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

                                   Publication #9200.5-736A
                                   September 1991
                                              - 121h Floor
                             Chicago, IL 60604-3590
      Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
          Office of Program Management
              Washington, DC 20460

          If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
                    National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    5285 Port Royal Road
                    Springfield, 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
A Brief Overview	1

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 Oklahoma	17

The NPL Report:
Progress to Date	19

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

Appendix B:  Repositories of
Site Information	59


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

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

After Discovery, the Problem

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

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

The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about 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.

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

     Discover site and
     determine whether
     an emergency
     exists *
   STEP 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    •  Are hazardous substances likely to be

    •   How are they contained?

    •   How might contaminants spread?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     How do people find out whether the
     EPA considers a site a national
     priority for cleanup under the
     Superfund Program?

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

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

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

  4. Remedial Design:  plan the remedy

  5. Remedial Action:  carry out the remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

 a site to receive an MRS 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 & feasibility study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

 Identifies the Federal, State,
 and/or potentially respon-
 sible parties that are taking
 responsibility for cleanup
 actions at the site.


     Other Names:
  Site Responsibility: •
   NPL Listing History

     Proposed: xxftxtt

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

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

                                                THE VOLUME
                         SITE DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                           NPL SITES
                                                The  State  of
Oklahoma is located within EPA Region 6, which includes five states in the south central United
States. Oklahoma covers 69,919 square miles, with topography consisting of high plains, hills
and small mountains, the Arkansas River Basin, and the Red River Plains. According to the
1990 Census, Oklahoma experienced a 4% increase in population between 1980 and 1990. The
state currently has approximately 3,746,000 residents and ranks 28th in U.S. populations. Princi-
pal industries include manufacturing, mineral and energy exploration and production, agricul-
ture, and printing and publishing. Oklahoma manufacturers produce food products, non-electri-
cal machinery, fabricated metal products, lumber, and petroleum.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Oklahoma?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?

Congresiional District 1       2 sites
Congressional District 2       1 site
Congressional District 4       2 sites
Congressional District 5       5 sites
                      What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
                          in the State of Oklahoma?
                 * of sites

                        type of sites

                  Municipal & Industrial Landfill
                  Petroleum Refining & Related Industries
                  Mining Facility
                  Federal Facility
                                                                     April 1991

      How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?



*« --

  2 --
       Soil  GW    SW   Sed  Solid
          Contamination Area
                                                 Groundwater:  Heavy metals
                                                 (inorganics), volatile organic com-
                                                 pounds (VOCs), polychlorinated
                                                 biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides.
                                                 Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
                                                 metals (inorganics), volatile organic
                                                 compounds (VOCs), polychlorinated
                                                 biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, radiation,
                                                 and acids.
                                                 Surface Water and Sediments:
                                                 Heavy metals (inorganics),volatile
                                                 organic compounds (VOCs), and acids.
                                                 *Appear at 20% or more sites
             Where Are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process?1
with ^

^ with •
^ with •
^ with •
1 N
^ with
In addition to activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 9 sites as interim
cleanup measures.

'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
 April 1991

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

    Progress Toward Cleanup at NPL Sites in the State of Oklahoma
Page           Site Name
i S'
i *>



Initial    Site   Remedy  Remedy  Cleanup Construction
                    Design  Ongoing  Complete  Deleted
                     o     o

               of Site
April 1991

                Who Do I Call with Questions?

                The following pages describe each NPL site in Oklahoma, providing specific
                information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
                tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 6
                Office in Dallas, Texas or one of the other offices listed below:

                  EPA Region 6 Superfund Community Relations Office  (214) 655-2240
                  EPA Region 6 Superfund Office                      (214) 655-6664
                  EPA Superfund Hotline                             (800) 424-9346
                  EPA Headquarters Public Information Center           (202) 260-2080
                  Oklahoma Superfund Office                         (405) 271-7157
April! 991                                 22

EPA ID# OKD980620983

Site Description  	
                                         EPA REGION 6
                                     CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                             Tulsa County
                                             Chandler Park

                                            Other Names:
                                          Tulsa Refining, Inc.
                                           Chandler Landfill
Compass Industries (Avery Drive) is a 30-acre abandoned landfill situated on a bluff that overlooks
the Arkansas River to the west of Tulsa. Licensed for operations from 1972 to 1976, it served as one
of the major municipal and industrial landfills in the Tulsa area. Unknown wastes have been
dumped at the site since the mid-1950s. The limited records kept indicate that several types of
hazardous wastes were dumped there, including toxic chemicals, metals, and carcinogenic materials.
Prior to that, the site was used for limestone quarrying and oil and gas exploration. During the
1970s, poor operating practices and open burning resulted in several fires at the landfill. The most
recent fire burned underground for several years, occasionally breaking out into the open.  The waste
is piled approximately 20 feet deep. The State Health Department began to study air and water
quality in 1983, when residents complained about odors at the site. The site is in a rural area, but is
immediately west of Chandler Park, a recreational area.  The nearest residence is 1/4 mile from the
site, and the nearest drinking water well is 1/2 mile away, although it is upgradient from the site and
currently is not in use.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
  Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater is contaminated with toxic metals and organic compounds.
         Contaminants include oily sludges, jet fuel, solvents, acids, caustics, bleaches, benzene,
         polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. In the past, the site has been troubled
         by recurrent fires. Toxic air emissions from burning material could reach nearby
         residences. In addition, trespassers from the nearby recreational area may come in
         contact with contaminated materials; people have used the site for target practice. The
         area near the site is a habitat for the endangered bald eagle.

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages:  immediate actions to limit access to the site and a long-
term remedial phase to clean up the groundwater and to control the spread of contamination.

Response Action Status	
         Immediate Actions: The EPA installed a fence around the site and put warning signs
         around its perimeter in mid-1988.

         Source Control and Groundwater Cleanup:  The EPA selected the following
         remedies: (1) installing an EPA-approved cap over the landfill area to isolate
         contaminated materials and reduce the amount of water seeping into and through the
landfill; (2) diverting surface water to reduce overland flows and reduce infiltration; (3) grading of
the site to encourage site runoff and prevent erosion; and (4) collecting and treating contaminated
shallow groundwater before discharge into the Arkansas River.  The construction phase began in
1989. The clay cap was completed in  1990. Final seeding of the site will take place in 1991.

Site Facts:  The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination are performing the
cleanup, pursuant to an Administrative Order.
Environmental Progress
The construction of a fence to limit access to the site has reduced the exposure potential of the
Compass Industries (Avery Drive) site, making it safer during cleanup activities. Completion of the
clay cap has contained material on site and will help keep pollutants from migrating off site via
water and air.
 April 1991                                    24             COMPASS INDUSTRIES (AVERY DRIVE)

                                        EPA REGION 6
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                          Oklahoma County
                                           Oklahoma City
Site Description
The Double Eagle Refinery Company, located southeast of the intersection of 4th Street NE and
Eastern Avenue, has been in operation since 1929. Until around 1980, this 12-acre facility refined
used motor oils by acidulation, distillation, and filtration. The operation now stores, dehydrates, and
sells waste oils. About 2,500 cubic yards of waste oils contaminated with heavy metals are in a
surface impoundment and four ponds, some of which are unlined or leaking. According to the
company, the oils come from truck fleets, garages, automobile dealers, industries, and City, State,
and Federal agencies throughout the State.  In addition, waste solvents and other products were
collected from major industrial companies in Oklahoma. The refinery is bordered by three waste
pits on the west, five ponds on the east, and a sludge lagoon to the south. In 1986, the EPA detected
barium, lead, and zinc in soil in drainage paths to the east and west of the site and in one of the
ponds to the east. These contaminants probably are the result of spills from the lagoon. About
28,500 people in Del City and Smith Village get drinking water from public and private wells within
3 miles of the site. An on-site well serves company employees. The site is located 1/2 mile from a
school and 1/4 mile from a residential area.  Surface waters within 3 miles of the site are used for
recreational activities. The North Canadian river is located approximately 1/2 mile south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
         Sediments from the ponds and drainage areas, the surrounding soil areas, and
         surface water are contaminated with barium, lead, zinc, acid base-neutral
         compounds, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Groundwater in the area is
         shallow (10 to 25 feet in some cases) and soils are permeable, conditions that help
         contaminants move into groundwater. There is a health risk from direct contact
         with the materials, but this has been lessened since the area was fenced.
                                                      April 1991

Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages:  immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
         Immediate Actions:  In 1988, the EPA ordered the site owner to fence the northern side
         of the site, so that people and animals could not come into direct contact with hazardous
         substances.  The fence was erected in 1989.

        Entire Site: In 1988, the EPA evaluated the site and determined that emergency cleanup
        actions are not warranted at this time. The EPA began conducting a site investigation of
        groundwater, soil, and surface water in 1990. The study is expected to conclude in 1992, at
which point the EPA will select the technologies to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
Fencing of the Double Eagle Refinery site has reduced the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances, making the area safer while investigations are taking place.
 April 1991

EPA ID# OKD980696470
                                       EPA REGION 6
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                         Oklahoma County
                                           Oklahoma City
Site Description
The Fourth Street Refinery is an abandoned 28-acre facility that operated from 1940 to 1968, and the
firm created numerous oil and sludge pits during this time.  More recent dumping has occurred in the
form of old concrete and building materials and government surplus supplies. An inactive oil well
and a gas well are on site. Elevated levels of several pesticides, acid based-neutral compounds, and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been identified in the soils, sediment, and sludge.
Approximately 32,500 people live within 3 miles of the abandoned refinery. They obtain their water
from the two interconnected aquifers that are 15 feet beneath the site. Douglas High School is 1/2
mile south of the site. The nearest surface water is the North Canadian River, which is
approximately 1/2 mile south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and State
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
 Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
         Soil samples contain barium, lead, chlordane, and crude oil constituents. Sludge from the
         site is contaminated with nickel, benzene, and numerous VOCs. Given the hydrogeology
         of the site, there is significant potential for groundwater contamination to the two
         aquifers. The land drains to the south and east, thus threatening the North Canadian
         River.  Also, the site was not completely fenced, making it possible for people and
         animals to come into direct contact with hazardous substances.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
the entire site.
                                                     April 1991

Response Action Status
         Initial Actions:  In 1985, the State decontaminated junk autos, stored two drums of
         benzene, and capped  and seeded the area. The EPA fenced the site and posted warning
         signs in 1989.

         Entire Site: Between 1985 and 1987, the EPA performed surveys and field sampling at
         the site. The EPA currently is conducting an investigation to determine the extent of
         contamination to groundwater, surface water, sediment, soil, sludge and tar areas, as well
as to chart the movement of contaminants through the air. The investigation will recommend
alternatives for the cleanup and is scheduled to be completed in 1992. Further studies of specific
aspects of the site may be proposed in the future.
Environmental Progress
The initial cleanup actions described above have reduced the actual exposure potential at the Fourth
Street Refinery site, making it safer while awaiting further cleanup activities.
 April 1991

EPA ID# OKD000400093
                                            EPA REGION 6
                                       CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
                                               McClain County
                                            3/4 mile west of Criner
                                                on Hwy. 122

                                               Other Names:
                                              Hardage Landfill
                                               Criner Landfill
                                        Criner/Hardage Waste Disposal
Site Description
The 60-acre Hardage/Criner site was licensed by the State of Oklahoma from 1972 to 1980 to accept
industrial and hazardous wastes such as asbestos, cyanides, and flammable sludges. Pits excavated
to receive wastes filled rapidly, and wastes were then transferred to two temporary ponds.  In the
west pond, liquid wastes were slurried with soil and transferred to the south pond. When the south
pond filled, wastes were stacked 15 to 20 feet above the ground, becoming a sludge mound. In the
mid-1970s, drums were no longer emptied but were piled at the northern end of the main pit, called
the drum mound. These practices resulted in pesticides, solvents, acids, and metal sludges
contaminating surface water, groundwater, and surface soil. The nearest residence in this rural area
is at  the southwestern site boundary. Adjacent to the North Criner Creek flood plain, the site is
surrounded by cattle grazing land. Shallow groundwater from the site has moved into the North
Criner Creek alluvium.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 10/15/81
  Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
          The soil, groundwater, and surface waters are contaminated with volatile organic
          compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, solvents, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls
          (PCBs), oils, methylene chloride, paint sludge, and inks. Inhalation of dusts and vapors
          generated from the soils on site poses a potential risk for workers or trespassers. Fugitive
          dusts and vapors from on-site soil disruption could be inhaled off site. There is no known
          current use of the groundwater, but any use of contaminated groundwater would be
                                                          April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages:  an initial action and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on groundwater treatment and cleanup of the entire site.

Response Action Status	
         Initial Actions: In 1982, the potentially responsible parties started decontaminating the
         site by mixing pit fluids with soil, excavating visibly contaminated soils from mixing areas
         and temporary ponds, capping the source areas with a soil cover, and consolidating wastes
in source areas.  The parties potentially responsible for contamination fenced the site in 1987.  In
1988, heavy rains caused slope damage to the western face of the barrel mound. The potentially
responsible parties performed the repair, restored the other eroded mound areas, and provided a new
water supply for 12 residences.

         Groundwater: The EPA's selected remedy, which was reviewed by the public in 1989,
         is to build a V-shaped trench to intercept contaminated groundwater over most of the site.
         Another interceptor trench will catch groundwater that is moving into the alluvium located
under North Criner Creek. The captured groundwater will be pumped to an on-site treatment unit,
and then the treated water will be discharged to North Criner Creek.  The groundwater and surface
water will be monitored, surface drainage controlled,  and the use of contaminated groundwater will
be prevented through institutional controls.

         Source  Area: In 1986, the EPA chose the following remedies for cleaning up the source
         of contamination to be carried out by the potentially responsible parties:  (1) excavation of
         approximately 180,000 cubic yards from the principal source areas (the drum mound, main
pit, and sludge mound) to the bedrock; (2) separation  of wastes; (3) treatment and disposal of solids
in an on-site approved landfill; (4) incineration of organic liquids; and (5) treatment and disposal of
inorganic liquids.  A public comment period was held in 1989 to explore options other than those
listed.  In 1989,  the EPA revised the 1986 remedy selection. The revised cleanup remedy calls for
soil vapor extraction of the source areas, consolidation of contaminated soils, and removal of
contaminated liquids followed by off-site incineration and capping of the source areas.

Site Facts: In  1978, the State of Oklahoma filed complaints against the facility for suspected lead
poisoning of the air around the site. A ruling in 1982 found that  the potentially responsible parties
are liable for all costs of removal or remedial actions. A complaint was filed against 36 generators
and transporters in  1986.  A partial Consent Decree was signed by the potentially responsible parties
in 1987 for the groundwater cleanup. In August 1990, the Federal District Court selected the
cleanup remedy proposed by the potentially responsible parties.
Environmental Progress
The initial actions taken by the potentially responsible parties to decontaminate the soil, to excavate,
and to cap the source areas as described above have reduced the potential exposure of nearby
residents to the waste at the Hardage/Criner site, making it safer while it awaits further remedial

April 1991                                     30                              HARDAGE/CRINER

 EPA ID# OKD980620868
Site Description
                                             EPA REGION 6
                                            CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                               Oklahoma County
                                           3 miles east of Oklahoma City
The Mosley Road Landfill covers 72 acres and was used from 1975 to 1987 as a commercial,
residential, and industrial landfill. In 1976, the landfill accepted approximately 2 million gallons of
hazardous substances under a Temporary Emergency Waiver for Hazardous Waste Disposal issued
by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. According to the permit application, pesticides,
industrial solvents, sludges, waste chemicals, and emulsions were deposited in two unlined pits.
Since then, the pits have been buried under as much as 20 feet of solid refuse and fill. Concerns
about groundwater contamination brought the site to the EPA's attention. The hazardous wastes
were disposed of near the base of the landfill, and a potential long-term risk could exist if wastes are
leaking into the groundwater. The landfill lies above the Garber-Wellington Formation, an aquifer
that serves as a high-quality drinking water source for many Oklahoma City residents. The area is
residential and commercial. An estimated 57,000 people obtain drinking water from public  and
private wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. Six homes within 1/2 mile obtain drinking water
from private wells.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed by a
combination of Federal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 06724/88

  Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
         The soil is contaminated with pesticides, industrial solvents, sludges, waste chemicals,
         emulsions, and other substances disposed of in the landfills. Potential contamination of
         groundwater supplying the public drinking water system may pose a threat to human
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup
of the entire site.
                                                       April 1991

Response Action Status
         Entire Site: Under an agreement with the EPA, Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc.
         and Mobile Waste Controls, Inc. are performing the study that will determine the nature
         and extent of site contamination and will identify and evaluate potential remedies for site
problems. The investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992, with the EPA selecting the final
remedy, and the actual site cleanup is planned for 1993.

Site Facts:  Waste Management of Oklahoma signed an Administrative Order with the EPA in
1989 to conduct an investigation into the nature and extent of site contaminants.
Environmental Progress
The investigation into a permanent solution is being carried out, and the EPA will decide on a final
remedy soon.  Meanwhile, the EPA assessed conditions at the Mosley Road Sanitary Landfill site
and determined that the site does not warrant immediate cleanup actions.
 April 1991


Site Description
                                        EPA REGION 6
                                    CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
                                            Caddo County
                                       South Baskett Street in Cyril
The 160-acre Oklahoma Refining Company site is an abandoned oil refinery that was active from
1908 to 1984. The operator at the site placed process wastes, some reactive or flammable, into
approximately 50 impoundments, many of which were unlined.  Other wastes were tilled into the
soil or placed in a waste pile.  In 1981, the EPA observed leachate coming from the site, threatening
nearby Gladys and Chetonia Creeks, which are used for recreational activities. In 1984, the owner
declared bankruptcy and abandoned the facility. In 1986, the EPA found an on-site monitoring well
to be contaminated with heavy metals. Approximately 1,600 people obtain drinking water from
public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. One private well is located within 1,000 feet of
the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
  Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
         The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals, including arsenic and lead. Process
         wastes from oil refining were tilled into the soil through a landfarming operation, but the
         soil contaminants are unspecified.  Many of the wastes remaining on site are flammable
         or reactive and pose the threat of fire or explosion. The site is unfenced, making it
         accessible to people and animals. Two creeks have been shown to be affected by
         contamination from the site.
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.
                                                      April 1991

Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: In 1989, the EPA surveyed the site to determine the nature of
         emergency actions required.  As a result of the survey, a fence was erected to limit access
         to the site in 1990. Netting was placed over the impoundments, further reducing the risk
of direct contact with the hazardous waste. Additionally, the drums on the site are slated for disposal
in 1991.

         Entire Site:  In 1989, the Oklahoma State Department of Health began an investigation
         to assess the extent of contamination in soil, groundwater, and surface waters and to
         identify appropriate cleanup strategies. The cleanup remedy is expected to be selected by
the EPA in 1991. Additional studies of specific aspects of the site may be undertaken in 1991.

Site Facts:  The EPA issued an Administrative Order in 1980, requiring the potentially responsible
parties to reduce site discharge to Gladys Creek.
Environmental Progress

Initial cleanup actions to control contamination and to fence the Oklahoma Refining Company site
have reduced the potential for direct exposure to hazardous substances, making the area safer while
investigations are taking place.
April 1991                                    34                 OKLAHOMA REFINING COMPANY

EPA ID# OKD980748446
Site Description
                                                     EPA REGION 6
                                                 CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
                                                         Tulsa County
                                                         Sand Springs,
                                                    adjacent to Arkansas River
The 235-acre Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex site, approximately 3 miles west of the Tulsa
city limits, operated as a refinery from the turn of the century through the late 1940s. It was later
developed as an industrial area consisting of chemical manufacturers, solvent and waste oil recovery
operations, transformer salvaging and recycling, and various other industries. The site contains acid
sludge pits, a surface impoundment, spray ponds, and solvent and waste oil lagoons. The refinery
left two unlined pits about 10 feet deep, containing sulfuric acid sludge and heavy metals. Over the
years, sludge seeped into the Arkansas River levee, releasing contaminants to the river. Other
industries stored or disposed of hazardous substances in drums, tanks, and unlined pits, or simply
buried them on the site. These substances included volatile organic compounds (VOCs), acids,
caustics, chlorinated solvents, and sludges containing heavy metals. The nearest residence is located
on site. Drinking water wells are in use within 1/2 mile, although they are upgradient of the
contaminated site. Poor operations have contaminated local groundwater, and the pollutants also
may leave the site in runoff.
Site Responsibility:   This site is being addressed by Federal,
                     State, and potentially responsible
                     parties' actions.
                                                    NPL LISTING HISTORY
                                                   Proposed Date: 09/08/83
                                                     Final Date: 06710/86
Threats and Contaminants
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, shallow groundwater, sediments
and sludge are VOCs and heavy metals such as lead and chromium. The Arkansas River
has been shown to be contaminated by past seepage of sulfuric acid sludges and heavy
metals through the levee. People are at risk from direct contact with or accidental
ingestion of contaminated soil, groundwater, or sludges.
                                                                  April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on control of the sources of contamination and the groundwater.
Response Action Status
         Immediate Actions:  Under orders from the EPA, some of the parties potentially
         responsible for the contamination removed drums and tanks from the site. The EPA also
         removed 400 drums of hazardous material, repaired the fence, and sampled and analyzed
the pits, on-site soil, and the on-site monitoring wells.

         Source Control: In September 1987, the EPA determined that incineration of the
         contaminated soil and sludges would be the most efficient remedy for this site. However,
         the remedy of solidification or stabilization of wastes that was proposed during the public
comment period would be allowed if the responsible parties could demonstrate that these techniques
would provide comparable protection of human health and environment in a specific time period.
ARCO started the engineering design for the remedy in  1988, including a bench-scale pilot test to
determine the most appropriate solidification technique. Cleanup activities are scheduled to be
completed in 1996.

         Groundwater: In 1988, following a study by the State, the EPA selected a "no action"
         cleanup remedy for the groundwater phase. This approach features monitoring of
         groundwater and Arkansas River water for 30 years. The EPA believes that once the
sources of contamination are removed, groundwater pollution will dissipate naturally over time, via
the natural flushing action of the aquifer. In addition to monitoring, signs will be posted, warning
residents of the dangers of coming into direct contact with site contamination. Groundwater
monitoring began in 1990.

Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA issued two Administrative Orders for drum and tank removal. In
1987, an Administrative Order was issued to the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination, who conducted on-site incineration and solidification treatability studies. A Consent
Decree was signed in  1990 by ARCO, the State, and the EPA for design and cleanup of site
 Environmental Progress

 The immediate actions undertaken to remove contaminated drums and tanks and to repair the fence
 surrounding the site have reduced the exposure potential at the Sand Springs Petrochemical Complex
 site, making it safer while cleanup activites are taking place.
 April! 991                                   36                               SAND SPRINGS
                                                                  PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

EPA ID# OKD980629844
                                         EPA REGION 6
                                    CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
                                            Ottawa County
                                    Through the towns of Miami, Richer,
                                      Cardin, Quapaw, and Commerce
Site Description
The Tar Creek (Ottawa County) site covers a 40-square mile portion of the Tri-State Mining District
(Picher Mine Field), which covers 100 square miles. The area produced significant quantities of
lead and zinc in the 1920s and 1930s. When major mining operations ceased in the early 1970s,
groundwater accumulated in the mines. The acid water reacted with the surrounding rock, causing
many of the metals present to dissolve and resulted in high concentrations of zinc, lead, and
cadmium in the water. In 1979, acid mine water with high concentrations of heavy metals began to
discharge to the surface from boreholes and the abandoned mine shafts, contaminating the surface
water in Tar Creek.  This problem, along with the potential for contaminating the drinking water
source under the mining area, prompted the U.S. Geological Survey and the State to investigate the
site.  In 1981, the State declared the site its number one pollution problem. In 1985, the Oklahoma
Water Resources Board notified the EPA of elevated levels of metals in the Picher town water well.
The towns of Miami, Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, and Commerce are located within the site area
boundary. The nearby population of approximately 21,000 receive their drinking water from the
Robidoux Aquifer.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
 Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
          The groundwater, sediments, and surface water were contaminated with heavy metals
          including lead, zinc, and cadmium. The upper aquifer was contaminated with heavy
          metals.  Several people use the upper aquifer as a source of drinking water. The lower
          aquifer was threatened due to several boreholes and leaking abandoned wells connecting
          the aquifers. The lower aquifer serves several towns and rural communities including the
          towns of Miami and Picher. Because the Picher town water well passes through a highly
          mineralized rock formation, the high levels of heavy metal contaminants indicated major
          casing failure in the well.  Runoff of surface waters had degraded Tar Creek.  Wetlands
          are found on the site and also were subject to contamination.
                                                        April 1991

Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on contamination at the entire site.
Response Action Status
         Initial Action:  In 1985, an emergency water supply was put in place by the National
         Guard.  The EPA plugged the contaminated well using sand and corrosion-resistant
         concrete.  Backup wells were used to flush the city lines. Subsequently, water quality in
these two wells returned to normal and the National Guard discontinued water delivery. The EPA
drilled the new well, connected it to the water system, and the water was re-tested.

         Entire  Site:  The selected remedies included diverting and diking the two major inflow
         areas in Kansas and a third in Oklahoma, plugging aquifer wells, and developing a
         monitoring plan. A total of 83 wells were plugged. All remedial cleanup activities have
been completed since 1986. The State currently is monitoring the effectiveness of the remedy. A
report was prepared by the State to assess the effectiveness of the remedy and is being reviewed by
the EPA.

Site Facts:  In 1982, the EPA  awarded a Cooperative Agreement to the State for a site investigation
and a study of alternative cleanup strategies.
Environmental Progress
Actions by the State of Oklahoma and the EPA have reduced the potential for contaminants in the
shallow groundwater to migrate to deeper drinking water aquifers and have achieved the
groundwater cleanup standards established for the site. The State also has completed all other
cleanup activities at the Tar Creek (Ottawa County) site for surface water improvement.
April 1991                                    38                   TAR CREEK (OTTAWA COUNTY)

EPA ID# OKD980620967
                                          REGION 6
                                   CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                         Oklahoma County
                                           Oklahoma City

                                           Other Names:
Site Description
The 3 1/2-acre Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard site in Oklahoma City was used as a municipal landfill
before 1959. It housed a private salvage yard from 1959 to 1979, after which it became a private
automobile junkyard. During the salvage of electrical equipment, large amounts of polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) oil had been spilled on the ground. A fire at the site destroyed 1,000 old tires, which
may have contributed to a black tar-like substance on ruined soil. Workers indiscriminately
bulldozed drums of benzene and methylene chloride onto sections of the site along with other debris.
About 30,000 people draw drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site,
the nearest within 1/4 mile. Residential property is adjacent to the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
 Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
         The soils have high levels of PCB s. Residents, trespassers, and children are threatened
         by direct exposure to contaminated soils and waste left on the site. The North Canadian
         River is threatened by contaminated runoff from the site. Contaminants from the soil
         may also threaten nearby groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
contamination at the entire site.

Response Action Status
         Initial Actions: The first phase of the initial action started in 1985 and included
         decontamination of the automobiles, spare parts, office building, and tire repair machine
         shop.  After decontamination, workers backfilled the wash pit. Because contamination
was widespread, the entire site was capped to prevent rainfall and erosion from spreading pollutants
in a second cleanup phase. An 18-inch clay layer was placed on the site. The entire area was fenced
and posted. The cap was seeded in 1986. Workers moved the hazardous waste drums and left them
on site, pending disposal arrangements.

         Entire Site:  In 1990, the EPA selected a remedy for cleanup of the site, which includes
         excavation, on-site chemical dechlorination, and on-site disposal of contaminated soils.
         Engineering designs for the cleanup activities began in 1991 and are expected to be
completed in 1992.

Site Facts: In 1985, the EPA issued an Administrative Order to the potentially responsible parties
to decontaminate and remove junked cars, remove and properly dispose of electrical equipment and
drums containing hazardous substances, install a fence, and build a synthetic liner and clay cap to
prevent runoff from spreading contaminants.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has completed many cleanup activities at the Tenth Street Dump/Junkyard site, including
decontamination of hazardous items and fencing and capping the site, making the site safer as
cleanup activities are being designed.
April 1991                                     40                 TENTH STREET DUMP/JUNKYARD

EPA ID# OK1571724391
                                                    EPA REGION 6
                                               CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
                                                      Oklahoma County
                                                 Oklahoma City metropolitan area

                                                       Other Names:
                                                  USAF Tinker Air Force Base
Site Description
The 220-acre Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek/Building 3001) site is located in the northeastern portion of
the base, east of the North-South runway. It encompasses Building 3001, the two adjacent
underground storage tank areas, adjacent Soldier Creek, and the contaminated groundwater under the
base. Tinker AFB was activated in 1942. Its primary mission was to serve as a worldwide repair
depot for aircraft and associated equipment and weaponry. The Building 3001 complex used large
quantities of industrial solvents in its business of maintaining aircraft and rebuilding jet engines. In
the past, waste oils, solvents, paint sludges, and plating waste generated from maintenance activities
were disposed in two industrial waste pits, 1 mile south of Soldier Creek  and Building 3001. Since
1979, industrial wastes have been disposed of off site. Four landfills and the groundwater are
contaminated with chromium and trichloroethylene (TCE). As of 1988, four drinking water wells at
the base were polluted. The closest municipal well, 1/2 mile to the northwest, serves approximately
55,400 people. The nearest residences and drinking wells are 300 feet from the site.  The base has
19,500 workers and 2,700 residents.
 Site Responsibility:  This site is being addressed through
                     Federal actions.
                                                   NPL USTING HISTORY
                                                   Proposed Date: 03/29/85
                                                    Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Four potable groundwater wells are contaminated with high concentrations of TCE and
cadmium. Soil and sediments are contaminated with TCE and chromium. Surface water
is contaminated with nickel and cadmium. Drinking contaminated groundwater poses a
threat to residents and workers. Municipal wells for Midwest City are at least 500 feet
deep, and therefore are not at great risk of contamination.
                                                                  April 1991

Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on contaminants at the Building 3001 Complex and Soldier's Creek.
Response Action Status
         Emergency Actions: In 1985, the Air Force removed tanks in Building 3001,
         contaminated soil from on-base streams, and contaminants from the groundwater under
         one of the site's facility.  In addition, a cap was installed at one of the landfills, with
additional capping on its Southeastern comer.  Two wells were plugged in 1986. In 1990,
contaminated liquids were removed from the waste pit.  The pit has since been cleaned, backfilled,
and capped.

         Building 3001 Complex: In 1987, the Air Force contracted with the U.S. Army Corps
         of Engineers to do an 18-month study that is the equivalent of the Superfund investigation
         into site contaminants and remedies. In 1990, a remedy was selected for the site, which
includes the extraction of contaminated groundwater and treatment by air or steam stripping, metals
precipitation, and fine filtration. Engineering designs were begun in 1990 and are expected to be
completed in 1991.

         Soldier's Creek: Investigations into the nature and extent of the contamination at
         Soldier's Creek began in 1990. These studies are expected to be completed and a remedy
         selection is anticipated in 1993.

Site Facts: Tinker 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.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated materials and the capping of a landfill by the Air Force has greatly
reduced the chances of hazardous exposure at the Tinker AFB (Soldier Creek/Building 3001) site,
making it safer while the Air Force completes final investigations and begins cleanup activities.
April 1991                                    42                        TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
                                                              (SOLDIER CREEK/BUILDING 3001)

        APPENDIX A
     Terms Used
          in the
     Fact Sheets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carbon Treatment:  [see Carbon Adsorp-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consent Order:  [see Administrative Order
on Consent].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and willingness to perform a site study or

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

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

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

Hazard Ranking System (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-
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].

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

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

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

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

which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RCRA:  [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].

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

Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
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-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water Table:  The upper surface of the

Weir: A barrier to divert water or other

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

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

        APPENDIX B
      NPL Sites
     in Oklahoma

Information Repositories for NPL Sites in the  State of Oklahoma
Repositories are established for all NPL sites so that the public can obtain additional information related to site activities. Some sites may have more than one repository
location, however, the primary site repository is listed below. All public access information pertaining to the site will be on file at these repositories. The quantity
and nature of the documentation found in the repositories depends on the extent of activity and cleanup progress for each site and may include some or all of the
following: community relations plans, announcements for public meetings, minutes from public 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
                          Site Repository
Page Memorial Library, 6 East Broadway, Sand Springs, OK 74063
Ralph Ellison Library. 2000 Northeast 23, Oklahoma City, OK 73111
Ralph Ellison Library, 2000 Northeast 23, Oklahoma City, OK 73111
Purcell City Library, 919 North 9th Street, Purcell, OK 73080
Crutcho Elementary School, 2401 North Air Depot, Oklahoma City, OK 73141
Cyril City Hall, 202 West Main Stteet, Cyril, OK 73029
Page Memorial Library, 6 East Broadway, Sand Springs, OK 74063
Miami Public Library, 200 North Main Street, Miami, OK 74354
Ralph Ellison Library, 2000 Northeast 23. Oklahoma City. OK 73111
Midwest City Public Library, 8143 West Reno Avenue, Midwest City, OK 73110