&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/8-91/060
September 1991
PB92-963244
National
Priorities
List Sites:
WASHINGTON
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-746A
September 1991
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Washington
0 S Environmental Protection Age
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Bouievarj, iiui
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
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 Washington 17
The NPL Report:
Progress to Date 19
The NPL Fact Sheets:
Summary of Site Activities 23
Appendix A: Glossary:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets 125
Appendix B: Repositories of
Site Information 141
-------
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
;ss
-------
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 this three-step process.
during cleanup, work can be led by the EPA
or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible
for site contamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evalu-
ation of threat, and the long-term cleanup of
Superfund sites is summarized in the follow-
ing pages. The phases of each of these steps
are highlighted within the description. The
flow diagram above provides a summary of the
three-step process.
Although this book provides a current "snap-
shot" of site progress made only by emergency
actions and long-term cleanup actions at
Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads
to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
-------
SUPERFUND.
waste sites in the Nation. The discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this
summary description of Superfund involve-
ment at hazardous waste sites.
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND
EMERGENCY EVALUATION
How does the EPA learn about
potential hazardous waste sites?
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways.
Information comes from concerned citizens.
People may notice an odd taste or foul odor in
their drinking water or see half-buried leaking
barrels; a hunter may come across a field
where waste was dumped illegally. There may
be an explosion or fire, which alerts the State
or local authorities to a problem. Routine
investigations by State and local governments
and required reporting and inspection of
facilities that generate, treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste also help keep the EPA
informed about actual or potential threats of
hazardous substance releases. All reported
sites or spills are recorded in the Superfund
inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens if there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is
reported, the EPA determines whether there is
an emergency requiring an immediate cleanup
action. If there is, they act as quickly as
possible to remove or stabilize the imminent
threat. These short-term emergency actions
range from building a fence around the con-
taminated area to keep people away, or tempo-
rarily relocating residents until the danger is
addressed, to providing bottled water to resi-
dents while their local drinking water supply is
being cleaned up or physically removing
wastes for safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at
any time an imminent threat or emergency
warrants them. For example, if leaking barrels
are found when cleanup crews start digging in
the ground or if samples of contaminated soils
or air show that there may be a threat of fire or
explosion, an immediate action is taken.
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
If there isn't an imminent danger, how
does the EPA determine what, if any,
cleanup actions should be taken?
Even after any imminent dangers are taken
care of, in most cases, contamination may
remain at the site. For example, residents may
have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contami-
nated well water, but now it's time to deter-
mine what is contaminating the drinking water
supply and the best way to clean it up. The
EPA may determine that there is no imminent
danger from a site, so any long-term threats
need to be evaluated. In either case, a more
comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious, but not
imminent, danger and whether it requires a
long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed
emergency actions are taken, the EPA or the
State collects all available background infor-
mation not only from their own files, but also
from local records and U.S. Geological Survey
maps. This information is used to identify the
site and to perform a preliminary assessment of
its potential hazards. This is a quick review of
readily available information to answer the
questions:
• Are hazardous substances likely to be
present?
-------
SUPERFUND
• How are they contained?
• How might contaminants spread?
• How close is the nearest well, home, or
natural resource area such as a wetland
or animal sanctuary?
• What may be harmed — the land,
water, air, people, plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action be-
cause the preliminary assessment shows that
they do not threaten public health or the envi-
ronment. But even in these cases, the sites
remain listed in the Superfund inventory for
record-keeping purposes and future reference.
Currently, there are more than 35,000 sites
maintained in this inventory.
If the preliminary assessment
shows a serious threat may exist,
what's the next step?
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional
information to evaluate its hazard potential.
During this site inspection, they look for
evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking
drums and dead or discolored vegetation.
They may take some samples of soil, well
water, river water, and air. Inspectors analyze
the ways hazardous materials could be pollut-
ing the environment, such as runoff into
nearby streams. They also check to see if
people (especially children) have access to
the site.
How does the EPA use the results of
the site inspection?
Information collected during the site inspection
is used to identify the sites posing the most
serious threats to human health and the envi-
ronment. This way, the EPA can meet the
requirement that Congress gave them to use
Superfund monies only on the worst hazardous
waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, the EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).
The HRS is the scoring system the EPA uses to
assess the relative threat from a release or a
potential release of hazardous substances from
a site to surrounding groundwater, surface
water, air, and soil. A site score is based on
the likelihood that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxicity and
amount of hazardous substances at the site, and
the people and sensitive environments poten-
tially affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and envi-
ronmental risk scores are proposed to be added
to the NPL. That's why 1,245 sites are on the
NPL, but there are more than 35,000 sites in
the Superfund inventory. Only NPL sites can
have a long-term cleanup paid for from
Superfund, the national hazardous waste trust
fund. Superfund can, and does, pay for emer-
gency actions performed at any site, whether
or not it's on the NPL.
Why are sites proposed to the NPL?
Sites proposed to the NPL have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious
problems among uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. In addition, a
site will be proposed to the NPL if the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
issues a health advisory recommending that
people be moved away from the site. The NPL
is updated at least once a year, and it's only
after public comments are considered that
these proposed worst sites officially are added
to the list.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in
which sites will be cleaned up. The order is
influenced by the relative priority of the site's
health and environmental threats compared to
other sites, and such factors as State priorities,
engineering capabilities, and available tech-
-------
SUPERFUND
nologies. Many States also have their own list
of sites that require cleanup; these often contain
sites that are not on the NPL and are scheduled
to be cleaned up with State money. And, it
should be noted again that any emergency
action needed at a site can be performed by the
Superfund, whether or not a site is on the NPL.
A detailed description of the current progress in
cleaning up NPL sites is found in the section of
the 1991 National overview volume entitled
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress.
How do people find out whether the
EPA considers a site a national
priority for cleanup under the
Superfund Program?
All NPL sites, where Superfund is responsible
for cleanup, are described in the State and
Territorial volumes. The public also can find
out whether other sites, not on the NPL, are
being addressed by the Superfund program by
calling their Regional EPA office or the Super-
fund Hotline at the numbers listed in this book.
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP
ACTIONS
After a site is added to the NPL, what
are the steps to cleanup?
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on
the NPL is a permanent, long-term cleanup.
Since every site presents a unique set of chal-
lenges, there is no single all-purpose solution.
A five-phase "remedial response" process is
used to develop consistent and workable
solutions to hazardous waste problems across
the Nation:
1. Remedial Investigation: investigate in
detail the extent of the site contamination
2. Feasibility Study: study the range of
possible cleanup remedies
3. Record of Decision or ROD: decide
which remedy to use
4. Remedial Design: plan the remedy
5. Remedial Action: carry out the remedy
This remedial response process is a long-term
effort to provide a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that presents a serious
threat to the public or environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are
a combined remedial investigation and feasibil-
ity study (RI/FS) that determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and identify
and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These
studies may be conducted by the EPA or the
State or, under their monitoring, by private
parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier,
a remedial investigation involves an examina-
tion of site data in order to better define the
problem. However, the remedial investigation
is much more detailed and comprehensive than
the initial site inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described
as a carefully designed field study. It includes
extensive sampling and laboratory analyses to
generate more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes present at the site, the type
of soil and water drainage patterns, and specific
human health and environmental risks.
The result of the remedial investigation is
information that allows the EPA to select the
cleanup strategy that is best suited to a particu-
lar site or to determine that no cleanup is
needed.
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily
mean that cleanup is needed. It is possible for
-------
SUPERFUND
a site to receive an HRS score high enough to
be added to the NPL, but not ultimately require
cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose
of the scoring process is to provide a prelimi-
nary and conservative assessment of potential
risk. During subsequent site investigations, the
EPA may find either that there is no real threat
or that the site does not pose significant human
health or environmental risks.
How are cleanup alternatives
identified and evaluated?
The EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, private parties identify and analyze spe-
cific site cleanup needs based on the extensive
information collected during the remedial
investigation. This analysis of cleanup alterna-
tives is called & feasibility study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly
to the needs of each individual site, more than
one possible cleanup alternative is always
considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health
and the environment and comply with Federal
and State laws, the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each cleanup alternative are compared
carefully. These comparisons are made to
determine their effectiveness in the short and
long term, their use of permanent treatment
solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the rem-
edy must be a permanent solution and must use
treatment technologies to destroy principal site
contaminants. Remedies such as containing the
waste on site or removing the source of the
problem (like leaking barrels) often are consid-
ered effective. Often, special pilot studies are
conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to
clean up a site. Therefore, the combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study can
take between 10 and 30 months to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the
problem.
Does the public have a say in the
final cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed cleanup plan. Their concerns are
considered carefully before a final decision is
made.
The results of the remedial investigation and
feasibility study, which also point out the
recommended cleanup choice, are published in
a report for public review and comment. The
EPA or the State encourages the public to
review the information and take an active role
in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets and
announcements in local papers let the commu-
nity know where they can get copies of the
study and other reference documents concern-
ing the site. Local information repositories,
such as libraries or other public buildings, are
established in cities and towns near each NPL
site to ensure that the public has an opportunity
to review all relevant information and the
proposed cleanup plans. Locations of informa-
tion repositories for each NPL site described in
this volume are given in Appendix B.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to
comment on the proposed cleanup plan after it
is published. These comments can be written
or given verbally at public meetings that the
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither
the EPA nor the State can select the final
cleanup remedy without evaluating and provid-
ing written answers to specific community
comments and concerns. This "responsiveness
summary" is part of the EPA's write-up of the
final remedy decision, called the Record of
Decision, or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains
the cleanup remedy chosen and the reason it
-------
SUPERFUND.
was selected. Since sites frequently are large
and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD may
be necessary for each contaminated resource or
area of the site. This may be necessary when
contaminants have spread into the soil, water,
and air and affect such sensitive areas as
wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned
up in stages. This often means that a number
of remedies, using different cleanup technolo-
gies, are needed to clean up a single site.
If every cleanup action needs to be
tailored to a site, does the design
ofthe remedy need to be tailored,
too?
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried
out, it must be designed in detail to meet
specific site needs. This stage of the cleanup is
called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected rem-
edy will be engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may
appear to be like any other major construction
project but, in fact, the likely presence of
combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures.
Therefore, the design of the remedy can take
anywhere from six months to two years to
complete. This blueprint for site cleanup
includes not only the details on every aspect of
the construction work, but a description of the
types of hazardous wastes expected at the site,
special plans for environmental protection,
worker safety, regulatory compliance, and
equipment decontamination.
Once the design is completed,
how long does it take to actually
clean up the site, and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site
cleanup, called the remedial action, are as
varied as the remedies themselves. In a few
cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and to decontami-
nate them, an action that takes limited time and
money. In most cases, however, a remedial
action may involve different and expensive
cleanup measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or
dredging contaminated river bottoms can take
several years of complex engineering work
before contamination is reduced to safe levels.
Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy de-
scribed in the ROD may need to be modified
because of new contaminant information
discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into
account these differences, each remedial
cleanup action takes an average of 18 months
to complete and ultimately costs an average of
$26 million to complete all necessary cleanup
actions at a site.
Once the cleanup action is
completed, is the site
automatically "deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is
anything but automatic. For example, cleanup
of contaminated groundwater may take up to
20 years or longer. Also, in some cases, long-
term monitoring of the remedy is required to
ensure that it is effective. After construction of
certain remedies, operation and maintenance
(e.g., maintenance of ground cover, groundwa-
ter monitoring, etc.), or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater may be required to
ensure that the remedy continues to prevent
future health hazards or environmental damage
and ultimately meets the cleanup goals speci-
fied in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring
or operational stage of the cleanup process are
designated as "construction complete."
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals
and monitoring requirements of the selected
10
-------
SUPERFUND
remedy that the EPA can officially propose the
site for deletion from the NPL, and it's not
until public comments are taken into consid-
eration that a site actually can be deleted from
the NPL. All sites deleted from the NPL and
sites with completed construction are included
in the progress report found later in this book.
Can a site be taken off the NPL if
no cleanup has taken place?
Yes. But only if further site investigation
reveals that there are no threats present at the
site and that cleanup activities are not neces-
sary. In these cases, the EPA will select a "no
action" remedy and may move to delete the
site when monitoring confirms that the site
does not pose a threat to human health or the
environment.
In other cases, sites may be "removed" from
the NPL if new information concerning site
cleanup or threats show that the site does not
warrant Superfund activities.
A site may be removed if a revised HRS
scoring, based on updated information, results
in a score below the minimum for NPL sites.
A site also may be removed from the NPL by
transferring it to other appropriate Federal
cleanup authorities, such as RCRA, for further
cleanup actions.
Removing sites for technical reasons or trans-
ferring sites to other cleanup programs pre-
serves Superfund monies for the Nation's most
pressing hazardous waste problems where no
other cleanup authority is applicable.
Can the EPA make parties
responsible for the contamination
pay?
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters
should pay," after a site is placed on the NPL,
the EPA makes a thorough effort to identify
and find those responsible for causing con-
tamination problems at a site. Although the
EPA is willing to negotiate with these private
parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it
has the authority under the Superfund law to
legally force those potentially responsible for
site hazards to take specific cleanup actions.
All work performed by these parties is closely
guided and monitored by the EPA and must
meet the same standards required for actions
financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be
lengthy, the EPA may decide to use Superfund
monies to make sure a site is cleaned up
without unnecessary delay. For example, if a
site presents an imminent threat to public
health and the environment or if conditions at a
site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for
causing site contamination are liable under the
law (CERCLA) for repaying the money the
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, the EPA and the Depart-
ment of Justice use their legal enforcement
authorities to require responsible parties to pay
for site cleanups, thereby preserving Superfund
resources for emergency actions and for sites
where no responsible parties can be identified.
11
-------
THE VOLUME
The site fact sheets presented in this
book are comprehensive summaries
that cover a broad range of information.
The fact sheets describe hazardous
waste sites on the NPL and their locations, as
well as the conditions leading to their listing
("Site Description"). The summaries list the
types of contaminants that have been discov-
ered and related threats to public and ecologi-
cal health ("Threats and Contaminants").
"Cleanup Approach" presents an overview of
the cleanup activities completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets conclude with a brief
synopsis of how much progress has been made
in protecting public health and the environ-
ment. The summaries also pinpoint other
actions, such as legal efforts to involve pollut-
ers responsible for site contamination and
community concerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
HOW CAN YOU USE THIS STATE
BOOK?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
How to Use
the State
Book
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to
know what the community can realistically
expect once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
13
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Dates when the site was
Proposed, made Final, and
Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially respon-
sible parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
^Sttetoscription
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DIST XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Other Name*:
Site Responsibility: •
NPL Listing History
Proposed^
Float
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Site Facts:,
Environmental Progress
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to
nearby residents and the surrounding environment;
progress towards cleaning up the site and goals of
the cleanup plan are given here.
14
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, ground water, 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
Washington
The state of Washington is located within EPA Region 10, which includes the northwestern
continental United States and Alaska. The state covers 68,139 square miles consisting of the
Olympic Mountains on the northwest peninsula, open land along the Pacific coast, the flat terrain
of the Puget Sound Lowlands, the high peaks of the Cascade Mountains, highlands in the north-
east, and the Columbia River Basin in the central region. According to the 1990 Census, Wash-
ington experienced a 18% increase in population between 1980 and 1990 and currently has
approximately 4,807,000 residents, ranking 18th in U.S. populations. Principal state industries
include aerospace, forest products, food products, primary metals, agriculture, and commercial
fishing. Washington-manufactured goods include aircraft, pulp and paper, lumber and plywood,
aluminum, and processed fruits and vegetables.
How Many NPL Sites
Are in the State of Washington?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
0
45
A
46
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Congressional District 8
Congressional District 7
Congressional District 6
Congressional District 5
Congressional District 4
Congressional District 3
Congressional District 2
Congressional District 1
What Type of Sites are on the NPL
in the State of Washington?
# of sites
15
9
4
2
2
2
2
10
type of sites
Federal Facilities
Municipal & Industrial Landfills
Metals & Allied Products
Electronics & Electrical Equipment
Chemicals & Allied Products
Lumber & Wood
Electroplating
Other (Mixed industrial, recyclers, disposal
facility, mining, dry-cleaner, salvage yard,
petroleum refinery, and related industry)
4 sites
3 sites
7 sites
9 sites
9 sites
6 sites
4 sites
4 sites
17
April 1991
-------
NPL SITES
.48+
40--
32--
<824+
'35
J«4-
8 --
How are Sites Contaminated and What Are the Principal* Chemicals?
GW Soil Solid & Sad SW Air
Liquid
Waste*
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), heavy metals
(inorganics), radiation, and creosotes
(organics).
Soil, Solid and Liquid Waste:
Heavy metals (inorganics), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs), creosotes
(organics), petrochemicals, and dioxin.
Surface Water and Sediments:
Heavy metals (inorganics), creosotes
(organics), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and petrochemicals.
Air: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), gases, radiation, and heavy
metals (inorganics).
* Appear at 11% or more sites
Where are the Sites in the Superfund Cleanup Process?*
30
Sites
with |
Studies
Underway
2
Site
with
Remedy
Selected
3
Sites
with
Remedy
Design
7
Sites
with
Cleanup
Ongoing
Sites
with
Construction
Complete
In addition to activities described above, initial actions have been taken at 24 sites as interim
cleanup measures.
* Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
April 1991
18
-------
THE NPL REPORT
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status
of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by an arrow
(O) indicating the current stage of cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
• An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
• A final arrow in the "Site Studies"
category indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is ongoing.
• A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining
contamination will be naturally dispersed
without further cleanup activities, a "No
Progress
To Date
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the
arrows are discontinued at the "Remedy
Selection" step and resume in the
"Construction Complete" category.
• A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
• A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
• A final arrow in the "Construction
Complete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have been
performed, and the EPA has determined that no
additional construction actions are required at
the site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
• A check in the "Deleted" category indicates
that the site cleanup has met all human health
and environmental goals and that the EPA has
deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in this volume.
19
April! 991
-------
c
o
+-
TO
c
i
ftftft
ftftft
ftft ft ft ft
0)
**
03
4-»
CO
0)
ftftftftftft ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
ftft
ftftftftftftft ft
ft ft ft
0\ •* o
0)
CO
0.
z
4-»
(0
Q.
C
(0
O
•u
(0
I
(A
G>
O
Is
I
o
u
ix!
U
u
u
w
to
S
gogogogogogogogogogogogogogo
Si
o.
<
CO
^
3
u
5 % 8
# s> «:
a I i
en
ui
tu z
u 2
DC O
§2
Z to
g § ^
w
dggiiiiaBS
0 ffl
April 1991
20
-------
«
o
II
t
a g»
ii A
If*
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft
ft ftft
11 ftftftftftftftftftft ftft ftftftft ftftftft
ft ft
en t- « vo
« H ci 2 2 £s
Q «? r? ^ & ?r
o o o o o
•3
ftft ft ftftft ftftft
'3'3'3'a"a"3'3'3'3'3'3'3"3"3'3
.S .5 .S .5 .S .S .S .S .5 .S .S .5 .S .S .S
•3-3-3
&&&
<0
38SS8S2
00 OO OO
21
April 1991
-------
THE NPL FACT SHEETS
Summary
of Site
Activities
EPA REGION 10
23
April! 991
-------
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Washington, providing spe-
cific information on threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environ-
mental progress. Should you have questions, please call the EPA's Region 10
Office in Seattle, WA or one of the other offices listed below:
EPA Region 10 Superfund Community Relations Office (206) 553-2871
EPA Region 10 Superfund Office (206) 553-1090
EPA Superfund Hotline (800) 424-9346
EPA Headquarters Public Information Center (202) 260-2080
Washington Superfund Office (206) 438-3039
April 1991
24
-------
ALCOA (VANCOUVE
SMELTER)
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD009045279
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Clark County
Vancouver
Other Names:
Aluminum Company of America - Vancouver
Alcoa-Vancouver
Site Description
The Aluminum Co. of America (ALCOA) began operating a primary aluminum smelter in 1940 on
a 300-acre site adjacent to the Columbia River in Vancouver. In 1986, the Vancouver Aluminum
Company of America (VANALCO) purchased the smelter portion of the site. About 66,000 tons of
waste potlinings containing cyanide, fluoride, and heavy metals were piled on the ground from 1973
to 1980. ALCOA has been monitoring groundwater since 1979, and both ALCOA and the State
have found cyanide and fluoride in wells around the piles. One of the wells provides drinking water
and process water for the smelter. An estimated 50,000 people draw drinking water from public and
private wells within 3 miles of the site. Groundwater also is used to irrigate about 300 acres of
cropland.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with cyanide and fluoride. Additionally, the
soil contains reclaimed aluminum. Contaminated groundwater and soil could pose a
health hazard to individuals through direct contact or accidental ingestion. There is a
potential for the Columbia River to be polluted by contaminants present at the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
25
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1986, ALCOA began an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. In 1989, ALCOA completed a detailed sampling of the site to
characterize the potlining piles. A report summarizing the sample results was finished in
early 1990 and will be used to evaluate different cleanup alternatives and select a final remedy. In
mid-1991, this study is expected to be completed, and the state will select the most appropriate
cleanup alternatives.
Site Facts: An Administrative Order issued by the Washington Department of Ecology required
ALCOA to study the site.
Environmental Progress
After adding the ALCOA (Vancouver Smelter) site to the NPL, the EPA conducted an initial
evaluation and determined that no immediate actions are needed while the investigations are taking
place and cleanup actions are being planned.
April 1991 26 ALCOA (VANCOUVER SMELTER)
-------
AMERICAN
CROSSAR
CONDUIT C
WASHINGTON
EPAID#WAD057311094
Site Description —
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Lewis County
Chehalis
The American Crossarm & Conduit Company (Crossarm) site is located on 16 acres of land in
Chehalis. The site consists of a wood treatment facility, a factory, a cooling shed, drying kilns, and
an impoundment for surface runoff and wastewater. Crossarm began operations in 1948, primarily
as a treatment facility for utility pole crossarms. Originally, the crossarms were pressure-treated
with creosote. Later, the process used pentachlorophenol (PCP). Beginning in 1952, Crossarm
deposited solid waste on the property just south of the factory area. In 1983, wood treatment
activities ceased. During a flood in 1986, waters from the nearby Chehalis River flowed onto the
site and were contaminated with PCP and diesel fuel. Residential and commercial neighborhoods to
the north and the northeast were affected by the contamination transported by the flood. A fire in
1987 left some of the kilns exposed. Later, the site was operated as a salvage yard, storing cars and
other machinery in the old factory. The site now is unoccupied. A warehouse containing dry whey
is within 100 feet of the northern boundary of the site. Apartment buildings are located on part of
the property of the former wood treatment facility. There are approximately 200 homes located in
residential neighborhoods to the northeast and east of the facility. A softball field is adjacent to the
eastern boundary of the site. Approximately 500 feet away is Dillenbaugh Creek, which empties
into the Chehalis River less than a mile downstream from the site. A stormwater runoff lagoon,
contaminated by Crossarm activities, is a backwater associated with Dillenbaugh Creek.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, soil, and sediments are contaminated with PCP and creosote. Soil also
contains dioxins. Accidental ingestion of or direct contact with the contaminated
groundwater and soil could pose a health threat. Some concern has been expressed about
the possibility that fish in Dillensbaugh Creek may be affected by contaminants leaving
the site.
27
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA began incinerating materials stored on site in 1988.
Approximately 900 tons of material contaminated with PCP were incinerated by early
1989, using a mobile incinerator. The EPA also fenced portions of the site to restrict
access, due to the safety hazard presented by the structures on site and the potential for people to
come into contact with hazardous substances.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA began an investigation at the site to evaluate existing
contamination and the extent of the problem. The investigation will include a study of the
soil on and off the site, sediments in Dillenbaugh Creek, surface water, and groundwater.
The EPA expects to evaluate some of the private properties affected by contamination as a result of
the 1986 flood. Alternatives for cleanup of the site will be evaluated once the extent of the
contamination is clearly defined. The investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State issued an order, requiring the company to stop discharging
wastewater to the sewer, investigate all tanks and sumps, and install secondary containment around
all tanks and sumps.
Environmental Progress
The EPA's incineration of 900 tons of contaminated material and fencing of the site have reduced
the potential of direct contact with contaminants at the American Crossarm site while the
investigation continues and final cleanup remedies are being planned.
April 1991 28 AMERICAN CROSSARM & CONDUIT CO.
-------
AMERICAN LA
GARDENS
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980833065
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Pierce County
Tacoma
Other Names:
McChord AFB ATM "D"
The American Lake Gardens site occupies approximately 1/2 square mile in a semi-rural residential
community in Tacoma and is surrounded by McChord Air Force Base and Fort Lewis Military
Reservation. In 1983, a resident complained to the EPA about family health problems believed to
have been caused by drinking contaminated water. The EPA and the Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department sampled nearby drinking water wells and found high levels of metals and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). McChord Air Force Base is investigating the contamination that
resulted from Area D, which contains former landfills now covered by an on-base golf course.
American Lake Gardens is a residential area with a population of 3,000. There are two schools near
the site. Residences with private wells were connected to an alternate water supply as part of an
immediate action. Parts of McChord Air Force Base and Fort Lewis also are on the NPL.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
The shallow groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, including trichloroethylene (TCE),
and dichloroethylene. Contaminated shallow groundwater poses a health hazard to
individuals through direct contact or accidental ingestion. Base drinking water is not a
threat, as it is pumped from a deeper groundwater source. American Lake has the
potential to become polluted from the contaminants found on the site, but presently
shows no sign of contamination.
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.
29
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The EPA drilled and sampled eight monitoring wells in American
Lake Gardens and sampled three monitoring wells constructed by the Air Force on
adjacent property. The laboratory results showed contamination of the shallow
groundwater wells to be coming from McChord Air Force Base. The Air Force provided bottled
water to the residents of American Lake Gardens who were dependent on the contaminated wells.
Later, all American Lake Gardens residences were connected to the public water supplies at the Air
Force's expense.
Entire Site: The Air Force began an investigation in 1989 to determine the nature and
extent of the contamination. In March 1991, the Air Force presented results of the studies
and the alternatives for the site cleanup for public review. Of the several alternatives, the
one preferred by the Air Force involves pumping groundwater to keep the contamination from
spreading, treating the extracted groundwater by carbon adsorption, flushing treated water into
deeper zones to push contaminated water out, long-term monitoring, and controlling future use of
groundwater through deed restrictions. Connection to public water supplies will continue to be
offered. A decision is expected to be made in late 1991.
Site Facts: McChord Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a
specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify,
investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply to the residents of American Lake Gardens has reduced
the threat of exposure to contaminated groundwater while site studies continue and final remedies
for site cleanup are planned.
April 1991 30 AMERICAN LAKE GARDENS
-------
BANGOR NAVAL
SUBMARIN
WASHINGTON
EPAID#WA5170027291
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Kitsap County
Siverdale
Other Names:
Sites C. D, & F
US Navy Bangor Submarine Base
US Navy - Naval Submarine Base -
Bangor
The Bangor Naval Submarine Base site occupies 10 acres of a 7,000-acre facility in Bangor.
Approximately 42 areas of the active military facility may be contaminated. Site F, the Wastewater
Disposal Area for Demilitarization Operations, has contaminated the uppermost aquifer. The site
received "pink water" wastes resulting from the demilling (steam cleaning and recovery of solid
materials) of ordnance containing trinitrotoluene (TNT) and cyclonite (RDX) from 1960 to 1971.
Approximately 500,000 mines and 75,000 rockets were processed at the site. Other portions of the
facility included in this site involve the disposal of ordnance or ordnance wastewater. Groundwater
beneath the base is used for drinking water, irrigation, and industrial purposes. The facility, located
in a rural area, has approximately 700 people residing within 1 mile of the site. About 3,900 people
living within 3 miles of the site depend on groundwater for their drinking water. Another parcel at
this facility, Bangor Ordnance Disposal, was placed on the NPL in 1987.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, soils, surface water, and sediments contain TNT and RDX. Groundwater
also is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), plastics, and heavy
metals. People may suffer adverse health effects if they accidentally ingest or come into
direct contact with contaminated groundwater, soils, surface water, and sediments.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in seven long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the washout
lagoon, the incinerator area, the dump residue area, the acid pit, the burning ground, the Hood Canal
Sediments, and Site F.
31
April!991
-------
Response Action Status
Washout Lagoon: An investigation of the washout lagoon began in 1990 to
determine the nature and extent of contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives.
The investigation is expected to be completed in 1993. This area, also known as Site F,
will be partly addressed by an interim action described below.
Incinerator Area: In 1990, the Navy began an investigation to determine the nature
and extent of contamination in the incinerator area and to identify cleanup alternatives.
The investigation is expected to be completed in 1993. This area also is known as Sites
Dump Residue Area: The Navy began an investigation of the dump residue area, also
known as Site C, in 1990. Completion of the investigation is expected in 1993.
Acid Pit: In 1990, the Navy began a study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the acid pit and to identify cleanup alternatives. Completion of this
investigation is expected in 1993. The acid pit area also is known as Sites E, 5, and 11.
Burning Ground: In late 1990, the Navy began a study to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at an area of the site used between 1944 and 1965 for ordnance
burning and detonation. The study will identify cleanup alternatives and is expected to
be completed in 1993. Site D is another name for this area.
Hood Canal Sediments: In 1991, the Navy is expected to conduct an investigation
of the nature and extent of contamination of a number of on-base areas that contribute to
sediment contamination in the adjacent water body. The study, which is expected to be
completed in 1994, will identify cleanup alternatives.
Site F Interim Actions: In 1990, the Navy began a study to prepare an interim action
for the Washout Lagoon described above. The action calls for groundwater pump and
treatment. A decision on the measure is expected in 1991.
Site Facts: The Bangor Naval Submarine Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to
identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants and other DoD
facilities.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Bangor Naval Submarine Base determined that no immediate actions are
needed while the investigations leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies are underway.
April 1991 32 BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE
-------
BANGOR ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL
WASHINGTON
EPAID#WA7170027265
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Kitsap County
Bremerton
Other Names:
Site A
Bangor Ordnance Disposal (USN Sub Base)
US Navy Submarine Base - Bangor
Site Description
The Bangor Ordnance Disposal site is a 6-acre hazardous waste site on the Bangor Naval
Submarine Base used by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Team as a test range. It also includes
two debris areas totaling 12 acres. Between 1965 and 1973, the U.S. Navy detonated and burned
over 2 million pounds of explosives at the base. Surface water and shallow groundwater were
contaminated as a result of these activities. In 1983, the Navy moved to control the migration of
potential chemical waste from the site by diverting stormwater runoff from the burn site to an
area between Vinland and Cattail Lake. Wilkes Marsh covers approximately 4 acres and is about
500 feet from the site. Approximately 3,900 people reside within 3 miles of the base and depend
on groundwater for drinking water. An agricultural area surrounds the facility. Another parcel
at this facility was added to the NPL in 1990.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
ZA
Groundwater, soil, and surface water are contaminated with trinitrotoluene (TNT)
and cyclonite (RDX). Accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, soil, and surface water could expose people on or near the site to
pollutants. The base is 1/2 mile from Hood Canal, a sensitive marine
environment.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
33
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, the Navy began an investigation to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site and to identify final cleanup remedies. The
investigation is expected to be completed in late 1991.
Site Facts: The Bangor Naval Submarine Base is participating in the Installation Restoration
Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978
to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and DoD
facilities.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Bangor Ordnance Disposal site determined that no immediate actions
are needed to protect public health or the environment while the investigation leading to final
cleanup is underway.
April 1991
34
BANGOR ORDNANCE DISPOSAL
-------
BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATOWTOSS
COMPLEX (
WASHINGTON
EPAID#WA1891406349
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Clark County
North of Vancouver
Other Names:
USDOE-BPA Ross Substation
Ross Substation
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Ross Complex site has occupied this 200-acre site
north of Vancouver since 1939. The facility became part of the Department of Energy (DOE) when
the department was established. The complex serves as the control center for the generation and
transmission of electricity throughout the Pacific Northwest. The site contains a number of storage
and disposal areas including the DOB-1 Drainfield, where laboratory wastes were deposited; the
Cold Creek Fill Area, where soil potentially contaminated with oil, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and heavy metals was disposed of; and the Fog Chamber Disposal Area, where capacitors
containing PCBs were buried in trenches. In 1987 and 1988, the BPA sampled an on-site well and
found volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Approximately 105,000 people in Vancouver obtain
drinking water from public wells within 3 miles of the site. Cold Creek is about 450 feet
downgradient of the complex and is fed by shallow groundwater flowing under the site. Vancouver
Lake, located 1 1/2 miles away, is used for fishing and other recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains VOCs including trichloroethane and chloroform. Soil is
contaminated with oil, PCBs, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and mercury. People who ingest
or come into direct contact with contaminated groundwater or soil may be at risk.
Contaminants leaching from the site could flow into Cold Creek, harming wildlife in or
around the water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed through a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
35
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the nature and extent of contamination at
the site began in 1990. Nineteen potential source areas will be investigated.
Completion of the investigation is expected in 1992, and at that time the final site
cleanup remedy will be selected.
Site Facts: The EPA, the State, and Bonneville Power have signed an Interagency Agreement
to govern site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After listing the Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex Site on the NPL, the EPA
assessed the need for any immediate actions to make the site safer and determined that none were
presently needed. An investigation leading to final cleanup actions is underway.
April 1991
36
BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
ROSS COMPLEX (DOE)
-------
CENTRALIA
MUNICIPA
LANDFILL
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980836662
Site Description
DIST. 03
Other Names:
Lewi* County Dump
Centralia Sanitary Landfill
The Centralia Municipal Landfill is an active landfill covering 50 acres of an 80-acre parcel of land
in Centralia. The landfill began operations in 1958, using a trenching method where trenches were
excavated, filled with wastes, and covered. Presently, the landfill uses the lift method, where waste
is placed in layers and covered daily with clean fill. None of the fill areas at the landfill have been
lined. A system of leachate collection trenches was installed to intercept the leachate generated by
the landfill. The collected leachate is pumped to the municipal wastewater treatment plant in
Centralia. In some areas, however, leachate containing heavy metals can drain directly to Salzer
Creek, located south of the site. Historically, the landfill accepted municipal wastes and some
industrial wastes including clarifier sludge, boiler ash, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)-
contaminated soil, paint shop wastes, empty pesticide containers, electric burn wastes, and sulfur
wastes. Groundwater at the site reaches the surface during the rainy season. The upper and lower
aquifers are hydraulically connected, allowing water to move between them. Over 12,000 people
living within 3 miles of the landfill obtain drinking water from the lower aquifer. The city of
Centralia's nearest municipal well is located 1 1/2 miles north of the landfill. The nearest private
well is about 700 feet west of the site. Salzer Creek is a tributary to the Chelalis River; water from
Salzer Creek and the Chehalis River is used for irrigation. The City plans to close the landfill in
1992.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains heavy metals such as manganese, sodium, and lead. Soil and
sediments are contaminated with arsenic. Leachate emanating from the landfill contains
heavy metals. People who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with
contaminated groundwater, sediments, soil, or leachate may be at risk. Leachate drains
from the landfill into Salzer Creek, a spawning area, nursery, and migration route for
Coho Salmon. Salzer Creek empties into the Chehalis River, which is a habitat for
Chinook, Coho, and Chum Salmon, and Steelhead Trout. Any contaminants in the creek
and river may harm wildlife in or around the water.
37
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In late 1991, the State is expected to begin investigating the site to
determine the nature and extent of contamination. The investigation results will lead to the
selection of a cleanup remedy that will be protective of human health and the environment.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation determined that no immediate actions are needed at the Centralia Municipal
Landfill site while awaiting the start of an investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup
remedies.
April 1991
38
CENTRALIA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
-------
COLBERT LAND
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980514541
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
2 miles northwest of Colbert
Other Names:
Colbert Dump
The Colbert Landfill site covers 40 acres and is 2 miles northwest of Colbert. From 1968 through
1986, the landfill received municipal and commercial wastes. Between 1975 and 1980, a local
electronics manufacturing company, Key Tronic Corporation, disposed of spent organic solvents at
the landfill. These wastes typically were brought to the landfill in drums and were poured down the
sides of open trenches to mix with the soil or ordinary municipal refuse already in the trench.
During the same period, Fairchild Air Force Base disposed of various solvent wastes at the site. In
1980, nearby residents became concerned over the disposal practices. Several private drinking wells
were sampled and were found to contain solvents. The landfill was closed in 1986. The site is
located in a semi-rural area. Approximately 1,500 people live within 3 miles of the site; many of the
nearby residents operate small crop and livestock farms. The Little Spokane River is about 1/2 mile
away from the site.
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: 09AJ8/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including methylene chloride
and trichloroethane. Methylene chloride also is found in the soil. Accidental ingestion of
or direct contact with contaminated groundwater and soil may pose a potential health
threat.
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.
39
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1984, Spokane County and Key Tronic began supplying bottled
water to residents affected by polluted groundwater. In 1985, the EPA extended the public
water supply main to 135 affected residences.
Entire Site: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the landfill, which includes:
(1) installing and operating interception wells to prevent the contaminants from spreading;
(2) removing the contaminated materials that have entered the aquifers and are contributing
to the contaminant plume and installing and operating extraction wells in the area where the plumes
originate; (3) reducing the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants by treating all extracted
groundwater from both the interception and extraction wells; and (4) providing an alternate water
supply system to any residents deprived of their domestic supply due to the contamination or to the
construction of interception or extraction wells. Spokane County, under supervision by the State and
the EPA, has drilled wells for monitoring the groundwater. The pilot extraction wells and treatment
plant were tested in early 1991. Construction of the final system is expected to be finished in 1993.
Site Facts: In 1981, the EPA entered into a Cooperative Agreement with Spokane County to
investigate the site. The EPA also entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the State to investigate
the site and to develop cleanup alternatives in 1985.
Environmental Progress
The immediate actions of providing bottled water and extending the municipal water supply system
to affected residents have reduced the threat to the public from the Colbert Landfill site while the
cleanup is underway.
April 1991 40 COLBERT LANDFILL
-------
COMMENCEMEN
NEAR SHORE
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980726368
Site Description
o
BA
LATS
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Pierce County
Tacoma
The Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats site covers 12 square miles in Tacoma. The
Near Shore area is defined as the point along the Ruston Way Shoreline from the Mouth of City
Waterway to Point Defiance. The Tide Flats area includes the Hylebos, Blair, Wheeler-Osgood,
Sitcum, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Middle, and City waterways, plus the Puyallup River upstream to
the Interstate 5 Highway Bridge. Industrial development of the Commencement Bay area began
in the late 1800s. Dredge and fill activities in the Tide Flats area began in the 1920s to open
navigable waterways where numerous industrial and commercial operations have located. These
operations include pulp and lumber mills, shipbuilding, shipping, chlorine and chemical
production, concrete production, aluminum and copper smelting, oil refineries, and other
chemical manufacturing. Hazardous substances and waste material were released into the
terrestrial, freshwater, groundwater, and marine environments. From 1890 until 1986, the
American Smelting and Refining Company, Inc. (ASARCO) operated a smelter on the shore of
Commencement Bay. Originally it operated as a lead smelter, but was converted to a copper
smelter by 1911. The smelter specialized in processing ores with high arsenic concentrations
and recovered arsenic trioxide and metallic arsenic as products for sale. Copper smelting and
arsenic operations ceased in 1985 and 1986, respectively, for economic reasons. The Tacoma
Tar Pits area of the site lies between the Puyallup River, the City of Tacoma, and the Wheeler-
Osgood Waterway. These bodies of water are not used as a water supply, but support extensive
fish and shellfish populations. In 1924, a coal gasification plant began operations, and waste
materials from the manufacturing process were disposed of on site. The plant discontinued
operations in 1956. From 1965 to 1966, the plant was dismantled and demolished. Most of the
metal structures were removed from the site; however, all demolition debris and below-grade
structures were left in place, including tanks and pipelines containing tars. In 1967, a metal
recycling company began operating at the site. Recycling of automobile batteries introduced
acid, heavy metals, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the soil. Commencement
Bay supports important fishery resources and recreational fishing. According to a 1981 survey
by the local health department, approximately 4,000 people shorefish and boatfish in the bay,
exposing an estimated 15,000 people to pollutants through food chain contamination. The City
of Tacoma has a population of 162,100 people. Another portion of Commencement Bay, the
South Tacoma Channel, also is on the NPL.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
41
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, sediments, and soils are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), PCBs, and
heavy metals. Fish in Commencement Bay contain VOCs, PCBs, and heavy
metals including arsenic, lead, and mercury. People who come in direct contact
with or ingest contaminated groundwater, sediments, or soil may be at risk.
Contaminants have bioaccumulated in bay fish and may pose a health threat to
those who eat them. The County has advised people not to eat bottom fish and
shellfish from Commencement Bay.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in eight stages: immediate actions and seven long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the CBNT sediments, ASARCO Smelter, the Tacoma Tar Pits,
Ruston, Source Control, ASARCO Sediments, and ASARCO Buildings and Structures.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, ASARCO suspended operations, and, under EPA
monitoring, demolished and cleaned some of the structures used for copper smelting,
arsenic trioxide and metallic arsenic production, and arsenic emissions control. In
1989, under EPA monitoring, ASARCO began cleaning 11 publicly accessible properties
starting with Ruston Park, Ruston School yard, and a privately owned vacant lot. Soil is being
excavated, and the excavated areas are being filled with clean soil and reseeded. Ruston Park is
being covered with sod. The contaminated soil removed from the properties is being stored on
the smelter property until a final cleanup plan is selected for the smelter site. ASARCO also will
clean up eight additional properties. These actions are scheduled to be completed in late 1990.
A removal was conducted at the Inner Hybelos property by the Port of Tacoma under a
Unilateral Order, as part of the Payallup Land Claims Settlement Act.
CBNT Sediments: In 1989, the EPA selected remedies to clean up the sediments in
eight problem areas within the site after the source of the contamination is controlled.
The following problem waterways will be addressed: St. Paul, Sitcum, Mouth of
Hylebos, Head of Hylebos, Middle, Wheeler-Osgood, Mouth of City, and Head of City.
Marginally contaminated sediments will be left alone, because they are predicted to recover
naturally over a 10-year period. However, the sediments will be monitored to confirm that
natural cleanup is occurring. The more seriously contaminated sediments that will not recover
naturally will be confined with a substantial physical barrier to isolate the contaminated
sediments and protect aquatic animals. The contaminated area may be covered with clean
sediments, or contaminated sediments may be moved and disposed of or confined elsewhere
within the site. Recreational fishing in the waterways will be restricted until the cleanup is
completed. The source discharges and sediments will be monitored throughout the cleanup
phase of the project. The EPA will oversee sediment cleanup operations. Sediment cleanup in
each of the problem areas is being phased over the next 10 years according to the success of the
source control remedies.
April 1991 42 COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR SHORE/TIDE FLATS
-------
ASARCO Smelter: Under EPA monitoring, ASARCO is investigating the extent of
contamination at the smelter. Once the investigation is completed, scheduled for 1993,
methods for cleanup will be recommended.
Tacoma Tar Pits: In 1987, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the Tacoma Tar Pits
by excavating all contaminated soils and stabilizing them with a polymer/cement mixture;
covering the stabilized soil with asphalt; channeling and managing the surface waters;
monitoring the groundwater; and removing and treating ponded water. The potentially responsible
parties are designing the technical specifications, under EPA monitoring, for cleanup of the tar pits.
Treatability studies are underway. The design phase is expected to be completed in 1992, at which
time the cleanup will begin.
Ruston: The EPA is investigating the total extent of arsenic contamination in the
Ruston/North Tacoma communities. Soil sampling was completed in 1990. The EPA is
scheduled to complete the investigation in the Ruston/North Tacoma area in 1992.
Source Control: In 1989, the EPA selected a range of remedies that are being applied
to potential sources of contamination in each of eight problem areas (see CBNT
Sediments). The site includes more than 300 active businesses and nearly 500 identified
point and nonpoint sources that may affect marine sediments. Source control actions may include
permitted discharges from companies and storm drains and cleanup of contaminated soils and
groundwater. The State is overseeing the design of the technical specifications for the remedies.
Source control cleanup has begun in all waterways and is completed in one of them, the St. Paul
Waterway. The schedule varies among the problem areas, but source control is expected to be
accomplished from 1991 through 1997.
ASARCO Sediments: A supplemental study is being developed to further examine
contaminated marine sediments off-shore from the ASARCO smelter. Cleanup of these
sediments is being handled separately from other sediments, because they are relatively
unique in terms of grain size, depth, and steepness of slope. A decision on the remedy is expected in
1992.
ASARCO Buildings and Structures: In 1990, a remedy was selected to address on-
site buildings and structures related to ASARCO operations. These buildings and
structures will be demolished. Interim stabilization and surface water control will be
implemented, as well. The design of the remedy is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA and ASARCO signed a Consent Order, requiring ASARCO to
investigate and clean up its smelter.
Environmental Progress
The demolishing of parts of the ASARCO Smelter and the cleaning of publicly accessible areas
of Ruston have reduced the threat of the public coming into direct contact with contaminants at
the Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats site while investigations and final cleanup
activities continue.
COMMENCEMENT BAY, NEAR SHORE/TIDE FLATS 43 April 1991
-------
COMMENCEMEN
SOUTH TACCMVIA
CHANNEL
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980726301
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Pierce County
Tacoma
Other Names:
Well 12-A
American Surplus Sales
South Tacoma Swamp
Tacoma City Landfill
Union Pacific Railroad Tunnel
Time Oil
Site Description
The Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel site covers 2 1/2 square miles in Tacoma. The
site includes three areas: the South Tacoma Field, the Tacoma Municipal Landfill, and wells
supplying drinking water to the City of Tacoma. The South Tacoma Field covers about 300 acres of
industrial, commercial, residential, and vacant land. Parts of the area were used for railcar
construction and repair, salvage operations, and the disposal of industrial and construction debris.
The Tacoma Landfill covers 190 acres and is operated by the City of Tacoma. Operations at the
landfill began in 1960, and it accepted municipal and industrial wastes, construction and demolition
wastes, and bulk waste. About 4 million tons of refuse have been deposited at the landfill, including
wastes received in the 1960s and 1970s, that have since been designated as hazardous substances.
Well 12A is one of 13 wells used by the City of Tacoma to meet peak summer and emergency water
demands. The well was removed from service by the City when it was found to be contaminated.
Investigations by the EPA found the source of contamination to be centered on properties owned by
the Burlington Northern Railroad and the Time Oil Company. Waste oil and solvent reclamation
processes were operated on the property owned by Time Oil Company. The landfill is surrounded
by residential development and open land, with some commercial and industrial development. An
aquifer beneath the site provides drinking water to the town of Fircrest and the city of Tacoma.
Approximately 24,000 people live within 1 mile of the South Tacoma Field. Another portion of
Commencement Bay, the Near Shore/Tide Flats site, also is on the NPL.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, municipal, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/01/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
ns
Landfill gas, groundwater, and sediments contain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including methylene chloride and toluene. Soil and surface water are
contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals. Sewers and leachate also contain
VOCs. People who ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, surface water, soil, or sediments may be at risk. Inhalation of gas
from the landfill may pose a health threat. Groundwater flows to the southwest
toward Leach Creek, which lies about 1/4 mile from the landfill. Consequently,
wetlands downstream of the landfill could receive contaminants from the surface
water and groundwater.
45
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term remedial
phases focusing on the cleanup of Well 12A and Time Oil, the South Tacoma Field, and Tacoma
Landfill.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA began pumping and treating the water in Well
12A by air stripping. In 1988, a carbon adsorption groundwater treatment system was
installed near the Time Oil property to control the source of contamination. Pumping the
well has stopped the contaminant movement and is cleaning the aquifer. In 1990, Burlington
Northern, under EPA monitoring, dismantled the former brass foundry and removed underground
storage tanks and stained soil around the tanks in the South Tacoma Field area.
Well 12A and Time Oil: In 1985, the EPA selected the following remedy to clean up
Well 12A: (1) continuing to operate the air stripper installed as an immediate action; (2)
extracting and treating the groundwater at the source to remove the volatile organics; (3)
drilling and sampling additional soil test borings during the technical design phase; (4) removing a
length of railroad track adjacent to the Time Oil property and excavating contaminated soils and
filter coke under the railroad spur; (5) performing additional undercutting to remove concentrated
contaminants; (6) installing drain field piping in the excavated areas and covering it with a
permeable material; (7) paving or placing a soil cover on the portions of the unpaved Time Oil
parking lot; (8) transporting and disposing of all excavated contaminated soil in a federally approved
landfill; (9) prohibiting the use of groundwater; and (10) monitoring the groundwater, and after two
years of operation, evaluating the effectiveness of the cleanup. In 1986, under EPA oversight,
Burlington Northern excavated approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil and disposed of them in a
federally approved facility. In 1987, the remedy was expanded to include carbon adsorption
treatment for the groundwater and vapor extraction for the soil. In 1988, the EPA installed a carbon
filtration system to remove the solvents from the aquifer at the source of the contamination. The
EPA currently is installing the vacuum extraction system to clean the remaining contaminated soils.
South Tacoma Field: Burlington Northern had begun investigations at the South
Tacoma Field when other potentially responsible parties were identified. Four additional
potentially responsible parties will complete the investigation. The site study is expected
to be completed in 1993.
Tacoma Landfill: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the Tacoma Landfill
by: (1) capping the landfill and directing the runoff into storm or sanitary sewers; (2)
installing a gas extraction system and gas probes to monitor methane gas in the landfill;
(3) installing a groundwater pump and treat system and discharging the treated water to a local creek
or the public works system; (4) providing an alternate water supply to residents if necessary; and (5)
monitoring the groundwater and surface water. The City completed construction of the first half (55
acres) of the landfill cap in 1990 and early 1991. Construction of the second half (62 acres) is
scheduled to begin in late 1991 and is expected to be completed in 1992. Design of the groundwater
pump and treatment system is scheduled to be completed in 1992.
Apri| 1991 46 COMMENCEMENT BAY.
SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL
-------
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and Burlington Northern Railroad signed an Administrative
Order on Consent, under which the railroad agreed to investigate and clean up the property it
owns at South Tacoma Field. In 1990, the EPA and four additional potentially responsible
parties signed an Administrative Order on Consent, under which the parties will complete the
investigations at the South Tacoma Field.
Environmental Progress
Pumping and treating the groundwater, excavating contaminated soil, removing underground storage
tanks and partially capping the landfill have reduced the potential of exposure to contaminants from
the Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel while cleanup of the site continues.
COMMENCEMENT BAY.
SOUTH TACOMA CHANNEL
47
April 1991
-------
FAIRCHILD
AIR FORCE
BASE (4
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WA9571924647
Site Description —
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
12 miles west of Spokane
The Fairchild Air Force Base occupies approximately 4,300 acres 12 miles west of Spokane. The
base opened in 1942 as the Spokane Army Air Depot. In 1950, the name was changed to Fairchild
Air Force Base. Its primary mission is to maintain and repair aircraft such as bombers and tankers.
Initially, there were four waste areas of concern covering 85 acres: the Building 1034 french drain
and dry well system, two landfills, and the industrial waste lagoons. However, during
investigations, additional areas were found, including a fire training area and multiple spill areas.
During past base activities, the equivalent of over 4,000 drums of carbon tetrachloride and other
solvents, paint wastes, plating sludges containing cadmium and lead, and related industrial wastes
were disposed of in the four areas. Groundwater sampling in 1986 and 1987 detected elevated levels
of contamination. A well within base boundaries serves as a standby water supply for the base's
5,200 employees. Approximately 400 private wells serving about 20,000 people are within 3 miles
of the facility. West Medical Lake, Medical Lake, and Silver Lake are within 3 miles downstream
of Fairchild AFB. These lakes support wildlife and are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/13/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene
(TCE) and semi-volatile and inorganic compounds. People who ingest or come into
direct contact with contaminated groundwater may suffer adverse health effects. The
sand and gravel beneath the site facilitate the movement of contaminants into the
groundwater, as well as the movement of contaminated groundwater. If contaminants
leach from the base into the nearby lakes, wildlife in or around the water may be harmed.
49
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the Craig Road Landfill, Old Base Landfill, the Flightline Area, Waste water
Lagoons, Fire Training Pit, and French Drain System and the remaining areas.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1989, the Air Force provided bottled water to nearby trailer park
residents when their water supply was found to be contaminated. The residences later were
connected to the base's water supply. The Air Force also connected nearby Vietzke
Village to the base's water supply in 1990.
Craig Road Landfill, Old Base Landfill, Flightline Area, Wastewater Lagoons,
Fire Training Ph, and French Drain System: The Air Force is conducting separate
investigations of these areas to determine the nature and extent of contamination present.
These investigations are collectively scheduled to be completed in early 1993.
Remaining Areas: The Air Force is conducting several other investigations on base.
These include the jet engine cell, POL Bulk storage area, Area C pumphouse, aircraft crash
site, heating oil tank area in Wherry Housing, fuel oil storage tanks, and fuel truck
maintenance area. Based on the results of these investigations, expected in 1994, further
investigations will be performed, if necessary, and appropriate cleanup measures will be
recommended for the remainder of the site.
Site Facts: Fairchild Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a
specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify,
investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply to the residents of a trailer park and a neighboring village
has reduced the threat of public exposure to contaminants while investigations at Fairchild Air Force
Base continue and cleanup actions are planned.
April 1991 50 FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
(4 WASTE AREAS)
-------
FMC CORP.
(YAKIMA PIT)
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD000643577
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
'CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Yakima County
Yakima
Other Names:
FMC - Yakima
FMC - Agricultural Chemical Division
The FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit) site, covering about 4 acres in Yakima, operated as a pesticide
formulation facility from 1951 until 1986. From 1952 to 1969, FMC disposed of agricultural
pesticides in a "poison pit" on site. Some of the pesticides that may have been disposed of in the
pit include DDT, diazinon, and dieldrin. Access to the pit area is restricted by a 6-foot chain link
fence. There are about 10,000 people living within a mile of the site, with the nearest residence
located about 200 yards from the facility. Area groundwater is used for drinking water,
industrial purposes, crop irrigation, and livestock watering.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed by Federal
and potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
IT
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with various pesticides, including DDT
derivatives. Potential health threats include direct contact with or ingestion of
contaminated groundwater or soil.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
51
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1988, FMC, under EPA monitoring, began excavating and
removing the contaminated soil from the former disposal pit Excavation of the pit was
stopped at one point because of the high level of groundwater and concern over causing
further groundwater contamination. In 1989, while the water was at a seasonal low, the remaining
contaminated soil was excavated. Approximately 335 tons of contaminated soil were disposed of in
a federally approved facility.
Entire Site: FMC, under EPA oversight, completed a study of the site in 1990. The EPA
selected a remedy that includes: additional sampling to determine the extent of
contamination; incineration of excavated soils on site; removal and disposal of other
contaminated materials; and disposal of incinerated soils on site, if they meet contamination
reduction levels, or off site, if they do not meet these levels. Design of these cleanup remedies is
scheduled to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, FMC signed an order with the EPA requiring the company to conduct an
investigation of the site. In 1988, the EPA issued a second order to FMC, requiring excavation of
contaminated materials from the pit.
Environmental Progress
The excavation and removal of 335 tons of contaminated soil have reduced the threat of exposure to
pesticides while final cleanup actions at the FMC Corp. (Yakima Pit) site are being designed.
April 1991 52 FMC CORP. (YAKIMA PIT)
-------
FORT LEWIS
(LANDFILL
WASHINGTON
EPA ID#WA9214053465
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
.CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Pierce County
Tillicum
Other Names:
U.S. Army 9th Infantry - Fort Lewis
U.S. Army - Fort Lewis
Fort Lewis
The 86,000-acre Fort Lewis Army facility is located near Tacoma on the southeastern shore of Puget
Sound and has been an Army facility since 1917. Industrial operations include maintenance of
aircraft and vehicles, repair and refurbishing of weapons, and neutralization of caustic paint-
stripping waste and battery acids. Prior to the mid-1970s, wastes were disposed of in on-site
landfills covering approximately 225 acres. The 104-acre Landfill No. 5 has been in operation since
1967. The waste disposal history of this site is largely unknown, although the majority of disposed
materials has been municipal waste from Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, and the city of
Dupont. The landfill stopped accepting wastes in 1990. Access to the site is restricted.
Approximately 46,700 people live on the post. The closest residence to the site is located about 2
miles away. Municipal drinking water wells are located within 1 1/2 miles of the site. Another
hazardous waste unit at the Fort Lewis Army facility, the Logistics Center, also is on the NPL.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Elevated levels of heavy metals and organic compounds have leached from the landfill
into the groundwater. Potential human health threats include direct contact with or
ingestion of contaminated groundwater. Efforts are underway to determine if low levels
of contamination in shallow groundwater pose a threat to human health. Groundwater
flows north-northwest toward Puget Sound.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on the entire site.
53
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The State installed an interim cap in 1990 to prevent rainwater from
leaching contaminants into the groundwater.
Entire Site: The U.S. Army is conducting a study to determine the nature and extent of
the leachate plume emanating from the landfill. The study will define the contaminants of
concern and will recommend alternatives for final site cleanup. The study is scheduled to
be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: Fort Lewis is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a specially funded
program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate, and
control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
Capping the landfill has reduced the threat of public exposure to contaminants at the Fort Lewis
(Landfill No. 5) site while an investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies is
underway.
April 1991
54
FORT LEWIS (LANDFILL NO. 5)
-------
FORT LEWIS
LOGISTICS CE
WASHINGTON
EPA ID#WA7210090067
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Pierce County
Tillicum
Other Name*:
U.S. Army - Fort Lewis Logistic Center
The 86,000-acre Fort Lewis Army facility is located near Tacoma on the southeastern shore of
Puget Sound and has been an Army facility since 1917. Industrial operations include
maintenance of aircraft and vehicles, repair and refurbishing of weapons, and neutralization of
caustic paint stripping waste and battery acids. The 650-acre Logistics Center is primarily an
industrial facility, with some limited commercial use. Groundwater beneath the site is
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are migrating toward the American
Lake Gardens housing area and the city of Tillicum. The contamination zone is about 10,000
feet long, 2,500 feet wide, and extends 80 feet into the ground. Approximately 46,700 people
live on the post. The closest residence to the site is about 2 miles away. Another hazardous
waste unit at the Fort Lewis Army facility, the Landfill No. 5 site, also is on the National
Priorities List.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Threats and Contaminants
VOCs including trichloroethylene (TCE) and dichloroethylene have contaminated
soil and shallow groundwater beneath the Logistics Center. TCE also has been
detected in the deeper drinking water Salmon Springs aquifer and in Lynn Lake.
Potential health risks include accidental ingestion of or direct contact with
contaminated groundwater, soil, or surface water. Local residents receive their
water from the Lakewood Water District, which pumps water from deep,
uncontaminated sources.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of Landfill #4 and cleanup of the groundwater.
55
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: During the site investigation, the Army provided alternate water to
residents of a nearby neighborhood.
Landfill #4: The U.S. Army is conducting an investigation to determine the nature
and extent of contamination at Landfill #4. The study will define the contaminants of
concern and will recommend alternatives for final cleanup. The study is scheduled for
completion in 1992.
Groundwater: The Army completed an investigation into contamination of most
areas of the site in 1990. Based on the results of the investigation, the Army
concluded that cleanup of soil and surface water was unnecessary due to the low levels
of contamination. In addition, contaminant levels in the lake are expected to decline as
groundwater is cleaned up. A cleanup remedy was chosen for groundwater, which includes
extracting contaminated groundwater, treating it with air strippers, and reinjecting the cleaned
groundwater into the aquifer. Design of this cleanup remedy is expected to begin in 1991.
Site Facts: Fort Lewis is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, established by
the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of
hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
The provision of alternate water to nearby residents has reduced the potential for exposure to
contamination while cleanup activities are being planned and designed at the Fort Lewis
Logistics Center.
April 1991 56 FORT LEWIS LOGISTICS CENTER
-------
FRONTIER HARD
CHROME, I
WASHINGTON
EPA ID#WAD053614988
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Clark County
Vancouver
The 1 1/4-acre Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. site is a former chrome-plating facility located in a light-
industrial and manufacturing area of Vancouver. Beginning in 1955, the site was occupied primarily
by two companies engaged in the chrome-plating business. Presently, the facility is being used as a
storage and staging area for a neighboring business. From 1970 to 1976, waste water from the
facility's chrome-plating operation was discharged to the sanitary sewer system. In 1976, the City
of Vancouver requested that an alternate disposal method be used until the wastewater treatment
plant could be modified to accommodate the chromium. Plating wastewater then was discharged
into a dry well on the property and into a large depression located beyond the eastern property line.
In 1983, the State ordered Frontier to stop discharging into the dry well. The plating baths contained
variable amounts of dissolved metals and other contaminants stripped from the metal pieces being
plated, including iron, nickel, and trivalent chromium. The Columbia River is approximately 1/2
mile south of the facility. Drinking water for 10,000 Vancouver residents is drawn from an aquifer
under the site. The nearest city well is about a mile upgradient from a contaminated well. The
closest residence is on adjoining property to the north of the site, and two others are a few hundred
feet farther north.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZE
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). People may be exposed to pollutants through ingestion of or direct
contact with contaminated groundwater or soils.
57
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The EPA selected the following remedy to clean up the site: (1) excavating
chromium-contaminated soils; (2) treating the excavated materials by chemical
stabilization; (3) replacing the treated materials; (4) demolishing the buildings on the site;
(5) installing a cap over the site to prevent leaching of chromium from the soils and to control surface
water runoff resulting from rain; (6) installing groundwater extraction wells; (7) installing a
groundwater treatment system to remove contaminants; (8) discharging the treated water into the
Columbia River or into the city of Vancouver's sewer system; and (9) developing regulatory controls
restricting the use of groundwater and controlling the drilling of new wells in the groundwater plume.
The design of these cleanup remedies has been delayed while the EPA evaluates an apparent
reduction in groundwater contamination. Additional groundwater monitoring is being implemented.
After re-evaluating groundwater at the site, the EPA will prepare the technical specifications and
design for the soil stabilization and groundwater treatment cleanup technologies. The design phase is
scheduled for completion in 1992.
Environmental Progress
The EPA conducted an initial evaluation of the Frontier Hard Chrome site and determined that no
immediate actions are needed while the design of the final cleanup remedy is underway.
April 1991 58 FRONTIER HARD CHROME. INC.
-------
GENERAL
ELECTRIC f
(SPOKANE SHOP
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD001865450
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
Spokane
Other Names:
Spokane Apparatus Service Shop
General Electric-Old Site
GE-Spokane Site
The General Electric Company site covers about 5 acres in Spokane and includes the company's
former industrial service shop and adjacent leased property. From 1961 to 1980, General Electric
cleaned, repaired, and restored electrical transformers. The company stored oils from the
transformers, electrical motors, switches, pumps, compressors, and other related equipment. Some
of this equipment contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that entered dry wells on site as a
result of steam cleaning activities. General Electric began a study of the contamination at the site
after the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) found high levels of PCBs in soils. The site
is located along the northern edge of a light industrial area in eastern Spokane. About 200,000
people live within 3 miles of the site. The facility overlies the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer, which the EPA has designated as a sole source of drinking water for the area. There are
about 50 private wells within 4 square miles of the site. The facility is approximately 1,200 feet
south of the Spokane River.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater and sludge contain PCBs. Soil is contaminated with PCBs and
heavy metals, including copper and lead. Individuals who come into direct contact with
or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater, soil, or sludge may suffer adverse
health effects.
59
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The immediate actions completed in 1990 included: demolishing
the service shop and removing it from the site, excavating underground structures,
transporting and disposing of building debris and a limited amount of soil in a hazardous
waste disposal facility, drilling soil test borings, installing additional groundwater monitoring wells,
and sampling the groundwater.
Entire Site: General Electric, under State supervision, is conducting a study to determine
the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The study is scheduled to be completed
in late 1991.
Site Facts: General Electric and the State signed an Agreed Order, under which the company
agreed to conduct an investigation of the site.
Environmental Progress
Demolishing the service shop and excavating underground structures and soils have reduced the
threat of exposure to contaminants while an investigation leading to the selection of a final cleanup
remedy is underway at the General Electric Co. site.
April 1991 60 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
(SPOKANE SHOP)
-------
GREENAC
LANDFILL
WASHINGTO
EPA ID# WAD9805H6!
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
14 miles east of Spokane
Other Names:
Liberty Lake Landfill
The Greenacres Landfill Site is a 45-acre landfill located near Liberty Lake and 14 miles east of
Spokane. The landfill was operated as an open municipal dump from 1951 to 1967. Upon
dissolution of the Greenacres Township government in 1967, the County assumed responsibility for
the landfill's operation until 1972, when it was closed. The landfill accepted a variety of wastes
including household, industrial, and agricultural. In 1978, the State found that a well immediately
downgradient from the landfill was contaminated with chlorinated organic solvents. Results from an
EPA water quality study show that groundwater adjacent to the site is becoming increasingly
contaminated. Approximately 1,000 people live within a 4-mile radius of the site. There are public
wells within 2 miles of the site, but water quality data show the wells are not contaminated. The
Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer underlying the site has been designated by the EPA as a
sole source aquifer and is the source of drinking water for about 350,000 people.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and County actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs), acid, and heavy metals.
People who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated
groundwater may be at risk. The major health hazard posed by the site is the potential
movement of contaminated groundwater into the sole source aquifer.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
61
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1984, the State began a study of the nature and extent of contamination
at the site. The County took over responsibility for the study in late 1987. A report on
the findings of the investigation has been submitted to the State for review. The study
is expected to be completed in 1991, with a decision on cleanup alternatives scheduled to follow
soon after.
Site Facts: In fall 1987, the State and the County of Spokane entered into a Consent Decree,
requiring the County to conduct a study of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Greenacres Landfill site determined that no immediate actions are
needed while review of the investigation is underway and final cleanup remedies are being
planned.
April 1991
62
GREENACRES LANDFILL
-------
HANFO
100-ARE
(USDOE)
WASHING!
EPA ID# WA3890090076
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Benton County
35 miles north of Richland
Other Names:
USDOE-Hanford Sfte-IOO-Araa
Site Description
The Hanford 100-Area site covers 11 square miles 35 miles north of Richland. It is one of four
areas at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the NPL; the other three are the 200-, 300-, and 1100-
Areas. These areas are part of a sprawling U.S Department of Energy (DOE) complex that includes
buildings, disposal sites, an ecological research park, and vacant land covering approximately 560
square miles. Hanford was built in the 1940s to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. The nearby
Columbia River provided cooling waters for the reactors producing the nuclear materials. The
Atomic Energy Commission was in charge of these operations from the early 1940s until Congress
created the DOE in 1977. Over the years, Hanford widened its role to include research and
development of nuclear materials for uses other than nuclear weapons. The 100-Area is adjacent to
the Columbia River in the northern section of Hanford and includes nine nuclear reactors. Of these,
eight were used from the 1940s through the 1970s to produce plutonium, but were shut down in the
early 1970s. The ninth was used to produce plutonium and electricity until the DOE shut it down in
1988. The DOE and its predecessor disposed of several million cubic yards of soil and radioactive
and hazardous wastes in cribs, trenches, and burial grounds in the 100-Area. Approximately 11
square miles of groundwater under the 100-Area are contaminated. The shallow groundwater
underneath the site consists of a sand and gravel aquifer, conditions that facilitate the movement of
contaminants through the water. Groundwater is not used as a source of drinking water within 3
miles of the 100-Area; however, groundwater does flow into the Columbia River. Over 3,000
workers at the 100- and 200-Areas of Hanford use drinking water from intakes on the Columbia
River, which are located along the stretch of the river occupied by the 100-Area. The cities of
Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick, with a combined population of approximately 90,000 people,
maintain water intakes on the Columbia River for the bulk of their municipal supply system, but
occasionally mix it with groundwater from municipal wells drilled in the sand and gravel aquifer.
The Yakima Indian Nation has exclusive fishing rights to the Yakima River, which borders the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being address through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater in the 100-Area contains radioactive waste material including strontium,
cobalt, and uranium. People could be exposed to hazardous substances through direct
contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater.
63
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in 13 long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of separate
contamination areas at the site.
Response Action Status
100-HR-1 and 100-HR-3 Areas: The State currently is investigating the nature and
extent of contamination at the 100-HR-1 and 100-HR-3 areas. The 100-HR-1 area consists
of the liquid disposal sites located within the 100-H subsite. The 100-H subsite contains
one reactor and support facilities. The 100-HR-3 area consists of the groundwater underneath the
100-D and 100-H subsites. The studies are expected to be completed in 1994 and 1995, respectively.
100-DR-1 and 100-BC-1 Areas: The State is conducting an investigation to study the
nature and extent of contamination at the 100-DR-l area, and the EPA is investigating the
100-BC-l area. The 100-DR-l area consists of the liquid disposal sites in the 100-D
subsite. The 100-D area contains two reactors and support facilities. The 100-BC-l area consists of
the liquid disposal sites in the 100-B and 100-C subsites. The 100-B and 100-C subsites each contain
one reactor and support facilities. The studies are expected to be completed in 1994.
100-BC-5,100-KR-1, 100-KR-4 Areas: The EPA is investigating the nature and extent
of contamination at the 100-BC-5,100-KR-l, and 100-KR-4 areas. The 100-BC-5 area
consists of the groundwater that underlies the 100-B and 100-C subsites. The 100-KR-l
area consists of the liquid disposal sites in the 100-K subsite of Hanford. The 100-K area contains
two reactors and support facilities. The 100-KR-4 area consists of the groundwater that underlies the
100-K subsite. The studies at 100-BC-5 and 100-KR-l are expected to be completed in 1995, while
the 100-KR-4 investigation is scheduled for completion in 1996.
100-NR-1 Area: The State currently is scheduling to investigate the nature and extent of
contamination at the 100-NR-l area. The 100-NR-l area consists of the liquid disposal
sites in the 100-N subsite. Completion of this study has been delayed due to an expansion
in the scope of the study, but current expectations are that the study will be completed in 1993.
100-NR-3 Area: Contaminated areas other than the liquid disposal sites in the 100-N
subsite are the focus of this investigation. Due to the expansion of the scope of this study
to include additional N-area sites, it is not scheduled to begin until 1992.
100-FR-1 Area: The investigation at this area will address the primary liquid disposal
areas at the 100-F Reactor area. The investigation work plan currently is under review;
field work is scheduled to begin in 1992.
100-BC-2,100-DR-2, and 100-HR-2 Areas: These investigations have been delayed
as part of Hanford's streamlining strategy in favor of activities that were found to be of
greater benefit to site cleanup than the development of study plans. The alternate
investigations include a River Impact Study of the Columbia River adjacent to all reactor areas, a
cumulative risk assessment for all of the 100-Area investigations, and the finalization of a risk
assessment methodology for all reactor areas. No revised start date has been determined yet for the
site studies.
April 1991 64 HANFORD 100-AREAOJSDOE)
-------
Site Facts: In May 1989, the EPA, the State, and the DOE entered into an Interagency Agreement
and a Consent Order to provide a legal and procedural framework for cleanup and regulatory
compliance at the DOE's waste sites at Hanford. The EPA, the DOE, and the Washington State
Department of Ecology jointly developed an action plan that addresses Superfund and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-related issues at Hanford. The parties will produce work
plans to study the nature and extent of contamination at the Hanford site.
Environmental Progress
The Hanford site is a secured DOE facility, and public access is limited. Public exposure to
contamination is unlikely while the EPA and the State plan investigations leading to the selection of
final cleanup remedies for the Hanford 100-Area site.
HANFORD 100-AREA(USDOE)
65
April 1991
-------
HANFORI
(USDOE)
WASHING!*
EPA ID# WA189009
Site Description
AREA
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Benton County
20 miles north of Richland
Other Names:
US DOE- Hanford SKe-200-Area
The Hanford 200-Area covers 215 square miles about 20 miles north of Richland. It is one of the
four areas at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the NPL; the other three are the 100-, 300-, and
1100-Areas. These areas are part of a sprawling U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex that
includes buildings, disposal sites, an ecological research park, and vacant land covering
approximately 560 square miles. Hanford was built in the 1940s to make plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The nearby Columbia River provided cooling waters for the reactors producing the
nuclear materials. The Atomic Energy Commission was in charge of these operations from the
1940s until Congress created the DOE in 1977. Over the years, Hanford widened its role to include
research and development of nuclear materials for uses other than nuclear weapons. The 200-Area is
in the middle of the Hanford facility. The DOE uses the 200-Area to reprocess, finish, and manage
nuclear materials, especially plutonium. The DOE and its predecessor disposed of an estimated 1
billion cubic yards of solid and diluted liquid wastes comprised of radioactive, mixed, and hazardous
substances in trenches, ditches, and landfills on the site. Over 230 waste disposal locations have
been identified in the 200-Area. The shallow groundwater underlying Hanford and Richland
consists of a sand and gravel aquifer, conditions that facilitate the movement of contaminants
through water. Over 3,000 workers at the 100- and 200-Areas of Hanford use drinking water from
intakes on the Columbia River, which are 5 miles north of the site. The cities of Richland, Pasco,
and Kennewick, with a combined population of approximately 90,000 people, maintain water
intakes in the Columbia River for the bulk of their municipal supply system, but occasionally mix it
with groundwater from municipal wells drilled in the sand and gravel aquifer. The Yakima Indian
Nation has exclusive fishing rights to the Yakima River, which borders the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
67
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
L\
Air sampling in the 200-Area in 1987 showed the presence of strontium, iodine, and
plutonium. On-site groundwater is contaminated with tritium, uranium, and cyanide.
Surface water intakes on the Columbia River for the city of Richland contain tritium.
Soil on site contains tetrachloride. People may be exposed to hazardous or radioactive
substances on site through direct contact with, accidental ingestion, or inhalation of
contaminated particles, groundwater, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: interim actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the 200-BP-l-Area and the 200-UP-2-Area.
Response Action Status
Interim Actions: Plans are underway for the removal of approximately 1,400 metric
tons of carbon tetrachloride from the 200-ZP-l area, scheduled for 1991. This material
will be removed from the soil by large-scale soil vapor extraction. Testing with functional
test equipment currently is underway at the site.
200-UP-2-Area: Forty-three individual waste sites are located in 200-UP-2, part of the
200 West Area, most of which received liquid waste from the uranium recovery and
reprocessing plant. The State is expected to begin an investigation into the nature and
extent of contamination at this area in late 1991.
200-BP-l-Area: In 1989, the DOE began a study of the 200-BP-l-Area to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative methods to
address the contamination. Due to the size and complexity of the site, the DOE expects to
complete the study in 1995.
Site Facts: In May 1989, the EPA, the State, and the DOE entered into an Interagency Agreement
and a Consent Order to provide a legal and procedural framework for cleanup and regulatory
compliance at the DOE's waste sites at Hanford. The EPA, the DOE, and the Washington State
Department of Ecology jointly developed an action plan that addresses Superfund and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-related issues at Hanford. The parties will produce work
plans to study the nature and extent of contamination at the site. Opposition has been expressed by
the Yakima Indian Nation, whose land the Hanford site occupies.
Environmental Progress
The Hanford site is a secured DOE facility, and public access is limited. Limiting public access to
the site, combined with the planned removal of contaminated soil, greatly reduces the threat of direct
exposure to contaminants while the DOE continues investigations leading to the selection of final
cleanup remedies at the Hanford 200-Area site.
April 1991 68 HANFORD 200-AREA (USDOE)
-------
HANFOI
(USDOE
WASHING
EPA ID# WA28
i-AREA
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Benton County
2 miles north of Richland
Other Names:
USDOE-Hanford Site-300 Area
The Hanford 300-Area covers about 1 square mile, 2 miles north of Richland. It is one of the four
areas at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the NPL; the other three are the 100-, 200-, and 1100-
Areas. These areas are part of a sprawling Department of Energy (DOE) complex that includes
buildings, disposal sites, an ecological research park, and vacant land covering about 560 square
miles. Hanford was built in the 1940s to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. The nearby
Columbia River provided cooling waters for the reactors producing the nuclear materials. The
Atomic Energy Commission was in charge of these operations from the early 1940s until Congress
created the DOE in 1977. Over the years, Hanford widened its role to include research and
development of nuclear materials for uses other than nuclear weapons. The DOE fabricates fuel for
nuclear reactors in the 300-Area. The site contains 25 separate locations used to dispose of
radioactive and hazardous wastes. The disposal areas and plumes of contaminated groundwater
under them cover approximately 2 square miles. The DOE and its predecessor disposed of about 27
million cubic yards of solid and diluted liquid wastes mixed with radioactive and hazardous wastes
in ponds, trenches, and landfills in the 300-Area. The areas used for liquid discharges had no
outlets, and liquids percolated through the soil into the groundwater and the Columbia River located
directly east and downgradient from the 300-Area. The shallow groundwater underlying Hanford
and Richland consists of a sand and gravel aquifer, conditions that facilitate the movement of
contaminants through water. The Columbia River is used for industrial process water, boating,
fishing, hunting, and as a supply of drinking water 3 miles downstream of the 300-Area. The cities
of Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick, with a combined population of approximately 90,000 people,
maintain water intakes in the Columbia River for the bulk of their municipal supply system, but
occasionally mix it with groundwater from municipal wells drilled in the sand and gravel aquifer.
The Yakima Indian Nation has exclusive fishing rights to the Yakima River, which borders the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
69
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Air contains uranium and krypton. On-site groundwater is contaminated with uranium
and trichloroethane. Soils on and off site contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
trichloroethylene (TCE), cobalt, and uranium. The DOE has detected uranium in
springs around the area and the Columbia River. Strontium and uranium are present in
vegetation. People could be exposed to hazardous and radioactive substances from the
site through direct contact, accidental ingestion, and inhalation of contaminated
particles, groundwater, soil, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three phases: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control and groundwater cleanup in the 300-Area.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1991, buried drums of hexone and kerosene were removed
from burial grounds on site. Incineration of the recovered organic liquids is scheduled to
be completed by late 1991.
Source Control: In 1989, the DOE began a study of the 300-Area to determine the
nature, extent, and source of the contamination at the site and to identify alternative
methods to address the contamination. A removal and consolidation of contaminated
sediments from the 300-Area Process Trenches is scheduled for late 1991. The DOE expects to
complete the study in 1994.
Groundwater: In late 1990, the DOE began a study of the groundwater contamination
in the 300-Area to identify alternative methods to address the contamination. The DOE
expects to complete the study in 1995.
Site Facts: In May 1989, the EPA, the State, and the DOE entered into an Interagency Agreement
and a Consent Order to provide a legal and procedural framework for cleanup and regulatory
compliance at the DOE's waste sites at Hanford. The EPA, the DOE, and the Washington State
Department of Ecology jointly developed an action plan that addresses Superfund and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-related issues at Hanford. The parties will produce work
plans to study the nature and extent of contamination at the site.
Environmental Progress
The Hanford site is a secured DOE facility, and public access is limited. Public exposure to
contamination is unlikely while the DOE continues investigations leading to the selection of final
cleanup remedies for the Hanford 300-Area site.
April 1991 70 HANFORD 300-AREA (USDOE)
-------
HANFOR
AREA (U
WASHING!
EPA ID# WA4890
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Benton County
1 mile north of Richland
Other Names:
Hartford Site-1100
USDOE-Hanford She 1100-Area
The Hanford 1100-Area covers 150 acres, approximately 1 mile north of Richland. It is one of
the four areas at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation on the NPL; the other three are the 100-, 200-,
and 300-Areas. These areas are part of a sprawling U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex
that includes buildings, disposal sites, an ecological research park, and vacant land covering
approximately 560 square miles. Hanford was built in the 1940s to make plutonium for nuclear
weapons. The nearby Columbia River provided cooling waters for the reactors producing the
nuclear materials. The Atomic Energy Commission was in charge of these operations from the
early 1940s until Congress created the DOE in 1977. Over the years, Hanford widened its role to
include research and development of nuclear materials for uses other than nuclear weapons. The
DOE conducts maintenance operations in the 1100-Area and provides services to other areas of
the site. The area includes a warehouse, a vehicle repair shop, a gas station, and a bus depot for
Hanford workers. The DOE is specifically concerned with approximately 10 acres of the 1100-
Area containing a landfill, a sandpit, an underground storage tank, and other areas that
potentially are contaminated. Up to 15,000 gallons of waste battery acid may have been
disposed of in the pit The DOE used the tank to store waste antifreeze, and it may have leaked
from the tank. Shallow groundwater under the 1100-Area is 24 feet below the surface. The
shallow groundwater underneath Hanford and Richland consists of a sand and gravel aquifer, a
condition that facilitates the movement of contaminants through the water. The Columbia River
is used for industrial process water, boating, fishing, hunting, and as a drinking water supply
about a mile downstream of the site. The cities of Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick, with a
combined population of about 90,000 people, maintain water intakes in the Columbia River for
the bulk of their municipal supply system, but occasionally mix it with groundwater from
municipal wells drilled into the sand and gravel aquifer. The nearest well in Richland is
approximately 2,600 feet from the disposal area. The Yakima Indian Nation has exclusive
fishing rights to the Yakima River, which borders the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
71
April 1991
-------
Threats and Contaminants
On-site wells in the vicinity of the 1100-Area contain volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE). Nitrates, sodium, and sulfate are
present in Richland's well water. On-site soils are contaminated with heavy
metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Possible exposure routes include
direct contact with or accidental ingesu'on of contaminated groundwater and soil.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
1100-Area.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, the DOE began a study of the 1100-Area to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the site and to identify alternative methods to
address the contamination. The DOE expects to complete the study in 1992.
Site Facts: In May 1989, the EPA, the State, and the DOE entered into an Interagency
Agreement and a Consent Order to provide a legal and procedural framework for cleanup and
regulatory compliance at the DOE's waste sites at Hanford. The EPA, the DOE, and the
Washington Department of Ecology jointly developed an action plan that addresses Superfund-
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-related issues at Hanford. The parties
will produce work plans to study the nature and extent of contamination at the Hanford site.
Environmental Progress
The Hanford site is a secured DOE facility, and public access is limited. Public exposure to
contamination is unlikely while the DOE and the State continue investigations leading to the
selection of final cleanup remedies at the Hanford 1100-Area site.
ApriM991 72 HANFORD 1100-AREA (USDOE)
-------
HARBOR ISLAND
(LEAD)
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980722839
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
King County
Puget Sound
Other Names:
Western Pacific Vacuum Services
Asahipen America, Inc.
Todd Shipyard Corp.
Puget Sound Tug & Barge - Pier 17
The 405-acre Harbor Island (Lead) site is an island that has been used for commercial and
industrial activities since the early 1900s. The island is located in an area consisting of inter-
tidal wetlands at the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway and Elliott Bay in Puget Sound. The
island was constructed of river sediments, dredged to facilitate navigation, and debris from
demolition and regrading projects in the Seattle area. Commercial activities on the island
include secondary lead smelting, lead fabrication, metal plating, shipbuilding, petroleum product
storage, shipping, and rail transport. Past metal smelting practices contributed significant
amounts of dust to the atmosphere and resulted in widespread distribution of contaminated dust.
However, the smelter has been closed since 1984 and no longer is a source of air contamination.
Warehouses, laboratories, and office buildings also are located on the island. There are no
residences on Harbor Island, but approximately 10,000 people are located within a mile of the
site. The closest residence is about 1/4 mile away. All residents are supplied with water from
the Seattle public water supply system. Elliott Bay is used by fishermen for shellfishing and
crabbing.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, municipal, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains lead and other metals. Sediments near the island are
contaminated with heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
various pesticides, phenols, and poiychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Soils contain
heavy metals, PCBs, PAHs, and organics. Fish in Elliott Bay are contaminated
with PCBs. Individuals risk exposure to contaminants by direct contact or
ingestion of groundwater, sediments, soils, or fish. The site is an estuary, an
important habitat for wildlife.
73
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in eight stages: immediate actions and seven long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the storm drains, the soil/sediment, the Lockheed Shipyards, Terminal 18,
Seattle Iron & Metal, Valley Metal Plating, and cleanup of the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: The City of Seattle paved over areas where lead contamination in
the soils was the highest. Emission control equipment was placed on at least one
production plant to reduce the levels of airborne lead being released from the stacks.
Storm Drains: In 1989, the City of Seattle, under EPA monitoring, completed sampling
the storm drains to determine the extent of contamination in the sediments. The EPA
determined that the sources of contamination were illicit connections, poor housekeeping
practices, and runoff from on-site contamination. The City of Seattle and the Washington
Department of Ecology have cooperated in eliminating these sources. The City installed floodgates
on the storm drain outfalls into Puget Sound. These gates allow City crews to clean out the system
at any time and prevent the tidal action from washing offshore contaminants back into the storm
drain system. The storm drains have been cleaned, and contaminated sediments have been disposed
of. The City expects to monitor the storm drain system.
Soil/Sediment: In 1989, the EPA conducted the first phase of an investigation into soil,
surface water, sediment, and groundwater contamination. The investigations included
sampling soil at six areas where there was evidence of previous contamination or where
past industrial operations included possible soil contamination. Twenty groundwater samples also
were taken at various locations around the island. The second phase of the investigation will
continue to monitor these areas. Recommendations for site cleanup are expected in 1992, when the
study is completed.
Lockheed Shipyards: The EPA sent a notice letter to Lockheed Shipyards, requesting
participation in investigating contamination in the area. In 1990, the potentially
responsible party began conducting an investigation into the nature and extent of
contamination and to identify cleanup alternatives. The study is expected to be completed in 1992.
Terminal 18: An investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the site and
to identify cleanup alternatives for Terminal 18 is scheduled to begin in 1991.
Seattle Iron and Metal: Part of the Phase II sampling activities described for soil/
sediment, activities in this area involve sampling that is scheduled to be conducted in 1991
to determine the need for any removal activities.
Value Metal Plating: The property owner is removing drums containing metal plating
solutions, under a Consent Order signed in January 1991.
April 1991 74 HARBOR ISLAND (LEAD)
-------
Groundwater: The EPA is studying the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination as part of the Phase II site studies described for soil/sediment. A
decision on groundwater cleanup is planned for 1993.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA and the City of Seattle signed an agreement, requiring the City to
sample and clean up City-owned storm drains on Harbor Island.
Environmental Progress
Paving over contaminated soils, installing emission controls, cleaning out the storm drains, and
removing contaminated drums have reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants at the Harbor
Island (Lead) site while investigations leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies are
continuing.
HARBOR ISLAND (LEAD)
75
April 1991
-------
HIDDEN VALLEY
LANDFILL
(THUN FIE
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD98051153!
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
Pierce County
Near Puyallup
Other Names:
Thun Field
Pierce County Landfill
The 75-acre Hidden Valley Landfill (Thun Field) site, near Puyallup, operated as a landfill and old
gravel pit from 1967 to 1983. The landfill accepted liquid, solid, and industrial wastes, including
heavy metal sludges. Approximately 48 acres have been covered with waste. The landfill does not
have a liner or leachate collection system, but a methane collection and burn system was installed to
reduce odors from the site. The landfill is open to any commercial operation or private citizen
wishing to dispose of solid waste. Although the landfill is scheduled to close in 1991, the owner has
requested permission from the State to expand operations. The Thun Field airstrip, an active gravel
pit, and a gun club are adjacent to the landfill. The area is sparsely populated, with approximately
1,700 people residing about a mile from the site. Approximately 7,300 people are served by 35
public water supply systems drawing from groundwater within 3 miles of the landfill. The nearest
well is 1,000 feet away from the landfill. The County has applied to have the aquifer that underlies
the site designated as a sole source aquifer. The County's petition is being reviewed by the EPA,
and a designation is pending. A freshwater wetland is 1 mile from the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Liquid waste found on site contains chromium. People
who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated groundwater or
liquid waste may suffer adverse health effects. Wetlands also may be threatened.
77
April! 991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, a potentially responsible party, Land Recovery, Inc., under State
oversight, began a study into the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The study
will define the contaminants of concern and will recommend effective alternatives for final
site cleanup and is scheduled to be completed in 1991.
Site Facts: In 1987, the State and Land Recovery, Inc. entered into a Consent Order, requiring the
company to conduct an investigation of the site.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Hidden Valley Landfill (Thun Field) site determined that no immediate
actions are needed while an investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies is
underway.
April 1991
78
HIDDEN VALLEY LANDFILL (THUN FIELD)
-------
KAISER ALUfVlllMU|v1
MEADWORCil?
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD000065508
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
Near Mead
Other Names:
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corp. - Mead Works
Site Description
The 240-acre Kaiser Aluminum Mead Works site is an aluminum reduction facility located near
Mead. From 1942 until 1978, pot linings were disposed of in the northwestern section of the
plant property. The pots were soaked with water to loosen the linings for removal prior to
disposal. In 1978, cyanide was detected in several private drinking water wells to the northwest
of the Kaiser facility. Cyanide has contaminated an aquifer that supplies water to a tributary of
the Little Spokane River. The contamination is believed to have originated from the pot lining
wastes or wastewater from the pot soaking. In 1978, Kaiser discontinued the practices of pot
soaking and discharging effluent to sewage ponds. Since 1980, the pot liner wastes have been
placed in a specially constructed building. The closest residences are located about 1/2 mile
northwest of the plant. Approximately 5,500 people are served by the water system.
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
Cyanide and fluoride were detected in soils and the upper portion of the aquifer
underlying the site. Concentrations of cyanide in the groundwater plume are
decreasing with the dewatering of several industrial lagoons or ponds near the pot
liner disposal area. On-site leachate contains arsenic and cyanide. People may be
exposed to contaminants through direct contact or accidental ingestion of soil,
groundwater, or leachate. The migration of the contaminant plume from the site
may potentially affect aquatic life in the Little Spokane River.
79
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Kaiser offered to supply affected residents with bottled water
and physical examinations. The company also offered residences with contaminated
wells the options of a permanent hook-up to public water, a deionizer for existing
wells, or newly constructed wells. One individual opted for the new well, while 25 affected
residences were connected to public water. In 1979, Kaiser paved the pot linings waste pile with
asphalt. An adjacent area located to the north of the waste pile was fitted with an underdrain
system leading to a lined pond and also was paved.
Entire Site: In 1988, Kaiser began an assessment of the site contamination. The
assessment has been completed, and a report has been submitted to the State for
review, which summarizes the investigations of the site and provides evaluations of
alternative cleanup actions. The State and the EPA review of the report is expected to be
completed in 1992. Upon completion of the review, an agreement on cleanup measures will be
made.
Environmental Progress
The alternate water supply provided to affected residences has reduced the threat to human
health while the State and the EPA review the investigation results and choose a final cleanup
remedy for the Kaiser Aluminum Mead Works site.
April 1991 80 KAISER ALUMINUM MEAD WORKS
-------
LAKEWOOD SITE
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD050075662
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Pierce County
Lakewood
Other Names:
Lakewood Water District Site
Ponder's Comer
Plaza Cleaners
The Lakewood Site, is a commercial area that includes a laundry and dry-cleaning facility and
covers about 1 square mile in Lakewood. In 1981, two major wells of the Lakewood Water
District, which serves more than 10,000 people, were found to be contaminated with chlorinated
organic compounds. The Lakewood Water District took the wells out of production and notified
its customers of the problem. Following the shutdown of the wells, the EPA determined the
contaminants were components of degreasers, solvents, and other substances common in
industrial use. Further investigation showed the contamination was coming from the commercial
dry cleaner.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The solvents trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene have been detected
in groundwater and soil. Potential health risks may exist for individuals
accidentally ingesting or coming into direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soil.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
81
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Between 1984 and 1985, the State excavated the septic tanks
and some contaminated sludge from the site. The area was backfilled with clean soils.
Two aeration towers were constructed to remove the organic solvents in the public
water supply.
Entire Site: Following an investigation of the soil and groundwater contamination at
the site in 1985, the EPA determined groundwater monitoring would continue, and
contaminated soil would need treatment to extract the solvents. The EPA has been
treating the contaminated soils on the Plaza Cleaners property periodically using a soil vapor
extraction system to reduce contaminant levels. The soil cleanup is expected to be completed in
1992, when the vapor extraction system will be dismantled. The groundwater treatment system,
installed as part of the immediate action, continues to successfully remove contaminants from the
drinking water supply. Groundwater treatment is expected to continue indefinitely.
Site Facts: In 1983, the State issued an enforcement order requiring Plaza Cleaners to cease
dumping solvent-containing materials into the septic system. Notice letters were sent to two
potentially responsible parties in 1989. Because they were not able to pay for the cleanup, a lien
was placed on the property in February 1991.
Environmental Progress
The groundwater treatment system is successfully removing contaminants and protecting public
health and the environment near the Lakewood Site. The EPA expects to continue operating the
groundwater treatment system indefinitely.
April 1991 82 LAKEWOOD SITE
-------
MCCHORD AIR FO
BASE (WASH
TREATMEN
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WA8570024200
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 06
Pierce County
South of Tacoma
Other Names:
USAF. McChord Air Force Base
McChord Wash Rack Area
McChord Air Force Base is an active military base covering almost 4,600 acres, just south of
Tacoma. The mission of the base is to provide airlift services to troops, cargo, equipment,
passengers, and mail. Since 1940, almost 500,000 gallons of hazardous substances have been
used and disposed of on the base. The Wash Rack/Treatment Area is a former aircraft washing
facility. The site encompasses the pavement area, where airplanes were washed to remove oil,
grease, and other foreign materials with chemical solvents, and two unlined leach pits that
received contaminated wash water runoff from the adjacent pavement. Underneath the site is
part of an aquifer that supplies drinking water to McChord Air Force Base, the Lakewood Water
District, and the American Lake Gardens development. American Lake Gardens is a separate
NPL site. The nearest residence is 1/2 mile away, and over 16,000 people live within 3 miles of
the site. Approximately 300 domestic wells are located within 5 miles of the base.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater may be contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including benzene, toluene, and trichloroethylene (TCE).
Individuals who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated
groundwater may be at risk.
83
April!991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, an investigation was begun to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the base. The investigation is scheduled to be concluded in 1992.
Site Facts: McChord Air Force Base is participating in the Installation Restoration Program, a
specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify,
investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and other DoD
facilities.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the McChord Air Force Base site determined that no immediate actions
are needed while an investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies continues.
April 1991
84
MCCHORD AIR FORCE BASE
(WASH RACK/TREATMENT AREA)
-------
MICA LANDFILL
WASHING!
EPA ID# WAD980S
'* ••-'„ ^*
4 <%« \^ N
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
Near Mica
Other Names:
Spokane Co Utilities Dept - Office
Spokane Co • Mica Landfill
The Mica Landfill site has been owned by Spokane County Utilities since 1972 and covers 180
acres near Mica, Until 1981, the landfill was licensed by the State to handle hazardous, domestic,
and industrial wastes including dross, baghouse dust, and asbestos. The asbestos is disposed of in
accordance with State regulations. A leachate collection system has been installed; however,
leachate continues to migrate off site. The landfill is located on a hill with intermittent creeks. The
creeks empty into Chester Creek, which flows into the Spokane River 3 miles from the landfill.
The Spokane River is connected hydrologically to the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer,
which has been designated as a sole source aquifer. The closest residence is 1/5 mile from the site.
Approximately 115 domestic water wells and 8 irrigation wells are located within 3 miles of the
site. About 425 people use the area groundwater as a drinking water source. Two municipal wells
serving approximately 4,000 people are within 3 miles of the landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
County actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, and
phenols. Leachate is contaminated with VOCs, including trichloroethylene
(TCE). People who ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and leachate may be exposed to adverse health effects. A potential
physical hazard is the presence of explosive levels of landfill-generated methane
gas.
85
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, an investigation was begun to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the site. The investigation has detected groundwater contamination
at the site boundary, which resulted in the expansion of the groundwater study to
include off-site areas. The investigation is scheduled for completion at the end of 1991. The
landfill is scheduled to be closed in 1991, also.
Site Facts: The County and the State signed a Consent Order governing site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Mica Landfill site has determined that no immediate actions are
needed while the investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies is underway.
April 1991 86 MICA LANDFILL
-------
MIDWAY LANDFIL
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD9806389
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
King County
Kent
Other Names:
Midway Disposal She
City of Seattle Midway Landfill
The Midway Landfill site is an old gravel quarry covering approximately 60 acres in Kent From
1966 to 1983, the landfill, which is on City-owned property, was operated by the City of Seattle.
During operations, approximately 3 million cubic yards of refuse were deposited in the unlined
landfill, including paint sludge, dye and preservative wastewater, oily wastewater, refinery tank
bottoms, and lead-contaminated wastes. Closure activities began in 1983, when clean soil was
used to cover and grade the landfill, and it was capped with silt or fine sands. Approximately
8,200 people live near the affected area. More than 10,000 people within 3 miles of the landfill
obtain drinking water from the aquifer underlying the site. The Green River is about a mile
away.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene and vinyl chloride. VOCs are present
in landfill gas. People may be exposed to contaminants by inhaling landfill gas or
ingesting or coming into direct contact with contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is begin addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
87
ApriM991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985 and 1986, the City of Seattle installed 32 gas extraction
wells around the perimeter of the landfill to control the migration of gas from the site.
Over 130 additional wells have been installed. Four final flares to burn off the gases were
installed on site. Off-site gas extraction wells were installed to remove pockets of gas from around
the most affected residences as quickly as possible. Monitoring has indicated that the off-site gas
problem has been substantially abated. In addition, a fence was constructed around the site to
restrict access. Under a Consent Decree, the City is capping the site, refining the landfill gas control
system, and installing stormwater and drainage control systems on and off the site. Construction is
expected to be completed late in 1991.
Entire Site: In 1985, an investigation to determine the type and extent of site
contamination was begun. In 1986, the investigation was taken over by the State. The
study report was submitted in January 1991 and underwent public review and comment
until March 1991. Once the State responds to comments, a decision on cleanup alternatives will be
made, later in 1991. Recommendations for alternatives for final cleanup will be made in 1991.
Site Facts: In mid-1990, the City and the State signed a Consent Decree, requiring the City to
conduct response actions.
Environmental Progress
The installation of the gas extraction system has reduced the threat of gas migrating from the
Midway Landfill site while construction of the landfill cap and investigations continue.
April 1991 88 MIDWAY LANDFILL
-------
NAVAL AIR STATION,
WHIDBEY ISLANE
(AULT FIELD) ^
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WA5170090059
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Island County
Whidbey Island
The Naval Air Station at Whidbey Island covers over 7,000 acres and consists of Ault Field and
the Seaplane Base, which are 5 miles apart. The Seaplane Base also is on the NPL and is being
addressed in conjunction with Ault Field. The station was commissioned in 1942 to maintain
and operate facilities and to provide services and materials in support of the Navy's aviation
activities and utilities. Ault Field contains most of the military activities. Its major waste-
generating activities include aircraft and vehicle maintenance and washing, engine testing, non-
destructive testing, parts cleaning, painting and paint stripping, battery maintenance, pest control,
public works maintenance, and transformer servicing. Wastes generated included solvents,
heavy metals, paints, and pentachlorophenols (PCPs). The Ault Field site contains nine waste
areas, including four landfills. The site lies on shallow and sea-level aquifers. These aquifers
provide drinking water to approximately 21,000 people within 3 miles of the site. Local surface
water bodies are used for recreation and irrigation. One surface water intake, about 6,500 feet
from the site, is used to irrigate 66 acres of farmland. A freshwater wetland is within 500 feet of
Ault Field.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
trichloroethylene (TCE) and trichloroethane. Accidental ingestion of or direct contact
with the contaminated groundwater could be a health hazard. There is a potential for
the contaminants present on site to pollute the freshwater wetland.
89
April!991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases, focusing on cleanup of Areas 5 and
6; the Walker Storage Barn, Pesticide Rinsate Area, Clover Valley Fire School, Western Highlands
Landfill, Area 3, and 1969-1970 Landfill; and the Runway Fire School and Runway Ditches.
Additional long-term remedial phases may be designated in the future, based on results of a
hazardous waste evaluation study, which is seeking to determine whether contaminants are present
in 25 separate areas.
Response Action Status
Area 5 (Hoffman Road Landfill) and Area 6 (Current Landfill): In 1990, the Navy
began conducting an investigation to determine the nature and the extent of the
contamination in Area 5 (Hoffman Road Landfill) and Area 6 (Current Landfill) of the site.
The field work is underway, and the results of the investigation are expected in 1992.
Walker Storage Barn, Pesticide Rinsate Area, Clover Valley Fire School,
Western Highlands Landfill, Area 3, and 1969-1970 Landfill: The Navy will
conduct three separate investigations in these areas to determine the nature and the extent
of the contamination. The investigation is expected to be completed in 1991. It will evaluate the
different cleanup alternatives.
Runway Ditches and Runway Fire School: In 1991, the Navy is expected to
develop a work plan for an investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the
Runway Ditches and the Runway Fire School. The study will evaluate cleanup
alternatives.
Site Facts: The Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island facility is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD)
in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and
other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Naval Ah- Station, Whidbey Island (Ault Field) site has determined that
no immediate actions are needed while the investigations leading to the selection of final cleanup
remedies are underway.
April 1991 90 NAVAL AIR STATION,
WHIDBEY ISLAND (AULT FIELD)
-------
NAVAL AIR STATION,
WHIDBEY IS
(SEAPLANE
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WA6170090058
Site Description
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Island County
Whidbey Island
The Naval Air Station at Whidbey Island covers over 7,000 acres and consists of Ault Field and the
Seaplane Base, which are 5 miles apart. The Ault Field site also is on the NPL and is being
addressed in conjunction with the Seaplane Base. The station was commissioned in 1942, and its
mission is to maintain and operate facilities and provide services and materials in support of the
Navy's aviation activities and units. The major waste generating activities at the Seaplane Base
involve aircraft and vehicle maintenance, paint and paint stripping, and machine and boat shop
activities. Wastes generated include solvents, zinc chromate, lead-containing paint wastes, thinners,
acid, and lead-based sealants. The Seaplane Base site consists of five waste areas, including a
landfill, salvage yard, and three uncontained spills, covering 7 acres. The waste areas potentially
affect both the shallow and the sea-level aquifers. Local surface water bodies are used for
recreation. A coastal wetland is within 200 feet of the site. The closest residence is 1/2 mile away.
The population on the Seaplane Base is approximately 4,000. The City of Oak Harbor and the
Seaplane Base import fresh water from the mainland via a pipeline as their primary source of water.
Two backup wells are used only in an emergency.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and surface water are contaminated with heavy metals. The sediments
contain heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Soil is
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals. Individuals who
accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated groundwater, surface
water, sediments, or soils may suffer adverse health effects. Multiple leaks and spills
from fuel and oil tank storage areas may affect the surface waters of Oak and Cresent
Harbors. Wetlands also may be threatened.
91
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the landfill
and other disposal areas.
Response Action Status
Landfill and Other Disposal Areas: The Navy is conducting investigations at the
landfill area, auto repair and paint shop, a disposal area, a Nose Hangar, and a salvage yard
to determine the nature and the extent of the contamination. The investigation began in
1991 and is scheduled to be completed in 1992. The results will be used to evaluate cleanup
alternatives. In addition, a hazardous waste evaluation study is underway at a trichloroethylene
(TCE) tank, a coal pile, and two fuel farms to determine if hazardous contaminants are present that
might require further study and cleanup.
Site Facts: The Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base) facility is participating in the
Installation Restoration Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of
Defense (DoD) in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants
at military and other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base) site has determined
that no immediate actions are needed while the investigations leading to the selection of final
cleanup remedies are underway.
April 1991 92 NAVAL AIR STATION, WHIDBEY ISLAND
(SEAPLANE BASE)
-------
NAVAL UNDERSEA
WARFARE
ENGINEER!
STATION (4 w
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAI 170023419
Site Description —
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Kitsap County
Keyport
Other Names:
Keyport Torpedo Station
The Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station (NUWES) at Keyport was acquired in 1913 to
develop a still-water torpedo testing range. The 200-acre site consists of six separate areas on a
peninsula 15 miles west of Seattle. The waste disposal areas are: the Keyport Landfill, the Van
Meter Road Spill/Drum Storage Area, Sludge Disposal Area, Plating Shop Waste/Oil Spill Area,
Otto Fuel Leak, and Liberty Bay Outfalls/Shoreline. Wastes containing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals were disposed of or spilled at each of these areas. At the
latter area, wastes were discharged directly into the water. The station is involved in a wide
variety of activities, including the maintenance of torpedoes; storage of fuel and ordnance; and
production functions, such as welding, plating, painting, carpentry, and sheet metal work.
Approximately 3,500 people work at the facility. There are 135 private wells and 22 public
water supply wells drawing from the surficial aquifer within 3 miles of the site. The wells serve
about 230 households. The unlined landfill is built on a salt marsh and may be in contact with
the groundwater. The Van Meter area is near an intermittent creek that flows into a lagoon used
for fishing and swimming. Liberty Bay and Dogfish Bay are used for recreational activities and
for commercial shellfishing.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals.
Sediments, soils, and surface water contain heavy metals. Contaminants identified
in shellfish include phthalates and metals. People may be exposed to
contaminants through direct contact with or accidental ingestion of contaminated
groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils. The ingestion of
bioaccumulated contaminants in the shellfish also may pose a health risk.
93
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the type and extent of contamination began in
1990 and is expected to be completed in 1992. At that time, recommendations will be
made on alternatives for final site cleanup.
Site Facts: The Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program, a specially funded program established by the Department of Defense (DoD)
in 1978 to identify, investigate, and control the migration of hazardous contaminants at military and
other DoD facilities.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station determined that no
immediate actions are needed while an investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup
remedies is underway.
April 1991 94 NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE ENGINEERING
STATION (4 WASTE AREAS)
-------
NORTH MARKIPSTREET
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD000641548
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
11/2 miles north of Spokane
Other Names:
Spokane Term.
Tosco Corp. (Spokane Terminal)
The 50-acre North Market Street site is a bulk storage tank farm for petroleum products 1 1/2
miles north of Spokane. Industrial activities since the 1920s have resulted in site contamination
from petroleum-derived chemicals. The site operated as an oil refinery until it was
decommissioned in 1953. Before 1970, lead-containing wastes were disposed of on the ground
and in holes. An unlined waste oil lagoon was located in the northwestern corner of the site and
extended onto the adjacent property. The lagoon has been covered with clean soil and is fenced.
The aboveground petroleum storage tanks are surrounded by soil berms. A 6-foot-high chain-
link fence topped with barbed wire surrounds the site. The site overlies the Spokane Valley-
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, designated as a sole source of drinking water. Soil overlying the
aquifer is highly permeable, facilitating the movement of contaminants into the groundwater.
Groundwater within 3 miles of the site provides drinking water to over 200,000 people and is
used for irrigating croplands. Approximately 228 private wells are located within 3 miles of the
site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil are contaminated with petroleum compounds and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Soil also contains lead. Exposure to contaminants
may result from accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated
groundwater and soil.
95
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: As part of a site investigation, the State constructed monitoring wells
and analyzed groundwater from on-site and off-site wells and soil from test pits and
borings in the lagoon area. This investigation will define the contaminants of concern
and will result in recommendations for the final groundwater and soil cleanup remedies. It is
anticipated to be completed in 1992.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the site determined that no immediate actions are necessary at the North
Market Street site while an investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies is
underway.
April! 991 96 NORTH MARKET STREET
-------
NORTHS
WASHINGT
EPA ID#
ANDFILL
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
Spokane
Other Names:
City of Spokane Indian Trails Landfill
Site Description
The Northside Landfill is located on a 345-acre parcel of land in northwestern Spokane. The site
was established as a city landfill in 1931 and is still active as the largest refuse disposal operation
in Spokane County. The site was used for open burning until the mid-1950s, when open burning
was replaced with shallow excavation and fill operations. In the 1960s, the process of covering
refuse-filled trenches and canyons with soil was used. In the mid-1970s, excavation was limited
to 20 feet below grade, using an area fill technique. Presently, the landfill is being filled
vertically, using the lift method. The future use of this site as a sanitary landfill depends on
construction of new waste disposal cells that meet new State requirements for landfills. It is
anticipated that Northside will be used as a demolition waste and incinerator by-pass disposal
site. Contaminants have filtered into the aquifer beneath the site. The aquifer is the sole source
of drinking water for the city of Spokane. Approximately 65 residents live in the area of the
groundwater plume.
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
Several nearby domestic water wells are contaminated with organic solvents
including tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and chloroform. On-site sludge contains
trichloroethylene (TCE) and PCE. Potential health risks exist for individuals who
accidentally ingest or come into direct contact with contaminated groundwater or
sludge.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
97
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the City of Spokane extended municipal water to homes
with contaminated wells and later to the entire area northwest of the landfill. All
residences within the contaminant plume area have been provided with alternate water
supplies. The City is regularly monitoring on-site wells and a number of off-site wells to determine
the location and direction of flow of the plume.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected a remedy for the landfill that includes: (1)
closure of the existing landfill units as soon as possible; (2) installation of a cap after
closure; (3) treatment of the groundwater to reduce the amount of contaminants migrating
from the landfill; (4) continuation of groundwater monitoring; (5) installation of a gas extraction
system to control landfill gas; and (6) deed restrictions to protect the landfill, cap, and monitoring
wells from unauthorized access. If the landfill cannot be closed by January 1, 1992, all new refuse
must be disposed of in lined cells with leachate control systems that meet State standards for
landfills. Refuse in these cells must be covered every day. Because space in the landfill will be
limited, either an incinerator must be operational within a few years, or another regional waste
disposal facility must be constructed. Design of the cleanup remedies, including construction of a
new waste disposal cell, is underway and is expected to be completed in 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA and the City of Spokane signed a Consent Order in 1988, requiring the City
to complete an investigation of the Northside Landfill.
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply to affected residences has reduced the threat of exposure
to contaminants from the Northside Landfill while final cleanup remedies are being designed.
April 1991 98 NORTHSIDE LANDFILL
-------
NORTHWEST
TRANSFO
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980833974
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Whatcom County
2 miles south of Everson
Other Names:
Northwest Transformer - Salvage Yard
Site Description
The Northwest Transformer site covers 1 1/2 acres at the intersection of Mission and Pole Roads.
The company used the site as a salvage yard from 1958 to 1985 and carried out other activities
on site, including dismantling and reclaiming equipment, burning casings for transformers in an
open concrete burn pit, burning waste oils in a space heater, and draining transformer oils into a
seepage pit. Frequently, chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), spilled and
leaked into the soil on site. In 1985, the Whatcom County Health Department detected PCBs in
private wells near the site. The site is located in a rural area where berries, dairy products, and
Christmas trees are produced. Grain is cultivated to the south of the salvage yard.
Approximately 700 acres of agricultural land are irrigated with groundwater within 3 miles of the
site. The nearest residence is approximately 300 feet away, and about 27 private wells are
located within 1/2 mile of the site. Approximately 200 people live within a mile of the salvage
yard. The Northwest Transformer (South Harkness Street) site also is on the NPL.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
PCBs have been found in soil and groundwater. However, the groundwater
contaminant levels are below the maximum contaminant levels established for
safe drinking water supplies. Individuals may be exposed to contaminants
through accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
99
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1985, the EPA conducted an emergency action involving
the removal of contaminated soil, liquids, and structures from the site. This action
removed most of the contamination at the salvage yard. The EPA constructed a chain-
link fence around the site and sampled the soils and groundwater. Transformers were drained
and rinsed with diesel fuel above a large water tank. Approximately 6,600 gallons of
contaminated liquids were transported off site and incinerated. About 1,400 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and debris were excavated and disposed of at a federally approved facility.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the salvage yard by: (1)
excavating, consolidating, and treating approximately 1,200 cubic yards of soil by in-
situ vitrification, a process whereby the contaminated soil is melted with an electric
current to destroy, remove, or permanently immobilize hazardous substances; (2) capping the site
with clean soil; (3) abandoning an on-site well; (4) monitoring on-site groundwater, (5) sampling
wood in the bam; and (6) evaluating the remedy to determine if more cleanup actions are
required. Under EPA monitoring, the parties completed the technical designs for the remedy in
1991. Cleanup activities are scheduled to begin in 1992. However, the results of the soil in-situ
vitrification feasibility study suggest that in-situ vitrification would not effectively clean up the
soil. Therefore, the EPA is evaluating alternatives and is preparing to propose amending the
selected remedy for the site.
Site Facts: In January 1990, a number of potentially responsible parties signed an
Administrative Order with the EPA. Under this Order, the parties completed a treatability study.
Environmental Progress
The EPA's emergency actions involving excavating and removing contaminated soil, debris, and
liquids from the Northwest Transformer site have reduced the threat to human health and the
environment while the site awaits final cleanup actions.
April 1991 100 NORTHWEST TRANSFORMER
-------
NORTHWE
TRANSFOR
HARKNESS
WASHINGTON
EPA ID#WAD027315621
Site Description —
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Whatcom County
Everson
The Northwest Transformer (South Harkness Street) facility began refurbishing and
manufacturing transformers in 1958 on a 1-acre site in downtown Everson. The company
transferred its storage and salvage operations to the downtown site in 1985 from its Mission and
Pole Roads salvage yard. Northwest Transformer stored transformers, drums, and bulk tanks
outdoors in an unpaved yard at the site. A Washington State Department of Ecology inspection
in 1985 detected high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in on-site soils. The company
ceased operations at the South Harkness Street site by 1987. The soil is permeable, and the
groundwater is shallow in some places at the site. These conditions facilitate the movement of
contaminants into the groundwater. Over 10,000 people use wells within 3 miles of the site for
drinking water and irrigation. Surface water also is used for irrigation. Approximately 2,200
people live within 3 miles of the site. The Northwest Transformer salvage yard site also is on the
NPL.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
On-site soil and buildings are contaminated with high levels of PCBs. People may be
exposed to contaminants through accidental ingestion of or direct contact with
contaminated soil or building contents.
101
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed through a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation of the site to determine the nature and extent of the
contamination is scheduled to begin in 1992. Based on the results of the investigation,
final cleanup remedies will be recommended.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Northwest Transformer (South Harkness Street) site has determined
that no immediate actions are needed while awaiting completion of a site investigation, which
will lead to the selection of a remedy for cleaning up the site.
ApriM991
102
NORTHWEST TRANSFORMER
(SOUTH HARKNESS STREET)
-------
OLD INLAN
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD98098255
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 05
Spokane County
Spokane
Other Names:
Spokane Steel Foundry
The Old Inland Pit site is located in Spokane and covers 10 acres of a former gravel mine. It is
part of a larger site shared by the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Company. The Inland Asphalt
Company used the old gravel mine to dispose of solid waste in 1977. From 1978 to 1983, the
Spokane Steel Foundry, located directly across the street from the site, deposited approximately
180 tons of baghouse dust in the mine. Wastes in the pit contain heavy metals and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The pit is no longer active, and the site is fenced. The pit overlies
the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, the sole source of drinking water for more than
30,000 people located within 3 miles of the site. Geologic conditions around the pit facilitate the
movement of contaminants into the groundwater. The area surrounding the site includes
industrial activities, a commercial district, and residential areas. The nearest residence is
approximately 1/4 mile away, and about 10,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. The wells
for the Spokane Industrial Park are within 2,000 feet of the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Soil contains heavy metals including hexavalent and trivalent chromium and
organic solvents such as methylene chloride and trichloroethylene (TCE).
Individuals risk exposure to hazardous chemicals through accidental ingestion of
or direct contact with contaminated soil.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
103
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The State has begun investigating the nature and extent of contamination at
the Old Inland Pit. Based on the results of the investigation, additional studies may be
conducted, and alternatives for site cleanup will be recommended.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Old Inland Pit site has determined that no immediate actions are
needed while site investigations are completed and a final cleanup remedy is selected.
April 1991
104
OLD INLAND PIT
-------
PACIFIC CAR
FOUNDRY CO
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD009249210
Site Description
&
EPA REGION 10
GRESSIONAL DIST. 07
King County
Renton
Other Names:
PACCAR
Pacific Car & Foundry Co. (PACCAR) manufactured trucks, winches, military equipment, railroad
cars, and anodes on 82 acres in an industrial area of Renton from 1907 to 1988. Until 1964, the
facility deposited waste materials, including foundry sand, wood, metal, paints, solvents, and oils in
a marshy area underlain by peat and clay. The wastes are estimated to have been buried up to 7 feet
below the surface in this landfill. The landfill has been covered with sand and gravel. In 1986,
heavy metals were detected in on-site soil and in shallow ground water. The City of Renton uses
wells drilled in an aquifer connected to the contaminated shallow aquifer. Approximately 37,200
people obtain drinking water from municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. A ditch on the
property drains into the Cedar River and John's Creek. The Cedar River flows into Lake
Washington, which is 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: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Contaminants identified in the groundwater include heavy metals, petroleum products,
and solvents. Soil contains heavy metals, petroleum products, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). The potential for exposure to contaminants exists through
accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated groundwater and soil.
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.
105
April! 991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1987, PACCAR, Inc. excavated contaminated soil containing
hydrocarbons and lead and transported it to a federally approved hazardous waste facility.
Entire Site: The potentially responsible party, under State oversight, started an
investigation in 1988 into the nature and extent of contamination at the site. It is expected
to be completed in 1991. The investigation has included studies of bioremediation of soils
contaminated with organic chemicals and stabilization of soils contaminated with heavy metals.
Upon completion of the investigation, appropriate cleanup remedies will be selected.
Site Facts: A Consent Decree between the State and PACCAR was signed in 1989, under which
the company agreed to investigate site contamination.
Environmental Progress
Excavating and disposing of contaminated soil have reduced the threat of exposure to the public and
the environment from the Pacific Car & Foundry Co. site while the selection of final cleanup
remedies is taking place.
April 1991
106
PACIFIC CAR & FOUNDRY CO.
-------
PASCO SANIT
LANDFILL
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD991281874
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Franklin County
1 1/2 miles northeast of Pasco
Other Names:
Larry Dietrich
Resource Recovery Corp.
Phillips Petroleum Co - Coulee Plant
The Pasco Sanitary Landfill (PSL) is an active landfill located on 280 acres of land 1 1/2 miles
northeast of Pasco. The PSL operated as an open burning dump from 1956 to 1971. Municipal
wastes were dumped on the surface and periodically were burned. In 1971, the PSL was
converted to a sanitary landfill. A portion of the site was leased in 1972 and operated as a
regional hazardous waste disposal site. The site accepted hazardous wastes until 1981. More
than 47,000 drums of various hazardous wastes were deposited in the leased portions of the
landfill. Wastes included sludges, paints, resins, herbicide manufacturing wastes, caustic
chemicals, and empty pesticide containers. Prior to burial, liquid wastes were dried in lined and
unlined lagoons. A trailer park is located approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the site, and
residents obtain drinking water from the municipal water supply. An estimated 10,600 people
live within 3 miles of the site. The confluence of the Snake River and the Columbia River is
2 1/2 miles south of the site. Groundwater within 3 miles of the site is used by over 1,000 people
for drinking and irrigating almost 10,000 acres of land. One mobile home trailer and one
drinking water well are located on the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
trichloroethylene (TCE), toluene, and xylenes. People who accidentally ingest or
come in direct contact with contaminated groundwater may be at risk.
107
ApriM991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The State is scheduled to begin an investigation to determine the nature
and extent of site contamination in 1991. Once the investigation is completed,
recommendations will be made for the final cleanup remedies.
Site Facts: In 1986, the Washington State Department of Ecology issued an Administrative
Order requiring Pasco to monitor on-site wells on a quarterly basis.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Pasco Sanitary Landfill site determined that no immediate actions are
required while site investigations are being planned.
April 1991
108
PASCO SANITARY LANDFILL
-------
PESTICIDE LAB
(YAKIMA)
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD120513957
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Yakima County
Yakima
Other Names:
USDA - Yakima Agriculture Research Lab
Pesticide Pit - Yakima
The Pesticide Lab (Yakima) site covers about 40 acres in Yakima. The site is leased by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Over the years, wastes from the pesticide storage/formulation/
mixing facility at the Central Washington Experimental Lab of the USDA have been discharged into
a septic tank disposal system at this site. Groundwater may have been contaminated by the
pesticides. Approximately 10,000 people live within a mile of the site, and about 50,750 people use
groundwater for drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/3(V82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater may be contaminated with pesticides. People who ingest or come into
direct contact with potentially contaminated groundwater may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
109
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Pesticide Lab (Yakima) site is an active facility; therefore, the site will
be cleaned up under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A sampling
program was begun in 1990 to determine the extent of groundwater and soil
contamination at the site. Based on the results of the investigation, final cleanup remedies will be
chosen.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Pesticide Lab (Yakima) site determined that no immediate actions are
necessary while sampling to determine the extent of site contamination is underway.
April 1991
110
PESTICIDE LAB (YAKIMA)
-------
QUEEN CITY FAR
WASHINGTON
EPAID#WAD98051
Site Description
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
King County
2 1/2 miles north of Maple Valley
Other Names:
Queen City Disposal Site
Four-Tek
The Queen City Farms site is a 320-acre parcel of land located approximately 2 1/2 miles north
of the town of Maple Valley. The site includes a wooded area, three industrial waste disposal
ponds, a composting facility, a gravel pit, several residences, and Queen City Lake. The three
ponds were used for the disposal of wastes from 1955 to 1964. In 1980, the ponds were sampled
by the EPA, and heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were found in the water,
sludge, and sediment. The area surrounding the site is semi-rural. Approximately 7,800 people
live within 3 miles of the site. About 105 public and private wells are located within 1/2 mile of
Queen City Farms. The King County Cedar Hills Landfill is located immediately to the north of
the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
On-site groundwater monitoring wells contain VOCs such as benzene and methylene
chloride. Arsenic was detected in residential wells. Soil is contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and metals. Sludge and surface water contain
trichloroethylene (TCE). Individuals may be exposed to contaminants through ingestion
of or direct contact with contaminated groundwater, soil, sludge, or surface water.
111
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Between 1985 and 1986, Queen City Farms excavated, solidified,
contained, and safely removed approximately 1 million gallons of liquid wastes and more
than 16,000 cubic yards of solidified material from the site. In 1985 and 1986, the
potentially responsible parties installed an initial upgradient water diversion system; processed
wastes in ponds 1,2, and 3; installed the final upgradient water diversion system; and capped,
graded, and revegetated the site. In 1988, soil and drum fragments were taken to a permitted
hazardous waste disposal facility. In 1990, approximately 200 cubic yards of contaminated soil were
removed from the site. The remaining materials are being temporarily stored off site in accordance
with hazardous waste regulations in preparation for shipment to an approved disposal facility.
Entire Site: An investigation determining the type and extent of site contamination is
underway. The investigation is scheduled for conclusion in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1985, Queen City Farms and the Boeing Co. reached legal agreements with the EPA
and the Washington State Department of Ecology to undertake initial cleanup measures at the site.
In 1988, both potentially responsible parties agreed to conduct a comprehensive investigation at the
site.
Environmental Progress
The initial measures of removing liquid wastes, soils, and drum fragments and installing a water
diversion system and a cap have significantly reduced the threat of exposure to hazardous materials
at the Queen City Farms site while an investigation leading to the selection of final cleanup remedies
continues.
April 1991 112 QUEEN CITY FARMS
-------
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL
LANDFILL (KEI
HIGHLAND:
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980639462
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
'ONGRESSIONAL DIST. 07
King County
Kent
Other Names:
Kent-Highlands Disposal Site
Military Road Landfill
City of Seattle, Kent Highlands
Disposal Site
The Seattle Municipal Landfill (Kent Highlands) site is in Kent, approximately 14 miles south of
Seattle. From 1968 to 1986, the City of Seattle leased the site and filled about 60 acres of a 90-acre
ravine located on a hillside above the Green River with refuse. In addition to municipal wastes from
Kent and Seattle, the landfill accepted sand-blasting grit, industrial sludges, and other industrial
wastes. In 1984, contaminants were detected in on-site monitoring wells. Leachate seeps on the
eastern side of the landfill mix with runoff from the landfill and are routed through drainage lines to
settling ponds discharging into the Green River. Approximately 12,700 people live within 1 mile of
the site. Over 18,000 people obtain drinking water from public wells within 3 miles of the landfill.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Landfill gas contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including vinyl chloride and
trichloroethylene (TCE). Groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals and nitrate.
Leachate contains VOCs and heavy metals. People may be exposed to contaminants
through accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated groundwater and
leachate, or through inhalation of landfill gas. Leachate from the site eventually
discharges into the Green River, which is used for spawning and salmon raising.
113
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Initial actions taken at the landfill include the installation of a
leachate collection and treatment system, installation of a surface water drainage control
system, installation of a landfill gas control system, and construction of a fence.
Improvements in the landfill gas control system were made in 1990 and 1991. A temporary cap was
installed, and the site was vegetated.
Entire Site: The City of Seattle began an investigation in 1987 to determine the type and
extent of site contamination. The investigation is scheduled for completion in 1992. At its
conclusion, recommendations will be made for final site cleanup alternatives.
Site Facts: A Consent Agreement was signed in 1987, in which the City of Seattle agreed to
conduct an investigation of the site.
Environmental Progress
The installation of the leachate collection and treatment system, surface water drainage system, and
landfill gas control system has reduced the potential for exposure to contaminants at the Seattle
Municipal Landfill while an investigation leading to the selection of the final cleanup remedy
continues.
April 1991 114 SEATTLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
(KENT HIGHLANDS)
-------
SILVER
MINE
WASHING!
EPA ID# WAD980722789
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Okanogan County
Horse Springs Coulee
Site Description
The Silver Mountain Mine site is an abandoned silver and gold mine located in Horse Springs
Coulee, approximately 8 miles northwest of Tonasket. The site covers 5 acres and was operated
sporadically from 1928 to the 1960s. In the early 1980s, cyanide was used to extract metals from
mine tailings. In this process, a solution of sodium cyanide was pumped over the tailings and
drained into a collection basin where metals were extracted from the solution. By 1983, the site
was abandoned, and the mine tailings and holding basin, which contained cyanide-contaminated
water, were left behind. The nearest residence is approximately 3 miles away, and fewer than
five people live within 3 miles. Private wells within 3 miles are used for domestic purposes,
irrigation, and livestock watering.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Metal contaminants have been detected in on-site groundwater. The leachate pit is
contaminated with cyanide and arsenic. Individuals may be exposed to pollutants
through accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated groundwater and
leachate.
115
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1985, the Washington State Department of Ecology
stabilized the site by removing contaminated water from the pond, capping the heap
and pond with a plastic liner, and fencing the site.
Entire Site: The remedy selected in 1990 to clean up the site includes: (1)
consolidating the mine tailings; (2) capping the tailings; (3) fencing the area; and (4)
providing a clean well for domestic stock watering. The entrance to the mine also will
be closed for safety reasons. Design of the remedies has been completed, and cleanup work has
begun. Cleanup activities are expected to be completed in 1993.
Site Facts: The Silver Mountain Mine site was placed on the NPL because it is a non-coal site
with mining operations that occurred after August 3,1977, the enactment date of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Thus, it is neither regulated by SMCRA nor
eligible for cleanup funds from the SMCRA Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program.
Environmental Progress
Removing contaminated pond water, capping the pond and heap pile with plastic, and fencing
the site have reduced the threat to public health and the environment from the Silver Mountain
Mine site while cleanup activities are underway.
April 1991 116 SILVER MOUNTAIN MINE
-------
TOFTDAHL DRUMS
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD980723506
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 03
Clark County
Brush Prairie
Site Description
The 15-acre Toftdahl Drums site, located in Brush Prairie, was used in the early 1970s to clean used
drums for resale. The three main areas where hazardous substances were used were a drum cleaning
area, an initial burial trench, and a final drum burial area. Between 100 to 200 drums containing
industrial waste were brought to the site from a plywood manufacturer. About 50 of the drums were
crushed, placed in a trench, and covered with dirt because they could not be cleaned. Between 1978
and 1982, 38 of the drums from the trench were removed to a local landfill. In 1983, site
investigations by the EPA revealed six badly rusted and leaking drums. The area surrounding the
site is rural-residential. Approximately 5,770 people live within 3 miles of the site. The surface of
the site slopes downward to a spring and a small westerly flowing tributary of Morgan Creek.
Site Responsibility: The site was addressed through Federal
and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Deleted Date: 12/23/88
Threats and Contaminants
Surface water, groundwater, and soil were contaminated with heavy metals and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Cleanup actions have removed any potential
health threats that were present at the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site was addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase that
focused on cleanup of the entire site.
117
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA sampled the six leaking drums and placed them
in an excavation trench lined with polyethylene. The drums were capped with a sheet of
polyethylene, excavated soil, and a final sheet of polyethylene. A 6-foot fence was
installed around the excavated area (final burial area). Three additional drums were found in a
second excavation and were placed within the fenced area. In 1984, five potential burial locations
were identified outside the fence and one area inside the fence. Further investigation of the areas
outside the fence uncovered metal debris and paint-chip-like debris. Inside the fenced area, 20 pits
were excavated.
Entire Site: The State removed and disposed of the remains of five crushed drums,
parts of additional drums, and 40 cubic yards of contaminated soils. Contaminated soils
were placed in polypropylene bags. All contaminated materials were disposed of off site
at a federally approved hazardous waste facility. Sampling and monitoring of private wells will
continue for 10 years.
Environmental Progress
After evaluating the site following cleanup actions, the EPA determined it no longer poses a threat to
human health or the environment and deleted Toftdahl Drums from the NPL in 1988.
April 1991
118
TOFTDAHL DRUMS
-------
WESTERN PROCE
CO., INC.
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD009487513
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
'CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 08
King County
Kent Valley
The Western Processing Company, Inc. site covers 13 acres, approximately 20 miles south of
Seattle, in the highly industrialized Kent Valley. Originally, the company reprocessed animal
by-products and brewer's yeast. In the 1960s, the business expanded to include recycling,
reclaiming, treating, and disposing of industrial wastes. The wastes included waste oils,
electroplating wastes, waste pickle liquor, battery acids, flue dust from steel mills, pesticides,
spent solvents, and zinc dross. From 1961 until 1983, approximately 300 businesses transported
their industrial wastes to the Western Processing site. The company stored approximately 4,000
to 6,000 drums on the site. The property also contained 72 bulk tanks, open waste piles, 10
lagoons, transformers, and other containers. The company was closed permanently in 1983.
Approximately 10,000 people live within 3 miles of the site, 2,000 of whom depend upon
groundwater for drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/01/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Contaminants found in groundwater and sediments include phenols and heavy metals.
Soils contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), as well as phenols and metals. VOCs and metals were detected in surface
water. Individuals may be exposed to contamination through accidental ingestion of
or direct contact with contaminated groundwater, sediments, soils, or surface water.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on removing the source of the contamination and cleanup of the entire site.
119
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA stabilized the site by removing 127 drums of
PCB liquids; 1,944 cubic yards of solidified paint sludges; 24,700 gallons of recycled
solvents; and 447,450 gallons of mixed contaminated liquids. The EPA also installed a
stormwater runoff system; capped a material pile with an impermeable, flexible cover; and regraded
portions of the site. In 1984, construction of a lined impoundment for stormwater collection and
treatment was completed.
Source Control: In 1984, the EPA selected a remedy to control the source of
contamination by: (1) removing all bulk liquids, drummed liquids, and waste piles to a
federally approved facility for disposal or incineration; (2) removing and disposing of all
transformers and substation equipment; (3) dismantling, demolishing, and removing all on-site
buildings and bulk storage tanks; (4) using a portable stormwater treatment plant on site; and (5)
monitoring air quality. The potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring, completed these
actions in 1984.
Entire Site: In 1985, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the entire site by: (1)
excavating and disposing of highly contaminated soils, drums, and buried wastes in Area
1; (2) excavating, or cleaning and plugging all utility and process lines in Area 1; (3)
capping all remaining surface soils; (4) maintaining caps; (5) excavating utility manholes/vaults near
the site; (6) removing or decontaminating the lead-contaminated house in Area 8; (7) constructing a
groundwater extraction and pre-treatment plant; (8) constructing, operating, and maintaining a
stormwater control system; (9) monitoring Mill Creek, the east drain, groundwater, and the
groundwater extraction system performance; (10) excavating contaminated sediments in Mill Creek;
(11) conducting bench-scale tests of soil solidification techniques and conducting pilot-scale tests of
in-place solidification technologies; and (12) performing supplemental studies if contamination of
the shallow groundwater spreads beyond the zone now contaminated, or significant regional
contamination is detected. Approximately 25,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils were removed
from the site in 1987. The wastewater treatment plant began operating in 1988. As of early 1991,
over 200,000,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater have been treated. Additional equipment,
space, and staff have been added to the on-site laboratory. Extensive monitoring, including
sampling of the extraction wells, treatment plant influent and effluent, and Mill Creek and the East
Drain is continuing. In addition, monitoring of several wells outside the site is underway. Cleanup
activities are expected to be completed in 1991, while monitoring activities are scheduled for a later
completion date.
Site Facts: In 1983, the EPA issued an order to Western Processing to cease operations due to
contamination problems. In 1986, the EPA and Western Processing Trustees signed a Consent
Decree.
Environmental Progress
The removal of liquids and sludges, the excavation of soils and soil wastes, and stormwater and
groundwater treatment have reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants at the Western
Processing Co. site while cleanup actions continue.
April 1991 120 WESTERN PROCESSING CO.. INC.
-------
WYCKOFF CO./
EAGLE HAR
WASHINGTON
EPA ID# WAD009248295
Site Description
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Kitsap County
Bainbridge Island
The Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor site is located on Bainbridge Island. The site occupies
approximately 40 acres at the mouth of Eagle Harbor. A wood treatment facility has operated at
this location since the early 1900s. In the past, wood was pressure-treated with solutions
containing pentachlorophenol (PCP) or creosote to prevent the growth of sapstain and mold
fungi. Until 1981, over 23 million gallons of wastewater were discharged to a seepage basin,
and sludge was buried on site. In 1981, a closed-loop effluent system was installed. In 1984, an
advisory was issued against harvest or consumption of crabs and shellfish from Eagle Harbor.
Approximately 2,000 people live within a mile of the site. The nearest residence is less than 1/4
mile away. More than 150 residents in the Eagle Harbor area rely on 4 public, and 8 to 15
private, wells from the sea-level aquifer for their drinking water. The harbor is used for fishing,
swimming, and boating.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/18/85
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
PCP have been found in groundwater and in seeps on adjacent beaches. Marine
sediments and soils contain PNAs, VOCs, metals, and PCP, as well as dioxins and
furans. Individuals ingesting or coming into direct contact with contaminated
groundwater, sediments, soils, or seeps may be at risk. The Kitsap County Health
Department has a health advisory in effect, which advises against shellfishing in the
Eagle Harbor.
121
April 1991
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the Central Harbor and North Shore and the Wyckoff property and South
Shore.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under a 1988 Administrative Order, activities required of
Wyckoff to reduce pollutants entering Puget Sound include: recovering floating oil from
shallow recovery wells on the site, removing buried sludge and tank sludges from the site,
treating ground water pumped from the wells, and monitoring and discharging treated water to Puget
Sound. The groundwater extraction unit commenced pumping in 1990 and uses bacteria and carbon
filters to treat the water prior to discharge into Puget Sound. As of early 1991, over 20,000,000
gallons of groundwater have been treated, and 19,000 gallons of oil have been removed from
recovery wells. These actions have limited the migration of the contaminant groundwater plume.
Central Harbor and North Shore: The EPA is investigating Eagle Harbor to identify
the source of sediment contamination and alternative technologies for cleanup. The
investigation is expected to be completed in 1991, and the selection of the final remedy
for the Central Harbor and the northern shoreline is expected at that time.
Wyckoff Property and South Shore: The EPA is scheduled to initiate an
investigation in 1991 to determine if other actions will be required.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA issued an order requiring Wyckoff to investigate soil and
groundwater contamination at the site. In July 1988, the EPA and the Wyckoff Company signed an
Administrative Order on Consent, under which Wyckoff performed initial cleanup measures at its
Eagle Harbor facility. The Eagle Harbor Technical Discussion Group (TDG), composed of
environmental groups, potentially responsible parties, public health agencies, and local community
groups, is participating in and commenting on a draft investigative report for the Central Harbor and
North Shore areas.
Environmental Progress
The upgrading of drainage controls, removal of creosote tank liquids, and the treatment of
groundwater have significantly reduced the threat of exposure to contaminants at the Wyckoff Co./
Eagle Harbor site while investigations leading to the selection of the final cleanup remedy continue.
April 1991 122 WYCKOFF CO./EAGLE HARBOR
-------
EPA ID# WAD04018'
Site Description
YAKIMA PLATING
COMPANY
WASHING!
EPA REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 04
Yakima County
Yakima
Other Names:
Yakima Plating
The Yakima Plating Company site covers 2 acres in Yakima. Since 1962, the company has
electroplated bumpers for cars and other objects. Yakima Plating has discharged wastewaters
from its operations to an on-site drainfield since the plant opened. The plant operated under a
State permit to discharge its wastewater from 1966 to 1977. In 1986, the EPA found
contaminants in the groundwater. The site is located in a neighborhood of Yakima that includes
light commercial and residential areas. Approximately 98,500 people use groundwater as a
source of drinking water within 3 miles of the site. The nearest well is 225 feet from the
company's drainfield.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/31/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains heavy metals including copper, lead, and zinc. Individuals
may be exposed to contaminants through accidental ingestion of or direct contact
with contaminated groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
123
April 1991
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA began a study to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. The EPA is scheduled to complete this study in 1991 and
will recommend alternatives for final cleanup of the site.
Environmental Progress
An initial evaluation of the Yakima Plating Company site determined that no immediate actions
are needed while an investigation leading to the selection of the final cleanup remedy continues.
April 1991
124
YAKIMA PLATING COMPANY
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary:
Terms Used
in the
Fact Sheets
125
-------
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.
127
-------
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
128
-------
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.
129
-------
GLOSSARY.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or sub-
stance whose quantity, location, or nature
produces undesirable health or environmental
effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting out
an organized, planned, and coordinated course
of action to be followed in case of a fire,
explosion, or other accident that releases toxic
chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioactive
materials into the environment
Cooperative Agreement: A contract be-
tween the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site
cleanup responsibilities and other activities on
a cost-sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood preserv-
ing operations and produced by distillation of
tar, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
[see PAHs and PNAs]. Contaminating
sediments, soils, and surface water, creosotes
may cause skin ulcerations and cancer
through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an
embankment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a
chemical is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed
small amounts of hazardous waste to a site.
This process allows the EPA to settle with
small, or de minimis contributors, as a single
group rather than as individuals, saving time,
money, and effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes,
soils, or chemicals.
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materi-
als. Disposal may be accomplished through
the use of approved secure landfills, surface
impoundments, land farming, deep well
injection, or incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgra-
dient of a contaminated groundwater source
are prone to receiving pollutants.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents,
and surface areas of commercial or industrial
facilities.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in mixing
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil
and water.
130
-------
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 RJ/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
131
-------
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,
132
-------
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
133
-------
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.
134
-------
GLOSSARY
Physical Chemical Separation: The treat-
ment process of adding a chemical to a sub-
stance to separate the compounds for further
treatment or disposal.
Pilot Testing: A small-scale test of a pro-
posed treatment system in the field to deter-
mine its ability to clean up specific contami-
nants.
Plugging: The process of stopping the flow
of water, oil, or gas into or out of the ground
through a borehole or well penetrating the
ground.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater
flowing from a specific source. The move-
ment of the groundwater is influenced by such
factors as local groundwater flow patterns, the
character of the aquifer in which groundwater
is contained, and the density of contaminants
[see Migration].
Pollution: Generally, the presence of matter
or energy whose nature, location, or quantity
produces undesired health or environmental
effects.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor
oil. They are a common component of creo-
sotes and can cause cancer.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and caulk-
ing compounds. PCBs also are produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment
because they are very stable, non-reactive,
and highly heat resistant Chronic exposure
to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
also is known to bioaccumulate in fatty
tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in
1979 with the passage of the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive
organic compounds mat are a common com-
ponent of creosotes, which can be carcino-
genic.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride.
PVC is used to make pipes, records, raincoats,
and floor tiles. Health risks from high con-
centrations of vinyl chloride include liver
cancer and lung cancer, as well as cancer of
the lymphatic and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Su-
perfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs
until they admit liability or a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in site cleanup activity
without admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid
portions can be disposed of safely; the re-
moval of particles from airborne emissions.
Electrochemical precipitation is the use of an
anode or cathode to remove the hazardous
chemicals. Chemical precipitation involves
the addition of some substance to cause the
solid portion to separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available informa-
tion about a known or suspected waste site or
release to determine if a threat or potential
threat exists.
135
-------
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
136
-------
GLOSSARY
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons to store
waste.
Riparian Habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers
and streams that have a high density, diver-
sity, and productivity of plant and animal
species relative to nearby uplands.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contamina-
tion from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution device that uses a
spray of water or reactant or a dry process to
trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid (usually leachate) form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the
ground used for storage of liquids, usually in
the form of leachate, from waste disposal
areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit by
moving through the surrounding soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is
necessary for choosing and designing cleanup
measures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by
the site. It follows, and is more extensive
than, a preliminary assessment. The purpose
is to gather information necessary to score the
site, using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the
flow of contaminated groundwater or subsur-
face liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by
digging a trench around a contaminated area
and filling the trench with an impermeable
material that prevents water from passing
through it. The groundwater or contaminated
liquids trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelt-
ers are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
137
-------
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
138
-------
GLOSSARY
a solvent and as a metal degreasing agent.
TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled,
ingested, or through skin contact and can
damage vital organs, especially the liver [see
Volatile Organic Compounds].
Unilateral [Administrative] Order: [see
Administrative Order].
Upgradient: An upward hydrologic slope;
demarks areas that are higher than contami-
nated areas and, therefore, are not prone to
contamination by the movement of polluted
groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the
soil draws VOC-contaminated air from the
soil pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn
down from the surface of the soil.
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth,
to prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind
the waste in a glassy, solid material more
durable than granite or marble and resistant to
leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols,
acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These
potentially toxic chemicals are used as sol-
vents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels.
Because of their volatile nature, they readily
evaporate into the air, increasing the potential
exposure to humans. Due to their low water
solubility, environmental persistence, and
widespread industrial use, they are commonly
found in soil and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that uses
a series of tanks, screens, filters, and other
treatment processes to remove pollutants from
water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other
liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
139
-------
APPENDIX B
Information
Repositories
for
NPL Sites
in Washington
141
-------
js a «
•5'2-8
^S 2
bo
•3 55 R ~ 2
o a»|S3
+- a * s,1*-. r,
l-«
i-S
M
.S XS
§ §
.2 a
Hit
143
-------
II
p
"8
4-1
(0
O
*«
_c
(A
W
(A
I
o>
oc
1
4-*
(0
O
o\ co
!
£ £ I
«?
-------
''
imepTr! Prc1'" '•;
(7
I •
------- |