OU2)
Dutchtown Treatment (OU1)
South 8th St. Landfill (OU1)
Cornhusker Army Ammo Plant
Electro Coatings
Obee Road (OU1)
Strother Field Industrial Park (OU1)
Valley Park TCE (Wainwright OU)
Anaconda Co. Smelter
Hill AFB (OU4)
Lowry Landfill
Sand Creek Industrial
Sharon Steel (Mkjvale Tailings)
Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area (OU3)
Tooele Army Depot (OU5,6,7,&10)
Williams Pipe Line Disposal Pit
STATE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
MN
Ml
IN
OH
Wl
Ml
Ml
Wl
MN
Wl
MN
OH
MN
IN
MN
Wl
Ml
OH
OH
MN
IN
LA
OK
OK
AR
NE
IA
KS
KS
MO
MT
UT
CO
CO
UT
MT
UT
SD
DATE
09/30/94
09/14/94
03/31/94
09/29/94
08/11/94
03/25/94
01/13/94
09/23/94
09/09/94
07/22/94
01/13/94
06/30/94
09/13/94
09/29/94
09/22/94
03/31/94
06/21/94
09/12/94
03/31/94
08/23/94
06/30/94
03/24/94
03/31/94
06/30/94
03/31/94
07/14/94
08/18/94
09/22/94
04/19/94
06/20/94
09/29/94
09/29/94
09/29/94
06/30/94
03/31/94
09/29/94
03/08/94
06/14/94
03/10/94
04/07/94
12/09/93
09/29/94
09/29/94
09/29/94
Apache Powder
CA
09/30/94
C-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
REGION SITE
Brown & Bryant (Arvin)
Castle AFB (OU2)
Fort Ord (OU2)
Fort Ord (OU4)
George AFB (OU1)
Luke AFB (OU2)
Mather AFB
Norton AFB
Riverbank Army Ammo Plant
San Gabriel Valley (Baldwin Park)(Area 2)
Southern California Edison (Visalia)
Waste Disposal
Williams AFB (OU1)
1 0 Bangor Naval Sub Base (OU2)
Bangor Naval Sub Base (OU3)
Bangor Naval Sub Base (OU4)
Bangor Naval Sub Base (OU6)
Commencement Bay
EielsonAFB(OUI)
Eielson AFB (OU2)
Eielson AFB (OU6)
Elmendorf AFB
Harbor Island (Lead)
Idaho Nat Engineering Lab (OU7-12)
Idaho Nat Engineering Lab (OU8)
Naval Air Sta. Whidbey Is. (Seaplane)
Naval Air Sta. Whidbey Is. (OU1)
Naval Air Sta. Whidbey Is. (OU2)
Naval Undersea Warfare Sta. (OU2)
Northwest Transformer
Teledyne Wah Chang
Umatilla Army Depot (OU3)
Umatilla Army Depot (OU4)
Umatilla Army Depot (OU6)
Umatilla Army Depot (OU7)
Wycoff Co/Eagle Harbor (East Harbor OU)
Wycoff Co/Eagle Harbor (Groundwater OU)
STATE
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AZ
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
AK
AK
AK
AK
WA
ID
ID
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
WA
WA
DATE
11/08/93
11/12/93
08/23/94
03/15/94
03/08/94
01/14/94
12/29/93
11/24/93
03/23/94
03/31/94
06/10/94
12/27/93
05/02/94
09/28/94
04/15/94
07/19/94
08/08/94
09/29/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/27/94
09/29/94
06/28/94
01/27/94
09/27/94
12/20/93
12/20/93
05/17/94
09/28/94
09/29/94
06/10/94
07/19/94
07/19/94
07/19/94
07/19/94
09/29/94
09/29/94
C-4
-------
Appendix D
Progress Toward Meeting
Superfund-Related Statutory
Requirements
In response to a recommendation of the
Lautenberg-Durenberger Report on Superfund
Implementation: Cleaning up the Nation's
Cleanup Program, EPA includes in this report the
following matrix, which charts the progress of EPA
and other government organizations in meeting
statutory requirements imposed by SARA. The
matrix lists all Superfund-related administrative and
program implementation (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, 5 of the 12 requirements due annually
have been completed for FY94 and the biannual
requirement for FY94 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 1994
Progress Toward Meeting CERCLA-Related Statutory Requirements,
as Amended by SARA17
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
102(a) 12/31/86*
102(a)
12/31/862
102(a)
04/30/88^
Requirement
EPA to promulgate final
regulations establishing
reportable quantities (RQs)
for all hazardous substances
for which proposed RQs were
published prior to March 1,
1986.
EPA to propose regulations
establishing RQs for all
hazardous substances for
which proposed RQs were not
published prior to March 1,
1986.
EPA to promulgate final
regulations establishing RQs
for all hazardous substances
for which proposed RQs were
not published prior to March
1,1986.
Slalus
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).
17 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 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
104(c)(9)
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/89
104(i)(2)(A) 04/17/87
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/88
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/893'
104(i)(2)(B) 10/17/92*
Requirement
States to provide assurances of
availability of hazardous
waste treatment or disposal
facilities.
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) and EPA to produce
list of 100 hazardous
substances most commonly
found at National Priority List
(NPL) sites that pose
significant human health risks.
ATSDR and EPA to produce
list of a total of 200 hazardous
substances including the first
set of 100 substances most
commonly found at NPL sites
that pose significant human
health risks.
ATSDR and EPA to add no
fewer than 25 hazardous
substances to list of those
most commonly found at NPL
sites that pose significant
human health risks.
ATSDR and EPA to revise list
of hazardous substances most
commonly found at NPL sites
that pose significant human
health risks.
sjalus
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 10/26/89f 10/17/90,
lfl/12/21—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).
31 Due annually on this date through 1991.
* Due annually on this date beginning in 1992.
D-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/92^
(cont.)
Requirement
ATSDR and EPA to revise list
of hazardous substances most
commonly found at NPL sites
that pose significant human
health risks.
1040X3)
ATSDR to prepare
toxicological profiles on each
of the hazardous substances
on the list of those most
commonly found at NPL sites
that pose significant human
health risks.
Status
Completed 02/28/94—Notice of
availability of revised CERCLA
Priority List of 275 Hazardous
Substances was published (59 FR
9486).
OJ/3Q/25—Notice of Proposed
Revised Publication Schedule for the
Priority List of Hazardous Substances
that will be the subject of
Toxicological Profiles (60 FR 16478).
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
FR 51775).
Completed 12/20/88—The second
set of 25 profiles was announced for
public comment (53 FR 51192).
08/14/90—Notice of availability of
final profiles was published (55 FR
33172).
Completed 10/17/89—The third set
of 30 profiles was announced for
public comment (54 FR 42568).
06/13/91—Notice of availability of
final profiles was published (56 FR
27261).
06/26/91—Notice of availability of
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 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
Status
(cont.)
10/17/875' 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.
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).
11/14/94-Notice of availability of the
sixth set of profiles comprised of 6
final and 9 updated finals profiles was
published (59 FR 56498).
104
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
1040X3)
Statutory
Deadline
13
1040X5XA)
2/
104(iX5)(D) 10/17/87
Requirement
ATSDR to revise and
republish lexicological
profiles.
ATSDR, in consultation with
EPA and the Public Health
Service, to assess whether
adequate information is
available on the health effects
of those hazardous substances
most commonly found at NPL
sites that pose significant
human health risks.
ATSDR, in cooperation with
the National Toxicology
Program (NTP), to assure the
initiation of a program of
research designed to determine
the health effects (and
techniques for development of
methods to determine such
health effects) of substances
for which adequate
information is not available
(or under development).
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 Ihese
assessments.
Completed 09/11/89—ATSDR
published Decision Guide for
Identifying Substance-Specific Data
Needs Related to lexicological
Profiles (54 FR 37618).
03/28/90—ATSDR published ihe
resulls of a pilol exercise lhai
idenlified priority data needs for
specific substances (55 FR 11566).
10/17/91— The Substance-Specific
Research Program was initialed, in
which 38 substances were classified
as priority leads (56 FR 52178).
Completed 03/08/90—The revised
National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Coniingency
Plan (NCP) salisfies 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 musl be revised within three years after addition to list.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-6
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
104(i)(6)(A) 12/10/88*
fi/
104(i)(10) 10/17/882'
Requirement
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL prior to
SARA's date of enactment.
ATSDR to complete health
assessments for facilities
proposed for the NPL after
SARA's date of enactment.
ATSDR to submit report to
EPA and Congress on ATSDR
activities.
Status
Completed 12/08/88—Health
assessments were performed for 951
facilities.
Ongoing—During FY94, ATSDR
completed 293 health assessments,
including 17 petitioned assessments.
(See ATSDR Section of Report.)
Completed August 1989, August
1990f February 1992r 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. As of May 1995
the 1993-94 report is being compiled.
v Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
27 Health assessments to be completed within one year of date of proposal on NPL.
» Due biannually from 10/17/88.
D-7
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
Status
ATSDR to assemble and
develop as necessary,
educational materials
(including short courses) on
the medical surveillance,
screening, and methods of
diagnosis and treatment of
injury or disease related to
exposure to hazardous
substances. The material will
be distributed to the states and
upon request to medical
colleges, physicians, and other
health professionals.
Completed 09/13/89—ATSDR
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).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-8
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
2/
Requirement Status
(cont.)
ATSDR to assemble and
develop as necessary,
educational materials
(including short courses) on
the medical surveillance,
screening, and methods of
diagnosis and treatment of
injury or disease related to
exposure to hazardous
substances. The material will
be distributed to the states and
upon request to medical
colleges, physicians, and other
health professionals.
FY92—More than 5,000 health
professionals were trained during the
fiscal year. ATSDR distributed over
110,000 copies of Cose Studies in
Environmental Medicine to health
professionals. Five case studies were
published in the Journal of the
American Academy of Family
Physicians. Case Studies in
Environmental Medicine:
Nitrate/Nitrite Toxicity was
distributed to 38,000 members of the
American Academy of Pediatrics.
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.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-9
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
13
Requirement Status
(cont.)
105(b)
04/17/88
105(c)(l) 04/17/88
ATSDR to assemble and
develop as necessary,
educational materials
(including short courses) on
the medical surveillance,
screening, and methods of
diagnosis and treatment of
injury or disease related to
exposure to hazardous
substances. The material will
be distributed to the states and
upon request to medical
colleges, physicians, and other
health professionals.
EPA to revise the NCP.
EPA to promulgate
amendments to the hazard
ranking system (HRS).
FY94—More than 5,000 health
professionals were trained during the
fiscal year. ATSDR distributed over
136,400 copies of Cose Studies in
Environmental Medicine to health
professionals. Approximately 4,700
health professionals received CME
credit for their participation in the
case studies program.
Over 22,000 copies of guidance
documents on managing chemically
contaminated patients were
operational in FY94. distributed.
Twenty cooperative agreements with
states and one with tribes were
operational in FY94.
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.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-10
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
107(f)(2)(A) v
107(f)(2)(B)
107(k)(6)
109(d)
21
Hl(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.
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 May 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 1989, September 1990P
September 1991, September 1992P
September 1993, and September
1224—EPA submitted FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90, FY91, FY92, and FY93
reports to Congress.
21
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-ll
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline Requirement
Siaius
lll(o)
01/17/87
Ol/Ol/SS2'
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.
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-12
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUNO
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
116(a)(2) 01/01/89*
10/17/90
H6(d)(l)
H6(e)(l)
H6(e)(2)
H7(e)
H9(c)(7)
10/17/89
10/17/90
10/17/91
10/17/89
10/17/91
21
II
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.
EPA to promulgate
regulations for issuing
Technical Assistance Grants.
EPA to develop guidelines and
promulgate regulations on the
indemnification of response
action contractors.
Sjaius
Completed December 1994—AH 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
Completed 10/01/92—EPA
published the final rule (57 FR
45311).
Completed 01/25/93—EPA
published the final guidelines (58 FR
5972).
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-13
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
H9(c)(8)
Statutory
Deadline
09/30/89*
120(c)
i/
120(c)
Semiannually
120(d)
04/17/88
120(d)
04/17/89
Requirement
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.
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
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 ll/16/88r 12/15/89r
08/22/90,09/27/91f 12/12/91r
07/17/92r 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'
EPA evaluates federal facilities where
appropriate. During FY94,10 federal
facilities were proposed to the NPL,
and 24 were listed as final, bringing
the total number of proposed sites to
10 and the total number of final sites
to 150. Hence, there were 160 listed
and proposed federal facility sites at
theendofFY94.
21 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
w 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-14
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
11
Requirement
EPA and states to publish
timetable and deadlines for
completion of RI/FSs at
federal facilities listed on
NPL.
Status
Schedules for completion of RI/FSs at
federal facilities are routineiy
developed pursuant to interagency
agreements (lAGs), or are published
by EPA and the state when IAG
negotiations are unsuccessful. lAGs
have been signed for 129 of the 150
federal facility sites as of FY94.
120(e)(l) 10/17/87 Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumental-ities to begin
RI/FSs for federal facilities
listed on NPL prior to SARA's
date of enactment.
120(e)( 1) Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumental-ities to begin
RI/FSs for federal facilities
listed on NPL.
120(e)(2) Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumental-ities to enter
into lAGs with EPA for
completion of RAs 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 60 RI/FSs were started
at federal facility sites during FY94.
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
FY94,129 lAGs had been signed
including 9 lAGs signed during FY94.
(See Federal Facility Cleanups
Section of Report.)
y Specific deadline not stated in statute.
w Not later than six months after listing of federal facility on NPL.
•^ Within 180 days after EPA review of RI/FS.
D-15
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
120(e)(2)
Statutory
Deadline
120(e)(3)
Annually with
budget
120(e)(5)
Annually
120(h)(2)
04/17/88
Requirement
Federal departments, agencies,
or instrumental-ities to begin
RAs for federal facilities listed
onNPL.
Federal agencies to review
alternative agency funding to
provide for costs of RAs.
Agencies to submit statement
of the hazard posed by
facilities and identify
consequences of failure to
begin and complete RAs.
Federal agencies, departments,
or instrumentalities to submit
reports to Congress on
progress in implementing
CERCLA federal facility
requirements.
EPA, in consultation with the
General Services
Administration, to promulgate
regulations on the form and
manner of notice required
whenever any federal
department, agency, or
instrumentality enters into a
contract to sell or transfer
property owned by the United
States on which a hazardous
substance was stored,
disposed, or released.
SlalUS
During FY94, approximately 40 RAs
for federal facilities on the NPL
began.
(See Federal Facility Cleanups
Section of Report.)
Completed January 1987f January
1988f January 1989f January 1990f
January 1991, January 1992f
January 1993. January 1994r
January 1995—Information is
included in the annual budget
submissions to Congress.
Completed May 1989. April 1990r
September 1990f February 1992r
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 Mav 1995—FY92. FY93,
and FY94 Reports to Congress are in
review.
Completed 04/16/90—The final rule
was published (55 FR 14208).
Not later than 15 months after completion of RI/FS.
D-16
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
11
121(0
Requirement
EPA to report to Congress a
list of facilities for which a
five-year review is required,
the results of all such reviews,
and any actions taken.
EPA to promulgate
regulations providing for state
involvement in initiation,
development, and selection of
remedial activities.
Status
Completed May 1989r April 1990f
September 1990f February 1992,
and February 1994—EPA's reports
were included in FY87, FY88, FY89,
FY90, and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301(hXl).
Ongoing May 1995—FY92. FY93,
and FY94 Reports to Congress are in
review.
Completed 03/08/90—Regulations
are included in the revised NCP
SubpartF(55F7?8666).
13
122(e)(3)(A)
11
EPA to issue procedures for
special notice regarding
negotiation with potentially
responsible parties.
EPA to develop guidelines for
preparing nonbinding
preliminary allocations of
responsibility (NEAR).
Completed 10/19/87—EPA sent
procedural guidelines to Regional
Administrators from Assistant
Administrator for OSWER (OSWER
Directive #9834.10).
02/23/88—Guidelines were published
as Interim Guidance on Notice
Letters, Negotiations, and
Information Exchange (53 FR 5298).
02/07/89—EPA published Appendix
C to the Interim Guidance (Model
Notice Letters) (OSWER Directive
#9834.10).
Completed 05/28/87—EPA
published the interim final guidelines
(52 FR 19919).
May 1991—EPA published
Summary of "Interim Guidelines for
Preparing NBARs" (OSWER
Directive #9839. IPS).
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-17
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
123(d)
Statutory
Deadline
10/17/87
126(c)
FY88 budget
request
04/17/87
301(g)
10/17/87
Annually
Requirement
EPA to promulgate
regulations for reimbursement
to local governments for costs
incurred in responding to the
release or threatened release of
a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on hazardous waste
sites on Indian lands.
DOI to issue regulations for
the assessment of damages for
injury to, destruction of, or
loss of natural resources
resulting from a release of oil
or a hazardous substance.
Comptroller General to submit
report to Congress on the
results of the insurability
study.
EPA to submit report to
Congress on CERCLA
implementation.
Status
Completed 01/15/93—EPA
published 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).
Completed 10/16/87— GAP
published a report entitled Issues
Surrounding Insurance Availability
(GAO/RCED-88-2).
Completed May 1989f April 1990f
September 1990f February 1992.
and February 1994 — EPA's reports
were included in FY87, FY88, FY89,
FY90 and FY91 Reports to Congress,
required under CERCLA Section
Ongoing Mav 1995— FY92. FY93,
and FY94 Reports to Congress are in
review.
D-18
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
301(h)(2)
Statutory
Deadline
306(a)
13
Requirement
EPA IG to review EPA's
Report to Congress required
under CERCLA Section
Department of Transportation
(DOT) to list and regulate
hazardous substances, listed or
designated under CERCLA
Section 101(14), as hazardous
materials under the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act.
EPA to issue regulations
describing manner of notice of
citizen suits.
Status
Completed May 1989f April 1990.
September 1990r and February
1992. September 1993—EPA's
reports included in FY87, FY88,
FY89, FY90 and FY91 Reports to
Congress, required under CERCLA
Section 301000).
Ongoing Mav 1995—FY92. FY93,
and FY94 Reports to Congress are in
review.
Completed 08/21/89—DOT, through
the Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA), amended
Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR) by revising the List of
Hazardous Substances and
Reportable Quantities (54 FR
34666).
11/07/90—RSPA published
additional revisions to the list in the
HMR (55 FR 46794).
Completed 11/23/92—EPA
published the final rule (54 FR
55038).
12/28/92—Correction to the final rule
was published (51 FR 61612).
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-19
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
it 4 4 / V / •« \
Statutory
Deadline Requirement
21
Status
21
311(a)(6) 07/17/87
u
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to
establish and support a basic
hazardous substance research
and training program.
HHS to appoint an advisory
council to assist in
implementing and
coordinating activities for the
hazardous substance research
and training program
established under CERCLA
Section 311(a)(l).
HHS, through NIEHS, to issue
a plan to implement the
hazardous substance research
and training program
established under CERCLA
Section 3 ll(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 11/28/86 (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 FR 34721).
Completed December 1986—EPA
published the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Strategy and Program Plan
(EPA/540/G-86/001). The program
is ongoing.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-20
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA Statutory
Section Deadline
311(b)(5)(B) 01/17/87^
161
Requirement
EPA to publish a solicitation
for innovative or alternative
technologies suitable for full-
scale demonstration at
Superfund sites.
EPA to initiate or cause to be
initiated at least 10 field
demonstration projects of
alternative or innovative
treatment technologies.
Status
Completed January 1986P January
1987f January 1988r January 1989P
January 1990f January 1991r
January 1992f January 1993r
January 1994f January
1995—Solicitations were published.
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.
FY94—13 site demonstrations were
completed.
Rrst 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-21
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
CERCLA
Section
Statutory
Deadline Requiremer
it Status
2/
Annually with
budget
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
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 FY89r FY90r 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 1993.
July 1994—FY87. FY88, FY89,
FY90, FY91, FY92, and FY93 SITE
program reports were submitted to
Congress.
As of March 1995, the FY94 SITE
program report was in review.
Specific deadline not stated in statute.
D-22
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
CERCLA
Section
312(e)
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement
EPA to conduct habitability
and land use study of the Love
Canal Emergency Declaration
Area, and to work with New
York State (NYS) to develop
recommendations based upon
the study results.
Status
Completed 07/28/88—The study was
submitted to the NYS Commissioner
of Health.
September 1988—The commissioner
issued a follow-up report.
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-23
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Meeting SARA-Related Statutory Requirements
SARA
Section
H8(b)
118(0
Statutory
Deadline
01/17/87
07/01/87*
03/01/87*
1180)
04/17/87
118(k)(l)
10/17/87
11
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.
Slalus
Completed 01/15/87—The grant was
made to New Jersey.
Completed 10/26/87—GAP
published a report entitled Improve-
ments Needed in Work Force
Management (GAO/RCED-88-1).
Completed 07/12/88—The report
entitled Nature and Extent of Lead
Poisoning in Children in the United
States was submitted to Congress.
Completed 04/20/87—The report
entitled A Study of Joint Use of
Vehicles 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-24
-------
Fiscal Year 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
118(k)(2)(B) 02/01/87*-12'
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.
Stains
Completed 06/12/87f 01/18/89,
02/26/90,01/15/91—The FY86,
FY87, FY88, and FY89 reports have
been submitted to Congress.
Ongoing January 1995—The FY90
and FY91 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.
21 Deadline specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
^ Due annually on this date beginning in 1987.
D-25
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
SARA
Section
Statutory
Deadline
21
11/17/86
126(a)
10/17/87
126(0
Requirement
EPA to enter into contracts
and grants with a nonprofit
organization in Albany
County, Wyoming, to carry
out program established under
CERCLA Section 118(nXl).
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—DOL
published the standards (54 FR 9294).
Completed 06/23/89—EPA
published final standards (54 FR
26654).
27 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
& Not later than 90 days after promulgation of DOL final regulations.
D-26
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
SARA Statutory
Section Deadline Requirement SlalUS
211(a) Annually Secretary of Defense to submit Completed March 1988r March
report to Congress on progress 1989f February 1990r March 1991r
in implementing Department February 1992f April 1993. March
of Defense Environmental 1994. April 199S—FYR7. FY88,
Restoration Program. FY89, FY90, FY91, FY92, FY93,
and FY94 reports were submitted to
Congress.
D-27
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
D-28
-------
Appendix E
Report to the EPA Inspector
General
E-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
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 E1SFF5-11-0029-7100062
FROM: John C.Martin, " - f £ Y^"'
Inspector General '* •"'v "'
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.
F-3 O& R»cyci»d/R«cyclabl»
" -^ Printad on papwilwl contains
at toast 50% recycled flow
-------
Objectives and Scope
The objective of our review was to determine whether the Agency's Annual Reports, Progress
Toward Implementing Superfund. are reasonable and accurate, as required by the statute. We
began our review on September 20, 1995, and completed our work on October 31, 1996 We
performed our review at EPA Headquarter's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER).
We received draft versions of each of the three Annual Reports as follows: 1) the Fiscal Year
1992 Annual Report (September 1994); 2) the Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Report (October 1995);
and 3) the Fiscal Year 1994 Annual Report (May 1996) In early September, we received the
Fiscal Year 1992, Fiscal Year 1993 and Fiscal Year 1994 Annual Reports that would later be sent
to the Administrator for signature.
We conducted a limited scope review of the three Annual Reports to examine the internal
consistency within each report and the consistencies between all three reports. We did not review
CERCLIS data printouts. We did not perform in-depth audit work in the areas we examined in
our past reports. Detailed reviews were reported in Consolidated Report regarding Fiscal 1992
CERCLIS Data Audit Report No. E1SFF3-11 -0016-3100392. dated September 29, 1993,
Reliability of CERCLIS Data. Superfund Performance Measures for Fiscal 1993 Audit Report
No. E1SFF3-11-0029-4100229. dated March 30, 1994 and Follow-up Review Report No.
E1SFG5-11-5005-5400014 Superfund Performance Measures, dated November 15, 1994. Due
to the rigorous examinations performed during these 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
SUPPORT OR
CORRECTION PROVIDED
4
10
12
The items we questioned were mostly ones where numbers in the exhibits did not agree with the
corresponding information in the body of the Annual Reports. Other items needed further
clarification with the addition of a sentence or change in wording. The Agency provided us with
other supporting documents for two of the questioned items. To support the numbers in the
Fiscal Year 1992 Annual Report for "Sites with Remedial Activities in Progress on September 30,
1992" and "Sites Proposed for Deletions During FY92," the Agency provided us with
documentation from the Federal Register listings. Also, for the Fiscal Year 1992 Annual Report,
the Agency provided us with a list indicating that 24 sites required 5-year reviews. As indicated
in the Fiscal Year 1992 Annual Report, the Agency conducted 6 reviews for the fiscal year The
remainder of questioned items did not require any 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 by chapter.
Executive Summary
EPA/OSWER/TIO. July 19,1991. Superfund 30-Day Task Force Report; Accelerating Superfund Cleanups
and Evaluating Risk at Superfund Sites.
Chapter 1
Comprehensive Housing and Urban Development Act. (1992)
EPA/OSWER. February 1995. Superfund Administrative Improvements Closeout Report (June 23,1993
- September 30,1994) PB95-963203.
EPA. January 1992. Estimatine Potential for Occurrence of DNPL at Superfund Sites. PB92-963338CHD.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water
Restoration. PB93-96507CDH.
EPA. August 1994. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action
Facilities. 9355.4-12.
EPA. December 1994. Soil Screening Guidance Quick Reference Fact Sheet. EPA/540/R-94/101.
EPA. November 1994. Technical Background for Draft Soil Screening Guidance. EPA/540/R-94/102.
EPA. Draft Soil Screening Guidance: Issues Document. EPA/540/R-94/105.
EPA. March 1994. This is Superfund: A Citizen's Guide to EPA's Superfund Program. EPA/540/K-93/008.
EPA. September 30,1994. Allocations Among Potentially Responsible Parties for the Cost of Superfund
Cleanup.
EPA/OWPE. July 30,1993. Guidance on CERCLA Settlements with "De Micromis" Waste Contributors.
9834.17.
F-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
EPA. Report on Researching Prior Ownership and Use.
EPA/OERR. July 29,1993. Supplemental Guidance on Federal Liens. PB93-963618CDH.
EPA/OSWER. April 24, 1994. OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Report. 9200.3-16 Draft.
EPA December 1993. Status of Superfund Regional Pilots: End-of-Year Report. PB94-963216CDH.
EPA. Focusing Resources on Worst Sites First. 9360.0-35
EPA. August 1993. Site Inspection Prioritization Guidance. 9345.1-15FS.
EPA/OERR. August 1993. Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA
9360.0-32.
EPA/OERR. August 1994. Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (S ACM) Coordination Strategy. 9203.1 -
11.
EPA. September 1993. Integrating Removal and Remedial Site Assessment Investigations. PB93-
963341CDH.
EPA. January 1993. HSED SACM Report. PB93-963289CDH
EPA. March 1994. Long-Term Contracting Strategy Review Final Report.
EPA. June 1994. Cost Management Manual for Superfund for the Superfund Remedial and Enforcement
Program. PB94-963-401.
EPA/DOD/DOE. August 1994. Guidance on Accelerating CERCLA Environmental Restoration at Federal
Facilities.
EPA. August 1994. EPA Policy for Innovative Environmental Technologies at Federal Facilities.
EPA. June 1989. Management Review of the Superfund Program. 9201.01-A.
EPA/OERR. September 30,1990. Draft Soil Screening Levels Guidance For Superfund. PB93-963508.
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act, P.L. 95-31, (October 19, 1992), 42 U.S.C. Section
23%, et. seq.
Chapter 2
EPA. January 18,1994. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No.
16. 60 FR 2568.
EPA. February 23,1994. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Final Rule. 60
FR 8724.
EPA. May 31, 1994. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Final Rule. 60 FR
27989.
F-2
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA. August 23,1994. National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No.
17.60FK 43314.
EPA/OSWER. August 1994. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective
Action Facilities. 9355.4-12.
EPA/OSWER/ORIA/DOE/NRC. 1994. A Technical Guide to Ground-Water Model Selection at Sites
Contaminated with Radioactive Substances.
EPA/ORIA. 1994, Evaluating Technical Capabilities of Ground-Water Models Used to Support the Cleanup
of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Sites: A Critique of Three Representative Models.
EPA/ORIA. 1994. Draft Report: Three Multimedia Models Used in Support of Cleanup Decision Making
as Hazardous, Mixed, and Radioactive Waste Sites: A Technical Evaluation of MEAS, MMSOILS, and
PRESTO-EPA-CPG.
EPA/ORIA. 1994. Draft Report: A Review Guide for Model Application at Sites Contaminated with
Radioactive Substances, Hazardous, and Mixed Waste Substances.
EPA./ORIA. 1994. Confirmatory Study of Plutonium in Soil from the Sourtheast Quadrant of the lawrence
Livermoore National Laboratory.
EPA. March 20,1995. The National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Deletion Policy
for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facilities. Notice of Policy Statement. 60 FR 14641.
EPA. 1994. Health Effects Assessment Tables (HEAST). PB94-921100CDH.
Chapter 3
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.
EPA. October 22,1993. Reportable Quantity Adjustments, Proposed Rule. 58 FR 54836.
EPA. May 24,1989. Reportable Quantity Adjustments-Radionuclides. 54 FR 22524.
EPA. November 30, 1992. Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Released,
Proposed Rule. 57 FR 56726.
EPA. March 5,1993. Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Released, Proposed
Rule; re-opening of Comment Period. 58 FR 12876.
EPA. February 1988. Superfund Removal Procedures Manual, Revision 3. 9360.0.01.
EPA. October 22,1993. Reportable Quantity Protection. Proposed Rule. 58 FR 54836.
EPA/OERR/ERD. August 1991. Superfund Removal Procedures: Guidance on the Consideration of ARARs
during Removal Actions. 9360.3-02.
EPA/OERR/ERD. August 1991. Superfund Removal Procedures: Removal Enforcement Guidance for On-
Scene Coordinators. Directive. Directive 9360.3-06.
F-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND Fiscal Year 1994
EPA. July 1992. Superfund Removal Procedures Public Participation Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators:
Community Relations and the Administrative Record. 9360.3-03B.
EPA/OERR. September 1990. Superfund Removal Procedures: Action Memorandum Guidance. PB90-
274473CDH.
EPA/OERR. June 1994. Superfund Removal Procedures: Removal Response Reporting: POLREPs and
OSC Reports. PB93-963421.
Chapter 4
EPA/OERR. September 30, 1993. Distribution of Draft Soil Screening Level Guidance for Superfund.
PB93-963508.
EPA/OERR. October 4,1993. Invoking the Technical Impractiability Waiver.
EPA. September 1993. Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground- Water Restoration.
PB93-963507CDH.
EPA/OERR. December 30,1994. Notice of Availability of the Draft Soil Screening Guidence.
EPA/ORD. May 1994. Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program. Innovation Making a
Difference. EPA/540/F-94/505.
EPA/TIO. October 1993. Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site Clean-up Techniques (Third
Edition). PB94-144540CDH.
EPA/TIO. December 1993. Profile on Innovative Technologies and Vendors for Waste Site Remediation
(Profile).
EPA/OSWER. September 1994. Innovative Treatment Technologies: Annual Report. Sixth Edition. EPA
542/R-94/005.
EPA/TIO/DOD/DOE. April 1993. Cleaning Up the Nations Waste Sites; Technologies and Market Trends.
PB93-140762CDH.
EPA/TIO. September 1993. Bioremediation Resource Guide and Bioremediation Resource Matrix. PB94-
112307CDH.
EPA/TIO. July 1993. Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide, Version 2. EPA/
542/B-93/005.
EPA/TIO. Physical/Chemical Resource Guide.
EPA/no. Soil Vapor Extraction Guide.
EPA/TIO. Ground-Water Resource Guide.
F-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
EPA/TIO. The Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: A Developer's Guide to Support
Services (Third Edition).
Chapter 5
EPA. September 1994. Allocations Among Potentially Responsible Parties for the Costs of Superfund Site
Cleanups.
EPA/OSWER. July 30,1993. Streamlined Approach for Settlements with De Minimis Waste Contributors
under CERCLA Section 122(g)(l)(a). OSWER Directive 9834.7-ID.
EPA. Final Guidance on Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques in Enforcement Action.
EPA. December 30, 1994. Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability. Draft Screening
Guidance. 59 FR 67706.
Chapter 6
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. November 10,1993. 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.
EPA. August 1994. Guidance on Accelerating CERCLA Environmental Restoration at Federal Facilities.
EPA. August 1994. EPA Policy for Innovative Environmental Technologies at Federal Facilities.
Chapter 7
EPA/GAO. April 1994. Superfund Community Relations Could be More Effective.
EPA. November 1994. Catalog of Superfund Program Information Products. EPA 540/8-91/014.
EPA/OERR. December 1993. An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study 1991 Update.
9375.6-08B.
EPA/OERR. July 23,1993. Superfund Administrative Improvements Final Report. 9200.0-14-2.
F-5
-------
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 for rapid reduction of risks at Superfund
sites and restoration of the environment overthe long
term. SACM introduced significant improvements
to the existing clean-up process by:
• eliminating sequential and duplicative studies as
site assessment and investigation activities arc
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
wi th c ffccti vc contract management, the Agency
G-l
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
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 centrali/cd 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. Olhercfforls
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 fourthcmcs:
• 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 stales.
Commencing in fiscal year 1993 and continuing
on to 1994, the Agency successfully encouraged
potentially responsible parlies (PRPs) to undertake
and finance clean-up efforts at Superfund sites. By
the end of fiscal year 1994, PRPs were leading more
than 75 percent of remedial designs (RDs) and
remedial actions (RAs) started during the fiscal year.
Fiscal year 1994 initiatives anticipated the
reauthorization of the CERCLA taxing authority and
an opportunity to propose revisions to otherprovisions
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, reformingthe remedy selection process,
pursuing liability reforms to reduce transaction costs
and increase fairness and create a fund, the
Environmental Insurance Resolution Fund, to resolve
coverage disputes between PRPs and their insurers.
Working within the existing statutory and
regulatory framework, the Agency also continued to
implement the recommendations of the 1993
Superfund Administrative Improvements Task Force
as well as on-going initiatives including implementing
SACM, achieving construction completion at sites,
strengthening contracts management, promoting
enforcement first, accelerating clean-up at military
bases slated for closure, promoting the development
and use of innovative technologies, enhancing
compliance monitoring, and improving the
effectiveness of cost recovery. The Agency set and
achieved a goal to implement mostof 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 1994
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Based on evaluation of 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 Biokinelic 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 reportablc
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.polychlorinatedbiphenyl.manufactured-
gas-plan, grain storage, and polluted ground
water sites;
• Released draft soil screening levels (SSLs) for
100 chemicals commonly found at Superfund
sites;
Implemented guidance for addressing Dense
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL)
contamination of ground water and for invoking
the technical impracticability waiver where
performance standards cannot be achieved.
G-3
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1994
Enforcement
Accomplishments during the 1992-1994 period
reflect the Agency's continuous commitment to
maximize PRP involvement in financing and
conducting cleanup and recoveryofSuperfund 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 Supcrfund expenditures. By
the end of fiscal year 1994, the Agency has collected
over $5.7 million in CERCLA penalties.
The Agency has been working to w ards im provi ng
the efficiency and fairness of Supcrfund 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, inconjunclion with the Department
of Defense, stales and local citizens, implemented
theFastTrack 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.
In i ts community involvement efforts, EPA tailors
activities to the specific needs of individual
communities and identifies ways to enhance
community involvement efforts. The Agency
emphasized the importance of effective community
involvement in its administrative improvements and
reauthorization efforts. The Agency also continued
to provide technical outreach to communities, hold
national conferences on community involvement,
offer training and workshops, and facilitate
community access to technical assistance grants
(TAGs). To aid communities in obtaining technical
assistance, EPA awarded 85 TAGs during the 1992-
1994 fiscal years, bringing the total 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 in FY94 through site-
specific CAs.
Overall, EPA has granted Core Program CAs
(CPC As) worth nearly $ 103 million in its continuing
efforts to assist states and tribes in developing
comprehensive Superfund programs.
G-4
-------
Fiscal Year 1994 Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
To promote small and disadvantaged business
participation in Superfund contracting, EPA, through
direct and indirect procurement, awards contracts
and subcontracts to minority contractors to perform
Superfund work. Direct procurement involves any
procurement activity in which EPA is a direct party
to a contractual arrangement for supplies, services or
construction. Under financial assistance programs
(indirect procurement), EPA awards grants and/or
cooperative agreements to states, local municipalities,
universities, colleges, non-profit or profit-making
institutions or firms, hospitals and individuals or
otherwise known as recipients. This amount
represents more than 4.3 percent of the total dollars
obligated to finance Superfund work during the year.
Resource Estimates
Under Executive Order 12580, EPA is required
to estimate the resources needed to implement
Superfund. Since the enactment of CERCLA in
1980, Congress has provided Superfund with $13.6
million in budget authority (FY81 through FY94).
Estimates of the long-term resources required to
implement Superfund are based on the Outyear
Liability Model (OLM). The OLM estimate of the
cost of completing cleanup of current NPL sites is
more than $17.4 billion for FY95 and beyond,
bringing the total estimated cost for the program to
$31.0 billion.
G-5
-------
|