United States
              Environmental Protection
                   Solid Waste And
                   Emergency Response
September 1991
List Sites:
               NEW   MEXICO
                1   U  U
                                                     Printed on Recycled Paper

                                      Publication #9200.5-731A
                                      September 1991
                 New Mexico
                                         r   L ,,)--.,". v^y
                           u ^ Environmental ry>u -.- -	
                           \j , \s  *          / r-- j  % ".  *
                           >apion 5, Library (.--..'..;
                           77*West Jackson Bcuisv^d, i^h Floor
                           Chicago, IL  60604-3590
       Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
           Office of Program Management
               Washington, DC 20460

          If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
                    National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    5285 Port Royal Road
                    Springfield, VA22161
                    (703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation  at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.

                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Brief Overview	1

Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites?	5

The Volume:
How to Use the State Book	13

NPL Sites:
In the State of New Mexico	17

The NPL Report:
Progress to Date	19

The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities	21
Appendix A:  Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets	43

Appendix B:  Repositories of
Site Information	59


       As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
       headline stories gave Americans a
       look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New  York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.

In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws.  The magnitude of these
emerging  problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA  commonly known as Superfund
 was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.

After Discovery, the Problem

Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the  process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever

Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices.  Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.

The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites

The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.


From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could

not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices.  Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.


The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health  and the

Superfund responds immediately to  sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund

Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.

The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than  500  nearly half  have had
construction cleanup activity.  In addition,
more than  400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup  remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup  remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through  the
cleanup  pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining


The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup  construction to understand that envi-
ronmental  protection does not end when  the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies  like those designed to clean up ground-
water  must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.

The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed.  No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it  continues to do its job.

Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after  the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental

health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.


Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.

Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.

The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.


To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about bofh
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.

This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.

To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites.  This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites.  A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.

      The diverse problems posed by hazard-
      ous waste sites have provided the EPA
      with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
            How  Does  the
           Program  Work
                 to Clean  Up

     Discover site and
     determine whether
     an emergency
     exists *
   STEP 2

Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
  STEP 3

Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
    * Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
 during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.

The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
       flow diagram above provides a summary of the
       three-step process.

       Although this book provides a current "snap-
       shot" of site progress made only by emergency
       actions and long-term cleanup actions at
       Superfund sites, it is important to understand
       the discovery and evaluation process that leads
       to identifying and cleaning up these most
       serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous

waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
      How does the EPA learn about
      potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally.  There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem.  Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases.  All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
     What happens if there is an imminent
 As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
 reported, the EPA determines whether there is
 an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
 action. If there is, they act as quickly as
 possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
 threat. These short-term emergency actions
 range from building a fence around the con-
 taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
 rarily relocating residents  until the danger is
 addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
 dents while their local drinking water supply is
 being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.

However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them.  For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.

      If there isn't an imminent danger, how
      does the EPA determine what, if any,
      cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up.  The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated.  In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.

Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from  their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the

       Are hazardous substances likely to be

       How are they contained?

       How might contaminants spread?

       How close is the nearest well, home, or
       natural resource area such as a wetland
       or animal sanctuary?

       What may be harmed  the land,
       water, air, people, plants, or animals?

Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the  envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.

      If the preliminary assessment
      shows a serious threat may exist,
      what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air.  Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access  to
the site.
      How does the EPA use the results of
      the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
 To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
 developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
 The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
 assess the relative threat from a release or a
 potential release of hazardous substances from
 a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
 water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
 the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
 be released from the site, the toxicity and
 amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
 the people and sensitive environments poten-
 tially affected by contamination at the site.

 Only sites with high enough health and envi-
 ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
 to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
 NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
 the Superfund inventory.  Only NPL sites can
 have a long-term cleanup paid for from
 Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
 fund. Superfund can, and does, pay  for emer-
 gency actions performed at any site,  whether
 or not it's on the NPL.
      Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S.  In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.

Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up.  The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-

nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.

A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the  1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.

     How do people find out whether the
     EPA considers a site a national
     priority for cleanup under the
     Superfund Program?
All  NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out  whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
      After a site is added to the NPL, what
      are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:

  1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
    detail the extent of the site contamination
  2. Feasibility Study:  study the range of
    possible cleanup remedies

  3. Record of Decision or ROD:  decide
    which remedy to use

  4. Remedial Design:  plan the remedy

  5. Remedial Action:  carry out the remedy

This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.

The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private

Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.

A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.

The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is

Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean  that cleanup is needed. It is possible for

 a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
 be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
 cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
 of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
 nary and conservative assessment of potential
 risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
 EPA may find either that there is no real threat
 or that the site does not pose significant human
 health or environmental risks.
      How are cleanup alternatives
      identified and evaluated?
 The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
 ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
 cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
 information collected during the remedial
 investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
 tives is called a feasibility study.

 Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
 to the needs of  each individual site, more than
 one possible cleanup alternative is always
 considered. After making sure that all potential
 cleanup remedies fully protect human health
 and the environment and comply with Federal
 and State laws,  the advantages and disadvan-
 tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
 carefully. These comparisons are made  to
 determine their effectiveness in the short and
 long term, their use of permanent treatment
 solutions, and their technical feasibility and

 To the maximum extent practicable, the  rem-
 edy must be a permanent solution and must use
 treatment technologies to destroy principal site
 contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
 waste on site or removing the source of the
 problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
 ered effective. Often, special pilot  studies are
 conducted to determine the effectiveness and
 feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site.  Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between  10 and 30 months to complete,
 depending on the size and complexity of the
       Does the public have a say in the
       final cleanup decision?
 Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
 public be given the opportunity to comment on
 the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
 considered carefully before a final decision is

 The results of the remedial investigation and
 feasibility study, which also point out the
 recommended cleanup choice, are published in
 a report for public review and comment. The
 EPA or the State encourages the public  to
 review  the information and take an active role
 in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
 announcements in local papers let the commu-
 nity know where they can get copies of  the
 study and other reference documents concern-
 ing the  site.  Local information repositories,
 such as libraries or other public buildings, are
 established in cities and towns near each NPL
 site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
 to review all relevant information and the
 proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
 tion repositories for each NPL site described in
 this volume are given in Appendix B.

 The public has a minimum of 30 days to
 comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
 is published.  These comments can be written
 or given verbally at public meetings that the
 EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
 the EPA nor the State can select the final
 cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
 ing written answers to specific community
 comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
 summary" is part of the EPA's write-up  of the
 final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.

The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it

was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.

     If every cleanup action needs to be
     tailored to a site, does the design
     ofthe remedy need to be tailored,

Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs.  This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design.  The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.

Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning  and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to  two years to
complete.  This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
      Once the design is completed,
      how long does it take to actually
      clean up the site, and how much
      does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money.  In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.

For example, cleaning polluted ground water or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action  takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.

      Once the  cleanup action is
      completed, is the site
      automatically "deleted" from the

No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies,  operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating  of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the  remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately  meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD.  Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."

It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected

 remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
 site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
 until public comments are taken into consid-
 eration that a site actually can be deleted from
 the NPL.  All sites deleted from the NPL and
 sites with completed construction are included
 in the progress report found later in this book.
      Can a site be taken off the NPL if
      no cleanup has taken place?
 Yes.  But only if further site investigation
 reveals that there are no threats present at the
 site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
 sary.  In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
 action" remedy and may move to delete the
 site when monitoring confirms that the site
 does not pose a threat to human health or the

 In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
 the NPL if new information concerning site
 cleanup or threats show that the site does not
 warrant Superfund activities.

 A site may be removed if a revised HRS
 scoring, based on updated information, results
 in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
 A site also  may be removed from the NPL by
 transferring it to other appropriate Federal
 cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
 cleanup actions.

 Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
 ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
 serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
 pressing hazardous waste problems where no
 other cleanup authority is applicable.
      Can the EPA make parties
      responsible for the contamination
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.

Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.

Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.

                                                             THE  VOLUME
       The site fact sheets presented in this
       book are comprehensive summaries
       that cover a broad range of information.
       The fact sheets describe hazardous
 waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
 well as the conditions leading to their listing
 ("Site Description"). The summaries list the
 types of contaminants that have been discov-
 ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
 cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
 "Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
 the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
 planned.  The fact sheets conclude with a brief
 synopsis of how much progress has been made
 in protecting public health and the environ-
 ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
 actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
 ers responsible for site contamination and
 community concerns.

 The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
 order by site name.  Because site cleanup is a
 dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
 tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
 bottom of each page. Progress always is being
 made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
 will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
 actions and will publish updated State vol-
 umes. The following two pages show a ge-
 neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
 mation under each section.


 You can use this book to keep informed about
 the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home.  The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by  Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them.  Site clean-
           How to  Use
                 the  State
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.

Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.

The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are.  Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup  at
"your" site considers your community's


 Dates when the site was
 Proposed, made Final, and
 Deleted from the NPL.


     Other Name*:

 Identifies the Federal, State,
 and/or potentially respon-
 sible parties that are taking
 responsibility for cleanup
 actions at the site.
  Site Responsibility: 
   NPL Listing History


 Threats and Contaminants
                            Cleanup Approach
                             Response Action Status
                            Site Facts:,
                            Environmental Progress

 A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
 nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
 progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
 the cleanup plan are given here.

                                               THE VOLUME
                         SITE DESCRIPTION

 This section describes the location and history of the site.  It includes descrip-
 tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
 tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
 resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.

The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
                       CLEANUP APPROACH

This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
                    RESPONSE ACTION STATUS

Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
                            SITE FACTS

Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.


The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
       Contaminated Groundwater resources
       in the Contaminated Groundwater in
       the vicinity or underlying the site.
       (Groundwater is often used as a
       drinking water source.)

       Contaminated Surface Water and
       Sediments on or near the site.  (These
       include lakes, ponds, streams, and

        Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
        the site.  (Air pollution usually is
        periodic and involves contaminated
        dust particles or hazardous gas emis-

       Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
       near the site. (This contamination
       category may include bulk or other
       surface hazardous wastes found on the

       Threatened or contaminated Environ-
       mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
       ity of the site. (Examples include
       wetlands and coastal areas or critical
Icons in the Response Action
Status Section
        Initial Actions have been taken or are
        underway to eliminate immediate
        threats at the site.

       Site Studies at the site to determine the
       nature and extent of contamination are
       planned or underway.

       Remedy Selected indicates that site
       investigations have been concluded,
       and the EPA has selected a final
       cleanup remedy for the site or part of
       the site.

        Remedy Design means that engineers
        are preparing specifications and
        drawings for the selected cleanup

        Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
        selected cleanup remedies for the
        contaminated site, or part of the site,
        currently are underway.

        Cleanup Complete shows that all
        cleanup goals have  been achieved for
        the contaminated site or part of the
                               Environmental Progress summa-
                               rizes the activities taken to date to
                               protect human health and to clean
                               up site contamination.

                                              	NPL SITES

                                               The State of
                                              New  Mexico
Located in EPA Region 6, New Mexico is the fifth largest state in the U.S. and covers 121,335
square miles. The terrain consists of the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains, and the high pla-
teau.  New Mexico experienced a 16% increase in population between 1980 and 1990, according
to the 1990 Census. The state currently has approximately 1,515,000 residents and ranks 37th in
U.S. populations. The state is home to many military installations and supports mining indus-
tries, tourism and agriculture. New Mexico industries manufacture a variety of goods, including
foods, electrical machinery, apparel, lumber, printing, and transportation equipment.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of New Mexico?
                    Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1      1 site
Congressional District 2      9 sites
                     What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
                        in the State of New Mexico?
                 # of sites

                      type of sites

                Mining Facilities
                Petroleum Refining & Related Industries
                Salvage Yard
                Federal Facility
                                                April 1991

      How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
  2 -
       GW  Soil   SW
           Sed   Air  Solid
Contamination Area
                Groundwater: Volatile organic
                compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
                (inorganics), and polychorinated
                biphenyls (PCBs).
                Soil and Solid Waste:  Heavy metals
                (inorganics), volatile organic compounds
                (VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls
                (PCBs), creosote (organics), and
                Surface Water and Sediments:
                Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
                organic compounds (VOCs),
                polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
                creosote (organics).
                Air: Volatile organic compounds
                (VOCs), polychorinated biphenyls
                (PCBs) and gases.
                *Appear at 20% or more sites
             Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 7 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991

                                                      THE NPL REPORT
      The following Progress Report lists all
      sites currently on, or deleted from, the
      NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O-) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages.  For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site.  In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
  An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions  are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous  site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
  A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
  A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a  "No
                    To  Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
  A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
  A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
  A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may  be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
  A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
                                 April 1991

    Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of New Mexico
Page           Site Name
 23   AT & SF (CLOVIS)


      Initial    Site  Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Date  Response  Studies Selected  Design  Ongoing  Complete  Deleted

               of Site
April! 991

                Who Do I Call with Questions?

                The following pages describe each NPL site in New Mexico, providing
                specific information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and
                environmental progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's
                Region 6 Office in Dallas, Texas or one of the other offices listed below:
                  EPA Region 6 Superfund Community Relations Office
                  EPA Region 6 Superfund Office
                  EPA Superfund Hotline
                  EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
                  New Mexico Superfund Office
                           (214) 655-2240
                           (214) 655-6664
                           (800) 424-9346
                           (202) 260-2080
April 1991

Site Description
                                        EPA REGION 6
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                            Curry County
                                      South of the AT&SF Railway
                                        switching yard in Clovis

                                           Other Names:
The AT&SF (Clovis) site comprises an approximately 26-acre area. For nearly 90 years, Santa Fe
Lake, sometimes referred to as Playa Lake, has received the wastewater discharge from the
Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) railway operations. The type of wastes changed over the
years, but in the mid-1950s, AT&SF began washing hopper cars at its nearby switching and repair
yard. Cars hauling potash, cement, fertilizer, grain, and coke were cleaned, and the wastewater was
piped to the lake. On-site industrial water wells were shut down due to contamination in the mid-
1970s.  The hopper car washing facility was closed in 1982. The area surrounding the site is rural,
but 31,000 people live nearby. The lake is currently fenced off from public access. The closest
residences are 2,000 feet away, and the nearest drinking water well is 1,200 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date:  10/23/81
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
         The sediments and surface water in Santa Fe Lake are contaminated with metals,
         fluoride, and petroleum hydrocarbons. Contaminants found in on-site soil include
         petroleum hydrocarbons and phenols. The aquifer that extends under the lake is the
         source of drinking water for the town of Clovis. Although contamination of the
         groundwater has not occurred, migration of contaminants from the lake is possible, if
         the source of contamination is not removed.  Possible threats include eating, drinking,
         direct contact with, or inhaling the contaminated materials.
Cleanup Approach
This site will be addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on contamination at the
entire site.
                                                       April 1991

Response Action Status
          Entire Site: The remedies selected for the site include building a dike and ditch system
          to prevent rain water from running onto the site; evaporating lake waters and the resulting
          residues, along with cleaning up the sediment; excavating sediments and treating them on
site with biodegradation, an innovative technology that uses microorganisms to degrade
contaminants; covering the treated area with a plastic liner and vegetated soil cap to prevent any
remaining contaminants from migrating; and treating underlying soils to encourage growth of the
microorganisms that break down contaminants. No plans currently exist to clean groundwater, but
action may be undertaken if monitoring indicates a need. Construction of the selected cleanup
remedy is now underway. The potentially responsible parties are taking the lead on all site
investigations and cleanup activities, under monitoring by the EPA. The dike and ditch system
construction was completed in  1990. A fence has been installed surrounding the site.
Biodegradation of the sediments is expected to begin late in 1991.

Site Facts: The EPA filed an Administrative Order in 1983 with the site owners to conduct
necessary studies and cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding the AT&SF (Clovis) site to the NPL, the EPA assessed site conditions and determined
that the site did not pose an immediate threat to nearby residents and the environment. The EPA has
further determined that no immediate actions were required at the AT&SF (Clovis) site while
awaiting further actions.  Construction of a dike and ditch system, installation of a fence, and
reductions in soil and sediment contaminants are occurring as cleanup continues at the site.
April 1991                                     24                               AT&SF (CLOVIS)


Site Description  	
                                        EPA REGION 6
                                    CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                           Socorro County
                                        1/2 mile north of Lemitar
Cal West Metals (USSBA) is situated on 12 1/2 acres of a 44-acre site and served as a lead-recovery
facility. From 1979 to 1981, approximately 20,000 auto batteries were stripped of lead. From 1982
to 1984, Cal West Metals conducted research and development on various aspects of raw materials
recovery. In 1985, the company reworked the waste piles from battery recycling to recover lead.
The owners abandoned the site when the recovery process ceased to be profitable. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) foreclosed on and took ownership of the site in October 1985. Piles
of battery pieces and an evaporation pond remain on site. The State detected lead in on-site
monitoring wells and in the sediment in drainage pathways from the site.  In 1986, the metal was
found on surface soils 400 feet downwind from the site. Approximately 1,000 people get drinking
water from public and private  wells within a 3-mile radius. Six hundred acres of food and forage
crops are irrigated with surface water within 3 miles downstream of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
         Lead from the battery recovery operation has been found in groundwater and site
         sediments. Elevated levels of lead also are found in soils.  People coming in direct
         contact with, or accidentally ingesting contaminated groundwater, soils, or sediments
         may be at risk.
                                                      April 1991

Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase that is directed at cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
        Entire Site: The EPA began studies of the nature and extent of site contamination and
        potential cleanup actions in 1990, which are expected to be completed in 1992.  Once
        completed, the EPA will evaluate the investigation findings and select a final cleanup
remedy for contamination at the Cal West Metals site.

Site Facts:  Beginning in 1987, the EPA sought to have the site properly closed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In May 1990, the EPA sent Special Notice Letters to the
SBA and other potentially responsible parties. In July 1990, the EPA negotiated a Federal Facilities
Agreement with the SBA.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of the Cal West Metals (USSBA) site on the NPL, the EPA assessed the site
conditions and determined that it presently poses no immediate threat to public health or the
environment while further studies into cleanup alternatives are being conducted.
April 1991                                    26                        CAL WEST METALS SITE

 EPA ID# NMD980749378
Site Description
        Lincoln County
From 1979 to 1982, the Cimarron Mining Corp. site operated as a metal recovery mill using a
solution of cyanide salt and metal stripper. The site covers approximately 10 acres. Before 1979,
gold was extracted, using cyanide. Both processes generated a liquid waste containing cyanide and
heavy metals. The facility was operated without the required permits, and the State cited the
company for environmental violations in 1982. Cimarron Mining filed for bankruptcy in 1983, and
the following year an inspection revealed two cyanide solution tanks, a discharge pit, an
impoundment, an uncovered pile of mine tailings, and a drum storage area. In 1990, the Sierra
Blanca property, located approximately 3/4 mile south of the Cimarron Mining Site, was
incorporated into cleanup actions at the Cimarron Mining Site. Covering approximately 10 acres, it
operated as a precious metals recovery mill. The process resulted in a lead-contaminated slurry,
which was disposed of in open pits. Approximately 1,000 people obtain drinking water from 29
municipal wells within 3 miles of the site.  The nearest municipal well is about 2 miles away from
the Cimarron area and 1/2 mile from the Sierra Blanca area.  Wells also are used to irrigate food
Site Responsibility:   This site is being addressed through
                       Federal actions.
   Proposed Date: 06/24/88
     Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
          The groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soil contain contamination from cyanide
          and heavy metals. The levels of cyanide on the site potentially are toxic to people, and
          direct contact with or accidental ingestion of wastes and contaminated soils and
          groundwater poses a risk. The deeper aquifer used for drinking water could become
          contaminated, and there is an exposure potential from breathing airborne dust. The site is
          fenced and is 300 yards south of a public recreation area.  Several process tanks and soil
          and sediments in the discharge pits associated with the Sierra Blanca Site were found to
          contain lead and arsenic. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of lead-
          contaminated soils also poses a risk.
                   April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages:  immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the Cimarron Mining Corp. mill area and the Sierra Blanca mill area.
Response Action Status
         Immediate Actions: In 1987, the site was fenced, and warning signs were posted to
         alert the nearby community of contaminated site conditions.
         Cimarron Mining Corp. Mill Area: In 1990, the EPA completed an investigation into
         the nature and extent of contamination at the metal recovery site. This study defined the
         contamination and recommended various cleanup alternatives. The selected remedy
involves pumping of shallow groundwater, with discharge to a local wastewater treatment facility.
Engineering design activities for the selected remedy are scheduled to begin in mid-1991.

         Sierra Blanca Mill Area: An investigation into the nature and extent of contamination
         at the Sierra Blanca property, a former processing area related to Cimarron Mining Corp.
         operations, began in 1990. The EPA currently is evaluating alternatives for cleanup of the
site, with a decision expected in mid-1991.
Environmental Progress
Constructing a fence to limit access to the Cimarron Mining site has reduced the potential for nearby
residents to come into direct contact with contaminants on the site while it awaits completion of the
site investigations and design of the long-term cleanup activities.
 April 1991                x                    28                       CIMARRON MINING CORP.

 EPA ID# NMD981155930
        Grant County
  5 miles northeast of Silver City
 Site Description
 The abandoned Cleveland Mill site was used as a metal mine and mill and covers approximately
 10 acres. The site has a long history of mining activity, going back to 1910. Approximately
 12,000 cubic yards of mine tailings are piled on the site. Tailings were piped from the mill to the
 steeply sloping side of a small valley and were left uncovered, unstabilized, and unlined.
 Approximately 1,200 area residents draw drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the
 site. A site investigation revealed that runoff from the facility has acidified Little Walnut Creek
 and has contaminated it with metals. The creek and downstream waters are used for recreation.
Site Responsibility:   The site is being addressed through
                      Federal actions.
   Proposed Date: 06/24/88
    Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
          The groundwater, soil, and surface water of Little Walnut Greek are contaminated
          with heavy metals including lead, silver, zinc, copper, and arsenic.  The tailings and
          polluted surface water are in areas that recharge the alluvial aquifer. Water moves
          downward from the coarse, permeable shallow aquifer toward the bedrock aquifer.
          There is a possibility that drinking water might become tainted from the groundwater
          contamination. Direct contact with the unrestricted tailings piles and contact with
          surface waters could present a threat to human health.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on contamination at the
entire site.
                  April! 991

Response Action Status
         Entire Site: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of
         contamination at the site.  The investigation will define the contaminants of concern, will
         recommend alternatives for soil and surface cleanup at the site, and is expected to be
completed in 1992.

Site Facts: A 1987 search for potentially responsible parties identified eight businesses and four
individuals. Special Notice Letters were sent to these parties in December 1989.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Cleveland Mills site to the NPL, the EPA has conducted an evaluation and
determined that there currently are no immediate actions required while awaiting the results of the
investigation and decisions on the cleanup alternatives for the site.
 April 1991
                                                                           CLEVELAND MILL

EPA ID# NMD007860935
                                       EPA REGION 6
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                          Valencia County
                                   Route 53 north of Milan and Grants

                                          Other Names:
                                  United Nuclear Homestake Partners
Site Description
The Homestake Mining Company site is a uranium mill on standby status, largely operational
since 1958.  More than 22 million tons of mine tailings have been piled over 245 acres of
ground; the pile now rises to 100 feet.  Although there are private wells in the area of the site,
they have not been used since the company installed alternate water supplies in 1985. Public
wells have not been found to be contaminated.  Approximately 200 people live within a mile of
the tailings piles. The nearest home and private drinking well are 3,000 feet from the edge of the
nearest tailings pile.  Seepage from the site's tailings piles has polluted a shallow aquifer and
parts of the Upper Chinle aquifer that provided water to four subdivisions 1/2 to 2 miles away.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
Proposed Date:  10/23/81
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
         Alkaline mill tailings on site are emitting radon gas. Wind-blown particulates
         containing lead, radium, and uranium are transported via the air.  Radium has entered
         surface water from these mill tailings.  These tailings also seep sulfate, sodium,
         molybdenum, selenium, and uranium into the groundwater. The shallow aquifer has
         been contaminated, but this threat has been circumvented by a new water supply to
         the area's residents. Studies of elevated radon levels in homes near the mill found
         that the gas is coming from nearby soils rather than from the site itself. Off-site soil
         contamination has been consolidated on site and will continue to be cleaned up
         should wind dispersion of tailings occur. Inhalation or accidental consumption of
         contaminated dust is a potential threat, as is eating food contaminated by radioactive
                                                       April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on radon and mine tailings.
Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: In 1985, Homestake Mining arranged to have the Milan water
         system extended to residents of the four subdivisions near the mill, paying hookup and
         water charges for 10 years.  The company is collecting contaminated water from the
shallow and the Upper Chinle aquifers and is injecting water from the deeper aquifer in an effort
to flush and improve the water quality of contaminated zones. The EPA and Homestake Mining
helped affected homeowners to measure radon levels in their homes and in ambient outdoor air
and to identify methods for reducing the indoor levels. The efforts have been largely successful
in flushing previously contaminated off-site zones, and seepage has been contained on site.

         Radon: Evaluation of the completed site investigation revealed that the mill and its
         tailings do not significantly contribute to radon levels in the subdivisions. The EPA
         has concluded that local soils are the principal source of radon and that no further
action is required at the site.  Homestake presently is conducting off-site monitoring to assure
that radon levels are below regulatory concern.

         Mine Tailings: The tailings piles will be dewatered as part of the corrective action
         program. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Homestake a Source
         Material License in 1986 and since has required Homestake to delineate the area!
extent of windblown tailings off site.  Radiological survey data identified affected areas that
subsequently were cleaned up to regulatory levels as part of a land cleanup program.
Comtamination is now confined to the site. Homestake also has submitted a long-term site
reclamation and closure plan to the NRC, which has been approved for implementation. Efforts
to stabilize  and dewater the tailings have begun, under NRC and State of New Mexico guidance.
Monitoring of air emissions from the site indicates that paniculate radiation levels are within
New Mexico State guidelines.

Site Facts: A Consent Decree was signed in 1983 and an  Administrative Order was signed by
Homestake Mining Company in 1987 to perform cleanup activities at the site. Homestake
Mining is updating residents on progress and conditions at the site. The EPA is attempting to
sign a memorandum of Understanding with the NRC for cleanup of the site.  The site will remain
on the NPL until cleanup is completed.
 Environmental Progress
The initial actions have provided a safe drinking water supply, and studies have determined that
site contamination is not contributing to elevated indoor radon levels found in some area homes.
Soil decontamination presently is underway at the Homestake Mining site and has reduced
contamination to within State regulatory limits.
 April 1991                                     32                  HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY

Site Description
                                       EPA REGION 6
                                  CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                         San Juan County
The Lee Acres Landfill, a Federal facility site, covers 40 acres of public land in San Juan County. In
1962, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leased 20 acres to San Juan County to operate a
county landfill. The lease was renewed in 1981, with another 20 acres added to the County's lease.
The landfill consists of an undetermined number of solid waste trenches and four unlined waste
lagoons, including water produced from oil and gas field operations, waste oil, spent acids,
chlorinated organic solvents, and septage.  The Lee Acres residential subdivision and the Giant
Industries refinery are nearby. Approximately 400 residents use shallow alluvial groundwater within
3 miles of the site. During a rain storm in  1985, a dike broke on one of the lagoons, resulting in
wastes entering an arroyo that feeds the San Juan River, a recreational area near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and County actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater and solid waste sludge are contaminated with volatile organic
         compounds (VOCs) including dichloroethane and benzene.  Contaminants were found in
         a residential well, presenting the potential of exposure to nearby residents who obtain
         their water from the shallow groundwater.
                                                    April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages:  initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
concentrating on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
         Initial Actions:  In 1985, the Governor called the National Guard to secure the site
         perimeter while the BLM ordered the County to fill in the lagoons and fence the site. The
         New Mexico Environmental Improvements Division (NMEID) hired a contractor to treat
the lagoon contents with ferric chloride to prevent further release of gases. The County subsequently
filled in the four lagoons. An alternative water supply was found in 1986, and hookups were
completed in 1987. A total of 31 groundwater monitoring wells and piezometers were installed
around the landfill by BLM  contractors in 1987; five additional wells were installed in 1989.

         Entire  Site: The BLM began studies at the site in 1989. Plans for studies into the nature
         and extent of the contamination and possible cleanup alternatives are undergoing review
         and revision. However, the EPA will not be involved until the Federal Facility Agreement
is signed. The U.S. Geological Survey will be included in the review process.  This investigation is
scheduled to be complete in 1992.  NMEID requested that Lee Acres be reclassified as a non-Federal
facility because the groundwater contamination may stem from the Giant Refinery as well as from
the landfill. The site may be divided into several stages for study and cleanup when the Federal
Facility Agreement is signed.

Site Facts: The EPA is currently drafting an Interagency Agreement for the site.
Environmental Progress
Fencing of the site and treatment of the lagoons, as well as the other activities on the Lee Acres
Landfill (USDOI) site, have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminants while the site awaits
further cleanup activities.
April 1991                                    34                    LEE ACRES LANDFILL (USDOI)

EPA ID# NMD980749980
       Valencia County
   1 mile southeast of Los Lunas
                                                                   Other Names:
                                                             Waste Electric Transformer #4
Site Description
The 1 1/4-acre Pagano Salvage site housed a metal salvage facility.  In 1983, the operators bought
electric transformers and capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) oils from a U.S.
Department of Energy facility in Albuquerque.  They then removed the oil, poured it over insulated
wire, and burned off the insulation to recover the wire. Burning occurred on unprotected ground at
several locations. Soil sampling in 1985 and 1987 showed PCB and pesticide contamination to a
depth of 4 feet. PCBs were still being found in soils in 1988, as well as in nearby Otero Drain and in
some fish tissue. There is a fence around three sides of the site. An irrigation ditch runs along the
rear of the site.  About 11,000 people obtain drinking water from public and private wells within 3
miles of the site. Surface water near the site is used to irrigate croplands.
Site Responsibility:   This site is being addressed through
                      Federal actions.
   Proposed Date: 06/24/88
    Final Date:  10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
         The soil contained high concentrations of PCBs and pesticides including DDT and DDE.
         Groundwater at the site is shallow (about 5 feet), and the soil consists of very permeable
         alluvial deposits.  These conditions could have facilitated movement of contaminants into
         groundwater, thereby posing a potential for contamination of the drinking water supply.
         Additionally, crops and locally raised foodstuffs were vulnerable to contamination if
         irrigated with contaminated water.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the contamination at the entire site.
                   April 1991

Response Action Status
         Emergency Actions: In response to immediate threats to the nearby public, the EPA
         excavated about 5,100 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris in 1989 and moved it to
         an approved facility.

         Entire Site: An investigation of the remaining portions of the site was conducted in 1990
         to determine the extent and nature of site contamination and to identify technologies for
         cleanup. This investigation revealed that the earlier emergency actions had removed all
contamination at the site and that no further action was required. At the request of the State of New
Mexico, the EPA is sampling the site monitoring wells periodically to assure that no groundwater
contamination has occurred. No contamination has been detected to date.
Environmental Progress
With the emergency removal of contaminated soils and debris, the EPA has removed accessible
sources of contamination and eliminated the potential for exposure to hazardous materials on the
site.  Based on site investigation results, the EPA concluded that no further cleanup actions are
required at the site, and periodic monitoring is being conducted to assure the effectiveness of the

EPA ID# NMD980622773
                                       REGION 6
                                 CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                       McKinley County
                                  West of Prewitt on U.S. Hwy. 65

                                        Other Names:
                                   Petroleum Products Refinery
                                       Prewitt Ter Pita
Site Description
The Prewitt Refinery site, situated on 75 acres, was run under several different operators from
the early 1940s to 1965. The Navajo Indian Tribe has owned the property since 1966. The site
consists of two tracts; Tract A (68 acres) bears the ruins of the refinery, waste pits, tank bases,
and rubble from removed equipment, and Tract B (7 acres) includes two major spill areas and the
remains of a pump lift station. In 1982, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division
detected benzene in a nearby private well and, in 1986, detected benzene and xylenes in an on-
site well to a depth of 17 feet. About 1,600 people draw from the public and private wells within
3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater is contaminated with lead and volatile organic compounds
         (VOCs) including xylene and toluene. Possible hazards include direct contact
         with or ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Contamination of residential
         wells adjacent to the site has been recorded. One well has been closed, and a
         second has become contaminated.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
                                                    April 1991

Response Action Status
         Immediate Actions: Under agreements with the EPA, former owners of the
         refinery have begun activities to reduce immediate threats posed by the site. In 1989,
         they built a security fence and began treating well water to remove contamination,
protecting nearby residents from contaminants. In 1990, an alternate water supply was provided
to residents, and a carbon filtration system was installed.

         Entire Site: The former owners also began an extensive investigation of the nature
         and extent of the contamination in 1989. This study, conducted under EPA
         supervision, is planned for completion in 1992; the EPA will then select the final
cleanup remedies for the site.

Site Facts:  In 1989, an Administrative Order was issued to parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination to fence the site and to treat contaminated water wells. Also, in 1989, an
Administrative Order was signed with potentially responsible parties to conduct an investigation
to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
By fencing the site and treating the contaminated well water, the nearby residents are being
protected from contaminants, making the Prewitt Refinery site safer while studies are underway
and cleanup activities are being planned.
April!991                                     38                 PREWITT ABANDONED REFINERY

EPA ID# NMD980745558
Site Description
                                           EPA REGION 6
                                      CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                              Bemalillo County
                                                                     Other Names:
                                                                South Valley PCB Tank Site
The South Valley site encompasses approximately 1 square mile, with a number of industrial
properties owned and operated by different organizations forming the site. Industrial development in
South Valley began in the 1950s, including metal parts manufacturing. By the 1960s, organic
chemicals were being handled in the area. Presently, petroleum fuels and various other organic
chemicals are stored and handled within the area. The main activity on the Duke City property is the
repackaging of petroleum and related automotive products, including antifreeze, diesel fuel,
gasoline, and methanol.  The Whitfield property was in operation until 1986, as a delivery truck base
for shipping bulk jet fuel, diesel fuel, asphalt, caustic soda, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid products.
The Edmunds Street property, located in the southeastern comer of the site, was the location of
several chemical and solvent distribution operations. Another contaminated area surrounds the SJ-6
municipal water well, which was shut down in 1980 due to the continual detection of low levels of
solvents. In 1951, the Atomic Energy Commission conducted machining of metal parts, plating, and
welding on the western portion of the site. In 1967, the Air Force took over the property and
converted the plant into an aircraft engine manufacturing plant operated by General  Electric.
General Electric then bought the plant in 1983, and currently produces aircraft engine parts. South
Valley has been designated as the State's highest priority site for cleanup due to the presence of
potentially high concentrations of hazardous substances in the groundwater near the City of San
Jose's well field.  Several aquifers underlie the site.  Approximately 70,000 people in Albuquerque
are served by the San Jose reservoir system. A residential district of 590 people lies just to the north
of the General Electric facility.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 07/23/82
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
          The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
          including toluene and xylenes. The groundwater, which is contaminated with up to 47
          compounds, has migrated into Albuquerque's sole source aquifer. Thirteen off-site wells
          have shown contamination. All of these wells are now closed.  Because of the gardens
          and livestock nearby, the food chain is at risk. Groundwater on site is not currently in
          use. Direct contact with contaminants and inhalation of vapors also are threats to on-site
          workers. Workers at Chevron, Texaco, and Duke City are most susceptible to the
          contamination, because these sites have the greatest surface soil contamination.
                                                          April 1991

Cleanup Approach  	

This site is being addressed in four stages:  initial actions and four long-term remedial phases
focusing on groundwater treatment near municipal well SJ-6, groundwater at the Edmunds Street
Groundwater, Edmunds Street Sources, and contaminants at the General Electric property.

 Response Action Status  	
         Initial Action: In 1984, the EPA removed 3,450 gallons of contaminated oil and 63,580
         pounds of contaminated soil and debris, along with a 48,140-pound tanker. All materials
         were disposed of off site. The excavated areas were then backfilled and graded.  A new well
was installed by the EPA in 1988 to replace the capacity of the contaminated municipal well SJ-6.

         Groundwater: In order to address the groundwater contamination in the vicinity of
         municipal well SJ-6, the EPA has given the potentially responsible parties the obligation of
         removing and disposing of 100 yards of contaminated sediments at the base of the SJ-6
borehole, sealing abandoned wells, monitoring the groundwater, and putting up restrictions to access.
These actions are underway and are scheduled to continue through 1991.  Cleanup at adjacent areas of
the site, as well as these source control measures, will reduce the plume concentrations to below State
health criteria within five years.  Federal health criteria already are being attained.

         Edmunds Street Groundwater: The parties responsible for this area of contamination
         are pumping and treating the groundwater by air stripping. The treated water is being
         injected into the aquifer. Groundwater and air monitoring also is underway. These actions
are scheduled for completion in  1992.

         Edmunds Street Sources: Based on studies by the potentially responsible parties of
         sources of contamination at the Edminds Street property, the EPA determined in 1989 that no
         cleanup actions were needed.

         General Electric Property: Four hazardous waste storage areas and contaminated
         groundwater around the General Electric property will be  addressed by the potentially
         responsible parties. The remedies selected are installing soil vapor extraction wells and
extracting contaminants from the soil with vacuum pressure. Groundwater extraction wells in both the
shallow and the deep aquifer will be installed. Extracted water will  be treated by air stripping followed
by carbon adsorption and reinjection of treated water into the aquifers. All cleanup actions are
scheduled to be completed by 1994.

Site Facts: Groundwater was first suspected to be contaminated in 1978, when peculiar tastes and
odors were noted by users of a private well on the Edmunds Street property. Investigations into the
General Electric property were conducted from 1984 to 1988 by the Air Force under a Memorandum of
Understanding with the EPA. In 1989, a unilateral Administrative Order was issued to General
Environmental Progress
Through the immediate removal of contaminated oil, soil, and debris, and the installation of a new
well, the EPA reduced possible hazardous exposures at the South Valley site.  Groundwater
extraction and treatment is reducing contamination levels.

April 1991                                     40                                SOUTH VALLEY

 EPA ID# NMD030443303
Site Description
      McKinley County
       Church Rock,
  17 miles northeast of Gallup

      Other Nam**:
   UNC Mining and Milling
     Church Rock Mill
The United Nuclear Corporation site operated as a State-licensed uranium mill from 1977 to 1982.  It
includes a 25-acre ore-processing mill and a 100-acre unlined mine tailings pond area.
Approximately 3 1/2 million tons of tailings were pumped to disposal ponds by 1982. In 1979, a
dam breach released about 23 million gallons of tailings and pond water to Pipeline Canyon Arroyo
and the Rio Puerco. While the site damage was repaired, attention was focused on groundwater
contamination resulting from tailings seepage and wastewater discharge. Three aquifers are
contaminated; the alluvial, the Upper Gallup Zone 3, and the Upper Gallup Zone 1. The mill ceased
operations in 1982. In 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) took over licensing
authority for the site. The surrounding area is sparsely populated, with the nearest residence located
1 1/2 miles from the site.  A Navajo Indian Reservation lies 1/2 mile to the north of the site. Four
water wells are within a 4-mile radius, the nearest being 2 miles northeast of the site; however,
nearby residents generally have used bottled water for drinking, since the well water had a bad taste.
Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                     Federal and potentially responsible
                     parties' actions.
 Proposed Date: 10/23/81
   Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with radioactive elements,
         sulfate, aluminum, ammonia, and iron from mining wastes. Possible health threats
         include accidental ingestion of, inhalation of, or direct contact with the contaminants.
         The Upper Gallup aquifer is contaminated by seepage from the tailings ponds.
                 April 1991

Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
         Immediate Actions: The potentially responsible parties repaired the dam breach that
         dumped 23 million gallons of tailings and pond water into the Rio Puerco in 1979. The
         parties also constructed a groundwater pumping system that withdrew groundwater from
the aquifers underlying the site and sent it to an on-site borrow pit for evaporation.  Also, they
conducted tailings neutralization from 1979 to 1982. A pond evaporation system was installed in
1989, as well as a cluster of pumping wells, to augment the groundwater treatment  system.

         Entire Site:  In 1988, the EPA finished an intensive investigation of site contaminants
         and potential cleanup strategies.  The selected remedies include: (1) a monitoring program
         that will detect any spreading or intensification of the contamination at and beyond the
border of the tailings disposal area; (2) operation of existing seepage extraction systems in the Upper
Gallup aquifers; (3) containment and removal of contaminated groundwater in the alluvial and
Upper Gallup sandstone using existing and additional wells; (4) evaporation of groundwater
removed from aquifers outside the disposal area, using evaporation ponds supplemented with mist or
spray systems to speed evaporation; and (5) a performance and evaluation program to determine
water level and contaminant reductions in each aquifer, and the extent and duration of pumping
actually required  outside the tailings disposal area. The EPA and the NRC are managing separate
phases of the site's cleanup. The EPA is managing cleanup of groundwater outside the disposal
area. The NRC will manage disassembly of the mill, removal of contaminated groundwater, and
reclamation of the mill site. The potentially responsible parties are performing the  work under
Federal supervision. Cleanup activities are scheduled for completion in  1997.

Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA issued an Administrative Order to the potentially responsible parties,
requiring them to perform groundwater cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions performed at the United Nuclear Corporation site have stabilized the mine tailings
and have protected the Rio Puerco from further contamination spills. Groundwater treatment is
underway, reducing contamination levels while further cleanup activities are being completed.
April 1991                                     42                 UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION

        APPENDIX A
     Terms Used
          in the
     Fact Sheets

      This glossary defines terms used
      throughout the NPL Volumes. The
      terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
          Terms Used
              in the  NPL
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.

Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination.  Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a

Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).

Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.

Air Stripping:  A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel.  The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.

Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.

Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes.  The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater.  A sole source  aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.

Artesian (Well):  A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-

Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.

Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.

Baghouse Dust:  Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.

Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions.  When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.

Berm: A ledge, wall, or  a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-

Bioaccumulate:  The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as  in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.

Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.

Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-

Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.

Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-

Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use

Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.

Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants  are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.

Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment

Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-

Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.

CERCLA:  [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].

Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the

extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.

Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.

Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.

Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.

Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.

Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL.  There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.

Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].

Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment.  The EPA administers the
Superfund program.

Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-

Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles,  responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment

Consent Order:  [see Administrative Order
on Consent].

Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in  a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the

Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental

Contingency Plan:  A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment

Cooperative Agreement:  A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.

Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].

Cover:  Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.

Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs].  Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations  and cancer
through prolonged exposure.

Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an

Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.

Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.

De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minims contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.

Dewater:  To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.

Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.

Disposal:  Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land fanning, deep well
injection, or incineration.

Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.

Effluent:  Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.

Emission:  Pollution  discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial

Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.

 Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
 ducted to determine the risks posed to public
 health or the environment by contamination at
 NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
 study when a legal action is to be taken to
 direct the potentially responsible parties to
 clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
 endangerment assessment supplements an
 investigation of the site hazards.

 Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
 actions taken against parties to facilitate
 settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
 rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
 obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
 violations.  Enforcement procedures may
 vary, depending on the specific requirements
 of different environmental laws and related
 regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
 for example, the EPA will seek to require
 potentially responsible parties to clean up a
 Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
 Cost Recovery].

 Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
 by wind or  water. Erosion occurs naturally
 from weather or surface runoff, but can be
 intensified by such land-related practices as
 farming, residential or industrial develop-
 ment, road  building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
. sion may spread surface contamination to off-
 site locations.

 Estuary (estuarine):  Areas where fresh
 water from rivers and salt water from
 nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
 areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
 marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
 tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and

 Evaporation Ponds:  Areas where sewage
 sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
 allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study:  The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site.  The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].

Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (particulate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain

Flood Plain:  An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.

Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.

Fly Ash:  Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.

French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.

Gasification  (coal):  The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.

Generator: A facility  that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous  wastes into
water or soil.

Good Faith Offer: A voluntary  offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications

and willingness to perform a site study or

Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation.  In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.

Groundwater Quality Assessment:  The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.

Halogens:  Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.

Hazard Ranking System (MRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on  the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.

Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed.  It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.

Hot Spot:  An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.

Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other

Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.

Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.

Influent:  Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment

Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.

Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-

Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in  1978
under which the Department of Defense  has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.

Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water

Interagency Agreement:  A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,

setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities.  States often are parties to
interagency agreements.

Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities,  that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.

Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.

Landfarm: To apply  waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.

Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].

Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste.  Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.

Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill.  Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.

Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.

Marsh:  A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].

Migration:  The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.

Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].

Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations.  Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.

Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling  toxicity and contamination sources.

Modeling:  A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.

Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in

which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present

National Priorities List (NPL):  The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.

Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment.  Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of

Nitroaromatics:  Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a

Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.

On-Scene Coordinator (OSC):  The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective

Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds:  Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.

Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.

Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.

Pentachlorophenol (PCP):  A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.

Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.

Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.

Petrochemicals:  Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made.  These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.

Phenols:  Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly

Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.

Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-

Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the

Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source.  The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].

Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds  found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds.  PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause  liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.

Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.

Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.

Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.

Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.

Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.

RCRA:  [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].

Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.

Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
altemative(s)  will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.

Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.

Recycle: The process  of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.

Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following  the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design:  A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-

Remedial Investigation:  An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].

Remedial Project Manager (RPM):  The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.

Remedy Selection:  The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].

Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].

Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place,  e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to  dis-
posal.  The law requires safe and secure

procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

Retention Pond:  A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store

Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.

Runoff:  The discharge of water over land
into surface water.  It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.

Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.

Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs

Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.

Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas.  The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.

Septage:  Residue remaining in  a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.

Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.

Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site.  It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.

Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.

Sludge:  Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.

Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it.  The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.

Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.

Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through

or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.

Soil Vapor Extraction:  A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.

Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials.  There are two
approaches:  dissolving or suspending them in
the  wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].

Stabilization:  The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the  further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.

Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the  binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.

Solvent:  A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.

Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the  hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations.  An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.

Still bottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.

Stripping:  A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air

Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.

Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment.  The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste

Surge Tanks:  A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.

Swamp:  A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-

Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.

Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.

Trichloroethylene (TCE):  A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as

a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].

Unilateral  [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].

Upgradient:  An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted

Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils.  Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.

Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].

Vitrification:  The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals.  They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.

Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from

Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.

Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.

Water Table:  The upper surface of the

Weir: A barrier to divert water or other

Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions.  Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs.  Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater.  Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.

Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.

        APPENDIX B
      NPL Sites
  in New Mexico


Information  Repositories for NPL Sites in the State of New Mexico
Repositories are established for all NPL sites so that the public can obtain additional information related to site activities. Some sites may have more than one repository
location, however, the primary site repository is listed below. All public access information pertaining to the site will be on file at these repositories. The quantity
and nature of the documentation found in the repositories depends on the extent of activity and cleanup progress for each site and may include some or all of the
following: community relations plans, announcements for public meetings, minutes from public meedngs, fact sheets detailing activities at sites, documents relating
to the selection of cleanup remedies, press releases, locations of other public information centers, and any other documents pertaining to site activities.
            Sit* Nam*
                           Sit* Repository
Clovis-Carver Public Library, Fourth & Mitchell Streets, Clovis, NM 88108
Not Established
Cairizozo City Hall, 100 Fifth Street, Carrizozo, NM 88301
Not Established
New Mexico State University, Grants Library. 1500 Third Street, Grants, NM 87020
Farmington Public Library, 100 West Broadway Street, Farmington, NM 87401
Los Lunas Public Library, 460 Main Street, Los Lunas, NM 87031
Prewitt Fire House, Highway 66, Prewitt. NM 87045
Albuquerque Public Library, 501 Copper Avenue, Northwest, Albuquerque, NM 87102
Gallup Public Library. 115 West Hill Avenue, Gallup, NM 87301