United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/030
September 1991
PB92-963234
vvEPA National
Priorities
List Sites:
IOWA
1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-716A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Iowa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12j)
77 West Jackson Boulevard 12th Mmr
Chicago, IL 60604-3590 r
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Iowa 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 63
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 79
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
1 Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens If there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
* How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND.
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site Is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called & feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised 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
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOO
""-SU^Description
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
ฎ
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Flnat
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,
Environmental Progress
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
15
-------
THE VOLUME
The "icons," or symbols, accompanying the text allow the reader to see at a glance which envi-
ronmental resources are affected and the status of cleanup activities at the site.
Icons in the Threats and
Contaminants Section
Contaminated Ground-water resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
rivers.)
Contaminated Air in the vicinity of
the site. (Air pollution usually is
periodic and involves contaminated
dust particles or hazardous gas emis-
sions.)
Contaminated Soil and Sludges on or
near the site. (This contamination
category may include bulk or other
surface hazardous wastes found on the
site.)
Threatened or contaminated Environ-
mentally Sensitive Areas in the vicin-
ity of the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
icons in the Response Action
Status Section
Initial Actions have been taken or are
underway to eliminate immediate
threats at the site.
Site Studies at the site to determine the
nature and extent of contamination are
planned or underway.
Remedy Selected indicates that site
investigations have been concluded,
and the EPA has selected a final
cleanup remedy for the site or part of
the site.
Remedy Design means that engineers
are preparing specifications and
drawings for the selected cleanup
technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing indicates that the
selected cleanup remedies for the
contaminated site, or part of the site,
currently are underway.
Cleanup Complete shows that all
cleanup goals have been achieved for
the contaminated site or part of the
site.
Environmental Progress summa-
rizes the activities taken to date to
protect human health and to clean
up site contamination.
16
-------
NPL SITES
The State of
Iowa
Iowa lies between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, within EPA Region 7, which includes
four states in the central United States. The state covers 56,275 square miles and the state's
topography consists of watershed from northwest to the southeast and especially rich soil in the
north. The state experienced a 5% decrease in population and currently has approximately
2,476,800 residents, ranking 30th in U.S. populations, according to the 1990 U.S. Census.
Manufacturing, agriculture, and insurance comprise the principal state industries. Iowa manufac-
turing produces tires, appliances, fertilizers, auto accessories, electronic products, chemicals,
office furniture, and farm machinery.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Iowa?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
20
J>
20
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 6,1 5 sites
Congressional District 3,2 2 sites
Congressional District 5,4 2 sites
What Type of Sites are on the NPL
in the State of Iowa?
# of sites
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
5
type of sites
Chemicals & Allied Product
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Electroplating
Agriculture
Coal Gasification Plants
Disposal Facilities/Quarry
Federal Facilities
Others (Storage Facility, Rubber & Plastics,
Construction, Textile & Mill Products)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
204-
164-
8124
M
s
8 4-
4 +
m
GW Soil
SW
Sed
Contamination Area
Solid
Waste
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), creosotes (organics),
and radiation.
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy
metals (inorganics), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and radia-
tion.
* Appear at 15% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
11
Sites
with
Studies
Underway
3
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
2
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
3
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Progress
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
accomplishments.
An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing,
A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
o
o>
<ซ
S "S-
ซ i
o53
ft
II
tl 00
<0
2 E
11 00
K
00
0
00
000 00000000000000000
.s
I
.2
0)
_c
4)
55
0.
Z
t5
Q.
C
(Q
J2
o
(
I
J
5
I
I
o>
o
> &
s s
U, U. 0.
tti
00
00 00
9\ rป o ซ
81 8
u
.
U U > 5 U
i
ฃ
ง
I
5
ง
I
(i)
!
I
0, ฃ
II
to co >
a
1
o
.S
i
I
April 1991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 7
21
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Iowa, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 7
Office in Kansas City, KS or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office
EPA Region 7 Superfund Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
Iowa Superfund Office
(913)551-7003
(913)551-7052
(800) 424-9346
(202) 260-2080
(515)281-4968
April 1991
22
-------
AIDEX CORPORATION
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD042581256
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Pottawattamie County
7 miles south of Council Bluffs
The 15-acre Aidex Corporation site is a former pesticide formulation facility located approximately
7 miles south of Council Bluffs. In 1976, a building used to formulate the herbicide atrazine and
other pesticides was destroyed by a fire. The surrounding soil was contaminated by water used to
extinguish the blaze. In 1980, Aidex filed for bankruptcy. Cleanup operations were undertaken at
the site in 1981. When cleanup began, approximately 3,400 drums containing pesticides were stored
in open areas on the site. A concrete pit in the destroyed building contained about 2 feet of
contaminated water, and a large underground storage tank also held contaminated materials. Soil,
groundwater, and surface water were contaminated by pesticides spills. Approximately 600 people
live within 3 miles of the rural site. An alluvial aquifer underlies the site and is contaminated.
Within a 2-mile radius of the site are 42 shallow domestic water wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with atrazine, a pesticide produced at the site. The soil
is contaminated with other pesticides including aldrin and chlordane from wastes stored
at the site and as a result of the 1976 fire. The potential exists for pesticides to migrate
off the Aidex site in either the soil or the groundwater. Hooding occurring in the area
could facilitate migration of contaminants into the Missouri River flood plain. Direct
contact with or ingestion of contaminated soil and groundwater could pose a potential
health threat.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of surface contamination and the soil and groundwater at the entire site.
23
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In late 1981, the EPA constructed a security fence around the site.
Decontamination of the interior building surfaces is planned to be completed in 1991.
Surface Cleanup: The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers supervised cleanup work
consisting of gathering and placing wastes in approved containers, storing wastes that
were spread throughout the yard, draining and decontaminating a buried tank and waste
pit, and constructing a drainage ditch around the site to prevent excessive water from entering. This
work was performed in 1983, and off-site disposal of the collected materials followed in a second
phase.
Soil and Groundwater: Cleanup technologies selected to address contamination by
pesticides in the soil and groundwater include: (1) excavating buried wastes that lie
within the perimeter of the disposal trench and transporting the wastes off site for disposal
in a secure landfill; (2) grading, when necessary, and seeding the remaining soils; (3) expanding the
monitoring well network by adding two wells to monitor mid-range and deep water quality
downgradient of the site; (4) vacuuming the buildings to remove loose dust from all accessible
interior surfaces and washing floors and walls; and (5) testing all monitoring wells biannually for 30
years or until a determination is made that the site no longer poses a threat to nearby drinking water
supplies. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have removed 20,608 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and buried wastes. The wastes were transported off site, and the site was
backfilled and graded. The State followed by collecting biannual groundwater samples from on- and
off-site monitoring wells, beginning in 1987. The EPA collected additional samples from the
interior of the on-site buildings in 1987 and 1988. The cleanup is expected to be completed in late
1991.
Site Facts: The Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA, brought a Federal civil action,
seeking monetary relief, against parties potentially responsible for wastes at the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of wastes to a secure landfill and the security measures at the Aidex Corporation site
have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials while the final cleanup
actions are taking place. The ongoing groundwater monitoring program is assessing the long-term
effectiveness of the site's remedy.
April! 991 24 AIDEX CORPORATION
-------
DES MOINES TCE
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980687933
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Polk County
Southwest of downtown Des Moines
Other Names:
Tuttle Street Landfill
Des Moines Vocational School
Dychem
Dico Company
This site is an area or plume of contaminated groundwater that spreads southwest of downtown
Des Moines, in the flood plain of the Raccoon River. The surrounding area is industrial and
commercial, with some recreational parklands. The city's public water supply was discovered to be
contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) in 1976. By 1978, the EPA had traced the problem to
the city's groundwater extraction gallery, with the Dico Company as the potential source of
contamination. Dico disposed of oily wastes from the degreasing of metal parts by dumping them
into a drainage ditch on company property and spreading them as a means of dust control. Early in
1979, the company voluntarily stopped this activity. In 1984, the Des Moines Water Works stopped
using the groundwater gallery. The EPA recommended a return to underground water usage and
ordered Dico to clean up the groundwater. During cleanup activities, workers discovered that
another plume of contaminated groundwater was being drawn into the extraction system. An
investigation was initiated to address contamination stemming from the north and west of the Dico
property. The public water system serves approximately 258,300 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/3(V82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including
tetrachloroethylene, TCE, and vinyl chloride from former industrial waste disposal
practices. The extraction system has eliminated the threat of contaminated drinking
water. Most of the area to the east of the Raccoon River has been filled to raise the land
above flood level. Contaminants may have been disposed in those areas along with fill
material.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater cleanup,
source control, and cleanup of the "north plume."
25
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The remedy for cleanup of groundwater features: (1) collecting
contaminated groundwater with extraction wells, (2) isolating the northernmost section of
the public groundwater supply system; (3) treating the groundwater by exposing it to air to
evaporate 96% of the TCE; (4) discharging the treated water to the Raccoon River; and (5) operating
the extraction wells until water collected from all monitoring wells reveals less than 5 micrograms
per liter of TCE for four consecutive months. Dico, under EPA monitoring, designed and built the
groundwater extraction and treatment system, which features seven extraction wells and an air
stripping system. Cleanup operations have been underway since 1987. Pesticide-contaminated soil
was discovered during construction of the air stripping system. Temporary delays occurred while
the soil was sampled and stockpiled on site. Dico has prepared a plan for soil remediation.
Source Control: In 1989, Dico, Inc. began an intensive study of the sources of the
pollution on its property. This investigation will identify sources as well as potential
remedies. It is slated for completion in 1992. Another potentially responsible party is
conducting a study of a paved parking lot north of Dico to determine whether it may be a source of
contamination.
North Plume: In 1988, the EPA began investigating the new area of contaminated
groundwater that was being drawn into the treatment system. The EPA installed
additional monitoring wells to the north and west of the Raccoon River near the Fleur
Drive Bridge and north to about 25th and High Street. The wells are being monitored to determine
the extent of contamination and its source(s) and to warn of any approaching danger to the public
water supply. This investigation is slated for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA issued an Administrative Order requiring Dico to design, build, and
operate a groundwater extraction system. Dico signed an Administrative Order on Consent with the
EPA in August 1989 to conduct a study of how to control the potential sources of contamination at
their property.
Environmental Progress
Groundwater cleanup and monitoring activities at the Des Moines TCE site currently are underway,
reducing the potential for exposure to hazardous materials through drinking water while further
investigations are completed and additional cleanup actions are selected.
April 1991 26 DES MOINES TCE
-------
E.I. DUPONT
& COMPANY,
(COUNTY ROA
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980685804
NEMOURS
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lee County
31/2 miles southwest of West Point
Other Names:
Baier, James Farm
McCarl Farm
Site Description
The E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. (County Road X23) site, an industrial waste
dump in a rural area of Lee County, consists of two areas off County Road X23, about 3 1/2
miles southeast of West Point. In the early 1950s, DuPont sent wastes from its nearby Fort
Madison paint plant to the two disposal sites, which are about a mile apart and cover 4 acres.
One is known as the Baier farm subsite and the other as the DuPont/McCarl subsite. DuPont
estimates that between 1949 and 1953, a contractor disposed of 48,000 to 72,000 drums of paint
waste at the two subsites. These wastes were placed in shallow trenches and burned, then the
soil was graded flat. The properties drop off to ravines on the northwestern sides. The company
estimates that from 4,500 to 7,000 tons of ash and unburned sludges still may exist on the areas.
Approximately 1,200 people depend on private wells within 3 miles of the site as their sole
source of drinking water. Two creeks about a mile from the site are used for limited recreational
activities. Approximately 160 people live within a mile of the site; 1,250 live within 3 miles,
with the closest population being 500 feet from the site. There are 40 private wells within a mile,
and 330 private wells within 3 miles; the nearest is 500 feet from the site. Water is used both for
human and livestock consumption.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium
and lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from former disposal activities.
Potential human health threats consist of ingesting contaminated groundwater and
direct contact with both groundwater and soil. Contaminants also could
accumulate in plants that are consumed by cattle.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1985, three groundwater monitoring wells were installed by the EPA
at the Baier subsite. Sampling in 1986 showed elevated concentrations of metals.
Downstream water samples showed similar findings. When the McCarl subsite was
studied in 1986, groundwater and soil samples again revealed metals. In 1989, the EPA ordered
DuPont to perform a study of contamination at the site. DuPont completed the study in early
1991. Based on the results of this study, the EPA is recommending stabilization and
solidification of contaminated soil and monitoring of the groundwater as cleanup remedies. A
decision on the selected final remedies is expected later in 1991.
Site Facts: On July 5,1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Order to DuPont requiring DuPont to
undertake a study of site contamination and cleanup options at the Baier subsite.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA determined that it did not currently pose an immediate
threat to public health or the environment while investigations into final remedies are being
completed.
April 1991 28 E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY. INC.
(COUNTY ROAD X23)
-------
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005279039
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Linn County
Cedar Rapids
The 1-acre Electro-Coatings, Inc. site is a chromium-plating shop in Cedar Rapids that has been
operational since 1947. It lies at the northern edge of Cedar Lake and on the eastern edge of the
Cedar River. In 1976, an unknown amount of chromic acid leaked from a deep pit into the
groundwater. The owners then began a long series of monitoring and cleanup actions in response to
State investigations and requirements. In 1982, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
found high levels of hexavalent chromium in a neighboring company's well. The State required that
Electro-Coatings, Inc. determine the extent of contamination. Electro-Coatings monitored the
neighboring wells, installed on- and off-site monitoring wells, and conducted monthly sampling.
Cedar Rapids municipal wells serving nearly 10,000 people lie within 3 miles of the site. The
nearest people live 10 feet from the site, and the nearest well is 2,000 feet away. Approximately
12,100 residents live within 1 mile of the site; 109,100 are within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Groundwater underlying the Electro-Coatings site is used for the public drinking water supply and
for industrial processes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with hexavalent chromium, a heavy metal, from
wastewater spills. The chief threat to public health would be drinking polluted
groundwater. Analysts have not yet determined the total area of groundwater pollution;
however, groundwater resources supplying municipal drinking wells have not shown
signs of chromium contamination. Nearby water bodies, including lakes and streams,
potentially are threatened by site contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing on
cleanup of the entire site.
29
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1977, after the wastewater spill, the owners installed new monitoring
wells to define the area of groundwater contamination and undertook some cleanup actions
at the site. In 1976, the leaking deep pit tank was removed, and 18,000 pounds of ferrous
sulfate and 6,600 pounds of sulfuric acid were added to the area to chemically change the remaining
hexavalent chromium to the less hazardous form of the chemical. A new pit tank and floor were
installed. Other actions consisted of monitoring and sampling.
Entire Site: After discovering chromium in the neighboring well in 1982, the State
required the installation of five more monitoring wells to track the extent and migration of
the contaminant plume. An intensive study to determine the full extent and nature of the
contamination currently is underway and is planned to be completed in 1991. The EPA then will
select the most appropriate remedies for site cleanup.
Site Facts: In June 1977, the State issued an Executive Order requiring Electro-Coatings to install
monitoring wells to define the extent of the contaminated plume. Public concern has been targeted
on the contamination of Cedar Lake by Electro-Coatings and other sources.
Environmental Progress
After the initial actions taken to remove a leaking tank and to break down the hexavalent chromium
to a less hazardous form at the Electro-Coatings site, the EPA determined that the site does not
currently pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment while investigations into final
remedies are being completed.
April! 991 30 ELECTRO-COATINGS. INC.
-------
FAIRFIELD COAL
GASIFICATION
PLANT
IOWA
EPA ID#IAD981124167
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Jefferson County
Fairfield
The Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant site occupies one city block between West Burlington and
West Washington Avenues in Fairfield. The plant produced a natural gas substitute from coal from
1878 until 1950. The plant has been owned and operated by Iowa Electric Light and Power since
1917. Since 1950, the utility has used the site as an operations facility. The main wastes from coal
gasification are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
found in the coal tar left over from the gasification process, and cyanide salts left in the iron oxide
waste produced when the gas is purified. Operators sold some of the coal tar and buried some in an
earthen pit on the site or dumped it in a nearby ditch. Disposal methods for the iron-cyanide waste
are unknown, but it also may have been dumped on site. In 1985, the utility found that groundwater
near the site was contaminated. The utility began a monitoring program to assure that private wells
were unaffected. The EPA became involved in 1987 by conducting an expanded site investigation at
the site, installing and sampling on- and off-site monitoring wells, and conducting surface and
subsurface soil sampling. In 1989, Iowa Electric found that the foundation for a gas holder was the
main source of the pollution. This structure was removed and destroyed, and wastes were dumped
or left in its place. An estimated 1,000 people live within 1 mile of the site; 9,000 live within 3
miles. The local drinking water supply depends on both surface water and groundwater and serves
11,000 people. There are 23 drinking water wells within a 3-mile radius of the site; the closest is
1,900 feet away. Shallow and deep groundwater wells are within 2 miles of the site. The closest
well uses the shallow aquifer. Cedar Creek is less than 3 miles downslope of the site and is used for
recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
IT
In 1985, the utility detected PAHs including anthracene and pyrene from the coal
gasification processes in the groundwater near the site. On-site groundwater and soil
contain VOCs such as benzene, toluene, and xylene and the metals lead and mercury.
Contaminated soil and groundwater could pose a risk to human health. Private drinking
water wells are not contaminated.
31
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater and soil.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the utility undertook an emergency
cleanup action featuring a groundwater extraction system. Currently operational, it is
designed to contain the contaminated area of groundwater. The system will continue to
operate throughout the remedy design stage and future cleanup activities, until the contamination
levels set by the EPA and the State are achieved.
Groundwater and Soil: Also under the EPA's guidance, the utility completed an
intensive study of groundwater and soil contamination at the site in 1990. The remedy
selected includes excavating and incinerating contaminated soil and source areas,
continuing the groundwater extraction and treatment system, and conducting a pilot study for
possible in-place bioremediation of the contaminated groundwater. The potentially responsible
parties began the technical design for the remedy in early 1991.
Site Facts: In 1989, Iowa Electric entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA
to conduct additional investigations. The utility signed a Consent Decree with the EPA in March
1991 for performance of the technical design and cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The groundwater extraction system currently in use at the Fairfield Coal site has reduced the level of
contamination, and the design of the technical specifications for the site cleanup is underway.
April 1991 32 FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT
-------
FARMERS' MUTUA
COOPERATIVE
IOWA
EPAID#IAD022193577
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Sioux County
Hospers
Site Description
The Farmers' Mutual Cooperative is an agricultural supply and service business that has operated at
this 6-acre site since 1908. The cooperative lies along the eastern side of the Floyd River and
currently stores bulk grain, fertilizers, and pesticides. In 1984, the Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and grain fumigant in two
municipal wells in Hospers. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources prohibited the use of these
two wells, in addition to a third well nearby. In 1985, the Cooperative found some of the same
chemicals on its property and in the Floyd River downstream of the site. The Hospers municipal
wells serve approximately 1,900 people and are within a 3-mile radius of the site. There are 109
deep and shallow wells and approximately 1,100 people within 3 miles of the Cooperative. The
closest residence is approximately 100 feet away. Residents use the groundwater for drinking,
irrigating crops, and watering stock.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with VOCs and various herbicides such as
atrazine and dual. Groundwater contaminants have polluted water under the Cooperative
property and the closed public wells. A sample taken from the Floyd River indicated the
presence of carbon tetrachloride and various pesticides. Human health could be harmed
by drinking contaminated groundwater; however, Hospers' current public water supplies
are not contaminated.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
33
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the Cooperative, under State monitoring, began an intensive study
of groundwater and soil pollution at and around the site. This investigation is intended to
pinpoint the nature and extent of pollution problems and to recommend the best option for
final cleanup. Field work and sampling at the site were completed in 1990. Initial plans for site
cleanup include pumping contaminated groundwater and treatment with granular activated carbon.
A final remedy selection is expected in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State issued an Administrative Order, requiring the Cooperative to conduct
a study to determine the type and extent of the contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives.
Partial results were submitted to the State in 1987, and negotiations culminated in a Consent Order,
signed in 1987, providing for a groundwater study and completion of the site study.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were needed at the Farmers' Mutual Cooperative site, pending selection of the
final site cleanup approach.
April 1991 34 FARMERS' MUTUAL COOPERATIVE
-------
IOWA ARMY
AMMUNITION
PLANT
IOWA
EPA ID# IA7213820445
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Des Moines County
10 miles west of Burlington
The 19,127-acre Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) site's primary activity since 1941 has been
to load, assemble, and pack a variety of conventional ammunitions and fusing systems. Wastes
currently produced at IAAP consist of various explosive-laden sludges, wastewater, and solids; lead-
contaminated sludges; ashes from incineration and open burning of explosives; and waste solvents
from industrial and laboratory operations. Past operations also generated waste pesticides,
radioactive wastes (which have been removed from the site), and incendiaries. The Army has
identified a number of potentially contaminated areas, including an abandoned 4-acre settling
lagoon, the Line 800 Pinkwater Lagoon, which received wastewater containing explosives from
1943 to 1955. It now holds an estimated 37,000 cubic yards of hazardous sludges. A second area
under investigation involves an earthen and concrete dam across Brush Creek, the former Line 1
impoundment, which was used from 1948 to 1957. Wastewater flowed through a 3 1/2-acre
sedimentation area where explosives settled out. The liquids subsequently overflowed the dam into
Brush Geek. Approximately 100 people live within 3 miles of the site and obtain drinking water
from private wells within 3 miles of the base. Surface water within 3 miles downstream of the site is
used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
HI
The Army conducted tests from 1981 to 1984 and detected explosives from former waste
disposal practices in surface water and wells downgradient of the lagoon and dam. In
1984, the U.S. Army detected explosives and lead in creek sediments. People using
Brush Creek for recreational purposes may be at risk due to the contaminated sludge
lagoons. Individuals drinking from contaminated wells also may be at risk.
35
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Army began a study to investigate the type and extent of contamination
at the site in 1990. Upon completion of the study, scheduled for 1995, the Army will
suggest alternative technologies for cleanup. The site probably will be split into several
remedial phases for the management of cleanup activities.
Site Facts: A Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement between the Army and the EPA was
signed in 1988. The installation subsequently was proposed for the NPL, and Interagency
Agreement negotiations are being initiated. The IAAP site 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
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were needed at the IAAP site while further studies leading to long-term
cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 36 IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
JOHN DEERE
(OTTUMWA
LANDFILLS)
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005291182
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Wapello County
Ottumwa
Site Description
The John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfills) site consists of 118-acre tract of land and has been used
for the manufacture of farm implements since 1946. From 1911 until 1973, the company disposed
of approximately 3,000 tons of solvents, paint sludges, acids, heavy metals, and cyanide on site. The
site is 200 feet from prime agricultural land. Approximately 700 people obtain drinking water from
private wells within 3 miles of the site. The main water supply for Ottumwa (population 27,000) is
the Des Moines River, the intake is 4,000 feet upstream from the John Deere landfills. The river
also is used for recreational activities. The city's secondary water supply, which is used
intermittently throughout the year, is Black Lake. It is 500 feet downgradient of the on-site landfills.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
V
Low levels of various heavy metals from site disposal activities have been
detected in the soil, surface water, and sediments. Also, low levels of methylene
chloride, a volatile organic compound (VOC), are present in the soil and
sediments. Potential risks may exist for individuals who accidently ingest or
touch contaminated soil and surface water.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the John Deere Company began an investigation in
1990 to determine the type and extent of contamination. Field work was completed in late
1990, and the investigation is planned to be completed in 1991. Alternative cleanup
technologies will be recommended, the EPA will select the most appropriate remedies, and cleanup
activities will begin soon thereafter.
Site Facts: In 1989, the John Deere Company entered into an Administrative Order on Consent
with the EPA to conduct an investigation to determine the type and extent of contamination at the
site and to identify alternative technologies for the cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that no
immediate actions were required at the John Deere Company site while further studies and long-term
cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 38 JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS LANDFILLS*
-------
LABOUNTY Slfl?
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980631063
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Floyd County
Charles City
Site Description
The Labounty Site covers 8 1/2 acres on the Cedar River flood plain. From 1953 to 1977,
Salsbury Laboratories, a manufacturer of veterinary Pharmaceuticals, disposed of over 6 million
cubic feet of sludges containing various compounds and metals on the site. This has resulted in
the contamination of a shallow groundwater aquifer that connects to the Cedar River.
Investigations by the EPA and the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality in 1977 and 1978
revealed that major waste components were being leached and transported from the disposal site
by groundwater to the Cedar River. The State of Iowa ordered the site closed in 1977. That
same year, Salsbury constructed a 24-well groundwater monitoring system, and, in 1980,
completed a clay cap over the wastes. Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles of the
site. The nearest residence is 1,000 feet from the site. People in the area use groundwater in the
adjacent aquifer for drinking water supplies.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and arsenic leached into the groundwater
and surface water from the disposal site. Drinking of contaminated surface water
and groundwater or inhaling volatilized contaminants from the site were potential
threats to individuals.
39
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination installed a
groundwater monitoring system in 1979 and a clay cap in 1980. The capping
effectively has reduced the leaching of wastes located above the water table. However,
capping was not effective in reducing pollutant leaching where wastes were placed below the
water table. Therefore, under EPA monitoring, the potentially responsible parties installed an
upgradient groundwater diversion wall between 1985 and 1986. The wall diverts groundwater
around the fill material into the Cedar River. Salsbury will continue to sample monitoring wells
and the Cedar River. The EPA has conducted a limited amount of field sampling and currently is
preparing the five-year review to determine if the site should be deleted from the NPL.
Site Facts: The State of Iowa issued an Administrative Order in 1977 that required the owner,
Salsbury Laboratories, to prevent runoff, cease operations, and submit a plan for the removal of
wastes. In 1985, the EPA and Salsbury entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for the
construction of the upgradient diversion wall and monitoring system in the upper and lower
Cedar Valley aquifers.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Labounty Site. The EPA and the potentially
responsible parties will continue to test the effectiveness of the completed cleanup actions and
soon will determine if the site should be deleted from the NPL.
April 1991 40 LABOUNTY SITE
-------
LAWRENCE
FARM
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD000606038
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Clinton County
1 mile west of Camanche
Other Names:
DuPont Company Landfill
Site Description
The Lawrence Todtz Farm site is located in a predominantly agricultural area of Clinton and covers
slightly over 6 acres. Municipal solid waste and industrial solid and liquid wastes were disposed at
the site from 1958 to 1975. The E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company, Inc.'s cellophane plant buried
4,300 tons of liquid waste at the site from 1972 to 1975. The wastes were reported to include strong
acids and bases, plasticizers, resins, alcohols, inorganic salts, paints, and pigments. The site was
closed in 1975 and capped with approximately 2 feet of "red sugar" clay and topsoil overlay. One
hundred people live within 1 mile of the site. Within 1/4 mile of the site are 10 farmhouses with
private wells for drinking water and approximately 12 mobile homes. Murphy's Lake (formerly
Willow Lake) and Badixen Lake, located near the site, are used for recreational activities such as
fishing and swimming. Two chemical industrial plants are located within a mile of the landfill.
Evidence of deer, raccoon, and cattle has been seen on the site. Wild geese were observed on the
site and the surrounding lakes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater samples from on-site monitoring wells detected heavy metals including
arsenic, barium, and lead; sodium; and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
benzene and toluene from the former waste disposal activities on the site. Sodium was
the only contaminant detected at levels above health guidelines in groundwater samples
collected from area residential wells. Analyses of soil samples collected in 1988 detected
only arsenic at levels that may pose adverse health effects. Children playing on the site
may risk exposure by accidentally ingesting or touching contaminated soil. Future
contamination of surface water (on-site ponds and nearby lakes) cannot be ruled out if a
release from the impoundment occurs, because the lakes are hydraulically connected to
the shallow sand and gravel aquifer.
41
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
-------
LEHIGH PORTLAND
CEMENT CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005288634
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Cerro Gordo County
Northern section of Mason City
The Lehigh Portland Cement Company owns and operates this Portland cement processing
facility on approximately 150 acres in the northern section of Mason City. The facility has been
in operation since 1937. The southern side of the site is bordered by 25th Street, and a small
residential area is located to the north of the site. The site is composed of abandoned limestone
quarries and mine tailings piles. Waste kiln dust, a by-product in the manufacturing of cement,
has been discarded in piles throughout the facility, and a large quantity also is disposed of
directly into two of the four abandoned quarries on the property. The quarries are filled with
water and have drained into Calmus Creek directly south of the site. In 1984, the Iowa
Department of Water, Air, and Waste Management (WAWM) conducted a comprehensive study
of Calmus Creek and found contaminants that may have come from Blue Waters Pond, one of
the quarries on the Lehigh site. Another NPL site, the Northwestern States Portland Cement
Company, is situated immediately south of the site and is separated from it by Calmus Creek.
An estimated 31,000 people obtain drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles
of the site. Wells are the sole source of drinking water in the area. A small subdivision of about
300 residents is located a mile north of the site. The Winnebago River, within 3 miles
downstream of the site, is used for recreational activities, especially sport fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
I
Groundwater on site is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, as well
as elevated pH levels caused by the former process waste disposal practices at the
site. However, no significant levels of contaminants were found in off-site wells,
and municipal and private drinking water wells are not polluted (except for
sodium in one residential well). Sodium, sulfates, and elevated pHs were detected
in Arch Pond and Blue Waters Pond, both on the Lehigh site. Calmus Creek is
polluted, and people who use the creek for recreation or who may eat fish from it
could be at risk. The pH level of soil, sediments, and surface water of the quarry
is high enough to be considered caustic; therefore, direct contact with these
substances could be a health hazard. If the contaminant plume migrates from
Calmus Creek and into the Cedar Valley Aquifer, the private wells may become
contaminated and could pose a health hazard to people who use them.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase directed
at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: After the Iowa Department of Natural Resources found that surface
water contamination in the creek was related to contaminants at the site, a weir was
placed in the southeastern corner to control water elevations, because one of the
quarries overflows during heavy rainfall. Dikes also were constructed to separate three of the
quarries; an aboveground piping system was installed, which pumps water from one of the
quarries to another. Lehigh installed three monitoring wells and sampled groundwater and
surface water.
Entire Site: A site investigation has been conducted by Lehigh to determine the type
and extent of contamination at the site. The EPA is evaluating the alternatives and
plans to select the most appropriate remedies for final site cleanup in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order, requiring Lehigh to conduct a
hydrogeological investigation of the quarry. In 1989, the State issued another Administrative
Order, requiring Lehigh to conduct a study to determine the type and extent of contamination on
the site.
Environmental Progress
The construction of dikes to isolate the contamination in the quarries and the piping system that
pumps water from one quarry to another have helped to reduce the potential for migration of
contaminants or accidental exposure to contaminated groundwater or surface water while the
Lehigh Portland Cement site awaits further cleanup activities.
April 1991 44 LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
-------
MID-AMERIC
TANNING C
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD085824688
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Woodbury County
5 miles south of Sergeant Bluff
The Mid-America Tanning Company site, located south of Sergeant Bluff, covers approximately 100
acres and has processed hides under several names since 1969. In 1979, the Mid-America Tanning
Company discharged an estimated 1,000 cubic yards of tannery sludges containing chromium into
two unlined trenches on the property. U.S. Tanning acquired the operation in 1985. Wastes were
treated on site. Solids were settled out in concrete-lined ponds, while liquids were chemically
treated and then discharged into Oxbow Lake. The site is in the Missouri River flood plain.
Approximately 85 people live within a mile of the site, and 850 people live within 3 miles.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/30/89
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells on site show that the groundwater is contaminated with heavy
metals including arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, and cadmium from the former
process waste disposal practices. The sediments and surface water of Oxbow
Lake contain elevated levels of heavy metals. The groundwater, used by local
residents as a drinking water supply, may be polluted with heavy metals; drinking
such tainted water would be hazardous to human health. About a mile north of
the site is a wetland used as a nesting site for the piping plover, an endangered
species.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
45
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1990, the EPA removed approximately 1,300 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sludge from on-site burial pits. This material later will be solidified
as part of the final cleanup remedy. The EPA also plans to remove any raw materials
found on site and recycle them, if possible. These initial actions are scheduled to be completed in
1991.
Entire Site: Due to financial difficulties encountered by the potentially responsible party,
the EPA has had to initiate studies into the nature and extent of contamination at the site
and the alternative technologies for cleanup. Completion of this study and selection of a
cleanup alternative, expected to entail solidification methods for surface soils, are scheduled for
1991.
Site Facts: The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the potentially responsible party
in late 1989. Due to financial difficulties, the party did not comply with the initial actions specified
in the Order.
Environmental Progress
The EPA is completing initial actions to address elevated levels of cadmium, arsenic, barium, and
lead in the groundwater by excavating and consolidating contaminated materials. These actions will
contain the source of contamination and will remove the potential for direct contact with hazardous
wastes on site.
April 1991 46 MID-AMERICA TANNING CO.
-------
MIDWEST
NORTH FARM
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD069625655
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Jasper County
2 miles north of Kellogg
Other Names:
North Farm
Smith-Jones
Site Description
The Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm site contains two subsites: the North Farm subsite, which
is an unlined disposal cell 2 miles from the facility; and the Midwest Manufacturing subsite, which
is the plant facility. The sites were combined, because they contain the same wastes and affect the
same population. From 1973 to 1981, under Smith-Jones ownership, the plant was engaged in
electroplating special-order stamped metal pieces, a process that involved using various heavy
metals. The plant currently manufactures high-speed flywheel ring gears and assemblies for
automobiles. Prior to a wastewater treatment plant being brought on-line in 1977, the electroplating
waste from the plant was discharged directly into the North Skunk River. From 1977 to 1978, the
sludge produced by this process was disposed of in an unlined cell at North Farm, 2 miles northeast
of the plant. The unlined cell does not have a soil cap and lacks a leachate collection system or other
containment measures to prevent the release of hazardous substances. A trench near the plant itself
also was used to dispose of the sludge produced by the treatment process. In 1982, the EPA
collected sludge samples from the disposal trench, and concentrations of metals were found to be
below the concentrations that would designate the sludge as hazardous. Groundwater samples
identified the potential for contaminant migration from the disposal trench. During an EPA site visit
in 1987, a manmade drainage ditch was discovered to the west of the disposal trench at the plant
The sediments in this ditch were covered with a black, oily substance that had a petroleum odor.
Stressed vegetation and an oily substance floating on top of the water were observed in a marshy
area located on the western end of the plant property. Approximately 700 people depend on wells
located within 3 miles of the site for their drinking water supply.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Midwest Plant city well #1 showed elevated levels of zinc from the former waste disposal
activities, during sampling in 1982. Recent groundwater studies found elevated levels of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, and
dichlorothylene and the heavy metals cadmium and nickel. Surface soils at both subsites
contain high concentrations of heavy metals. Adverse health effects could result from
ingesting vegetables grown on contaminated soils or watered with contaminated
groundwater. Consuming contaminated groundwater may pose a health risk to area
residents. The site is located within a critical habitat of the Indiana bat, which is on the
endangered species list of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
47
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases directed at cleanup of the Midwest
subsite and the North Farm subsite.
Response Action Status
Midwest Manufacturing Plant Subsite: The EPA concluded a study of the nature
and extent of contamination at the plant site in 1990. Based on the results of the study, the
EPA has selected a remedy that includes extracting and treating the groundwater through
air stripping and filtration, along with capping the site to contain contamination. The design efforts
are expected to begin in 1991.
North Farm Subsite: The remedy for the North Farm subsite has been selected and
includes excavation of contaminated soil within and around the disposal cell, treatment
and disposal of the soil in a regulated facility, and backfilling and grading excavated areas
with clean fill. The design phase is scheduled to begin in late 1991.
Site Facts: Smith-Jones Midwest Manufacturing and Merl Brown were issued special Notice
Letters in September 1987.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Midwest Manufacturing site to the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary
assessment of site conditions and determined that there were no immediate actions required to
reduce the potential for exposure to contaminants while the designs for the final cleanup
technologies for both subsites are being planned.
April 1991 48 MIDWEST MANUFACTURING / NORTH FARM
-------
NORTHWEST
STATES
PORTLAND
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980852461
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Cerro Gordo County
Mason City
Site Description
The Northwestern States Portland Cement Company (NWSPCC) site covers 150 acres of a 250-acre
parcel of land in Mason City. The NWSPCC began limestone mining operations in 1908. The
company ceased the mining in 1950 and abandoned the quarry west of the plant. In 1969, NWSPCC
began to use the quarry for the disposal of waste kiln dust containing hydroxides, potassium,
chromium, and sulfates. An estimated 2 million tons of waste kiln dust were disposed of in the
quarry. Over the years, the water level rose approximately 2 feet per year, filling in the quarry so
that it held approximately 420 million gallons of water. Rainwater runoff drains from the quarry
into adjacent Calmus Creek, a tributary of the Winnebago River. The Iowa Department of Natural
Resources conducted an investigation in 1984, when a citizen became concerned over the
Winnebago River turning white. Calmus Creek was found to have a higher than normal pH level.
The Mason City municipal wells are within 3 miles of the site and serve approximately 30,000
people. About 300 people obtain their drinking water from private wells within 1 1/2 miles of the
site. The municipal wells are connected to the deep Jordan aquifer. The private wells are served by
the Cedar Valley aquifer. Calmus Creek and the Winnebago River are used for recreational
activities, including fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
I
The groundwater is contaminated with sulfates, sodium, and elevated pH from the former
process waste disposal practices at the site. Although the groundwater is contaminated,
municipal and private drinking water wells are not polluted. If the contaminant plume
migrates from Calmus Creek and into the Cedar Valley aquifer, the private wells may
become contaminated and pose a health hazard to people who use them. Sediments and
soils are contaminated with higher than normal pH. Calmus Creek is contaminated with
higher than normal pH, and people who use the creek for recreation or eat fish from it
may be at risk. The increased pH found in soil, sediments, and surface water of the
quarry is considered caustic; therefore, coming in direct contact with these substances
would pose a health risk.
49
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
~]x Initial Actions: The State ordered NWSPCC to stop discharges into Calmus Creek, and
^\_ the company complied by installing a system that intercepts the flow and pumps the water
back into the quarry. In 1987, the company began treating the surface water before
discharging it into the creek.
Entire Site: The NWSPCC has pumped most of the water from the quarry. The
NWSPCC also conducted an investigation, under State supervision, to determine the
extent of contamination at the site. The investigation was completed in 1990. Based on
the results of the investigation, a remedy was selected. Along with pumping the water from the
quarry, it includes construction of a permanent drain system in the quarry to collect precipitation
runoff and groundwater inflow; installation of a cap over the quarry area filled with waste kiln dust
to minimize infiltration through to kiln dust; installation of bedrock dewatering wells to collect
contaminated groundwater, to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater, and to maintain
groundwater levels; installation of kiln dust dewatering wells, if necessary; treatment of
contaminated waters and final discharge into Calmus Creek; and continued operation of a
dewatering system. The design of these technologies by NWSPCC is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order to NWSPCC to stop discharges into
Calmus Creek. In addition, the Order instructed the company to conduct a study, under State
supervision, to determine the effect of the quarry on the environment. In 1989, the State issued an
Administrative Order to NWSPCC to complete the study.
Environmental Progress
Pumping the water from the quarry and treating surface water prior to release to Calmus Creek have
reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated water and sediments at the Northwestern States
site while the design of the final site remedies is taking place.
April 1991 50 NORTHWESTERN STATES
PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
-------
PEOPLES NA
GAS CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980852578
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Dubuque County
East Dubuque
Other Names:
Key City Coal Gasification Plant
Site Description
The Peoples Natural Gas Company site is located in Dubuque and covers approximately 5 acres.
From 1890 until 1954, the Key City Gas Company owned and operated this gas plant, where a
natural gas substitute was produced from coal. In 1954, the North Central Public Service Company
took over operations until 1957, when Peoples Natural Gas Company assumed operations. The
company used the site as a storage and maintenance area and did not manufacture gas. Peoples
Natural Gas sold the site to the City of Dubuque, which used it as the Dubuque Municipal Garage in
the late 1970s. Two waste products resulting from coal gasification are of primary concern: coal tar
sludges and spent iron oxide. Coal tar sludges were produced during the coal or coke combustion
and during the oil injection processes, and spent iron oxide wastes were produced during the gas
purification process. Spent iron oxide wastes, removed from the three gas cleaning boxes (purifiers),
were dumped behind two gas holding tanks on the site at least twice a year. Approximately 5,400
cubic yards of spent iron oxide wastes were deposited in the northeastern section of the site. Coal
tars were removed from the gas in the wash box and condenser. These wastes either were sold or
disposed of in pits or holding tanks. Two coal tar waste storage tanks were used at the Key City
plant, one aboveground and one below. The aboveground tank has been removed. Evidence of
materials left in the underground tank, as well as migration of waste out of the tank, is supported by
a study done by the Iowa Department of Transportation in 1983 while conducting a right-of-way
survey for the proposed extension of U.S. 61. An estimated 60,000 people obtain drinking water
from municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. Approximately 2,400 people live within a mile of
the site, and 21,000 people live within 3 miles. The Mississippi River is approximately 500 feet east
of the site. Surface water downstream is used for industrial and recreational activities. A wildlife
and fish refuge is 2 miles downstream, and wetlands are within 1/2 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
51
Aprii1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and inorganic chemicals from the
gasification process wastes were detected by the State in on-site wells. Soil samples
collected at the site in 1983 also contained phenols, PAHs, and inorganic chemicals.
Accidental ingestion or direct contact with contaminated soil or groundwater may pose
potential health threats to individuals. No private drinking water wells have been
identified in the area. The wetlands and the wildlife and fish refuge may be threatened by
runoff from the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination currently are removing the contaminated coal tar sludges and soils
containing contaminants above human health standards from within the construction
corridor for U.S. Highway 61. Contaminated soil will be incinerated off site at a federally approved
facility. The actual removal of sludges and soils is scheduled to be completed in 1991, with the
incineration lasting until 1992.
Soil and Groundwater: A complete study of the extent and type of groundwater and
soil contamination is being conducted by the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination. The study is scheduled for completion in 1991. The soil to be studied will
include contaminated soils outside of the construction corridor for U.S. 61.
Site Facts: The EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent with Midwest Gas (of Iowa
Public Service, a successor corporation of Peoples Natural Gas), the Iowa Department of
Transportation, and the City of Dubuque in 1989. The Order requires the company to remove or
treat any contaminated soil. It also requires completion of an investigation to determine the need for
treatment of residual soil and for groundwater treatment.
Environmental Progress
Once the contaminated soil is removed from the Peoples Natural Gas site, the area will be safer for
the surrounding communities and the ecologically sensitive areas close to the site while
investigations and selection of the final remedy are being completed.
April 1991 52 PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY
-------
RED OAK
CITY LANDFlUH
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980632509
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Montgomery County
1 1/2 miles northwest of Red Oak
Other Names:
Union Carbide Disposal
Site Description
The 40-acre Red Oak City Landfill is an inactive landfill located within an old limestone quarry
in a rural setting. Of the 40 acres, 20 acres were used for disposal. The landfill is bounded on
the west by Parkwest Road and on the east by the East Nishnabotna River. Quarrying activities
at the site were conducted by strip mining from the late 1940s to the early 1960s. A limestone
rim was left in place between the quarry pit and the west bank of the river to prevent flooding.
Red Oak purchased the site property in the mid-1950s and converted it into a municipal landfill.
From 1962 until 1974, hazardous substances were deposited in the landfill. The landfill lacks a
leachate collection system and other engineering structures such as a liner or an effective cover
to contain the disposed hazardous wastes. There is a thin layer of soil covering the landfill, and
at some points, waste materials, including 55-gallon drums, are exposed to the surface. The
eastern portion of the landfill, adjacent to the East Nishnabotna River, is being eroded as a result
of river bank undercutting and surface water runoff. In 1981, Union Carbide Corp. and
Uniroyal, Inc. notified the EPA that wastes they had sent to the landfill contained metals, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and alcohol. In 1984, the EPA observed leachate seeping from the
landfill into the river. Approximately 7,000 people within 3 miles of the site depend on
groundwater as a source of drinking water. The nearest residence uses a private well 1,800 feet
away from the landfill. There are 250 people living within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06710/86
Final Dale: 03/13/89
Threats and Contaminants
VOCs including toluene and xylene and heavy metals including chromium, lead,
and barium from the landfilling practices have been detected in the groundwater
and the surface water. The sediments near the landfill contain toluene. Wells
located near the landfill may be contaminated. Accidentally ingesting or coming
in direct contact with the contaminated groundwater, surface water, or sediments
could be hazardous to the health of people in the area. There also is prime
agricultural land adjacent to the site, which could be contaminated by chemicals
from the site. The landfill is situated in permeable soil, which increases the
chances of the groundwater being contaminated.
53
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The investigative work to determine the extent and nature of the
contamination on site originally was conducted by the EPA and then taken over by the
potentially responsible parties. This investigation is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties signed a Consent Order in November 1989 with
the EPA, in which they agreed to study the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to
evaluate cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
After placing the Red Oak City Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA determined, after a
preliminary assessment of site conditions, that no immediate actions were required while further
investigations leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking place.
April! 991 54 RED OAK CITY LANDFILL
-------
SHAW AVENUE DUMP
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630560
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Floyd County
Charles City
The Shaw Avenue Dump site, an 8-acre city dump, is located in southeastern Charles City,
approximately 500 feet east of the Cedar River. The City owns the site and operated it as a
municipal waste dump without a permit. Two areas in the northern half of the site were used
from 1949 to 1953 to dispose of 14,000 to 28,000 cubic feet of arsenic-contaminated solid waste
generated by Salsbury Laboratories in the production of animal pharmaceuticals. Sludge from
the Charles City wastewater treatment plant, which received liquid wastes discharged from
Salsbury, was placed in the northern waste cells and in an undefined area on the southern portion
of the site. The northern disposal area no longer is in use and has been covered with soil and
vegetated. Between the southern and northern areas, trenches were used for disposing of lime
sludges from the drinking water treatment plant. The City and the public used this area for open
burning of wastes. The site is within a large residential area. A high school is located
approximately 1,000 feet north of the site. Students use a playground and a stadium within 500
feet of the northern waste disposal cells. One residence, 1,500 feet southeast of the site, uses a
private well for domestic purposes. The Charles City municipal water supply system, within 2
miles uphill of the site, serves 8,800 people. The Cedar River flows through Charles City and is
used for recreational fishing, swimming, and canoeing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with arsenic from the disposal site.
The Cedar River also is contaminated with arsenic. Students playing on school
grounds, City employees grading areas of the site, construction workers on site,
and trespassers may inhale contaminated dust during future excavation. Direct
contact with the contaminated soil, groundwater, and surface water could result in
irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. The site is surrounded by a fence
with no-trespassing signs and a locked gate.
55
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA began an investigation of the site and its cleanup alternatives
in 1987; however, a party potentially responsible for site contamination took over the
investigation in 1988. Completion of the investigation and the selection of the cleanup
alternatives are expected in mid-1991.
Site Facts: In March 1987, the EPA sent letters notifying Salsbury Laboratories and Charles
City of their potential responsibility and requested information about their use of the site. A
Consent Order was completed on May 26,1988. Under this Order, the potentially responsible
parties will conduct an investigation to determine the type and extent of contamination on the
site.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Shaw Avenue Dump site to the NPL, the EPA determined that no immediate
actions were required while the investigations leading to selection of a remedy are taking place.
April 1991 56 SHAW AVENUE DUMP
-------
SHELLER-GLOBE
CORP. DISPO
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630750
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lee County
4 miles northwest of Keokuk
Other Names:
Grimes Property
Site Description
Sheller-Globe Corp. operated an industrial landfill and solvent burning area from 1947 to 1970.
The 5-acre site was filled in and sold in 1980 to an individual who built a home on it and draws
water from a 300-foot-deep on-site well. The water from the well contains lead and zinc,
possibly from the distribution lines. In the past, the Sheller-Globe Corporation manufactured
rubber products, including automobile weather stripping, at a facility located in Keokuk. Liquids
and sludges from the operation were deposited directly into a ravine with no system for diverting
surface runoff. According to the company, among these wastes were at least 1,000 drums of
paint sludge, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), isopropyl alcohol, and resins containing
fluorocarbons. Solvents routinely were burned in the open. In 1987, the EPA found heavy metal
and VOC contamination in soil, groundwater, and surface water during testing. The Agency also
observed seepage and an oil sheen on an intermittent stream near the northeastern edge of the
site. More recently, the EPA also found 52 drums on the surface, as well as scrap rubber and
polyurethane foam. An estimated 1,125 people obtained their drinking water from private wells
within 3 miles of the heavily wooded rural site. Many now obtain drinking water from one of
two rural water districts recently made available.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc and VOCs from the former disposal activities.
The surface water is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic.
Accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater, surface water, or soil may
cause a potential health threat. The Mississippi River, approximately 3 miles
downstream of the site, is used for recreational boating and fishing and could be
subject to pollution from the site runoff.
57
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation of the site and the possible cleanup alternatives by the
potentially responsible parties began in late 1990. Field work is expected to begin in
1991. The decision on cleanup methods is scheduled for 1992.
Site Facts: An Administrative order on Consent, requiring the potentially responsible parties to
conduct site studies, was signed October 18,1990.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of the Sheller-Globe Disposal site on the NPL, the EPA determined, after an initial
evaluation of the site conditions, that the site did not require any immediate actions while intensive
studies leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking place.
April 1991
58
SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL
-------
VOGEL PAINT &
WAX COMPA
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630487
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Sioux County
Maurice
Other Names:
Vogel Disposal Site
Vogel Paint & Wax Company used a 2-acre disposal area within an 80-acre parcel of land. A sand
and gravel pit was used by the company for disposal of its paint and varnish production wastes.
From 1967 to 1979, the site received paint wastes containing heavy metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and mineral spirits. Liquid wastes were dumped into several trenches from 8 to
12 feet deep. The trenches were left open for extended periods to allow evaporation. Partially filled
and full drums and other debris were dumped on top of the liquid wastes. The trenches eventually
were covered with 1 to 2 feet of soil. The company has conducted numerous investigations in
conjunction with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to determine the extent of the pollution.
The site lies within a primarily agricultural area, and Maurice, with a population of 288, is located 2
miles northeast of the site. Struble is 3 miles south of the site and has a population of 59. The
Southern Sioux County Rural Water System well field, located approximately 2 miles downstream
of the site, serves 3,200 people. Within 1,600 feet upstream of the disposal site is an agricultural
well and a residential well used for drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium, chromium, lead,
and mercury and VOCs such as benzene and xylene from the former disposal activities.
The soil and surface water are contaminated with heavy metals. Any contaminated soil
above the waste trench area may be a potential health hazard if airborne dust is inhaled or
direct contact is made with the contaminants in the soil. Contaminated surface water
could affect plant and animal life in the intermittent streams.
59
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an initial action and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: As a preliminary action, a 2-foot thick clay cap was placed over the
disposal area, and floating hydrocarbons are removed from the top of the water table
on a monthly basis. This action has reduced the floating hydrocarbons from about 2
feet thick to only intermittent presence.
Entire Site: After evaluating alternative cleanup methods, the EPA selected a
remedy for cleanup of the site. The potentially responsible parties will excavate
contaminated soils and separate solid and liquid waste for off-site incineration,
recycling, or disposal. An estimated 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils will be treated
using a bioremediation process in a fully contained surface impoundment unit. Treated soil will
be stabilized, if necessary, to prevent leaching of metals, placed back into the excavation area,
and covered. Groundwater will be pumped and air stripped, with discharge to the nearby stream.
Losses of volatile organics to the atmosphere in both the soil and groundwater actions will be
controlled by carbon adsorption, if necessary. Health-based standards for groundwater and
leaching standards for soils have been established. The potentially responsible parties are
conducting design activities for the cleanup. Once this step is completed, scheduled for later in
1991, the cleanup activities will begin.
Site Facts: A State Consent Order has been signed and the Vogel Paint & Wax Co. has taken
responsibility for the costs incurred to date. The site currently is listed on the State Abandoned
or Uncontrolled Sites Registry (SAUSR). Substantial changes or transfer of property on this
registry is prohibited without written approval of the Director of the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources.
Environmental Progress
By placing a cap over the areas of greatest contamination and removing the floating
contaminants from standing water, the Vogel Paint & Wax site no longer poses an immediate
threat to the public or the environment. Further long-term cleanup actions at the site are being
designed and are scheduled to begin soon.
April 1991 60 VOGEL PAINT & WAX COMPANY
-------
WHITE FARM
EQUIPMENT
DUMP
IOWA
EPAID#IAD065210734
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Floyd County
Along the northern boundary of Charles City
The White Farm Equipment Co. Dump site occupies approximately 20 acres along the northern
border of Charles City. The dump is located in an old sand and gravel pit that is bordered by
low-lying areas and farmland. Tractors and other farm equipment have been manufactured near
the dump since the early 1900s. White Farm Equipment operated on land leased from H.E.
Construction Co. until it filed for bankruptcy in 1980. Allied Products Co. purchased the
operation in late 1986. Starting in the 1920s, White Farm's operations generated foundry sand,
sludges, and dust from air pollution control equipment. Since 1971, the plant intermittently has
been disposing of foundry sands, baghouse dust, and other industrial wastes at the site.
Approximately 650,000 cubic yards of these wastes were placed on site. Nearby residents have
complained of dust blowing off the dump. Charles City draws its drinking water from an aquifer
underlying the White Farm Equipment Dump site. There are about 10,000 people living within 3
miles of the site who use drinking water from public and private wells within 3 miles of the site,
and 2,300 people live within a 1-mile radius of the site. The contamination from the site flows
into the Cedar River, which is used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the former waste disposal practices are
contaminating the groundwater. Sediments, soils, and surface water contain
heavy metals. Health of individuals could be at risk if the contaminated
groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments are accidentally ingested or
touched. The pollutants also may be affecting the Cedar River wetlands,
disturbing the ecological balance.
61
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: One of the parties potentially responsible for the contamination investigated
the nature and extent of contamination. The investigation included characterization of
waste in the landfill, determination of contamination spread by rainwater runoff, detection
of contamination spread by air, detection of contamination spread by dissolved metal, and
determination of groundwater movement and evaluation of possible connections between the
shallow aquifer and the drinking water aquifer. The EPA chose a compacted soil and vegetative
layer cap as the cleanup measure. The potentially responsible parties will design the remedy,
scheduled to begin in mid-1991.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA and two parties potentially responsible for the contamination signed
an Administrative Order on Consent. In that Order, one of the parties agreed to take responsibility
for the site investigation to determine the nature and the extent of the contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the site to the NPL, the EPA determined that no immediate actions were required while
cleanup activities are being planned and work is started.
April 1991 62 WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
63
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
65
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
66
-------
GLOSSARY
extent and nature of toxic releases. Character-
ization provides the basis for acquiring the
necessary technical information to develop,
screen, analyze, and select appropriate
cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the
potential for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
metals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly
toxic and water-soluble, making it a relatively
mobile contaminant in the environment.
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a
release or threat of release of a hazardous
substance. The term "cleanup" sometimes is
used interchangeably with the terms remedial
action, removal action, response action, or
corrective action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill
stops accepting wastes and is shut down,
under Federal guidelines that ensure the
protection of the public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period
is provided when the EPA proposes to add
sites to the NPL. There is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed
to clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communica-
tion with the public. Goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related ac-
tions, assuring public input into decision-
making processes related to affected commu-
nities, and making certain that the Agency is
aware of, and responsive to, public concerns.
Specific community relations activities are
required in relation to Superfund cleanup
actions [see Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come to-
gether.
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform and/or the costs incurred by the
government that the parties will reimburse, as
well as the roles, responsibilities, and enforce-
ment options that the government may exer-
cise in the event of non-compliance by poten-
tially responsible parties. If a settlement
between the EPA and a potentially respon-
sible party includes cleanup actions, it must
be in the form of a Consent Decree. A Con-
sent Decree is subject to a public comment
period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in a pond or a lagoon, to pre-
vent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
67
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
68
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangeiment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
69
-------
GLOSSARY
and willingness to perform a site study or
cleanup.
Groundwater: Underground water that fills
pores in soils or openings in rocks to the point
of saturation. In aquifers, groundwater occurs
in sufficient quantities for use as drinking and
irrigation water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. It possesses at
least one of four characteristics (ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), or appears
on special EPA lists.
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site con-
taining exceptionally high levels of contami-
nation.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by con-
trolled burning at high temperatures, e.g.,
burning sludge to reduce the remaining
residues to a non-burnable ash that can be
disposed of safely on land, in some waters, or
in underground locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or other
liquid down through soil from precipitation
(rain or snow) or from application of waste-
water to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical substances
of mineral origin, not of basic carbon struc-
ture.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water
supply is drawn, such as from a river or water
body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
70
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland],
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, omnium,
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 groundwatercan
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
71
-------
GLOSSARY
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
72
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant. Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
73
-------
GLOSSARY.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and
the removal of contaminants, using one of
several treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to
their unstable atomic structure. Some are
man-made, and others are naturally occurring
in the environment. Radon, the gaseous form
of radium, decays to form alpha particle
radiation, which cannot be absorbed through
skin. However, it can be inhaled, which
allows alpha particles to affect unprotected
tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Radia-
tion also occurs naturally through the break-
down of granite stones.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the
earth to reach an aquifer.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public docu-
ment that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construc-
tion or implementation phase of a Superfund
site cleanup following the remedial design
[see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup,
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contami-
nation at a Superfund site, establish the
criteria for cleaning up the site, identify the
preliminary alternatives for cleanup actions,
and support the technical and cost analyses of
the alternatives. The remedial investigation
is usually done with the feasibility study.
Together they are customarily referred to as
the RI/FS [see Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at a site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed with-
out further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant remain-
ing in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubbing, or
other, process.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA): A Federal law that established a
regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
74
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
75
-------
GLOSSARY.
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment process
that uses vacuum wells to remove hazardous
gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to
remove undesirable materials. There are two
approaches: dissolving or suspending them in
the wash solution for later treatment by
conventional methods, and concentrating
them into a smaller volume of soil through
simple particle size separation techniques [see
Solvent Extraction].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical or
physical reduction of the mobility of hazard-
ous constituents. Mobility is reduced through
the binding of hazardous constituents into a
solid mass with low permeability and resis-
tance to leaching.
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or at-
tracting substances. It is used in many pollu-
tion control systems.
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air
Stripping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority
to respond directly to releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare, or the envi-
ronment. The "Superfund" is a trust fund that
finances cleanup actions at hazardous waste
sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, includ-
ing liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps may be fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wet-
lands].
Thermal Treatment: The use of heat to
remove or destroy contaminants from soil.
Treatability Studies: Testing a treatment
method on contaminated groundwater, soil,
etc., to determine whether and how well the
method will work.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, color-
less liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as
76
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
77
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Iowa
79
-------
e
es.
e act
the
blic
n t
itin
r p
G
i
0 "3
ite re
foun
plans
ies,
C -g
est
ti
Site Name
S-
y oj M
5 S w
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893-60432
81
------- |