United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
(OS-230)
EPA/540/8-9140/074
November 1991
vvEPA SUPERFUND
Region 5
Results
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ORDERING INFORMATION
The public may order additional copies of this document from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600 or (800) 336-4700
This document is one in a series that includes the following documents:
NPL Characterization Project: National Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 1 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 2 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 3 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 4 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 5 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 6 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 7 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 8 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 9 Results
NPL Characterization Project: Region 1 0 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: National Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 1 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 2 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 3 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 4 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 5 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 6 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 7 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 8 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 9 Results
CERCLIS Characterization Project: Region 1 0 Results
PB92-963304
PB92-963305
PB92-963306
PB92-963307
PB92-963308
PB92-963309
PB92-963310
PB92-96331 1
PB92-963312
PB92-96331 3
PB92-963314
PB92-963315
PB92-96331 6
PB92-963317
PB92-96331 8
PB92-96331 9
PB92-963320
PB92-963321
PB92-963322
PB92-963323
PB92-963324
PB92-963325
-------
Publication 9345.1-09-5
EPA/540/8-91/074
November 1991
SUPERFUND
NPL CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT:
REGION 5 RESULTS
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The design and management of these studies was carried out by Penelope Hansen and
Caroline Previ of the Site Assessment Branch in the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response. Final publication of the documents was under the
direction of Suzanne Wells and Mary Latka. EPA also greatly appreciates the efforts of the
numerous people who collected, collated, and analyzed the data and helped finalize the
documents for publication. In particular, EPA would like to recognize Nermin Ahmad, Al Canepa,
Catherine Brock, Arthur Johnson, Jennifer Nauen, Amy Newell, Nikki Koch, James Skiridulis, and
Joe Vescio, who were instrumental in helping to design the study, coordinate data collection, and
analyze the information. We are also grateful for the many hours of work put in by our regional
contacts in their efforts to collect the actual data: Marcia Brooks, Diana Coker, Deb Duffy, Joan
Dupont, Debbie Flood, Angle Garcia, Bill Glasser, Pressley Hatcher, Joyce Harney, Sharon
Hayes, Kerry Herndon, Brian Holloway, Paul LaCourreye, Steve Maybury, Bill Messenger, Carl
Rodzewick, Bill Schaeffer, Dave Schaller, Betsy Shaver, John Toten, Steve Vaughn, and Murray
Warner. Finally, we would like to recognize Baxter Jones, Nancy O'Connor, and Brian Steglitz,
who helped prepare the documents for publication.
-------
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
ii
vi
1
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Chapter 1: Project Summary
1.1 Project Objectives 1
1.2 General Methodology 3
1.3 Results 3
1.4 Organization of Document 4
Chapter 2: Data Collection Methods 5
2.1 Data Collection Procedures 5
2.2 Source of Data 5
2.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 5
2.4 Data Collection Form 7
2.5 Data Collection Form Instructions 11
Chapter 3: Site Description 21
Chart 1: Site Setting 22
Chart 2: Area of Site 23
Chart 3: Predominant Land Uses in Site Vicinity 24
Chart 4: Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Activities Occurring at Site 25
Chart 5: Waste Easily Accessible to Public 26
Chart 6: Distance to Nearest Population 27
Chapter 4: Owner/Generator Information 28
Chart 7: Owner/Operator of Site at Time of MRS Score 29
Chart 8: Owner/Operator of Site at Time of Contamination 30
Chart 9: Status of Site at Time of MRS Score 31
Chart 10: Industry Responsible for Generating Waste: Major Categories 32
Chart 11: Industry Responsible for Generating Waste: Manufacturing Category
Details 33
Chart 12: Waste Depositor 34
Chart 13: Waste Generator 35
Chart 14: Beginning Year of Site Operation 36
Chart 15: Ending Year of Site Operation 37
Chart 16: Total Years of Site Operation 38
in
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter 5: Regulatory and Response History
39
Chart 17: How Site Identified 40
Chart 18: When Site Identified 41
Chart 19: Regulatory Activities Prior to CERCLA Involvement 42
Chart 20: Miscellaneous Descriptive Information 43
Chapter 6: MRS Scoring Information 44
Chart 21: Initial Proposal 45
Chart 22: MRS Score 46
Chart 23: Observed Releases 47
Chart 24: Pathways Scored 48
Chart 25: Pathways of Concern 49
Chart 26: NPL Status 50
Chapter 7: Waste Description 51
Chart 27: Physical State of Waste 52
Chart 28: Predominant Waste Types 53
Chart 29: Waste Quantity 54
Chapter 8: Environmental Information 55
Chart 30: Type of Environmental Damage Reported 56
Chart 31: Depth to Uppermost Used Aquifer 57
Chart 32: Surface Water Adjacent to/Draining Site 58
Chart 33: Presence of Sensitive Environment Within 3 Miles 59
Chart 34: Type of Sensitive Environment Within 3 Miles 60
Chapter 9: Water Use Information 61
Chart 35: Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply Within 3 Miles: Source 62
Chart 36: Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply Within 3 Miles: Population Served . . 63
Chart 37: Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply Within 3 Miles: Type 64
Chart 38: Local Ground Water Uses Other Than Drinking Water 65
Chart 39: Operable Wells Within 1 Mile 66
Chart 40: Operable Wells Within 3 Miles 67
Chart 41: Number of Wells Within 1 Mile 68
Chart 42: Number of Wells Within 3 Miles 69
IV
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Chart 43: Distance to Nearest Well 70
Chart 44: Local Surface Water Uses Other Than Drinking Water 71
Chart 45: Distance to Nearest Downstream Intake 72
Appendices 73
Appendix A: Responses from "Other" Category 73
Appendix B: Sites Reviewed 77
Appendix C: Region 5 NPL Map 82
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ATSDR
CERCLA
CERCLIS
DOD
DOE (USDOE)
DOI (USDOI)
DOT (USDOT)
DW
EPA
ERRIS
FR
FS
GW
MRS
NFRAP
NPDES
NPL
PA
PCB
PCP
POTW
QA/QC
RA
RCRA
RD
Rl
ROD
SARA
SBA (USSBA)
SI
SW
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CERCLA Information System
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Drinking Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response
Information System
Federal Register
Feasibility Study
Ground Water
Hazard Ranking System
No Further Remedial Action Planned
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
National Priorities List
Preliminary Assessment
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Pentachlorophenol
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Remedial Action
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
Small Business Administration
Site Inspection
Surface Water
VI
-------
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT SUMMARY
Congress passed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980 to
address the environmental threats posed by
the nation's uncontrolled waste sites.
CERCLA directed the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to identify the sites
that pose the greatest relative danger to
human health or the environment. In
response, EPA developed a site assessment
process to evaluate and screen sites within"
the Superfund program. The main
components of the site assessment process
(see figure on next page) are:
CERCLIS. The CERCLA Information
System (CERCLIS) is EPA's data base to
record and track activities at all sites
discovered. EPA learns of sites in many
ways, including federal programs, state
and local programs, and citizen
notifications.
Preliminary Assessment. EPA or the
state conducts a preliminary assessment
(PA) at every site entered into CERCLIS.
The PA a relatively low cost review of
available information determines if the
site warrants further CERCLA action.
After the PA, EPA decides either to send
the site forward in the assessment
process or to classify the site as NFRAP
(no further remedial action planned
under CERCLA).
Site Inspection. The site inspection (SI)
involves more detailed data collection,
including environmental sampling.
Based on the SI, EPA either
recommends scoring the site with the
Hazard Ranking System (MRS) or
classifies the site as NFRAP.
Hazard Ranking System. The MRS
uses information gathered during the PA
and SI to screen and identify sites
consistently for the National Priorities
List (NPL). The MRS results in a
numerical score that is used to set
priorities for more detailed site
investigation. In general, sites scoring
28.50 and above are added to the NPL,
and sites scoring below 28.50 are
classified as NFRAP.
National Priorities List. The NPL
identifies sites that warrant more detailed
evaluation and possible remedial
response. Adding sites to the NPL is a
rulemaking processsites are proposed
for the NPL in the Federal Register, the
proposal is subject to public comment,
and those sites with MRS scores that
remain above 28.50 after public
comment become final NPL sites.
This report is one in a series providing
information on the nature of the sites being
evaluated by the Superfund site assessment
program. It is intended to provide a
"snapshot" of sites in Region 5 on the NPL
as of February 1991. Separate reports are
available for the other nine EPA Regions and
for the nation as a whole. Other reports in
this series cover the CERCLIS
characterization project, which provides
representative information on the types of
sites in the CERCLIS inventory. National
and Regional CERCLIS characterization
reports also are available.
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
In 1989, EPA undertook a project to
characterize sites on the NPL. The project's
main objectives were to:
increase understanding of the
characteristics of NPL sites;
develop a centralized repository for NPL
site information; and
summarize the types of sites the
Superfund program is addressing.
-------
SUPERFUND PROCESS
Site Assessment Phase
NFRAP (Information Provided to States
& Other Regulatory Authorities)
Removal Actions May Occur at Any Stage
Remedial Phase
Removal Actions May Occur at Any Stage
-------
Because the characterization is based
on information collected during the
screening stages of the Superfund process,
it does not represent a comprehensive
characterization of NPL sites. The site
assessment program is a screening program
hundreds of sites pass through the PA and
SI stages annually. EPA's understanding of
sites may change after more detailed
investigations are conducted during the
remedial stage of the Superfund process.
The figure on the previous page illustrates
the position of the site assessment stage in
the context of the overall Superfund process.
This report provides a summary of the
characteristics of NPL sites in Region 5 as
they are understood at the time of listing.
1.2 GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The NPL characterization project
evaluated 1218 sites the 1189 sites on the
NPL as of February 1991 plus 29 sites that
have been deleted from the NPL because all
appropriate response actions have been
taken. (Four sites deleted early in NPL
history were not included.) The 79 sites that
were proposed for the NPL but subsequently
dropped from further consideration were not
included. The proposed sites were dropped
because of policy issues or because their
MRS scores fell below 28.50 (the cutoff point
for listing) after public comment.
The table below indicates the number of
sites in each EPA Region that were
reviewed. Of the 265 sites located in Region
5, five had been deleted as of February
1991.
EPA published the original MRS on July
16, 1982 (47 FR 31180). The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) required EPA to revise the HRS
to assess more accurately the relative risk
posed by waste sites. The revised HRS was
published on December 14, 1990 (55 FR
51532). The NPL characterization project
evaluated the complete set of sites that were
listed based on the original HRS (with the
exception of four deleted sites as noted
above). Sites listed on the basis of the
revised HRS were not evaluated.
Data for the NPL characterization project
were collected in two stages. First, the final
HRS package for each site (filed at the EPA
Headquarters Superfund Docket) was
reviewed. Then, any data gaps were filled
by reviewing the Regional site files.
1.3 RESULTS
The results of this report are presented
in chart form in Chapters 3 through 9.
These charts include information about: site
description, owner/generator, regulatory and
response history, HRS scoring, waste
description, site environment, and water use.
The box at the bottom of the next page
provides information to assist the reader in
interpreting the charts.
Listed below are notable findings of the
NPL characterization project for Region 5.
Almost half of NPL sites in Region 5 are
located in rural areas; approximately
21% are located in urban areas (Chart
1).
Approximately 60% of Region 5 NPL
sites manage(d) wastes in industrial
NUMBER OF SITES REVIEWED FOR NPL CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT
Region
Number of Sites
1
84
2
204
3
160
4 I^J 6
158 | 265 | 71
7
59
8
43
9
105
10
69
Total
1218
-------
landfills; 40% manage(d) wastes in
surface impoundments (Chart 4).
More than half of Region 5 NPL sites are
owned by private industry; less than 4%
are owned by the federal government
(Chart 7).
Over a third of NPL sites in Region 5 are
active facilities (Chart 9).
More than half of NPL sites in Region 5
contain wastes generated by
manufacturing industries (Chart 10).
Nearly 60% of Region 5 NPL sites were
identified through state and local
programs (Chart 17).
Over 70% of NPL sites in Region 5 have
released hazardous substances to
ground water; about a third have
released hazardous substances to
surface water (Chart 23).
Nearly 30% of Region 5 NPL sites have
a sensitive environment within 3 miles
(Chart 33).
Over 95% of Region 5 NPL sites have
operable wells within 1 mile (Chart 39).
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT
This document consists of nine chapters
and three appendices. Chapter 2 provides
more detailed information on data collection
activities and includes the data collection
form and instructions. Chapters 3 through 9
present the results in chart form. Appendix
A lists all of the individual responses for the
"other" response category, which are not
displayed separately on the charts in
Chapters 3 through 9. Appendix B lists the
sites reviewed, and Appendix C contains a
map that shows the locations of these sites.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHARTS
Data were generated from a review of NPL site files in 1989. Except where noted, charts depict
information for all 265 sites reviewed in Region 5 260 that were on the NPL as of February
1991, and five that had been deleted because all appropriate response actions have been
taken.
Efforts were made to characterize site conditions/surroundings as they existed at the time of
the HRS score. The MRS scoring package and associated references served as the primary
information source.
Percentages on some charts do not total exactly 100 percent due to rounding.
Percentages on some bar charts total to greater than 100 percent because multiple responses
to certain questions were possible.
-------
CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Before the NPL characterization project,
information on Region 5 NPL sites was
available in individual site files at EPA
Headquarters and the Regional office. The
project compiled and centralized site-specific
information on the characteristics of these
NPL sites. This chapter describes the data
collection activities. The table on the next
page summarizes the process used to
collect data.
2.1 DATA COLLECTION
PROCEDURES
After developing the overall approach to
the NPL characterization project, EPA
prepared a data collection form (see Section
2.4). The design of the form was based in
part on the form used for the CERCLIS
characterization project, an earlier
companion project. A few new questions
were added and some existing questions
were modified to capture information more
pertinent to a study of NPL sites. An
instruction manual (see Section 2.5) was
developed to promote consistency and
accuracy in data collection. The data
collection form and instruction manual
should be consulted for a full explanation of
the definitions used in the report. Data
collection procedures were tested on Region
10 sites. As a result, a few modifications
were made to the data collection form. The
modified form, as shown in Section 2.4, was
used in Region 5 as well as the other eight
Regions.
Headquarters Superfund Docket. The
second stage involved filling in data gaps at
the Region 5 office. Information reviewed
included HRS scoring package reference
documents such as SI reports, PA reports,
maps, and records of telephone contacts.
After data for all Regions were collected and
verified, the project team compiled one
national data base. The data base was then
analyzed to calculate response frequencies
for each of the data fields.
2.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE/
QUALITY CONTROL
The first level of quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC), conducted at the Regional
office, involved comparing the information
collected at EPA Headquarters with the
information available in the Region and,
where necessary, resolving differences.
After information on the data collection forms
was entered into the data base, the data
base was reviewed to ensure that the
information had been properly transferred.
A second level QA/QC involved reviewing
the data base for completeness,
consistency, and accuracy. In addition, the
graphics produced for this and all other
reports were checked for consistency with
the data base.
2.2 SOURCE OF DATA
Most of the questions on the data
collection form could be answered in the first
stage of the data collection process by
reviewing HRS scoring packages at the
-------
PROCESS USED TO COLLECT DATA
TASK
Headquarters
Docket Review
Regional Visit: File
Review
Regional Visit: First
Level QA/QC
Data Entry/
Verification
Second Level
QA/QC
Statistical Analysis
DESCRIPTION
Review HRS scoring packages for every NPL site. Complete as much of
data collection form as possible.
Fill in data gaps by reviewing all site assessment materials in Regional NPL
files, particularly references in HRS scoring packages.
Compare information collected at Headquarters Docket to Regional
information.
Enter information on data collection forms into data base. Verify that
information on forms "has been properly transferred to data base.
Review information in the Regional data bases for completeness,
consistency, and accuracy.
Compile Regional data bases into one data base. Perform statistical
analysis of data to calculate response frequencies displayed in charts.
-------
2.4 DATA COLLECTION FORM
NPL Statistics Data Collection Form
Page 1 of 4
General Instructions: An entry must be made for every item on this form. Fill in blanks and/or check the appropriate box(es)
as indicated.
RECORD INFORMATION
1) Sit* Record Number: (fill in).
2) Site Nam*: (fill in).
SITE DESCRIPTION
1) Coordinates (fill in or check unknown)
N. Latitude
W. Longitude
3) Location Land Usa/SKe Use
(check all applicable local/adjacent uses)
D Industrial Area
Q Commercial District
Q Residential
D Agricultural
Q Forest/Reids
D Military
O Department of Energy
D Mining
D Unknown
O Other (fill in)
D Unknown
4) Current Ownership (check one)
a Private - Industrial
D Private Individual
O Private - Small Business
O Federal
D State
D County
O Municipal
O Indian Lands
O Unknown
D Other (fill in)
2) Setting (check one)
D Urban
Q Suburban
O Rural
O Unknown
5) Ownership When Contaminated (check one)
D Private - Industrial
Q Private - Individual
O Private Small Business
O Federal
Q State
Q County
D Municipal
Q Indian Lands
D Unknown
D Other (fill in)
6) Area of Site (fill in and check units
or check unknown)
D Acres D Square feet D Unknown
7) Sit* Status (check one)
D Active
D Inactive
G Unknown
8) Years ol Operation
(fill in or check unknown)
from (yr) to _
Q Unknown
.(y)
9) Industry Responsible for Generating and/or Depositing
Waste Material (check all that apply)
D Manufacturing (if checked, must check
one of sub-items)
n Food and Kindred Products
D Agriculture
D Textile Mill Products
D Lumber and Wood Products
D Paper and Allied Products
D Construction
D Chemicals and Allied Products
O Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
D Rubber and Plastic Products
O Primary Metals Industries
D Fabricated Metal Products
D aectroplating
D Electronic and Electrical Equipment
D Electric Power Production and Distribution
Q Other Manufacturing
QMining (if checked, must check one of sub-items)
D Metals
DCoal
Q Oil and Gas
O Non-metallic Minerals
D Retail Sales
D Municipal Landfill
O Military
D Department of Energy
QRecyders
D Unknown
QOther (fin in)
10) Site Activities/Waste Deposition (check all that apply)
D Surface Impoundment (primarily liquid)
Q Waste Piles (primarily solid)
Q Municipal Landfill
D Industrial Landfill
Q Industrial Monofill
O Industrial Dump (illegal)
Q Open Dump Drums
DOpen Dump - Trash, White Goods, etc.
Q Illegal Dumping ('out the back door)
D Episodic Open Dump ('midnight dumping")
D Tanks - Above Ground
D Tanks - Below Ground
D Land Treatment Facility
Q Other Sludge Activities
O Discharge to Sewer
Q Recycling Facility
D Underground Injection Well
(Class if known _ )
Q Airborne Release/Incineration
n Drum/Container Storage
0 Field Pesticide Applications
O Unknown
D Other (fill in)
11) How Initially Identified (check one)
Q Citizen Complaint D State/Local Program
Q RCRA Notification O Incidental
C3 CERCLA Notification D Unknown
Q Other Federal Program
D Other (fill in)
Continued on Next Page
-------
NPL Statistics Data Collection Form
Page 2 of 4
SITE DESCRIPTION (CONTINUED)
12) Material Deposited By (check one)
D Present Owner Q Present and
D Former Owner Former Owner
D Third Party Q Unknown
DOther (fill in)
13) Date Discovered
(fill in or check unknown)
/ / (mm/dd/yy)
D Unknown
15) Waste Easily Accessible
(check one)
D Yes D No D Unknown
19) MRS Score (fill in)
16) First Proposed (check one)
D Original List D Update 6
D Update 1
D Update 2
D Update 3
Update 4
D Update 5
D Update 7
D Update 8
D Update 9
D Update 10
14) Material Source (check one)
Donate Generator
DOffsite Generator
DOnsite and Offsite Generator
D Unknown
17) NPL Status
D Final D Proposed QCIeaned-up
18) CERCLIS Number (fill in)
20) Miscellaneous Descriptive Information (check all that apply)
D Consists of Multiple Units D Other Emergency Action Has Occurred
Q Units Owned by Multiple Entities D None
O Emergency Removal Has Occurred Q Lead
WASTE DESCRIPTION
1) Solids Waste Type: (check all that apply)
D None
n Unknown
D Asbestos
D Creosote
D Dioxins, PCP
D Explosives
D Fly and Bottom Ash
D Inorganic Chemicals
Q Laboratory/Hospital Wastes
D Metals
D Mining Wastes
D Municipal
O Organic Chemicals
D Paints/Pigments
DPCBs
D Pesticides/Herbicides
D Radioactive Waste
D Smelting Wastes
D Other (fill in)
Quantity/Units: (fill in one value for all solid wastes
and check units or check unknown)
D Unknown
D Tons D Cubic Yards
D Pounds D Cubic Feet
2) Liquids Wast* Type: (check all that apply)
O None
D Unknown
O Acids/Bases
Q Inorganic Chemicals
O Laboratory/Hospital Wastes
O Metals
Q Municipal
O Oily Wastes
D Organic Chemicals
D Paints/Pigments
DPCBs
D Pesticides/Herbicides
Q Radioactive
D Solvents
D Other (fill in):
Quantity/Units: (fill in one value for all liquid wastes
and check units or check unknown)
D Unknown
D Gallons D Drums
3) Sludge*
O None
Waste Type: (check ail that apply)
D Unknown
D Inorganic Sludge
D Metal Sludge
O Municipal
D Oily Wastes
D Organic Sludge
D Paint
D POTW Sludge
O Radioactive
D Other (fill in)
Quantity/Units: (fill in one value for all sludges and
check units or check unknown)
D Unknown
Q Tons U Cubic Yards
D Pounds D Cubic Feet
Continued on Next Page
-------
NPL Statistics Data Collection Form
Page 3 of 4
ENVIRONMENTAL/DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1) Demographics
a) Distance to Nearest Population (fill in and check units
or check unknown)
D Feet, D Miles or D Unknown
b) Population Within One Mile7 (check yes, no or unknown.
If yes, fill in number if known)
D Yes
No Q Unknown
c) Population Within Three Miles? (check yes, no or unknown.
If yes, fill in number if known)
D Yes D No D Unknown
2) Actual Environmental Damage Reported, Potential Population
Affected (check yes, no, or unknown)
Q Yes (if yes, check all applicable impacts. For those checked
having a population affected column, enter potential affected
population or print unknown)
Potential Population Attected
Q Surface Water Impacts (3 miles)
n Ground Water Impacts (3 miles)
n Drinking Water Impacts (3 miles)
n Air Impacts (1 mile)
n Human Health Impacts
D Soil Impacts
D Flora Impacts
D Fauna Impacts
D Visual Impacts
D Other (fill in)
QNo
Q Unknown
3) Observed Relei
Is there an observed release? (check all that apply)
Q Ground Water D Surface Water Q Air
Q Direct Contact D None
4) Water Supply Information for Three Mil* Radius
a) Local Drinking Water Supply Source (check one)
D Surface Water
Q Ground Water
Q Surface and Ground Water
QNone
O Unknown
D Other (fill in)
b) Total Population Served by Above System
(fill in or check unknown)
or D Unknown
c) Drinking Water Supply System Type for Above System
(check all that apply)
Q Municipal
n Private
n Unknown
D Other (fill in)
d) Ground Water Data:
Other Local Ground Water Uses (check all that apply)
D Irrigation
D Stock Watering
Industrial Process/Cooling
Unknown
None
Other (fill in)
D
D
D
D
Wells Within 1 Mile? (check yes. no or unknown.
If yes, fill in number if known)
D Yes D No D Unknown
Wells Within 3 Miles? (check yes, no or unknown.
If yes, fill in number if known)
Distance to Nearest Well (fill in and check units
or check unknown)
DFeet. D Miles or D Unknown
Depth to Uppermost Used Aquifer (fill in or check unknown)
(Feet) D Unknown
e) Surface Water Data:
Other Local Surface Water Uses (check all that apply)
O Recreation
Q Irrigation
D Stock Watering
D Industrial Process/Cooling
D Commercial Fishery
D Unknown
O None
D Other
Surface Water Adjacent to/Draining Site (check all that apply)
O Stream O Wetland
Q River D Bay
D Lake D Ocean
D Pond Q Unknown
Q None
D Other
Distance to Nearest Downstream Intake (fill in and check
units, or check unknown, not applicable, or none)
D Feet, a Miles
D Unknown
D Not Applicable
D None
D Yes D No D Unknown
Continued on Next Page
-------
NPL Statistics Data Collection Form
ENVIRONMENTAL/DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
5) Ecological Information 6) Pathways of Concern
Is Site In or Near Sensitive Environment? (check all that apply) Q Groundwater
QYes (if yes, check at least one sub-item and whether in or near that environment) G Surface Water
D Estuary Q Critical Habitat D Air
Qln QNear Qln fj Near n Direct Contact
n 100 Year Floodplain D Barner Island/Coastal High Hazard Area n Fire/Explosion
n'n QNear Ql" QNear
DNo
Q Unknown
REGULATORY AND RESPONSE HISTORY
1) Regulatory Activities Prior to CERCLA Involvement 2) RCRA Status
(check all that apply) O Underground Storage Tank
O RCRA D Very Small Quantity Generator
Q NPDES a Small Quantity Generator
O Other Federal Programs D 90-Day Accumulator
D State/Local Regulations Q Permitted Facility - Final
D None D Permitted Facility - Interim
D Unknown D Unpermitted Facility
D Other d Unknown
D Not Applicable
COMMENTS
(Briefly describe the nature of the facility/problem and any points of interest not adequately covered by this form.)
QA/QC (initial & date).
10
-------
2.5 DATA COLLECTION FORM INSTRUCTIONS1
The NPL Statistics Data Collection Form has been designed to standardize hazardous
waste site information for input into a data base. This data base will be used to perform a
statistical characterization of waste sites on the NPL. All proposed and final NPL sites will be
reviewed for data compilation, including former final sites deleted from the NPL because the
Agency determined that no further response was necessary. The NPL Statistics Data Collection
Form is designed so that all required information can be obtained by a review of the MRS
package and supporting materials contained in Regional EPA NPL files.
It is important that all questions on the form be answered even if the appropriate answer
is "unknown." Estimates based on best professional judgment are allowed, but hard data are
preferred. In some cases, the response "other" can be used along with a brief narrative if the
available choices do not adequately describe the site or situation. Additional information to
support the use of this category should be included in the "Comments" section at the end of the
form. RESPONDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO USE THE "OTHER" CATEGORY AS MUCH AS
NEEDED.
The Data Collection Form contains six sections which are listed below. The name of the
file reviewer should be written on the front in the top margin. The form should be completed in
dark pencil so that later QA/QC corrections to the form will still result in an easily legible
document for data entry purposes.
Section 1 - Record Information, which provides basic identification information;
Section 2 - Site Description, which describes the ownership, status, and history of the
site;
Section 3 - Waste Description, which describes the types and quantities of wastes
present at the site;
Section 4 - Environmental/Demographic Information, which provides information on water
supply, population, and environmental damage;
Section 5 - Regulatory and Response History, which covers any regulatory activity that
occurred prior to CERCLA involvement and includes RCRA status;
Section 6 - Comments, which provides space for a brief description of the site, including
a list of contaminants and comments on data availability or associated
problems with completing the form. Explanations of "other" responses should
also be given here.
Section 1 - Record Information
1. Site Number: This is the number by which the site will be identified in the data
base. It is essential that this number be entered correctly on the form. The Site
Number is the seven digit, Regional ID number for that site, usually marked on the
1 This section is a slightly edited version of the actual instruction manual that
accompanied the data collection form.
11
-------
MRS scoring package cover page. In the case of some proposed sites, an ID
number indicating the Update Number is given and should be used. When entering
the Site Number, it is required that the commonly accepted two letter abbreviation
for the state's name precede the Regional ID number (or other number) for the site.
NOTE: If no identification number is available, use any reasonable means of
numbering, but remember to precede the number with the state
abbreviation.
2. Site Name: This is the name of the site as identified on the NPL Copy the
complete name of the site in the space provided. Also, enter the location of the site
(town/county and state) directly below the site name.
Section 2 - Site Description
1. Coordinates: Enter the coordinates, latitude and longitude, of the site in degrees,
minutes, seconds, and tenths of seconds. If tenths of a second are not given, enter
zero as a default value in the appropriate space. If no coordinates are available at
all, leave blank and mark "unknown," while specifying site location (eg., township
and range) in the collection form's "Comments" section. Because latitude and
longitude provide necessary input for interaction with other data bases, it is
particularly important that these values or descriptions be included.
2. Setting: Setting is a qualitative measure of population density near the site. Mark
the appropriate box to indicate the character of the area surrounding the site.
"Urban" indicates central city areas, "suburban" indicates sites bordering or
surrounding urban areas, and "rural" indicates sites outside suburban areas. Select
the one setting that best describes the site. This information may be derived from
an accompanying map. Generally, the number of homes and/or industrial buildings
indicated on a map may be used to estimate the site setting. Since the character
of the area is relative to population density, a site in the center of a city such as
Roanoke Rapids, which is located in rural North Carolina, would be classified as
"urban."
3. Location Land Use/Site Use: The predominant land uses within approximately 1
mile of the site location should be determined and all appropriate descriptions
identified. If the land immediately adjacent to or on site is used for activities
associated with large numbers of people, or a sensitive environment which could
increase the risk posed by the site, describe the appropriate land/site use in the
"other" category. Examples of "others" include:
railroad school/college
airport harbor/marina
sports complex federal/state park
wetland
Mining, military, or DOE should be checked only if they correspond to actual site
use or immediately adjacent site use. Additionally, if the site or area had a
predominant historical usage (e.g., railroad yard, landfill, power substation), identify
this in the "other" category with the words "past" or "previous."
12
-------
4. Current Ownership: Check one appropriate box to indicate the type of ownership
of the site at the time of the HRS score. For purposes of this data field, operators
may be characterized as "owners" if ownership distinctions are not made. For
consistency, treat the following situations as detailed below:
If ownership/operation is by multiple individuals, businesses, or industries,
indicate "other" and state the condition. However, if all owners belong to the
same category, it is not necessary to put this under "other;" simply check the
appropriate category.
When the site is a contaminated ground water plume, as defined by
contaminated wells, mark "other" and enter "contaminated ground water
plume."
5. Ownership When Contaminated: Check the appropriate box to indicate the type
of ownership at the time the site was contaminated. As in item #4, ownership refers
to owner and/or operator if a distinction is not made. Procedures for ownership
when contaminated are similar to current ownership.
6. Area of Site: Indicate the area of the site, along with the appropriate units. The
area of the site includes the "source" of the waste and the area that has come to be
contaminated. If the area of the site is reported as a range, use the midpoint of the
range. Again, this data field is intended to capture the area of contamination. So,
for example, if there is a large facility but only a small area is actually contaminated,
only the area of contamination should be entered. If the specific area of
contamination is unknown, use the area of the facility, if reasonable (use best
professional judgment), and note this in the "Comments" section. For ground water
contamination plume sites, area refers to the planar area of the plume. Generally,
the area of the site will be given in the narrative that accompanies the HRS scoring
package.
7. Site Status: Check the appropriate box to indicate the status of the site at the time
of the HRS score. Sites are to be considered "active" if waste treatment, storage,
or disposal activities are taking place at the time of the HRS score. These activities
do not necessarily have to be those that resulted in the site being considered for
the NPL. Sites that have changed ownership or operations are still considered
"active" if the new operations possibly involve hazardous materials/wastes. "Inactive"
sites are those at which treatment, storage, or disposal activities no longer occur.
For consistency, address the following conditions as described below:
Check "active" for those sites that currently have both active and inactive
treatment, storage, or disposal units.
Consider contaminated ground water plume sites "active."
8. Years of Operation: Enter the beginning and ending years of waste treatment,
storage, and/or disposal at the site. If the site is "active," enter the HRS date for the
ending date. Check "unknown" if the beginning or ending years of operation are not
known. For consistency: if waste activities occurred during only one year (e.g.,
one-time event, accidental spill), the years of operation of the facility should be
13
-------
entered, and noted in the "Comments" section. If the site is a contaminated ground
water plume, use a default value of 0001 and 0001 for the beginning and ending
years.
9. Industry Responsible for Generating Material: Check all appropriate boxes that
indicate industries responsible for generating the wastes that occur at the site. This
refers to the industry responsible for the waste, not the original product. For
example, if a hardware store has drums of pesticides which leak, the industry
responsible is "retail" and not "manufacturing." It is important to try to categorize the
industry into one of the types listed for statistical analysis. If these listed industry
types aren't applicable, check "other." Further information may be provided under
the "Comments" section.
For consistency among respondents, please note the following guidelines:
If the site is a military facility, only "military" should be checked.
Only check the "unknown" category if little or no information is available on
the responsible industry or industries.
"Food and kindred products" refers to food packaging/processing industries
(e.g., canneries, bottlers) and the manufacturing of home goods such as
toothpaste, shampoo, and cosmetics.
"Chemicals and allied products" also includes paint manufacturing.
Mark "electroplating" for any type of metal coating or metal finishing industry,
unless the industry employs another type of coating as the predominant
activity (e.g., paint, plastic).
For the majority of cases, the "other" category should be used if a specific
general or subcategory of another type is not obvious. Examples of "other"
categories include:
combination industrial/ correctional facility
municipal landfill distributor (gas, oil)
industrial landfill salvage yard
waste storage/transfer aircraft-related
facility service
POTW radium processing
10. Site Activities/Waste Deposition: Check all appropriate boxes to indicate what
types of treatment, storage, or disposal operations occur/occurred at the site. If the
available categories are not sufficient to characterize the activities occurring at the
site, check "other" and supply a description. For consistency among respondents,
please note the following guidelines:
"Surface impoundments" should be restricted to primarily liquid containment.
"Waste piles" may be covered or uncovered.
14
-------
"Industrial dump" refers to an illegal waste pile of industrial trash, chemicals,
debris, etc.
"Illegal dumping" ("out the back door") indicates situations where wastes are
intentionally disposed of in undesignated disposal areas (e.g., dumping
liquids and sludges onto the ground).
"Episodic open dump" is a site at which third parties illegally dump wastes,
often times without the knowledge or approval of the site owner/operator.
Note that "episodic open dump" may be an appropriate category even for a
permitted facility if, for example, area residents or industries dispose of wastes
at the site without authorization.
'Tanks above ground" should be checked when the type of tank is not
indicated, unless the site is a gasoline retail station.
"Other sludge activity" refers to any sludge disposal action which cannot
adequately be described by the other categories.
"Discharge to sewer" should be checked when wastes have been intentionally
discharged to either a sewer or a surface water body. This category does not
refer to wastes entering sewers or surface water as a result of secondary run-
off. Permitted discharges should be noted in this category as well as in the
"Regulatory Activities" section.
"Airborne release" should be checked when incinerators, boilers, fire or burn
pits, excessive dust, etc., are present at the site.
"Drum/container storage" refers to intentional storage in specific areas.
"Spills" are accidental in nature, mostly one time only occurrences. Leaking
drums do not qualify as spills.
Once again, try to categorize the activities or check "other" and give a description.
Examples of legitimate "others" include:
pesticide applications wash pads
septic tanks and leach fields sumps
dust suppression dry wells
11. How Identified: Check the appropriate box to indicate how the site was initially
identified to the EPA Superfund Program. "Incidental" should be checked if the site
was identified as a result of fortuitously driving by it, or by investigating another site.
Anonymous complaints are categorized as "citizen complaints." "Other Federal
program" should be marked for site identification through programs such as the
DOD Installation Restoration Program. Examples of possible "other" categories
include Congressional inquiry (e.g., Eckhardt list) and ERRIS listing.
12. Material Deposited By: Indicate the entity responsible for the actual waste
deposition. For example, "present owner" would be checked if a private individual
15
-------
authorized the dumping of chemical wastes on his property. However, "third party"
would be checked in the same scenario if the property owner had not authorized the
dumping. Again, for this category, "owner" refers to owner and/or operator. For
consistency, check "third party" for all contaminated ground water plume sites.
13. Date Discovered: Enter two digits for the month, day, and year that the site was
identified to the EPA Superfund Program. For example, June 27, 1982, would be
entered as 06/27/82. In the event that the day or month is unknown, use 01 as the
default value for each. If the date cannot be determined, check "unknown."
14. Material Source: Indicate whether the waste material was generated on site and/or
off site, as appropriate. Recyclers are considered "on-site generators." For
consistency, check "off-site generator" for contaminated ground water plume sites.
15. Waste Easily Accessible: Indicate whether or not the waste is easily accessible
to the general public. On-site workers should not be considered for this data field.
Items to be considered in judging accessibility include complete cover over the
waste area or a secure fence around the site. For example, waste material exposed
at the surface in a park or playground is easily accessible, while waste exposed at
the surface of a site surrounded by a locked chain-link fence is not easily
accessible. For consistency, the waste should be considered not easily accessible
for contaminated ground water plume sites.
16. First Proposed: Check the appropriate box identifying in which update the site was
first proposed in the Federal Register (this is usually listed under site name on the
NPL folder).
17. NPL Status: Check the NPL status of the site as of proposed Update #9, July
1989. The NPL status of sites to be proposed for Update #10 should be marked
as proposed.
18. CERCLIS Number: Enter the 12-digit CERCLIS number (usually on the SI form or
CERCLIS printout).
19. MRS Score: Enter the MRS site score (Sm) from the HRS scoring package. If the
scoring has been amended, use the most recent score. In the "Comments" section,
indicate the score for each of the migration pathways.
20. Miscellaneous Descriptive Information: Identify, as appropriate, multiple
ownership or emergency action conditions. Examples of "other emergency action"
include:
well closing fences
distribution of bottled water consent decrees
Additionally, the presence of lead (Pb) at a site should be noted in the appropriate
data field.
16
-------
Section 3 - Waste Description
For data fields #1 -3, wastes have been divided into three major groupings based on the
physical state of the waste: solid, liquid, and sludge. The physical state of the waste refers to
the waste as deposited and is usually identified as such in the MRS package or in the PA or SI.
For example, slurries are identified as either liquid or sludge, rarely as solid. The presence of
each of these waste states at the site needs to be determined, along with the quantities involved.
Each waste state grouping has been further divided into the type of waste deposited. The
procedure for completing this section, which should be followed for each waste state, is as
follows:
1-3 Solids, Liquids, Sludges: First determine if the particular waste state being
evaluated ("solid" will be used -here as an example) is/was present at the site. If
solid wastes are/were not present, check "none." If solids are/were present, then
mark the appropriate waste type. If the subcategories listed are not sufficient to
characterize the particular waste stream, check "other." As with the previous
sections, the evaluator should use the categories presented if possible, or check
"other" and provide a brief description. Some examples of "other" waste streams
include:
spent fuel biological waste (animal carcasses)
drilling muds (sludge) batteries
dust construction debris
agricultural waste
Finally, total the quantities of all waste streams and fill in the amount in the space
provided. Remember to mark the appropriate units.
NOTE: Identify the specific contaminants found at the site in the upper right
hand corner of the "Comments" section.
Section 4 - Environmental/Demographic Information
1. Demographics:
a. Distance to Nearest Population: If known, provide the distance from the site
boundary to the nearest population. Also, indicate the unit of measure that
was used. Population includes those persons occupying houses, apartment
buildings, schools, and businesses. Use maps, if available, to provide best
estimates. If there is an on-site resident population, use 10 feet as a default
value.
b. Population Within 1 Mile?: If there is a population within 1 mile of the site,
check "yes" and enter the number of people within this radius. When the
number of individual residences is known, the convention is to multiply by 3.8
individuals/residence and use the product value as a reasonable population
estimate. If a reasonable population estimate cannot be determined, check
"yes" and leave the number field blank. A map may be used to determine
population. If no appropriate information is in the file, check "unknown."
17
-------
c. Population Within 3 Miles?: Follow the same procedures as described
above. Again, a map may be useful. If data are available regarding
population within 4 miles of the site, indicate this and use the information. If
this information is not in the file, mark "unknown." By definition, if there is
population within 1 mile of the site, there is also population within 3 miles of
the site.
2. Actual Environmental Damage Reported, Potential Population Affected: Indicate
whether actual environmental damage has been reported at this site. Note that this
does not include potential damage, only documented cases of actual impacts. For
example, if the PA report states that leachate was observed entering an adjacent
stream or wetland, this can be considered an actual surface water impact, even if
sampling results are not available. If 'yes," indicate the type of damage that was
reported and estimate the population that could potentially be affected. If the
potential population is not known, write "unknown" in the space provided. Please
note that, by definition, if an "HRS-observed release" has been scored for a given
pathway, then an environmental impact has been reported for that pathway.
NOTE: The number for potential population is often provided on the PA or SI
form.
3. Observed Releases: Indicate whether an observed release of contaminants has
been documented. This information is available in the HRS scoring package.
4. Water Supply Information for a 3-Mile Radius:
a. Local Drinking Water Supply Source: Identify whether drinking water
supplies are drawn from surface water and/or ground water within 3 miles of
the site. If, for example, the local area has a reservoir but some houses
within 3 miles still use wells, then check "surface and ground water." If all
drinking water sources are outside of the 3-mile radius, this should be noted
as "none."
b. Total Population Served: If available, provide the number of people served
by the water supply system indicated in #4a. Note that this population
should reflect the population served by a source within 3 miles of the site; it
may be more or less than the total population within 3 miles. For example,
if a well located two miles from the site is used to serve the population of a
city of 60,000, the entire population of the city should be included even if the
city itself is outside of the 3-mile radius. If there is no drinking water
population (all sources are outside 3-mile radius), use a default value of 01.
c. Drinking Water Supply System Type: Indicate the type of water supply
system for the sources identified under #4a. "Municipal" should be indicated
for any central water supply system, even if it is operated by a private water
company, utility, or individual (e.g., trailer park serviced by one privately
owned well).
18
-------
d. Ground Water Data:
Other Local Ground Water Uses: Check all appropriate boxes for
predominant uses of ground water other than drinking water supply.
Monitoring wells should not be considered. Some examples of "other" uses
include commercial and dust control.
Wells Within 1 Mile?: If there are operable wells within 1 mile of the site,
check "yes" and indicate the total number of wells used for any purpose,
excluding monitoring wells.
Wells Within 3 Miles?: If there are operable wells within 3 miles of the site,
check "yes" and indicate the total number of wells used for any purpose,
excluding monitoring wells.
Distance to Nearest Well: Provide the distance from the site boundary to
the nearest operable well, excluding monitoring wells. Indicate what unit of
measure was used. If the well is located on site, use 10 feet as a default
value. Note that by HRS definitions, the site boundary can be extended to
the farthest point of documented contamination attributable to the site.
Depth to the Uppermost Used Aquifer: Provide the depth from the ground
surface to the uppermost aquifer that is or may be used. If the uppermost
aquifer is no longer used because of contamination attributable to the site,
the depth to this aquifer should be entered. Always indicate the unit of
measure used. If a range of depth is given, use the midpoint value for the
data field. Use a default value of 1 foot if waste was directly deposited below
the water level of the uppermost used aquifer.
NOTE: "Depth to the Uppermost Used Aquifer" is often provided in the
HRS scoring package.
e. Surface Water Data:
Other Local Surface Water Uses: Mark all appropriate boxes for uses of
surface water, other than drinking water supply, within 3 miles.
Surface Water Adjacent to/Draining Site: Identify all types of surface water
adjacent to or draining the site that could potentially be affected by overland
runoff from the site. Use professional judgment and HRS definitions as
necessary.
Distance to Nearest Downstream Intake: Provide the distance to the
nearest downstream intake in feet or miles, if known.
5. Ecological Information:
Is Site In Or Near Sensitive Environment?: Sensitive environments are defined as
estuaries, 100 year floodplains, critical habitats (Federally designated only) and
some coastal areas. If the site is in or near one of these environments, indicate the
19
-------
type of sensitive environment and whether the site is "in" or "near" the environment.
"Near" is considered to be within a 3-mile radius.
6. Pathways of Concern: Check all pathways that received a score greater than zero
in the MRS scoring package. When reviewing the MRS scoring package, please
note the actual score for each pathway in the "Comments" section.
Section 5 - Regulatory and Response History
1. Regulatory Activities Prior to Preliminary Assessment: Indicate any regulatory
activities that occurred at the site prior to the PA. Examples of these activities could
include RCRA notification or inspections, NPDES permits and/or exceedences, State
health department inspections of landfills and/or DOD Installation Restoration
Program activities ("other Federal program" category).
2. RCRA Status: Indicate the appropriate RCRA category. If the site is not a RCRA
site, check "not applicable." Ground water contamination plume sites are to be
included in the "not applicable" category.
Section 6 - Comments
This section is not an optional segment of the data collection form. It must be completed,
at a minimum, with a brief narrative description of site conditions, including any discussion or
clarification of the information presented elsewhere on the form. In addition, each form must be
quality control checked for completeness, and initialed by another evaluator in the lower right
corner of page 4. The "Comments" section is a crucial component of the data collection form;
verbosity is encouraged.
20
-------
CHAPTER 3: SITE DESCRIPTION
Chart 1: Site Setting
Chart 2: Area of Site
Chart 3: Predominant Land Uses in Site Vicinity
Chart 4: Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Activities Occurring at Site
Chart 5: Waste Easily Accessible to Public
Chart 6: Distance to Nearest Population
21
-------
REGION 5
Site Setting
21.1%
47.5%
(3)
LEGEND:
P/yS'j 1 Urban
fcv^l 2 Suburban
3 Rural
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.0%)
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 2, Setting.
Chart 1
22
-------
REGION 5
Area of Site
LEGEND:
X/y/\ 1 <1 Acre
Ifo&j 2 1-4.9 Acres
W%h 3 5-9.9 Acres
| | 4 10-19.9 Acres
E>?«:3 5 £ 20 Acres
|s | 6 Not Specified
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 6, Area of Site.
Chart 2
23
-------
REGION 5
Predominant Land Uses
in Site Vicinity
100
80 -
60 -
§
40 -
20 -
84.9
53.2
45.7
37.4
26.8
12.8
2.6
k ^ V S.1
1234567
Land Uses
LEGEND:
1 Industrial Area !§§§§§§! 5 Forest/Fields
\^-':\-~-\ 2 Commercial District ESSSl 6 Military
Wiiil 3 Residential [#^ 7 Mining
lx*>j 4 Agricultural
Not Shown - Department of Energy (0.8%), Not Specified (0.0%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Site Description Section, Question 3, Location Land Use/Site Use.
(2) See Appendix A for a complete listing of "Other" responses.
Chart 3
24
-------
REGION 5
Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
Activities Occurring at Site
80
i
I
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30
20 -
10
1234567
LEGEND:
§ 1 Surface Impoundment
[] 2 Waste Piles
^ 3 Municipal Landfill
H 4 Industrial Landfill
Q 5 Open Dump - Drums
Q 6 Open Dump Trash,
White Goods, Etc.
0 7 Illegal Dumping
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Activities
14 Recycling Facility
8 Episodic Open Dump
9 Tanks - Above Ground
10 Tanks - Below Ground
11 Land Treatment Facility n g (||
12 Sludge Disposal
15 Airborne Release/
Incineration
16 Drum/Container Storage
18 Not Specified
13 Discharge to Sewer/
Surface Water
Not Shown - Underground Injection Well (0.8%), Reid Pesticide Application (0.0%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 10, Site Activities/Waste Deposition.
(2) See Appendix A for a complete listing of "Other" responses.
(3) Tanks were assumed to be above ground unless otherwise specified.
Chart 4
25
-------
REGION 5
Waste Easily Accessible to Public
67.9%
(1)
LEGEND:
| | 2 No
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.0%)
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 15, Waste Easily Accessible.
Chart 5
26
-------
REGION 5
Distance to Nearest Population
2.3%
8.7% (4)
(3)
LEGEND:
I - | 1
2 >10 Feet-1/4 Mile
3 >1/4 Mile-1/2 Mile
4 >112 Mile -1 Mile
Not Shown - >1 Mile (0.8%), Not Specified (0.4%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 1a, Distance to Nearest Population.
(2) On-site workers are included in the ^ 10 Feet category.
Chart 6
27
-------
CHAPTER 4: OWNER/GENERATOR INFORMATION
Chart 7: Owner/Operator of Site at Time of MRS Score
Chart 8: Owner/Operator of Site at Time of Contamination
Chart 9: Status of Site at Time of MRS Score
Chart 10: Industry Responsible for Generating Waste: Major
Categories
Chart 11: Industry Responsible for Generating Waste: Manufacturing
Category Details
Chart 12: Waste Depositor
Chart 13: Waste Generator
Chart 14: Beginning Year of Site Operation
Chart 15: Ending Year of Site Operation
Chart 16: Total Years of Site Operation
28
-------
REGION 5
Owner/Operator of Site at Time
of MRS Score
53.2%
(1)
3.4%
(4)
8.3%
(3)
LEGEND:
M^^^WTVM
[ I 1 Private - Industrial
2 Private - Individual
3 Private - Small Business
5 County
6 Municipal
7 Other
| | 4 Federal
Not Shown - State (0.8%), Indian Lands (0.0%), Not Specified (0.8%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Site Description Section, Question 4, Current Ownership.
(2) Contaminated ground water plume sites are included in the "Other" category.
Chart 7
29
-------
REGION 5
Owner/Operator of Site at Time
of Contamination
8.7%
(6)
57.0%
(1)
LZi
LEGEND:
1 Private - Industrial
2 Private - Individual
3 Private - Small Business
5 County
6 Municipal
7 Other
| | 4 Federal
Not Shown - State (0.0%), Indian Lands (0.0%), Not Specified (0.0%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Site Description Section, Question 5, Ownership When Contaminated.
(2) Contaminated ground water plume sites are included in the "Other" category.
Chart 8
30
-------
REGION 5
Status of Site at Time
of MRS Score
64.9%
(2)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 7, Site Status.
(2) Sites were considered "active" if waste treatment, storage, or disposal activities were taking
place at the time of the MRS score. These activities were not necessarily those that led to NPL
listing. Contaminated ground water plume and widespread sediment contamination sites were
considered active.
Chart 9
31
-------
REGION 5
Industry Responsible for Generating Waste;
Major Categories
0>
o
I
60
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 J
53.6
31.3
12.8
12.8
13.2
3.4
2345
Industry Responsible
LEGEND:
1 Manufacturing \\l\\\\\ 4 Military
(Details on Chart 11) r^^,
Eggg] 5 Recyclers
2 Municipal Landfill
3 Industrial Landfill
6 Not Specified
Not Shown - Mining (0.4%), Retail Sales (0.8%), Department of
Energy (0.8%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Site Description Section, Question 9, Industry Responsible for Generating Material.
(2) See Appendix A for a complete listing of "Other" responses.
Chart 10
32
-------
REGION 5
Industry Responsible for Generating Waste:
Manufacturing Category Details
30 -
- 20 -I
I
<5
Q.
10 -
27.5
8.5
4.2
3.5
26.8
11.3
5.6
3.5
14.8
5.6
2.8
123456789
Manufacturing Category Details
LEGEND:
^ 1 Lumber and Wood Products |
IHll 2 Paper and Allied Products [
10 11
3 Construction
4 Chemicals and Allied Products
7 Primary Metal Products
8 Fabricated Metal Products
9 Electroplating
10 Electronic and Electrical Equipment
5 Petroleum Refining and Related {~J11 Electric Power Production
Industries
6 Rubber and Plastic Products
and Distribution
Not Shown Food and Kindred Products (0.7%), Agriculture (0.0%), Textile Mill
Products (0.0%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 9, Industry Responsible for Generating Material.
(2) Percentages are based on sites in the Manufacturing category only (53.6% of all Region 5 NPL
sites).
Chart 11
33
-------
REGION 5
Waste Depositor
12.8%
(2)
LEGEND:
X///\ 1 Present Owner/Operator [**
| | 2 Former Owner/Operator [
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.8%), Other (0.0%)
3 Third Party
4 Present Owner/Operator
and Former Owner/Operator
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 12, Material Deposited By.
(2) "Present owner/operator" was defined as the owner/operator at the time of the HRS score.
Chart 12
34
-------
REGION 5
Waste Generator
4.2%
(3)
50.9%
(2)
44.9%
d)
LEGEND:
Y///\ 1 On-site Generator
I I 2 Off-site Generator
3 On-site Generator and Off-site Generator
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.0%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Site Description Section, Question 14, Material Source.
(2) "Off-site generator" was recorded for all contaminated ground water plume and widespread
sediment contamination sites.
Chart 13
35
-------
REGION 5
Beginning Year of Site Operation
30
20 -
10 -
0 J
22.6
17.4
2.6
18.1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Years
LEGEND:
FX1! 1 < 1901
|~~| 2 1901 -1910
[P$j 3 1911 -1920
4 1921 -1930
5 1931 - 1940
6 1941 -1950
7 1951 - 1960
8 1961-1970
9 1971 - 1980
10 1981-1990
11 Not Specif led
12 Not Applicable
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 8, Years of Operation.
(2) "Not applicable" refers to contaminated ground water plume sites. For these sites, the source of
contamination was not documented at the time of the HRS score. The sites themselves do not
consist of operating or formerly operating facilities; therefore, "Years of Operation" is not
applicable.
Chart 14
36
-------
REGION 5
I
£
Ending Year of Site Operation
9 10 11 12 13
8 1986
9 1987
10 1988
11 1989
12 Not Specified
13 Not Applicable
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 8, Years of Operation.
(2) "Not applicable" refers to all NPL sites that were "active" at the time of the MRS score. "Active"
sites by definition do not have an ending year of operation; therefore, they have been depicted
as "not applicable" on this figure. Because all contaminated ground water plume sites were
characterized as "active," they have also been depicted as "not applicable" on this figure.
Chart 15
37
-------
REGION 5
Total Years of Site Operation
30
20 -
8
<5
a.
10 -
24.2
23.4
I
1
17.7
7.5
7.9
1
6.0
13.0
1
2.3 2.3
3.0
1.5
0.4
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Years
LEGEND:
n2>i.io
[^ 3 >10-20
F71 4 >20-30
5 >30-40
6 >40-50
7 >50-60
ili 13 Not Specif led
|i;i;h4 Not Applicable
t$$gj 8 >60-70
Efjgj 9 >70-80
[23 1° >80-90
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 8, Years of Operation.
(2) "Not applicable" refers to contaminated ground water plume sites. For these sites, the source of
contamination was not documented at the time of the MRS score. The sites themselves do not
consist of operating or formerly operating facilities; therefore, "Years of Operation" is not
applicable.
Chart 16
38
-------
CHAPTER 5: REGULATORY AND RESPONSE HISTORY
Chart 17: How Site Identified
Chart 18: When Site Identified
Chart 19: Regulatory Activities Prior to CERCLA Involvement
Chart 20: Miscellaneous Descriptive Information
39
-------
REGION 5
How Site Identified
2.60/c
3.0% (7)
(6)
4.2%
(4)
LEGEND:
ty^'l 1 Citizen Complaint B88£i 5 State/Local Program
2 RCRA Notification H 6 Incidental
3 CERCLA Notification I I 7 Not Specified
4 Other Federal Program 8 Other
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Site Description Section, Question 11. How Identified.
Chart 17
40
-------
REGION 5
When Site Identified
1 Prior to 1980
2 1980
BS&3 3 1981
lilijiii 4 1982
j>>Xl 5 1983
6 1984
[.<<'A 7 1985
W%& 8 1986
f^^j 9 1987
I I 10 1988
11 Not Specified
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 13, Date Discovered.
Chart 18
41
-------
100
80 -
60 -
Q. 40 -
20 -
REGION 5
Regulatory Activities Prior to
CERCLA Involvement
88.7
9.8
4.9
9.1
234
Regulatory Activities
LEGEND:
B88£i 1 RCRA
§§§§§§§ 2 NPDES
[ } 3 Other Federal Programs
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.4%)
4 State/Local Regulations
5 None
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Regulatory and Response History Section, Question 1, Regulatory Activities Prior to CERCLA
Involvement.
Chart 19
42
-------
REGION 5
Miscellaneous Descriptive Information
40 -
30 -
1 20 A
OL
10 -
0 -I
39.6
37.7
13.2
6.8
7.5
3.0
12345
Descriptive Information
LEGEND:
{§§§§§§§ 1 Consists of Multiple Units
I I 2 Units Owned by Multiple
^^ Entities
m 3 Emergency Removal Has
Occurred
{jjj^l 4 Other Emergency Action
Has Occurred
5 Lead Waste Present
j£j 6 Widespread Sediment
Contamination
ijj 7 Contaminated Ground
Water Plume
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Site Description Section, Question 20, Miscellaneous Descriptive Information.
Chart 20
43
-------
CHAPTER 6: MRS SCORING INFORMATION
Chart 21: Initial Proposal
Chart 22: MRS Score
Chart 23: Observed Releases
Chart 24: Pathways Scored
Chart 25: Pathways of Concern
Chart 26: NPL Status
44
-------
REGION 5
Initial Proposal
40 -
30 -
0)
£ 20 -|
o>
Q.
10 -
35.8
17.0
15.8
14.3
5.3
1.9
4.2
3.0
0.4
1.1 1.1
i Y7/WA K
01234567
Initial Proposal
LEGEND:
{Z'tv'l 0 Original List HH 6 Update 6
HH 1 Update 1 R^l 7 Update 7
EXXfl 2 Update2 Effiffi 8 Updates
| | 3 Updates ^^ 9 Update9
|^%3 4 Update4 p§j§]lO Update 10
\Z£Z\ 5 Updates
8 9 10
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section. Question 16, First Proposed.
Chart 21
45
-------
REGION 5
MRS Score
30
20 -
o
S
s.
10 i
28.3
4.2
0.4
22.6
15.8
10.9
9.4
6.8
1.5
123456
HRS Score
LEGEND:
B%% 1 <28.50 ^
| | 2 28.50 - 30.00 ^
[S3 3 30-01 ' 35-°°
I | 4 35.01 - 40.00
f§§§§3 5 40.01 - 45.00
8
£%a 6 45.01 - 50.00
555 7 50.01 - 55.00
££] 8 55.01 - 60.00
SH 9 >60.00
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 19, HRS Score.
(2) N.W. Mauthe Co., Inc. site in Appleton, Wl, was proposed for the NPL as a state top priority
site. It has a site score of less than 28.50 under the original HRS, but was included in the
characterization.
Chart 22
46
-------
REGION 5
80
70 -
60 -
50 -
+» '
§ 40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
Observed Releases
-
"
-
1 J
72.5
35.1
*.-. V,Vs
^-\
?&'"--\
s\ V
V "T'""
*>,v "
X1: " ^ s*
%
( ,
-
15.5
IHI
6.0 ^^H
sNSNS 'D ^^H
CVvoC i*.*.*.*.*i ^^^
234
Observed Releases
LEGEND:
jjijijil 1 Ground Water
I V I 2 Surface Water
3 Air
4 Direct Contact
5 None
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 3, Observed Releases.
Chart 23
47
-------
0>
B
o
Q.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
99.2
REGION 5
Pathways Scored
74.7
50.2
6.0
9.8
234
Pathways
LEGEND:
{jijjjl 1 Ground Water
i""1 \
\ v I 2 Surface Water
3 Air
4 Direct Contact
5 Fire/Explosion
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 6, Pathways of Concern.
(2) A "Pathway Scored" is defined as any pathway that received a score greater than zero under
the HRS scoring package.
Chart 24
48
-------
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
£ 50 H
§
S. 40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
REGION 5
Pathways of Concern
90.9
3.4
4.9
4.2
2 3
Pathway
LEGEND:
1 Ground Water
2 Surface Water
3 Air
4 No Pathway £ 50.00
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section. Question 6, Pathways of Concern.
(2) A "Pathway of Concern" is defined as any pathway that received a score of greater than or
equal to 50.00. Under the original HRS, a score of 50.00 on any pathway gives a site score
of greater than the 28.50 cutoff for NPL eligibility.
Chart 25
49
-------
REGION 5
NPL Status
LEGEND:
I I 1 Final
I I 2 Deleted/All Appropriate Response Actions Taken
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the Site
Description Section, Question 17, NPL Status.
Chart 26
50
-------
CHAPTER 7: WASTE DESCRIPTION
Chart 27: Physical State of Waste
Chart 28: Predominant Waste Types
Chart 29: Waste Quantity
51
-------
100
§
I
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
REGION 5
Physical State of Waste
LEGEND:
1 Solid
2 Liquid
Z3 3 Sludge
91.3
State of Waste
56.2
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Waste Description Section.
Chart 27
52
-------
I
0>
O.
REGION 5
Predominant Waste Types
80
60 -
40 -
20 -
69.1
68.7
27.5
1
34.0
67.5
34.7
21.1
23.8 22.6
14.0
1 23456789 10
Major Categories
LEGEND:
1 Inorganic Chemicals HH 6 PCBs
2 Metals
3 Municipal Waste
4 Organic Chemicals
5 Paints/Pigments
7 Pesticides/Herbicides
8 Acids/Bases
9 Oily Wastes
10 Solvents
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Waste Description Section.
(2) See Appendix A for a complete listing of "Other* responses.
Chart 28
53
-------
REGION 5
Waste Quantity
2.6%
6.4%
3.4%
(3)
6.0%
(7)
LEGEND:
1 1-10 Yd.3
2 >10-62Yd.3
3 >62-125Yd.3
| | 4 >125-250Yd.:
1 5 >250-625Yd.:
6 >625-1250Yd.
7 >1250-2500 Yd.;
8 >2500Yd.3
9 Not Specified
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Waste Description Section.
(2) All waste quantity data were converted to cubic yards using the following conversion factors:
1 cubic yard = 11on = 4 drums = 200 gallons.
Chart 29
54
-------
CHAPTER 8: ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
Chart 30: Type of Environmental Damage Reported
Chart 31: Depth to Uppermost Used Aquifer
Chart 32: Surface Water Adjacent to/Draining Site
Chart 33: Presence of Sensitive Environment Within 3 Miles
Chart 34: Type of Sensitive Environment Within 3 Miles
55
-------
REGION 5
Type of Environmental Damage Reported
Q>
£
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
83.0
45.3
79.6
56.6
18.1
16.6
10.2
123456
Type of Damage Reported
LEGEND:
|§§§§^ 1 Surface Water Impacts
I.ZT".] 2 Ground Water Impacts
EJijij^ 3 Drinking Water Impacts
|'>Xl 4 Air Impacts
Not Shown - Visual Impacts (0.4%)
5 Human Health Impacts
6 Soil Impacts
7 Flora Impacts
8 Fauna Impacts
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 2, Actual Environmental Damage
Reported, Potential Population Affected.
Chart 30
56
-------
REGION 5
Depth to Uppermost Used Aquifer
6.4%
1.5%
2.6% (7)
( '
3.0%
(4)
(5)
LEGEND:
gjgjggj 1 £1 Foot
}>»] 2 >1 - 20 Feet
3 >20-75Feet
KX8H 4 >75-100 Feet
^^ 5 >100-150 Feet
| | 6 >150Feet
7 Not Specified
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4d, Depth to Uppermost Used
Aquifer.
(2) A default value of 1 foot was used for sites where waste was directly deposited below the
water level of the uppermost used aquifer.
Chart 31
57
-------
REGION 5
Surface Water Adjacent to/Draining Site
80
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
62.6
49.8
43.8
32.5
12.1
1.5
2345
Adjacent Surface Water
LEGEND:
1 Stream
2 River
3 Lake
^^ 4 Pond
I | 5 Wetland
Eijijijl 6 Bay
Not Shown - Ocean (0.0%), Not Specified (0.4%), None (0.4%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4e, Surface Water Adjacent
to/Draining Site.
(2) See Appendix A for a complete listing of "Other" responses.
(3) Includes only those surface water bodies that could potentially be affected by overland
runoff from the site.
Chart 32
58
-------
REGION 5
Presence of Sensitive Environment
Within 3 Miles
LEGEND:
[;:I 1 Yes (Details on Chart 34)
2 No
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.4%)
28.7%
(1)
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 5, Ecological Information.
Chart 33
59
-------
I
£
REGION 5
Type of Sensitive Environment
Within 3 Miles
90
80 -
70 -
60 -
50
40
30
20
10 -
80.3
25.0
1 2
Sensitive Environment
LEGEND:
1 100 Year Floodplain
EJ£53 2 Critical Habitat
Not Shown - Estuary (0.0%), Barrier Island/Coastal High Hazard Area (0.0%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 5, Ecological Information.
(2) Percentages are based on sites located within 3 miles of a sensitive environment only
(28.7% of all Region 5 NPL sites).
Chart 34
60
-------
CHAPTER 9: WATER USE INFORMATION
Chart 35: Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply Within 3 Miles:
Source
Chart 36: Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply Within 3 Miles:
Population Served
Chart 37: Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply Within 3 Miles: Type
Chart 38: Local Ground Water Uses Other Than Drinking Water
Chart 39: Operable Wells Within 1 Mile
Chart 40: Operable Wells Within 3 Miles
Chart 41: Number of Wells Within 1 Mile
Chart 42: Number of Wells Within 3 Miles
Chart 43: Distance to Nearest Well
Chart 44: Local Surface Water Uses Other Than Drinking Water
Chart 45: Distance to Nearest Downstream Intake
61
-------
REGION 5
Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply
Within 3 Miles: Source
1.1% 1.1%
(4) 0)
LEGEND:
| | 1 Surface Water
2 Ground Water B
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.0%)
3 Surface and Ground Water
4 None
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4a, Local Drinking Water Supply
Source.
Chart 35
62
-------
REGION 5
Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply
Within 3 Miles: Population Served
LEGEND:
E^3 1 101-1,000
Wfflfa 2 1,001-3,000
26.3%
(3)
3 3,001 -10,000
4 >10,000
Not Shown -1 -100 (0.0%), Not Specified (0.4%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4b. Total Population Served.
(2) Percentages are based on sites that have withdrawals for drinking water within 3 miles only
(98.9% of all Region 5 NPL sites).
Chart 36
63
-------
REGION 5
Withdrawals for Drinking Water Supply
Within 3 Miles: Type
a>
o
2
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50
40
30
20 -
10 -
0
87.2
65.3
1.1
Drinking Water Supply Type
LEGEND:
1 Municipal
2 Private
| | 3 None
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.4%)
Note: This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4c, Drinking Water Supply System
Type.
Chart 37
64
-------
I
£
REGION 5
Local Ground Water Uses
Other Than Drinking Water
40
30 -
20 -
10 -
Ground Water Uses
LEGEND:
|§^%j 1 Irrigation
I I 2 Stock Watering
B88^ 3 Industrial Process/Cooling
4 None
5 Not Specified
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4d, Other Local Ground Water
Uses.
(2) See Appendix A for a complete listing of "Other" responses.
Chart 38
65
-------
REGION 5
Operable Wells Within 1 Mile
LEGEND:
{'virvl 1 Yes
I | 2 No
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.4%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4d, Wells Within 1 Mile.
(2) Includes all operable water wells, except monitoring wells.
Chart 39
66
-------
REGION 5
Operable Wells Within 3 Miles
98.5%
d)
LEGEND:
t^'.'j 1 Yes
| | 2 No
Not Shown - Not Specified (0.4%)
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4d, Wells Within 3 Miles.
(2) Includes all operable water wells, except monitoring wells.
Chart 40
67
-------
REGION 5
Number of Wells Within 1 Mile
1.9%
3.0%
0) (2) 3.4%
~~
8.3%
LEGEND:
| | 1 1-4 Wells
2 10-19 Wells
3 20-49 Wells
Not Shown - 5 - 9 Wells (0.8%)
| | 4 a. 50 Wells
HB 5 None
6 Not Specified
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4d, Wells Within 1 Mile.
(2) Includes all operable water wells, except monitoring wells.
Chart 41
68
-------
REGION 5
Number of Wells Within 3 Miles
-9% 1.5%
0) (2) 4.5%
(3)
LEGEND:
gjgjg^ 1 1-4 Wells
fcxV] 2 10-19 Wells
IIIIIHI 3 20-49 Wells
Not Shown - 5 - 9 Wells (0.8%)
| | 4 j» 50 Wells
IH 5 None
6 Not Specified
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4d, Wells Within 3 Miles.
(2) Includes all operable water wells, except monitoring wells.
Chart 42
69
-------
REGION 5
Distance to Nearest Well
2.6% 2-3%
(4) (5)
12.5%
(3)
LEGEND:
IB 1 < 10 Feet
I | 2 >10 Feet-2,000 Feet
3 >2,000 Feet -1 Mile
Not Shown - ^2 Miles (0.4%)
28.3%
(1)
4 >1 Mile - 2 Miles
5 Not Specified
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4d, Distance to Nearest Well.
(2) Includes all operable water wells, except monitoring wells.
(3) A default value of 10 feet was used for those sites with on-site wells.
Chart 43
70
-------
REGION 5
Local Surface Water Uses
Other Than Drinking Water
100
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
89.1
12345
Surface Water Uses
LEGEND:
R\SvJ 1 Recreation E&&J
I I 3 Stock Watering t'X**!
|>88^ 4 Industrial Process/Cooling
5 Commercial Fishery
6 Not Specified
7 None
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4e, Other Local Surface Water
Uses.
(2) See Appendix A for a complete listing of "Other" responses.
Chart 44
71
-------
REGION 5
Distance to Nearest Downstream Intake
9.8%
(6)
1.1% 3.4«>/0
(D (2) 2'3%
1.9%
(4)
LEGEND:
| | 1 s2,OOOFeet
2 >2,000 Feet -1 Mile
3 >1 Mile - 2 Miles
4 >2 Miles - 3 Miles
5 None Within 3 Miles
6 Not Specified
Notes: (1) This figure depicts information collected on the NPL Statistics Data Collection Form in the
Environmental/Demographic Information Section, Question 4e, Distance to Nearest
Downstream Intake.
(2) Includes all operable surface water intakes, not just those used for drinking water supply.
Chart 45
72
-------
APPENDIX A: RESPONSES FROM "OTHER" CATEGORY
73
-------
RESPONSES FROM "OTHER" CATEGORY
Chart
3
4
7
8
Title
Predominant Land Uses in
Site Vicinity
Treatment, Storage, or
Disposal Activities Occurring
at Site
Owner/Operator of Site at
Time of MRS Score
Owner/Operator of Site at
Time of Contamination
Response
Wetlands
Park
Railroad
School
Airport
Hospital
Church
Indian lands
Oil wells
Burn pit/area
Drain/leach field
Dry well
Dust suppression
Sand filters
Sump
Drip/wash pads
Spray aeration
Ash beds
Contaminated fill used
Road construction
Sewage tanks
Contaminated ground water plume
Bankruptcy/receivership
Multiple owners/different categories
Widespread sediment contamination
Contaminated ground water plume
Multiple owners/different categories
Widespread sediment contamination
Number
of
Responses
23
20
12
7
2
2
1
1
1
6
5
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
20
6
5
2
20
3
2
74
-------
RESPONSES FROM "OTHER" CATEGORY (continued)
Chart
Title
Response
Number
of
Responses
10 Industry Responsible for
Generating Waste: Major
Categories
Combination landfill
Waste disposal services
Incineration facility
Laundromat
Ore mills
Railroad
Chemical packaging/distribution
Government services
Coal gasification
POTW
Research laboratory
School/university
Tannery
Transformer service
Trucking operations
Waste transfer facility
17
12
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
How Site Identified
Eckhardt study
Consultant to company
US Coast Guard
10
1
1
28
Predominant Waste Types
Fly and bottom ash
Asbestos
Smelting waste
Dioxin/PCP
Laboratory/hospital waste
Mining waste
Creosote
Radioactive waste
Contaminated soil/sediment
Batteries and associated waste
Demolition waste
Explosives
POTW waste
Baghouse dust
Capacitors and transformers
Construction debris
Air pollution emission
Contaminated woodchips
Cyanide
Fire debris
Fuels and propellants
Waste pickle liquor
17
16
12
11
11
8
7
7
5
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
75
-------
RESPONSES FROM "OTHER" CATEGORY (continued)
Chart
32
38
44
Title
Surface Water Adjacent
to/Draining Site
Local Ground Water Uses
Other Than Drinking Water
Local Surface Water Uses
Other Than Drinking Water
Response
Drainage ditch
Intermittent stream
Reservoir
Canal
Spring
Commercial
Commercial transportation
Wildlife refuge/habitat
Number
of
Responses
32
16
9
5
3
21
2
1
76
-------
APPENDIX B: SITES REVIEWED
77
-------
SITES REVIEWED
This Appendix lists all sites in Region 5 that were listed as "final" on the NPL as of February
1991, except where noted.
Region 5
(265 Sites)
Illinois (IL): 37
A & F Material Reclaiming, Inc.
Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. (Morristown
Plant)
Adams County Quincy Landfills 2&3
Amoco Chemicals (Joliet Landfill)
Beloit Corp.
Belvidere Municipal Landfill
Byron Salvage Yard
Central Illinois Public Service Co.
Cross Brothers Pail Recycling (Pembroke)
DuPage County Landfill/Blackwell Forest
Preserve
Galesburg/Koppers Co.
H.O.D. Landfill
llada Energy Co.
Interstate Pollution Control, Inc.
Johns-Manville Corp.
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant (Load-
Assembly-Packing Area)
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
(Manufacturing Area)
Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West Branch of
DuPage River)
Kerr-McGee (Reed-Keppler Park)
Kerr-McGee (Residential Areas)
Kerr-McGee (Sewage Treatment Plant)
LaSalle Electric Utilities
Lenz Oil Service, Inc.
MIG/Dewane Landfill
NL Industries/Taracorp Lead Smelter
Outboard Marine Corp.
Pagel's Pit
Parsons Casket Hardware Co.
Petersen Sand & Gravel*
Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge (USDOI)
Savanna Army Depot Activity
Southeast Rockford Ground Water
Contamination
Tri-County Landfill Co./Waste Management
of Illinois, Inc.
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Illinois)
Wauconda Sand & Gravel
Woodstock Municipal Landfill
Yeoman Creek Landfill
Indiana (IN): 35
American Chemical Service, Inc.
Bennett Stone Quarry
Carter Lee Lumber Co.
Columbus Old Municipal Landfill #1
Conrail Rail Yard (Elkhart)
Continental Steel Corp.
Douglass Road/Uniroyal, Inc., Landfill
Envirochem Corp.
Fisher-Calo
Fort Wayne Reduction Dump
Galen Myers Dump/Drum Salvage
Himco, Inc., Dump
International Minerals & Chemical Corp.
(Terre Haute East Plant)*
Lake Sandy Jo (M&M Landfill)
Lakeland Disposal Service, Inc.
Lemon Lane Landfill
Main Street Well Field
Marion (Bragg) Dump
MIDCO I
MIDCO II
Neal's Dump (Spencer)
Meal's Landfill (Bloomington)
Ninth Avenue Dump
Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc
Poer Farm*
Prestolite Battery Division
* Deleted
78
-------
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Indianapolis
Plant)
Seymour Recycling Corp.
Southside Sanitary Landfill
Tippecanoe Sanitary Landfill, Inc
Tri-State Plating
Waste, Inc., Landfill
Wayne Waste Oil
Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc.
Whiteford Sales & Service/NationaLease
Michigan (Ml): 78
Adam's Plating
Albion-Sheridan Township Landfill
Allied Paper, Inc./Portage
Creek/Kalamazoo River
American Anodco, Inc.
Anderson Development Co.
Auto Ion Chemicals, Inc.
Avenue "E" Ground Water Contamination
Barrels, Inc.
Bendix Corp./Allied Automotive
Berlin & Farro
Bofors Nobel, Inc.
Burrows Sanitation
Butterworth #2 Landfill
Cannelton Industries, Inc.
Carter Industrials, Inc.
Cemetery Dump
Charlevoix Municipal Well
Chem Central
Clare Water Supply
Cliff/Dow Dump
Duell & Gardner Landfill
Electrovoice
Folkertsma Refuse
Forest Waste Products
G&H Landfill
Grand Traverse Overall Supply Co.
Gratiot County Landfill
H. Brown Co., Inc.
Hedblum Industries
Hi-Mill Manufacturing Co.
Ionia City Landfill
J & L Landfill
K&L Avenue Landfill
Kaydon Corp.
Kent City Mobile Home Park
Kentwood Landfill
Kysor Industrial Corp.
Liquid Disposal, Inc.
Mason County Landfill
McGraw Edison Corp.
Metal Working Shop
Metamora Landfill
Michigan Disposal Service (Cork Street
Landfill)
Motor Wheel, Inc.
Muskegon Chemical Co.
North Bronson Industrial Area
Northernaire Plating
Novaco Industries
Organic Chemicals, Inc.
Ossineke Ground Water Contamination
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Packaging Corp. of America
Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.
Peerless Plating Co.
Petoskey Municipal Well Field
Rasmussen's Dump
Rockwell International Corp. (Allegan Plant)
Rose Township Dump
Roto-Finish Co., Inc.
SCA Independent Landfill
Shiawassee River
South Macomb Disposal Authority
(Landfills #9 and #9a)
Southwest Ottawa County Landfill
Sparta Landfill
Spartan Chemical Co.
Spiegelberg Landfill
Springfield Township Dump
State Disposal Landfill, Inc.
Sturgis Municipal Wells
Tar Lake
Thermo-Chem, Inc.
Torch Lake
U.S. Aviex
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Michigan)
Verona Well Field
Wash King Laundry
Waste Management of Michigan (Holland
Lagoons)
Whitehall Municipal Wells*
Deleted
79
-------
Minnesota (MN): 43
Adrian Municipal Well Field
Agate Lake Scrapyard
Arrowhead Refinery Co.
Boise Cascade/Onan Corp./Medtronics,
Inc.
Burlington Northern (Brainerd/Baxter Plant)
Dakhue Sanitary Landfill
East Bethel Demolition Landfill
FMC Corp. (Fridley Plant)
Freeway Sanitary Landfill
General Mills/Henkel Corp.
Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co.
Koch Refining Co./N-Ren Corp.
Koppers Coke
Kummer Sanitary Landfill
Kurt Manufacturing Co.
LaGrand Sanitary Landfill
Lehillier/Mankato Site
Long Prairie Ground Water Contamination
MacGillis & Gibbs Co./Bell Lumber & Pole
Co.
Morris Arsenic Dump*
Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant
New Brighton/Arden Hills
NL Industries/Taracorp/Golden Auto
Nutting Truck & Caster Co.
Oak Grove Sanitary Landfill
Oakdale Dump
Olmsted County Sanitary Landfill
Perham Arsenic Site
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (St. Louis Park
Plant)
Ritari Post & Pole
South Andover Site
St. Augusta Sanitary Landfill/Engen Dump
St. Louis River Site
St. Regis Paper Co.
Twin Cities Air Force Reserve Base (Small
Arms Range Landfill)
Union Scrap Iron & Metal Co.
University of Minnesota (Rosemount
Research Center)
Waite Park Wells
Washington County Landfill
Waste Disposal Engineering
Whittaker Corp.
Windom Dump
Ohio (OH): 33
Allied Chemical & Ironton Coke
Alsco Anaconda
Arcanum Iron & Metal
Big D Campground
Bowers Landfill
Buckeye Reclamation
Chem-Dyne
Coshocton Landfill
E. H. Schilling Landfill
Feed Materials Production Center (USDOE)
Fields Brook
Fultz Landfill
Industrial Excess Landfill
Laskin/Poplar Oil Co.
Miami County Incinerator
Mound Plant (USDOE)
Nease Chemical
New Lyme Landfill
Old Mill
Ormet Corp.
Powell Road Landfill
Pristine, Inc.
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Dover Plant)
Republic Steel Corp. Quarry
Sanitary Landfill Co. (Industrial Waste
Disposal Co., Inc.)
Skinner Landfill
South Point Plant
Summit National
TRW, Inc. (Minerva Plant)
United Scrap Lead Co., Inc.
Van Dale Junkyard
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Zanesville Well Field
Wisconsin (Wl): 39
Algoma Municipal Landfill
Better Brite Plating Co. Chrome & Zinc
Shops
City Disposal Corp. Landfill
Delavan Municipal Well #4
Eau Claire Municipal Well Field
Fadrowski Drum Disposal
Hagen Farm
Hechimovich Sanitary Landfill
Deleted
80
-------
Hunts Disposal Landfill
Janesville Ash Beds
Janesville Old Landfill
Kohler Co. Landfill
Lauer I Sanitary Landfill
Lemberger Landfill, Inc.
Lemberger Transport & Recycling
Madison Metropolitan Sewage District
Lagoons
Master Disposal Service Landfill
Mid-State Disposal, Inc. Landfill
Moss-American (Kerr-McGee Oil Co.)
Muskego Sanitary Landfill
N. W. Mauthe Co., Inc.
National Presto Industries, Inc.
Northern Engraving Co.
Oconomowoc Electroplating Co., Inc
Omega Hills North Landfill
Onalaska Municipal Landfill
Sauk County Landfill
Schmalz Dump
Scrap Processing Co., Inc.
Sheboygan Harbor & River
Spickler Landfill
Stoughton City Landfill
Tomah Armory
Tomah Fairgrounds
Tomah Municipal Sanitary Landfill
Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc.
(Brookfield Sanitary Landfill)
Waste Research & Reclamation Co.
Wausau Ground Water Contamination
Wheeler Pit
Deleted
81
-------
APPENDIX C: REGION 5 NPL MAP
82
-------
REGION 5 NPL SITES
Note: Because of the proximity of some NPL sites, dots may represent more than one site.
83
-------
U.S. Enw?"^mer»t?.l Protection Agency
Region ;-, v -->'. ^ - '
11 West j^ks. ,. -..
"" ' ii p,- - - ' '-<*
IL OUCv/-i , ,
------- |