&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/038
September 1991
PB92-963211
National
Priorities
List Sites:
MINNESOTA
1931
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-724A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Minnesota
U.S. Environmental Protecf'ci A
Region 5, Library #»/ -•">•• "
77 West Ja
Chicago, JL
acson
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, VA22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Superfund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Minnesota 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 119
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 135
-------
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 v aste 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 *
Illlf
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called a feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site .
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised 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 NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
"""•SttfiDescription
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
Site Responsibility: •
NPL Listing History
Proposed:
Final:
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
Minnesota
The state of Minnesota is located in EPA Region 5, which includes the six midwestern states
bordering the Great Lakes. Minnesota covers 84,402 square miles and consists of central hilly
and lake regions, rocky ridges and deep lakes in the northeast, flat plains in the northwest, with
rolling plains and deep river valleys in the south. Ranked 20th in the U.S. populations, according
to the 1990 Census, the state experienced a 7% increase in population between 1980 and 1990
and currently has approximately 4,375,000 residents. Principal state industries include agricul-
tural business, forest products, mining, manufacturing, and tourism. Food processing, non-
electrical equipment, printing and publishing, instruments, and fabricated metal are major
manufacturing activities in Minnesota.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Minnesota?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
42
_1
43
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 4 2 sites
Congressional Districts 2, 8 3 sites
Congressional Districts 1,5 5 sites
Congressional Districts 6,7 8 sites
Congressional District 3 9 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Mnnesota?
# of sites
11
7
7
4
3
3
2
6
type of sites
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Lumber & Wood
Disposal Facilities
Metals & Allied Products
Chemicals & Allied Products
Federal Facilities
Petroleum Refining & Related Industries
Others (Underground storage tank
treatment facility, drycleaners, recyclers,
electronics & equipment, coke mill)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
40--
32--
'35
8 --
GW Soil SW Air Sed Solid
Wastes
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), and creosotes (organics).
Soil and Solid Waste: Volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), heavy
metals (inorganics), creosotes (organ-
ics), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
dioxins, and petrochemicals.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Creosotes (organics), heavy metals
(inorganics), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
Air: Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and gases.
* Appear at 10% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process?*
15
Sites
with I
Studies
Underway
2
Sites
with
Remedy
Selected
6
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
17
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
2
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 22 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
• An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
• A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
• A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
• A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
• A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
• A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
• A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
ft
ft
CO
+-
o
c
c
O
0)
03
0)
+-
c
0)
(/)
o.
2
C
CU
_0)
O
•g
CO
0)
o
ol
« «
OC U)
ftftft ft ftft ftft ft ftft
ftftft ft ftft ftft ftft ftftft
Ift ftftft ft ftft ftft ftft ftftftft
g|ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
(A
ll ftft ft ft ftft ft ft ft ft ftft ft
.S .S .S
u.u,u.
.S .5 .S .S .S .S .5 .S .S
U-U.U.U-U.U.U.U.U.
u
A
U. it, U.
April 1991
20
-------
ft
ft
ft
ft ftftft ftft
ftft
ft ft ftft ftftftftftft
ftft
ft ft ftft ftftftftftftft
ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
ftftft ft ft ftft ftft
o
Q
\O
§
u
Site
g 8 2 §
oi of " •
£ S
2223
£2 J2
3 O
o
£
^H CO t** O\
oo oo oo oo
£ £
s\ ®
SON »"H
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
EPA REGION 5
23
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Minnesota, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 5
Office in Chicago, Illinois or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 5 Superfund Community Relations Office
EPA Region 5 Superfund Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center
Minnesota Superfund Office
(312) 353-2073
(312) 886-7456
(800) 424-9346
(202) 260-2080
(612) 296-7290
April 1991
24
-------
ADRIAN MUNI
WELL FIELD
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980904023
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Nobles County
Adrian
Site Description
The Adrian Municipal Well Field site, located within the Adrian city limits, is contaminated with
volatile halogenated and non-halogenated organic chemicals, according to tests conducted by the
State. The State has closed the two most highly contaminated city wells because of the health risk.
The City now is using two uncontaminated wells previously slated to be abandoned due to their age
and low capacity. Since contaminants found in Adrian wells are typical of gasoline contamination,
source investigations have focused on a number of underground storage tanks used to store gasoline
and fuel oil. There are nine separate underground storage tank locations in the vicinity of the Adrian
Municipal Well Field. The source of the contamination appears to be a service station that has had
visibly leaking underground storage tanks removed in the past, and possibly, a local glass company.
The underground storage tanks from all but three of the locations have been removed. The estimated
1987 population of Adrian was 1,305 residents. All households, with one exception, are connected
to a municipal water supply. The nearest residence is approximately two blocks south of the
contaminated area. Several recreational facilities, including a swimming pool, two ballfields, and a
campground, are located between the areas of contamination and the upper arm of Kanaranzi Creek.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is polluted with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene,
toluene, and chloroform. Accidental ingestion, inhalation of airborne contaminants, and
direct contact with contaminated groundwater are potential health threats.
25
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: After installation of activated carbon filtration units, the closed wells (wells
3 and 4) were temporarily brought back on line from July through November 1984.
During this interim period, two new wells were installed outside the area of contamination.
Well 5 went into production in November 1984, and Well 6 went into production in 1985.
Responsibility for the remaining site cleanup actions has been transferred to the EPA's Underground
Storage Tank (UST) program, which is administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), for contaminated soil removal and area cleanup. The site is expected to be removed from
the NPL in late 1991.
Site Facts: The UST program was established in 1986 to clean up contamination resulting from
leaking petroleum storage tanks.
Environmental Progress
The installation of two new wells outside of the area of contamination at the Adrian Municipal Well
Field site has virtually eliminated the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water for users
of the municipal water system. Final cleanup will be conducted under the EPA UST program.
April 1991 26 - ADRIAN MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD
-------
AGATE LAK
SCRAPYARD
MINNESOTA
EPAID#MND980898068
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Cass County
Western shore of Agate Lake,
Fairview Township
Site Description
The Agate Lake Scrapyard covers about 2 acres on the eastern shore of Agate Lake in a rural area of
Fairview Township. The area is used mostly for recreation and residential purposes. About 480
acres of public forest and adjacent wetland near the northwestern side of the site are used for
hunting. Approximately 33 homes, a small resort, and a golf course are located across the lake from
the site. The Agate Lake Scrapyard was operated from 1952 to 1982 as an industrial waste treatment
facility. Two homemade furnaces were used to smelt aluminum, copper, and lead for an unknown
time period until the site closed. Transformer oils and halogenated solvents were used to fuel the
furnace. Transformer liquids sometimes were spilled or drained onto the ground, mainly near the
furnaces. A large ash pile from the furnaces was found in the main transformer storage area. This
pile was fenced during some cleanup of the site in the early 1980s. The fencing has been partially
removed since that time, which allows access to the ash pile. Two smaller ash piles that are thought
to contain asbestos were found on the northeastern side of the site. An on-site open dump area along
the western side of the entrance road, just north of a gully, contains bottles, cans, and other trash.
The gully area slopes down toward a wetland area about 10 feet north. Junked automobiles are
found in various parts of the site, about 100 feet from Agate Lake. Lead batteries were observed in
several places. Approximately 1,100 people reside within 3 miles of the site. These people depend
on groundwater as a source of 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 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
trichloroethylene (TCE), benzene, toluene, and methylene chloride. The soil is
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, furans, and lead.
Exposure to contaminants from soils is most likely through accidental ingestion,
especially by children playing in the area, or by way of inhaling contaminated soil or ash
particles. Swimmers and people fishing may be exposed to PCBs if they use Agate Lake
or the nearby wetlands for recreation. People consuming fish from the lake may be
exposed to health risks.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: interim actions and a long-term,remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: Transformers, five drums of transformer oils, and 51 drums of waste
solvents and liquids were removed from the site in two operations in 1983. Two furnaces
also were dismantled. In fall of 1983, approximately 300 cubic yards of contaminated soil
were excavated from the main transformer storage area and were deposited in an on-site gully
located west of the site entrance road. The contaminated soil was mixed with clean soil and
revegetated with grass seed.
Entire Site: Investigations into the nature and extent of contamination have been
completed by the party potentially responsible for site contamination, under State
monitoring. The final decision on the remedy that will be used to clean up the site is
expected to be completed in 1991, with remedy design scheduled to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: The State of Minnesota issued a Unilateral Administrative Order compelling the
potentially responsible party to perform an investigation of site contamination and to identify
alternative methods for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Much of the contaminated materials and soils have been removed from the Agate Lake Scrapyard
site, thereby reducing the potential for exposure to hazardous materials while the final remedy
selection is being made.
April 1991 28 AGATE LAKE SCRAPYARD
-------
ARROWHEAD
REFINERY
COMPANY
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980823975
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
St. Louis County
Hermantown
Other-Name*:
Arrowhead Ref. Sludge Dspl.
Site Description
The Arrowhead Refinery Company site, which is located in Hermantown near Duluth, consists of 10
acres of relatively flat land with peaty wetlands scattered across the area. During the 1940s, the site
was used for retinning milk cans. In 1951, however, Arrowhead began recycling waste oil, which
produced a highly acidic, metal-laden sludge. It is estimated that the operation generated
approximately 7,000 cubic yards of waste by-products, which were discharged into a 2-acre lagoon
and a wastewater ditch in a wetland area. The Arrowhead Refinery Company incorporated in 1961
and continued refining and recycling operations until 1977, when the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) ordered work to be stopped. On-site investigations conducted by the EPA in 1979
revealed that on-site surface water was transporting contaminants to nearby wetlands areas and
navigable waters. Most of the 754 residences within a 3-mile radius of the site use groundwater that
could be affected by the contaminants in the sludge.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
EPA studies found that the groundwater, surface water, soils, and sediments are
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals such as lead. The sludge lagoon, covering
roughly an acre, consists of liquid sludge approximately 1 1/2 feet deep and up to 7 feet
of solid sludge and peat saturated with oil to a depth of at least 4 inches. The
contaminated sludge may pose health risks to individuals or wildlife coining in direct
contact with it. Groundwater beneath the site is contaminated, but the contamination has
not yet affected the private water wells near the site. The area is fenced to prevent public
access to the site.
29
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach —
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: A surface water diversion ditch was constructed in 1980 by the
Coast Guard and the EPA to prevent further contaminant migration, and a fence was
installed in 1990.
Entire Site: In 1986, the EPA selected the following remedies to address the site
contamination: (1) excavation and on-site incineration of 4,600 cubic yards of sludge and
39,400 cubic yards of contaminated soils and sediments; (2) groundwater pumping and
treating designed to restore the aquifer and control contaminant migration over a 25 to 50-year
period; (3) extension of a nearby municipal water supply system to replace those private water
supplies most likely to be affected by groundwater contamination; and (4) proper abandonment of
individual wells formerly used as drinking water supplies in accordance with State well codes. The
EPA and the State are investigating alternative technologies to incineration of the contaminated soil.
Under EPA monitoring, the potentially responsible parties designed the technical specifications for
the construction of the Hermantown water main extension. Construction was completed in late
1990. Construction of the extraction and treatment system is scheduled for completion in 1992.
Sludge and soil cleanup are slated to begin in 1992. A solvent extraction treatability study was
conducted in 1989. A bioremediation treatability study is underway.
Site Facts: In March 1990, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to several potentially
responsible parties, directing them to implement the groundwater cleanup actions. In May 1990, the
EPA issued special notice letters to several parties informing them of their liability for the waste
sludge and instructing them to begin the process of negotiating a three-party Consent Decree with
the EPA and the State for cleanup of the sludge. No agreement was reached during the negotiations.
Environmental Progress
Construction of the surface water diversion ditch, extention of the Hermantown water main, and
installation of the fence have greatly reduced the potential for contact with contaminated
materials at the Arrowhead Refinery Company. Further remedy design activities leading to final
cleanup actions are taking place.
April 1991 30 ARROWHEAD REFINERY COMPANY
-------
BOISE CASC
ONAN CORP.
MEDTRONIC
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND053417515
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Anoka County
Fridley
Other Names:
National Pole Treating Company
Site Description
The Boise Cascade/Onan Corp./Medtronics, Inc. site covers 183 acres in Fridley. The National Pole
and Treating Company (later the Minnesota and Ontario Paper Company) treated wood from 1921
until 1961 at this location. Operations at the site first used creosote to treat wood for railroad ties
and for utility poles. The company began using pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat its wood products
in 1958 and continued this practice until 1961, when all operations stopped. In 1964, the Minnesota
and Ontario Paper Company and the National Pole Treating Company were purchased and merged
into the Boise Cascade Company. The Onan Corporation acquired 133 acres of the Boise Cascade
property, and Medtronic Corporation purchased the remaining 50 acres. Both of these new owners
built commercial and manufacturing facilities on the site. In 1979, Onan and Medtronic uncovered
large quantities of creosote from past treatment operations. Approximately 3,000 people live within
4,000 feet of the site. Several residences are located within 500 feet of the site. Two elementary
schools and several small urban parks are located within a mile of the site. Groundwater
contamination from this site is a major concern, because the towns of Fridley and Moundsview use
water drawn from municipal wells located near the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The EPA detected high levels of organics including creosote and phenols in on-site
groundwater monitoring wells. Sediments and soils throughout the site also contained
these same contaminants. Sampling of all contaminated areas indicates that the
contaminants either have been removed from the site or confined within a containment
vault built at the site.
31
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: Work was completed in 1986 on both properties on the site to address the
contamination problems. The work included: (1) excavating and disposing of
contaminated soil; (2) filling in the excavated areas with clean soil; (3) removing and
treating contaminated groundwater at the site; (4) constructing a fence around the site; and (5)
monitoring the air and surface water within the site vicinity. Long-term monitoring of the vault
constructed on the site to contain contaminated materials is planned.
Site Facts: In 1984, Medtronic entered into a Consent Decree with the State to help pay the cost of
addressing contamination of its part of the site. Onan Corporation, Boise Cascade, and two railroad
companies went to court to decide their individual responsibility and an acceptable solution to
contamination of the property.
Environmental Progress
All the cleanup work at the Boise Cascade site has been completed, and the EPA is continuing to
monitor the air and surface water. The containment vault also will be monitored to ensure the long-
term effectiveness of the remedies selected for the site.
April 1991 32 BOISE CASCADE/OMAN CORP./MEDTRONICS, INC.
-------
BURLINGTON
NORTHERN (BR
BAXTER PLANT
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND000686196
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Crow Wing County
Brainerd
Site Description
The Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxter Plant) site is a 70-acre facility that preserves railroad ties
with creosote and is located in the Baxter/Brainerd area. Since 1907, Burlington Northern has
owned and operated the railroad tie treatment plant. During the 1950s, Burlington Northern began
mixing creosote, a preserver, with number 5 fuel oil. At some undetermined time, the mixture was
changed to creosote and coal tar. Wastewater generated from the wood treating process was sent to
two shallow, unlined surface impoundments for disposal. The discharge of wastewater to the
disposal ponds generated a sludge that contaminated both the underlying soils and groundwater. The
original pond was abandoned in the 1930s and was covered. The second pond was used until the fall
of 1982, when a wastewater pre-treatment plant became operational. The effluent from the pre-
treatment plant is discharged to the local municipal sewage collection system. The Mississippi River
flows about 3,000 feet east of the plant, and residential areas are located to the northeast and
southeast, less than 1,000 feet from the site. Six private water supply wells are within a 1/2-mile
radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater downgradient of the site is contaminated with carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Heavy metal contamination also
has been detected in groundwater samples. PAHs have migrated into the surrounding
soils from the contaminated wastewater and sludge. Access to the railroad tie treatment
plant is restricted; therefore, it is not likely that the general public would enter onto the
installation. Prior to the initiation of the cleanup activities, workers at the site could have
been exposed to the contaminants through direct contact with contaminated soil, sludge,
or groundwater or by inhaling dust when contaminated soil or sludge was disturbed. The
Mississippi River will be sampled periodically for contamination from the site.
33
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: In 1985, the EPA selected the following cleanup remedies for the site:
(1) preparation of a lined staging area for temporary storage of the sludge and
contaminated soil; (2) removal of all standing water in the impoundment; (3)
excavation and segregation of the sludges for subsequent free oil recovery; and (4) excavation of
visibly contaminated soil from both impoundments and subsequent storage in the staging area.
A fence was installed around the land treatment area in 1987. The excavated areas will be
backfilled and covered. A sump for collection of the stormwater and leachate will be installed,
and bioremediation of soil and the installation of an irrigation system also will be carried out.
After the treatment process has been completed, a cover will be installed over the site. The EPA
currently is conducting soil and groundwater cleanup activities on the site. The groundwater is
being treated through a gradient control system that has been installed on site. Any water
discharged to the river will be regulated by Federal and State permits. The soil bioremediation is
taking place. The final goal of treatment by bioremediation is the transformation and
immobilization of waste constituents in soil into non-toxic materials.
Site Facts: A Consent Agreement was signed in April 1985 between the EPA and Burlington
Northern. Burlington Northern is carrying out the site cleanup at its own expense. In addition,
the company will reimburse the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the EPA for expenses
incurred in connection with past and future investigations.
Environmental Progress
The potential for exposure to hazardous wastes continues to diminish as cleanup activities at the
Burlington Northern site continue. The EPA has determined that the site does not pose an imminent
threat to the surrounding population or the environment while the groundwater gradient control
treatment system is in operation and the other cleanup activites are underway.
April 1991 34 BURLINGTON NORTHERN
(BRAINERD/BAXTER PLANT)
-------
DAKHUE SA
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND981191570
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Dakota County
3 miles north of Cannon Falls
Site Description
The Dakhue Sanitary Landfill, covering approximately 80 acres, is a privately owned and State-
permitted sanitary landfill that has operated since 1971 in Cannon Falls. Prior to 1971, the land
within the site boundary was undeveloped. Since opening, the landfill has been utilized for the
disposal of mixed municipal and commercial waste and small amounts of industrial waste. The
landfill was opened on a part-time basis until 1973, when operations were extended to six days a
week. The exact quantity and disposal area of hazardous substances is unknown. The area
surrounding the site consists mainly of single family dwellings or farms. Residential drinking water
supply wells, municipal water supply wells, and irrigation wells draw groundwater from a shallow
aquifer and from the hydraulically connected aquifers beneath it. Approximately 650 people use the
aquifer as the primary source of drinking water within a 3-mile radius of the site, and about 6,600
acres of major cropland are irrigated with water from the aquifer. Pine Creek, 3/4 mile south of the
site, and the Cannon River, 2 3/4 miles south of the site, are used for recreational purposes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
chloroform, and heavy metals including cadmium and lead. People could be exposed to
potential health threats by drinking the contaminated groundwater or by eating food crops
that have been irrigated with the contaminated groundwater.
35
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: interim actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: Interim erosion control measures were completed in June 1990. Areas
where garbage was exposed were filled in, and a trench was dug around the site to direct
surface water into catch basins.
Source Control: Under the supervision of the State of Minnesota, a study is being
conducted by the potentially responsible parties to determine the source of the
contamination and to identify cleanup actions to control the source. This study is slated for
completion in mid-1991.
Groundwater: An investigation into the nature and extent of the groundwater
contamination began in spring 1990. Preliminary sampling of the groundwater for VOCs
has been completed. Wells have been drilled for more extensive sampling. The
investigation is slated for completion in 1992. Upon completion, the EPA will select and implement
the cleanup actions needed to address the groundwater contamination.
Site Facts: The State amended the landfill permit in 1983, and, in 1984, it issued a notice to the
facility for violation of the amended permit. In 1984, the State and the potentially responsible party
entered into a Consent Order requiring the party to conduct the investigation into the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and to recommend alternatives for final cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Interim measures to control the movement of contamination from the Dakhue Sanitary Landfill site
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials on and around the site. An
investigation leading to the selection of a final remedy to address groundwater contamination
currently is taking place.
April 1991 36 DAKHUE SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
EAST BETHE
DEMOLITION
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND981088180
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Anoka County
East Bethel Township
Other Names:
East Bethel Sanitary Landfill
The East Bethel Demolition Landfill site is a 60-acre landfill located in East Bethel Township, 1 mile
east of Highway 65. The site was operated as an unpermitted solid waste disposal facility from 1969
to 1971. In fall 1971, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued a solid waste
disposal facility permit for the site, which was amended in 1985. The site currently accepts only
demolition waste and a small amount of municipal waste. According to information provided by
representatives of the landfill, most hazardous wastes were accepted between 1969 and 1976.
MPCA files indicate that the equivalent of approximately 4,400 drums of hazardous industrial wastes
and contaminated soils was buried in the landfill in 1974. Hazardous industrial wastes reported to
have been disposed of at the site include cleaning solvents, waste inks, caustics and acids, paint,
waste oils, thinner, dry cleaning solvents, liquids with a strong chemical odor, small transformers,
and 8-ounce cans of ether. The landfill is located on the Anoka Sand Plain, a shallow sand aquifer
that provides drinking water to a few residents in the area. The aquifer is contaminated; however,
the majority of residents use a deeper aquifer for drinking water. Approximately 3,400 people live
within a 3-mile radius of the site, with about 300 who use private wells living within 1 mile. The
two closest residences are about 1,500 feet southwest of the landfill. A growing subdivision begins
about 2,000 feet southwest of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been identified in groundwater from the
shallow aquifer. Two wells on the western and southern borders of the landfill area are
the most heavily contaminated with VOCs. Several other compounds have been
detected in the two most contaminated wells, including the heavy metals arsenic, barium,
cadmium, mercury, and lead. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) also were
detected in these wells. On-site soils have been found to be contaminated with VOCs
including toluene and vinyl chloride. Potential health risks may exist for those
accidentally ingesting, coming in direct contact with, or inhaling volatilized
contaminants from the contaminated groundwater or soil. The areas to the west and
southeast are marshy wetlands, and Ned's Lake lies 1,000 feet to the south; both the
wetlands and Ned's Lake may be threatened from site contaminants.
37
April! 991
-------
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: The State has completed an investigation to determine the nature and extent
of contamination at the site. A study currently is underway to determine the feasibility of
site cleanup alternatives. Once the study is completed, the most appropriate cleanup
alternatives for the site will be recommended.
Environmental Progress
After listing the East Bethel Demolition Landfill on the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary
investigation and determined that there are no immediate threats to the surrounding community
or the environment while the investigations leading to the final remedy selection are taking
place.
April 1991
38
EAST BETHEL DEMOLITION LANDFILL
-------
FMC CORF?:
(FRIDLEY FfLANT)
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND006481543
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Hennepin County
Fridley, about 1,000 feet east
of the Mississippi River
Other Names:
FMC Corp. NIROP-U.S. Navy
Site Description
The 18-acre FMC Corp. site combines two areas in Fridley, referred to as the FMC lands and the
Burlington Northern Railroad Company lands, 13 acres and 5 acres in size, respectively. Both areas
are located immediately south of the FMC Ordnance Plant. From 1941 until 1964, the site operated
as a naval ordnance manufacturing complex. From about 1945 to 1969, a tract of land south of the
manufacturing complex was used for the burning and disposal of wastes, including plating wastes,
paint, paint sludges, oils, bottom ash, and chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents. An 11-acre
unlined landfill on the site was used for the disposal of hazardous wastes. Records indicate that
solvents and sludges were dumped directly into unlined pits and burned or buried. Disposal at the
site was discontinued in 1969. There are approximately 200,000 people living within 3 miles of the
site. This population receives drinking water from wells extended into the bedrock aquifer. The City
of Minneapolis has a drinking water supply intake on the river 1,500 feet downstream of the site.
The drinking water plant supplies about 500,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including trichloroethylene (TCE) and benzene. TCE was detected in high concentrations
near the Mississippi River and probably contributed to the detection of VOCs in the
Minneapolis drinking water supply intake. The main health risk of concern to people is
from drinking contaminated groundwater. There are no private drinking water wells in
the area and the industrial wells are not contaminated. Therefore, area residents are not
directly exposed to groundwater contamination from the site.
39
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 entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the party potentially responsible for the site
contamination, under EPA and State supervision, excavated approximately 38,600 cubic
yards of contaminated soil and placed it in a secure containment and treatment facility
constructed on site. Drummed waste that was found in isolated areas on the site was excavated,
overpacked, sampled, and disposed of at an off-site approved landfill. A gas extraction and
treatment system was constructed to gradually reduce the levels of contamination in the soil in the
containment and treatment facility. Excavated areas were restored and revegetated. In a separate
action, and during the same year, additional contaminated soil was excavated and placed in the on-
site containment facility.
Entire Site: The cleanup methods selected to address groundwater contamination
included: (1) groundwater pump and treatment with discharge to a sanitary sewer system;
(2) groundwater monitoring to assure effectiveness of the pump and treatment; and (3)
implementation of land use restrictions to stop the use of contaminated groundwater between the site
and the Mississippi River. The potentially responsible party constructed the groundwater treatment
system, which has been in operation since 1987. A secure cover was placed on the landfill as an
interim measure to stop ongoing groundwater contamination, and the site disposal areas have been
enclosed by an 8-foot-high chain-link fence.
Site Facts: In 1983, the potentially responsible party, the State, and the EPA entered an agreement
that required the potentially responsible party to construct a large clay-lined vault on an
uncontaminated portion of the site for placement of about 58,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils
excavated from the site. The party also agreed to conduct the study to determine the nature and
extent of groundwater contamination at the site and to recommend alternatives for final groundwater
cleanup.
Environmental Progress
Pumping and treating of contaminated groundwater is underway. Removing contaminated soil
and covering the landfill will help prevent further contamination of groundwater and have fully
achieved cleanup goals for land. These actions have substantially reduced the threat of exposure
to contaminants while operation of the groundwater treatment system continues.
April 1991 40 FMC CORP. (FRIDLEY PLANT)
-------
FREEWAY S
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND038384004
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Dakota County
Burnsville
Site Description
The Freeway Sanitary Landfill site covers 126 acres in Burnsville. Since 1971, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency licensed the landfill to accept 1,962 acre-feet of household,
commercial, demolition, and non-hazardous industrial wastes. The State permit prohibited the
disposal of liquids and hazardous wastes. However, heavy metals, acids, and bases were
accepted by the landfill from local industries. The landfill also accepted 200 cubic yards of
battery casings and 448 tons of aluminum sweat furnace slag. In 1984, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals were detected in the groundwater. The owner has
installed a cover over the landfill. Burnsville's municipal wells are located about 4,000 feet to
the south of the landfill. These wells serve approximately 36,000 people. Two quarries are
located nearby. Surface water runoff drains from the site into the Minnesota River, about 400
feet from the landfill.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains VOCs such as benzene, ethyl benzene, and xylene and
heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and manganese.
Exposure to contaminated groundwater is possible if the pollutants migrate to the
Bumsville municipal well field. Water beneath the landfill discharges into the
Minnesota River. Wildlife in and around the river may be harmed by the
contaminants.
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
Entire site: Under State supervision, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination are studying the type and extent of the contamination. Once the study
is completed in 1992, the final cleanup remedy for the site will be selected.
Site Facts: The State is continuing to gather information on specific facilities and former
landfill operators to identify potentially responsible parties.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Freeway Sanitary Landfill site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary
evaluations and determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding
population or the environment while potentially responsible parties are being identified and the
studies leading to the selection of final site cleanup actions are taking place.
ApriM991
42
FREEWAY SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
GENERAL
HENKEL
CORPORATION
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND051441731
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Hennepin County
Minneapolis
Other Names:
Tech Center Research Lab
Henkel Tech Center
Site Description
The General Mills/Henkel Corporation site is located in an industrial section of Minneapolis.
General Mills operated a technical center and research laboratories at the site from 1930 through
1977. Food research was conducted until 1947, when chemical research began. From 1947 to 1962,
solvents were disposed of in a soil adsorption pit and are believed to be contained in three buried,
perforated 55-gallon drums, stacked one on top of another, with the deepest drum 10 to 12 feet
below the ground surface. Approximately 1,000 gallons of solvents per year were disposed of in this
manner. The soil and the aquifers are contaminated. Although the site is in an industrial section of
Minneapolis, approximately 4,900 people live within 1 mile of the property. Access to the site is
restricted. All residences and businesses in the area are connected to the municipal water system.
This water is obtained from the Mississippi River north of the city.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including benzene, chloroform, toluene, and xylenes. People who come in direct contact
with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk. Access to
the site is restricted.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: interim actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
43
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: General Mills installed wells to pump the water out of the
contaminated aquifers and treat it by air stripping in 1985. Air is forced through the water
and blows the contaminants out. The air is then treated before being released into the
atmosphere. The treated water is discharged into the municipal sewer system. The groundwater is
being monitored to ensure the effectiveness of the treatment.
Entire Site: The State conducted an investigation of the groundwater and soil
contamination. The EPA chose pumping and treatment of the groundwater as the method
for cleanup; the efforts arc currently underway. Soil contamination is planned to be
addressed as leachate passes through the soil and into the contaminated groundwater, which is being
addressed through the pump and treat technology.
ROD
Groundwater: In 1991, the State is expected to make a decision on expanding the
groundwater pump and treat system that was inalled as an interim action.
Environmental Progress
By pumping and treating the contaminated groundwater, the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the General Mills/Henkel site has been greatly reduced while the final site cleanup
remedies are conducted.
ApriM991
44
GENERAL MILLS/HENKEL CORPORATION
-------
JOSLYN
MANUFACT
& SUPPLY C
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND044799856
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Hennepin County
Brooklyn Center
Other Names:
Joslyn Wood Products Plant
Site Description
The Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company site covers 30 acres in Brooklyn Center. From the
1920s until 1980, a wood treating facility was operated at the site where processes involved using
creosote, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and a copper-arsenic solution. In 1944, this facility discharged
its wastewater into a marshy area connected to Twin Lakes. Later, an unlined lagoon adjacent to the
marsh was used. In 1976, about 216,000 gallons of oil were discharged into the lagoon. Waste
sludge also was buried on site. Approximately 800 people live within 1/2 mile of the site. The
surrounding area is both light industrial and residential. Surface water runoff from the site drains
into Shingle Creek, which empties into the Mississippi River. Twin Lakes is used for swimming,
boating, and fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with PCPs, creosote, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and oil. Because groundwater flow in the area is to the east, away
from Twin Lakes, the lakes are not affected by the site. Sampling of the lakes has
confirmed this. Area drinking water is not affected, since residences are connected to the
city water system.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: interim actions and a long-term remedial phase directed at
cleanup of the entire site.
45
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: Joslyn removed about 30,000 gallons of wood treating solutions in
1981 and 65,000 gallons of sludge in 1982 to a federally approved facility. In 1986,
Joslyn fenced the entire site area, and the company connected six properties to the city
water supply.
Entire site: In 1989, the State selected a remedy for site cleanup, now being conducted
by Joslyn, which includes pumping the groundwater and discharging it to the sanitary
sewer system where it is treated. Before the water is discharged to the sewer system,
water and oil mixtures are first sent through an on-site treatment system to remove the oil. It is
estimated the groundwater pumping will continue for 30 years. In addition, Joslyn is cleaning the
soil through bioremediation. This involves thinly spreading contaminated soil over a specially
engineered area on the site, adding water and nutrients, periodically tilling the area, and allowing the
soil bacteria, with help from the applied water and nutrients, to break down the contaminants into
non-hazardous constituents. This process began in 1989 and will take approximately 4 to 6 years to
complete.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State and Joslyn signed a Consent Order whereby the company agreed to
clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal of the most highly contaminated soils, operation of the groundwater pump and treat
system, and installation of the fence have significantly reduced the possibility of exposure to
hazardous materials on the site while the final cleanup activities are taking place at the Joslyn
Manufacturing site.
April1991 46 JOSLYN MANUFACTURING &
SUPPLY COMPANY
-------
KOCH REFININ
COMPANY/
N-REN CORP.
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND000686071
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Dakota County
Rosemount
Site Description
The Koch Refining Company/N-Ren Corp. site covers 1,200 acres in the Pine Bend industrial
district of Rosemount. The site includes the refinery and adjacent properties owned by Koch. The
Great Northern Refining Company began refining oil on this site in 1955. In 1969, the refinery was
sold to Koch, which has expanded refining capacity from 25,000 barrels to 160,000 barrels per day.
The refinery receives crude oil by pipeline and barge; the crude oil is then refined into gasoline, jet
fuel, heating oil, kerosene, diesel fuel, boiler fuel, asphalt, petroleum coke, sulfur, carbon dioxide,
butane, and propane. Product spills have been recorded in the storage tank area on the site since the
early 1970s. The State sampled water from six private wells near the refinery and found them to be
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A section of gasoline pipeline running from
the tank farms to the barge dock on the Mississippi River had corroded, but was replaced. This
pipeline is believed to be the source of groundwater and soil contamination at the site.
Approximately 60 people live within 1 mile of the refinery. About 1,600 people, as well as a school
with 2,600 students, use wells within 3 miles of the site for drinking water. Four miles north of the
site is Inver Grove Heights, with a population of about 16,100. There is a population of about 6,800
people to the south of the site. Four people living in two homes east of the refinery are being
supplied with bottled water due to well contamination.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contaminants include VOCs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
phenols, and lead. Soil also is contaminated with VOCs including benzene, toluene, and
xylenes as well as PAHs. Drinking water for the employees on the site is obtained from
deep bedrock production wells that are not contaminated. People who directly contact or
accidentally ingest contaminated soils may be at risk.
47
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of groundwater
and of the vadose zone soils.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: Koch, under state supervision, completed an investigation on the
type and extent of contamination at the site. Initial remedies recommended for
cleanup include gradient control (groundwater extraction and treatment) and product
recovery. A final decision on cleanup remedies will be made in late 1991.
Vadose Zone Soils: Koch, under state supervision, is conducting an investigation
to determine the type and extent of soil contamination in the Vadose Zone at the site.
The Vadose Zone is the layer of subsurface water just above the groundwater table.
Once the investigation is completed, planned for 1992, alternatives will be selected for site
cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State entered into a Consent Agreement with Koch Refining Company,
whereby the company agreed to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
After listing the Koch Refining site on the NPL, the EPA conducted preliminary evaluations of the
site conditions and determined that no immediate threat is posed to the surrounding communities or
the environment while the investigations leading to the selection of the final cleanup remedies are
taking place.
April1991 48 KOCH REFINING COMPANY/N-REN CORP.
-------
KOPPERS
COKE
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND000819359
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Ramsey County
St. Paul
Other Names:
Minnesota Coke Plant
Koppers Company, Inc.
The Koppers Coke site covers 45 acres in the Midway area of St. Paul. The facility operated from
1911 until 1978, producing coke, coal tars, and coal tar distillates from the coking of coal. Coke
plant wastes were disposed of in unlined earthen pits. In addition, contamination of soils from coal
tar distillates and naphtha and benzene wash has occurred. Numerous tanks and valves leaked over
the years, causing additional coal tar distillate to migrate to the shallow groundwater table. The
company demolished all standing structures and removed storage tanks in 1981. The site was
acquired in 1981 by the Port Authority for the St. Paul Energy Park. Office and light industrial
buildings now occupy the site. Approximately 15,400 residents live within 1 mile of the site. The
nearest residence is 100 feet away, and Como Park, a recreational facility, is 3/4 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and phenols. Because all local residences are
connected to the municipal water supply, the private wells are not used for drinking
water. However, these wells occasionally are used for lawn and garden irrigation. There
is a potential for people to be exposed to contaminants by eating vegetables that have
been irrigated with the contaminated groundwater.
49
April!991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: interim actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: In the fa'll of 1982, about 240,000 gallons of residue in 20 tanks were
disposed of by Koppers in a federally approved facility. Approximately 21,600 cubic
yards of contaminated soils were excavated and disposed of. The entire site was covered
with clean fill. Soils found in pits too deep to be totally excavated were partially excavated and
backfilled with clean soil. They were then covered with clay and additional clean fill, and a second
layer of clay was installed.
Entire Site: Koppers began an investigation to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the site in 1989. Upon completion of the investigation, the EPA will
review the recommended cleanup alternatives and select the final remedy. The EPA
expects to reach a decision on final cleanup actions in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1978, the State and Koppers signed a Stipulation Agreement that required the plant
to shut down and required Koppers to conduct an investigation of soil and groundwater
contamination.
Environmental Progress
Most, if not all, of the contaminated residue and soils have been excavated and disposed of at an
approved disposal facility. Through these actions and the installation of the cover over the site, the
potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Koppers Coke facility has been greatly reduced.
Further studies are currently underway that will result in the selection of the final cleanup actions for
the site.
April! 991 50 KOPPERS COKE
-------
KUMMER
SANITARY
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980904049
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Beltrami County
Northern Township
The Kummer Sanitary Landfill site in Northern Township covers 35 acres on a 40-acre parcel of
land, which includes the Kummer residence. The site was a privately owned and operated solid
waste landfill from 1971 until 1984, accepting mixed municipal wastes. Landfill operations
consisted of excavating trenches, filling them with waste materials, and covering the fill with on-site
sand and gravel deposits. The trenches may have been excavated to the water table and the wastes
placed in direct contact with the groundwater. Beginning in 1974, demolition debris consisting of
fly ash and sawdust was disposed of on site. There is a history of violations such as improper
covering of the debris, garbage blowing from the site, and improper grading. In 1982 and 1983, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) sampled groundwater from on-site monitoring wells
and found the water to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Residential wells
downgradient from the site were found to be contaminated the following year, and subsequently, in
1985, the landfill was closed. Northern Township has a population of about 4,100 people. A trailer
park is about 1,500 feet away from the landfill, and a residential area is about 1,000 feet away, with
both areas housing approximately 1,000 people. An estimated 14,700 people use wells that draw on
two aquifers within 3 miles of the site. The City uses groundwater for its municipal water supply,
and those wells are within 1/4 mile upgradient of the landfill. There are numerous wetlands and
lakes in the area of the site, including Lake Bemidji, which is a mile away.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site contains VOCs including vinyl chloride, xylenes, carbon
tetrachloride, and naphthalene from landfill wastes. People who use or come into contact
with contaminated groundwater may be at risk. There is the potential for contaminants
from the landfill to leach into Lake Bemidji or the wetlands area. Wildlife in and around
the lake and wetlands may be harmed by pollutants.
51
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases directed at supplying an alternate
water source, controlling the source of contamination, and cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Alternate Water Supply: In 1985, the EPA selected a remedy to provide alternate
water for affected residents by constructing a connecting well tapping into the deep
uncontaminated aquifer, connecting into the City of Bemidji's main water line, and
installing a water distribution system. The well installation and distribution system was completed
in 1990. The State connected the affected residences to the municipal water supply. However, some
residents have refused connection.
Source Control: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to control the source of the
contamination by: (1) grading the site and consolidating the soil and other waste material;
(2) placing a sloping foundation layer of natural soil fill; (3) covering the landfill with clay
or synthetic material and a drainage layer with a soil and vegetative cover; (4) establishing deed
restrictions to limit the future use of the site; (5) fencing the site; and (6) monitoring the groundwater
and landfill gas to ensure the effectiveness of the cleanup. The State designed the technical
specifications for the cleanup actions, and the cleanup activities began in 1990. Cleanup activities
are expected to be completed in 1993.
Groundwater: The State conducted an investigation to determine the extent of the on-
site migration of contaminants into the groundwater. In 1990, the State chose pumping of
groundwater and removal of organic chemicals by air stripping followed by their
destruction in a catalytic incinerator. Incinerated waterborne organic s and inorganics will be
removed by lime-soda-softening. An agreement is expected in 1991, under which the potentially
responsible party will conduct the design and cleanup activities.
Site Facts: In 1985, the EPA and the State signed a Cooperative Agreement, whereby the State
will investigate and clean up the site. In addition, the agreement provided for the funding of an
alternate water supply for residents with contaminated wells.
Environmental Progress
By providing a safe alternate drinking water source to affected residences, the potential for exposure
to contaminated groundwater is being eliminated. Further investigations, which will lead to the
selection of the most appropriate permanent cleanup solutions, currently are underway at the
Kummer Sanitary Landfill.
April! 991 52 KUMMER SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
KURT
MAIMUFACTU
COMPANY
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND059680165
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Anoka County
Fridley
The Kurt Manufacturing Company site covers 10 acres in Fridley. The company has been operating
since 1960, producing precision computer components. Solvent-coated metal shavings from the
machining area were placed in a storage bin located near the loading dock. In 1982, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) found two company production wells to be contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs); later that year, monitoring wells were installed at the site.
Results of groundwater sampling showed the shallow groundwater near the loading dock was
contaminated. The State determined the metal shavings bin sump was the source of the
contamination. The site is in an industrial,'commercial, and residential area. Over 163,000 people
live within 3 miles of the site. The company is located a mile from the Mississippi River.
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
'"XV
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with VOCs including tetrachloroethylene and
trichloroethane (TCA). People who directly contact or accidentally ingest contaminated
groundwater or soil may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: interim actions and a long-term remedial phase focusing
on cleanup of the entire site.
53
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: In 1984, the shaving bin sump was excavated and capped to
prevent further seepage.
Entire Site: In 1986, the State approved actions to clean up the site that consisted of:
(1) long-term operation and maintenance of a groundwater pump-out system to prevent
the migration of contaminated groundwater, (2) covering the sump area with clay to
prevent rainwater from coming into contact with contaminants; (3) abandoning a shallow
production well to minimize migration of contaminated groundwater, and (4) long-term
monitoring to ensure the cleanup is effective. In 1986, Kurt started to pump and treat the
groundwater, but the pumps were found to be inadequate. In 1987, the sump area was excavated
and then covered with the clay. The response action plan is being re-evaluated, and additional
pump-out wells may be required.
Site Facts: In 1984, the State issued a Request for Response Action to Kurt Manufacturing.
Under this action, the company was required to investigate the site and to develop and implement
a cleanup plan.
Environmental Progress
By excavating and covering the areas of greatest contamination, the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the Kurt Manufacturing site has been significantly reduced. The cleanup
plan chosen for the site currently is under re-evaluation. Once this phase is completed, final
cleanup activities will begin.
ApriM991 54 KURT MANUFACTURING COMPANY
-------
LAGRAND
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND981090483
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Douglas County
LaGrand Township
Site Description
The LaGrand Sanitary Landfill site covers 80 acres in LaGrand Township, 5 miles west of
Alexandria. The landfill, which occupies 5 1/2 acres, began operations in 1974 and was licensed by
the State to accept mixed municipal and non-hazardous industrial refuse. In 1977, the original
owner transferred the permit and title to Valley Disposal, Inc. Approximately 140 cubic yards of
soil containing 900 gallons of diesel fuel were stored, and consequently disposed of, on the site in
1980. The landfill had been in an almost constant state of non-compliance with solid waste
regulations and was closed in 1985, covered, and seeded. There are five abandoned buildings on the
site, a pile of several hundred tires, abandoned machinery, and junk. Approximately 1,100 people
live within 3 miles of the landfill and depend on public and private wells for drinking water. The
nearest private well is 1/3 mile away from the site. A wetland is less than a mile downstream of the
site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including chloroethane and
methylene chloride. People who drink contaminated groundwater may suffer adverse
health effects; however, no contamination of private wells near the site has been found.
If contaminants leach from the landfill into the nearby wetland, wildlife in or around the
wetland may be harmed.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
55
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire site: In 1987, the State began an investigation to determine the type and extent
of contamination at the site. Groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediment sampling
have been conducted. A methane migration study and an investigation to determine
the effectiveness of the soil cover are planned. Once the investigation is completed in 1992, the
final cleanup remedy will be selected.
Environmental Progress
After listing the LaGrand Sanitary Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary
evaluations and determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding
communities or the environment while the investigations leading to the selection of a final cleanup
remedy are taking place.
April 1991
56
LAGRAND SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
LEHILLIER/
MANKATO
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980792469
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Blue Earth County
Mankato
Other Names:
LeHillier/Mankato Ground water
Site Description
The LeHillier/Mankato Site, located just west of Mankato, covers 6,400 acres. Between 1925 and
1950, numerous natural and manmade depressions, resulting from changes in the channels of the
Minnesota and Blue Earth Rivers and from sand and gravel excavations, were filled with
miscellaneous rubbish. In 1981, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency received anonymous
information alleging that hazardous wastes had been disposed of in several areas. Studies confirmed
contamination of the shallow sand and gravel aquifer, the primary source of drinking water for the
LeHillier and Mankato area. Approximately 500 people reside in LeHillier. Mankato's primary
water supply well is located approximately 1/4 mile north of the contaminated area. About 29,000
people are served by Mankato's municipal water supply. The Minnesota and the Blue Earth Rivers
are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Soil contains petroleum products and VOCs. LeHillier residents
have been provided with an alternate water supply; however, individuals may be exposed
to contaminants through accidental ingestion or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soil.
57
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach __
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA and the State supplied LeHillier residents with bottled
water for drinking and cooking in 1984 and 1985. A new, deeper LeHillier community
well and a distribution system were constructed through a Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) grant and have been operational since late 1985.
Entire Site: Based on the results of an investigation completed in 1985, the EPA selected
a remedy to clean up the site by pumping the contaminated groundwater and treating it by
using an air stripping technique that removes contaminants by exposure to air. The
cleanup plan includes constructing eight groundwater wells and two new extraction wells; extending
the LeHillier community water system to affected residences and businesses not currently serviced;
and properly closing individual wells formerly used for drinking water supplies. The pump and treat
system will be continued until 1999.
Environmental Progress
The immediate action of providing LeHillier residents with an alternate water supply has
significantly reduced the threat of exposure from contaminated drinking water. The cleanup actions
currently are underway and will continue to reduce contamination.
April 1991 58 LEHILLIER/MANKATO SITE
-------
LONG PRAIRIE
GROUND WAT
CONTAMINATI
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980904072
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Todd County
Long Prairie
The Long Prairie Ground Water Contamination site, as defined by the extent of the plume of
contaminated groundwater, covers an area 2,100 feet by 1,000 feet in Long Prairie. Various
municipal and private wells are contaminated with solvents thought to be from a barrel of
contaminated material used by a dry cleaning operation. Contaminated municipal wells have been
taken out of service. The barrel of material was partially buried in the parking lot behind the
building. The area of highest groundwater contamination is directly below this parking lot. On two
separate occasions in 1983, routine municipal well monitoring by the Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH) indicated contamination in two of five municipal wells. The MDH ordered the two
wells shut down in 1983 and issued an advisory to provide bottled water for area residents. About
50 of the area's 300 private wells were affected by the groundwater contamination. Since the
advisory was issued, the majority of homes using contaminated groundwater have been connected to
the municipal drinking water system. Land use in the surrounding area is primarily residential.
Businesses surround the parking lot over the contaminated area, and at the northern edges of the
plume there are city garages and an athletic field. Long Prairie, a residential and business area, has
a population of approximately 2,900 residents. Approximately 2/3 of the city residents receive
water from municipal water supplies; the remaining 1/3 use private wells. Seven wells still are in
use in the advisory area; four of these wells contain levels of chemicals above the EPA drinking
water health advisories.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
including vinyl chloride and trichloroethylene (TCE). Persons using the contaminated
groundwater have been exposed to chlorinated ethylenes by drinking or inhaling
evaporated contaminant particles from the water.
59
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: Based on the results of the site investigation, the EPA has selected the
following methods for cleanup of the groundwater and soil: (1) install groundwater
extraction wells in the contamination plume; (2) treat contaminated groundwater with
granular activated carbon (GAC); (3) discharge treated groundwater from the GAG unit to the Long
Prairie River; and (4) treat contaminated soil with an active soil venting system. The technical
design of the remedy was completed in spring of 1991, with cleanup expected to begin in late 1991.
Environmental Progress
After listing the site on the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary evaluations and determined that no
immediate actions are necessary at the Long Prairie Ground Water Contamination site while final
cleanup actions are being planned.
April 1991
60 LONG PRAIRIE GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
-------
MACGILLIS &
CO./BELL LUM
& POLE CO.
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND006192694
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Ramsey County
New Brighton
Site Description
The MacGillis & Gibbs Company and the Bell Lumber & Pole Company are adjoining
properties listed as one site on the National Priorities List. The site covers 68 acres in New
Brighton. Both companies are wood treatment plants and have been in operation since the early
1920s. Both plants used creosote as a preservative until the mid-1950s. At that time, the
companies began using light and heavy oils containing pentachlorophenol (PCP). MacGillis &
Gibbs has been using chromated copper arsenate since 1970, some of which has been spilled in
the process areas of the plants. Both companies used PCP sludge for weed control in the 1960s.
A pond in a low-lying area between the properties was used for the disposal of PCP-
contaminated sludge, treated and untreated wood scrap, and steel drums. Studies conducted by
the companies indicate the groundwater is contaminated with wood preserving chemicals. There
are more than 10,000 people living within a mile of the site. The closest residence is within
several hundred feet.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, and soils are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs); PCP; and heavy metals such as copper, chromium, and
arsenic. Barrels on the site contain PAHs, PCP, dioxins, and furans. These
barrels have been moved to a secure storage area on site. Although no private or
municipal wells are contaminated, there is a potential for future contaminant
plume migration, which may reach the drinking water wells. Individuals having
direct contact with sediments or water may be exposed to chemicals. Wetland
areas surrounding the site within a 2,000-foot radius may be subject to
contamination from site runoff.
61
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of disposal area soils, the process and storage areas, and the remaining
areas.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Open and leaking barrels containing PAHs, PCP, dioxins, and
furans were overpacked and removed to a secure storage area on the MacGillis &
Gibbs property. The part of the disposal area owned by Bell Pole has been excavated
and filled with sand and gravel and covered with a clay cap.
Disposal Area Soils: In 1987, the State began an investigation to determine the type
and extent of soil contamination. Once this investigation is completed in 1992, final
cleanup remedies will be selected.
Process and Lumber Yard Storage Areas: In 1990, the EPA began an
investigation to determine the extent of the contamination in the process and the
lumber yard storage areas. Once the investigation is completed in 1991, final cleanup
alternatives for these areas will be selected.
Remaining Areas: An investigation to determine the extent of remaining soil
contamination on the site and potential contamination of off-site wetlands, streams,
and lakes is scheduled to begin in late 1991.
Site Facts: In 1985, Bell Lumber signed a Consent Order with the State and began planning
for the site cleanup on its portion of the site.
Environmental Progress
By removing the drums of contaminated materials and storing them in a safe location and
excavating contaminated soil from part of the site, the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials on the site has been significantly reduced. Investigations at both locations currently are
underway and will lead to the final selection of remedies for the MacGillis & Gibbs Co. /Bell
Lumber & Pole Co. areas of the site.
April 1991 62 MACGILLIS & GIBBS CO/
BELL LUMBER & POLE CO.
-------
MORRIS ARSE
DUMP
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980792287
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Stevens County
Northeast of Morris
Site Description
The Morris Arsenic Dump site is located approximately 1 mile northeast of the town of Morris. In
the early 1940s, approximately 1,500 pounds of arsenic-laced grasshopper bait was reportedly buried
in a gravel pit near the intersection of Highways 28 and 59. The subsequent construction of the
Highway 59 bypass through the general location of the burial site made the discovery of the exact
location of the materials difficult. It has been presumed that the arsenic was mechanically dispersed
during highway construction, since topsoil cleared from the site for roadbed preparation was later
spread along the side slopes.
Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through Federal
actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/01/83
Final Date: 09/01/84
Deleted Date: 03/07/86
Threats and Contaminants
Arsenic was detected in the groundwater. The site poses no imminent health hazards to
the public due to the direction of groundwater movement from the site and the minimal
population concentration within the site area. In addition, levels of arsenic found in the
soils at the site are within the range of natural levels.
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
63
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA conducted a thorough investigation in 1985 to determine the type
and extent of contamination at the site. The results of the investigation indicated that the
site poses no imminent health hazards to the public. Therefore, no cleanup actions were
deemed to be necessary. The site was deleted from the NPL in 1986.
Environmental Progress
The investigation of the Morris Arsenic Dump led to the determination that the site poses no danger
to the surrounding population or the environment, and it has been deleted from the NPL.
April 1991
64
MORRIS ARSENIC DUMP
-------
NAVAL INDUS
RESERVE ORD
PLANT
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MN3170022914
-"-; \
"' '", ,-'#f \
x 4i "" A
' " •• A
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Anoka County
Fridley
Other Names:
Naval Sea Systems Command
Site Description
The Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) occupies 83 acres in an industrial,
commercial, and residential area of Fridley. NIROP has produced advanced weapons systems since
it was constructed in 1940. Paints, solvents, lubricants, oil, and plating wastes were, and still are,
generated at the site. Analyses conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
found that soil and groundwater on the site are contaminated with solvents. In 1981, three bedrock
wells supplying drinking water to NIROP were taken out of service because of trichloroethylene
(TCE) contamination. The plant discontinued the use of TCE in 1987. FMC Corporation, NIROP's
operating contractor, owns a 50-acre site bordering on the south of the site that was placed on the
NPL in 1983. Over 200,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. The Mississippi River is about
700 feet to the west. The water supply intake for Minneapolis is located approximately 1,500 feet
downstream of the site. An estimated 29,000 people obtain drinking water from public wells within
3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/24/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and soils are contaminated with solvents, including trichloroethylene
(TCE) and methylene chloride. Highly permeable sands, conducive to the downward
migration of contaminants, lie below the facility. The aquifers beneath these sands may
be threatened from site contaminants. Potential health risks exist for individuals who
ingest contaminated groundwater or soil.
65
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of the entire site and cleanup of the contaminated soils on site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: From 1983 to 1984, the Army Corps of Engineers excavated a trench
and borrow pit consisting of 1,200 cubic yards of soil and approximately 43 barrels
containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes, flammable solids, and base solids.
The excavated materials were removed to an EPA-regulated hazardous waste landfill.
Entire Site: In 1984, the MPCA requested that the Navy and FMC determine the extent
of surface water and groundwater contamination, locate any additional disposal areas, and
take cleanup action. In response, a network of monitoring wells was installed to gather
information on patterns of groundwater flow and contaminant concentrations. The study was
completed in 1988. The EPA decided to place hydraulic barriers to pump and treat groundwater for
the cleanup. Design of the cleanup method chosen is to be completed in 1991, with actual cleanup to
begin soon thereafter.
Soil: An investigation of contaminated soils on site is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Recommendations for cleanup are scheduled to be submitted in 1993.
Site Facts: The site is being cleaned up as part of the Installation Restoration Program, a 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
Initial actions to remove contaminated soil and other materials reduced the threat of exposure to
pollutants at the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant while studies and design of the cleanup
remedies are being completed.
April 1991 66 NAVAL INDUSTRIAL RESERVE ORDNANCE PLANT
-------
NEW BRIGHTON^V
ARDEN HILLS
MINNESOTA
o
EPA ID# MN7213820908
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Ramsey County
Arden Hills
Other Names:
US Army Twin Cities Ammo. Plant
St. Anthony Site
The New Brighton/Arden Hills site is located in Arden Hills, approximately 2 miles north of the
twin cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul. The site consists of over 18 square miles of groundwater
contaminated with volatile organic chemicals (VOCs). The Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
(TCAAP), located to the north of St. Paul and Minneapolis, comprises the northeastern corner of the
New Brighton/Arden Hills/St. Anthony (NBAHSA) site. According to the U.S. Army, VOC
contaminants are migrating off TCAAP into the groundwater and the Prairie Du Chien/Jordan
Aquifer. In 1981, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota Department
of Health detected VOC contamination in the system used for municipal drinking water in New
Brighton. Prior to these findings, the City of New Brighton had constructed and operated a total of
nine municipal wells. From 1982 to 1984, the City shut down six wells, deepened two municipal
wells to the Mt. Simon/Hinckley Aquifer, and constructed three new wells. The City of St. Anthony,
located directly north of Minneapolis, is one of several communities that obtain their municipal
water supply from the Prairie Du Chien/Jordan Aquifer system. Following the detection of
contaminants in the New Brighton wells, the City of St. Anthony also detected contamination in its
three Prairie Du Chien/Jordan Aquifer wells, one of which was shut down early in 1984. Since
contaminants first were discovered, the levels have increased in the remaining undeepened
municipal wells. The site includes parts of the municipalities of Shoreview, Arden Hills,
Moundsview, New Brighton, and St. Anthony.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal and State
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chromium, arsenic, and VOC contaminants, including
trichloroethylene (TCE), benzene, toluene, and xylene have been detected in the
groundwater. Potential health risks exist for individuals drinking or coming into direct
contact with contaminated groundwater.
67
April!991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in nine stages: immediate actions and eight long-term remedial
phases directed at: the sewer line, groundwater, off-base contamination, groundwater plume,
New Brighton well #7, soil, contamination source control, and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Between 1983 and 1984, the EPA supplied bottled water to many
residences and businesses, extended the existing water supply system to the New Brighton
and Arden Hills private well users whose wells were found to be contaminated, installed
granular activated carbon filters on two wells to meet the peak summertime demand, and treated the
New Brighton/Arden Hills wells #5 and #6 with activated carbon. All the nearby affected residents
now are using either uncontaminated or treated water.
Sewer Line: The State conducted an investigation in 1987 to determine the type and
extent of contamination around a sewer line/force main that was used for TC AAP waste
transportation to the metropolitan waste district. The study shows no threat to public
health. The Army cleaned the sewer line and is storing the removed wastes on site until further
disposal is required.
Groundwater: In 1990, the EPA selected the remedy to address St. Anthony wells #3,
#4, and #5, which consisted of the construction of granular activated carbon (GAG) water
treatment facilities to remove VOCs from the wells. The treated water will be discharged
into the municipal water treatment plant and distribution system. A pipeline was constructed to
connect St. Anthony wells 3,4, and 5 to the GAC treatment facility. Once the city takes possession
of the plant, long-term operation and maintenance will begin.
Off-Base Contamination: In 1983, the State began an investigation to determine the
type and extent of contamination off the Army base. The first study was completed in
1987. The second study was completed in 1991. The U.S. Army soon will identify the
alternative technologies for the cleanup.
Groundwater Plume: In 1988, the U.S. Army initiated an investigation of the nature
and extent of the contaminated groundwater plume and recommended a recovery system.
The State and the EPA have not accepted this option because there is no useful way to
dispose of the water. The EPA is investigating a program for groundwater plume extraction and
injection of the water into the Mississippi River or treatment of the water for use as potable water.
New Brighton Well #7: In 1986, the EPA selected a remedy to address potential future
contamination of New Brighton well #7, which involves the construction of a new well
into the Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer system. However, in 1989, the EPA signed an
amendment to this remedy, because the Army agreed to provide the City over 4 million gallons per
day of drinking water. In 1987, the Army also agreed to provide results of monitoring the water
quality of Well # 7 and to construct a barrier system to prevent future contamination.
April 1991 68 NEW BRIGHTON/ARDEN HILLS
-------
Soil: In 1989, following the investigation of on-site soil contamination, the Army and the
EPA selected incineration of the PCB-contaminated dirt in a mobile incinerator as the soil
cleanup remedy. The incineration was completed within a month in 1989. Certificates of
destruction of the ash waste were submitted in 1990, completing this action.
Source Control: In 1987, to address the source of the groundwater contamination, the
EPA, the MPCA, and the Army initiated the operation of a 6-well system to extract
groundwater migrating from the southwestern corner of TCAAP and treated it with air
stripping. Approximately 300,000 gallons per day are utilized in the plant, with the remainder being
disposed of by reinjection/infiltration through the arsenal sand and gravel pit. Operating data and
monitoring results are evaluated and additional measures will be taken, if necessary, to ensure that any
contaminated groundwater migrating from the site is captured. Currently, there is a 14-well extraction
system in operation; all water is air-stripped, and some is carbon-filtered for the military base's drinking
water supply. Operation of this system is expected to continue until the entire site cleanup is complete.
Entire Site: The U.S. Army initiated an investigation in 1987 to study technologies to be
used in cleaning up the entire site. All contamination source areas found on the base during
the investigation will be evaluated for the need and type of cleanup. The study is expected to
be completed in late 1992. Initial results have identified three areas as the major sources of organic
solvents contaminating local groundwater. The report also suggested possible steps for cleanup.
Site Facts: The U.S. Army Twin Cities Ammunition Plant is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), a specially funded program developed by the Department of Defense (DoD)
in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants on military and
other DoD installations.
Environmental Progress
By supplying the affected residents with a safe drinking water supply, incinerating the PCB-
contaminated soils, and constructing the water treatment system, the potential for contact with
hazardous materials from the the New Brighton/Arden Hills site has been greatly reduced. Further
investigations into the other areas needing attention currently are taking place and will lead to the
selection of final remedies for the entire site.
NEW BRIGHTON/ARDEN HILLS 69 April 1991
-------
NL INDUST
TARACOR
GOLDEN A
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND097891634
Site Description —
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Hennepin County
St. Louis Park
Other Names:
Northwestern Metal Works
Taracorp Ind.
National Lead Taracorp
The NL Industries/Taracorp/Golden Auto site is located in St. Louis Park, just west of
Minneapolis. The site consists of two neighboring properties, one formerly owned by Taracorp,
Inc., and the other currently owned by Morris and Harry Golden. Metal refining, fabricating, and
associated activities were conducted at the site until 1903, when the secondary lead smelting
operation was started. The secondary smelting operations produced a number of products,
including sheet lead solder, shotgun lead pellets, lead wool, lead pipe, powdered lead, and
secondary lead ingots. Historically, solid waste generated by the manufacturing facilities was
stored on site in a slag storage area. Liquid wastes were discharged through process sewers,
which ran under the site, to the municipal sewer system. NL Industries, Inc., formerly the
National Lead Company, bought the site in 1928. NL Industries operated a lead smelting plant
on the site from 1940 until 1979. Plant operations included recovering lead from lead plates,
battery fragments, and lead containers. Lead smelting operations and disposal practices resulted
in elevated levels of lead in the air and in on-site soils. In 1962, NL sold a 4 1/2-acre portion of
the property to Republic Enterprises, which, in turn, sold the property to Morris and Harry
Golden, who used the land for an auto wrecking and used auto parts business from 1964 until
1983. Currently, that land is leased by Quality Auto Body, also a used auto parts and wrecking
company. NL sold the lead smelting operation and the remaining property to Taracorp, Inc. in
1979. The smelter remained in operation until its closure in 1981. There are residential areas
within 1/4 mile of the site. Aquifers beneath the site serve as a primary source of drinking water
in the area, supplying 90% of all groundwater used in the region. Marshy areas exist
approximately 1,000 feet from the site, and there is a pond about 500 feet to the northwest
Minnehaha Creek is about a mile away, and the Mississippi River is approximately 3 miles
northwest of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
71
April!991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater in the vicinity of the site was found to be contaminated with elevated levels
of sulfates, dissolved solids, lead, and had lower pH levels. Off-site soils have shown
elevated levels of lead, although levels are generally well below the safety levels for lead
in soil established by the State. On-site soils were found to contain highly elevated levels
of lead. Also present on the site were battery fragments, lead-bearing debris, and slag.
Health risks may have existed for individuals who ingested or came into direct contact
with the contaminated soils or groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the
groundwater and on-site soils and cleanup of the off-site soils.
Response Action Status
Groundwater and On-Site Soils: Under a Consent Order, NL Industries conducted
on-site investigations and cleanup activities between 1985 and 1988. These activities
included: (1) restricting access to the site; (2) removing contaminated on-site soils to a
federally approved facility and replacing the excavated area with clean soils; (3) revegetating the
excavated area; (4) paving areas with asphalt to minimize exposure to contaminated soil; (5)
cleaning and demolishing several on-site buildings; and (6) long-term monitoring of groundwater.
The groundwater will continue to be monitored for 30 years. Results to date indicate no measurable
movement of contaminants from the soils into the groundwater. If contaminant levels exceed
standards, further cleanup actions will be taken.
Off-Site Soils: A risk assessment conducted by NL Industries in 1987 and a similar
study conducted by the EPA both concluded that the lead in soils near the NL Industries
site does not presently pose a risk to public health and the environment. Based on these
results and the recommendations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the
Minnesota Department of Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), the EPA recommended that no further action was necessary with regard to off-site soils
near the site.
Environmental Progress
Cleanup goals for the site have been fully achieved. Based on a consensus of recommendations
from the various agencies involved in the investigations of the site conditions, it was agreed that the
site requires no further cleanup actions. The EPA will continue to monitor the groundwater to
ensure that the contaminant levels do not exceed standards. The NL Industries site will not be
deleted from the NPL until the EPA is absolutely certain the site poses no threats to the public.
April 1991 72 NL INDUSTRIES/TARACORP/GOLDEN AUTO
-------
NUTTING TRUCK
CASTER COMPA
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND006154017
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Rice County
Fairbauit
Site Description
The 11-acre Nutting Truck and Caster Company site was used for the production of various
manufacturing tools, beginning in 1891. Sludge from various manufacturing wastes was disposed of
in an unlined pit from 1959 to 1979. In 1979, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
issued a notice of non-compliance to the company. In response to this notice, Nutting excavated the
pit, backfilled it with clean fill, and paved over the area. The MPCA required that the company
investigate the soil and groundwater in the area. Monitoring wells were installed and
trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination was discovered in on-site monitoring wells that were
screened in the upper aquifer. In 1984, the manufacturing operations were moved to another
location. The property presently is unused. The population of the City of Fairbauit is approximately
16,500. The city is served by a municipal water system.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Cadmium also was detected in the groundwater directly under the disposal pit. Potential
health threats include drinking or coming in direct contact with contaminated
groundwater.
73
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: interim actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: The potentially responsible parties placed two pump-out wells in the
aquifer, and the contaminated water is being treated by a passive aeration system before
being discharged to a nearby creek.
Entire Site: The company completed an investigation of groundwater contamination in
1986. As part of site investigations, a groundwater monitoring system also was put in
place. Monitoring of TOE levels is continuing on the site. The selection of the final
cleanup technology will be made using the results of this investigation.
Site Facts: A Consent Order was signed in 1984 by the the MPCA and Nutting, requiring Nutting
to conduct an investigation of the extent of groundwater contamination originating from its
property.
Environmental Progress
The treatment and monitoring systems installed at the Nutting Truck and Caster Company site have
greatly reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated groundwater while further monitoring and
cleanup activities are taking place.
Aprj| T 991 74 NUTTING TRUCK & CASTER COMPANY
-------
OAK GROVE
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980904056
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Anoka County
Oak Grave Township
The 104-acre Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill site was operated as an open dump until 1971, when
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued a permit to the owner for a sanitary
landfill. In 1976, operations were taken over by Northwest Disposal Inc., until closure in 1984.
Approximately 2 1/2 million cubic yards of wastes including garbage, various sludges and acids,
pesticide manufacturing waste, paint, cutting oils, cleaning solvents, and inks were disposed of at
the landfill. The Minnesota Department of Health sampled nine nearby residential wells in 1984.
The wells are screened in a sand aquifer, which is the primary water supply source in the area.
Samples from three wells indicated the presence of several volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and metals. Subsequent resampling did not detect these compounds. In 1985, lime sludge was
used as a cover for part of the landfill. Approximately 330 people live within a mile of the site,
and 9,800 live within 4 miles. The majority of these residents depend on water from wells. A
creek flows through the site and is adjacent to a wetland, discharging to the Rum River 2 miles
from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Methane and VOCs were detected beneath the lime sludge cover material. VOCs,
phenols, phthalates, and heavy metals were detected in the upper aquifer. Leachate
samples indicated the presence of VOCs, phenols, and heavy metals. Several VOCs,
phenols, and heavy metals were found in sediment samples and surface water at the site.
Leachate discharges to a nearby wetland, thereby potentially threatening the wetland and
the connected Cedar Creek. Potential human health risks exist from ingestion or direct
contact of the contaminated soil, sediments, or leachate. Drinking contaminated
groundwater also may pose health risks. However, the lower aquifer, which is used for
residential drinking water, has shown very little contamination.
75
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on source control and
cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Source Control: In 1988, the MPCA and the EPA selected the following cleanup
actions for the site: (1) installation of a security fence; (2) capping with a multi-layer
cover system; (3) installation of a topsoil cover and vegetation; (4) enforcement of
deed restrictions; (5) consideration of treatment options for air emissions from gas vents after
construction of the final cover; and (6) air and groundwater monitoring. The State has completed
designing the cleanup technologies and expects to begin cleanup activities in mid-1991.
Groundwater: In late 1990, the EPA selected a remedy, which includes long-term
monitoring of the shallow and deep aquifers, surface waters, and sediments. In
addition, institutional controls on the installation of drinking water wells around the
landfill will be implemented and non-essential water wells will be closed. The State began
designing the cleanup in late 1990.
Site Facts: The EPA sent Special Notice letters to the potentially responsible parties in March
1991 to conduct cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill site while cleanup
activities are being planned and started.
APril 1991 76 OAK GROVE SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
OAKDALE DU
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980609515
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Washington County
Oakdale
Other Names:
Abresch Barrel & Drum Company
Site Description
The 40-acre Oakdale Dump site consists of three disposal area. Two of the areas were burial
areas, and one was a burning area. The burial areas were owned and operated by the Abresch
Drum and Barrel Company from the mid-1940s to 1961. Aerial photos reveal that the greatest
activity at the burial operations occurred in the late 1950s, when large trenches were dug with
heavy equipment, and drums containing chemical wastes were disposed of in the trenches. In
1961, the disposal of wastes at the site had ceased and the property later was sold to several
parties. The site was left vacant, covered with rusted drums, pails, and a variety of industrial
wastes. Groundwater pollution was detected, forcing the closing of two community wells and a
number of private wells within the city of Oakdale. Approximately 600 private wells are within
a mile of the site, and approximately 540 people live within a mile. More than 44,000 people
live within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater was contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Since the cleanup activities were conducted by the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Corporation (3M), one of the potentially responsible parties, the
potential health risks have been eliminated. The site currently is being considered
for deletion from the NPL.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase that focused on cleanup of the
entire site.
77
April1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under an agreement reached in 1983 between 3M, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, and the EPA, 3M handled the necessary arrangements and
payments for the reconstruction of multi-aquifer wells and removal of concentrated
waste deposits in 1984 and installation of a shallow groundwater pump-out system, and the
establishment of a monitoring well network in 1985. Construction of cleanup techniques has
been completed; the groundwater pump and treatment system continues to operate.
Environmental Progress
Cleanup goals for land have been fully achieved at the Oakdale Dump site. Removal of the
source of contamination and continued operation of the groundwater pump and treatment system
will serve to protect nearby residents and the environment. The site currently is being considered
for deletion from the NPL.
April 1991
78
OAKDALE DUMP
-------
OLMSTED
SANITARY LA
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND000874354
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Olmsted County
Oronoco
Other Names:
Rochester Landfill
Oronoco Sanitary Landfill
Site Description
The 50-acre Olmsted County Sanitary Landfill was owned and operated by the City of Rochester
and was licensed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The first cell of the landfill
was constructed without a liner or a system for collecting leachate. The liner for the second cell was
poorly constructed, but the third and fourth cells were properly built. The landfill has operated since
1972 and has accepted various industrial wastes including electroplating sludge, asbestos,
transformers, paint, and solvents. A large amount of flood-soaked material was put into the landfill
in 1977. By 1984, groundwater under the landfill was heavily contaminated with leachate from the
waste pile. There were extensive leachate seeps on the site. Also, an intermittent stream, which runs
through the site to the Zumbro River, could carry contaminants during heavy rains. In 1984, the
County of Olmsted assumed ownership and operation of the landfill. Approximately 200 people live
within 1 mile of the site. It is estimated that 1,200 private wells are located near the landfill.
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
Groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
heavy metals including chromium, cadmium, and lead. People who use contaminated
groundwater supplies or inhale vapors from it may be exposed to hazardous chemicals
from the site. Groundwater under the landfill is likely to discharge into the nearby
Zumbro River, potentially contaminating area surface waters and sediments.
79
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 County of Olmsted started a study of contamination at the site in early
1991, which includes an analysis of the groundwater, surface water, and sediments to
define the problem and assess possible cleanup alternatives. The County is conducting a
dye tracing study to identify the flow pattern of groundwater in and around the site.
Site Facts: In 1989, the MPCA signed a Consent Order with Olmsted County to carry out a study
of the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to conduct final cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the Olmsted County Sanitary Landfill site while further
studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 80 OLMSTED COUNTY SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
PERHAM ARS
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980609572
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Otter Tail County
Perham
Other Names:
Perham Fairgrounds
The State of Minnesota set up the 1/4-acre Perham Arsenic Site to mix pesticides in the 1930s and
1940s. This was part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) program to control an
outbreak of grasshoppers that threatened crops throughout the Midwest. At that time, the USDA
provided all midwestern states with pesticides to control the infestation, and it helped them set up
numerous stations to mix the chemicals used in the program. Approximately 200 to 2,500 pounds of
pesticides were buried between what is now the cattle shed of the county fairgrounds and a building
of the Hammers Construction Company. The EPA believes the pesticides were buried around 1947,
after the USDA ended its program against the infestation. In 1971, the Hammers Construction
Company purchased property next to the fairgrounds from the City of Perham to build offices and a
warehouse. In 1972, the company installed a shallow well to provide water to the facility. Eleven
employees were poisoned with arsenic when they drank water from the well. The well was capped,
and the City of Perham extended its municipal water supply to the facility. Approximately 2,000
people live in the City of Perham.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
ZE
Groundwater and soil on the site are contaminated with arsenic. Potential health threats
include ingesting or coming in direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soil.
81
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two phases: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1982, the City of Perham capped the site with a plastic film and clay
soil to reduce the amount of arsenic that can leach through the soil as a result of rain and
snow. In 1985, the State excavated approximately 200 cubic yards of arsenic wastes in
the burial pit and disposed of the wastes in a hazardous waste landfill. The State filled the pit with
clean soil, placed an impermeable membrane and clay cap over the pit, and set up a program to
monitor the groundwater. The city extended its municipal water supply to the affected workers at
the Hammers Construction Company.
Entire Site: Initial studies at the site in 1984 recommended additional monitoring to
assess movement of contaminated groundwater, removal of contaminated soils, and
capping of the site. These cleanup actions were undertaken, and in 1991 the State of
Minnesota will begin a study into the nature and extent of groundwater and soil contamination and
alternatives for cleaning up contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
Excavation of contaminated soil, capping, and groundwater monitoring at the Perham Arsenic Site
have significantly reduced exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater while further
investigations are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 82 PERHAM ARSENIC SITE
-------
PINE BEND S
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND000245795
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Dakota County
Inver Grove Heights
Other Names:
Crosby American Demolition Landfill
The 252-acre Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill site is an active facility that accepts various wastes into
two adjacent landfills. Browning Ferris Industries owns the landfill and has allowed Phoenix, Inc., a
subsidiary, to operate it since 1972. Through the intervening years, the landfill produced leachate
containing arsenic, halogenated and non-halogenated organic compounds, and various chlorides.
The EPA and the State analyzed the groundwater and soils on site and discovered contamination
from leachate. The EPA found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) in wells that monitor groundwater in the shallow aquifer and in residential and
commercial wells that draw water from that same source. Approximately 50 people live within a 1-
mile radius of the site. Approximately 16,000 people live in the town of Inver Grove Heights, 3
miles north of the landfill. Several wells of private residences are contaminated with heavy metals,
VOCs, and PAHs. Eight private residences now use bottled water that is provided by the site
owners. The site is approximately 3/4 of a mile west of the Mississippi River and is bordered by
farms, food processing plants, chemical manufacturers, an oil refinery, a pumping station for natural
gas, an asphalt plant, an installation for electrical utilities, and residences. The site is fenced, and
there are check-in stations at the gates of the landfills to enforce security restrictions.
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
Leachate from the landfills and surface water contain arsenic, halogenated and non-
halogenated organic compounds, and various chlorides. Groundwater is contaminated
with VOCs and PAHs. People could be exposed to contaminants from the site through
drinking or coming in direct contact with contaminated groundwater, or by eating crops
grown in private gardens irrigated with contaminated well water.
83
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on providing an alternate water supply, source control, and cleanup of groundwater.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The site owner is providing bottled water to eight residences until an
alternate water supply can be provided.
Alternate Water Supply: The State of Minnesota is conducting a study in preparation
for providing an alternate water supply to area residents and homes. The EPA expects to
make a final selection of the water supply plan in 1991. Construction of the system is
expected soon thereafter. Affected residents will continue to receive bottled water until the alternate
water supply system is completed.
Source Control: The State of Minnesota has begun an extended study to determine the
extent and nature of site contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives for the landfill
areas and other sources of site contamination. It is expected to be completed in late 1991.
Groundwater: A State of Minnesota study is underway to determine the extent and
nature of contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives. The study is expected to be
completed in late 1991.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State entered into an agreement with Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill and the
adjacent Crosby American Demolition Landfill to conduct the investigation. The EPA and the State
of Minnesota are considering options to combine the source control and groundwater cleanup into a
single site cleanup approach.
Environmental Progress
The provision of bottled water has reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants at the Pine Bend
Sanitary Landfill site while further investigations are taking place leading to the selection of final
cleanup remedies.
April 1991 84 PINE BEND SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
REILLY TAR
CORPORATI
(ST. LOUIS P
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980609804
Site Description —
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Hennepin County
St. Louis Park Plant
Other Names:
Reilfy Tar & Chemical Republic
Creosoting Company
The 80-acre Reilly Tar & Chemical (St. Louis Park Plant) site is an inactive facility that was used for
coal tar distillation and wood preserving from 1917 to 1972. The site was sold and converted into
recreational and residential areas in 1972. Highway and storm sewer improvements also were
constructed on the site in 1972. Wastes from site operations were disposed of on the site and in a
network of ditches that discharged to an adjacent wetland. The wastes contained many compounds,
including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Soil and groundwater below the wetland and
the southern portion of the site are heavily contaminated. The site is located in St. Louis Park, a
western suburb of Minneapolis, with a population of approximately 43,000 people. Portions of the
northern end of the site have been developed as a residential complex. Seven municipal wells have
been closed due to PAH contamination. The nearest residence is located approximately 1/4 mile
from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, municipal, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with petrochemicals and various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Sludges and soils are contaminated with petrochemicals and
creosotes from wood preserving activities. The wetland adjacent to the site is threatened
by the contaminants that have been discharged from the site. The potential health risks to
people include drinking or directly contacting groundwater, inhaling contaminated
vapors, or coming into direct contact or ingesting contaminated soils and sludge.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term remedial
phases focusing on water treatment and contamination source control, groundwater aquifer
control, cleanup of the St. Peter Aquifer, and cleanup of the Drift Platteville Aquifer.
85
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1982 and 1983, the State cleaned out two deep wells on the
site and conducted a complete off-site well survey. The State also performed a water
treatability study on the closed municipal wells.
Water Treatment and Contamination Source Control: The cleanup option
selected to address water treatment and contamination source control includes the
construction and operation of a granular activated carbon water treatment system at two
existing contaminated municipal wells. The parties potentially responsible for site contamination
constructed this water treatment system, which has been fully operational since 1985.
Groundwater Aquifer Control: The cleanup methods selected to address
groundwater and aquifer contamination include: (1) monitoring, pumping, and treating
the various aquifers to maintain drinking water quality and prevent downgradient
contamination of deeper aquifers; (2) capping and filling exposed hazardous wastes in the
vicinity of the peat bog and discharging those hazardous materials into a sanitary sewer, (3)
investigating subsurfaces to implement deed restrictions for current and future land use; and (4)
completing further investigations into the nature and extent of contamination in the northern area
of the Drift Platteville and St. Peter Aquifers. In 1986, the City of St. Louis Park proceeded with
the filling of exposed hazardous wastes in the vicinity of the peat bog. Five areas of the wetland
were filled in to prevent the further spread of contamination into the food chain. The filling
activity was completed in 1986. The potentially responsible parties, under EPA guidance, began
monitoring and pumping water from contaminated plumes to prevent the further migration of
contaminants. Deed restrictions of future commercial and residential construction on the site
were put in place in 1989. An existing municipal well in the Prairie du Chien Aquifer will be
used as a gradient control well to prevent the spread of contamination. This well is expected to
become operational in 1992.
St. Peter Aquifer: The potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring,
conducted an investigation of the St. Peter Aquifer to determine whether a higher
capacity well pump should be installed in an existing well or a new gradient control
well should be constructed. The investigation was completed in 1990 and a remedy was
selected, which involves pumping and treating groundwater from the aquifer. Initially, the water
will discharge to a local treatment plant. This situation will be evaluated at a later date, and
treated water may be discharged to a surface water body or the water may be treated with carbon
adsorption on site. Cleanup activities began in early 1991.
Drift Platteville Aquifer: The potentially responsible parties, under EPA
monitoring, are conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of aquifer
contamination and will determine whether a higher capacity well pump should be
installed in an existing well or a new gradient control well should be constructed. These
investigations are expected to be completed and a remedy selected in late 1991.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA issued an order to Reilly, a potentially responsible party,
requiring the company to construct and install a granulated activated carbon drinking water
system. In 1986, Reilly Tar & Chemical signed a Consent Decree, requiring them to finance
cleanup activities at the site. The Decree also required the company to conduct investigations
into the nature and extent of contamination in the Drift Platteville and St. Peter Aquifers.
April 1991 86 REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
(ST. LOUIS PARK PLANT)
-------
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above began treating the contaminated groundwater and
removing the sources of contamination. These actions have greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to contaminated groundwater at the Reilly Tar & Chemical (St. Louis Park Plant) site
while further investigations and cleanup activities take place.
REILLY TAR & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
(ST. LOUIS PARK PLANT)
87
April 1991
-------
RITARI POST
&POLE
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980904064
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Wadena County
3 miles northwest of Sebeka
Site Description
The 212-acre Ritari Post & Pole site is an active wood preserving facility that has been in operation
since 1959. Creosote was used as a preservative up to 1966. The wood preserving operation now
uses pentachlorophenol (PCP) as the preservative. From 1966 to 1973, the site used a process that
allowed approximately 27,000 gallons of PCP to drip from treated wood directly onto the ground.
In addition, approximately 3,200 gallons of PCP-contaminated sludge were applied directly to the
ground. The site is partially fenced. There are approximately 350 people living within 3 miles of
the site. Several on-site monitoring wells and a private well less than 500 feet away from the site are
contaminated with PCP. The private well has been replaced by a new well into a deeper
uncontaminated aquifer. The site is 3/4 mile from a wetland area draining into the Cat River. The
river is used for recreation.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater is contaminated with PCP, phenols, and dioxin. Health threats
include using contaminated groundwater for household purposes and crop irrigation.
Also, contamination of the food chain is possible if contaminants move into the adjacent
wetlands and the small creek that drains into the Cat River.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
89
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The State currently is conducting an investigation into the nature and
extent of contamination at the site, which will result in the selection of final cleanup
remedies. To date, soil and preliminary groundwater sampling have been conducted at
the site. These early study results have revealed the presence of dioxins, requiring modification
of the study plan to address new issues raised by this discovery. The investigation is scheduled
to be completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were required at the Ritari Post & Pole site while studies are taking
place and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
90
RITARI POST & POLE
-------
SOUTH AND
SITE
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980609614
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Anoka County
Andover, 16 miles northeast of Minneapolis
Other Names:
Heidelberger Cecil Musket Ranch
Pumpkin City Investments
Musket Ranch
Andover Sites
Site Description
The South Andover Site is composed of several parcels of land totaling approximately 50 acres.
The individual parcels of land are located adjacent to one another and are independently owned
and used. Several small businesses involved with used auto part sales, auto salvage operations,
and auto body repair are situated adjacent to the site. From 1954 until 1981, the majority of
these properties were involved with waste disposal and salvage operations. The Cecil
Heidelberger property stored drums containing inks and solvents. Approximately 75% of the
Heidelberger property was later covered with an estimated 3 million tires. Thousands of barrels
of solvents and inks reportedly were burned in open pits on the Batson property. A wetland on
the property was used as a disposal area prior to filling. The Charles Mistelske property was
used to store approximately 8,300 gallons of paints, adhesives, and greases in 1-, 2-, and 55-
gallon containers. The Meyer property was used to store approximately 200 drums of chemical
waste. Spillage of chemical waste is known to have occurred at this location. Drummed waste
and transformers were stored on the Klar property. Transformers, salvaged electrical equipment,
empty drums, and miscellaneous debris are evident on the site. Waste processing stopped in
1977, and waste was not accepted after 1978, when the property was sold to Parmack, Inc. In
1980, the State issued notices of violation for improper storage and disposal of chemical wastes.
The site is located 3,000 feet from the Waste Disposal Landfill, another National Priorities List
(NPL) site. The City of Andover has a population of 13,000. The area 1/4 mile north of the site
is a residential neighborhood with about 170 homes. Five residences are located on site. Further
development is planned to the west and south of the site. Several commercial ventures,
including auto part and salvage operations, currently operate on site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/22/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
91
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater in three shallow drinking water wells is contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, xylenes, and vinyl chloride and
the heavy metals lead and chromium. The shallow aquifer underlying the site is
heavily contaminated at one location. No other contamination of drinking water
wells has been detected. Subsurface soil is contaminated with trace amounts of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and surface soil is contaminated with lead and
chromium. Trace amounts of several semi-volatiles have been detected in soil
samples. The health threats of greatest concern to people are drinking, inhaling,
or making direct contact with contaminated soil, groundwater, and contaminated
vapors. Although residents who live on site and use the shallow groundwater
have been advised by the State to use bottled water, recent sampling of
groundwater indicates that no contaminants exist in the residents' potable water
supply.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the groundwater and of the soil, surface water, and sediments.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, approximately 700 drums were disposed of by
mixing the contents with waste oil and using the mixture as fuel. An estimated 600
drums were removed from the site by the potentially responsible parties in 1986 and
were disposed of in a federally approved facility. In 1989, the EPA constructed a fence around
the unfenced area of the site and posted warning signs in an effort to limit site access. Also in
1989, the EPA, in conjunction with the State, completed shredding and removing the tires from
the site.
Groundwater: The selected groundwater cleanup technologies to control the
migration of contaminants present in the surficial aquifer include: extraction of
groundwater from the surficial aquifer, provision of municipal water to private well
users on or near the site; monitoring of groundwater movement at the site; and placement of
restrictions on new wells on or near the site. The State and the EPA are preparing the technical
specifications and design for the groundwater cleanup technologies. Groundwater discharge and
treatment options, as well as the exact number and location of extraction wells, will be
determined during the design phase of the cleanup. Groundwater discharge options include on-
site treatment, discharge of groundwater to a municipal sewage treatment plant, and discharge to
a surface stream. Groundwater cleanup activities will begin once the design phase is completed
in 1992.
April 1991 92 SOUTH ANDOVER SITE
-------
Soils, Surface Water, and Sediment: The EPA currently is conducting an
investigation into the nature and extent of soil, surface water, and sediment
contamination at the site. Additionally, contamination in the lower sand aquifer will
be assessed. The investigation will define the contaminants of concern and will recommend
alternatives for the cleanup of these resources and control of the sources of contamination at the
site. The investigation is expected to be completed in late 1991.
Site Facts: In 1976, the State issued a Citation of Violation to Cecil and Marian Heidelberger
for unregulated chemical waste storage. In 1982, the EPA notified 16 potentially responsible
parties that they may be liable for cleanup at the site. An early investigation of the site was
initiated by the State in 1973, after a citizen lodged a complaint of suspected contamination in a
residential well.
Environmental Progress
By removing contaminated drums, fencing the area of contamination, and removing numerous
tires from the site, the potential for direct exposure to hazardous materials at the South Andover
Site facility has been greatly reduced. Further studies leading to the selection of a permanent
cleanup strategy currently are being conducted, and the design specifications for groundwater
cleanup are being prepared.
SOUTH ANDOVER SITE
93
April 1991
-------
ST. AUGU
SANITAR
ENGEN DUM
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND981002256
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Stearns County
1 mile from St. Augusta
Other Names:
St. Cloud Dump
Site Description
The 75-acre St. Augusta Sanitary Landfill/Engen Dump site operated as a dump and landfill.
The 10-acre Engen Dump portion of the site operated from 1966 to 1971. The 40-acre St.
Augusta Landfill was operated as a sanitary landfill, licensed by the State, from 1971 until 1982.
Paint wastes, solvents, sludges, and ash from hazardous waste incineration were buried at the
site. Records indicate that open burning occurred at the Engen Dump portion of the site. There
also was evidence of illegal dumping of wastes in the early 1980s. Also, erosion has at times
exposed filled waste at the St. Augusta site, and a leachate seep has been noticed on the northern
side of the landfill. In 1983, the landfill and dump ceased operations and were covered with a
cap. Fencing around the site is inadequate, and there is evidence of site use by recreational
vehicles and hunters. St. Augusta has an approximate population of 2,500. The Mississippi
River borders the old Engen Dump area of the site. Johnson Creek runs to the south of the site.
One nearby residence has a private well, which is regularly monitored. Since groundwater flow
is toward the Mississippi River, site contaminants may be reaching the river, which is used as a
major drinking water resource.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 07/01/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, barium, and
lead; volatile organic compounds (VOCs); atrazine; and phthalates. Health
threats to people include coming in direct contact with and ingestion of
contaminated groundwater.
95
April! 991
-------
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: A steering committee representing potentially responsible parties has
installed monitoring wells, taken yearly samples, and had a hydrogeological study
conducted. An investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination
began in 1991 and is scheduled for completion in 1993.
Site Facts: Approximately 40 parties potentially responsible for wastes associated with the site
have formed a steering committee to address contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined that
no immediate actions were required at the St. Augusta Sanitary Landfill/Engen Dump site while
further investigations continue and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991 96 ST. AUGUSTA SANITARY LANDFILL/ENGEN DUMP
-------
ST. LOUIS Rl
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND039045430
Site Description
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
St. Louis County
miles southwest of Duluth's central
business district
Other Names:
U.S. Steel Corp. Duluth Workshop
Interlake/Duluth Tar
The 640 acre St. Louis River Site contains two different areas: the St. Louis River/Interlake/
Duluth Tar Area and the U.S. Steel or USX area. These areas are separated by 4 miles of river.
The USX Corporation began operation of an integrated steel mill on this site in 1915.
Operations included coke and iron production, open hearth steel production, rolling, and wire
milling. The USX Duluth Works closed in 1979; however, the wire mill building was used by
the lessee until 1987. There is extensive contamination of the sediments, soil, surface water, and
groundwater with coke and tar products, which contain high concentrations of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Demolition of most of the site buildings already has occurred,
and some pipes and tanks used for storage in the past have already been cleaned and dismantled.
The St. Louis River and associated wetlands run along the eastern and southern sides of the site.
The Interlake/Duluth Tar area is located about three miles from Duluth. It occupies 230 acres of
land and marina area. The site consists of the 54th Avenue Peninsula, a boat slip, the Hallett
Peninsula, and the Stryker embayment. The Hallett Peninsula has a long history of industrial use
for pig iron manufacturing, coking operations, and related industries from the late 1800s to about
1962. Zenith Furnace Company began operating a blast furnace on site in 1902 and added coke
ovens in 1904. The Zenith facilities were acquired by Interlake Iron Corporation in 1930.
Interlake continued to operate the coking ovens, and more ovens were added in 1939. Interlake
operated the blast furnace until 1960 and the coke ovens until 1961. In 1962, the blast furnace
was toppled and the coke ovens were emptied. Between 1904 and approximately 1916, Duluth
Tar and Chemical Company and the Barrett Company produced tar paper from waste tar
obtained from Interlake. Between 1924 and 1948, Dominion, and then American Tar and
Chemical Companies, produced roofing paper and shingles using tar from Interlake. Most of the
buildings from these businesses have been removed. Presently, Hallett Dock Company, an auto
junkyard, and other small businesses operate on the site. The St. Louis River is located south of
this area. The river empties into Lake Superior four miles downstream of the site.
Approximately 800 people live within a mile of the site. Contaminated groundwater is not used
as a drinking water source. Drinking water is supplied from an intake several miles from the
mouth of Lake Superior.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
97
April1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Air at the site may contain contaminated dust and VOCs when the surface soil is
disturbed. The groundwater at both site areas is contaminated with PAHs.
Sediments and soils at the U.S. Steel area contain PAHs. Sediments and soils at
the Interlake/Duluth Tar Area contain PAHs and tars. The surface water at the
U.S. Steel area is contaminated with PAHs. The tanks and pipes are contaminated
with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If the contaminated soil, sediments,
surface water and groundwater are accidentally swallowed or touched, health
hazards could ensue. The site also could contaminate the wetlands adjacent to the
U.S. Steel site and the St. Louis River. There is a fish advisory in effect, "No
swimming" signs are posted, and there are some restrictions on access to the two
site areas.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the Interlake/Duluth area, cleanup of the U.S. Steel area and cleanup of
the tar seeps at the Interlake/Duluth area.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Several initial actions have been completed to remove contaminated
materials at the site. Most buildings at both areas of the site have been demolished,
and tanks and pipes have been cleaned and dismantled at the U.S. Steel area.
Interlake/Duluth Area: The State has completed an investigation into the nature
and extent of contamination on the Interlake/Duluth portion of the site. A final study
focusing on the cleanup alternatives for the soil, sediments, groundwater, and surface
water is expected to be completed in 1992.
U.S. Steel Area: The State has selected the following remedy to clean up the U.S.
Steel portion of the site: (1) excavating and removing the tar-contaminated soil and
using it as fuel; (2) discharging the contaminated water to the publicly owned water
treatment facility; (3) incinerating PCB liquids; (4) constructing a slurry wall; (5) landfarming of
some materials; (6) surface water and groundwater monitoring; and (7) disposing of wastes in an
approved landfill. The State has begun site cleanup activities; the EPA currently is evaluating
the remedy selection to determine if the technologies and cleanup methods will adequately
address site contamination.
Tar Seeps at the Interlake/Duluth Area: In early 1991, the EPA selected a
remedy to excavate the four tar seeps present on the soil surface and to burn the tar as
fuel at a coal-powered power plant, steel blast furnace, or other suitable facility. The
design of these cleanup activities is being undertaken by the parties potentially responsible for
the contamination and are expected to be completed by 1992.
April 1991 98 ST. LOUIS RIVER SITE
-------
Environmental Progress
The demolition of contaminated buildings and the cleanup and dismantling of contaminated
tanks and pipes have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the St. Louis
River Site while further studies and cleanup activities are taking place.
ST. LOUIS RIVER SITE
99
April 1991
-------
ST. REGIS PAP
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND057597940
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Cass County
Chippewa National Forest
Other Names:
Wheelers Division
Site Description
The St. Regis Paper Company site occupies 125 acres in the Chippewa National Forest between Pike
Bay and Cass Lake. Wood treatment activities began at the site in the 1950s while the land was
leased from the Great Northern Railroad. In 1957, pressure treatment of lumber with creosote was
being used in the wood treatment process, and wastewater from this process was discharged into a
disposal pond. In 1960, pentachlorophenol (PCP) was being used to pressure-treat wood products.
Wastewater from this process was discharged into three disposal ponds. In mid-1971, the three
ponds were replaced by a new pond. Since mid-1980, the plant's wastewater was evaporated, and
the residue was placed in barrels for transport to a hazardous waste disposal facility. Prior to this
action, sludge reportedly was hauled to the southwestern comer of the property before it was
transported to an off-site disposal facility. Also, the pond was dredged on one occasion, and the
contents were placed around the sides of the pond. Drinking water in the area comes from private
and municipal wells. The Chippewa National Forest, Pike Bay, and Cass Lake have a potential of
being contaminated by the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
phenolic compounds, low levels of metals, and dioxins. The soil is contaminated with
PAHs, PCPs, dioxin, and arsenic, while the surface water is contaminated with PAHs and
phenolic compounds. The contaminated soil and groundwater could have adverse health
effects if accidentally ingested or directly contacted. Seepage from the site most likely
flows into the nearby wetlands and could be harmful to the plant and animal life.
101
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: In 1986, the State decided to excavate the contaminated soil and store it in
an on-site vault. The contaminated soil has been excavated and stored, and the
groundwater is being treated by the carbon adsorption method before being discharged to
the surface water. This treatment system has been operative for the last four years and will continue
until contamination is reduced to cleanup levels.
Site Facts: Two Consent Orders signed between the State of Minnesota and Champion
International in 1985 gave Champion the responsibility to conduct the investigation to determine the
nature and extent of site contamination and to develop a plan for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The ongoing groundwater treatment program and soil excavation have significantly reduced the
potential for exposure to soil contaminants at the St. Regis Paper Co. site. The groundwater
treatment is planned to continue until cleanup goals are met.
April 1991
102
ST. REGIS PAPER CO.
-------
TWIN CITIES
RESERVE BA
ARMS RAN
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MN8570024275
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Hennepin County
Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport Complex
Other Names:
US Air Force Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport
Small Arms Range Landfill
Site Description
Since 1944, the 280-acre Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base (Small Arms Range Landfill) was
used for operations that resulted in the storage and disposal of hazardous substances. The Small
Arms Range Landfill was the main base landfill from 1963 to 1972. The site is along the Minnesota
River and covers approximately 3 acres. In addition to general base refuse, quantities of paint
sludge, paint filters, and leaded-fuel sludge also were disposed of at the landfill. The site is within
the 100-year flood plain of the Minnesota River and is periodically flooded, resulting in the release
of chromium, lead, and zinc to the river. Approximately 64,700 people living in the Minneapolis-St.
Paul metropolitan area depend on public and private wells for drinking water within a 3-mile area of
the landfill.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 07/21/87
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells have shown contamination with low levels of mercury, chromium, lead,
and zinc in the groundwater. Soil and sludge are contaminated with paint by-products
and petrochemicals. People who accidentally ingest or have direct contact with
contaminated groundwater, soil, or sludge may suffer adverse health effects. The
northern boundary of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge lies 500 feet from
the landfill.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
103
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In the spring of 1987, the EPA secured the site, posted warning
signs, transferred liquids to on-site storage tanks, shipped 69 drums of organic sludges for
incineration, and transported 35 cubic yards of contaminated soil for off-site disposal.
Entire Site: The Air Force currently is conducting an investigation of the site to
determine the extent of contamination. A final evaluation of the alternative cleanup
remedies has been submitted, and the selection of cleanup approaches for the site is
expected in 1991.
Site Facts: The Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to
identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD
facilities.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions, especially the removal of liquid and solid wastes and contaminated soil, have
greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Twin Cities Air Force
Reserve Base site while final cleanup remedies are selected.
April 1991
104
TWIN CITIES AIR FORCE RESERVE BASE
(SMALL ARMS RANGE LANDFILL)
-------
UNION SCRAP
& METAL CO
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND022949192
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Hennepin County
North Minneapolis
Site Description
Union Scrap Iron & Metal Company sorted and crushed lead battery fragments on this 1/4-acre site
from 1973 to 1980. Lead was separated and sold for recycling. The plastic and rubber fragments
remaining, which also contained lead, accumulated in piles. Approximately 30,000 tons of these
fragments were on the site. According to the State, airborne lead levels adjacent to the site were
significantly high. There was also a potential for groundwater and surface water contamination.
Approximately 3,700 people live within a 1/2-mile radius of the site and 17,100 live within 1 mile.
There are three schools within 1 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The air was contaminated with lead. The soil and sludge were contaminated with heavy
metals including lead, arsenic, cadmium, nickel and copper, as well as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). The site is located in a predominantly commercial area, but the
potential for exposure to airborne particulates existed for people traveling and working
near the area.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
105
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1985, the EPA covered the contaminated piles with tarpaulins
and weighted them with tires to prevent erosion and air pollution. A fence also was
installed. In 1987, the EPA removed the battery debris, casings, and contaminated soil
from the property and refilled the area with clean fill. Contaminated materials were removed from
sewer lines. Existing buildings were decontaminated and demolished. In 1989, a cement pad and
the waste beneath it were removed.
Entire Site: The EPA conducted an investigation of the site to determine the nature and
the extent of the contamination. The results of the investigation indicated that no
significant contamination remained on the site after the completion of the emergency
actions. The EPA, therefore, determined in 1990 that no further action would be taken at this site.
Environmental Progress
The emergency actions described above have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
contaminated materials at the Union Scrap Iron & Metal Company site. Because of these actions, all
cleanup goals for surface contamination have been met, and no significant contamination remains on
the site, making the surroundings safe for nearby residents and the environment. The site has been
designated for unrestricted use, and no further monitoring is necessary. The EPA is now in the
process of deleting the site from the NPL.
ApriM991
106
UNION SCRAP IRON & METAL COMPANY
-------
UNIVERSITY
MINNESOTA (
RESEARCH C
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980613780
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Dakota County
Rosemount
Other Names:
Rosemount Research Center
Site Description
The University of Minnesota formerly operated this 4-acre disposal site, which includes the
following six areas: (1) a burn pit, constructed in 1968, received about 7,000 gallons of waste
per year. A second pit existed in the early 1960s and received about 100 gallons of waste per
year; (2) a used equipment area that may have been used for storing and salvaging of electrical
equipment and lead batteries and for disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated
oil. Two incinerators also were operated in this area and may have been fueled by transformer
oil; (3) a transformer area where a PCB spill occurred in the 1970s; (4) an oxidation pond and a
Research Center Sewer System area that now receive sanitary sewer discharges; (5) a dump area
where construction, demolition, and municipal wastes have been placed; and (6) a former
Process Water Lagoon area, which operated for 4 months in 1945 and received sulfuric acid,
nitric acid, ammonia, and ether. Between 1960 and 1973, the University buried and incinerated
gaseous, liquid, and chemical laboratory wastes on the site. The University detected volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals in monitoring wells and soil on site in 1972. New
monitoring data collected by the State in 1984 indicate that the contamination is spreading.
Approximately 9,600 people use wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water.
The closest well downslope of the burn pit is 9,500 feet away. Employee and tenant work areas
are within 1,000 feet from the used equipment area.
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 lead, copper, and
zinc; VOCs including chloroform; and nitrates. The soil is contaminated with
VOCs; heavy metals including lead, chromium, copper, and zinc; pesticides
including lindane and chlordane; dioxins; and PCBs. The contaminated soil and
groundwater could pose health problems to individuals if directly contacted or
ingested.
107
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater cleanup
and cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The University has taken the responsibility to monitor the
groundwater. Also, the University is supplying bottled water to 28 families in
Rosemount. A groundwater pump-out system has been constructed and is operational.
Construction of a permanent water supply system began in 1988 and is scheduled for completion
in late 1991. The wells in the area no longer exceed the State's Recommended Allowable Limit
for chloroform; however, the University is continuing construction of the water supply system on
its own.
Entire Site: The EPA and the State have completed an investigation into the soil
contamination at the site. In 1990, lead-contaminated soil was removed and disposed
of off site in a federally approved landfill. Soil heavily contaminated with PCBs will
be treated on site using either a thermal desorption/fume incineration process or an on-site
incineration process. The cleanup actions, including restricting access with manmade barriers
around the site, are scheduled to begin in late 1991.
Site Facts: In 1986, under a State Order, the University of Minnesota conducted an
investigation of the site. The Order also called for the removal of contaminated soil and
monitoring of the contaminated groundwater.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternative water supply to affected families and the ongoing cleanup
activities described above have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances in the drinking water. Final cleanup activities are being initiated for on-site
contaminated soils at the University of Minnesota site.
April 1991 108 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
(ROSEMOUNT RESEARCH CENTER)
-------
WAITE PA
MINNESOTA
RKWEL
EPA ID# MND981002249
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Stearns County
St. Cloud
Site Description
The Waite Park Wells site contains four municipal water wells. Wells 1 and 3 are located on
Burlington Northern Car Shop property and were found to be contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in 1984. Burlington Northern has constructed and repaired railroad cars on
the site since 1894. The activities generated wastes that included oils and greases, sandblast
sand, calcium hydroxide, solvents, paints, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Burlington
Northern ceased operations at this facility around 1980 and has donated much of the land to the
City of Waite Park. The Electric Machinery plant has manufactured electric generators since
1969. The plant had four major waste streams: waste oils and lubricants, resins from the
thermoplastics operation, coolant from the machine shop, and solvents and paints from a paint
booth. There were several disposal and storage areas on the property. Approximately 4,000
people reside in Waite Park, and 3,500 people are served by the municipal water system. The
adjacent Sauk River joins the Mississippi River 2 miles from the site. The nearest houses are
approximately 50 feet from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and municipal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/15/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with VOCs. Sandblast sand and soils
are contaminated with heavy metals, VOCs, and PCBs. People may face a health
risk if they ingest contaminated water or directly contact contaminated soil.
109
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the Electric Machinery property and cleanup of the Burlington Northern
property.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The contaminated wells were taken out of service immediately, with
an emergency hookup to the St. Cloud water supply established in 1985. Since 1988,
an air stripper has been operated by the municipality to treat the groundwater from
these two municipal wells.
Electric Machinery Property: The remedy selected for cleanup of the Electric
Machinery property includes: (1) installing groundwater extraction wells in the
contaminated plume; (2) pumping and treating contaminated groundwater through a
water treatment system and discharging the treated water to the Sauk River; and (3) restricting
access to the site by installing a fence and security system around the site. Groundwater
pumping and treatment still are taking place. All other cleanup activities have been completed.
Burlington Northern Property: The State is conducting an additional
investigation to further define the areas of contamination at this site and to determine
if additional cleanup actions will be required. To date, the sandblast sands have been
sampled. The studies of this area are expected to be completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The emergency hookup to the municipal water system, installation and operation of the air
stripper water treatment system, and securing of the site have greatly reduced the potential for
exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater while further investigation and cleanup activities
are taking place at the Waite Park Wells site.
April 1991 110 WAITE PARK WELLS
-------
WASHINGTO
LANDFILL
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980704738
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Washington County
Lake Elmo
Site Description
From 1969 to 1975, Washington and Ramsey Counties operated a sanitary landfill at the 40-acre
Washington County Landfill site. After operations were discontinued in 1975, a clean soil cap
was placed on the landfill. In 1981, groundwater monitoring indicated the presence of elevated
concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and some heavy metals in on-site
monitoring wells and off-site residential wells. In 1983 and 1984, alternate drinking water
supplies were provided to affected residences. In 1983, Ramsey and Washington Counties
installed a pump and treat system to reduce any potential groundwater contamination from the
landfill. The site is located in a sparse residential development, with some farmland in the area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, County, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and lead. People may face a health risk
from ingesting or directly contacting contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: an immediate action and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site and provision of a safe drinking water source.
m
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: In 1983 and 1984, alternate drinking water supplies were
provided to affected residences, and Ramsey and Washington Counties installed a
pump and treat system.
Entire Site: Cleanup remedies selected by the EPA include: (1) installing and
operating a groundwater gradient control operation at the site; (2) providing safe
drinking water supplies for affected residences; (3) monitoring the landfill and the
effectiveness of the groundwater gradient control system; (4) appropriate landfill security and
safety procedures; and (5) implementing a closure plan. The groundwater gradient control
system is in operation and monitoring of the groundwater will continue until the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) determines that the groundwater has been cleaned. Landfill
closure has been completed. The potentially responsible parties will be conducting a five-year
review of the remedy in 1991. The remedy will be evaluated for effectiveness and adjustments
will be made, as necessary.
Drinking Water: In September 1990, a remedy was selected to supply drinking
water to residents of 10 homes in Lake Elmo who have received Minnesota
Department of Health advisories against using their existing well water for drinking or
cooking. The remedy provides for these 10 homes to be connected to the city of Oakdale public
water supply system by late 1991. Designs for the connection are completed and construction of
the connections is underway.
Site Facts: In 1984, a Consent Order was signed between the Counties and the MPCA for the
Counties to perform cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The immediate and continuing actions to supply alternative water to affected residences have
eliminated the potential of exposure to hazardous substances in the drinking water at the
Washington County Landfill site while additional cleanup activities are ongoing.
Aprill991 112 WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDFILL
-------
WASTE DISPO
ENGINEERING
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980609119
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Anoka County
Andover
Site Description
The 114-acre Waste Disposal Engineering site operated as a dump and landfill for approximately 20
years, closing in early 1983. Hazardous wastes were disposed of throughout the landfill during site
operation. From 1972 until 1974, paint sludges, solvents, oils, caustics, and acids were disposed of
in an asphalt-lined pit on the site. Poor operating practices and spills contributed to the site
contamination. In 1982, lime sludge generated by the Minneapolis Drinking Water Treatment Plant
was deposited at the site. The landfill covers 73 acres of refuse area and contains approximately
2,500,000 cubic yards of waste. Groundwater directly under the site is contaminated primarily with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Area residents rely on groundwater for their potable water
source. The area surrounding the site is residential, agricultural, and commercial. The site is
bordered by Coon Creek.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Dale: 07/16/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soil gas, and Coon Creek contain VOCs from wastes deposited in the
landfill. Individuals may be exposed to contaminants through accidental ingestion,
inhalation, or direct contact with groundwater, soil gas, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
113
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by pumping and
treating the groundwater using carbon adsorption and discharging the treated water to
Coon Creek; installing a soil cap to completely cover the landfill; installing a clay
groundwater cut-off wall; restricting well use; filling in a wetland and constructing an alternate
wetland to replace the lost habitat; and monitoring the site. Once the technical specifications for the
remedy are designed, planned for 1991, the final site cleanup will begin.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation by the EPA of the Waste Disposal Engineering site determined that no
immediate actions are necessary to protect the public or the environment from immediate threats
while waiting for the final cleanup to begin.
April 1991
114
WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING
-------
WHITTAKER
CORPORA!!
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND006252233
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Hennepin County
Minneapolis
Other Names:
Minneapolis Coatings & Chemical Division
Site Description
The 1-acre Whittaker Corporation site is located within a 10-acre tract of land. During World War
II, Triploil Holding Company operated on the site and repackaged war materials, including
antifreeze and oil, for the military. In the 1950s, Triploil expanded its operations by acquiring
Midwestern Copper Works, which manufactures industrial coatings. Resins and industrial coatings
were produced on the property. Raw materials were stored in underground storage tanks, in diked
aboveground storage tanks, in drums, or inside the plant. Waste products were used in the
manufacturing process, condensed into steam, incinerated on site, or disposed of in a low, swampy
area on the site. Hazardous materials were found during a 1978 excavation for a parking lot. The
site is located within an industrial area of Minneapolis. The Mississippi River is approximately
1,200 feet to the west of the site. There are four industrial and four residential wells in the nearby
area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil were found to be contaminated with heavy metals including
cadmium and lead, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Ingestion of or direct
contact with contaminated groundwater or soil could pose adverse health effects.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
115
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1985, the following actions were initiated: (1) excavation of buried
drums; (2) removal of contaminated soils from the disposal area; (3) shipment of all
hazardous wastes to permitted disposal facilities; and (4) pumping and treating of
recovered groundwater. The groundwater is being treated by two air strippers, then discharged to a
storm sewer. The State will continue to conduct the groundwater treatment system.
Environmental Progress
The removal and treatment actions described above have greatly reduced the potential for exposure
to contaminated materials at the Whittaker Corporation site while further cleanup and monitoring
activities are continuing.
April 1991
116
WHITTAKER CORPORATION
-------
WINDOM DU
MINNESOTA
EPA ID# MND980034516
EPA REGION 5
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Cottonwood County
Windom
Site Description
Prior to the 1930s, the 11-acre Windom Dump site was quarried for sand and gravel, almost to the
level of the water table. The site was used for the burning of municipal and industrial wastes from
the 1930s until 1971. From 1971 to 1974, municipal wastes and some industrial wastes were placed
in a fill area along the pit. However, burning of paint sludges continued during this time. The site
was closed in 1974, although the City of Windom has continued to place demolition asphalt and
concrete over the fill area. The population of Windom is approximately 4,500. Land near the site is
comprised of residences and is used for farming and industrial activities. An elementary school is
two blocks to the west of the site.
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
Groundwater is contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, and chromium. VOCs also were detected in
the soil. The contaminated groundwater and soil could pose a health hazard to
individuals if accidentally touched or swallowed. Possible contamination of private wells
and the city drinking water supply with VOCs is a major concern.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
117
ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the potentially responsible parties conducted an
investigation at the site to determine the nature and the extent of the contamination. As
part of the investigation, a fence was constructed around the borders of the site, and six
monitoring wells were installed by the city. In 1985, the Minnesota Department of Health sampled
the city's municipal and residential wells. In 1987, an additional 12 monitoring wells were installed.
The parties potentially responsible for site contamination performed the following activities to clean
up the site: (1) graded the site to control erosion; (2) covered the site with compacted clay and other
materials which are impermeable to water, (3) provided a drainage layer; and (4) installed a cover to
prevent water and wind erosion. Intervention limits for the contaminants of concern were also
established. These intervention limits were exceeded in 1989, so a pump and treatment system was
installed. Groundwater pumping and treating will continue until cleanup levels are met Otherwise,
all planned cleanup activities have been completed.
Environmental Progress
The numerous cleanup activities described above have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Windom Municipal Dump site, while the groundwater pumping and
treating continue to lower contamination levels.
April! 991
118
WINDOM DUMP
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
119
-------
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 unconfmed 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.
121
-------
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.
Berrn: 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
ground water 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
122
-------
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.
123
-------
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.
124
-------
GLOSSARY
Endangerment Assessment: A study con-
ducted to determine the risks posed to public
health or the environment by contamination at
NPL sites. The EPA or the State conducts the
study when a legal action is to be taken to
direct the potentially responsible parties to
clean up a site or pay for the cleanup. An
endangerment assessment supplements an
investigation of the site hazards.
Enforcement: EPA, State, or local legal
actions taken against parties to facilitate
settlements; to compel compliance with laws,
rules, regulations, or agreements; and/or to
obtain penalties or criminal sanctions for
violations. Enforcement procedures may
vary, depending on the specific requirements
of different environmental laws and related
regulatory requirements. Under CERCLA,
for example, the EPA will seek to require
potentially responsible parties to clean up a
Superfund site or pay for the cleanup [see
Cost Recovery].
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface
by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally
from weather or surface runoff, but can be
intensified by such land-related practices as
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway; together,
they are commonly referred to as the RI/FS
[see Remedial Investigation].
Filtration: A treatment process for removing
solid (paniculate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that
results from the combustion of flue gases. It
can include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides,
water vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many
other chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which
is used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter,
made by a potentially responsible party,
consisting of a written proposal demonstrating
a potentially responsible party's qualifications
125
-------
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,
126
-------
GLOSSARY
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
the agencies for performing and overseeing
the activities. States often are parties to
interagency agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land and/or
incorporate waste into the surface soil, such
as fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to
the smallest practical volume, and covered
with soil at the end of each operating day.
Secure chemical landfills are disposal sites for
hazardous waste. They are designed to
minimize the chance of release of hazardous
substances into the environment [see Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act].
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles
through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leach-
ing [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and
carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Leachate Collection System: A system that
gathers liquid that has leaked into a landfill or
other waste disposal area and pumps it to the
surface for treatment.
Liner: A relatively impermeable barrier
designed to prevent leachate (waste residue)
from leaking from a landfill. Liner materials
include plastic and dense clay.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often
incremental, steps that are taken to solve site
pollution problems. Depending on the com-
plexity, site cleanup activities can be sepa-
rated into several of these phases.
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
contain peat moss deposits and is dominated
by vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or
saltwater and tidal or non-tidal [see Wetland].
Migration: The movement of oil, gas,
contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable soils or rock.
Mill Tailings: [See Mine Tailings].
Mine Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left
from mining operations. Tailings often
contain high concentrations of lead, uranium,
and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Mitigation: Actions taken to improve site
conditions by limiting, reducing, or control-
ling toxicity and contamination sources.
Modeling: A technique using a mathematical
or physical representation of a system or
theory that tests the effects that changes on
system components have on the overall
performance of the system.
Monitoring Wells: Special wells drilled at
specific locations within, or surrounding, a
hazardous waste site where groundwater can
be sampled at selected depths and studied to
obtain such information as the direction in
127
-------
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.
128
-------
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.
129
-------
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
130
-------
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
131
-------
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
132
-------
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.
133
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Minnesota
135
-------
U 60
0)
8'S
c M o
llf
x
I
(A
a
n
a <2
03 «
137
-------
3
C
o
o
V)
0)
+rf
c/5
J
Q.
(A
0)
c
_o
'•p
(0
CO
ai
O H
v> vi
138
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60450
------- |