&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
National
Priorities
List Sites:
EPA/540/8-91/049
September 1991
PB92-963246
OHIO
Primed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-735A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Ohio
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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, VA 22161
(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
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Superfund:
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 Ohio 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 93
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 109
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
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
Intensified
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
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
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.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
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 EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
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
environment.
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
program.
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
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
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
-------
INTRODUCTION
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.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
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.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
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.
-------
SUPERFUND
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
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEPS
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
-------
SUPERFUND
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.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
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
danger?
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.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
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
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
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-
-------
SUPERFUND.
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.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
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
parties.
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
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
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
cost.
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
problem.
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
made.
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
-------
SUPERFUND.
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,
too?
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 groundwater 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
NPL?
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
10
-------
SUPERFUND
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
environment.
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 MRS
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
pay?
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.
11
-------
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.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
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
Book
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
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA 10* ABCOOOOOOO
""-Sit^Description
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Namn:
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
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
FImb xxAoftx
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,
Environmental Progress
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.
14
-------
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.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
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-
tion.
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.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
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 Ground-water 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
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
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
technologies.
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
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
.NPL SITES
The State
of Ohio
Bordered by Lake Erie and Lake Michigan to the north, Ohio is located in EPA Region 5, which
includes the central midwestern United States. The state covers 41,330 square miles and consists
of rolling and lake plains extending southward and the Allegheny plateau in the east. Ranked 7th
in U.S. populations, Ohio experienced a 0.5% increase in population between 1980 and 1990,
according to the 1990 Census, and currently has approximately 10,847,000 residents. Principal
state industries include manufacturing, trade, and services. Ohio's chief manufactured goods are
transportation equipment, machinery, and primary and fabricated metal products.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Ohio?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
33
_Q
33
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 13,17 1 site
Congressional Districts 1, 3,4, 7,16 2 sites
Congressional District 8 4 sites
Congressional District 18 5 sites
Congressional Districts 10,11 6 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Ohio?
# of sites
10
4
3
3
3
3
7
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Storage/Disposal Facilities
Chemical & Allied Products
Metal & Allied Products
Disposal Facilities
Federal Facilities
Other (Petroleum refining & related
industries, recyclers, coke plant)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
30--
24--
IA
*"
6 --
i,
1
GW Soil Sed SW Air
Contamination Area
Solid &
Liquid
Waste
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), radiation, plastics, and
other inorganics.
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), creosotes
(organics), pesticides, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and petrochemicals.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
heavy metals (inorganics), creosotes
(organics), pesticides, and petrochemi-
cals.
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), heavy metals (inorganics),
radiation, plastics, and gases.
Appear at 10% or more sites.
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
14
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
1
Site
with
Remedy
Selected
11
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
4
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
3
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 17 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
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
accomplishments.
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
Progress
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
underway.
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.
19
ApriM991
-------
I
i
Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Ohio
Page Site Name
25 ALLIED CHEMICAL &IRONTON COKE
27 ALSCO ANACONDA
29 ARCANUM IRON & METAL
31 BIG D CAMPGROUND
33 BOWERS LANDFILL
35 BUCKEYERECLAMATION
37 CHEM-DYNE
39 COSHOCTONLDFL
41 E. H. SCHILLING LANDFILL
43 FEED MATERIALS PRODUCTION CENTER
45 FIELDS BROOK
47 FULTZ LANDFILL
49 INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL
51 LASKIN/POPLAROILCO.
55 MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR
57 MOUND PLANT (US DOE)
59 NEASECHEMICAL
61 NEW LYME LANDFILL
63 OLD MILL
65 ORMETCORP
67 POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
69 PRISTINE, INC.
71 REILLY TAR AND CHEMICAL CORP.
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Complete Deleted
County
LAWRENCE
TUSCARAWAS
DARKE
ASHTABULA
PICKAWAY
BELMONT
BUTLER
COSHOCTON
LAWRENCE
BUTLER
ASHTABULA
GUERNSEY
STARK
ASHTABULA
MIAMI
MONTGOMERY
COLUMBIANA
ASHTABULA
ASHTABULA
MONROE
MONTGOMERY
HAMILTON
TUSCARAWAS
NPL
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Date
09/08/83
06/10/86
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
11/24/89
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/21/84
11/17/89
09/08/83
09/08/83
09/08/83
07/21/87
09/21/84
09/08/83
08/30/90
Response
c>
0
O
O
O
O
c>
O
O
O
O
O
O
Studies
<=>
O
i=>
O
O
O
0
O
O
O-
0
1 S'
I S'
O
O
1=>
c>
d>
c=>
O
O
O
O
Selected
O
O
c>
0
O
c>
O
O
O
i ^>
i ^>
O
O
O
O
Design '
O
c>
O
O-
cz>
O
O
O
o>
O
O
0
[=>
c>
c>
Ongoii
0
c>
0
0
O
-------
|
Page Site Name
73 REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. QUARRY
75 SANITARY LDFL COMPANY
77 SKINNER LANDFILL
79 SOUTH POINT PLANT
81 SUMMITNATIONAL
83 TRW, INC. (MINERVA PLANT)
85 UNITED SCRAP LEAD COMPANY, INC.
87 VAN DALE JUNKYARD
89 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
91 ZANESVILLE WELL HELD
County NPL
LORAIN Final
MONTGOMERY Final
BUTLER
LAWRENCE
PORTAGE
STARK
MIAMI
WASHINGTON
GREENE
MUSKINGUM
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Date
06/12/86
06/10/86
09/08/83
09/21/84
09/08/83
03/31/89
09/21/84
06/10/86
10/04/89
09/08/83
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Construction
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete Deleted
O
O
O
O
O O
O O O
000
0
O
CD
CD
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 5
23
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Ohio, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 5
Office in Chicago, Illinois or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 5 Superfund Community Relations Office (312) 353-2073
EPA Region 5 Superfund Office (312) 886-7456
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Ohio Superfund Office (312) 886-7241
April 1991 24
-------
ALLIED CHE
IRONTON C
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Lawrence County
Ironton
OHIO * " " ' r""" ~
EPAID#OHD043730217
Site Description
The 95-acre Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke site is bordered by the Ohio River and Ice Creek. It
includes two industrial facilities that formerly used on-site lagoons to hold hazardous wastes. There
are four major areas of concern on this site: the coke plant, the coke plant lagoons, the tar plant, and
the Goldcamp disposal area. Manufacturing operations at the coke plant began in 1917. From 1920
to the late 1960s, wastewater and solid wastes generated in the coking process were discharged into
the area east of the plant, which drained toward Ice Creek. In the early 1970s, a series of lagoons
were constructed on site for treatment of plant process wastewater. The lagoons were constructed by
building dikes with site materials, including soil and solid wastes. In 1982, the coke plant, including
the lagoon system, was shut down. In 1945, the tar plant was constructed across from the coke plant.
The purpose of the tar plant was to manufacture products from the tar produced in the coking
process. The tar plant currently is operating. Some of the process wastes for the tar plant were
disposed of in an adjacent sand and gravel pit called the Goldcamp disposal site, which has been
owned by the Allied Chemical and Dye Company since 1955. In the late 1970s, the Goldcamp
Disposal site was closed by removing standing water, filling, and capping with imported clay soil.
Underlying the Goldcamp Disposal Area (GDA), contaminants have migrated downward through
the aquifer to the surface of the underlying impermeable bedrock. The surface of the GDA also is a
source of contamination, because many substances have oozed up through the existing cap.
Approximately 14,000 people live in Ironton. Groundwater is the main source of municipal water
for the city. The Ohio River and Ice Creek are used for recreational activities including fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), inorganics including
cyanide, and the heavy metal arsenic. Potential health threats include direct contact or
accidental ingestion of these contaminants in the soil, sediments, or groundwater, which
is used as a source of drinking water in the Village of Coal Grove, approximately 2,000
feet from the site.
25
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the Goldcamp Disposal Area and cleanup of the Coke Plant/Lagoon area.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination are dismantling
the coke plant located on the site in preparation for the site cleanup. Cleanup of the coke
plant area will be completed under another phase as described below.
Goldcamp Disposal Area: Based on the results of the Goldcamp Disposal Area
investigation, the EPA selected the following cleanup actions: (1) construction of a slurry
wall around the disposal area; (2) installation of a cover made of several materials over the
surface of the disposal area; (3) extraction and on-site treatment of groundwater from inside and
outside the containment system; (4) provision of an alternate water supply for the Ironton Iron
Company until groundwater cleanup levels are met; (5) imposition of deed restrictions to limit future
uses of the property; and (6) preparation of a supplemental pre-design investigation. The pre-design
investigation is scheduled to be completed in 1991, at which time the design of the remedies will
begin.
Coke Plant/Lagoon Area: Based on the results of the Coke Plant/Lagoon Area
investigation, the EPA selected the following cleanup actions: on-site incineration of
approximately 122,000 cubic yards of lagoon waste materials; in-place bioremediation of
approximately 457,000 cubic yards of lagoon waste material; bioremediation of approximately
40,000 cubic yards of soil on a prepared surface; and pumping and on-site treatment of groundwater.
In addition, groundwater will be monitored downgradient of Ice Creek, and a contingency plan will
be prepared; fencing, security, and deed restrictions will be put in place; and the effectiveness of in-
situ bioremediation, with a contingency for development of an alternative cleanup action for
Lagoons 1 through 4, will be evaluated. The parties potentially responsible for site contamination,
under EPA monitoring, will begin designing the technologies to be used in the cleanup in 1991.
Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin in late 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order in 1989 for partial cleanup of the
site. The order calls for Allied-Chemical, Inc. and the AMCAST Industrial Corporation to design
and conduct cleanup of the Goldcamp Disposal Area on the site.
Environmental Progress
The dismantling of the coke plant and continuous site security, along with the earlier actions taken to
close the disposal area, have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at
the Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke site while further cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 26 ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE
-------
ALSCO ANACiW
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD057243610
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Tuscarewas County
Gnadenhutten
The 4 3/4-acre Alsco Anaconda site is owned by the ARCO Chemical Company, a division of
Atlantic Richfield. From 1965 to 1978, the site was used for the disposal of wastewater and
wastewater treatment sludge that were generated by the production of aluminum products. The
sludge was disposed of in an unlined lagoon. From 1971 to 1978, the company disposed of the
equivalent of approximately 18,000 drums of waste. The lagoon contains chromium and cyanide
contaminants. A wooded low-lying area near the river, also referred to as a swamp, received the
overflow from the lagoon. The remaining wastewater was discharged into the Tuscarawas River.
Since 1978, sludge has been disposed of at an off-site facility. However, over 4,800 tons of sludge
remain on the property and is spread across most of the site. Approximately 3,100 people live
within 3 miles of the site. These individuals depend on city and private drinking water wells drawn
from groundwater aquifers, as there are no alternative sources of drinking water. The site is located
in the 100-year flood plain of the Tuscarawas River, which is used for various recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with heavy metals including cyanide and
chromium. The soil also is contaminated with poiychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Possible health threats include accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with
contaminated groundwater or soil. If a flood of the Tuscarawas River were to occur,
substantial amounts of contaminants could be washed into the river.
27
Apnl1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the sludge and
soil and cleanup of the groundwater and surface water.
Response Action Status
Sludge and Soil: In 1989, based on the results of the site investigation, the EPA
selected the following methods for cleanup of contaminated sludge and soil: (1) highly
contaminated swamp sludge, known as hot swamp waste, will be excavated, drummed,
and hauled to a facility for incineration; (2) the remaining wastes from the swamp, the lagoon, and
the sludge pit will be excavated and hauled to a licensed landfill or treatment facility, where they
will be treated prior to disposal; and (3) the excavated settling basin and sludge pit will be filled with
clean fill. A design study to implement the cleanup began in 1990, and actual site cleanup is
scheduled to begin in late 1991.
Groundwater and Surface Water: The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination have begun a supplemental study to determine the nature and extent of
groundwater and surface water contamination, which is scheduled for completion in late
1991.
Site Facts: A 1987 agreement between the EPA, the Ohio EPA, and ARCO provides for an
investigation to be completed by the company, under EPA monitoring. In 1989, the EPA issued
Unilateral Administrative Orders to both Harvard Industries, and ARCO to clean up the source
materials found on site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Alsco Anaconda site while further studies are taking place
and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 28 ALSCO ANACONDA
-------
ARCANUM IRQ
& METAL
OHIO
EPAID#OHD017506171
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Darke County
Arcanum
The 4 1/2-acre Arcanum Iron and Metal (AIM) site operated as a lead battery reprocessing facility
from the early 1960s until 1982. During this operation, battery casings were split to extract lead
cores for smelting. Battery acids generated from this operation were dumped in a large steel trough
and allowed to drain to a low area. Reprocessing of the plastic and black rubber battery casings
generated lead oxide sludge that collected on the ground and surface ponds on site. Past practices at
the facility included burial of some materials in on-site pits. The State of Ohio investigated a fish
kill in Sycamore Ditch and Painter Creek near the site in 1964. Testing of groundwater was not
performed until the 1970s. The City of Arcanum's water supply is furnished by wells within 1 mile
of the site, and private wells also are nearby.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date:
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater on the site contains lead. Lead, antimony, and arsenic have been detected
in the sediments and soil. Potential risks may exist for individuals ingesting or coming in
direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soils.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
29
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: To reduce public access to the contaminated site areas, the parties
potentially responsible for the contamination constructed a fence around the entire site in
1984.
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA determined the following actions would be necessary to
clean up the site: (1) excavation of on-site contaminated soils and battery casings with
off-site disposal in a federally approved landfill; (2) excavation and disposal of off-site
soils exceeding human health standards in a federally approved facility; (3) improvement of site
drainage; (4) demolition or cleaning of contaminated on-site facilities; (5) implementation of deed
restrictions for land and aquifer use; (6) continuance of semi-annual groundwater monitoring; and
(7) conducting treatability studies. The EPA intends to combine cleanup with the United Scrap Lead
site, another NPL site located approximately 30 miles away that is similarly contaminated.
Contaminated soils will be removed to the United Scrap Lead site for treatment and returned to the
AIM site. Revisions to the initial proposed cleanup actions include placing a soil cover over the
excavated areas and recovery of lead from contaminated soil. A study began in 1987 to address the
appropriateness of potential contaminant recovery and cleanup methods as part of the remedy
design. It is scheduled to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1979, the State entered into a Consent Decree with the owner to clean up the site,
but the results were unsatisfactory. The owner ceased operation in 1982, having never fully
complied with the provisions of the State Consent Decree.
Environmental Progress
Fencing of the entire site has reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the
Arcanum Iron & Metal site while further studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being
planned.
April 1991 30 ARCANUM IRON & METAL
-------
BIG D CAMP
OHIO
EPAID#OHD980611735
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
11/2 miles northeast of Kingsville Township
Site Description
The 7 1/2-acre Big D Campground site consists of a former sand and gravel quarry that was used
between 1964 and 1976 for the disposal of a variety of industrial wastes. The Olin Chemical
Corporation estimates that 25,000 to 30,000 cubic yards of industrial bulk wastes, drums, and soil
were disposed of at the site. Olin investigated possible contamination problems at the site in 1978.
As part of the investigation, Olin installed three groundwater monitoring wells on the north side of
Conneaut Creek and collected water samples from the wells. The results of these sampling efforts
indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater. In 1982, Olin
reported the findings of its investigation to the EPA. Subsequent groundwater sampling conducted
by the EPA in 1982 confirmed the presence of VOCs in the groundwater. Approximately 3,900
people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The distance from the site to the nearest residence is
approximately 500 feet.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals including barium,
chromium, lead, and nickel. Surface water and sediments in Conneaut Creek are
contaminated with low concentrations of VOCs and heavy metals. At present, area
residents are not exposed to site-related contaminants located in the on-site groundwater.
Most residents receive drinking water from the municipal water supply system, and
private wells located near the site are not contaminated. In addition, potential exposure to
contaminated soil is limited by the clay and vegetation covering the landfilled area.
However, the EPA is concerned about the potential for future exposure. Existing private
wells could become contaminated if the area of groundwater contamination believed to
have originated from the site migrates farther northward.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: When erosion of the landfill soil cover exposed buried drums in 1983,
Olin covered the surface of the landfill area with clay and took steps to control any further
erosion of soil from the base of the slope. In addition, Olin installed a rainwater collection
trench to remove rainfall runoff from the covered area and drilled 11 new groundwater monitoring
wells on the site to expand its groundwater monitoring program.
Entire Site: As a result of the investigation completed by the EPA in 1989, the remedy
selected to address site contamination includes the following activities: (1) excavating
drums and contaminated soils; (2) burning excavated materials in an incinerator; (3) filling
the excavated area with soil and planting vegetation; (4) constructing a fence around the excavated
area and incinerator; (5) installing two groundwater extraction trenches and 33 groundwater
extractions wells near the site to withdraw contaminated groundwater; (6) treating contaminated
groundwater by passing it through a carbon filter system to remove contaminants and discharge of
treated water to Conneaut Creek; (7) deed restrictions; and (8) monitoring groundwater and surface
water quality to assess the effectiveness of the cleanup. The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination began developing a work plan to design the final remedies in 1990. The EPA
installed additional monitoring wells to determine the extent of groundwater contamination
migration. Excavation and incineration of landfill contaminants will be the first cleanup activity.
Site Facts: After negotiating with the State, one of the potentially responsible parties has
completed a soil erosion control program.
Environmental Progress
The steps taken to control further erosion of contaminated soil from the Big D Campground site
have reduced the potential of exposure to contaminants while activities leading to the final site
cleanup are completed.
April 1991 32 BIG D CAMPGROUND
-------
BOWERS LA
OHIO [
EPAID#OHD980509616
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Pickaway County
25 miles south of Columbus
Other Names:
Island Road Landfill
Site Description
The 12-acre Bowers Landfill site operated as a pit for gravel excavation operations beginning in
1958, but its owners subsequently converted it to a landfill, which at first accepted only domestic
refuse. From 1958 to 1968, it accepted residential, grain elevator, and industrial wastes. Two local
manufacturers of chemicals responded to a Congressional inquiry about the site and noted that they
dumped approximately 7,500 tons of chemical waste at the landfill. Disposal practices frequently
consisted of depositing the waste directly onto the ground and covering it with soil. Waste also was
burned on site. Operations at the landfill ended in about 1968. In 1980, the EPA found that
contaminants in the landfill were polluting nearby private wells with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Approximately 60 people live within 1/2 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater on site contains heavy metals including barium and manganese, VOCs, and
phthalates. Sediments are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
petrochemicals, pesticides, VOCs, and lead. Contaminants in the soil include
petrochemicals, lead, and PCBs. Off-site soils contain heavy metals including arsenic, as
well as pesticides. Surface water is contaminated with VOCs, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals. There are several ways people could be
exposed to contaminants from the landfill: people could drink or come in direct with
contaminated groundwater, inhale contaminated soil or sediment particles, or eat small
animals, birds, fish or plants that are contaminated with chemicals from the site. The area
between the landfill and the Scioto River generally floods twice a year, which further
contributes to the threat of contaminant releases.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA studied the nature and extent of contamination at the site from
1983 to 1989. The results of this study, along with a study by the parties potentially
responsible for the site contamination, were used to prepare an analysis of the alternatives
for addressing the threat the landfill poses to people and the environment. In 1989, the EPA
recommended the following actions at the site to address the contamination problem: (1) removing
and disposing of all surface debris in an approved landfill; (2) improving erosion control and
drainage; (3) installing a natural clay cover over the landfill; (4) installing a topsoil layer over the
clay cover; (5) protecting the cap from flood damage; (6) installing a limited number of new
groundwater monitoring wells; (7) taking samples of the groundwater and analyzing them to
determine any increases in the level of contaminants; and (8) installing a fence to prevent site entry.
The EPA started to design these cleanup activities in 1989 and is scheduled to complete the
specifications in 1991. Cleanup work is expected to begin in 1991, also.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Bowers Landfill site while cleanup activities are being
designed.
April 1991 34 BOWERS LANDFILL
-------
BUCKEYE
RECLAMATION!
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980509657
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Belmont County
St. Clairsville
Other Names:
Buckeye Landfill
Belmont County Landfill
Site Description
The 50-acre Buckeye Reclamation site, a former disposal site for coal mine spoils, was licensed in
1971 by the Ohio Department of Health as a sanitary landfill. Between 1976 and 1979, the landfill
also accepted industrial wastes, including sludges and liquids, without State approval. Industrial and
asbestos wastes were dumped into a pond known as the Waste Pit. The slopes of the filled area are
steep, and the mining wastes used for cover are eroding. Substantial amounts of leachate from the
site have entered a stream adjacent to a private home. The site has polluted Little McMahon Creek,
which may be used for drinking water and recreational purposes. The closest residence is 1/4 mile
from the site. The population within a 2-mile radius of the site is approximately 100. There are
private wells immediately downgradient from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals. Nearby King's Run and Little McMahon Creek have been polluted by acid mine
drainage from the mine wastes and contaminants from waste disposal practices at the site.
High levels of VOCs and heavy metals have been detected in the Waste Pit. Potential
health risks may exist for individuals who accidentally ingest or come in direct contact
with contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, and leachate.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
35
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the contamination initiated an
investigation in 1985 to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and to
identify alternative remedies for the cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to be
completed in mid-1991. Remedies under consideration include capping the site and leachate
collection and treatment systems.
Site Facts: An agreement between the EPA, the State of Ohio, and six companies was reached in
1985, requiring the companies to investigate possible contamination at and around the landfill. The
companies will carry out the project under EPA monitoring.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Buckeye Reclamation site while studies are taking place
and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
36
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION
-------
CHEM-DYNE
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD074727793
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Butler County
Hamilton
Other Names:
Transenvironmental Services
Site Description
The 10-acre Chem-Dyne site operated as an industrial chemical waste transfer, disposal, and storage
facility. As early as 1974, chemical wastes may have been trucked to the site. In 1975, Spray-Dyne
made antifreeze from recycled chemical wastes. The operation was expanded in 1976, and the
Chem-Dyne Corporation was formed. Wastes that were unsuitable for recycling were stored in
drums and tanks on the site or shipped to other disposal sites. More than 30,000 drums of waste and
300,000 gallons of bulk waste materials were on site when operations shut down in 1980. In the 5
years of operation, a number of environmental incidents were reported at the site. From 1976 to
1979, at least five fish kills in the Great Miami River were attributable to the Chem-Dyne facility;
one fish kill stretched for 37 miles. Fires occurred at the site in 1976 and 1979. A residential area is
located approximately 1,000 feet from the site. A storm sewer drains the site into the Ford Canal,
which flows into the Great Miami River. The Ford Canal is used only for drainage and hydroelectric
power generation. The Great Miami River is used for recreation. Water supplies in the area rely on
groundwater as their source.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/21/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals.
Sediments in the Ford Canal contained low concentrations of organics. Soil was
contaminated with VOCs, pesticides, other organic compounds, and heavy metals
including mercury, arsenic, nickel, and beryllium. The on-site buildings were
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The site no longer poses a threat to
human health or the environment due to the ongoing operation of a groundwater pump
and treatment system, and the State of Ohio is preventing the use of the contaminated
aquifer for drinking water.
37
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: In 1980, the EPA stabilized, removed, and disposed of 17
potentially explosive drums at a federally approved treatment facility. Beginning in 1982,
the EPA removed another 9,000 drums and solidified and removed 200,000 gallons of
liquid and solid wastes in 33 storage tanks to a federally approved facility. Spilled materials were
cleaned up and wastewater was treated and disposed of. The storm drain in the loading dock area
was plugged to prevent the discharge of contaminated waste into Ford Canal. The site also was
fenced to prevent access.
Entire Site: In 1985, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by installing a
system to extract the groundwater and treating it by air stripping. The contaminants are
further treated with activated carbon before the air is released into the atmosphere. In
addition, the buildings on the site were demolished, selected areas of soil were removed, and a
synthetic cap with a clay layer was placed over the site. The parties potentially responsible for site
contamination completed all of these cleanup activities in 1987. The pump and treatment system has
been in operation since 1988 and must operate until at least 1998 to meet established cleanup
standards.
Site Facts: In 1979, the State of Ohio required all materials to be removed from the Chem-Dyne
site by 1980. In 1985, the EPA and 178 parties potentially responsible for site contamination agreed
to conduct cleanup activities under a Consent Decree.
Environmental Progress
The treatment of contaminated groundwater, removal of contaminated soil, and placement of a cap
over the site have eliminated the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Chem-Dyne
site. The operation of the groundwater pump and treatment system continues to provide protection
to nearby residents and the environment.
April 1991 38 CHEM-DYNE
-------
COSHOCTO
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980509830
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Coshocton County
Coshocton
The 80-acre Coshocton Landfill site was used in the early 1900s, and again from the mid-1950s until
1979, for the mining of coal. The subsurface mines were abandoned but contained extensive
networks of mine shafts. The City built a landfill on top of the abandoned strip mines where it
disposed of municipal and industrial wastes from 1968 to 1979. The City also put some wastes in a
shallow excavation at the southern end of the site. In 1977, an area of the landfill caught fire. The
fire burned for three days and was allowed to burn itself out. The EPA has reported several leachate
seeps at the landfill. Approximately 13,400 people live in the City of Coshocton. Several farms are
located near the landfill. There are at least 34 private wells for domestic use within 4,000 feet of the
landfill; however, these wells do not draw their water from areas that would be affected by the
landfill.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Groundwater has been contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy
metals. Sediments on site contain VOCs and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Soils on site
contain VOCs and phenols. Acetone and heavy metals are found in the surface water.
On-site workers and trespassers can be exposed to hazardous substances if they come in
direct contact with contaminated soils and groundwater, inhale contaminated soil
particles, or drink contaminated groundwater.
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.
39
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA analyzed 14 drums on site and determined that they did
not contain hazardous substances. In 1985, the City of Coshocton completed the cleanup
of the drums and disposed of them in an off-site facility.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected a strategy to address contamination at the site.
The selected cleanup activities include: (1) covering the landfill with a clay cap that
prevents liquids from passing through; (2) installing a soil cap over the landfill with
topsoil and vegetation; (3) imposing deed restrictions on future use of the property; (4) installing
fencing around the landfill; (5) filling and grading the necessary areas; and (6) installing a gas
collection and venting system and a leachate collection system. The technical design for the cleanup
is scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the City of Coshocton,
requiring it to undertake some interim cleanup measures, primarily to protect surface water and to
address the leachate being generated.
Environmental Progress
The cleanup and disposal of drums have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the Coshocton Landfill site while cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
40
COSHOCTON LANDFILL
-------
E. H. SCHILLI
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980509947
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Lawrence County
1 1/2 miles northwest of Hanging Rock
Site Description
The 3-acre E. H. Schilling Landfill site operated as an industrial waste landfill from 1969 until 1980.
The landfill was licensed to accept only non-hazardous wastes, but was closed in 1980 as a result of
permit violations. A variety of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes were disposed of on site.
Landfill waste is contained behind an earthen dam and beneath a cover or cap. While the dam is
structurally stable, it does not comply with existing standards. The landfill cap also fails to comply
with State and Federal regulations. Leachate was discovered seeping from the face of the dam.
Warning signs are posted at the site, and there is a barrier preventing vehicles from entering the
premises. Approximately 1,500 people live within 3 miles of the site. The closest residence is
located within 1/4 mile of the site. Domestic water is taken from municipal and private wells.
Wayne National Forest borders the site to the north. An unnamed stream carries runoff from the site
into Winkler Run and the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Nickel has been detected in air sampled near the landfill at levels exceeding Federal
standards. Arsenic and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been found in
groundwater. Leachate, soil, and stream sediments are contaminated with VOCs,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals. People who accidentally
ingest contaminated groundwater, soil, or sediments may potentially suffer adverse health
effects.
41
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected the following cleanup technologies to
address site contamination: (1) capping the entire site; (2) removing and treating
7,000,000 gallons of liquid waste and leachate from the landfill; (3) constructing a
cut-off wall around the landfill to prevent groundwater from infiltrating into waste; (4)
improving the earthen dam by adding a berm; (5) consolidating 750 cubic yards of soil and 500
cubic yards of sediment under the cap; (6) adding perimeter drainage features; (7) fencing the
entire site; (8) monitoring groundwater, (9) operating and maintaining the site; and (10)
imposing deed restrictions. The potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring, have
begun designing the technologies for the selected remedy. The design phase is expected to be
completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the E. H. Schilling Landfill site while cleanup
activities are being designed.
April 1991 42 E. H. SCHILLING LANDFILL
-------
FEED MATERIALS
PRODUCTIO
CENTER (US
OHIO
EPA ID# OH6890008976
Site Description
C\-
J~~L EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Hamilton and Butler Counties
19 miles northwest of Cincinnati
Other Names:
National Lead Co. of Ohio (SIA)
Wdftinghouse Materials Company of Ohio
Fernald
The 1,450-acre Feed Materials Production Center site is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and has manufactured metallic uranium for DOE nuclear weapon reactors since the early
1950s. The manufacturing processes have generated large quantities of wastes, including low-level
radioactive wastes, mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes, oils, solvents, and fly ash. Operations
and disposal practices have resulted in contamination in the production area, six waste pits, three
waste storage silos, a storm sewer ditch leading to Paddy's Run, and an effluent line discharging into
the Great Miami River. Additional waste storage and disposal areas included other silos, a burn pit,
a clear well, two fly ash disposal areas, a sanitary landfill, and two lime sludge ponds. Uranium has
contaminated the Buried Valley Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for the production center
workers and most area residents. Approximately 1,100 production center workers obtain drinking
water from wells, and 750 acres of land are irrigated by wells within 3 miles of the site. A residential
area is located about 4,000 feet east of the production area. The Great Miami River is used for
various recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/24/89
Threats and Contaminants
Radon gas has been detected in the air. Fish and plants contain radionuclides and heavy
metals. Groundwater is contaminated with uranium, radium, and various volatile organic-
compounds (VOCs). Uranium has been detected in the sole source aquifer. Metallic
scrap contained in several scrap piles is contaminated with uranium and other
radionuclides. Creek and ditch sediments are contaminated with uranium and other
radionuclides, while soil is contaminated with radionuclides, organics, inorganics, and
asbestos. High concentrations of uranium, technetium, and hexavalent chromium have
been detected in the effluent line discharging to the Great Miami River. Three uranium-
contaminated private wells have been closed and are no longer used for drinking water.
Potential health threats to people include accidentally ingesting, coming in direct contact
with, or inhaling contaminated soil, groundwater, air, and surface water. Eating
contaminated plants and fish is also a potential threat.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
Cleanup activities at this site are being addressed in six stages: immediate actions and five long-
term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the waste pits and soils, the groundwater, the
production area, the K-65 silos, and the provision of an alternate water supply and water treatment.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, waste in the pits was moved below the water line to
reduce radionuclide emissions. A ben tonite clay layer was placed inside the silos to cover
wastes. Construction activities soon will begin to control the stormwater runoff.
Immediate actions are planned for an alternate water supply and for water treatment.
Waste Pits and Soils: The DOE is investigating the nature and the extent of the
contamination in the waste pits and soils. The pits contain 500,000 cubic yards of wastes,
and approximately 500,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil are on site. Once the
investigation is completed, specific cleanup strategies will be recommended.
Groundwater: The DOE is investigating the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination at the site. The study indicates the groundwater is more contaminated than
originally thought. Once the investigation is completed, cleanup remedies will be planned.
Production Area: The DOE is assessing the nature and extent of contamination in the
production area. A remedy will be selected based on the results of the investigation.
K-65 Silos: The DOE is studying the extent of the contamination at the silos. The results
of the investigation will lead to the selection of appropriate cleanup remedies.
Alternate Water Supply and Water Treatment: The DOE is continuing to
characterize the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation is
exploring options for an alternate water supply, collection of the contaminant plume, and
water treatment.
Site Facts: A Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement was signed in 1986 between the EPA and
the DOE. Pursuant to the Agreement, the DOE is required to conduct a study of the nature and
extent of site contamination and to recommend alternatives for final cleanup. A Consent Decree was
signed in 1988. A new Consent Agreement was finalized in mid-1990.
Environmental Progress
Reducing radionuclide emissions by moving pit waste to below the water level and placing a clay
layer over wastes in the silos have lessened the risk to human health and the environment at the Feed
Materials Production Center. Additional immediate actions are planned to further reduce sources of
contamination while site investigations continue.
April 1991 44 FEED MATERIALS PRODUCTION CENTER (USDOE)
-------
FIELDS BROOK
OHIO
EPA ID#OHD980614572
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
Ashtabula
Site Description
The Fields Brook site is a 3 1/2-mile channel in a tributary of the Ashtabula River and collects water
from a 5 1/2-square-mile area. A portion of Fields Brook flows through an industrial area
containing a high concentration of diverse chemical plants and serves as the principal receiving
stream for many industrial discharges. The site includes a brook and its tributaries and areas
bordering the site. From the industrial area, the brook flows through a residential area to the
Ashtabula River. Industrial sources adjacent to Fields Brook have contaminated the sediments with
a variety of toxic chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. The
Ashtabula River empties into Lake Erie, 1 1/2 miles downstream of the site. Lake Erie serves as the
potable water source for the City of Ashtabula. Contaminated sediments threaten drinking water
intakes in Lake Erie.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Sediments taken from the Ashtabula River are contaminated with PCBs, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, and
phthalates. VOCs and heavy metals including mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium have
been detected in surface water from Fields Brook and the Detrex tributary. Contaminants
detected in fish include VOCs and PCBs. The site poses a potential health risk to people
who may drink or come in direct contact with contaminated water from Fields Brook and
the Ashtabula River. Ingesting contaminated fish or sediments also may cause adverse
health effects.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of sediments,
controlling the source of contamination and investigation of the Ashtabula River.
45
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Sediments: The selected cleanup technologies to address contaminated sediments
include: (1) excavating contaminated sediments from Fields Brook, subsequent
temporary storing and dewatering of the sediments, and using thermal treatment on a
portion of the sediments with the on-site landfilling of the remainder of the sediments; (2) treating of
wastewater from the dewatering process; and (3) long-term monitoring. Approximately 36,000
cubic yards of contaminated sediments will be solidified and 16,000 cubic yards will be thermally
treated. Under EPA monitoring, six of the parties potentially responsible for site contamination are
presently designing the technical specifications for the sediment cleanup. Final sediment cleanup
activities are expected to be completed in 1995.
Source Control: Under EPA monitoring, six of the potentially responsible panics
currently are conducting a study to identify sources of ongoing sediment and surface
water contamination. The study is planned to be completed in 1992.
Ashtabula River: Five potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring, are
conducting an investigation into possible contamination of the Ashtabula River. The
investigation will identify any potential sources of contamination to the river and harbor
and will study the impacts of contamination on the water supply of the City of Ashtabula. Portions
of the river may be added to the site if cleanup actions are required.
Site Facts: In 1989, six of the potentially responsible parties agreed to comply with an order from
the EPA requiring them to design the cleanup technologies to address contaminated sediments at the
site and to study the ongoing sources of site contamination. A separate order covers the river
investigation. The EPA and the State issued a health advisory recommending that people not eat fish
caught in a portion of the Ashtabula River because of possible contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Fields Brook site while further studies are taking place
and cleanup activities are being planned. Investigations currently underway are determining if the
Ashtabula River will require cleanup.
April 1991 46 FIELDS BROOK
-------
FULTZ LAND
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980794630
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Guernsey County
1/2 mile northeast of Byesville
Site Description
From the mid-1950s to 1985, residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste was disposed of at
the 30-acre Fultz Landfill site. The site lies in an area that was strip mined for coal in the late 1940s.
Extensive subsurface coal mines also are located near the site. The landfill was licensed by
Guernsey County in 1969 to accept solid waste products. On a number of occasions during the
1970s, County and State officials cited the owner of the landfill for violations of the operating
license, which included inadequate control of leachate runoff and unauthorized disposal of drums
that contained potentially hazardous liquid waste. In 1978, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency found approximately 1,000 drums of hazardous waste on the property. Because the landfill
was not authorized to accept hazardous waste, the State contacted the businesses generating the
drums, requesting that they stop sending drums to the landfill. A former employee of the landfill
confirmed that drums were emptied onto the ground so the empty drums could be sold to a recycler.
The State investigated the site again in 1979 and 1980 and found that leachate seeping from the site
contained phenols and heavy metals. Six ponds lie on the northern and eastern sides of the landfill.
In addition, two streams, Streams A and B, are located nearby. Both streams discharge to Wills
Creek. Residents of Cambridge, 3 miles north of the landfill, use Wills Creek as a source of
drinking water. Five private water wells and one municipal water well are located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains heavy metals such as arsenic, barium, chromium, and lead; volatile
organic compounds (VOCs); and phthalates. Sediments in two on-site ponds and leachate
are contaminated with heavy metals, as well as low levels of organic compounds. Wills
Creek also contains low levels of organic compounds. An aquifer under the site is
contaminated with heavy metals. It is currently not known whether the contamination of
this aquifer is site-related, or if it is the result of the extensive coal mining in the area. If
pollutants seep into the water supply, people who come in direct contact with or drink the
water may be at risk. Leachate seeps from the landfill into nearby ponds and creeks.
Wildlife in or around these bodies of water may be harmed by the pollutants.
47
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1984, the EPA began an investigation to study the type and extent of the
contamination at the site. Additional data is being gathered to determine the source of the
contamination, the extent of groundwater contamination, whether drinking water sources
are threatened, and the risk to the public health and environment. As a result of the study, a final
report is scheduled to be prepared in 1991, which will include recommended measures for site
cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Fultz Landfill site while studies are taking place and
cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
48
FULTZ LANDFILL
-------
INDUSTRIAL
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPAID#OHD000377911
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 16
Stark County
10 miles from Akron
Before 1966, the 30-acre Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) site was used for mining sand and gravel.
Gradually, the mining and excavation pit was converted into a landfill, which operated at the site
from 1966 to 1980. During this time, IEL accepted wastes primarily from the nearby rubber
industries. An estimated 780,000 tons of solid waste and 1,000,000 gallons of liquid waste were
dumped onto the ground at the landfill. The Stark County Board of Health ordered IEL to stop
dumping chemical wastes in 1972. The landfill was closed in 1980. After the landfill stopped
operations, it was covered with soil, and fertilizer was applied to the surface to help vegetative
growth. Before the EPA became involved with the site in 1984, several State and local government
agencies were involved with licensing issues, inspections, and other response activities at the
landfill. The Ohio EPA began an investigation to determine whether area drinking water was
contaminated and if the site posed a health risk to nearby residents. The population within a 1-mile
radius of the site was approximately 2,500 in 1989. Over 400 residences located within a 1/2-mile
radius of the landfill rely entirely on individual or private wells for their drinking water supply.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16782
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including barium and chromium, and
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). On-site leachate is contaminated with heavy
metals, VOCs, and phthalates. On-site soil gases located near the northern and southern
boundaries of the site contain VOCs. On-site sediments are contaminated with heavy
metals, cyanide, VOCs, phthalates, and pesticides. On-site surface soils have been shown
to contain VOCs, heavy metals, and plastics. Off-site surface water is contaminated with
heavy metals and phthalates. A potential exists for adverse effects to the aquatic life in
the streams that receive runoff from the site. People who come into direct contact with or
accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or soil may suffer adverse health effects.
49
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the provision of an alternate water supply.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Between 1985 and 1988, the EPA installed an active methane-venting
system to control the migration of this chemical off site. Methane gas has stopped moving
off site since the venting system was completed in 1988. During the installation of this
system, 53 drums of suspected industrial waste were uncovered. These drums subsequently were
removed from the site and disposed of in an EPA-approved facility. After testing completed by the
EPA in 1987 showed that ten private residential wells were contaminated with VOCs, the EPA
installed air strippers to remove vinyl chloride and other VOCs from the water. Four additional
landfill gas monitoring wells were installed in 1989.
Entire Site: The methods selected by the EPA in 1989 to clean up the site include: (1)
covering the entire site with multiple layers of clay and other soils; (2) expanding the
methane gas venting system that is already in place; (3) extracting and treating
contaminated groundwater; (4) pumping groundwater to maintain the water table at a level that is
below that of the wastes in the landfill; (5) fencing the site; (6) placing deed restrictions on future
use of the site; and (7) continued monitoring of the site. Design of the remedy began in 1989. The
EPA has demolished and removed on-site structures for preparation of the clay cap. Residential
wells have been properly abandoned. Final grading and seeding of the properties is expected to be
completed in mid-1991. Cleanup activities are expected to be completed in 1994.
Alternate Water Supply: Alternate water has been supplied to an area comprising of
approximately 100 homes located west of the site. Final grading and seeding is underway
and is scheduled to be completed in mid-1991.
Environmental Progress
The actions taken to control methane gas migration, the removal of drums containing industrial
waste, the installation of air strippers, and the installation of an alternate water supply have greatly
reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous substances in the drinking water and will continue to
protect residents near the Industrial Excess Landfill site until the completion of the other cleanup
activities.
April 1991 50 INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL
-------
LASKIN/POPLA
OIL CO.
OHIO
EPAID#OHD061722211
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
Jefferson
Other Names:
Laskins Waste Oil Co.
Alaskain Greenhouse Waste Oil
Poplar Oil Co.
The 9-acre Laskin/Poplar Oil Co. site is a greenhouse and waste oil recovery operation that
opened during the late 1890s. By the 1950s, the operation had installed oil-fired boilers to heat
the greenhouses. In the 1960s, storage tanks and pits were installed to store waste oil.
Environmental problems at the site are related to the subsequent storage, handling, and
combustion of waste oil. The EPA and the Ohio EPA discovered contamination at the site in
1977, and much of the on-site oil was removed during the next 5 years. The site contains two
drained ponds formerly used to separate oil, a boiler house, four oil storage pits, one
underground oil storage tank, 32 aboveground oil storage tanks, a retention pond, a freshwater
pond, a greenhouse complex, and other miscellaneous buildings and sheds. Three small
treatment ponds lie near the bottom of the Cemetery Creek ravine, north of the retention pond.
Liquids stored in the tanks and ponds have the potential to overflow, leak, or collapse because of
poor construction and maintenance. Any contaminants released would enter Cemetery Creek.
The creek is a tributary of Mill Creek, which flows into the Grand River. Drinking water is
drawn from the Grand River in Harpersfield Township, approximately 11 1/2 miles downstream
of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and acetone. Sediments in the on-site retention pond are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
lead. PCBs, PAHs, and heavy metals including aluminum, iron, cobalt, thallium, silver,
cadmium, and lead are contaminating the soil, while soil in the boiler house is
contaminated with dioxin. The surface water in the on-site retention pond is
contaminated with low levels of acetone in addition to arsenic, mercury, and other heavy
metals. A potential health threat exists if accidental ingestion of contaminated soils and
surface water were to occur. There is also a possibility that contaminants may enter the
food chain and contaminate meats and vegetables that are raised locally.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of ponds, structures, and soils, as well as other areas of surface
contamination.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1980, the EPA stabilized the site by treating the water from the pond
through a sand filter and activated carbon system. The treated water was discharged to
Cemetery Creek. When oil-contaminated water from a pond overflowed into the creek, the
oil was recovered with sorbent booms. The pond and tanks were covered. From 1982 to 1986,
various actions were performed at the site including: (1) removal of 300,000 gallons of
contaminated oil; (2) on-site treatment of 400,000 gallons of contaminated wastewater; (3) on-site
containment of 205,000 gallons of contaminated sludge; (4) removal of an additional 250,000
gallons of wastewater and oil; (5) removal of contaminants from one pond; and (6) removal of
approximately 100 drums containing hazardous wastes. The potentially responsible parties removed
450,000 gallons of oil and wastewater from the pits and tanks in 1985 and 1986. Later in 1986, they
sampled the residues left in the pits and tanks and conducted additional soil borings. In 1987, the
EPA repaired the existing fence around the site and the leaks found in the covers of the underground
tanks.
Ponds, Structures, and Soils: The EPA chose the following methods for cleanup: (1)
drain the retention and freshwater ponds, discharge the surface water from the ponds to
Cemetery Creek, with treatment if required; (2) backfill freshwater ponds with clean fill
and grade the retention pond area; (3) thermally treat contaminated soil, ash, and debris from the
boiler house area and dispose of the ash in a federally approved landfill; (4) demolish and thermally
treat or decontaminate dioxin-contaminated structures, or if this material cannot be decontaminated
or thermally treated, it will be contained in an on-site concrete vault and placed beneath the cap for
temporary storage until proper effective disposal can be secured for the material; (5) construct a
groundwater diversion trench uphill from the contaminated soil and groundwater; (6) construct a
multi-layer cap over soils; (7) dewater the site by natural groundwater flow to Cemetery Creek; (8)
monitor groundwater and surface water to assess the quality of groundwater migrating to Cemetery
Creek; and (9) impose access and use restrictions. Design of these cleanup activities began in 1990
and is expected to be completed in 1992. Cleanup of the freshwater ponds has been completed.
Surface Contamination: Based on the results of the site investigation, the EPA has
selected several remedies to address surface contamination. The cleanup strategy for this
portion of the site includes: constructing a fence around contaminated portions of the site
and the incinerator; incinerating oils, sludges, and contaminated soils, with the safe disposal of all
incinerator ash; dismantling and disposing of all tanks and cinder blocks in the pits; and regrading
the site to prevent ponding in the excavated areas. The potentially responsible parties, under EPA
monitoring, have completed most of the design work for sludge and oil incineration and the removal
of tanks and contaminated soils. The design phase is expected to be completed in 1991. Cleanup
work is scheduled to begin in 1991 and is expected to be completed in 1992.
April 1991 52 LASKIN/POPLAR OIL CO.
-------
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated oil, wastewater, and drums, along with the treatment of
contaminated wastewater and contaminated sludge, have greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances at the Laskin/Poplar Oil site. Cleanup of the freshwater ponds
has eliminated further contamination of Cemetery Creek while cleanup activities are being
designed and planned at the site.
LASKIN/POPLAR OIL CO.
53
April 1991
-------
MIAMI COUNTY
INCINERATO
OHIO
EPA ID#OHD980611800
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Miami County
2 miles north of Troy
Site Description
The 65-acre Miami County Incinerator (MCI) site contains five areas of concern: the South
Landfill, the North Landfill, the Liquid Disposal Area, Contaminated Groundwater, and the Ash
Disposal Pit and Ash Pile. Other important features of the site include an area of visibly stained soil
near the incinerator building, a former scrubber wastewater lagoon, and sediment in the Eldean
Tributary. The incinerator and landfill were opened in 1968 to process and dispose of municipal and
industrial wastes. Combustible wastes were to be incinerated and non-combustible wastes were to
be landfilled. However, large volumes of combustible wastes were landfilled along with non-
combustible wastes. The facility generated scrubber wastewater and ash quench water, which were
disposed of in the wastewater lagoon. Incinerator fly ash and bottom ash, non-combustible
materials, and unburned refuse were disposed of in a landfill north of the tributary, and liquid
wastes, including waste oils and solvents, were dumped or buried on site. MCI was ordered by the
Ohio EPA to cease the disposal of liquid waste by 1974. The site stopped accepting liquid wastes in
1975, and all landfill operations ended in 1978. The incinerator building now serves as a solid waste
transfer station. The Eldean Tributary of the Great Miami River runs across the northwestern corner
of the site. The eastern section of the site is located in a 100-year flood plain. Municipal wells
serving 19,000 people are located within 3 miles of the site. The nearest private wells are 1,000 feet
downgradient from contaminated wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic, barium, and
cadmium were detected in groundwater near the Liquid Disposal Area. Sediments along
the unnamed creek are contaminated with pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, dioxins, pesticides,
and heavy metals including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and chromium were detected in soil
below the surface of the Liquid Disposal Area. Potential health risks exist for those who
ingest contaminated water or the contaminated soil. Cleanup workers and children
playing on the site may be most at risk. However, the site does have ground cover,
lessening the opportunity for direct contact with the soil.
55
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: Three residences, the Miami County Highway garage, and the
incinerator facility were provided with alternate water supplies in 1986. Other affected
residences were provided with alternate water supplies in 1989.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected the following remedies for each area of concern.
For the South Landfill and the North Landfill, the EPA will construct a single-barrier clay
cap to prevent direct contact with the contaminants and decrease infiltration of rainwater in
order to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination. The Ash Pile will be cleaned up by
removing contaminated soil, treating it if necessary, and placing the material into the North or South
Landfill before construction of the cap. The Ash Disposal Pit will be capped. Soil vapor extraction,
groundwater pumping and treatment, and capping will be used to treat the Liquid Disposal Area and
Contaminated Groundwater Area. Soil vapor extraction will reduce the risk of future VOC releases
and reduce the volume of contamination in the soil. Groundwater pumping and treatment will
reduce the volume of contamination in groundwater within and downgradient of the Liquid Disposal
Area. All of the remedies include construction of a fence to reduce the potential for site access and
land use restrictions to prevent future exposure to contaminants. The parties potentially responsible
for the contamination have started to design part of the cleanup approach and are expected to
complete the design for all cleanup technologies by 1992.
Environmental Progress
By supplying an alternate water supply, the potential of exposure to hazardous substances in the
drinking water has been eliminated, and residents near the Miami County Incinerator site will
continue to be protected until planned cleanup activities are completed.
April 1991 56 MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR
-------
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Montgomery County
Miamisburg
Other Names:
US DOE Mound Facility
MOUND PLANT
(US DOE)
OHIO
EPA ID# OH6890008984
Site Description
The 306-acre Mound Plant facility has operated since 1948 in support of weapons and energy
programs, with an emphasis on small explosive components and nuclear technology. First operated
by the Atomic Energy Commission, it now is operated by a contractor for the Department of Energy
(DOE). The site consists of two elevated areas divided by a small valley. The major waste areas are
on the southern slope and the valley of the northwestern elevated area. They include a landfill in
which solvents, paints, and chemical solutions were deposited; several leachate beds used to dispose
of solutions containing radionuclides and explosive materials; and an area in which a solution
contaminated with plutonium was spilled. The landfill operated from 1948 until the mid-1970s, and
in 1978, the existing wastes were excavated and placed in a lined landfill. The facility employs
2,200 people. Miamisburg municipal wells are within 3 miles of the site and serve approximately
17,000 people. There is no alternate water supply source. A system of ditches, canals, and ponds
carries surface waters from the facility to the Great Miami River approximately 1 mile downstream.
The river is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/17/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Leachate beds contain radionuclides and explosives. Off-site sediments are contaminated
with plutonium. Drinking contaminated groundwater or coming in contact with other site
contaminants are potential health threats.
57
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, a site investigation was begun by the DOE to determine the extent
of contamination and to recommend alternatives for cleaning up the site. The results of
this investigation are expected in early 1993. The site probably will be divided into
several cleanup phases as the studies progress.
Site Facts: The site is being addressed under the DOE Comprehensive Environmental Assessment
and Response Program. The investigation and cleanup are being conducted as part of a Federal
Facility Agreement between the DOE and the EPA, which became effective in October 1990.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the DOE Mound Plant site while studies are taking place and
cleanup activities are being planned.
April! 991 58 MOUND PLANT (US DOE)
-------
NEASE CHE
OHIO
EPAID#OHD980610018
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 17
Coiumbiana County
Salem
Other Names:
Ruetgers Nease Chemical Company/
Salem Plant
Site Description
The 44-acre Nease Chemical Company site was used for the manufacturing of pesticides, fire
retardants, cleaning compounds, and pharmaceutical products. The plant closed the production
facilities in 1973 and completed site closure activities in 1975. In 1982, a report indicated that
contaminants had migrated from the site and drums had been buried on the site. Following approval
from the EPA in 1983, the company removed the buried drums and associated contaminated soils
from the site and removed soils from a barren area. In addition, the company removed soil from an
abandoned pond and a freshwater ditch running parallel to the main railroad line. Between 1983 and
1984, additional monitoring wells and soil borings were drilled to further define the hydrogeology
and groundwater quality. Residences are located near the site. Feder Creek, located on the site,
drains into Middle Fork and Little Beaver Creek, where a 1987 EPA investigation verified sediment
and fish contamination. These creeks drain into the Ohio River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). A 1987 EPA study showed contamination of fish and sediments with mirex, a
pesticide and fire retardant. Dairy herds on two nearby farms were affected by exposure
to creek contamination. Access to the site now is restricted by fencing and bridges.
59
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Several initial cleanup actions have been completed to locate and
remove the main sources of contamination at the site. Earlier cleanup actions conducted by
the company included the removal of contaminated contents of the waste ponds and buried
drums located on the site, along with associated soils.
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination initiated an investigation in 1988 to determine the nature and extent of site
contamination and to identify alternative cleanup methods. A preliminary assessment
indicates that any remaining contaminated soil will require removal and contaminants will need to be
separated from groundwater. Additionally, a groundwater containment system needs to be
implemented. The final cleanup remedy for the site will be selected once the investigation is
completed in 1993.
Environmental Progress
Initial cleanup actions have removed the immediate sources of contamination and have reduced the
potential for nearby residents to be exposed to hazardous wastes left on the site at the Nease
Chemical Company while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April1991 60 NEASE CHEMICAL
-------
NEW LYME
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD9807946U
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
New Lyme
Other Names:
Ashtabula County Waste, Inc.
Site Description
Operations began at the 40-acre New Lyme Landfill site in 1969 and were initially managed by two
farmers. In 1971, the landfill was licensed by the State of Ohio, and operations were taken over by a
licensed landfill operator. The site received various wastes and construction and demolition debris.
However, numerous violations of the license occurred, including open dumping, improper spreading
and compacting of wastes, no State approval for disposal of certain industrial wastes, and excavation
of trenches into the shale bedrock. In 1978, the landfill was closed by the Ashtabula County Health
Department. Wastes at the site included asbestos, coal tar, resins, paint sludge, oils, corrosive
liquids, acetone, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), chlorinated solvents, and laboratory chemicals.
Leachate containing organics discharged from two sides of the fill area and threatens nearby surface
waters. There is also concern that groundwater might be contaminated by leachate from the landfill.
Ten families live within 1/4 mile of this site. Three households are presently using groundwater as
their drinking water source. Lebanon Creek and a wetland known as the New Lyme Wildlife Area
are located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and phenols. Sediments in Lebanon Creek,
the wetlands, and leachate seeps have been exposed to VOC, lead, and chromium
contamination by surface runoff during site operations and leachate seep discharge.
Surface soil samples from the central and eastern portion of the site contained VOCs.
One soil sample contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Potential health risks may
exist for individuals accidentally ingesting or touching the contaminated groundwater,
soil, sediments, or leachate. Lebanon Creek, other area surface waters, and area wetlands
may be threatened by the site contamination.
61
April1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1985, the EPA selected the following cleanup actions for the site: (1)
construction of a cap over the landfill; (2) installation of extraction and containment wells
around the perimeter of the landfill to dry up the landfill and to eliminate leachate
production; (3) on-site treatment of contaminated groundwater and leachate; (4) on-site
consolidation of contaminated sediments; (5) installation of gas vents; (6) fencing of the site; and
(7) installation of a groundwater monitoring system. The cleanup work was completed in 1990.
The wastewater treatment plant is currently in the checkout phase and is expected to be in operation
by late 1991.
Environmental Progress
The completed cleanup activities, including the construction of the cap, have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the New Lyme Landfill site while the water
treatment plant for the final phase of the site cleanup plan is tested and put into operation.
April 1991
62
NEW LYME LANDFILL
-------
OLD MILL
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980510200
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Ashtabula County
Rock Creek
Other Names:
Webb MR
Rock Creek/Jack Webb
Kraus Disposal She
The Old Mill site consists of two parcels of land, the 3-acre Henfield Property and the 10-acre Kraus
property. The Henfield Property included four dilapidated wood buildings and four concrete silos,
which were removed as part of the site cleanup. This property became contaminated when drummed
waste and potting soil additives were improperly stored. The Kraus Property partially is covered
with piles of railroad ballast and had one empty abandoned bulk liquid tank. Wastes from the
Henfield property were stored on the Kraus property with the owner's permission. In 1979, the EPA
and Ohio EPA found approximately 1,200 drums of toxic waste, including solvents, oils, resins, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), stored on both properties. The drums leaked, causing
contamination of soil and groundwater. Approximately 100 homes are within a 1/4-mile radius of
the site. An estimated 1,400 people are living within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
II
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are contaminating the groundwater underneath the
Henfield property and the Kraus Property. VOCs and heavy metals including lead were
found to be contaminating the soils near the silos on the Henfield Property and in the
drum storage area of the Kraus property. Potential health risks exist through accidental
ingestion or direct contact with the contaminated groundwater.
63
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: In 1981 and 1982, some of the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination voluntarily removed 580 drums of wastes. Later in 1982, all remaining
drums were removed, and contaminated soil was removed from the drum storage area.
Soil and well water samples were taken and analyzed. In 1984, a security fence was installed around
the site.
Entire Site: In 1985, the EPA selected the following cleanup alternatives: (1) removal
and off-site disposal of a select volume of contaminated soil; (2) extraction and treatment
of contaminated groundwater; (3) aquifer use restrictions; and (4) providing an alternate
water supply for one residence. By 1989, the EPA had removed the contaminated soils and installed
the groundwater collection and treatment system. Groundwater still is being pumped and treated.
The silos and buildings, drums, and tanks were removed, and debris was taken to an off-site disposal
facility.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil and debris, along with the installation of the groundwater pump
and treatment system, have resulted in the cleanup of the Old Mill site. The groundwater will
continue to be treated until contaminant levels meet the cleanup standards specified in the remedy.
April 1991
64
OLD MILL
-------
ORMET CORP
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD004379970
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Monroe County
Hannibal
The 200-acre Ormet Corporation site is an aluminum processing facility that began operating in
1958. Between 1958 and 1968, approximately 85,000 tons of spent potliner material were stored in
an unlined, open storage area. From 1968 until 1981, Ormet operated a caustic digestion process to
recover chemicals from the potliner material. Since 1981, spent potliner material has been
transported off site for disposal. From 1958 to 1981, as many as five unlined disposal ponds were
used to hold waste materials at the site. Untreated water from the facility, as well as contaminated
groundwater, empties into the Ohio River. The Ohio River is a major industrial waterway,
recreational area, and source of drinking water for many communities along its banks.
Approximately 1,500 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site. The Ohio River separates the
site from the closest residence, which is 1,500 feet away. The well that provides drinking water for
over 3,000 employees of Ormet and the nearby Consolidated Aluminum Corp. is 1,970 feet from the
site. There are no other public water supply wells within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with cyanides and fluorides. Sludges in an 8-acre lagoon
on site are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cyanide,
fluoride, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and petrochemicals. People can be
exposed to hazardous substances from the site by drinking or coming in direct contact
with contaminated groundwater. Contaminated groundwater could affect the drinking
water supply for workers at the Ormet Corporation plant and the nearby Consolidated
Aluminum Corp.
65
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA and the Ohio EPA began an investigation to identify the
types and amounts of contaminants on and near the site. The following activities were
completed during the first phase of the investigation: (1) samples of surface water,
groundwater, surface soils, and sediment were collected at and near the site and were tested; (2) air
quality at certain locations was analyzed; and (3) data from previous investigations of the site were
reviewed to assist in identifying contaminants present at the site. The second phase of the
investigation included the following activities: (1) groundwater sampling; (2) investigating
construction material scrap dump to define the types of contaminants within and originating from
this area; (3) investigating the carbon runoff and deposition area to define the boundaries of the area
and to determine the thickness of the carbon material; and (4) sampling the Ohio River sediment to
define the extent and type of contamination. The Ormet Corporation, under EPA and Ohio EPA
monitoring, will evaluate the best ways to address contamination problems found at the property.
The investigation will provide the basis for selecting a cleanup method for the property, scheduled
for fall 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and the Ohio EPA negotiated an Administrative Order on Consent
with the Ormet Corporation to conduct a study of the nature and extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Ormet Corporation site while studies are taking place and
cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 66 ORMET CORPORATION
-------
POWELL ROAD
LANDFILL
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD000382663
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Montgomery County
Dayton
Other Names:
SCA Services Inc.
Site Description
The 70-acre Powell Road Landfill site is located in a former sand and gravel staging area. The site
was first used to mine gravel before 1959, but was later used as a landfill for municipal and
demolition waste. Only household refuse, construction waste, and other similar waste materials
were licensed to be disposed of at the site, but the Ohio EPA and the Montgomery County Health
Department found that liquid and industrial wastes also were accepted by the site's original
operator. Residents in the area complained to the Ohio EPA about uncovered waste, exposed
leachate and litter at the site, and odors. This prompted the State to investigate the site. The landfill
was closed, capped, and sealed in 1985. Approximately 3,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of
the site. The Great Miami River flows along the southern boundary of the site. The entire site is
fenced, and a locking gate restricts access. Area drinking water is provided by public and private
groundwater wells. Surface water runoff drains south toward the Great Miami River.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Air sampled on the site contains various volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and phenols. The site currently poses little risk
to public health; however, people potentially could be exposed to hazardous substances
from the site by drinking or coming in direct contact with contaminated groundwater or
by inhaling gases or contaminated dust particles in the air. People in the area use the
Great Miami River Valley Aquifer as a source of drinking water. The contamination of
this resource would increase the chances of exposure to contaminants by residents in the
area who use it.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
67
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA and the Ohio EPA are supervising the study being conducted by
the potentially responsible party. The purpose of the study is to examine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative remedies for cleaning up the
site. The study is scheduled for completion in 1991. The following actions have been taken to date:
(1) private residential wells were sampled to determine if site contamination had entered the local
water supply; (2) samples of surface water, groundwater, and seeps at and near the landfill were
collected; (3) soil and sediment samples were taken from locations at and around the site; (4) a soil
gas survey was conducted; (5) landfill gas and gas-vent liquid were collected to determine what
chemicals may be present in air at the site; and (6) an air monitoring survey of the surrounding area
was performed to discover if gases leaving the landfill may cause a health problem for nearby
residents. During 1990, monitoring wells were installed and additional groundwater samples were
taken at the request of a citizen group.
Site Facts: SCA Services agreed to study contamination problems at the landfill. The EPA, the
Ohio EPA, and SCA Services signed a Consent Order in 1987.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Powell Road Landfill site while studies are taking place
and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 68 POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
-------
PRISTINE, INC.
OHIO
EPAID#OHD076773712
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Hamilton County
Reading
Site Description
Pristine, Inc. began operating a liquid waste disposal facility at the location of a former sulfuric acid
manufacturing plant on this 2-acre site in 1974. In 1977, the company obtained a permit allowing
the operation of a liquid waste incinerator. From 1974 to 1981, a variety of acids, organic solvents,
and waste products were received at the facility and subsequently were treated by incineration or
acid neutralization and disposed of at the site. In 1979, an inspection revealed the presence of 8,000
to 10,000 drums and 13 bulk storage tanks containing a wide variety of hazardous substances. In
1981, the facility closed as a result of State enforcement actions. The City of Reading has a
population of approximately 12,800. Eight municipal water supply wells serving the people of
Reading are located 300 feet northwest of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), phenols, and
heavy metals including manganese, fluoride, and iron. Compounds detected in the soil
and sediments include VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals,
and pesticides. Surface water contaminants include VOCs, PAHs, phenols, and heavy
metals. The presence of trace levels of VOCs in groundwater does not present an
immediate health risk to people. Other contaminants are present at levels low enough
not to constitute a health concern. Contaminated runoff from the site to Mill Creek
may pose a problem.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
69
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: From 1980 to 1983, Pristine, Inc., under the monitoring of the State,
removed much of the waste at the site. In 1984, some of the parties potentially responsible
for site contamination, under EPA monitoring, performed soil, sludge, sediment, and waste
removal activities to address immediate hazardous site conditions.
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA selected the following cleanup technologies to address
both the soil and groundwater contamination: (1) treatment of the top one foot of soil
across the site and all other soils from the present groundwater surface to four feet below
the ground surface by in-situ vitrification, whereby the soil is electrically melted to bind the waste in
a glassy solid material; (2) sediments and waste pit soils will be treated if necessary, and ash will be
placed under an on-site cap if necessary; (3) performance of an additional groundwater investigation
and extraction and treatment of the lower aquifer with wells, an air stripper, and carbon adsorption;
(4) decontamination and demolition of on-site structures and disposal of debris in a sanitary landfill;
(5) construction of a fence to restrict access; (6) implementation of deed restrictions to restrict land
use; and (7) monitoring of groundwater flow and quality. In 1990, the EPA selected a new remedy
to treat the contaminated soil by incineration and in-situ soil vapor extraction. The extraction
process removes VOCs from the soil by placing a cover over the contaminated area and applying a
vacuum to filter the contaminants from the soil particles. The design for the demolition of on-site
structures is expected to be completed in mid-1991 by the potentially responsible parties, under EPA
monitoring. All demolition activities are scheduled for completion in late 1991. The designs for the
incinerator, the soil vapor extraction system, and the groundwater treatment system are scheduled to
begin in summer 1991.
Site Facts: From 1980 to 1983, much of the on-site waste was removed in accordance with a
Consent Decree entered into between the State and Pristine, Inc.
Environmental Progress
The removal of waste, soil, sludge, and sediment has greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Pristine, Inc. site while cleanup remedies are being planned.
ApriM991 70 PRISTINE. INC.
-------
REILLY TAR
CHEMICAL
(DOVER PLA
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980610042
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 18
Tuscarawas County
Dover
Site Description
The 4-acre Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Dover Plant) site was operated from 1932 to 1956 as
a coal tar refinery. During that time, coal tar wastes accumulated on the ground from spillage and
other site activities. The site is situated on slag originally deposited by a local blast furnace. The
site is currently inactive, is fenced, and is located on the sand and gravel deposits of the Tuscarawas
River basin. The aquifer in the deposits is the sole source of drinking water for approximately
28,700 people served by the municipal water systems of Dover and New Philadelphia. An
additional 4,000 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with petrochemicals from coal tar wastes
Potential health threats include accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with
contaminated groundwater or soil. However, potential contact with hazardous substances
is limited, because the site is fenced and is located in an industrial area.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
71
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for site contamination,
under EPA monitoring, installed a fence around the site. In 1990, they also removed
surface coal tars from the site and took them to a hazardous waste landfill.
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the potentially responsible parties currently are
conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The
investigation will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the
final cleanup. The investigation is scheduled to be completed in 1993.
Environmental Progress
The installation of a fence and the removal of surface coal tars have greatly reduced the potential
for exposure to contaminated materials at the Reilly Tar & Chemical Company site while studies
are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
72
REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
(DOVER PLANT)
-------
REPUBLIC ST
QUARRY
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980903447
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 13
Lorain County
Elyria
Site Description
The Republic Steel Quarry site consists of a 4-acre quarry containing water that is surrounded by
7 acres of fenced property. Prior to 1950, the site operated as a sandstone quarry. The site then was
used for the disposal of spent pickle liquor. Pickle liquor is an acid used to dissolve oxides in the
mill scale that forms on steel during the hot rolling process. Sulfuric acid was used as the pickling
acid at this facility. From 1950 to 1972, approximately 200,000 gallons of waste pickle liquor were
discharged into the quarry each year. Waste pickle liquor reportedly was pumped through an
aboveground pipe to a ditch located on the eastern side of the plant. The ditch routed the liquid
north to the quarry. Beginning in 1969, the operators stopped discharging the pickle liquor into the
quarry, and it was hauled off site. From 1969 to 1975, the ditch continued to be used to direct
wastewater from the plant to the quarry. In 1976, the ditch was dammed. The site, although fenced,
is still accessible. Approximately 60,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. The City of Elyria
Water Company supplies treated water for all water users within 3 miles of the quarry, except for
360 homes. Of these 360 homes, 150 are served by the Rural Lorain County Water Authority. Both
of the water companies obtain their water supplies from Lake Erie. The remaining 210 homes obtain
water from private wells. Two residential wells are within 1 mile of the site. Both the on-site quarry
and the Black River are used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/12/86
Threats and Contaminants
IE
Groundwater and surface water were contaminated with heavy metals including barium,
manganese, and iron. Groundwater still contains beryllium. Quarry sediments were
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, and phthalates.
Heavy metals, phthalates, oil and grease, and pyrene were contaminating the soil. Health
risks included accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments.
73
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the following cleanup technologies to address
soil contamination: excavation of contaminated surface soil from the pickle liquor
discharge ditch and the southern end of the quarry; disposal of excavated soil; a five-
year monitoring plan including a fish species survey and fish tissue study to ensure the absence
of contaminants; and groundwater monitoring. Approximately 130 cubic yards of contaminated
soil were removed and disposed of in a regulated hazardous waste landfill. Groundwater was
resampled and fish tissue samples were collected to better assess risks at the site. The EPA and
the State are in the process of determining if the presence of beryllium in the groundwater at the
site warrants any further action. The site is planned for deletion from the NPL. The extent of the
contamination and the likelihood that the groundwater will be used as a potable water source will
be evaluated before deletion can proceed.
Environmental Progress
All planned cleanup activities have been completed, and contaminated soils at the site have been
safely removed. The EPA currently is in the process of evaluating the cleanup activities
performed at the Republic Steel Quarry to ensure that any future usage of the site does not pose a
risk to human health and the environment. The site is scheduled to be deleted from the NPL by
fall 1991.
April 1991 74 REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. QUARRY
-------
SANITARY LANDFILL
COMPANY (IN
WASTE DISPO
CO., INC.)
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD093895787
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Montgomery County
Dayton
Other Names:
Cardington Road Landfill
Site Description
The 50-acre Sanitary Landfill Company (Industrial Waste Disposal Co., Inc.) site was operated
as a landfill from 1965 to 1980. The landfill reportedly accepted municipal wastes and various
types of industrial wastes including solvents. In 1980, the landfill was closed according to State
regulations. No waste material is being exposed, due to a cap that was installed. Approximately
6,500 people live within 3 miles of the site. The closest residence is located less than 150 feet
from the site. Approximately 125,000 people draw drinking water from wells within 3 miles of
the site. Municipal wells within the vicinity of the site are not contaminated, and private wells
within the vicinity of the site are not used for potable purposes. The Great Miami River is
located near the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with solvents and heavy metals including chromium,
copper, cadmium, and lead. The soil contains solvents, asbestos, and the heavy metals
chromium, copper, cadmium, and lead. Potential health risks to people include
accidentally ingesting or coming in direct contact with contaminated soil. There also is
the possibility of a health risk associated with consuming contaminated animals and
agricultural products. Access to the site is restricted by a fence.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
75
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination currently are
conducting a study of the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The study will
define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup; it is
planned to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and a group of potentially responsible parties signed a Consent Order
requiring the parties to conduct an investigation of the nature and extent of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Sanitary Landfill Company site while studies are taking
place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
76
SANITARY LANDFILL COMPANY
(INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL CO., INC.)
-------
SKINNER LA
OHIO
EPAID#OHD063963714
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Butler County
West Chester
Site Description
The 78-acre Skinner Landfill site is located on a ridge above the east fork of Mill Creek in West
Chester. The landfill accepted hazardous and demolition wastes since the late 1950s. The actual
landfill area covers approximately 10 acres and includes a lagoon less than 1 acre in size, containing
hazardous waste and approximately 100 drums of solvents, pesticides, and heavy metals.
Approximately 40 feet of demolition material is on top of this lagoon. Demolition waste was
accepted until July 1990. The remaining 60 acres of the site contain scrap metal, the owner's
residence, and buildings used by the owner for his general contracting business. Approximately
3,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. On-site residences use groundwater upgradient from the
landfill area for drinking water. The majority of off-site residences are connected to a municipal
water supply.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Liquid sludge in the on-site lagoon is contaminated with heavy metals including cyanide,
cadmium, and chromium. Potential health threats include accidental ingestion of and
direct contact with contaminated liquid sludge.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
77
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of surface
water, groundwater, soil, and sediment contamination. The investigation has defined the
contaminants of concern and will recommend effective alternatives for the final cleanup.
The investigation is expected to be completed in the summer of 1991.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Skinner Landfill site determined that no immediate actions are needed
while the investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies continues. Results of
current site investigations indicate that the chances for off-site contaminant migration are limited.
April 1991
78
SKINNER LANDFILL
-------
SOUTH POIN
PLANT
OHIO
EPAID#OHD071650592
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Lawrence County
South Point
Other Names:
Allied Chemical Ethanol Plant
Ashland Oil South Point Facility
Site Description
The 75-acre South Point Plant site is an active ethanol producing facility. Ammonia, fertilizer, and
formaldehyde were produced on site from 1943 to 1979. The Federal government began operations
at the site in 1943 with the production of chemicals used in explosives. The Allied Chemical
Corporation operated the plant for the military until 1946, when the company purchased the
property. From 1946 until the plant closed in 1979, Allied Chemical produced chemicals used for
agricultural and other purposes. In 1982, South Point Ethanol built an ethanol production plant and
began operations on the site. Several unlined landfills, covering approximately 20 acres, and surface
impoundments were used for process waste disposal. The landfills were closed in 1979, and one is
eroding. Numerous activities have contributed to groundwater contamination. In the late 1950s, a
large volume of water used to extinguish a fire in the ammonium nitrate building caused two surface
water runoffs. In 1971, an on-site spill of 300,000 gallons of ammonium nitrate occurred. Access to
the site is unrestricted. Approximately 65,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. The site is
located on the eastern flood plain of the Ohio River. Surface water from the facility drains to the
Ohio River through Solida Creek or the surface water drainage system. The intake for the Ashland,
Kentucky municipal water supply is located on the Ohio River a mile downstream from the site. The
Village of South Point draws its water supply from two well fields, one of which is located between
the site and the Ohio River. The underlying aquifer that supplies potable water to the Village of
South Point is contaminated.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Dale: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including iron and manganese, as well as
chloride, nitrate, and sulfate. Surface water is contaminated with nitrate and manganese.
Potential health threats include drinking or coming in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and surface water and eating contaminated fish, animals, and plants.
79
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for site contamination currently are
conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of site contamination. The
investigation will define the contaminants and will recommend alternatives for the final
cleanup. The ongoing investigation is planned to be completed in 1991 and includes the following
activities: (1) a review of data from historical photographs, maps, and reports to define the extent of
the former disposal areas; (2) an expanded investigation of portions of the disposal areas, fly ash
ponds, and soils surrounding these areas; and (3) sampling for gases within the soils in and near the
disposal areas and fly ash ponds.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the South Point Plant site while investigations are taking
place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April! 991 80 SOUTH POINT PLANT
-------
SUMMIT NA
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980609994
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 11
Portage County
Deerfield
Site Description
The 115-acre Summit National site is located on a former coal strip mine containing a coal wash
pond and a coal stock pile. From 1974 to 1978, the site was used as a waste disposal facility and
received such wastes as oils, resins, paint and metal plating sludges, flammable solvents, and
chlorinated solvents. In addition, two surface water ponds and an incinerator were located on site.
The facility received liquid wastes, which were stored in drums, an open pit, or bulk tanks. Some
wastes were incinerated, others were buried, and some were dumped on the soil. In 1975, the Ohio
EPA investigated a complaint of unauthorized discharge from the site. In 1978, the facility was
ordered to stop receiving waste materials and to remove all liquid wastes from the site. In 1979,
surface water monitoring revealed violations of State water quality standards. Approximately 4,500
people live within 3 miles of the site. There are several agricultural fields located within a few
thousand feet of the site. Berlin Lake Reservoir is located about 1 mile southeast of the site. The
site is enclosed by a fence with locked gates.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
phenols, and phthalates. VOCs, phenols, and heavy metals including cadmium and
antimony are contaminating the soil. The surface water is contaminated with VOCs,
phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and heavy metals including arsenic and chromium. The contaminated groundwater, soil,
and surface water could pose a health problem if accidentally directly contacted or
swallowed. The Berlin Lake Reservoir is a standby water supply for the City of
Youngstown. The reservoir is threatened, because a contaminated waste lagoon
overflowed into the tributary of the reservoir.
81
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: In 1980, the EPA removed contaminated materials that threatened
the Berlin Reservoir. Also, drums, tanks, various surface debris, and a small amount of
contaminated surface soil were collected and shipped off site. All drums, bulk containers,
and the concrete block pit were emptied and removed. A slope was built on the site to control the
stormwater runoff. In 1987, the EPA contained a threatened release of hazardous materials by
treating liquid wastes in ponds that were threatening to overflow, recovering and disposing of an
underground storage tank, increasing the freeboard, strengthening the dikes around the pond, and
excavating the underground tank. Contaminated soils were stored on site and will be treated in the
final stages of cleanup operations.
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the contamination will assume the
responsibility of site cleanup. The selected cleanup remedies for this site include: (1)
excavation and on-site incineration of approximately 24,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and sediments and the contents of approximately 1,600 buried drums and 4 tanks, with disposal
of incinerator residuals in a federally approved landfill; (2) groundwater pumping and treatment
using a trench system and extraction well system; (3) surface water treatment on site; (4) discharge
of treated water to downslope surface water; (5) installation of a permeable cap over the site with
regrading and revegetation; (6) dismantling and on-site disposal of all on-site structures; (7) access
and deed restrictions to restrict land uses; and (8) groundwater and surface water monitoring and
residence relocation. The design of the cleanup activities is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1981, the State and the potentially responsible parties reached an agreement to
undertake a surface cleanup of the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials, control of runoff, treatment of liquid wastes, and the
strengthening of the dikes by the EPA have greatly reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous
materials at the Summit National Liquid Disposal Services site while cleanup activities are being
planned.
April 1991 82 SUMMIT NATIONAL
-------
TRW, INC.
(MINERVA PL
OHIO
EPAID#OHD004179339
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 16
Stark County
Minerva
Site Description
The 54-acre TRW, Inc. (Minerva Plant) site is a manufacturing facility that has been sold to PCC
Airfoils, Inc. However, the TRW Corporation still owns land near its former plant in order to
conduct waste management and treatment of the contamination associated with its past disposal
practices. The facility was used for metal casting, in which volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
were used as degreasers. The spent degreasing materials were discharged directly to the Wax Ditch,
which flowed into the South Pond. Dredged material from South Pond and Wax Ditch also was
deposited on the Rubble Pile. Minerva city wells are located approximately 1 mile southwest and
downslope from the TRW building. The wells draw water from a sand and gravel aquifer, the same
aquifer that underlies the TRW property. These wells serve approximately 4,550 people. Within 3
miles of the site are shallow residential wells serving approximately 900 people. The nearest
residential well is 925 feet from the TRW plant.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, sediments, and soil are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and VOCs and could pose a health hazard if they are accidentally directly
contacted or swallowed.
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.
83
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
~L» Immediate Actions: In 1985, the potentially responsible parties hooked up all
&r residences with contaminated wells to municipal drinking water supplies. In 1985,
^^* contaminated soils and sediments from the former disposal areas were excavated and
disposed of in an on-site secured landfill. A PCB vault was built on the site to secure excavated
toxic materials, and a soil cap was placed over the concrete-lined vault. TRW excavated the soils
and sediments for placement in the vault.
Groundwater: In 1986, the parties potentially responsible for the contamination started
operating a system that pumps contaminated groundwater to the surface, treats it with an
air stripper, and discharges the treated water to the Sandy Creek. The groundwater
treatment system is currently operating. It is estimated that the cleanup process will take more than
30 years.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order on Consent to the potentially
responsible parties, requiring that the parties clean up the groundwater.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply, disposal of contaminated soils, securing of toxic
materials, and placement of a cap, plus the operation of the groundwater treatment system have
eliminated the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the TRW, Inc. (Minerva Plant)
site. Cleanup goals for surface contamination have been met. Groundwater treatment will continue
at the site until established cleanup goals are met.
April 1991 84 TRW, INC. (MINERVA PLANT)
-------
UNITED SCRAP
COMPANY, IN
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD018392928
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
NGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Miami County
Troy
From 1948 until 1980, the 25-acre United Scrap Lead site was used to reclaim lead batteries. An
estimated 32,000 cubic yards of crushed battery cases were generated and used as fill material. The
battery acid and the rinse water were disposed of in an infiltration pit. Beginning in 1972, the acid
was neutralized with ammonia prior to discharge into the pit. In 1974, the State recommended
implementing a more effective on-site treatment system. United Scrap Lead did not implement the
suggested treatment because operations ceased, and the facility was closed shortly thereafter.
Monitoring wells on site are contaminated with lead. The site is partially fenced and consists of
three general areas: an open flat area occupying the northern half of the site, a wooded area in the
southeastern quarter of the site, and the southwestern quarter of the site where the offices, process
buildings, and waste disposal areas are located. Forming the southern boundary of the site is a ditch
that flows into the Miami River and serves as a major drainage route for runoff for much of Troy and
the surrounding area. A residential garden is located adjacent to the site. There also is a migrant
worker population associated with commercial activity in the area. The nearest Troy public water
supply well is located approximately 2 miles upgradient of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
7E
The groundwater is contaminated with lead, but the concentration does not exceed
primary drinking water standards. Sediments and surface water also are contaminated
with lead; soil contains lead and arsenic. The contaminated soil, surface water,
groundwater, and sediments could pose a health threat if they are accidentally directly
contacted or ingested. Also, since the site is located in the Miami River flood plain, there
is a possibility of the site contaminating the river.
85
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1985, the EPA excavated contaminated soil and battery casings
from the western portion of the site and moved them away from nearby residents to the
interior of the site.
Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA selected the following remedies for the site cleanup: (1)
excavating and treating soil and battery casings by washing, with lead recovery and off-
site disposal or recycling of casing residues and replacement of cleaned residual soil on
site; (2) dewatering tributary sediments, followed by on-site disposal with treated soil; (3)
constructing a soil cover over treated material and revegetating the area; (4) decontaminating
buildings and debris, followed by off-site disposal; (5) installing a new residential well; (6) imposing
deed restrictions; and (7) monitoring groundwater and surface water. The EPA is expected to
complete the design specifications for the cleanup in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The excavation and removal of contaminated soil and battery casings have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the United Scrap Lead site while cleanup
activities are being planned.
April 1991 86 UNITED SCRAP LEAD COMPANY, INC.
-------
VAN DALE
JUNKYARD
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980794606
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Washington County
1 1/2 miles northeast of Marietta
Other Names:
Vandalis Junkyard
Site Description
The 10-acre Van Dale Junkyard is a licensed facility that accepted hundreds of drums for salvage,
some of which contained such materials as waste dyes and organic solvents. Wastes from the drums
were disposed of through open burning, direct dumping onto soils, and burial. The small stream
draining the site and an adjacent marshy area are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and heavy metals. Approximately 10,000 people live within 2 miles of the site. Area
surface waters are used for recreation, while residents rely on groundwater from both private wells
and a public water system for water supply.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Off-site sediments and on-site soils have been contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and VOCs. On-site sludge is contaminated with
various VOCs. People may be exposed to a health threat if they accidentally ingest or
come in direct contact with contaminated materials. Site geology has contributed to
contamination reaching adjacent streams and a nearby marshy area.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
87
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA is conducting an investigation of the Van Dale Junkyard,
which will identify the types and extent of site pollutants. At the conclusion of the
study, scheduled for 1992, alternatives for site cleanup will be recommended.
Site Facts: In 1984, the owner of the site agreed not to accept solid and hazardous wastes and
to stop filling, grading, excavating, or burning wastes.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Van Dale Junkyard site while studies are taking
place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
88
VAN DALE JUNKYARD
-------
WRIGHT-PATt
AIR FORCE B
OHIO
EPAID#OH7571724312
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
kIGRESSIONAL DiST. 07
Greene County
Northeast of Dayton
Other Names:
USAF Wright-Patterson
The 8,511-acre Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is the headquarters for the Air Force Logistics
Command and includes the Aeronautical Systems Division and the Air Force Institute of
Technology, as well as a medical center. Past Air Force activities in support of operational missions
have resulted in the creation of several unlined waste disposal areas throughout the base, including
landfills, fire training areas, and coal storage piles. From 1941 to 1973, the Industrial Shops and the
Research and Development Laboratories disposed of more than 6,600 tons of waste on the base,
including solvents, contaminated thinners, degreasing sludges, and miscellaneous hazardous
chemicals. The base employs approximately 32,000 people and 8,000 people live on the base. The
Buried Valley Aquifer, which is the predominant water source in the Dayton and Wright-Patterson
area, provides water to three municipal well fields within 3 miles of the site. These wells serve more
than 375,000 people. The people working and living on the base are served by 16 base wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Air releases from the site contain methane. Contaminants identified in the groundwater
and leachate include volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Surface water and sediments
contain lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Methane may be migrating
through soils to nearby housing, and concentrations in the soil at some landfills are above
explosive levels for methane. Residents threatened by the contaminated soil are being
relocated to other housing on base. Previous radiological analyses show elevated alpha
and beta radiation in leachate. A plume of VOC-contaminated groundwater is migrating
off base toward the City of Dayton's well field.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in 14 stages: emergency actions and 13 long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of landfills 8 & 10; spill sites 2 & 3 and coal and chemicals storage area;
landfills 11,12, & 14; fire training areas 3 & 4 and spill site 1; landfill 5, fire training area 1, and
Gravel Lake tanks; landfills 3,4,6, and 7; Building 4020 underground storage tank BS-2 and
chemical disposal area; and seven additional phases beginning within the next two years. Additional
phases will be defined as the investigation proceeds.
89
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status -
Emergency Actions: Base residents near one landfill are being relocated, due to the
unstable nature of high levels of methane in the soil. Sixteen base wells use air strippers
to remove contamination. However, the air strippers currently are not in operation due to
mechanical problems. Even so, the drinking water has remained safe. Approximately 400 drums
were removed from various landfills, and the recovery of free product at a fuel spill site has begun.
Based on the results of a study completed in 1990, the Air Force will begin construction of a pump
and treat system for VOCs in the groundwater in the summer of 1991. Further investigations will
follow.
Landfills 8 & 10: The Air Force began an investigation to determine the type and
extent of contamination at these landfills in 1990. At the conclusion of the investigation
in 1993, recommendations will be made for cleaning up the site. A temporary leachate
collection system has been installed.
Spill Sites 2 & 3 and Coal and Chemicals Storage Area: The Air Force plans to
begin a study to determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify cleanup
alternatives. Field work is expected to begin in late 1991.
Landfills 11,12, & 14, Fire Training Areas 3 & 4, and Spill Site 1: The Air
Force is expected to begin a study to determine the nature and extent of contamination
and to identify cleanup alternatives in 1992.
Landfill 5, Fire Training Area 1, and Gravel Lake Tanks: In 1991, the Air Force
is expected to begin studies to investigate the extent and nature of contamination and to
identify cleanup alternatives.
Landfills 3, 4, 6, & 7: In 1991, the Air Force is expected to begin a study to investigate
the extent and nature of contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives.
Building 4020 Underground Storage Tank BS-2 and Chemical Disposal
Area: In 1991, the Air Force is expected to begin studies to investigate the extent and
nature of contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives.
Site Facts: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to
identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD
facilities. An Interagency Agreement with the base to oversee studies and implementation of
selected remedies was executed on March 21, 1991.
Environmental Progress
The relocation of residents will reduce the potential for exposure to explosive gases at the Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base site while studies leading to the selection of final cleanup activities are
taking place.
April 1991 90 WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
-------
ZANESVILLE
FIELD
OHIO
EPA ID# OHD980794598
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 10
Muskingum County
Northeast of Zanesville
The 1-acre Zanesville Well Field site supplies water to the City of Zanesville and is adjacent to the
Muskingum River. In 1981, the State found that three of the 13 production wells were highly
contaminated. A groundwater study conducted by the EPA identified trichloroethylene (TCE) as a
primary contaminant. The City took the three contaminated wells out of service and began flushing
to remove contaminants remaining in the water lines. By 1982, the contaminated wells still were not
in use, but were being continually pumped to reduce the contamination and to prevent its further
migration into the well field. A nearby production well also was not in use because of the danger of
contamination. The City conducts a regular monitoring program at the site. A neighboring industry,
after studying its operation, began to excavate buried wastes and to treat local groundwater.
Approximately 40,000 people reside within 3 miles of the site. Fourteen city wells supply water to
the population.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The air contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The groundwater also is
contaminated with VOCs. The soil contains VOCs and some heavy metals. Accidentally
ingesting or coming in direct contact with groundwater or soil could pose a potential
health threat. Inhaling contaminated airborne vapors also may be a health threat.
91
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination and
to identify alternatives for final cleanup currently is taking place. The investigation is
expected to be completed in late 1991.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Zanesville Well Field site while studies are taking place
and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
92
ZANESVILLE WELL FIELD
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
93
-------
GLOSSARY
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
Book
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
judge.
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-
tain.
95
-------
GLOSSARY.
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-
nants.
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-
nents.
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-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
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-
tion].
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
96
-------
GLOSSARY
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-
gether.
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
period.
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
environment.
97
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
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
embankment.
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 minimis 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 farming, 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
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
98
-------
GLOSSARY
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
wildlife.
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 (paniculate) 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
contaminants.
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
99
-------
GLOSSARY.
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
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 (HRS): 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-
nation.
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
barrier.
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
plant.
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-
ture.
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
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
100
-------
GLOSSARY
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
101
-------
GLOSSARY.
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
neutrals.
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
nitroaromatic.
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
actions.
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
poisonous.
102
-------
GLOSSARY
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-
nants.
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
ground.
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
effects.
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-
genic.
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.
103
-------
GLOSSARY.
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
alternative(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-
gies.
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
104
-------
GLOSSARY
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
waste.
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
contaminants.
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
105
-------
GLOSSARY.
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.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
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
sites.
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-
lands].
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
106
-------
GLOSSARY
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
groundwater.
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
leaching.
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
water.
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
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
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.
107
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Ohio
109
-------
Information Repositories for NPL Sites in the State of Ohio
Repositories are established for all NPL sites so that the public can obtain additional information related to site ac ti vities. 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 meetings, 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.
Site Name
ALLIED CHEMICAL & IRONTON COKE
ALSCOANACONDA
ARCANUM IRON & METAL
BIG D CAMPGROUND
BOWERS LANDFILL
BUCKEYE RECLAMATION
CHEM-DYNE
COSHOCTONLDFL
E. H. SHILLING LANDFILL
FEED MATERIALS PRODUCTION CENTER
FIELDS BROOK
FULTZ LANDFILL
INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL
LASKIN/POPLAROIL
MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR
MOUND PLANT (US DOE)
NEASE CHEMICAL
NEW LYME LANDFILL
OLD MILL
ORMETCORP.
POWELL ROAD LANDFILL
PRISTINE, INC.
REBLLY TAR AND CHEMICAL CORP.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. QUARRY
Site Repository
Briggs Lawrence County Public Library, 321 South 4th Street, Ironton, OH 45638
Gnadenhutten Public Library, 160 North Walnut Street, Gnadenhutten, OH 44629
Arcanum Public Library, 101 North Street, Arcanum, OH 45304
Kingsville Township Public Library, 6006 Academy Avenue, Kingsville, OH 44048
Pickaway County District Library, 165 East Main Street, Circleville, OH 43113
St. Clairsville Public Library, 108 West Main Street, St. Clairsville, OH 43950
City of Hamilton, Municipal Building, 20 High Street, Hamilton, OH 45011
Coshocton Public Library, 655 Main Street, Coshocton, OH 43812
Briggs Lawrence County Public Library, 321 South 4th Street, Ironton, OH 45638
Lane Public Library, North Third & Buckeye Streets, Hamilton, OH 45011
Ashtabula County District Library, 335 West 44th Street, Ashtabula, OH 44004
Guernsey County Public Library, Byesville Branch, 100 Glass Avenue, Byesville, OH 43723
Hartville Branch Library, 411 East Maple Street, Hartville, OH 44632
Ashtabula Public Library, 355 West 44th Street, Ashtabula, OH 44004
Miami County Public Library, 419 West Main Street, Troy, OH 45373
Dayton & Montgomery County Public Library, Miamisburg Branch, 355 Fifth Street, Miamisburg, OH 45342
Salem Public Library, 821 East State Street, Salem, OH 44460
United States Post Office, 4949 Day Road, Jefferson, OH 44047
Rock Creek Public Library, 2988 High Street, Rock Creek, OH 44084
United States Post Office, Boston Hill Road, Hannibal, OH 43931
Montgomery County Public Library, Dayton Branch, 215 East 3rd Street, Dayton, OH 45402
Valley Public Library, 301 West Benson Street, Reading, OH 45215
Dover Public Library, 525 North Walnut, Dover, OH 44622
Elyria Public Library, Reference Department, 320 Washington Avenue, Elyria, OH 44035
-------
en
CD
-o
o
vo
Vj>l
I
Information Repositories for NPL Sites in the State of Ohio
(Continued)
Site Name
SANITARY LDFL COMPANY
SKINNER LANDFILL
SOUTH POINT PLANT
SUMMITNATIONAL
TRW, INC. (MINERVA PLANT)
UNITED SCRAP LEAD COMPANY, INC.
VAN DALE JUNKYARD
WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE
ZANES VILLE WELL FIELD
Site Repository
Dayton Public Library, Kettering-Moraine Branch, 3496 Far Hills Avenue, Kettering, OH 45429
Union Township Library, 7900 Cox Road, West Chester, OH 45069
Briggs-Lawrence County Library, 321 South 4th Street, Ironton, OH 45683
Deerfield Post Office, 1365 State Route 14, Deerfield, OH 44411
Minerva Public Library, 677 Linwood Street, Minerva, OH 44657
Troy-Miami County Public Library, 419 West Main Street, Troy, OH 45373
Washington County Public Library, 615 Fifth Street, Marietta, OH 45750
Greene County Library, Fairborn Branch, 1 East Main Street, Fairbom, OH 45324
Muskingum County Library, 220 North Fifth Street, Zanesville, OH 43701
------- |