&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/040
September 1991
PB92-963214
National
Priorities
List Sites:
MISSOURI
1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-726A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Missouri
U.S. Environment! Pr
P.^::n 5, Library P'-
/ / ",.''n Jzcl\?.rj'". L' _
go, JL 60CO-':-wl/
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Super fund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Missouri 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 71
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 87
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
Illlf
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 RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
Site Responsibility: -
NPL Listing History
Proposed? JOUXX/KL
Flmb xx/xxftx
reats 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 Groundwater resources
in the Contaminated Groundwater in
the vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a
drinking water source.)
Contaminated Surface Water and
Sediments on or near the site. (These
include lakes, ponds, streams, and
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
Missouri
Missouri, located in EPA Region 7, is geographically situated in the center of the continental
United States. The state covers 69,697 square miles and consists of rolling hills, open, fertile
plains, and well-watered prairie to the north of the Missouri River and rough hilly terrain with
deep, narrow valleys south of it. Ranked 15th in U.S. populations, according to the 1990 Census,
Missouri experienced a 4% increase in population between 1980 and 1990 and currently has
approximately 5,117,000 residents. Principal state industries include manufacturing, agriculture,
aerospace, and tourism. Transportation equipment, food and related products, electronic/electri-
cal equipment, and chemicals are some of Missouri's chief manufactured products.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Missouri?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
22
_Q
22
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional Districts 3,4,5 1 site
Congressional District 6 2 sites
Congressional District 9 3 sites
Congressional District 8 4 sites
Congressional Districts 2,7 5 sites
What Type of Sites are on the NPL
in the State of Missouri?
# of sites
3
2
3
4
2
2
6
type of sites
Dioxin Sites
Chemicals & Allied Products
Federal Facilities
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Storage Facilities
Other (Mining, Electroplating, Construction,
Recycler)
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
20-.
16--
$12-
+
'«>
*8--
4 --
1
GW Soil SW Sed
Contamination Area
Air
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals
(inorganics).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), dioxins, heavy metals (inorgan-
ics), radiation, and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
Surface Water and Sediments:
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
dioxins, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
Air: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and radiation.
* Appear at 15% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
6
Sites
with !
Studies
Underway
4
Sites
> with
Remedy
Selected
2
Sites
^ with
Remedy
Design
7
Sites
+ with
Cleanup
Ongoing
\
Site
^ with
Construction
Complete .
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 11 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Progress
To Date
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April! 991
-------
e
I
II ft ft ft
o
ft
| ft 6 ft 0 ft
5 f
S
"o
(0
+*
CO
0)
ftftftft ftftft
.1
ftft
ft ftft ft
ftft ftft ft ft
* « ftftftftft ftftftft ft ftftftftftftftft ft
ft
ftftftft ft ftftft ft ft
A
.3
S
i
8
i
.s
1
April 1991
20
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 7
21
April 1991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Missouri, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 7
Office in Kansas City, KS or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office (913) 551 -7003
EPA Region 7 Superfund Office (913) 551-7052
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Missouri Superfund Office (314) 751-3176
April 1991 22
-------
MANUFACTURIN
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860522
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Dunklin County
City of Maiden
Site Description
The former owners of the Bee Cee Manufacturing Co., a 2-acre site in Maiden's industrial park,
manufactured aluminum storm windows and doors from 1964 to 1983. Workers discharged
chromium-contaminated wastewater directly onto the ground without any treatment or an EPA-
approved permit. An area about 50 feet by 100 feet is visibly affected, possibly to a depth of 1 or
2 feet. In 1981, the State advised the owners that their disposal practices put them in violation of
the Missouri Clean Water Law. Bankruptcy proceedings ended the State's efforts to have the
owners install a wastewater treatment system. Another company now leases the building, and
the City of Maiden owns the contaminated ground. Four shallow wells and two deep wells in
Maiden supply drinking water for 11,500 people; one shallow well is about 1,000 feet southwest
of the site. Approximately 8,500 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site; 60 live within
1 mile. The closest residence is 1/4 mile away from the site. Fifteen wells lie within 1 mile of
the site, and 150 wells are within 3 miles. Of special concern is a low-income nursing home
project located 1/2 mile south of 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
Off-site groundwater and on-site soils are contaminated with chromium and
aluminum. Private wells in the vicinity used for watering livestock and irrigating
crops have been contaminated since 1984. Groundwater contamination has been
demonstrated in a shallow aquifer well about 1/2 mile from the site. The public wells
2 miles downgradient from the site may be connected to the contaminated aquifer.
People who have direct contact with the contaminated soils or drink contaminated
groundwater are at risk. Local soils are sandy, which makes it easier for contaminants
to enter the groundwater.
23
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The State will begin an intensive study of soil and groundwater
pollution at and around the site in an attempt to characterize its nature and extent, as
well as the options for final cleanup. The study is scheduled to begin in mid-1991 and
to be completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Bee Cee Manufacturing site to the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary
evaluation and determined that no immediate actions were necessary to protect the nearby
population or the environment while the investigations leading to a final cleanup solution are
taking place.
April 1991 24 BEE CEE MANUFACTURING CO.
-------
CONSERVATiq
CHEMICAL CO.
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000829705
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Jackson County
3900 Front Street, Kansas City
Other Names:
CCC
Site Description
The Conservation Chemical Company site, located in eastern Kansas City, operated as a
chemical storage and disposal facility from 1960 until 1980. The owners began waste disposal
operations almost immediately after building chemical treatment basins, a process area, and a
roadway ramp. Waste disposal basins, which either were unlined or poorly lined, were used to
store and receive wastes, and also served as drying beds and containers for by-product sludges.
Many operating records were destroyed in a 1970 fire; those records that survived listed organic
chemicals, solvents, acids, caustics, metal hydroxides, and cyanide compounds as some of the
materials accepted for disposal at the site. Reports also indicate that pesticides, herbicides, waste
oils, organic solvents, halogenated compounds, arsenic, and elemental phosphorus were handled
by the facility, as well as pressurized cylinders and other metal containers placed in the lagoons.
Information is incomplete, but it is estimated that the facility handled at least 48,000,000 gallons
of liquids and sludges and 1,144 tons of solids. About 93,000 cubic yards of materials including
drums, bulk liquids, sludges, and solids were buried at the site. By-products from any treatment
processes used on the waste materials also were dumped on site. An attempt was made to
neutralize hazardous chemicals by blending some wastes and to stabilize the upper waste layers
on the site by mixing acidic metal finishing wastes with fly ash and certain sludges, which
produced a mixture consisting largely of gypsum. In 1977, the Missouri Clean Water
Commission ordered the site closed and covered, and the owner covered the soil caps with
gypsum. The site is located in the 100-year flood plain of the Missouri River, about 500 feet
away from its banks, and near its confluence with the Little Blue River. The site itself was raised
about 10 feet above the surrounding area, but most of it would be immersed during a flood.
Private wells provide drinking water to approximately 120 people within 3 miles of the property.
The Courtney Bend well field is downstream from the site; it supplies drinking water to the City
of Independence, which is 5 miles from the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 10/04/89
25
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater both on and off the site contains heavy metals including arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and lead; cyanide; phenolic compounds; and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene, chloroform, and toluene. Surface
and subsurface soil on the site contain all of the above, as well as dioxins and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Contaminants were entering the Missouri
River via groundwater that feeds the river. The Missouri River is used locally and
regionally for recreation, industry, irrigation, and as a municipal water supply.
People on or near the site may be exposed by coming in direct contact with
contaminated soils or eating food grown in contaminated soil or game that feeds
on contaminated plants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focused on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy for this site in 1987. It features both source
control and groundwater cleanup measures and includes: (1) surface cleaning
including demolition and disposal of existing buildings, tanks, and debris and placing
them in an on-site cap; (2) installing a withdrawal well system designed to keep groundwater
from moving away from the site; (3) building a groundwater pump and treat system that will
remove contaminants; and (4) monitoring the quality and level of off-site groundwater. The
surface cleanup began in early 1989 and was completed by August 1989. Installation of the well
networks was started in 1989 and was completed in early 1990. Construction of the treatment
plant began in 1989 and was completed in March 1990. The groundwater extraction system will
be in operation for 30 years, after which, the EPA will evaluate the site status.
Site Facts: In November 1982, the United States filed suit against the parties it deemed
responsible for the site contamination; these defendants in turn sued a host of other potentially
responsible parties in 1984. By August 1985, the defendants had agreed to design and conduct a
cleanup on die site that included the construction of a slurry wall and to reimburse the
Government for its costs to date. However, new information about the expense and construction
difficulty associated with the slurry wall caused a delay in actions. After additional negotiations,
the potentially responsible parties agreed to perform a cleanup based on hydraulic control
through extraction wells.
Environmental Progress
Most of the remedies selected by the EPA to clean up the Conservation Chemical site have been
put into operation, with many of them completed. These actions have eliminated surface
contamination and have halted further pollution of surface and groundwater resources. The EPA
and the potentially responsible parties are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the continuing
groundwater cleanup.
April 1991 26 CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO.
-------
ELLISVILLE SITE
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980633010
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Near Ellisviile, 20 miles west of
downtown St. Louis
Other Names:
Mario Angdo Site
Rosalie Investment Co.
Mid-America Arena
Callahan Property
Bliss, Russel SiteBliss Ranch
Site Description
The Ellisviile Site consists of three non-contiguous subsites: the Bliss property, the Callahan
property, and the Rosalie property. Initial investigations at the sites focused on these three
properties. During the investigations, an additional four contaminated properties were discovered
adjacent to the Bliss Property and were added to that subsite. During the 1960s and 1970s, Russell
Bliss owned and operated the Bliss Waste Oil Company, a business engaged in the transportation
and disposal of waste oil products, industrial wastes, and chemical wastes. These wastes were
disposed of in pits, drums, and on the surface of properties around the company's headquarters in
Ellisviile. The Bliss property subsite is located in western St. Louis County and covers 28 acres of
land. Developed portions of the subsite include the Mid-America Arena and associated buildings
and stables. The property is drained by Caulks Creek, which empties into a tributary to the Missouri
River. Pits were dug at the site and were used for industrial waste disposal. Drums of wastes had
been buried at the site, and liquid wastes had been dumped on the ground. The Callahan property is
an 8-acre tract of land located approximately a mile from Ellisviile. Drummed liquid and solid
wastes were disposed of on the property during the 1970s. The Callahan subsite is situated on a
steep-walled gully that drains into a tributary to the Missouri River. The Rosalie property is an 85-
acre tract of land. Drummed liquid and solid wastes were disposed of on approximately 4 acres of
the site. A housing development now is located on the Rosalie subsite. Approximately 1,000 people
live within a 1-mile radius of the subsites; 5,000 live within 3 miles. Residents rely on drinking
water drawn from private wells and the public distribution system. Roughly 265 wells exist within 1
mile, and 789 are within 3 miles of the sites.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
"XV
There is evidence that the underlying groundwater is being contaminated by leachate
from the subsites. Soil is contaminated with dioxin and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) at the Rosalie and Bliss properties. Soils at the Callahan properties contain
VOCs. The major public health threats are direct contact with contaminated soil or
drinking contaminated groundwater. Potential health risks exist through the airborne
migration of contaminated fugitive dusts.
27
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
directed at cleanup of the Callahan and Rosalie subsites and the Bliss subsite, which includes four
adjacent contaminated properties.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the State removed, covered, and overpacked drums; took
samples; and staged the drums from the Callahan subsite. Workers posted signs and the
State maintained 24-hour security at the site. Excavation activities revealed up to 1,000
drums buried on the site. In early 1982, EPA emergency workers performed the following activities:
posted additional warning signs, drained and sealed Farm Pond, built runoff control and leachate
interception trenches, excavated and overpacked buried drums, sampled and sorted drums, built an
on-site storage area, and removed and disposed of contaminated soil. In late 1984, drums and other
wastes were delivered to the TWI incinerator in Illinois for disposal. In 1990, the EPA steam-
cleaned some drum fragments on the site and constructed a fence to restrict site access.
Callahan and Rosalie Subsites: The EPA selected a remedy for the Callahan and
Rosalie properties in 1985. The Callahan property cleanup remedy includes: (1)
controlling erosion and slippage of the fill area where drums had been excavated from
1980 to 1981 and removing what remained of that cleanup; (2) removing and disposing of the plastic
cover and hold-down blocks from the fill area; (3) regrading the fill to a more stable slope, covering
it with a compacted soil layer, and reseeding; and (4) removing and salvaging fences and gravel
from the former drum-storage areas. The Rosalie subsite cleanup remedy includes: (1) excavating
contaminated soil from two locations and removing it to an EPA-approved hazardous waste facility;
(2) placing debris in drums; (3) excavating and overpacking buried drums and sampling and testing
their contents; (4) disposing of drums at an EPA-approved disposal facility; (5) testing soil to verify
the effectiveness of the cleanup; and (6) backfilling excavated areas with clean soil and reseeding
disturbed areas. Under State supervision, cleanup at the Rosalie property began in 1986. The
erosion-control actions have been finished, and the fence and gravel have been salvaged. The design
of the technical specifications for the cleanup of the Callahan property subsite was completed in
mid-1990. Work at the Callahan property is expected to be completed by the end of 1991.
Bliss and Adjacent Properties: During the investigation of the Bliss property subsite,
contamination was discovered on four neighboring parcels: the Dubman and Weingart
property, Primm property, Wade and Mercantile Trust Company property, and the Russell,
Evelyn, and Jerry Bliss property. The EPA selected a remedy for these properties in 1986. The first
part of the cleanup focuses on dioxin-contaminated soils; the second entails buried drums and
materials contaminated with chemicals other than dioxin. The Bliss/contiguous properties soils
cleanup remedy includes: (1) excavating dioxin-contaminated soils and containerizing them; (2)
storing the containers of waste temporarily in a metal building on the site; and (3) maintaining
security, controlling surface drainage at the site, and sampling the groundwater. The EPA has not
yet selected a final disposal action for these soils. The drum and other cleanup remedies include:
(1) excavating, sampling, and overpacking buried drums; (2) excavating hazardous wastes and
contaminated soils and materials; (3) taking drums and waste mixtures suitable for land disposal to
April 1991 28 ELLISVILLE SITE
-------
an appropriate EPA-approved facility; (4) incinerating drums and waste mixtures unsuitable for
land disposal off site at an EPA-approved facility; and (5) disposing of non-hazardous material and
debris at a permitted sanitary landfill. For both components of this remedy, site restoration
activities will include backfilling, regrading, and seeding, where needed. The EPA is designing the
technical specifications for the cleanup at the Bliss/contiguous properties subsite. Design activities
are scheduled for completion in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The securing of the site and the numerous cleanup actions that have been taken at the Callahan and
Rosalie subsites have reduced contaminant levels to make the areas safer to the surrounding
communities and the environment. The EPA has selected the final remedies for the Bliss subsite,
with cleanup activities scheduled to begin soon.
ELLISVILLE SITE
29
April 1991
-------
FULBRIGHT LA
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980631139
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Greene County
3 miles north of Springfield
Other Names:
Springfield Fulbright Landfill
Sac River Landfill
Murray Landfill
Highway 13 Landfill
Site Description
The 212-acre Fulbright Landfill site consists of the Fulbright and Sac River Landfills (formerly
known as the Murray Landfill). The City of Springfield used these landfills, both of which now are
closed, for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. The Fulbright Landfill, consisting of 98
acres, accepted waste from 1962 through 1968. The larger of the two, the Sac River Landfill, which
consists of 114 acres, operated from 1968 until 1974. Industrial wastes disposed of in these landfills
included cyanides, acids, plating and paint sludges, pesticide residues, waste oil, and solvents. The
contents of between 1,200 and 2,600 drums were dumped into pits at the site with the empty
55-gallon drums left in the pits or in the general landfill areas. In 1967, a waste hauler died from
toxic fume inhalation when he inadvertently dumped a drum of acid into a pit containing cyanide. A
sinkhole on the bluff above the Fulbright Landfill contains a few dozen drums and waste residues.
Approximately 400 people work or reside within a mile of the site; an estimated 10,000 people live
within a 3-mile radius. The landfill lies in a semi-rural area in the flood plain of the Little Sac River.
Surrounding land use includes a police shooting range, a dog pound, an active wastewater treatment
plant, and an inactive wastewater treatment plant. The local drinking water supply is drawn from a
municipal well and a lake upslope of the site. Groundwater also is used for crop irrigation and
industrial processes. The nearest population and well are 1,000 feet upgradient of the landfills.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater contains a wide variety of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
other organic chemicals, as well as heavy metals and cyanide from former waste disposal
practices. Chromium was found in sediments. Contaminated groundwater flows into the
adjacent Sac River, which also receives treated municipal wastewater. The remnants of
the drummed waste in the sinkhole may present a direct contact health hazard. Since the
landfill is in the flood plain of the Little Sac River, high waters may spread site
contaminants.
31
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 monitoring by the EPA, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination completed an extensive study of the site in 1988. The following remedies
were selected for the site: (1) removing drums and drum remnants from the sinkhole and
the associated trench east of the Fulbright Landfill; (2) sampling drum contents to establish the
hazardous nature of their contents; (3) disposing of the removed contents at an off-site EPA-
approved facility; (4) performing groundwater and surface water monitoring for a 30-year
maintenance period; (5) monitoring the leachate that occasionally seeps from the landfill during this
period to determine if future action is warranted to curtail it; and (6) imposing deed restrictions to
prevent future development on the site and groundwater use prohibitions. The cleanup activities
began in 1990 and are scheduled for completion in 1991. The potentially responsible parties have
removed and disposed of contaminated soils from the sinkhole and trench area of the site. The
preliminary cleanup efforts currently underway include soil sampling and analysis to determine if
additional soil must be removed from the sinkhole.
Site Facts: In March 1986, the EPA issued a Consent Order to the City of Springfield, Litton
Industries, Inc., and Litton Business Systems, Inc., which had all been identified as potentially
responsible parties. The Order required them to conduct an extensive site investigation under the
EPA's oversight. In January 1990, the EPA issued a Consent Decree for the potentially responsible
parties to design the selected cleanup remedies and to conduct cleanup activities at the site.
Environmental Progress
The removal and disposal of contaminated soils from the sinkhole and trench area have reduced the
threat of exposure to contamination at the Fulbright Landfill. Additional cleanup activities are
continuing.
April 1991 32 FULBRIGHT LANDFILL
-------
KEM-PEST
LABORATORIES
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980631113
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Cape Girardeau County
Near Cape Girardeau
A
Site Description
The Kern-Pest Laboratories site covers 6 acres and is located near Cape Girardeau. Beginning in
1965, Kern-Pest formulated various pesticide products, including liquid pesticides, granular
insecticides, granular herbicides, and pesticide dust. The company suspended operations in
1975. There have been no production, treatment, or disposal activities at the site since 1977. A
building on site has been used to store equipment and materials. A 1,250-square-foot lagoon at
the facility formerly was used to dispose of plant waste and sewage. When the company closed
the lagoon in 1981, it was filled with compacted clay. An EPA inspection in 1983 revealed that
the lagoon cover was eroding and that no vegetation existed on the clay cap. Cape Girardeau,
with a population of 60,925, draws drinking water from the Mississippi River, located less than a
mile downstream of the site. Approximately 200 people live within a mile of the site, and 1,284
live within 3 miles. The site is adjacent to the flood plain of the Mississippi River. A freshwater
wetland is located within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 01/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
"XV
Sampling in 1984 and 1989 detected pesticides including heptachlor, chlordane and
endrin in the shallow aquifer. Drainage channel sediments contained pesticides
including aldrin and dieldrin. Pesticides and various volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were detected in subsurface and surface soil samples. Potential risks may
exist for those who come in direct contact with the contaminated building structures
or the soil on the site.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the soil and
sediments and cleanup of the groundwater and the contaminated on-site structure.
Response Action Status
Soil and Sediments: In 1984, the EPA installed five monitoring wells on site and
collected groundwater, soil, and sediment samples. In 1988, the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination sampled soils from the lagoon. The EPA will excavate
approximately 4,050 cubic yards of contaminated soil and sediment and will dispose of them at a
federally approved off-site land disposal facility. Sampling will be conducted to confirm that all
contaminated soils are removed. Following excavation, clean soil will be placed in the excavated
areas and will be compacted and graded. Vegetation or gravel will then be applied to the surface to
minimize erosion. The design of the technologies to be used in the cleanup is scheduled to be
completed in mid-1991.
Groundwater and On-Site Structure: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible
for site contamination conducted sampling of the contaminated building structure. The
EPA selected a remedy in 1990 to address this portion of the site. The 1989 to 1990 study
concluded that groundwater did not require any cleanup activities, although the EPA will continue
monitoring to ensure that groundwater maintains acceptable standards. The remedy to address the
contaminated building structure includes decontamination of the building and off-site incineration in
a federally approved facility of the debris. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled to
initiate design of the remedy in the spring of 1991.
Site Facts: Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into in November 1988, the
parties potentially responsible for the contamination conducted sampling of soils from the lagoon
and the formulation building in December 1988. An Interagency Agreement was signed with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the remedy.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Kern-Pest Laboratories site to the NPL, the EPA performed a preliminary evaluation
and determined that no immediate actions were necessary to protect the nearby population or the
environment while design activities leading to a final cleanup are being planned. The remedy to
decontaminate and dismantle the building, together with continued groundwater monitoring, will
ensure the protection of the surrounding population and the environment.
April 1991 34 KEM-PEST LABORATORIES
-------
LAKE CITY AR
AMMUNITION
(NORTHWEST
MISSOURI
EPAID#M03213890012
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Jackson County
Independence
The Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) (Northwest Lagoon) site extends over a 7-square-
mile area. Except for a five-year period following World War n, the Government-owned, but
contractor-operated, small arms ammunition plant has operated since 1941. Virtually all waste
treatment and disposal activities have been conducted on site. LCAAP has relied heavily on
lagoons, landfills, and burn pits for waste disposal. Industrial operations have generated large
quantities of potentially hazardous waste including oils, greases, solvents, explosives, and metals.
The Northwest Lagoon operated from the early 1950s until 1975. This lagoon received about 900
gallons of hazardous wastes, which were then treated, covered, graded, and reseeded. Heavy metals
have been detected in an on-site monitoring well, indicating that closure of the lagoon was not
adequate. There are 11 residences on the grounds served by a water treatment plant. Adjacent to the
northern boundary of the site is Lake City, with a population of approximately 50 people. Almost all
private residences off site use groundwater from private wells. There are 18 wells on site that supply
water for base personnel. The Missouri River and Little Blue River, located near the site, are used
for recreational activities. The population within a 3-mile radius is 3,100.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater beneath the site, soil, and surface water are contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as heavy metals including arsenic,
zinc, and chromium from former waste disposal practices. Potential threats exist
for those who accidentally have direct contact with or ingest contaminated
groundwater, surface water, or soil. All on-site personnel and residences' water
supplies are served from a water treatment plant at the site.
35
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the entire site, the northeast corner, and the mercurous nitrate
storage area.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Four air strippers were installed in the plant's drinking water
supply facilities to remove contaminants before reaching the water treatment plant.
LCAAP also is monitoring off-site residences' wells quarterly.
Entire Site: The Department of Defense (DoD) initiated an investigation in 1987 to
determine the extent and type of contamination on site and to identify alternative
technologies for the cleanup. The field work was completed in 1990 for the second phase
of the investigation. This phase addressed the entire installation. Following review of the
preliminary data, the Army has determined that additional field work is required. The Army
currently is preparing the plan of action to conduct the additional work. Once approved by the EPA
and the State, the work will begin.
Northeast Corner: The Army initiated an investigation in 1990 to determine the extent
and type of contamination present in the northeastern corner. The investigation was
scheduled for completion in 1993. However, preliminary results indicate that additional
studies are required and will be conducted upon approval of the schedule by the EPA and the State.
Mercurous Nitrate Storage Area: An investigation to determine the type and extent
of contamination present in this storage area was initiated by the Army in 1990. The
investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: The plant is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially funded
program established by the DoD in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of
hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities. An Interagency Agreement (IAG)
between the EPA, the Army, and the State of Missouri was signed in 1989, covering the remaining
investigative, design, and cleanup activities throughout the installation.
Environmental Progress
The installation of air strippers in the plant's drinking water supply has greatly reduced the potential
for exposure to hazardous substances at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant site while further
investigations leading to final cleanup activities are taking place.
April 1991 36 LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
-------
LEE CHEMICA
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980853519
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Clay County
3 miles southeast of Liberty
Other Names:
Liberty Public Water Supply
Site Description
The 1-acre Lee Chemical site was used for packaging a variety of chemicals from 1966 until
1974, when Lee Chemical abandoned the facility. City officials found several hundred drums of
chemicals on site in 1976, most of which were removed by the City in 1977. Although the City,
which owns the property, has removed the building and visible contamination from the site and
taken soil samples, analyses indicate that trichloroethylene (TCE) is still present on the site.
During a drinking water study in 1980, the EPA sampled the city's water wells and found TCE.
Since then, the most contaminated wells have not been used for drinking water. The water from
the remaining wells no longer contains detectable levels of TCE. There are approximately
24,000 people living within a 3-mile radius of the site. The nearest residence is approximately
1/4 mile from the site. The City's drinking water supply wells are 1/4 mile away from the site;
abandoned, unplugged drinking water supply wells are also on the site. There are several
irrigation wells near the site. Industrial and commercial facilities near the site use groundwater
for cooling or process water.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and City
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface water, and soil are contaminated with TCE.
Contaminated groundwater, surface water, and soil could adversely affect the
health of individuals through direct contact or ingestion. In addition,
bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish, water fowl, livestock, and commercial
agricultural products may be another exposure pathway. The Town Branch of the
Shoal Creek is located approximately 2,000 feet downslope from the site and
receives contaminated water discharged from one city well and an on-site
extraction well. The creek empties into the Missouri River about 1 mile
downstream.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The City removed several hundred barrels of chemicals and
arranged to clear the land surrounding the old treatment plant left by Lee Chemical. In
1983, a contractor working for the City demolished the plant, cleared the site, and has
disposed of the waste material. The City has monitored the well water and drinking water and
has managed the use of supply wells to eliminate TCE in the drinking water. The City installed
two new supply wells in 1982.
Entire Site: The City completed a study of the extent and nature of the
contamination in 1990. Following a public comment period, the EPA selected a
remedy, which includes installation of a more efficient purge well on site and
continuation of the interim action requiring discharge of extracted groundwater to a nearby
creek. In-situ aqueous soil flushing will be used through the installation of the infiltration
trenches on site. Design activities are scheduled to begin in 1991. The EPA continues to
provide the City of Liberty with technical assistance in implementing the cleanup measures.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above, including the removal of contaminated barrels from the
site and the monitoring of well water, have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Lee Chemical site. Further studies leading to the selection of a long-
term remedy for the site have been completed, and the cleanup activities are scheduled to begin
soon.
April 1991 38 LEE CHEMICAL
-------
MINKER/STOUT/
ROMAINE CREEK
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD980741912
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Jefferson County
Near Imperial
The Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site covers about 10 acres of non-contiguous properties near
Imperial. One of the properties, the Bubbling Springs Ranch horse arena, was sprayed with
dioxin-contaminated oil for dust control. Afterward, several horses became ill, and seven died.
The horse arena was excavated in 1972, and the dioxin-contaminated soil was used as fill
material in residential areas, including the Minker, Stout, Cashel, and Sullins residences. Much
of the fill from the Minker residence eroded into Romaine Creek. In 1983, the EPA detected
dioxin in the soil on site and in sediments of Romaine Creek. Approximately 500 people live
within 1 mile of the site. The sediments of Romaine Creek were contaminated as far as 6,000
feet downstream; however, the creek was not used as a drinking water source.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The sediments, soil, and surface water from Romaine Creek were contaminated
with dioxin from the soil that was used as fill in the residential areas. People who
came into direct contact with or accidentally ingested the contaminated soil or
sediments were at risk. The fish of Romaine Creek may pose a health hazard if
eaten.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in five stages: immediate actions and four long-term remedial
phases focusing on soil cleanup, cleanup of Romaine Creek, cleanup of the Stout area, and
relocation activities.
39
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Between 1985 and 1989, the EPA excavated about 12,000 cubic
yards of soil at the Minker area, at the Sullins and Cashel residences, Romaine Creek, and
the Stout area. The soil was placed in steel storage structures at the Minker area.
Soil: The EPA selected a remedy to clean up the soil, which includes thermally treating
previously excavated contaminated soils from this site at the Times Beach site, another
dioxin-contaminated site. The soil will be incinerated, which permanently removes the
contaminants. The ash from the incinerator will be disposed of on the Times Beach site. The
excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil. The design of the remedy currently is being
prepared in coordination with the remedy design for the Times Beach site. Completion of EPA
design activities is scheduled for 1992.
Romaine Creek: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean Romaine Creek, which
included excavating the contaminated soil and sediments and temporarily storing them in
steel structures on site. The excavated areas were backfilled with clean material suitable
for a natural creek. In 1989, the EPA completed all cleanup work at Romaine Creek.
Stout Area: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean the Stout property, which
included excavating the contaminated soil and placing it in interim on-site storage. The
EPA completed all cleanup activities at the Stout property in 1988.
Relocation: In 1983, the EPA permanently relocated 12 families. Two other families
temporarily were relocated by the State during excavation of the Minker area; they have
been returned to their residences.
Site Facts: Under the terms of the Consent Decree negotiated in December 1990, Syntex is
responsible for the operation of a thermal treatment unit at the Times Beach site for Romaine Creek,
the Stout area, and the Minker area soils. The EPA is responsible for transporting the soils from
these areas to the Times Beach site for treatment.
Environmental Progress
The relocation of affected residents and the excavation of contaminated soils and sediments from
Romaine Creek and the Stout area have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials
at the Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek site while the EPA completes the remaining cleanup
activities.
April 1991 40 MINKER/STOUT/ROMAINE CREEK
-------
MISSOURI ELEC
WORKS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980965982
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Cape Girardeau County
Cape Girardeau
Site Description
Missouri Electric Works, located on this 6 1/2-acre site, has been in operation since 1953 and sells,
services, and reconditions electric motors, transformers, and transformer controls. In addition, it
recycles transformer oil and copper wire. The transformer oil was filtered and reused, with about
90% being salvaged. The remaining waste oil either was sold to local residents for dust control
purposes, disposed of by a contractor, or simply was allowed to leak or spill onto the ground around
the facility. Some waste oil reportedly was burned on site. The total amount of waste oil generated
was about 28,000 gallons. The facility was issued an order prohibiting the company from accepting
electrical equipment containing oil with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) levels in excess of 1 part
per million (ppm). Approximately 37,800 people live within 3 miles of the site, while 1,000 people
live within a mile of the site. The land around the site is used for industrial and commercial
purposes. Prime agricultural land is less than a mile away. The Mississippi River, 2 miles from the
site, is used for fishing, recreational and commercial boating, and swimming. The Cape La Croix
Creek, which flows into the Mississippi, receives runoff from the site through a series of drainage
ditches. Most of the water needs of the City of Cape Girardeau are provided by the Mississippi
River. However, groundwater from a public well 2 miles south of the site supplements river water
during peak demand periods. A wetland area is located immediately to the south of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The EPA found PCBs from site operations in on- and off-site air sampling between 1985
and 1987. The soils in the area are somewhat permeable, and the bedrock is highly
fractured. These conditions have made it easier for PCBs and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE) to flow into the groundwater.
VOCs have been found in the groundwater below the site. Sediments in channels
draining the site and areas off site contain PCBs. PCB contamination of the soil is
widespread and occurs to a depth of at least 5 feet from leakage and disposal of
contaminated transformer oil. Residents who eat produce from gardens near the site
could be at risk from the contaminated soil. Breathing contaminated airborne dust near
the site could affect the health of those on or near the site.
41
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The site owner erected barriers to stop PCBs from migrating off
site via drainage ditches and conducted sampling of a structure on site. When it was
determined that the potentially responsible parties did not adequately perform these
activities, the EPA resampled the structure and erected new barriers across the drainage ditches to
reduce the migration of PCB-contaminated soil off site.
Entire Site: The EPA supervised a study by the parties potentially responsible for the
site contamination regarding the nature and extent of contamination of the site. The
investigation was completed in 1990. The presence of VOCs in the groundwater below
the site was unexpected and requires an additional phase of investigation. Based on the results of the
original investigation, the EPA selected a remedy, which includes on-site incineration of the PCB-
contaminated soil and pumping and treatment of the groundwater via air stripping, followed by
carbon adsorption. An additional groundwater investigation will be performed while design
activities take place, scheduled to begin in fall 1991.
Site Facts: Over 100 potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on Consent to
study site contamination and the feasibility of various technologies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions undertaken by the EPA and the potentially responsible parties have reduced
the potential for exposure to hazardous substances at the Missouri Electrical Works site while an
additional groundwater investigation is being conducted and long-term cleanup activities are started.
Aprill 991 42 MISSOURI ELECTRIC WORKS
-------
NORTH-U DRIV
CONTAMINATI
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD007163108
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Greene County
North of Springfield
Other Names:
Montgomery Metal Craft
In 1983, the residents near the North-U Drive Well Contamination site became concerned over
the taste of their water. When the State investigated, it was discovered that seven private wells at
five locations were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The EPA extended
public water supply lines to the affected homes. The source of the contamination is unknown;
however, it is reported that sinkholes in the area were used for the disposal of waste petroleum
products. There is no defined site boundary. This site is in a rural residential area with
approximately 300 people living within a 1/4 mile radius. The contaminated wells are 1,500 feet
west of Fulbright Spring, a major water source for the City of Springfield, which has a
population of 133,000.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Soil and groundwater in the private wells are contaminated with VOCs including
toluene and benzene. The majority of the private wells have been plugged and,
therefore, do not pose a health threat. However, a few owners have refused to
have their wells plugged; people who use the contaminated drinking water may
suffer adverse health effects. Although these wells reportedly are used only for
lawn watering, their continued existence may provide a subsurface connection
among the aquifers beneath the site. Because the bedrock is fractured, it allows
contaminants to migrate from the immediate area, possibly in the direction of a
source well for the Springfield community water supply.
43
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the EPA extended the Springfield public water
supply lines to North-U Drive. In addition, 67 private wells permanently were plugged
to prevent their use and to prevent the well casings from serving as avenues of deep
aquifer contamination.
Entire Site: The State of Missouri is conducting an investigation to determine the
extent of contamination at the site. The investigation is scheduled for completion in
the fall of 1991. Once the investigation is completed, alternatives for the cleanup will
be reviewed and selected, and cleanup activities will begin.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions described above have eliminated the potential of exposure to hazardous
substances in the drinking water and will continue to protect households around the North-U
Drive Well Contamination site until the final cleanup remedies are selected and long-term
cleanup takes place.
April 1991 44 NORTH-U DRIVE WELL CONTAMINATION SITE
-------
ORONOGO-
MINING BELT
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980686281
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Jasper County
2 miles northeast of Joplin
Other Names:
Tar Creek-Jasper Company
Tri-State Mining Area
Site Description
The Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site, which covers 6,400 acres, is considered to be part of
the Tri-State Mining District of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Two other sites in the district,
Cherokee County in Kansas and Tar Creek in Oklahoma, were placed on the NPL in 1983. Lead
and zinc ores, as well as some cadmium ores, were mined from 1848 to the late 1960s, with the
greatest activity occurring in an area between Oronogo and Duenweg, northeast of Joplin.
Mining efforts originally were performed by independent operations that, in later years, were
organized by several area mining companies. The site is honeycombed with underground
workings, pits, shafts (open, closed, and collapsed), mine tailings, waste piles, and ponds holding
tailing waters. An estimated 10 million tons of wastes or tailings are on the site. Throughout the
mining era, groundwater had to be pumped to prevent the flooding of mines. When mining
ceased, the shafts and underground workings filled with water. Tailing piles have been left
uncovered and unstabilized. Leachate and runoff from the piles can enter open shafts and pits.
Approximately 1,500 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06724/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Tests conducted in 1977 by the U.S. Geological Survey found on-site
groundwater and surface water to be contaminated with heavy metals including
lead, zinc, and cadmium from the mining operations. Potential risks may exist
through drinking contaminated surface water and groundwater or coming into
direct contact with contaminated water.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation by the EPA into the extent and type of contamination
at the site is scheduled to begin in the fall of 1991. Once the investigation is
completed, alternatives for cleanup will be reviewed and selected, and cleanup work
will begin.
Site Facts: This mining site is potentially eligible for cleanup funds from the State of
Missouri's approved program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
The EPA is developing a policy for listing such sites. An Interagency Agreement was signed
with the U.S. Geological Survey in April 1990 to provide technical assistance at this site.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and determined
that no immediate actions were needed at the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site while further
studies are underway to determine the final cleanup remedy.
April! 991 46 ORONOGO-DUENWEG MINING BELT
-------
QUALITY PLAT
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980860555
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Scott County
Sikeston
Site Description
The Quality Plating site covers approximately 5 acres in Sikeston. The site originally consisted
of a 1-acre unlined lagoon and the manufacturing plant. From 1978 until the facility was
destroyed by fire in early 1983, Quality Plating was engaged in contract electroplating of
common and precious metals. Untreated wastewater originating from the flow-through rinse
tanks, as well as acid, alkaline, and metal-plating batch solutions, were continuously discharged
into the lagoon at a rate of at least 10,000 gallons per day. The State detected elevated levels of
chromium and lead in an on-site well. The area now is used for crop and livestock production.
The present owner raises hogs and calves on the former property of Quality Plating. The
population within a mile of the site is 120 people. Six residences within 1/4 mile of the site
obtain drinking water from shallow wells.
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 contaminated with metals such as lead and chromium from
the former electroplating operations. The extent of the contamination is
unknown. Drinking or bathing with the contaminated groundwater could cause
adverse health effects.
47
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 monitoring by the EPA, the State will begin an investigation of
the site and alternative cleanup methods in mid-1991. The study is expected to be
completed by 1992.
Site Facts: The State repeatedly has cited the company for discharging untreated plating waste
into subsurface waters. This was in violation of the company's permit under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The EPA and the State have entered into a Cooperative
Agreement to perform a study at the site, led by the State.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Quality Plating site to the NPL, the EPA conducted a preliminary evaluation
and determined that no immediate actions were needed to make the site safer while the
investigations into the cleanup alternatives are taking place.
April! 991 48 QUALITY PLATING
-------
SHENANDOAH
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980685838
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
Lincoln County
Moscow Mills
Other Names:
Arena 1 - Shenandoah Stables
Highway 61 Fill
Slough Area
The Shenandoah Stables site covers about 7 acres near Moscow Mills. In 1971, the horse arena
became contaminated with dioxin when a St. Louis waste oil hauler sprayed it with
approximately 2,000 gallons of contaminated oil for dust control. Afterward, numerous birds,
rodents, and over 40 horses died. Several adults and children also became ill. In 1971, the top 6
to 8 inches of contaminated soil were excavated and used as fill material in a new highway. In
1972, more soil was removed from the arena and placed in a swampy area on site. EPA
sampling in 1982 indicated that the top 30 inches of soil in the arena and soil in the slough are
contaminated with dioxin. Approximately nine houses are located in the rural area within a
1/4-mile radius of the Shenandoah Stables. The adjacent properties are mostly agricultural. The
nearest residence is approximately 330 feet east of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The soil in the arena and slough is contaminated with dioxin from the placement
of contaminated oil on the site and from earlier cleanup attempts. Because
cleanup activities have taken place, the site no longer poses a threat to human
health or the environment.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the soil and solid waste and disposal of the soil.
49
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, the parties potentially responsible for the site
contamination closed the stables, posted warning signs, and restricted access to the
property. Sampling also was done at this time to determine the amount of
contamination at the site.
Soil and Solid Waste: The EPA selected the methods for cleanup of the site in
summer 1988. These cleanup activities included: (1) excavating the soil to health-
based standards; (2) placing the soil in plastic bags and storing the bagged soil on site
in an approved facility; (3) decontaminating on-site structures; and (4) fencing and posting the
area. The EPA completed the first phase of the remedial action in August 1988, which included
the excavation and on-site interim storage of dioxin-contaminated soils above the 1 part per
billion (ppb) action level.
Soil Disposal: In September 1990, the EPA selected a remedy to dispose of the soil;
it will be completed in conjunction with the cleanup of the Times Beach site. The
selected action is to transport the bags of dioxin-contaminated soil to Times Beach for
incineration, once the Times Beach incinerator is operable. The design of the remedy is
scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: Pursuant to an EPA Administrative Order, the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination restricted public access to the site in 1983. The site initially was identified
due to citizen complaints concerning illnesses in children who had visited the site.
Environmental Progress
By closing the stables, restricting access to the site, and removing the contaminated soil, the EPA
has eliminated any immediate threats to the community or the environment at the Shenandoah
Stables site. Contaminated soils from the site will be transported to the Times Beach facility for
final destruction of dioxins by incineration.
April 1991 50 SHENANDOAH STABLES
-------
SOLID STATE
CIRCUITS, INC.
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980854111
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Greene County
Republic
Other Names:
Republic Plant SSC
The Solid State Circuits, Inc. (SSC) site covers 1 acre in Republic. During a 1980 drinking water
study, trichloroethylene (TCE), a volatile organic compound (VOC), was detected in one of the
City of Republic's public water supply wells. Further investigation by the State identified the
site, at which SSC formerly manufactured printed circuit boards, as the source of the
contamination. Allegedly, barrels of solvents, including TCE that was used as a copper residue
stripper, and plating wastes were stored in a sump pit in the basement of the facility. The State
learned that after a fire destroyed the building, the new property owner (not SSC) buried the
remaining structure and its contents in the basement, where there also was an unplugged well.
SSC excavated material from the basement and installed three monitoring wells in response to an
order from the State. The Town of Republic, with an estimated population of 5,535, potentially
is endangered by contaminated groundwater. There are private wells and community wells
within a 3-mile radius of the site. One community well was closed as a result of the the
contamination. Schuyler Creek is located downgradient from the site, approximately 2 miles
away.
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 on and off site is contaminated with VOCs including TCE,
methylene chloride, and chloroform from the former site operations. TCE was
measured in on-site soil prior to immediate response actions. Removal of
contaminated surface and subsurface soils eliminated the risk of exposure. Sewer
line and utility workers could be exposed to contaminated groundwater; however,
standard safety procedures eliminate unacceptable risks.
51
April!991
-------
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 1984, the EPA fenced the area where the building once
stood. In 1985, following SSC's initial cleanup actions at the site, the EPA removed
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil from the basement, the soil underneath the
basement, and debris to further stabilize the site. The basement was sealed with a gravel and soil
cover to bring it up to grade. The EPA plugged the abandoned well, and two wells were installed
to extract contaminated groundwater.
Entire Site: Under the supervision of the State, SSC conducted an investigation at
the site to determine the extent and nature of contamination and to identify alternative
technologies for cleanup. As a result of the investigation, SSC will extract the
contaminated groundwater by using new and existing wells, perform on-site treatment of
extracted groundwater using two existing air strippers, discharge treated water to the city sewer
system to receive further treatment at the publicly owned treatment works, and implement a city
ordinance to prevent construction of drinking wells in or near the contaminated groundwater
plumes. Monitoring of the groundwater will continue to ensure groundwater quality. SSC is
expected to begin designing the remedy during the spring of 1991, as soon as the Department of
Justice completes review of the Consent Decree.
Site Facts: The EPA, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and Solid State Circuits
signed a Consent Decree in July 1990, requiring SSC to conduct the remedy design activities,
under the supervision of the State. The Consent Decree was referred to the Department of
Justice. The EPA anticipates that the court will sign the Consent Decree in 1991.
Environmental Progress
After the initial cleanup actions undertaken by Solid State Circuits, Inc. the EPA secured the site,
removed contaminated soil and debris, sealed the basement area, and installed wells to extract
and treat the contaminated groundwater. Further investigations leading to the selection of a
long-term remedy for the site have been completed, and the final design activities are scheduled
to begin in 1991.
April 1991 52 SOLID STATE CIRCUITS, INC.
-------
ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/
HAZELWOOD IN
STORAGE/FUTU
COATINGS CO
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980633176
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Approximately 15 miles northwest of downtown
Lambert/St. Louis International Airport
Other Names:
Hazenvood Interim Storage & Vicinity
Latty Avenue
Lambert-St Louis Intnl Airport
The St. Louis Airport/Hazelwood Interim Storage/Futura Coatings Co. site consists of three areas
covering approximately 32 acres. These areas were used for storing radioactive and other wastes
resulting from uranium processing operations conducted in St. Louis. Radioactive scrap, drums
of waste, and bulk waste were stored in the airport area in uncovered and unstabilized piles from
1947 to the mid-1960s, when they were transferred to the 9200 Latty Avenue area, later known
as the Hazelwood Interim Storage (HIS) site. Buildings in the airport area were razed, buried,
and covered with clean fill after 1967. In 1973, the land was conveyed to the St. Louis-Lambert
Airport Authority. The HIS and the Futura Coatings Co. plant cover 11 acres adjacent to
Coldwater Creek. In 1966, Continental Mining and Milling Co. acquired the property and
recovered uranium from wastes purchased from the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) St.
Louis operations. In 1967, the company sold the property, and by 1973 most processing residues
had been removed. Under the direction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
present owner excavated contaminated soil and is storing it in two large piles in the eastern
portion of the 11 acres. Since the 1970s, Futura Coatings, a manufacturer of plastic coatings, has
leased the western portion of the site. A McDonnell Douglas office building housing 24,000
employees is within 1/2 mile of the airport area. An estimated 35,420 people reside within 3
miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/28/89
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Radon-222 was present in the air near the airport area in tests conducted by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 1986. High levels of uranium, thorium, and
radium are present in groundwater near the airport area and in surface and
subsurface soils. Direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated soils
or groundwater on or near the sites may pose health risks to individuals.
53
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, The DOE cleared the HIS and Futura Coatings areas,
constructed a vehicle decontamination facility, installed a perimeter fence, excavated
and backfilled the edges and shoulders of Latty Avenue, and consolidated the resulting
contaminated soils into one secured storage pile. In 1986, during a city road improvement
project, contaminated soil from roads leading to and from all three areas was excavated and
placed into a secured storage pile.
Entire Site: The DOE has investigated the site under its Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). In 1982, the DOE conducted preliminary
studies of radioactive contamination in the ditches along the sides of the roads leading
to and from the areas. In 1986, boreholes were drilled to continue the contamination study and
to collect geological information. The DOE is continuing studies of all the site areas, which will
lead to additional cleanup actions. A more comprehensive investigation began in 1990 to
determine the full extent of groundwater and soil contamination and to identify alternative
technologies for the cleanup. The studies are scheduled for completion in 1994.
Environmental Progress
The DOE is conducting intensive investigations into the cleanup alternatives for the St. Louis
Airport site. Until these investigations are completed, the interim measures described above
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials and further contamination at the
site.
April 1991 54 ST. LOUIS AIRPORT/HAZELWOOD INTERIM
STORAGE/FUTURA COATINGS CO.
-------
SYNTEX FACES
MISSOURI
EPAID#MOD007452154
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
Lawrence County
Verona, 30 miles southwest of Springfield
Other Names:
Spring River Basin
Syntex Tank Spill Area
Hoffman-Taff Lagoons-Former
Syntex Detoxification Area
Syntex Trenches
Slough Area-Hoffman/Taff Lagoons
Site Description
The Syntex Facility is a 180-acre site located in rural, predominantly agricultural Verona.
Syntex Agribusiness, Inc. acquired the plant in 1969 from the Northeastern Pharmaceutical
Chemical Company (NEPACCO) and has produced vitamins and prepared animal feeds and feed
ingredients since 1971. From 1969 to 1971, NEPACCO leased a portion of the facility from
Syntex and used it to manufacture hexachlorophene. The production of hexachlorophene
generated the by-product dioxin. Dioxin residues were disposed of in five areas at the Verona
facility. The major areas identified as being contaminated are: the slough area, lagoon area, spill
area/irrigation area, burn area, and trench area. In 1989, Syntex excavated and transported the
lagoon wastes to a mobile incinerator to destroy the dioxin. The incineration was completed in
1989. The population within 3 miles of the Syntex Facility site is approximately 650 people.
The active portion of the facility is located within the Spring River 100-year flood plain.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The fish in the Spring River were contaminated with dioxin up to 12 miles
downstream. The soil, pools, puddles, and groundwater on the site also are
contaminated with dioxin. However, groundwater contamination is only slightly
higher than background levels. Exposure to dioxin-contaminated soil, drinking
contaminated water, or eating fish that have been contaminated by dioxin could
present a health threat.
55
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of dioxin-
contaminated materials and cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Dioxin-Contaminated Soils and Equipment: Syntex and the EPA reached an
agreement in 1988 on the cleanup methods to be used at the site. The selected cleanup
methods include: (1) excavating and off-site thermal treatment of dioxin-
contaminated soil that exceeds a health-based criteria for an industrial site; (2) dismantling and
decontaminating equipment with a series of solutions and water rinses; and (3) installing a clay
cap with a vegetative cover over the trench area and portions of the slough area and revegetating
areas contaminated with dioxin below the action level. Syntex removed contaminated soil and
transported it off site for incineration. The ash residue was disposed of off site as well. This
action also involved clay capping and revegetating over the trench area and all areas where waste
levels were below 20 parts per billion (ppb). The final cleanup action also will include
decontamination of the equipment at the site. Decontamination and dismantling of contaminated
photolysis and old NEPACCO equipment was initiated in 1990 and is expected to continue
through 1992.
Groundwater: Syntex began an investigation of the site groundwater in 1989 and
will present potential remedial cleanup alternatives to the EPA in 1991 for review and
selection of the final cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: In August 1982, Syntex signed a Consent Order with the EPA, agreeing to study
the disposal sites and Spring River under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
In September 1983, Syntex Agribusiness and the EPA entered into a Consent Agreement, which
outlined the plan for cleanup of the Syntex site.
Environmental Progress
Much of the cleanup work at the Syntex site has been completed. Contaminated soils have been
removed and areas of former contamination have been capped and revegetated, actions which
have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to dioxin-contaminated soil or surface water at
the site. Further investigations into a cleanup remedy for groundwater are taking place. Dioxin
levels in Spring River fish populations have steadily decreased over the past several years.
April! 991 56 SYNTEX FACILITY
-------
TIMES BEACH SI
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980685226
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
City of Times Beach
Site Description
The Times Beach Site comprises an area of 1 square mile and is located 20 miles southwest of St.
Louis. The site is a formerly incorporated city whose road system was sprayed annually with waste
oil for dust control in the early 1970s. The oil later was found to be contaminated with dioxin
during an investigation of the city's road systems by the EPA in 1982. During the same period, the
nearby Meramec River flooded the city, and residents were forced to evacuate their homes.
Subsequently, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended that the residents who had
been evacuated, as well as those who had returned following the 1982 flood, be permanently
relocated. The EPA transferred funds to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
the permanent relocation of residents and businesses in 1983. By the end of 1986, all residents
were relocated permanently. The buy-out of the remaining vacant parcels is anticipated to be
completed in 1991. Upon completion of the permanent relocation, title to the site will be conveyed
to the State of Missouri from FEMA. Currently, the site is completely vacant and fenced. All roads
leading into the city are blocked and posted with no trespassing signs. The on-site structures of the
former city are deteriorating due to the lack of maintenance. Approximately 13,600 cubic yards of
soil are contaminated at levels exceeding health-based standards. Approximately 105,000 cubic
yards of non-contaminated structures and debris remain on site. The site is patrolled by security
guards on a 24-hour basis. Most of the former community lies within the 5-year flood plain of the
Meramec River. The population within a 1/2-mile radius of the site is approximately 2,000, and
includes a trailer park, the community of Crescent, and a portion of Eureka. The site is located in a
mixed-use residential and agricultural area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed
through Federal and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 03/04/83
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The on-site surface soils along the roadways are contaminated with dioxin. Human
exposure to dioxin has been limited by the evacuation of the residents and access
restrictions to Times Beach. On-site workers, security guards, and trespassers could be
exposed to dioxin through direct contact or accidental ingestion of dioxin-contaminated
soil or water. Fish in the Meramec River show elevated levels of dioxin. Area residents
who consume these fish could be exposed to this contaminant. Data indicate that
sources downstream of Times Beach are the primary contributors of dioxin into the
Meramec River.
57
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on stabilization of Times
Beach, excavation and treatment of the soil and other materials, and the permanent relocation of
residents and businesses from the Times Beach area.
Response Action Status '
Stabilization: The remedies selected by the EPA in 1984 to stabilize Times Beach and
three nearby sites included: construction of an approximately 50,000-cubic-yard interim
storage facility at Times Beach, and excavation of the dioxin-contaminated soil from
Minker/Stout/Romaine Creek, Quail Run Mobile Manor, and the Castlewood Area sites. The
contaminated soils will be transferred to the interim storage facility at Times Beach. Construction of
a series of spur levees also was selected in order to control water velocity during flooding and to
limit erosion of contaminated soils. Due to State legislative and administrative actions, the interim
storage facility could not be implemented. Only the spur levee portion of the remedy could be
implemented. In 1985, the EPA raised an existing levee constructed by the Missouri Highway
Department as the first phase in the construction of a three-phase spur levee. In 1989, the second
and third phases of the spur levee were completed, including relocation of roadways.
Soil, Structures, and Debris: This phase of the cleanup includes excavation and
thermal treatment of contaminated soil and the final disposal of structures and debris.
Cleanup activities to be performed include: (1) demolition and disposal of
uncontaminated structures and debris at Times Beach in a facility meeting solid waste disposal
requirements; (2) construction of a ring levee to protect a temporary thermal treatment unit from a
100-year flood; (3) mobilization of a temporary transportable thermal treatment unit to Times Beach;
(4) excavation of all dioxin-contaminated soils at Times Beach exceeding the levels for protection of
human health and the environment; (5) thermal treatment of excavated soils to destroy contaminants;
and (6) on-site disposal of treatment residue (ash), after receiving EPA approval of its chemical
content, in a facility meeting solid waste management requirements. The engineering design for
these cleanup activities currently is underway and is expected to be completed in 1991.
Relocation: This third cleanup phase addresses the permanent relocation of residents
and businesses and the acquisition of all remaining properties. In 1983, the EPA provided
$30 million to FEMA in a transfer allocation to conduct this phase of the cleanup. FEMA
plans to purchase all the remaining properties from the former owners in 1991. FEMA, the State of
Missouri, the trustee for the former City of Times Beach, and St. Louis County have entered into a
four-party contract for permanent relocation. Ownership of the properties will be conveyed from
FEMA to the Times Beach trustee, as parcels are acquired, and then to the State of Missouri.
Site Facts: In 1990, the EPA, the State, and the potentially responsible parties signed a Consent
Decree, under which cleanup activities with be conducted for the Times Beach site and 27 other
dioxin sites in eastern Missouri.
April 1991 58 TIMES BEACH SITE
-------
Environmental Progress
The Times Beach area has been stabilized, and numerous cleanup actions have been completed.
All residents and businesses have been permanently relocated, and the purchase of the remaining
parcels by FEMA, which in turn will convey ownership to the State of Missouri, is scheduled to
be completed in 1991. The demolition and disposal of the structures at Times Beach and the
removal of dioxin-contaminated soils from other sites are scheduled to begin soon.
TIMES BEACH SITE
59
April 1991
-------
VALLEY PARK
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD980968341
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Valley Park
Other Names:
TCE Study
The Valley Park TCE site is in Valley Park, a densely populated urban area. The site is a plume of
contaminated groundwater in the Meramec River alluvial aquifer. In 1982, the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR) detected a number of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) including
trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), and trichloroethane in all three municipal water
supply wells serving the community. Private wells within the vicinity of the site also are
contaminated with VOCs. However, area private wells reportedly are used only for industrial
purposes. Possible sources of contamination include the large number of industries located in Valley
Park, railroad spills that reportedly occurred in the past, and illegal dumping that may have occurred
in the vicinity of the site. There are approximately 3,000 people in the community who obtained
drinking water from the affected groundwater.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 04/10/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater is contaminated with VOCs including TCE. Drinking water from the
contaminated aquifer poses a potential health threat to area residents using polluted
groundwater resources.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater.
61
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, Valley Park installed aeration equipment at its water
plant in order to remove the VOCs that had been detected in the drinking water. In 1989,
Valley Park was connected to the St. Louis County public water system, which now
supplies its drinking water. Since Valley Park was connected to the County public water system, the
residents no longer are using contaminated water for domestic purposes. In 1990, the potentially
responsible parties removed 331 cubic yards of PCE- and TCE-contaminated soil and backfilled the
area. The predetermined cleanup levels were not attained; however, planned studies and future
activities are expected to attain the cleanup levels.
Groundwater: Under supervision by the MDNR, the parties potentially responsible for
the site contamination agreed to conduct a site investigation that will lead to the selection
of a final cleanup remedy, expected in 1992.
Site Facts: The MDNR negotiated an agreement with the potentially responsible parties to
perform soil removal at the property to eliminate a potential source of contamination. In addition,
the State and the parties have negotiated an Administrative Order, under which the parties will
perform site studies at the Valley Park TCE site.
Environmental Progress
By connecting the affected residences to the public water system and removing contaminated soil,
the potential for exposure to contaminated drinking water or soil has been reduced at the Valley Park
TCE site while further investigations leading to the selection of a long-term remedy for the
groundwater contamination are taking place.
April 1991 62 VALLEY PARK TCE
-------
WELDON SPRI
FORMER AR
ORDNANCE
WORKS
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO5210021288
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
St. Charles County
25 miles west of St. Louis
Other Names:
Weldon Springs National Guard Facility
US Army Training Center
Weldon Springs-Ex Army Ordnance Plant
Ft. Leonard Wood
Site Description
The Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works site occupied more than 17,000 acres and
operated from 1941 to 1944. During its operation, the site produced explosives including
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) for the U.S. Armed Services. A series of land
transfers left the Army with 1,655 acres, which it has operated since 1959 for the Army Reserve as
the Weldon Spring Training Area. Contaminated areas are spread throughout the 17,000 acres of the
site, with the greatest concentration in the Training Area. Some of the transferred land that covered
two small areas of the original Ordnance Works area now are owned by the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) and listed on the National Priorities List as Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits site.
Investigations have identified a number of potentially contaminated areas, including seven unlined
lagoons where TNT wastewater was stored, TNT production lines, a DNT production line, a
drainage ditch below a TNT production line, and nine areas where explosive wastes were buried.
Approximately 5,000 people live within 3 miles of the site, and approximately 70,000 people obtain
drinking water from St. Charles County wells within 3 miles of the hazardous substances at the site.
Surface water in the area flows either to the Mississippi River watershed to the north or the Missouri
River watershed to the south. Surface waters within 3 miles are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
In 1987, a DOE investigator found explosives such as TNT and DNT in monitoring wells
near the lagoons. TNT, DNT, and lead have been identified in soil in several areas at the
site, and TNT was detected in 1987 in surface water downstream of the lagoons. The
Mississippi watershed, which supports wetlands, wildlife, and recreational activities, may
be threatened by runoff from the site. The TNT and DNT contamination on the site
represent a physical hazard with some potential for explosion. Ingestion of polluted
surface water, groundwater, or contaminated soil may pose a threat to human health.
DNT is a known carcinogen and may be absorbed through direct contact.
63
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the Department of Defense (DoD) identified a number of
contaminated areas on the site. Under EPA direction, DoD began a complete
investigation into the extent and type of contamination at the site in early 1990. The study
will identify the nature and extent of contaminants and will recommend cleanup technologies for
soils, pipelines, and groundwater. The site will be divided into three long-term remedial phases
reflecting these cleanup needs.
Site Facts: This site is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially funded
program established by the DoD in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of
hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA, the DOE, and the DoD conducted preliminary
investigations and determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Weldon Spring
Former Army Ordnance Works site while further investigations leading to a final cleanup
remedy continue.
April 1991 64 WELDON SPRING FORMER ARMY
ORDNANCE WORKS
-------
WELDON SPRI
PLANT/PITS
(USDOE/ARM
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MO3210090004
RY/
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 09
St. Charles County
25 miles west of St. Louis
Other Names:
Weldon Spring-Raffinate Pits
Weldon Springs Chemical Plant
Site Description
The Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits (USDOE/Army) site covers 230 acres and is located
between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. This site is closely associated with the nearby
Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works NPL site. A series of land transfers in the 1950s
gave the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), later called the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),
220 acres of the original Ordnance Works area. The DOE now is responsible for the
contamination, both radioactive and non-radioactive, on the property. The site includes a 51-acre
disposal area, a 169-acre abandoned uranium feed materials plant, various smaller properties and
a 9-acre former limestone quarry located 4 miles from the plant. From 1941 to 1944, the
Department of the Army operated an explosives production plant on the site. Due to frequent
spills, wastewater containing sulfonate derivatives contaminated surface water and groundwater.
The Ordnance Works area was closed at the end of World War II, and the processing structures
were demolished. In 1955, the AEC acquired a portion of the Ordnance Works area for
construction of a uranium feed materials plant. Mallinckrodt, Inc. operated the plant under a
contract with the AEC from 1957 to 1966. The plant converted uranium concentrates to uranium
tetrafluoride and uranium metal. Thorium ore, also a radioactive metal, was processed. The
residues from the processing were disposed of in four large open pits. During that period, the
plant, buildings, equipment, soil surface, sewer system, and the drainage into the Missouri River
became contaminated with uranium, thorium, and their radioactive decay products. From 1943
until 1957, the U.S. Army used an abandoned limestone quarry located about 3 miles southwest
of the plant site for the disposal of unknown quantities of materials contaminated with
trinitrotoluene (TNT) and dinitrotoluene (DNT) residues. The AEC acquired the site in 1958 and
used the quarry from 1959 to 1966 to dispose of uranium, thorium, and radium residues and
contaminated materials and equipment. From 1966 to 1969, the Army deposited additional
TNT-contaminated materials in the quarry. The quarry is located 3/4 of a mile from the St.
Charles County well field, which is used as a drinking water source for approximately 70,000
people. The population living within 3 miles of the site is 5,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
65
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
71
Off-site groundwater is contaminated with TNT, DNT, and other explosive
materials. The soil is contaminated with radionuclides, TNT, DNT, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy
metals. Off-site surface water is contaminated with uranium. Accidental
ingestion of and direct contact with contaminated groundwater, surface water, or
soil may cause a potential health hazard. Adjacent wildlife and recreational areas
may be threatened due to off-site migration of the contaminants. Contaminant
migration from the quarry to the adjacent Missouri River alluvium poses a
potential threat to the County well field.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and cleanup of the quarry bulk waste.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The DOE undertook interim cleanup actions at this site in 1987,
which to date have included removing overhead piping and asbestos, disposing of and
storing chemicals, removing electric lines and poles, cleaning up radioactive soil from
three Army Reserve properties, dismantling the steam plant and administration building, removing
PCB transformers, and constructing a stormwater diversion dike to reduce off-site migration.
Source Control: In 1986, the DOE began an investigation to determine the nature and
extent of contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives for the site. The studies are
scheduled to be completed in 1992 and will result in final cleanup strategies for site
contamination areas.
Quarry Bulk Waste: In 1990, the EPA chose to excavate and to temporarily store
quarry bulk wastes. Wastes will be transported over a haul road constructed for this
purpose. The DOE is conducting design activities that are expected to be completed in
late 1991, at which time the cleanup activities will begin.
Site Facts: Under a 1986 agreement with the EPA, the DOE will conduct cleanup actions at the
quarry, as well as the plant area and nearby radioactive contaminated properties.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated soil and materials described above have reduced the potential for
exposure to hazardous substances at the Weldon Spring Quarry/Plant/Pits site while the DOE
continues further cleanup activities.
April! 991 66 WELDON SPRING QUARRY/PLANT/PITS
(USDOE/ARMY)
-------
WESTLAKE LANDF1
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD079900932
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
St. Louis County
Bridgeton
Site Description
The 200-acre Westlake Landfill site is adjacent to prime agricultural land and is in the flood plain of
the Missouri River. From 1939 to 1987, limestone was quarried on the site. Beginning in 1962,
portions of the property were used for landfilling of solid and liquid industrial wastes, municipal
refuse, and construction debris. In 1973, Cotter Corp. disposed of over 43,000 tons of uranium ore
processing residues and soil in two areas covering a total of 16 acres of the site. In 1976, the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) closed the unregulated landfill. Since then, the
MDNR has issued several permits for various portions of the site. Currently, an operating sanitary
landfill has a permitted area of 52 acres, and an operating demolition landfill has a permitted area of
22 acres. A radiological survey was completed by Radiation Management Corporation in 1981, and
in 1982, radioactive wastes on site were documented. Approximately 60 people obtain drinking
water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. Water from the public water utility presently is
unavailable to these people. The nearest well is about 2,500 feet from the site. In addition, at least
480 acres of cropland are irrigated from wells within a 3-mile radius of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/26/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Significant levels of uranium from former dumping activities were detected in the
groundwater and soil, which could adversely affect the health of individuals if these
substances accidentally are ingested or touched. Additional environmental and health
risks may result through surface drainage from the site, which flows through an unnamed
tributary into the Missouri River. The Missouri River is used for irrigation, commercial
fishing, and recreational activities.
67
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An intensive investigation of on-site contamination is scheduled to begin
early in 1992. This study will explore the nature and extent of the contamination and will
identify the best strategies for cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After listing the site on the NPL, the EPA completed a preliminary study to determine whether the
site required immediate actions to limit access or the potential for residents to come into contact with
contaminants on site. The EPA determined that the Westlake Landfill site poses no immediate threat
to the area residents or the environment while site studies leading to the selection of final cleanup
remedy are being conducted.
April 1991 68 WESTLAKE LANDFILL
-------
WHEELING
SERVICE
COMPANY LA
MISSOURI
EPA ID# MOD000830554
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Andrew County
1 mile south of Amazonia
Other Names:
Wheeling Waste Disposal Site
The Wheeling Disposal Service Company operated a landfill that covers approximately 20 acres
on two adjacent areas totaling about 200 acres. The landfill was established in the early 1970s,
and the facility received a State permit in 1975 to operate as an industrial waste disposal facility.
Between 1980 and 1981, the company voluntarily ceased operations. The facility resumed
operations under the authority of a special waste disposal permit issued by the State of Missouri
until it voluntarily closed in 1986. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
periodically inspected the site and monitored groundwater when the landfill was in operation.
Based on MDNR hazardous waste records, wastes containing pesticides, heavy metals, paint,
solvents, and leather tanning sludge were disposed of in the landfill. In field investigations
conducted by the EPA, contaminants were detected in monitoring wells and springs on the site.
Drinking water is supplied to approximately 4,000 residents of Savannah through wells that are
within 1 to 2 miles of the site and range from 90 to 100 feet deep in the Missouri river alluvial
aquifer. There are private wells in use within 1/4 mile of the site. The shallow groundwater
below the site supplies water to the aquifer, possibly contaminating it.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/22/87
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater on site has been contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, nickel, and
lead from the former waste disposal activities. Several seeps in Mace Creek are
contaminated, indicating that local surface water is a potential threat. On-site
ponds have been covered with soil, and the area now is planted with crops.
Eating crops grown in contaminated soil could expose people to contaminants
from the site.
69
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1982,1983,1986, and 1987, the EPA sampled on-site groundwater and
found contamination. In late 1990, the potentially responsible parties completed a study of
the nature and extent of contamination at the site, and the EPA designated the appropriate
cleanup technologies. The remedy includes well capping, water monitoring, and upgrading the
existing landfill cover to comply with State and Federal standards. Design activities are expected to
begin in late 1991.
Environmental Progress
The samplings performed by the EPA and the Missouri Department of Health indicated that no
immediate actions were needed at the Wheeling Disposal Service Company site while the
potentially responsible parties begin the design phase and cleanup activities.
April 1991
70 WHEELING DISPOSAL SERVICE COMPANY LANDRLL
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
71
-------
GLOSSARY
This glossary defines terms used
throughout the NPL Volumes. The
terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary apply specifically to work
performed under the Superfund program in
the context of hazardous waste management.
These terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Terms Used
in the NPL
Book
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical
manufacturing. Acids in high concentration
can be very corrosive and react with many
inorganic and organic substances. These
reactions possibly may create toxic com-
pounds or release heavy metal contaminants
that remain in the environment long after the
acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal
and enforceable agreement between the EPA
and the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination. Under the terms of the Order,
the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally,
the EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for
site studies).
Aeration: A process that promotes break-
down of contaminants in soil or water by
exposing them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR): The Federal agency
within the U.S. Public Health Service charged
with carrying out the health-related responsi-
bilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of
air through it in a pressurized vessel. The
contaminants are evaporated into the air
stream. The air may be further treated before
it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfined part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity
of contaminated air sources.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock,
sand, or gravel capable of storing water
within cracks and pore spaces, or between
grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it
can be tapped and used for drinking or other
purposes. The water contained in the aquifer
is called groundwater. A sole source aquifer
supplies 50% or more of the drinking water of
an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling
into the earth until water is reached, which,
from internal pressure, flows up like a foun-
tain.
73
-------
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.
Beirn: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
74
-------
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.
75
-------
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.
76
-------
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
77
-------
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,
78
-------
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
79
-------
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.
Pentachlorophenoi (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.
80
-------
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.
Poly vinyl 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.
81
-------
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
82
-------
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
83
-------
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
84
-------
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.
85
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in
87
-------
CO
.- >
.y-s
« &-S
O S3
o
o
a
o
H*!
« S to 13
|
z
2
U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893-60436
89
------- |