&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
National
Priorities
List Sites:
EPA/540/8-91/041
September 1991
PB92-963235
MONTANA
1 9 3 1
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-727 A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Montana
Agency
..* envro
5, Ubrary;. ",.,^11*
Ch\cago,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
The National Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991),
may be ordered as PB92-963253.
The complete set of the overview documents, plus the 49 state reports may be ordered
as PB92-963253.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction:
A Brief Overview 1
Superfund:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites? 5
The Volume:
How to Use the State Book 13
NPL Sites:
In the State of Montana 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 21
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 43
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 59
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a
look at the dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the land. First there
was New York's Love Canal. Hazardous
waste buried there over a 25-year period
contaminated streams and soil, and endangered
the health of nearby residents. The result:
evacuation of several hundred people. Then
the leaking barrels at the Valley of the Drums
in Kentucky attracted public attention, as did
the dioxin-tainted land and water in Times
Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human health and the envi-
ronment were threatened, lives were disrupted,
and property values were reduced. It became
increasingly clear that there were large num-
bers of serious hazardous waste problems that
were falling through the cracks of existing
environmental laws. The magnitude of these
emerging problems moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly known as Superfund
was the first Federal law established to deal
with the dangers posed by the Nation's hazard-
ous waste sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the problem until the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
began the process of site discovery and site
evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste sites existed, and
they presented the Nation with some of the
most complex pollution problems it had ever
faced.
Since the Superfund program began, hazard-
A
Brief
Overview
ous waste has surfaced as a major environ-
mental concern in every part of the United
States. It wasn't just the land that was con-
taminated by past disposal practices. Chemi-
cals in the soil were spreading into the ground-
water (a source of drinking water for many)
and into streams, lakes, bays, and wetlands.
Toxic vapors contaminated the air at some
sites, while improperly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health of the surrounding
community and the environment at others.
The EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245 hazardous waste
sites as the most serious in the Nation. These
sites comprise the National Priorities List; sites
targeted for cleanup under Super-fund. But
site discoveries continue, and the EPA esti-
mates that, while some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list, commonly called
the NPL, will continue to grow by approxi-
mately 50 to 100 sites per year, potentially
reaching 2,100 sites by the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the program, Congress
recognized that the Federal government could
-------
INTRODUCTION
not and should not address all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target.
Sites on the NPL (1,245) thus are a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and compelling cases. The
EPA has logged more than 35,000 sites on its
national inventory of potentially hazardous
waste sites and assesses each site within one
year of being logged.
THE EPA IS MAKING PROGRESS
ON SITE CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund program is to tackle
immediate dangers first and then move through
the progressive steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public health and the
environment.
Superfund responds immediately to sites
posing imminent threats to human health and
the environment at both NPL sites and sites not
on the NPL. The purpose is to stabilize,
prevent, or temper the effects of a release of
hazardous substances, or the threat of one, into
the environment. These might include tire
fires or transportation accidents involving the
spill of hazardous chemicals. Because they
reduce the threat a site poses to human health
and the environment, immediate cleanup
actions are an integral part of the Superfund
program.
Immediate response to imminent threats is one
of Superfund's most noted achievements.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has initi-
ated or completed emergency actions that
attacked the most serious threats of toxic
exposure in more than 2,700 cases.
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent solution to an environ-
mental problem that presents a serious threat
to the public or the environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. The EPA has
aggressively accelerated its efforts to perform
these long-term cleanups of NPL sites. More
cleanups were started in 1987, when the
Superfund law was amended, than in any
previous year. By 1991, construction had
started at more than four times as many sites as
in 1986! Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half have had
construction cleanup activity. In addition,
more than 400 more sites presently are in the
investigation stage to determine the extent of
site contamination and to identify appropriate
cleanup remedies. Many other sites with
cleanup remedies selected are poised for the
start of cleanup construction activity. In
measuring success by "progress through the
cleanup pipeline," the EPA clearly is gaining
momentum.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup construction to understand that envi-
ronmental protection does not end when the
remedy is in place. Many complex technolo-
gies like those designed to clean up ground-
water must operate for many years in order
to accomplish their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No matter
who has been delegated responsibility for
monitoring the cleanup work, the EPA will
assure that the remedy is carefully followed
and that it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site where
residues from hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public and environmental
-------
INTRODUCTION
health are being safeguarded. The EPA will
correct any deficiencies discovered and will
report to the public annually on all five-year
reviews conducted that year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and to deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community where a
Superfund site is located will be those most
directly affected by hazardous waste problems
and cleanup processes, the EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in cleanup decisions.
Public involvement and comment does influ-
ence EPA cleanup plans by providing valuable
information about site conditions, community
concerns, and preferences.
The State and U.S. Territories volumes and the
companion National overview volume provide
general Superfund background information
and descriptions of activities at each NPL site.
These volumes clearly describe what the
problems are, what the EPA and others partici-
pating in site cleanups are doing, and how we,
as a Nation, can move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES TOGETHER
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about both
environmental progress across the country and
the cleanup accomplishments closer to home.
Citizens also should understand the challenges
involved in hazardous waste cleanup and the
decisions we must make, as a Nation, in
finding the best solutions.
The National overview, Superfund: Focusing
on the Nation at Large (1991), contains impor-
tant information to help you understand the
magnitude and challenges facing the
Superfund program, as well as an overview of
the National cleanup effort. The sections
describe the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide, threats and contaminants
at NPL sites and their potential effects on
human health and the environment, vital roles
of the various participants in the cleanup
process, the Superfund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's serious hazardous
waste sites, and the current status of the NPL.
If you did not receive this overview volume,
ordering information is provided in the front of
this book.
This volume compiles site summary fact sheets
on each State or Territorial site being cleaned
up under the Superfund program. These sites
represent the most serious hazardous waste
problems in the Nation and require the most
complicated and costly site solutions yet
encountered. Each book gives a "snapshot" of
the conditions and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site. Information
presented for each site is current as of April
1991. Conditions change as our cleanup
efforts continue, so these site summaries will
be updated annually to include information on
new progress being made.
To help you understand the cleanup accom-
plishments made at these sites, this volume
includes a description of the process for site
discovery, threat evaluation, and long-term
cleanup of Superfund sites. This description,
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up
Sites?, will serve as a reference point from
which to review the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary defining key terms as they
apply to hazardous waste management and site
cleanup is included as Appendix A in the back
of this book.
-------
SUPERFUND
The diverse problems posed by hazard-
ous waste sites have provided the EPA
with the challenge to establish a consis-
tent approach for evaluating and cleaning up
the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, the
EPA has had to step beyond its traditional role
as a regulatory agency to develop processes
and guidelines for each step in these techni-
cally complex site cleanups. The EPA has
established procedures to coordinate the
efforts of its Washington, D.C. Headquarters
program offices and its front-line staff in ten
Regional Offices, with the State and local
governments, contractors, and private parties
who are participating in site cleanup. An
important part of the process is that any time
How Does the
Program Work
to Clean Up
Sites?
THREE-STEP SUPERFUND PROCESS
STEP1
Discover site and
determine whether
an emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether a
site is a serious threat
to public health or
environment
STEPS
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in Ms three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
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
>NSit^Descrlptlon
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Otter NMTIM:
ฎ
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing Hlctory
Ftah
Fhreats 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
Montana
The State of Montana is located on the United States border with Canada, within EPA Region 8.
Region 8 includes six northern central states extending from the mid-western plains to the Rocky
Mountains. Montana covers 147,046 square miles consisting of the Rocky Mountains in the
west and the rolling Great Plains in the eastern portion of the state. Currently ranked 44th in
U.S. populations, according to the 1990 Census, Montana experienced a 1.6% increase in popu-
lation between 1980 and 1990, and has approximately 799,000 residents. Principal state indus-
tries include agriculture, mining, manufacturing and tourism. Montana industries produce
lumber and wood goods, petroleum products, primary metals and minerals, farm machinery, and
processed goods.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Montana?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
8
SI
8
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 1 7 sites
Congressional District 2 1 sites
What Type of Sites Are on the NPL
in the State of Montana?
# of sites
4
4
type of sites
Smelter Facilities
Lumber & Wood
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
How Are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
10--
8 --
$6-
+>
'55
i^
5*--
2 --
GW Soil SW Air Sed
Contamination Area
Solid
Waste
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), creosotes (organics), and
dioxins.
Soil and Solid Waste: Heavy metals
(inorganics), creosotes (organics),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
dioxins.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics) and creosote
(organics).
Air: Heavy metals (inorganigcs).
Appear at 25% or more sites
Where Are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?1
2
Sites
with (
Studies
Underway
Sites
^ with
Remedy
Selected
1
Site
^ with
Remedy
Design
4
Sites
+ with
Cleanup
Ongoing
N
Sites
^ with
Construction
Complete
Deleted
Sites
In addition to the activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 8 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
'Cleanup status reflects phases of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O-) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
ซ A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April 1991
-------
the State of Montana
^
C
1
|
MISSOULA
ฃ
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMEN:
8
t-
1
a
SILVER BOW
MONTANA POLE AND TREATING
8
>c
r~l
1
STELLWATER
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
ฃ
CO
i
1
a
SILVER BOW
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
$
^^
&
ซ
as
S
8
?ฃ-
!
5
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILRO
t
a
.y
j
|
Bi
Z
S
COMET OIL COMPANY
i
litional information is available in the 1991 National Volume.
8
<
(A
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
EPA REGION 8
21
ApriM991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Montana, providing specific
information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmen-
tal progress. Should you have questions, please call EPA's Region 8 Office
in Denver, Colorado or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 8 Superfund Community Relations Office (303) 294-1100
EPA Region 8 Superfund Office (303) 293-1720
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Montana Superfund Office (406) 444-2821
April 1991 22
-------
ANACONDA COMPANY
SMELTER
MONTANA
EPAID#MTD093291656
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Deer Lodge County
Southern end of Deer Lodge Valley
Other Names:
Anaconda Reduction Works
Washoe Works
Old Works
New Works
Site Description
The Anaconda Company Smelter site covers several thousand acres at the southern end of Deer
Lodge Valley. From 1884 to 1980, Anaconda extracted copper from ore. Wastes from smelting
operations were distributed over a vast area by mechanical operations, slurry ditches, and the wind.
The smelting processes produced wastes high in metals. The wastes include about 185 million cubic
yards of concentrated mine tailings (ore wastes), about 27 million cubic yards of furnace slags,
approximately 360,000 cubic yards of flue dust, and tens of square miles of contaminated soils.
Investigations in 1984 found that Mill Creek, the closest community to the site, had the highest
levels of contamination of any inhabited areas around the smelter. Mill Creek had a population of
100 people; it is now uninhabited. Anaconda, with a population of 10,000 people, is 1/2 mile west
of the smelter.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Airborne contaminants include arsenic, cadmium, and lead from wind-blown
contaminated soil and beryllium from waste disposal areas. Surface water, groundwater,
and soil contain arsenic, cadmium, and lead from the smelting operations. Environmental
testing of the community and biological testing of pre-school children led the EPA to
conclude that contamination in the Mill Creek area posed an imminent and substantial
threat to the health of residents. The accidental ingestion of contaminated soil or
groundwater could pose a health threat to people. Inhaling airborne contaminants also
may increase health risks.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in seventeen stages: an emergency action and sixteen long-term remedial
phases focusing on the cleanup of specific areas of contamination at the site.
23
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: Between 1986 and 1987, the EPA and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) temporarily relocated residents of Mill Creek.
Site-Wide: The EPA prepared an "umbrella" order and general work plan that
addresses all subsequent study activities on the Anaconda site. An analysis is being
undertaken to identify suitable locations for a waste repository on the Anaconda property.
The EPA, ARCO, and the State have developed computerized techniques for data handling and
validation to speed analysis and cleanup. Air monitoring data is being collected to support ongoing
and future investigations.
Mill Creek: The EPA selected a remedy for Mill Creek in 1987 featuring: (1)
permanently relocating all Mill Creek residents; (2) stabilizing the area temporarily; (3)
storing relocation or demolition debris and disposing of it, along with contaminated soils
from Mill Creek, in the final cleanup of Anaconda; (4) regrading and replanting areas disturbed by
relocation/demolition activities; (5) monitoring and maintaining the vegetation and the fence
installed around the area; and (6) imposing short-term controls on access and land use. Mill Creek
residents were permanently relocated by ARCO in 1988. All cleanup activites were completed in
late 1988.
Old Works/High Risk: In 1988, ARCO began a study for an expedited cleanup action
in the Old Works area that is of high risk to human health and the environment. The
ongoing study addresses flood-plain wastes and Old Works waste piles. The Old Works
study is expected to be completed by mid-1991, with cleanup actions scheduled to begin in late
1991.
Old Works: The EPA planned an intensive study of the Old Works subsite for early
1992 but has already started investigations on flood-plain waste and waste piles in this
area. The study, which will explore the nature and extent of pollution at the Old Works,
also will recommend the best cleanup options. It is scheduled for completion in late 1992.
Smelter Hill Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA began an intensive study of
groundwater contamination around Smelter Hill, which was taken over by ARCO in early
1989. Workers collected several thousand field samples in the course of investigating
groundwater, soils, and area vegetation. The study, which also will recommend the best options for
final cleanup at this subsite, is slated for completion in early 1993.
Beryllium Disposal Areas: The EPA and ARCO began a study for expedited cleanup
actions in the beryllium disposal areas in late 1989. The accelerated study is scheduled to
be completed by late 1991, with cleanup actions expected to begin thereafter.
Community Soils: The EPA began an intensive study of neighborhoods adjacent to
the Old Works area, which was taken over by ARCO in early 1989, as part of the Old
Works/High Risk remedial phase. Because additional residential sampling is required
and a separate cleanup action is possible, this separate community soils cleanup phase was created.
The study is expected to be completed by late 1991, with cleanup actions possible thereafter.
April 1991 24 ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER
-------
Flue Dust: When Mill Creek residents were temporarily relocated in 1986, ARCO
covered the flue dust, the most concentrated contaminant on the site, and treated road
dust to make it less mobile. In 1987, the EPA and ARCO began evaluating an innovative
technique to reduce the mobility of the flue dust compounds now stored on the site. ARCO began
an intensive study of flue dust contamination in 1989, and the results are expected in mid-1991.
Arbiter Waste: The EPA and ARCO started a study for an expedited cleanup action in
the Arbiter Plant disposal ponds in early 1990. Cleanup actions are scheduled to begin in
1991.
Regional Groundwater: Groundwater monitoring is slated to begin in late 1991 to
provide data for future investigations. In early 1993, the EPA is scheduled to begin
studying pollution of the regional groundwater, seeking to establish the nature and extent
of the problem. This investigation also will propose the best approaches for final cleanup. It is
planned for completion in 1995.
Soils: In 1993, the EPA is expected to start a screening study of soil pollution,
exploring the nature and extent of the problem. This investigation, slated to be
completed by 1995, also will select the best options for final cleanup.
Additional Areas: The EPA is scheduled to begin intensive studies of tailings wastes,
regional soils, sediments and surface water, slag piles, and arbiter groundwater in early
1993. These investigations will explore the nature and extent of the contamination and
will recommend the best cleanup options. The investigations are expected to be completed by early
1996.
Site Facts: In 1984, ARCO entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA to
conduct investigation on 13 areas of the site. A second Administrative Order on Consent was
entered into in 1986 between ARCO and the EPA for an expedited investigation of the Mill Creek
area. In 1988, ARCO and the EPA negotiated a Consent Decree, under which ARCO would
permanently relocate the residents of Mill Creek. In the same year, ARCO and the EPA also entered
into an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct studies on the Flue Dust and Smelter Hill areas
and to conduct expedited cleanup actions for the Old Works/High Risk area. In 1990, ARCO and
the EPA amended the 1988 Administrative Order to conduct an accelerated cleanup action on the
Arbiter and beryllium disposal areas.
Environmental Progress
The permanent relocation of Mill Creek residents, limiting access to the site, covering flue dust, and
imposing land use controls have greatly reduced threats to human health from the Anaconda Smelter
site. However, the EPA has determined that high concentrations of heavy metals in soils and a
drainage ditch from the smelter operations continue to pose a threat. The EPA plans to initiate
additional emergency actions to consolidate and cap heavily contaminated soils to eliminate
immediate threats while investigations leading to final cleanup activities are taking place.
ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER 25 April 1991
-------
EAST HEL
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD006230346
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lewis and Clark County
East Helena
Other Names:
American Smelting and Refining
ASARCO Inc.
East Helena Plant
East Helena Smelter
Site Description
The East Helena Site is comprised of approximately 100 square miles of residential and rural
agricultural land around the Town of East Helena. For over 100 years, lead and zinc smelting
operations have deposited contaminants into Helena Valley. The smelter is still active, but public
access is restricted in the operating areas of the plant. Approximately 1,600 people live within 1 1/2
miles of the site. Most of the area residences are hooked up to the municipal water supply system;
however, some residents still maintain private wells.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Air in the vicinity of the site, as well as the shallow groundwater, are contaminated with
heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Surface soils located in an 8 1/2-
square-mile area around the smelter contain the same metals as the groundwater in
addition to chromium, mercury, and copper. Area residents may be subject to exposure
of site-related particulates that have become airborne. Contaminated shallow
groundwater does not pose any threat because it is not used for domestic water supply,
and there is no possibility of direct human contact. Health advisories were issued in
1988 to area residents warning them against consuming some locally grown produce.
Advisories also have been issued concerning Wilson Ditch, an irrigation ditch that passes
through a number of yards and play fields.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control, soils, and the remaining contaminated areas at the site.
27
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: An expedited cleanup action is scheduled to begin in mid-1991 to
remove contaminated soils from residential areas, parks, playgrounds, streets and
alleys. The potentially responsible party at the site, ASARCO, will perform this
work.
Source Control: In late 1989, the EPA selected the remedy to eliminate the source
of contamination at the site. The ponds act as a source of inorganic contamination of
soils, groundwater, and surface waters. The remedy includes isolating the process
waters from the groundwater by constructing steel storage tanks, and the repair and replacement
of leaking equipment. The soils and pond sediment, contaminated by decades of seepage, will be
excavated and smelted. Contaminated pond process water will be treated by on-site precipitation
technology. The designs of these technologies currently are underway. Preliminary studies
addressing groundwater, soil, and bioaccumulation of contaminants in locally raised livestock
and crops was conducted by ASARCO in 1987 and 1989. As a result of the studies, the EPA has
shifted primary concern to residential soil and the Wilson Ditch area to be addressed as a
separate cleanup action.
Soils: Based on the completed studies, ASARCO will perform the expedited soils
cleanup action described in the initial actions for this site. In addition, ASARCO is
conducting further studies to evaluate other soil contamination and define soils
disposal options. This study, expected to be completed in 1992, will provide the basis for final
EPA selection of soils cleanup.
Remaining Areas: The work plan submitted in 1990 for the remaining areas
proposed that a comprehensive site-wide study for all contamination and effective
cleanup methods be completed. ASARCO has completed soil, garden vegetable and
grain, and fish sampling that have confirmed contamination and have led to the issuance of local
health advisories. Regularly conducted groundwater sampling within the residential area has
revealed arsenic contamination above drinking water standards in shallow wells. ASARCO has
drilled additional groundwater wells to define the contamination. The study and remedy
alternatives for this phase of site cleanup are expected to be completed by 1993.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA and ASARCO entered into an Administrative Order on Consent,
under which the company performed a preliminary investigation into site contamination. A
second Administrative Order on Consent was signed by the EPA, the State, and ASARCO in
1988 to conduct additional investigations.
Environmental Progress
Preliminary evaluations by the EPA determined that removal of contaminated residential soils
and Wilson Ditch sediments were necessary. This removal will eliminate the immediate sources
of site contamination, while further soil cleanup and investigations, leading to the selection of the
final cleanup remedy for the groundwater and remaining areas of contamination, are being
completed.
April 1991 28 EAST HELENA SITE
-------
IDAHO POLE C
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD006232276
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Gallatin County
Bozeman
Site Description
The Idaho Pole Company began treating wood products with creosote in 1946 at this 50-acre site in
Bozeman. In 1952, the company switched to pentachlorophenol (PCP) in the treating process. The
facility has a history of contamination problems with surface water discharge. The current wood
treating operation has no discharge; however, past spills and disposal practices have resulted in soil,
groundwater, and surface water contamination with PCP and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Groundwater in the area is shallow and flows north to northwest, discharging into Rocky
Creek. The State found quantities of PCP in a tributary to Rocky Creek in 1978. Access to the site
is restricted by a barbed-wire fence and warning signs. The facility is bordered on the north and
west by residential and industrial areas. Agricultural and residential areas lie to the south and east.
The nearest home is less than 1/2 mile from the site. About 1,250 people live within 3 miles of the
site and use groundwater as a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater on site is contaminated with PCP, PAHs, and dioxins. Site soils
contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, and
styrene. Surface water on the site contains PCP. Ditches and trenches on the site
contained various forms of dioxins and organic compounds. Accidental ingestion
or direct contact with contaminated groundwater, soil, and surface water are
potential health risks. Surface water runoff from contaminated areas on the site
could potentially harm Rocky Creek.
29
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: After its 1978 investigation, the State ordered Idaho Pole to
eliminate discharges to Rocky Creek and to stop disposing of waste in areas where it was
likely to pollute State waters. The company built an intercepter trench along a portion of
the property line to halt some of the PCP migration through the groundwater. In 1983, the EPA and
the State sampled the trench and found that PCP was moving away from the plant. Under orders
from the State Water Quality Bureau, Idaho Pole installed and is sampling 15 monitoring wells at
the site. Sludges produced in vats are drummed and transported to a licensed hazardous waste
disposal site. The intercepter trench and absorbent pad system recover oily liquids from the
groundwater prior to its leaving the site.
Entire Site: The State began an intensive study of soil and water pollution in mid-1990.
This investigation will determine the nature and extent of contamination problems at the
site and will recommend the best strategies for final cleanup. It is scheduled for
completion in late 1991.
Site Facts: In 1978, the State issued a Compliance Order requiring Idaho Pole to take measures to
eliminate discharges into Rocky Creek and to prevent the future disposal of waste in locations where
it was likely to migrate into State waters.
Environmental Progress
The installation of the intercepter trench and disposal of PCB-contaminated sludges have
successfully reduced the migration of wastes through the groundwater at the Idaho Pole Company
site while the investigation leading to the final cleanup remedies is being completed.
April 1991 30 IDAHO POLE COMPANY
-------
LIBBY GROUND
WATER
CONTAMINAT
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD980502736
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Lincoln County
Libby
Other Names:
Libby Pesticides
Champion Mill
Site Description
The Libby Ground Water Contamination site is located on the grounds of the Champion
International Corporation lumber and plywood mill in Libby. Between 1946 and 1969, wood
treating fluids were disposed of and spilled at several different locations on the mill property.
Wastewater and tank bottom sludges from the wood treating fluid tanks periodically were removed
and hauled to waste pits. In 1979, shortly after private wells were installed, some area homeowners
smelled a creosote odor in their water. The EPA sampled the groundwater and soil and found it to be
contaminated. The contaminated soil is within the confines of the facility; however, groundwater
contamination extends into the city of Libby. The city of Libby and the surrounding areas have a
population of approximately 11,000. The site is bordered by Rower Creek, Libby Creek, and the
Kootenai River.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP) and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in addition to heavy metals. Soils are
contaminated with PCP, PAHs, and, to a lesser extent, dioxins. People who touch
or accidentally ingest the soil or water from private wells may be exposed to
contamination. If the contaminant plume reaches the Kootenai River or Flower
and Libby Creeks, the wildlife in the area may be harmed by the pollutants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater, and cleanup of the soil, lower aquifer, and source control.
31
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1985, Champion began a water distribution plan under which residents
with contaminated groundwater wells agreed to cease using their wells and to use water
from the public water system operated by the city of Libby instead. The source of the
public water supply is uncontaminated water from a reservoir upstream of Flower Creek. Champion
provided monetary compensation to the well owners to pay for the metered water. The company
also sealed and locked the previously operating wells. The program will be terminated upon the
elimination of the threat of contamination or if other alternatives become available.
Groundwater: In 1986, the EPA selected a remedy to reduce human exposure to
groundwater contamination by continuing and expanding the water distribution plan
sponsored by Champion. The remedy also called for the enactment of an ordinance that
prohibits the installation of new wells for drinking water or irrigation, but allows well installation for
use in closed systems. Champion completed all actions selected in the remedy in late 1986.
Soil, Lower Aquifer, and Source Control: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to
clean up the soil and to contain the source of the contamination by the following methods:
(1) excavating and consolidating 45,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris in
the waste pit area, treating it by an enhanced natural chemical breakdown process using
microorganisms, and disposing of it in two lined treatment cells that will be capped; (2) collecting
highly contaminated groundwater in the upper aquifer system and treating it by bioremediation using
microorganisms; (3) treating the remaining contamination by adding oxygen and nutrients to the
groundwater through injection wells; (4) initiating pilot tests and studies to evaluate technologies that
may be used to clean up the lower aquifer; and (5) monitoring the site for five years to ensure the
cleanup has been effective. Champion, under EPA monitoring, has excavated the contaminated soil,
and placed it in lined waste pits for treatment as part of a full-scale demonstration project. In
addition, the company is designing the technical specifications for the treatment of the soil and
aquifer. The design phase is expected to be completed in 1991. Pilot tests on bioremediation of
groundwater and soils treatment in a land treatment demonstration unit are ongoing. A pilot test to
determine the feasibility of bioremediation treatment of the lower aquifer has been approved by the
EPA. Once the test is completed, the EPA will evaluate the use of this technology in addressing
contamination of the lower aquifer and will select a cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: In 1983, the St. Regis Corporation and the EPA signed an Administrative Order on
Consent for the company to study contamination at the site. Champion International purchased the
St. Regis Corporation in 1985 and has taken over its obligations to the Order.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply and capping of the contaminated private wells have
eliminated contaminated drinking water sources and the potential for exposure to hazardous
substances at the Libby Ground Water Contamination site while excavation of contaminated soil and
other planned cleanup actions are taking place.
April 1991 32 LIBBY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
-------
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR
SEDIMENTS
MONTANA
EPA ID#MTD980717565
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Missoula County
Milltown
"",zf,y " ~r ft'
f f f t/ jf tt f i
^/fs,'S' 'J
-1
Site Description
The Milltown Reservoir Sediments site covers 800 acres in Milltown. In 1906, a hydroelectric dam
was constructed, forming a reservoir that trapped sediments from mining, milling, and smelting
operations in the Upper Clark Fork Valley. During the years since the construction, the reservoir
storage has been almost filled with approximately 120 million cubic feet of sediments. In 1981,
Milltown's four community water supply wells, serving 33 residences, were found to be
contaminated with arsenic and other heavy metals. Residents were advised not to use this water for
drinking or cooking and to use alternate supplies of water. Approximately 91 people live within 1/2
mile of the site. The nearest house is 100 meters away. The site is adjacent to the Milltown Dam,
where the Big Blackfoot River joins the Clark Fork River. The rivers are used for recreational
activities.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and sediments are contaminated with metals including arsenic and
manganese. The Clark Fork River and Milltown Reservoir contain elevated levels of
copper, arsenic, zinc, and cadmium. An alternate water supply has been provided, and
contaminated wells have been taken out of service; therefore, residents have little chance
of exposure to contaminants by drinking the water. People who swim or fish in the Clark
Fork River arm of the reservoir may be exposed to pollutants. Fish kills have been
reported downstream of the dam. Access to the site is unrestricted, and the potential
exists for direct contact with contaminated areas.
33
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: an initial action and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on the water supply, the sediment source control, and the Clark Fork River.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1983, volunteers using National Guard equipment began supplying
residences with door-to-door water service on a biweekly basis.
Water supply: In 1984, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the Milltown water
supply by constructing a new well from a separate aquifer; constructing a new
distribution system; flushing the plumbing system of each house to remove contaminants
from the water system and plumbing; and testing the water quality to ensure standards have been
met. In 1985, the EPA added a supplemental remedy, which included replacement of household
water supply equipment that remained a source of contamination and continued sampling of
individual residences to ensure the sources of contamination had been removed. The State
completed the new water supply system and the installation of household water equipment in 1985.
Reservoir Sediment Source Control: The potentially responsible party, under EPA
monitoring, is studying the extent of the sediment contamination at the site. The study is
expected to be completed in 1994. The EPA also is conducting a separate endangerment
assessment in consultation with an advisory committee, which includes representatives from the
public and the potentially responsible parties.
Clark Fork River: An investigation into the nature and extent of contamination of the
Clark Fork River with respect to the transport of sediment from the reservoir and other
water quality problems is scheduled to begin in 1993.
Site Facts: The EPA and a potentially responsible party signed an Administrative Order on
Consent, under which the party agreed to study the extent of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
The construction of new water supply wells and the replacement of household water supply
equipment have provided a safe drinking water supply to affected residents, significantly reducing
the potential health threats from contaminated groundwater while investigations leading to cleanup
of the sources of contamination continue at the Milltown Reservoir Sediments site.
April 1991 34 MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS
-------
MONTANA POLE AND
TREATING
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD006230635
Site Description
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Silver Bow County
Butte
The Montana Pole and Treating site is an abandoned 40-acre wood treatment facility in Butte. From
1946 to 1983, the facility preserved utility poles, posts, and bridge timbers with pentachlorophenol
(PCP). Hazardous substances from the pole-treating operations were discharged into a ditch
adjacent to the plant that ran towards Silver Bow Creek. On site are five pole barns containing
approximately 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. About 10,000 gallons of waste oil have
been treated for dioxin and are stored on site. Tanks, vats, pipes, and equipment were cut up and
stored in the pole barns. There are forty 55-gallon drums of PCP-contaminated sludges on site.
Montana Pole is in a residential/industrial area. The nearest residence is 100 yards from the site.
The nearest private well is 1/5 mile downgradient from the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
II
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with PCPs, dioxins, furans, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and metals. The sludge also is contaminated with PCPs, dioxins,
and furans, and PCP has been detected in Silver Bow Creek. Accidental ingestion and
direct contact with groundwater, surface water, soil, and sludge pose hazards to human
health. Contaminants may enter the air naturally or during cleanup operations,
presenting another potential source of exposure to contaminants.
35
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA completed a cleanup action in late 1988 to halt the
seepage of PCP and diesel oil into Silver Bow Creek. Contaminated soils were excavated
and stored on site. The site has been fenced, and monitoring wells and oil recovery
trenches were installed. A temporary groundwater treatment system was put into operation to
separate PCP-contaminated oil from the groundwater. The treated water is pumped upgradient to
infiltration galleries. The State is overseeing the continued interception of the waste oil. In early
1991, the EPA conducted a cleanup of oil-contaminated soil, following the release of 3,000 gallons
of contaminated oil from a holding tank.
Entire Site: A potentially responsible party is conducting an investigation to determine
the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation is expected to be
completed in 1992, at which time the EPA will select a cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: In January 1990, Special Notice Letters were sent to three potentially responsible
parties. A Consent Order to conduct an investigation of site contamination was negotiated with the
Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
Environmental Progress
The EPA has taken measures to prevent further contamination of Silver Bow Creek, and additional
actions were taken to remove the immediate sources of soil contamination, to treat groundwater, and
to restrict access to the site. These actions have greatly reduced the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances while site investigations are conducted to determine permanant cleanup
remedies for the Montana Pole and Treating facility.
April 1991 36 MONTANA POLE AND TREATING
-------
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
MONTANA
EPA ID#MTD021997689
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Stillwater County
Columbus
Site Description
Mouat Industries processed chromium ore into high-grade sodium dichromate in the late 1950s and
early 1960s on this site in the city of Columbus. The process produced wastes containing hexavalent
chromium and sodium dichromate. In 1973, the Anaconda Minerals Company removed a waste pile
and treated the area to remove hexavalent chromium remaining in the soil. In early 1975, gravel was
imported and placed on the site from a depth of 6 inches to 3 feet. By late 1976, yellow mineral
deposits containing chromium were evident on top of the ground. Currently, the property is
occupied by a company using resorcinal-phenol glues in the manufacturing of laminated wood
products. Waste from washing the manufacturing equipment is run through 2 septic tanks. The
remaining liquid is pumped to an outdoor waste storage pit and later spread on the adjacent land to
the east of the on-site building. The site has been fenced to restrict access. The Yellowstone River
and a public golf course are located south of the site. Migration of contaminants from the Mouat site
has contaminated the river and ponds on the golf course. Approximately 300 people reside within
the vicinity of the site. Private wells are in use within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and Municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface waters, soil, and sediment are contaminated with chromium.
Direct contact and accidental ingestion of contaminated soil, groundwater, and sediments
are a potential health risk; however, private wells are not contaminated. Hay is grown
and livestock is raised in the vicinity of the site. Bioaccumulation of contaminants in
livestock and commercial agricultural products increases the potential health threat from
this site.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial action
focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, the EPA erected a chain-link fence around a waste
pile. At the request of the EPA, the City of Columbus redirected an existing drainage
ditch that channeled runoff directly onto contaminated soils at the site. Monitoring
wells that were drilled in the 1970s were capped.
Entire Site: The EPA plans to begin an investigation in 1993 to determine the nature
and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup. Completion of the
investigation is expected in 1995.
Environmental Progress
Early actions to restrict access to the site by erecting a fence and diverting runoff have reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous substances from the site. The EPA is evaluating the site to
determine if additional actions are warranted to protect public health and the environment while site
investigations and cleanup activities are being planned.
April 1991
38
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
-------
SILVER BOW CREEK/
BUTTE AREl
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD980502777
EPA REGION 8
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Silver Bow County
Butte
Other Names:
Clark Fork Site
Butte Site
Site Description
The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area site begins above Butte, near the Continental Divide, and extends
westward along Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork River to the Milltown Reservoir. The site
covers about 140 miles of stream and riparian habitat. Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork River
were used as a conduit for mining, smelting, industrial, and municipal wastes for over 100 years.
Vast mine tailings deposits are found along the creek and river. These deposits have been dispersed
over the entire flood plain and contain elevated levels of metals. The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area
site is one of four contamination areas, known as the "Clark-Fork Sites" that include the Milltown
Reservoir, Anaconda Company Smelter, and Montana Pole & Treating as separate sites on the
National Priorities List.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Wind-blown air particles, groundwater, and soil are contaminated with metals
including copper, iron, and lead. Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork River
contain metals from Butte to Milltown. The tailings dispersed along the creek and
river severely limit aquatic life forms and have caused fish kills in the river.
Potential health threats include direct contact and accidental ingestion of
contaminated soil and groundwater and inhalation of contaminated air particles.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in nine stages: immediate actions and eight long-term remedial
phases focusing on the West Camp/Travona Shaft Area; Warm Springs Ponds; Butte Priority
Soils; Berkeley Pit; Rocker Timber Framing and Treating; Streamside Tailings; Lower Area I;
and Butte Soils.
39
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In Walkerville, the EPA excavated and stabilized
approximately 300,000 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil from mine waste dumps
in 1988. Contaminated soil was removed from 4 earthen basements and 23 residential
yards. Concrete basements were constructed, and 18 inches of clean fill and sod were placed in
the residential yards. In Timber Butte, approximately 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil
were moved to a temporary on-site repository in 1989. Contaminated soil was removed from
two residential yards. Clean soil was placed on the excavated areas and revegetated. ARCO
removed highly contaminated materials in the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area, under
State supervision. Arsenic wood treating wastes and contaminated soils and wood chips were
hauled to a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. Equipment and debris were consolidated
on the site and buried. Major areas of the site were covered with topsoil and seeded. In 1990,
approximately 100,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed from 24 waste dumps
and seven residential yards in Butte and Walkerville.
West Camp/Travona Shaft Area: In 1989, under EPA monitoring, the potentially
responsible parties addressed rising mine waters in the West Camp/Travona Shaft area
by constructing a pumping and piping system to the sewer line on Iron Street.
Approximately 200 gallons per minute of mine water have been pumped to the Metro Plant since
January 1990. Pumping was discontinued in May 1990 because the level was brought down
below the desired control elevation. Pumping will be initiated as necessary to keep the level
below the control level.
Warm Springs Ponds: The three Warm Springs Ponds cover 2,400 acres at the
confluence of Silver Bow, Mill, Willow, and Warm Springs Creeks. The ponds were
constructed by the Anaconda Company between 1911 and 1959 in an attempt to trap
tailings before entering the Clark Fork River, which begins immediately below the ponds. An
investigation of the ponds was completed in 1989. Public comments were extensive and led to a
decision to expedite certain cleanup plans in 1990 in a portion of the area, the Mill-Willow
Bypass. The bypass contains approximately 200,000 cubic yards of tailings and contaminated
soils that are a principal cause of fish kills. The ponds contain 19 million cubic yards of tailings
and contaminated soils. The selected remedy to clean up the three Warm Springs Ponds includes
removing the Mill-Willow Bypass tailings and placing them on top of tailings in the berms of
pond 3; reinforcing all ponds and upgrading their treatment capabilities; dewatering pond 1 and
covering it with a cap and vegetation; wet-closing pond 2; and enlarging pond 3 to handle a 100-
year flood. Grouridwater interception trenches will be installed to divert groundwater to pond 3
for treatment. Design of the selected remedy is expected to begin in 1992.
Butte Priority Soils: The Butte area has been divided into 36 high priority soil
areas that will be dealt with in two stages. The first stage will address "source areas"
(mine waste dumps, railroad beds, or other related mines wastes) in or adjacent to the
36 high priority soil areas. The first cleanup stage will address "receptor areas" (residential
yards, gardens, parks, and playgrounds) in the 36 priority soil areas and the remaining "source
areas" not addressed by the emergency action. Field work is expected to begin in 1992.
Approximately 5.5 million cubic yards of contaminated mine waste will be removed or stabilized
in-place throughout the cleanup. The second stage will consist of an investigation that will
assess the actions already taken, all other areas of contamination, storm runoff, and future land
use problems in Butte and Walkerville. The EPA is preparing a draft investigation plan.
April 1991 40 SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA
-------
Berkeley Pit: The EPA and the State are concerned about the rising water in the pit
because contaminated mine water may eventually migrate into the shallow aquifer and
Silver Bow Creek. The EPA has prepared three reports concerning the Berkeley Pit
flooding and has forwarded these reports to the State and the potentially responsible parties. The
potentially responsible parties are investigating the nature and extent of contamination in the pit.
The EPA also has developed a plan to study the mine flooding problem and is presently
receiving public comment on it. The study is expected to be completed in 1994.
Rocker Timber Framing and Treating: The EPA has received a proposed work
plan from ARCO to investigate the contamination in the Rocker Timber Framing and
Treating area. Issues remaining to be resolved are: contaminated groundwater,
streamside tailings, waste rock railroad ballast, remaining soil contamination, and a possible
buried storage tank. Development of investigation plans will continue through 1991.
Streamside Tailings: The vast tailings deposits found on the banks of Silver Bow
Creek and Warm Springs Ponds are toxic to plant life. The State is evaluating an
alternative to determine if revegetation can stop the leaching of contaminants into the
soil and groundwater and reduce wind-blown contaminants and sediments. This investigation
will continue until 1992.
Lower Area I and Butte Soils: The EPA is planning a cleanup action for the
Lower Area I and the lesser contaminated Butte soils. Investigations to determine
remedy alternatives for this phase of the site cleanup are expected to be completed in
1994.
Site Facts: Several potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on Consent
to conduct a portion of the work for the Berkeley Pit flooding; the remaining parties were issued
a Unilateral Order to perform the remaining tasks. The State issued a Unilateral Order, requiring
ARCO to remove highly contaminated materials in the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating
area. In 1989, the EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to the potentially responsible
parties to either discharge the West Camp water to the Butte Metro Plant, meeting all pre-
treatment requirements, or to construct a treatment facility, meeting classification discharges for
toxic metals and drinking water standards for arsenic.
Environmental Progress
Numerous cleanup actions have been completed at the Silver Bow site, including the excavation
of contaminated soil in Walkerville and Timber Butte, the construction and implementation of a
pumping and piping system in the West Camp/Travona Shaft area, and the removal of
contaminated soil in the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area. These actions have reduced
the potential health threats to the surrounding communities; however, the EPA has determined
that high concentrations of metal in soils and drainage from the smelter still pose risks. An
additional interim cleanup action is planned to consolidate and cap these soils while further
cleanup actions are underway at the site.
SILVER BOW CREEK/BUTTE AREA 41 April 1991
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
43
-------
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.
45
-------
GLOSSARY.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring pro-
cess by which a compound is reduced in
concentration over time through adsorption,
degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in remov-
ing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive
in chemical reactions. When bases are mixed
with acids, they neutralize each other, form-
ing salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth
used to prevent the migration of contami-
nants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as
they breathe contaminated air, drink contami-
nated water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria or
other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide
and water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on moisture from the air for their water
source, are usually acidic, and are rich in plant
residue [see Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-
water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use
elsewhere.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from
groundwater and surface water by forcing
water through tanks containing activated
carbon, a specially treated material that
attracts and holds or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and or-
ganic properties, which increase cleaning
efficiency. However, these properties also
cause chemical reactions that increase the
hazard to human health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion],
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series
of holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liabil-
ity Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitor-
ing, and analysis of a site to determine the
46
-------
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.
47
-------
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
downgradient 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.
48
-------
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
49
-------
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,
50
-------
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
51
-------
GLOSSARY.
which groundwater flows and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The EPA's
list of the most serious uncontrolled or aban-
doned hazardous waste sites identified for
possible long-term cleanup under Superfund.
The EPA is required to update the NPL at
least once a year.
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Naphthalene, pyrene,
and trichlorobenzene are examples of
neutrals.
Nitroaromatics: Common components of
explosive materials, which will explode if
activated by very high temperatures or pres-
sures; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) is a
nitroaromatic.
Notice Letter: A General Notice Letter
notifies the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination of their possible liability.
A Special Notice Letter begins a 60-day
formal period of negotiation during which the
EPA is not allowed to start work at a site or
initiate enforcement actions against poten-
tially responsible parties, although the EPA
may undertake certain investigatory and
planning activities. The 60-day period may
be extended if the EPA receives a good faith
offer within that period.
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC): The
predesignated EPA, Coast Guard, or Depart-
ment of Defense official who coordinates and
directs Superfund removal actions or Clean
Water Act oil- or hazardous-spill corrective
actions.
Operation and Maintenance: Activities
conducted at a site after a cleanup action is
completed to ensure that the cleanup or
containment system is functioning properly.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Chemical
substances containing mainly carbon, hydro-
gen, and oxygen.
Outfall: The place where wastewater is
discharged into receiving waters.
Overpacking: Process used for isolating
large volumes of waste by jacketing or encap-
sulating waste to prevent further spread or
leakage of contaminating materials. Leaking
drums may be contained within oversized
barrels as an interim measure prior to removal
and final disposal.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic,
modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites
and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Perched (groundwater): Groundwater
separated from another underlying body of
groundwater by a confining layer, often clay
or rock.
Percolation: The downward flow or filtering
of water or other liquids through subsurface
rock or soil layers, usually continuing down-
ward to groundwater.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery opera-
tions and as fuel oil residues. These include
fluoranthene, chrysene, mineral spirits, and
refined oils. Petrochemicals are the bases
from which volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), plastics, and many pesticides are
made. These chemical substances often are
toxic to humans and the environment.
Phenols: Organic compounds that are used
in plastics manufacturing and are by-products
of petroleum refining, tanning, textile, dye,
and resin manufacturing. Phenols are highly
poisonous.
52
-------
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.
Poiycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant. Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds that are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a
Superfund 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.
53
-------
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
54
-------
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.
V
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
55
-------
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
56
-------
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. Wedands 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.
57
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Montana
59
-------
59635
tf)
?!ซ
ป*r
*.a
eg
ง
ซ ซ a H
.2 i a I
C -5 .52 ฃ
o
'M
o
CC
2
ซ5
5
V)
ฃ
I
CQ
>
CO
a
CQ
o ง
ปr e.
a
O i
a
f
* U.S. G.P.O.:1992-311-893:60437
61
------- |