xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(5102G)
SUPERFUND:
EPA/540/R-93/003
December 1992
PB93-963204
Progress at
National
Priority
List Sites
ARIZONA & NEVADA
1992 UPDATE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-7046
December 1992
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Arizona and Nevada
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460 "-s: Environrr^ta!^election Agency
a Region 5, L^r-r/ (/i--:?j;
77 West Jac,r;;.c:; boulevard, 12lh Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
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) 486-4650
The complete set of the 49 State reports may be ordered as PB93-963250.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
A Brief Overview of Superfund v
Streamlining Superfund: The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model ix
How Superfund Works x
THE VOLUME
How to Use the State Book xi
A SUMMARY OF THE STATE PROGRAM
.XV
THE NPL REPORT
Progress to Date xxi
THE NPL FACT SHEETS i
THE GLOSSARY
Terms used in the NPL Book G-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SUPERFUND
During the second half of the Twentieth
Century, the environmental conse-
quences of more than 100 years of industrial-
ization in the United States became increas-
ingly clear. Authors such as Rachel Carson
wrote passionately about the often-hidden en-
vironmental effects of our modern society's
widespread use of chemicals and other haz-
ardous materials. Their audience was small at
first, but gradually their message spread.
Growing concern turned to action, as people
learned more about the environment and be-
gan to act on their knowledge
The 1970s saw environmental issues burst
onto the national scene and take hold in the
national consciousness. The first Earth Day
was observed in 1970, the year that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
founded. By the end of the 1970s, Love Canal
in New York and the Valley of the Drums in
Kentucky had entered the popular lexicon as
synonyms for pollution and environmental
degradation.
Superfund Is Established
The industrialization that gave Americans the
world's highest standard of living also created
problems that only a national program could
address. By 19X0, the U.S. Congress had
passed numerous environmental laws, imple-
mented by the EPA, but many serious hazard-
ous waste problems were slipping through the
cracks.
Responding to growing concern about public
health and environmental threats from uncon-
trolled releases of hazardous materials, the
U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive En-
vironmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA). Popularly known as
Superfund, CERCLA had one seemingly
simple job—to uncover and clean up hazard-
ous materials spills and contaminated sites.
A Big Job
Few in Congress, the EPA, the environmen-
tal community, or the general public knew in
19X0 just how big the nation's hazardous ma-
terials problem is. Almost everyone thought
that Superfund would be a short-lived pro-
gram requiring relatively few resources to
clean up at most a few hundred sites. They
were quite mistaken.
As the EPA set to work finding sites and
gauging their potential to harm people and
the environment, the number of sites grew.
Each discovery seemed to lead to another,
and today almost 36,000 hazardous waste
sites have been investigated as potential haz-
ardous waste sites. They are catalogued in
the EPA's computerized database, CERCLIS
(for the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
-------
INTRODUCTION
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Informa-
tion System).
The damage to public health and the environ-
ment that each site in CERCLIS might cause
is evaluated; many sites have been referred to
State and local governments for cleanup. The
EPA lists the nation's most serious hazardous
waste sites on the National Priorities List, or
NPL. (These Superfund sites are eligible for
federally-funded cleanup, but whenever pos-
sible the EPA makes polluters pay for the
contamination they helped create.) The NPL
now numbers 1,275 sites, with 50 to 100
added each year. By the end of the century,
the NPL may reach as many as 2,100 sites.
Superfund faces some of the most complex
pollution problems ever encountered by an
environmental program. Improperly stored or
disposed chemicals and the soil they contami-
nate are one concern. More difficult to correct
are the wetlands and bays, and the groundwa-
ter, lakes, and rivers often used for drinking
water that are contaminated by chemicals
spreading through the soil or mixing with
Quick Cleanup at
Non-NPL Sites
Long-standing hazardous waste sites are not
Superfund's only concern. The EPA also re-
sponds to hazardous spills and other emergen-
cies, hauling away chemicals for proper treat-
ment or disposal. Superfund teams perform or
supervise responses at rail and motor vehicle
accidents, fires, and other emergencies in-
volving hazardous substances. They also
evacuate people living and working near by,
if necessary, and provide clean drinking water
to people whose own water is contaminated.
Removal crews also post warning signs and
take other precautions to keep people and ani-
mals away from hazardous substances.
storm water runoff. Toxic vapors contaminate
the air at some sites, threatening the health of
people living and working near by.
Superfund aims to control immediate public
health and environmental threats by tackling
the worst problems at the worst sites first.
Wherever possible, Superfund officials use
innovative treatment techniques—many de-
veloped or refined by the EPA—to correct
hazardous materials problems once and for
all. Many of the treatment techniques they use
did not exist when the program was created.
The EPA Administrator had challenged Su-
perfund to complete construction necessary
for cleanup work at 130 NPL sites by the end
of the 1992 federal fiscal year. By September
30, 1992, the end of fiscal year 1992, con-
struction had been completed at a total of 149
NPL sites. Superfund is well on its way of
meeting the Administrator's goal of complet-
ing construction at 200 NPL sites by the end
of fiscal year 1993, and 650 sites by the end
of fiscal year 2000.
Superfund employee prepares equipment for groundwater
treatment.
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
Quick Cleanups, or Removals, are not limited
to emergencies. When cleanup crews at con-
taminated sites find hazardous substances that
immediately threaten people or the environ-
ment, they act right away to reduce the threat
or to remove the chemicals outright. As the
EPA implements the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM), more and more sites
will undergo quick cleanups, and many of
these will be cleaned up completely without
ever being included on the NPL. (See
"Streamlining Superfund: The Superfund Ac-
celerated Cleanup Model.")
Some of Superfund's most significant gains in
public health and environmental protection
have been won by the removal program. As of
March 31, 1992, the Emergency Response
Superfund employee removing drums from a Superfund site.
Program had logged more than 2,300 removal
completions since Superfund was established.
The Public's Role
Superfund is unique among federal programs
in its commitment to citizen participation. Al-
though the EPA is responsible for determin-
ing how dangerous a site is and how best to
clean it up, the Agency relies on citizen input
as it makes these decisions.
Community residents are often invaluable
sources of information about a hazardous
waste site, its current and previous owners,
and the activities that took place there. Such
information can be crucial to experts evaluat-
ing a site and its potential dangers.
Residents also comment on EPA cleanup
plans by stating their concerns and prefer-
ences at public meetings and other forums and
in formal, written comments to Agency pro-
posals. The EPA takes these comments and
concerns seriously, and has modified many
proposals in response to local concerns. For,
ultimately, it is the community and its citizens
that will live with the results of the EPA's de-
cisions and actions; it is only fair that citizens
participate in the process.
A Commitment to
Communication
The Superfund program is very serious about
public outreach and communication. Com-
munity relations coordinators are assigned to
each NPL site to help the public understand
the potential hazards present, as well as the
cleanup alternatives. Local information re-
positories, such as libraries or other public-
buildings, have been established near each
NPL site to ensure that the public has an op-
portunity to review all relevant information
and the proposed cleanup plans.
The individual State volumes contain sum-
mary fact sheets on NPL sites in each State
and territory. Together, the fact sheets provide
a concise report on site conditions and the
progress made toward site cleanups as of
March 1992. The EPA revises these volumes
periodically to provide an up-to-date record of
program activities. A glossary of key terms
relating to hazardous waste management and
Superfund site cleanup is provided at the back
of this book.
VII
-------
INTRODUCTION
Superfund is, of course, a public program, and
as such it belongs to everyone of us. This vol-
ume, along with other State volumes, com-
prises the EPA's report on Superfund
progress to the program's owners for the year
1992.
VIM
-------
INTRODUCTION
STREAMLINING SUPERFUND: THE SUPERFUND
ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL
Historically, critics and supporters alike
have measured Superfund's progress
by the number of hazardous waste sites de-
leted from the NPL. Although easy enough to
tally, this approach is too narrow. It misses
the major gains Superfund makes by reducing
major risks at the nation's worst hazardous
sites long before all clean-up work is done
and the site deleted. It also ignores the Re-
moval Program's contributions to meeting
Superfund's twin mandates of maximizing
public health and environmental protection.
Renewing Superfund's commitment to rapid
protection from hazardous materials, the EPA
is streamlining the program. The Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model, or SACM, will
take Early Actions, such as removing hazard-
ous wastes or contaminated materials, while
experts study the site. SACM also will com-
bine similar site studies to reduce the time re-
quired to evaluate a site and its threats to
people and the environment. This way, imme-
diate public health and environmental threats
will be addressed while long-term cleanups
are being planned.
Emergencies such as train derailments and
motor vehicle accidents will continue to be
handled expeditiously. Teams of highly
trained technicians will swing into action
right away, coordinating the cleanup and re-
moval of hazardous substances to ensure pub-
lic safety as quickly as possible.
Breaking With Tradition
The traditional Superfund process begins with
a lengthy phase of study and site assessment,
but SACM will save time by combining sepa-
rate, yet similar, activities. Each EPA Region
will form a Decision Team of site managers,
risk assessors, community relations coordina-
tors, lawyers, and other experts to monitor the
studies and quickly determine whether a site
requires Early Action (taking less than five
years), Long-term Action, or both.
While the site studies continue, the Decision
Team will begin the short-term work required
to correct immediate public health or environ-
mental threats from the site. Besides remov-
ing hazardous materials, Early Actions in-
clude taking precautions to keep contaminants
from moving off the site and restricting access
to the site. Early Actions could eliminate most
human risk from these sites, and Superfund
will further focus its public participation and
public information activities on site assess-
ment and Early Action.
Long-Term Solutions
While Early Actions can correct many hazard-
ous waste problems—and provide the bulk of
public health and environmental protection—
some contamination will take longer to cor-
rect. Cleanups of mining sites, wetlands, estu-
aries, and projects involving incineration of
contaminants or restoration of groundwater
can take far longer than the three to five years
envisioned for Early Actions. Under SACM,
these sites will be handled much as they are
now.
Also under SACM, the EPA will continue its
pursuit of potentially responsible parties who
may have caused or contributed to site con-
tamination. Expedited enforcement and
procedures for negotiating potentially respon-
sible party settlements will secure their par-
ticipation. Superfund personnel will continue
to oversee clean-up work performed by poten-
tially responsible parties.
IX
-------
INTRODUCTION
HOW SUPERFUND WORKS
Each Superfund site presents a different
set of complex problems. The same haz-
ardous materials and chemicals often con-
taminate many sites, but the details of each
site are different. Almost always, soil is con-
taminated with one or more chemicals. Their
vapors may taint the air over and around the
site. Contaminants may travel through the soil
and reach underground aquifers which may be
used for drinking water, or they may spread
over the site to contaminate streams, ponds,
and wetlands. The contaminating chemicals
may interact with each other, presenting even
more complicated cleanup problems.
Superfund's cleanup process is arduous and
exacting. It requires the best efforts of hun-
dreds of experts in science and engineering, [
public health, administration and manage-
ment, law, and many other fields.
The average NPL site takes from seven to ten
years to work its way through the system,
from discovery to the start of long-term
cleanup. Actual cleanup work can take years,
decades if contaminated groundwater must
be treated. Of course, imminent threats to
public health or the environment are cor-
rected right away.
The diagram to the right presents a simplified
view of the cleanup process. The major steps
in the Superfund process are:
• Site discovery and investigation to iden-
tify contaminants and determine whether
emergency action is required;
• Emergency site work such as removing
contaminants for proper treatment or dis-
posal, and securing the site to keep people
and animals away, if warranted by condi-
tions at the site;
• Site evaluation to determine how people
living and working nearby, and the envi-
ronment, may be exposed to site contami-
nants;
• Detailed studies to determine whether con-
ditions are serious enough to add the site to
the National Priorities List of sites eligible
for federally funded cleanup under Super-
fund;
• Selection, design, and implementation of a
cleanup plan, after a thorough review of
the most effective cleanup options, given
site conditions, contaminants present, and
their potential threat to public health or the
environment.
• Follow-up to ensure that the cleanup work
done at the site continues to be effective
over the long term.
The Superfund Process
From the earliest stages, EPA investigators
work hard to identify those responsible for the
contamination. As their responsibility is es-
tablished, the EPA negotiates with these "re-
sponsible parties" to pay for cleaning up the
problem they helped create. This "enforce-
ment first" policy saves Superfund Trust Fund
monies for use in cleanups where the respon-
sible parties cannot be identified, or where
they are unable to fund cleanup work.
-------
THE VOLUME
How to Use the State Book
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 discovered and related threats
to public and ecological health ("Threats and
Contaminants"). "Cleanup Approach" pres-
ents 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 environment. The
summaries also pinpoint other actions, such as
legal efforts to involve polluters responsible
for site contamination and community con-
cerns.
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-
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.
XI
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Provides the dates when the
site was Proposed, made Final,
and Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties taking responsibility
for cleanup actions at the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRESS
Summarizes the actions to
reduce the threats to nearby
residents and the surrounding
environment and the progress
towards cleaning up the site.
SITE NAME
EPA REGION XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
STATE
EPA ID* ABCOOOOOOO
Threats and Contaminants
Response Action Status
Site Facts:
cxxxxxxxx xxxxxx
^jxxxxx xxx xx xx
Environmental Progress
Site Repository
SITE REPOSITORY
Lists the location of the primary site repository. The site
repository may include community relations plans, public
meeting announcements and minutes, fact sheets, press
releases, and other site-related documents.
XII
-------
THE VOLUME
SITE DESCRIPTION
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes descrip-
tions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have con-
tributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
THREATS AND CONTAMINANTS
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted, as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil, and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding environ-
ments arising from the site contamination also are described.
CLEANUP APPROACH
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
RESPONSE ACTION STATUS
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean
up the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided
into separate phases, depending on the complexity and required actions at the
site. Two major types of cleanup activities often are described: initial,
immediate, or emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent
threats to the community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial
phases directed at final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy
is presented in this section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of
the cleanup process (initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the
cleanup remedy, engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway, and
completed cleanup) are located in the margin next to each activity descrip-
tion.
SITE FACTS
Additional information on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by the EPA to
achieve site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with
the site cleanup process are reported here.
xiii
-------
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 vicinity or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used as a drink-
ing 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 vicinity
of the site. (Examples include wet-
lands and coastal areas or critical
habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Initial, Immediate, or Emergency
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.
XIV
-------
A SUMMARY OF THE STATE PROGRAM
xv
-------
Superfund Activities
in Arizona
The State of Arizona is located within EPA Region 9, which
includes three southwestern States, Hawaii, American Samoa,
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands. The State covers
114,000 square miles. According to the 1990 Census, Arizona
experienced a 35 percent increase in population between 1980 and
1990, and is ranked twenty-fourth in U.S. population with approxi-
mately 3,665,228 residents.
The Arizona Environmental Quality Act of 19X6, most recently amended in 1990, grants the
State the authority to compel polluters to conduct or pay for cleanup activities at Superfund sites. The
State can use its authority to make polluters liable for site cleanup, regardless of fault or actual contri-
bution to the hazardous conditions of the site. The State must first demonstrate that parties are respon-
sible for pollution before taking action against them. The State has the option of imposing civil
penalties, serving injunctions, assessing damages of up to triple the amount, and recovering the cost of
cleanup from polluters at a later time. In practice, the State encourages voluntary cleanup by polluters.
Administrative and site activities are financed by the Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund, which
is funded by taxes, fees, penalties, and money recovered from polluters; this fund also provides the 10
percent contribution from the State required by the Federal Superfund program. To access these
funds, however, the program must demonstrate that a site does or may impact State waters. Important
site and program actions are announced in two State-wide newspapers. Public comment is required on
the annual site priority list publication. Currently, 10 sites in the State of Arizona have been listed as
final on the NPL; one has been deleted. No new sites have been proposed for listing in 1992.
The Department of Environmental Quality
implements the Superfund Program in the State of Arizona
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
Arizona include:
Mining
Operations
Fertilizer
Plants
Manufacturing
Facilities
Federal
Facilities
Landfills
Facts about the 11 NPL sites
in Arizona:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at eight
sites.
One site endangers sensitive environ-
ments.
Nine sites are located near residential
areas.
XVII
March 1992
-------
ARIZONA
Most Sites Have Multiple Contaminants and
Contaminated Media:
Media Contaminated at Sites
Air
Surface
Water
Sediments
Soil
Ground-
water
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Sites
The Potentially Responsible
Party Pays...
In the State of Arizona, potentially responsible
parties are paying for or conducting cleanup
activities at seven sites.
Contaminants Found at Sites
Percentage of Sites
VOCs
Heavy Metals
Other*
Gases
Pesticides/Herbicides
PCBs
Acids
Asbestos
Radiation
Petrochemicals/Explosives
82%
73%
36%
27%
18%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
'Other contaminants include boron;
chloroform; cyanide; lime wastes; nitrates;
and residues from tear gas, amunition,
napalm, and paint.
For Further Information on NPL Sites and Hazardous
Waste Programs in the State of Arizona Please Contact:
EPA Region 9 Office of
Public Affairs
National Response Center
The Department of Environmental
Quality: Remedial Projects Section
EPA Region 9 Waste Management
Division
EPA Superfund Hotline
For information concerning
community involvement
To report a hazardous
waste emergency
For information about the
State's responsibility in the
Superfund Program
For information about the
Regional Superfund Program
For information about the
Federal Superfund Program
(415) 744-1585
(800) 424-8802
(602)207-4189
(415)744-1730
(800) 424-9068
March 1992
XVIII
-------
Superfund Activities
in Nevada
>f- Major Cmes
• NPL Sites
The State of Nevada is located within EPA Region 9, which
includes three southwestern States, Hawaii, American Samoa,
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands. The State covers
110,561 square miles. According to the 1990 Census, Nevada
experienced a 50 percent increase in population between 1980
and 1990, and is ranked thirty-ninth in U.S. population with
approximately 1,202,000 residents.
The Nevada Revised Statutes of 1981, most recently
amended in 1991, are commonly referred to as the "hazardous
waste statutes." These statutes grant the State the authority to
respond to hazardous waste spills, including the authority to make
polluters who are involved in a spill liable for cleanup costs, regard-
less of fault. To compel polluters to comply, the State may issue subpoenas, serve injunctions,
impose civil and criminal penalties, and recover costs at a later time if the State performs cleanup
activities itself. The Hazardous Waste Management Fund, created by the 1981 Act, is earmarked
for emergency response activities, site investigations, removals, long-term cleanup activities, and
the 10 percent contribution from the State required by the Federal Superfund program. Sources
of this fund are fees on waste generators and handlers, money recovered from polluters, penal-
ties, and permit fees. Currently, one site in the State of Nevada has been listed as final on the
NPL. No new sites have been proposed for listing in 1992.
The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
implements the Superfund Program in the State of Nevada
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
Nevada include:
Mining Operations—1 site or 100%
Facts about the NPL site
in Nevada:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at this
sites.
This site does not endanger sensitive
environments.
This site is located near residential
areas.
XIX
March 1992
-------
NEVADA
Most Sites Have Multiple Contaminants and
Contaminated Media:
Media Contaminated at Sites
Air
Surface
Water
Ground-
water
Contaminants Found at Sites
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Sites
Percentage of Sites
Heavy Metals
100%
The Potentially Responsible
Party Pays...
In the State of Nevada, no potentially respon-
sible parties are paying for or conducting
cleanup activities.
For Further Information on NPL Sites and Hazardous
Waste Programs in the State of Texas Please Contact:
EPA Region 9 Office of Public
Affairs
National Response Center
The Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources: Division
of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Waste Management, Superfund
Branch
EPA Region 9 Waste Management
Division
EPA Superfund Hotline
For information concerning
community involvement
To report a hazardous
waste emergency
For information about the
State's responsibility in the
Superfund Program
For information about the
Regional Superfund Program
For information about the
Federal Superfund Program
(415) 744-1585
(800)424-8802
(702) 687*5872
(415) 744-1730
(800)424-9068
March 1992
xx
-------
THE NPL REPORT
PROGRESS TO DATE
The following Progress Report lists all
sites currently on, or deleted from, the
NPL and briefly summarizes the status of ac-
tivities for each site at the time this report was
prepared. The steps in the Superfund 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 ac-
complishments.
O An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency
cleanup, immediate action, or initial ac-
tion has been completed or currently is
underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to pro-
vide immediate relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize
a site to prevent further contamination.
O A final arrow in the "Site Studies" cat-
egory indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is on-
going or planned.
O A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has se-
lected the final cleanup strategy for the
site. At the few sites where the EPA has
determined that initial response actions
have eliminated site contamination, or
that any remaining contamination will
be naturally dispersed without further
cleanup activities, a "No Action" rem-
edy has been 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 specifica-
tions 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 cur-
rently are underway.
O A final arrow in the "Construction Com-
plete" category is used only when all
phases of the site cleanup plan have
been performed, and the EPA has deter-
mined 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 pro-
tect human health and the environment.
/ A check in the "Deleted" category indi-
cates 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.
XXI
-------
TJ
01
C
o
•—
M—
o
0)
s
CO
0)
JC
c
0)
0)
J^J
CO
_J
Q.
en
Q.
D
c
(Q
0)
o
(0
1
(0
(0
Q)
O)
0
a
March
0)
0>
o
c
O 0)
2|-
§3
o
Q.O)
3 C
£'5
8g>
oo
1*0)
E'W
>.-o
TJ 0>
OlTj
01 ~Z
U)
l|
C 0)
— 0)
oc
"53
Q
O.
Z
I"
o
o
0)
ra
Z
0)
1992
ft
ft
o
£
o
1
1
u.
s
s
8
>-
2
<
O
Q
9
APACHE I
ft
9°
CN
O
15
u.
IX
O
U
1
d
U.
iMPA LAND
HASSAY/
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft
s2 J8
R R
S S
1 1
u. u-
o. a.
0 0
u u
2 2
ll
< <-
END WASH
LDAIRPOR'
INDIAN B
LITCHFIE
ft
ft
^
1
1
a,
IX
O
U
1
w
oo
: FORCE BA:
1
_J
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
o\
9£
o
15
U-
a.
O
U
1
^~.
H
^
J
UJ
00
Q
z
J
MOTORO1
%
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
oo
9£
oo
"8
S
d
<
a
00
W
0
tu
EE
1
MOUNTA
ft
ft
ft
ft
s»
I
15
U.
Cu
O
u
1
e-J
E
Q
_J
0)
Z
UQ
I
-7
NINETEEt
ft
/
ft /
/
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft
rr> ON o
go go g\
O £N CN
S — CN
— 0
•a 13 •a
c c c
U. LJ- U.
Q-
o
u <
111
z
0
m Llj t/3
Cu V5 p^
c2 w £
o u £
t— 3 FT ^-^
1 1 1
0 ^ <
00 _J $
^i
xxii
/^
/\^
/ ^L
/ \
"""^tl ^
Q
c
.2 *i
° 1 1 1 |
C rj
o
O.0£
« £ c "3
S '5 S g1
oo
«*ta
"" £ 'I | 8
B«0
^•o
in -, TJ a*
0 J.f |o
P^i
w si
-HIS
V3 & 5 -0
oo c
k
v
X
1
J
_s
"g.
3
S"
.•g
.5
-§
a
^»
_|
1
.8
• ^1
1
1
§
53
4
i*.
§
S5
§•
-Si
1
-------
TJ
*
£.
9
Q
o «
29-
°
Q. D)
3 C
i o
S o>
00
0) O)
P "5>
».a>
CO
T3
CO
S
Z
>^
o
CD
^^
CO
Pl_>
CO
CD
_G
*-*
c
CO
fl)
£
CO
1
_J
Q.
•i— •
CO
Q.
C
CO
CD
O
•o
CO
£
p~
CO
CO
CD
D)
0
^
Q.
S-TJ
"O
a> t5
E «
Q) ^
DC CO
(A
a) .S!
.•e -o
CO 3
55
0)
U)
11
C (0
~ fl>
DC
0)
CO
O
|
Q.
Z
5-
C
3
O
o
0)
E
ra
Z
0)
.t;
CO
rr
rr
0
o
Ci
OO
0
"3
c
iJ-
_J
z£
o 2
>- K
J U
LU
E
So
>•
U
a:
e
.S 5
«> jjiS
o £ S 2 g-
^s||
oU
U
a. en
«j= 2-S
« S fl S
=> .-s -^ ts So
W5 f £ C
UO
» -o =
«£ «.Sf
O .•— •— C I/I
"*!Q
>>T3
w j= 7 S
°!f 11
V3 5 tU-3
SicAj
>>
(/] CQ
VJ=.2l
-s-m
c/o c
u>
to
S
S
"t^5
!
Q
^
a
k^
-S
1
<3
S
"S;
^
^J
-g
C
to
•Si
c
a
^J
^
*2
Q
•i2
t^
r^
^,
^j
^
g
^5
S.
^
-Si
r ^
*O
iJ
1
1
Di
£
>
c£
§
OO
Q'
5
<.
U
XXIII
-------
APACHE ROW,
COMPANY
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD0083S
EPA REGION 9
Cochise County
St. David
Other Names:
Apache Nitrogen Products, Inc.
Site Description
The Apache Powder Company has manufactured explosives and fertilizers on this 945-acre
site since 1922. Prior to 1971, all wastewater was disposed of by flushing it into dry washes;
the water then soaked into the ground or flowed into the San Pedro River. Since 1971, the
company has been storing the wastewater in holding ponds. The water in these holding ponds
contains high levels of nitrates, and the ponds may have leaked nitrates into the groundwater.
In 1980, the EPA found high levels of heavy metals in one of the ponds. Ten shallow wells
downgradient from the facility were found to contain nitrates. Approximately 1,100 people
depend on wells for drinking water within 3 miles of the site. The nearest residence is less
than 1/4 mile from the facility. Alfalfa is grown commercially within the vicinity of the site
and is used as feed for cattle. Elevated levels of nitrates have been detected in the San Pedro
River, which borders the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and surface water contain nitrates, nitrites, and strontium. Soil and
holding pond sludge contain nitrates, nitrites, lead, chromium, zinc, and strontium.
People who ingest contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil, or sludges may
be at risk. Wildlife in or around the San Pedro River may be harmed by
contaminants leaking into the river.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1987, as a result of earlier water quality testing by the
EPA, the Apache Powder Company began providing bottled water to area
residents whose well water was found to be contaminated.
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the type and extent of contamination
at the site is being conducted by the Apache Powder Company. Once the
investigation is completed, scheduled for 1993, measures will be recommended for
site cleanup. This investigation will include a study of the surface water pattern and sources,
the location and hydrology of groundwater aquifers, and background levels of various
chemicals and metals. The EPA is evaluating the collected data to assess the potential for
public health and environmental threats.
Site Facts: In 1989, the Apache Powder Company entered into an Administrative Order,
requiring Apache to conduct an investigation of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
The immediate action described above has provided a safe drinking water supply to affected
residents and has eliminated the potential of exposure to contaminated drinking water. This
initial action will continue to protect residents near the Apache Powder Company site until
final cleanup activities are completed.
Site Repository
Benson Public Library, 300 South Huachuca, Benzon, AZ 85602
March 1992 2 APACHE POWDER COMPANY
-------
HASSAYAMP
LANDFILL
ARIZONA
EPA ID# A2D980735666
EPA REGION 9
Maricopa County
40 miles west of Phoenix
Site Description
The 47-acre Hassayampa Landfill site has been used as a municipal landfill since 1961 and
accepted approximately 3,000,000 gallons of liquid and 4,000 tons of solid hazardous waste.
From 1979 to 1980, hazardous wastes were deposited in unlined trenches located in a 10-acre
portion of the site. In 1981, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) installed
three monitoring wells on site. Samples collected from these wells were found to be
contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Approximately 350 people draw
drinking water from private wells, and 2,800 acres of farmland are irrigated by wells within 3
miles of the site. The distance to the nearest residence is approximately 1,000 yards south of
the site. Hassayampa River, an intermittent stream, is 3/4 mile east of the landfill.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
IV
Ambient air contains very low levels of VOCs. Groundwater sampling results also
have identified various VOCs. Soils beneath the waste pits contain VOCs, heavy
metals, pesticides, and lime wastes. Risk assessment results indicate that potential
health risks may exist for individuals who ingest the contaminated groundwater or
for those who have direct contact with hazardous wastes present in several of the
trenches. Currently, there does not appear to be any potential for adverse health
effects due to inhalation of VOCs in the air. However, if contaminated
groundwater is allowed to continue to migrate, there is the potential for excess
cancer risk, primarily due to exposure to dichloroethene in groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination initiated an investigation in 1988 to determine the type and extent
of contamination at the site and to identify alternative technologies for the
cleanup. The investigation and risk assessment were completed in 1991. A final cleanup
remedy is expected to be selected in 1992, after the EPA has evaluated the recommended
cleanup alternatives and the public comments.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA sent Special Notice Letters informing 108 individuals and
companies of their potential responsibility for wastes contaminating the site. In February
1988, several potentially responsible parties entered into a Consent Order with the EPA in
which they agreed to conduct the site investigation under EPA oversight. More than 50 other
potentially responsible parties later contributed funds toward the completion of the
investigation.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that the Hassayampa Landfill site does not pose an immediate threat to public
health or the environment. The EPA will review the results of the completed risk assessment
to determine if interim cleanup actions are necessary to reduce the potential for exposure to
hazardous waste sources at the site while cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Buckeye Library, 310 North 6th Street, Buckeye, AZ 85326
March 1992
HASSAYAMPA LANDFILL
-------
i—-w~*"--v
INDIAN BEND ^p
WASHARE&— -
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD98069596
Site Description
EPA REGION 9
Maricopa County
Parts of Scottsdale, Tempe, and Phoenix,
and the Salt River Indian Reservation
The Indian Bend Wash Area site is over 6 miles in length and covers 13 square miles. In
1981, the cities of Scottsdale and Phoenix discovered volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
seven municipal supply wells. These contaminants appear to have originated from several
industrial facilities that operated in the northern portion of the Indian Bend Wash Area
(NIBW); two of these facilities, Motorola and Beckman, are located upgradient from five
municipal water wells. Six of seven contaminated wells were removed from service shortly
after discovery; the seventh was equipped with a treatment service to remove VOCs, then
was returned to full service. Some facilities at the southern portion of the Indian Bend Wash
Area (SIBW) have discharged VOCs into the ground; other facilities may have discharged
heavy metals, cyanides, and acids. Landfills at this area have received a variety of hazardous
materials, including vinyl chloride and foundry slag. Approximately 70 percent of the City of
Scottsdale's municipal water needs are supplied by groundwater. Approximately 130,000
people live in Scottsdale.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
ZGJ
Groundwater is contaminated with VOCs, boron, chloroform, lead, and zinc. Soil is
contaminated with VOCs, cyanides, acids, and heavy metals including chromium
and lead. Surface water also contains VOCs. People could be exposed to chemicals
from the site if they accidentally ingest or come in direct contact with
contaminated groundwater, soil, or surface water. Groundwater at the site is used
to irrigate various crops and feed livestock. Contaminants could bioaccumulate in
agricultural products that use contaminated groundwater.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in seven long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of: the
Northern Indian Bend Wash Area, the Scottsdale Area, groundwater and soil contamination
at the Southern Indian Bend Wash Area, the Beckman Industries Area, the Motorola Area,
and the Siemens Area.
Response Action Status
Northern Indian Bend Wash Area: The EPA is addressing the NIBW as a
separate area of study from SIBW, because the contaminants may come from a
different source. An investigation into the extent and type of contamination was
completed in 1991 and included recommendations on the best alternatives for cleaning up the
site. The final cleanup remedy selected includes a soil vapor extraction system for
contaminated soil and continued monitoring of the upper zone in the groundwater. Design of
the remedy is expected to begin in late 1992.
Scottsdale Area: In 1988, the EPA selected a cleanup alternative, which
included: containment of contaminants by extracting groundwater from the middle
and lower parts of the aquifer and by pumping five City of Scottsdale wells and air
stripping to clean the contaminated groundwater. The remedy includes granular activated
carbon to extract the contaminants from the stream of air. In 1990, the potentially
responsible parties installed wells that will be used to monitor the effectiveness of the cleanup
process. The parties are scheduled to complete the design of the cleanup activities by 1992
and finish construction in 1994.
Southern Indian Bend Wash Groundwater Area: The EPA began a study of
the nature and extent of groundwater contamination at SIBW in 1988. The EPA
has ordered potentially responsible parties to install groundwater monitoring wells
to assist with the groundwater investigation. Once completed, the study will recommend
effective alternatives for final cleanup of the site. The investigation is expected to be
completed in late 1993.
Beckman Industries Area: The EPA completed an investigation into the nature
and extent of contamination at this area in 1991. Based on the results of the
investigation, the final cleanup remedy selected is soil vapor extraction. The
potentially responsible parties are expected to begin the design of the remedy in late 1992
and complete it by 1993.
Motorola Area: The potentially responsible parties completed an investigation of
the extent of contamination at the area in 1991. The final cleanup remedy selected
to address site contamination is soil vapor extraction. The design phase is expected
to begin in late 1992, with cleanup activities scheduled to begin in late 1993.
March 1992 6 INDIAN BEND WASH AREA
-------
Siemens Area: The potentially responsible parties began a study of the nature
and extent of contamination at this area in 1989 and completed it in 1991. The
remedy selected to address the cleanup of this area is soil vapor extraction. Plans
to design the remedy are underway by the potentially responsible parties, with actual design
scheduled to begin in late 1992.
Southern Indian Bend Wash/Soil Area: The EPA began a study of the
nature and extent of soil contamination at SIBW in 1990. The investigation is
expected to be completed in late 1993, at which time a final cleanup remedy will
be selected.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Indian Bend Wash site while
further studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Scottsdale Public Library, Civic Center Library, 3839 Civic Center Boulevard,
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
INDIAN BEND WASH AREA
March 1992
-------
LITCHFIELD
AREA
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980695902
EPA REGION 9
Maricopa County
Goodyear
Other Names:
I 'hoenlx-Goodyear Airport Area
chfleld Airport Industrial Area
Phoenix-Lttchfield Airport Area
1 »l
Site Description
The Litchfield Airport Area is a 35-square-mile site that covers a portion of the City of
Goodyear, including the present Phoenix-Goodyear Airport. In 1981, the Arizona
Department of Health Services discovered contaminated groundwater near the airport. The
State also found contaminated groundwater at Unidynamics, a facility located to the north of
the airport. Soils were found to contain trichloroethylene (TCE) at both areas. The EPA
sampled 89 wells in the area. Although 43 of these wells were found to contain TCE at levels
that exceed Federal health standards, no water containing contaminants above these levels
has been used in the municipal supply system since 1981. In 1989, the EPA concluded a study
into the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The EPA conducted a joint study
with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the Arizona Department of Water
Resources, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD), and Unidynamics Phoenix, Inc. (Unidynamics). The combined population of
Avondale and Goodyear is approximately 30,000 people.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soil contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including TCE
and chromium. The EPA concluded that, although TCE and other chemicals
contaminate the groundwater in the vicinity of the site, the risk to people is
minimal because the contaminated groundwater currently is not being used for
drinking water. Although the cities of Goodyear and Avondale use groundwater
for their drinking water supplies, their drinking water currently meets all State and
Federal standards.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in five stages: initial actions and four long-term remedial phases
that focus on cleanup of contamination that affects the entire site, cleanup of the Airport
Treatment Plant/Section 16, cleanup of the Unidynamics area, and cleanup of the southern
portion of the site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In the southern portion of the site, the former chromium sludge
drying bed will be cleaned up using solidification technology. It is scheduled to be
completed in 1992. Solidifying the sludge bed will prevent migration of chromium
into the groundwater and chromium dust particles into the air.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected two methods to address contamination at
the site: pumping and treating contaminated groundwater through air stripping
and vacuum extracting soil vapors, using carbon treatment to control emissions.
The EPA began the design of these components in 1991. Cleanup of the site is scheduled to
begin in late 1992.
Airport Treatment Plant/Section 16: In 1987, the EPA selected a cleanup
strategy to control the movement and level of contaminants in the shallow
groundwater directly below the site. Water from the shallow groundwater will be
pumped from beneath a portion of the site where the highest levels of contaminants have
been detected. The extracted water will be treated through air stripping and returned to the
shallow groundwater system. Goodyear Tire and Rubber began to pump and treat the shallow
groundwater under the site in 1989. In 1992, the expansion of the extraction and injection
wells system was completed. This expansion increased the rate of shallow groundwater
treatment by more than double.
Unidynamics: In 1989, the EPA selected a cleanup remedy that includes a soil
vapor extraction system to treat contaminated soil and a groundwater pump and
treat system. Unidynamics began to design the selected remedy in early 1991 and
is scheduled to begin cleanup of the contamination at this area in late 1992. During the
design of the soil vapor extraction system, studies indicated that the remedy addressing soil
contamination may need to be modified.
Southern Portion: In 1989, the EPA selected a cleanup remedy to address
contamination at this area that includes a soil vapor extraction system to treat
contaminated soil and a pump and treat system decontaminating the deep
groundwater. Contamination from the groundwater will be removed through air stripping
devices. Engineering design of the remedies began in late 1991, with cleanup scheduled to
begin in late 1992.
LJTCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA 9 March 1992
-------
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA, the DOD, and the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
finalized an agreement, whereby Goodyear Tire will carry out cleanup activities for part of
the shallow groundwater contaminated under the southern section of the site. In 1990, the
EPA issued Unidynamics a Unilateral Administrative Order to design and implement all
cleanup work required for the northern section of the site. In 1991, the EPA, Goodyear Tire
& Rubber Co., Loral Defense Systems - Arizona, and the State of Arizona signed a Consent
Decree, whereby Goodyear Tire will design and implement soil and deep groundwater
cleanup activities. In 1992, the EPA, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and Loral Defense
Systems - Arizona signed a consent order, whereby Goodyear Tire will cleanup a chromium
sludge drying bed.
Environmental Progress
A water treatment facility has been constructed and currently is in operation at the Litchfield
Airport Area site to reduce contamination of the shallow groundwater. Remedies have been
selected at the remaining portions of the site that, once underway, will address other
contaminated groundwater resources and soils.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 9 Superfund Community Relations Office.
March 1992 10 UTCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA
-------
LUKE AIR F
BASE
ARIZONA
EPAID#AZ0570024133
EPA REGION 9
Maricopa County
Glendale
Site Description
Construction of the 4,198-acre Luke Air Force Base (LAFB) site began in 1941, with the
primary mission of providing advanced flight training to fighter pilots. Discharges and waste
disposal practices at LAFB resulted in soil and possible groundwater contamination. Thirty-
two areas of the base are subject to further investigation: two fire training areas; a waste oil
and fuels underground storage tank area; three waste oil disposal trench areas; three surface
drainage canals receiving oily wastes; a sewage treatment plant effluent canal; the site of an
abandoned Defense Reutilization and Marking Office; thirteen land disposal sites (one of
which contains a radiological disposal area); an old incinerator site; a former outside
transformer storage site; two leaking underground storage tank sites; an abandoned surface
impoundment; an ammunition storage area; a skeet range; and the base production wells.
Contaminants on site include organic solvents and paint strippers, waste oil spills, petroleum
spills, metal plating wastes, hydraulic fluids, and radiological wastes. There are approximately
4,900 military personnel and dependents living on base. Civilian and other military personnel
who commute to the base daily from off base areas brings the total daily base population to
approximately 8,000. The cities of Goodyear, Youngtown, and Phoenix depend on the water
from the Phoenix groundwater, basin that underlies the site, for drinking water supplies.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Soil and possibly groundwater are contaminated with waste oils and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) resulting from the diverse processes that have taken place on
the site. Potential human health hazards include accidental ingestion or direct
contact with contaminated materials.
11
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site and soil contamination.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Completed initial cleanup actions include closing a former waste
oil and contaminated fuel storage site, removing the tanks and capping the area
with concrete, and installing monitoring wells. In 1990, soil around the Agua Fria
River was stabilized by installing a grouted retaining wall. In addition, a vapor extraction
system is being used to remove VOCs from soils in the North Fire Training Area.
Soil Contamination: An investigation into the soil contamination at the site
began in 1990. At the conclusion of the investigation, scheduled for 1992,
alternative recommendations will be made for cleanup of the site.
Entire Site: The EPA began oversight of the basewide investigation into the
extent and type of contamination in 1990. At the conclusion of the investigation,
alternative recommendations will be made for cleanup of the remaining
contamination areas identified at the site.
Site Facts: The Luke Air Force Base site 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. A Federal Facilities Agreement to conduct the site cleanup plan
was signed in September 1990. Under the terms of this Agreement, a basewide investigation
and remedy selection is expected to be drafted by 1995.
Environmental Progress
Closing the waste oil and fuel storage site, removing tanks, capping the area, and installing
monitoring wells have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Luke
Air Force Base site while further studies and cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Not established.
March 1992 12 LUKE AIR FORCE BASE
-------
MOTOROLA,
(52ND STREIfl
PLANT)
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD009004177
EPA REGION 9
Maricopa County
Phoenix
Other Names:
>rola, Inc. Discrete Semiconductor
Site Description
Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street Plant) manufactures semiconductors and related components on
this 90-acre site, using solvents in the production process. In 1983, Motorola tested some
underground storage tanks for leaks. Results showed that one tank containing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) was leaking. Further investigations determined that on-site groundwater
and soil as well as groundwater off site to the west were contaminated. Motorola detected
contamination in monitoring wells at least a mile from the facility. Although the site lies in an
area with drinking water provided by municipal water service, private wells have been
identified around the site. Water for irrigation is provided by the Salt River Project.
Approximately 500 residents live within 1 mile of this NPL site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site, soil, and soil gas contain various VOCs from
solvent use at the site. People who accidentally ingest or come into direct contact
with contaminated groundwater and soil may be at risk.
13
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
that both focus on cleanup of the contaminated groundwater plume.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: Motorola has taken several interim actions to monitor and
develop treatment remedies for contaminated groundwater. In 1983 and 1984,
Motorola installed 22 on-site and six off-site monitoring wells. In 1986, additional
monitoring wells were installed. The company also initiated an on-site groundwater treatment
program that included treatability testing, design, and installation of a pilot treatment plant;
treatment of groundwater; and use of the effluent in the plant's air fume scrubbers.
Groundwater Plume (First Action): In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to
clean a portion of the site by recovering the soil gas and groundwater and treating
them in an on-site facility. On-site and off-site contaminated groundwater is being
pumped and treated by carbon adsorption at the facility. The treated groundwater is then
used in the manufacturing processes, replacing potable water supplied by the City of Phoenix.
Currently, soil vapor extraction wells are being drilled and pipes to the soil vapor treatment
facility are being laid.
Groundwater Plume (Second Action): Motorola, under State monitoring, is
conducting an investigation of the remaining portion of the contaminant plume.
Once this investigation is completed, scheduled for 1993, measures will be
recommended for cleanup of the remaining groundwater plume contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no other immediate actions, besides the initial treatment of groundwater by
Motorola, were required at the Motorola, Inc. site while further studies are taking place and
cleanup activities are underway.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 9 Superfund Community Relations Office.
MOTOROLA, INC.
March 1992 14 (52ND STREET PLANT)
-------
MOUNTAIN VI
MOBILE HOMES
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD98073
EPA REGION 9
Gila County
2 miles from Globe
Other Names:
Globe Site
Site Description
The 17-acre Mountain View Mobile Homes site was developed in 1973 on the site of the
former Metate Asbestos Corporation's chrysotile asbestos mill. In 1979, asbestos
contamination of the site was discovered by local health officials inspecting the waste disposal
system. Small piles of asbestos mill tailings were found against the abandoned mill structures
and the adjacent railroad tracks. Before 1973, three mills in the area processed chrysotile
asbestos ore from nearby mines. Because they failed to meet new EPA standards for
emissions, two of the mills were ordered closed by the County in 1973. Before closing,
however, the owner of one of the mill sites obtained a permit to rezone the property into a
residential subdivision. Asbestos mill tailings were used as primary landfill material before the
site was partially covered with topsoil. Before it shut down, this mill continued operations for
several weeks while residents were moving into the mobile home community. The mill
buildings and asbestos-laden equipment remained standing in the middle of the mobile homes.
The third mill, with its large pile of asbestos mill tailings, continued to operate a few hundred
yards from the mobile homes. Approximately 100 to 130 people lived in the mobile home
park. The Town of Globe has a population of 8,000, and the adjacent Town of Miami has
3,000 residents.
Site Responsibility: This site was addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
Deleted Date: 04/18/88
Threats and Contaminants
The air and soils on the site were shown to be contaminated with asbestos. Prior
to site cleanup, area residents who came in direct contact with or accidentally
ingested the asbestos-containing soil may have been at risk. In addition, inhaling
asbestos fibers posed a potential for adverse health effects.
15
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site was addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase that
focused on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1980, the State provided temporary housing for the residents
while the site was being decontaminated. The old mill buildings were demolished,
and topsoil was used to cover the contaminated soil. Wind, water, and public
activity soon eroded the soil covering, which exposed the asbestos tailings again.
Entire Site: In 1983, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the site by
permanently relocating the mobile home residents; cleaning the site and
demolishing and burying on site all the homes and sewage treatment plant; closing
the site by covering it with either clay or a synthetic material, and placing clean soil on top of
the site; fencing the area; and periodically inspecting and maintaining the site. Permanent
relocation of all residents was completed in 1985, and ownership of the purchased property
was transferred to the State. Following relocation of the residents, the site was cleaned up.
The homes and other structures were crushed and buried on site in two natural depressions.
Drainage culverts and enclosed pipes were installed to reduce the potential for erosion of the
cover soils. A filter fabric was placed over the entire site to act as a physical barrier to
upward movement of asbestos fibers and to prevent erosion. Clean soil was placed over the
filter fabric, and compacted and crushed rock was added to complete the cover. The site was
fenced to protect the integrity of the cover. The State has agreed to maintain the site for a
minimum of 20 years. The EPA and the State have determined that the site is protective of
public health and the environment and that no further cleanup is required. The site was
deleted from the NPL in 1988. A five year review conducted in 1991 confirmed the
effectiveness of the remedy and ensured the safety of the site.
Site Facts: The Metate Asbestos mill was ordered closed by the Gila County Air Quality
Control District in 1973.
Environmental Progress
The numerous cleanup and relocation activities described above have eliminated the potential
for exposure to asbestos-laden materials at the Mountain View Mobile Homes site. Area
residents have been permanently relocated, and cleanup actions have successfully controlled
site contamination. The EPA and the State have determined that the site is now safe for
nearby residents and the environment and have deleted it from the NPL.
March 1992 16 MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE HOMES
-------
Site Repository
Information is no longer available.
MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE HOMES 17 March 1992
-------
NINETEEN!
AVENUE LANIIF
ARIZONA 's
EPA ID# AZD980496780
EPA REGION 9
Maricopa County
Phoenix
Other Names:
Salt River Landfills
Site Description
The 213-acre Nineteenth Avenue Landfill site operated as a sanitary landfill between 1957
and 1979. One 200-acre portion of the site, Cell A, is located on the northern bank of the
Salt River. A 13-acre portion of the landfill, Cell A-l, is located on the southern bank of the
Salt River. In the past, sand and gravel companies excavated material along a 7-mile stretch
of the Salt River. The City of Phoenix took over several of these pits for use as waste
disposal sites. The Nineteenth Avenue Landfill accepted municipal, radioactive, hospital, and
industrial wastes. Portions of the landfill are within the 100-year flood plain of the Salt River.
Early in 1979, the river flooded, raising the water table and filling several pits. The high water
also breached several dikes, opening landfill cells and causing refuse to wash into the river.
Water also infiltrated directly into the cells, increasing the potential for leachate movement.
Leachate is being generated from the site and is contaminating the groundwater. In addition,
saturation of the waste has generated excess amounts of methane gas. The landfill was closed
by the State in 1979. The population within 6 miles is approximately 6,000 people. The
nearest residence is 1/3 mile from the site. The area's primary drinking water is provided by
the City of Phoenix water distribution system. The municipal system draws water from surface
water sources over 30 miles away. The nearest drinking water supply well is over 3 miles
away. An industrial well and an agricultural well are located 200 feet and 800 feet from the
site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
March 1992
-------
Threats and Contaminants
ZGJ
Groundwater contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs); heavy metals including
arsenic, barium, mercury, and nickel; and beta radiation. Refuse in the landfill
contains VOCs and pesticides. Soil contains VOCs, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and pesticides. The generation and migration of methane gas is a potential
hazard. Methane may collect and reach explosive levels in enclosed buildings or
other structures adjacent to the site. Soil, groundwater, and refuse are
contaminated; however, the possibility of people being exposed to these
contaminants is unlikely, since there are no residential areas within 1/4 mile of the
site, and groundwater is not used for drinking water. Area residents and site
workers who come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest the contaminated
groundwater, soil, or refuse may suffer adverse health effects.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Earthen berms were constructed on the site to limit access.
The site was covered with sand, gravel, and stones. In 1981, the City installed a
system to collect methane gas and also installed monitoring wells to sample the
groundwater.
Entire Site: In 1989, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the landfill by:
installing a gas collection and treatment system; covering the landfill with a clay
soil cap to prevent water from coming into contact with the buried materials; and
preventing erosion of the landfill by the construction of bank protection levees between the
river and the landfill. In 1990, the City of Phoenix began designing the technical specifications
to clean up the site. Once the design phase is completed, scheduled for 1994, cleanup
activities will begin.
Environmental Progress
Methane control devices installed at the site have eliminated the potential for gas
accumulation and explosion at the site. The construction of berms, covering of the site, and
the installation of monitoring wells have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated
materials while final cleanup remedies are being designed at the Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
site.
NINETEENTH AVENUE LANDFILL 19 March 1992
-------
Site Repository
Ocotillo Branch Public Library, 102 West Southern Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85041
March 1992 20 NINETEENTH AVENUE LANDFILL
-------
TUCSON
INTERNATI
AIRPORT ARE
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZD980737530
Site Description —
EPA REGION 9
Pima County
Tucson
Other Names:
Hughes Aircraft Company
USAF Plant 44
The 24-square-mile Tucson International Airport Area (TIAA) site includes the Tucson
International Airport, portions of the San Xavier Indian Reservation, residential areas of the
Cities of Tucson and South Tucson, and the Air Force Plant #44/Hughes Aircraft Company
facility. At least 20 facilities have operated in the TIAA area since 1942, including aircraft
and electronics facilities, which discharged waste liquids directly into the soil; fire drill training
areas, where wastes from training operations were left in unlined pits; and unlined landfills,
which received various wastes from several sources. The first indications of groundwater
contamination at TIAA appeared in the early 1950s, when elevated levels of chromium were
detected in a municipal supply well adjacent to the U.S. Air Force Plant #44. The U.S. Air
Force Plant #44, which has been operated under contract by the Hughes Aircraft Company
(HAC) since 1951, is believed to be a major contributor to groundwater contamination. The
facility used trichloroethylene (TCE) as a metal degreaser and chromium in electroplating.
Wastewater and spent solvents were discharged into unlined ditches or disposed of in waste
pits and ponds. Surface water flowed off HAC property and onto the San Xavier
Reservation. Beginning in 1976, lined wastewater holding ponds were constructed to receive
wastewater discharges. The State also closed a well at the plant because of high levels of
chromium. A second source of contamination at the TIAA site is believed to be the Tucson
Airport Hangar Area, which was occupied by various defense contractors from 1942 to 1958.
During this period, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were used and disposed of on site
and in the airport landfill. Other more recent occupants of the hangar also may have
contributed to the groundwater contamination. Sources of contamination at the northern and
eastern edges of the airport are believed to be the Arizona Air National Guard, the Burr-
Brown Corporation, and West-Cap Arizona. The localized groundwater contamination due to
these operations is situated east of the main contaminant plume. The City of Tucson is
dependent on groundwater for its water supply. Before the discovery of groundwater
contamination, wells within the site boundaries provided water for over 47,000 people. The
Santa Cruz River borders the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/01/83
21
March 1992
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site and soil contain VOCs and chromium. People
who come in direct contact with or accidentally ingest contaminated groundwater
and soil may be at risk.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of groundwater and soils.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1981, the City of Tucson began closing all municipal
wells that exceeded the State levels and notified private well users of potential
risks. Since 1987, the Air Force has been extracting and treating groundwater in
the southern portion of the site. By 1987, 35 lined wastewater holding ponds had been
constructed to receive process wastewater. In 1991, sludges from a concrete sump were
removed.
Groundwater: In 1988, the EPA selected a remedy to treat the groundwater in
the northern portion of the site by pumping and treating the contaminated
groundwater, using packed column aeration (air stripping), followed by discharging
the treated water to the municipal water distribution system and treating the emissions from
the treatment process using granular activated carbon. The remedy applies to three areas of
groundwater contamination in the northern portion of the site: a large area called "Area A,"
west of the airport, and two smaller areas, together referred to as "Area B," north of the
airport. Burr-Brown Corporation is addressing contamination cleanup in the easternmost
section of Area B and the Arizona Air National Guard is addressing the contamination
cleanup in the westernmost section. Burr-Brown Corporation completed its design of the
groundwater extraction and treatment system in Area B in 1991 and began cleanup activities
soon thereafter. The other potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring, are
designing the technical specifications for the groundwater pump and treat system for the
remaining two areas of site contamination. Once these design phases are completed,
scheduled for 1993, the remaining cleanup activities will begin.
Soils: In 1990, the potentially responsible parties, under EPA monitoring, began
an investigation to determine the type and extent of soil contamination on airport
property. This investigation is expected to be completed in 1994, at which time
measures will be recommended for soil cleanup.
March 1992 22 TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA
-------
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA issued an Administrative Order to the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination requiring them to clean up the groundwater and soil. In
March 1990, a Consent Decree was signed between the EPA and Burr-Brown Corporation
requiring Burr-Brown Corporation to clean up the easternmost part of Area B. In June 1991,
a Consent Decree was approved for the cleanup of Area A by the potentially responsible
parties.
Environmental Progress
Contaminated drinking supplies have been removed from service, and initial actions have
been taken to control further contamination at the site by treating contaminated groundwater
and remaining sludges from a concrete sump. Additional cleanup remedies currently are being
designed or planned that will address remaining contamination areas and will restore the site
to safety levels.
Site Repository
City of Tucson Main Library, Government Reference Section, 101 North Stone Street,
Tuscon, AZ 85701
TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AREA
23
March 1992
-------
WILLIAMS
FORCE BA
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZ7570028582
Site Description
EPA REGION 9
Maricopa County
Chandler
The 4,127-acre Williams Air Force Base (WAFB) site was commissioned as a flight training
school in 1941. The Air Force Base is scheduled to be closed in September, 1993.
Contaminants from base activities include organic solvents and paint strippers, petroleum
spills, metal plating wastes, hydraulic fluids, pesticides, and radiological wastes. Discharges and
disposal at WAFB have resulted in soil and groundwater contamination. Thirteen subsites
have been identified as potentially contaminated areas including two fire training areas, a fuel
storage area, two surface storm drainage areas, a hazardous material storage area, a landfill,
a pesticide burial pit, a radiological disposal area, and four underground storage tanks. In
1992, several new subsites were discovered at the Base which will be added to the
investigation. Approximately 3,000 military personnel are stationed at WAFB, as well as 860
civilian employees. Many of the military personnel live off base in one of the surrounding
towns. The total population living on base, including dependents, is approximately 2,700. On
an average workday, the population of the base rises to over 5,000.
Site Responsibility: This 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 volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrates. Heavy
metals including lead, cadmium, nickel, and chromium have also been detected in
groundwater, but need to be confirmed. Soils also contain various VOCs from past
disposal practices. Accidental ingestion of contaminated soil and groundwater are
potential health hazards.
24
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in three stages: initial actions and two long-term remedial phases
focusing on cleanup of the entire site and the Liquid Fuels Storage Area.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: A portion of the Southwest Drainage System was stabilized in
1988 by installing a soil cement and concrete cap on the ditch. In 1991, a small
pesticide drum burial site was excavated and disposed of off site. Radiological
materials are expected to be removed from another burial site and disposed of in late 1992.
The removal of approximately 20 underground storage tanks at the liquid fuels storage area
was conducted during late 1990 and early 1991, eliminating the source for liquid fuel leaks.
Entire Site: The EPA began oversight of the Air Force's investigation at the site
that will determine the nature and extent of the contamination at all impacted
areas of the base. The results of the investigation are expected in early 1994 and
will be used to evaluate different cleanup methods.
Liquid Storage Area: In 1990, an investigation into the type and extent of
contamination was initiated at the waste liquids storage area. At the conclusion of
the investigation, scheduled for late 1992, alternative recommendations for cleanup
of the area will be presented and evaluated to select a final cleanup strategy.
Site Facts: Williams 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
Cleaning the Southwest Drainage System, and removing pesticide drums and underground
storage tanks have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated materials at the
Williams Air Force Base site while studies are taking place and cleanup activities are being
planned.
Site Repository
Chandler Public Library, 75 East Commonwealth, Chandler, AZ 85225
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE 25 March 1992
-------
YUMA MARIN
CORPS AIR
STATION
ARIZONA
EPA ID# AZ0971590062
Site Description
EPA REGION 9
Yuma County
2 miles from Yuma
Since the mid-1950s, large volumes of waste fuels and solvents from refueling and servicing of
airplanes have been disposed of directly onto the ground or into unlined pits at the 3,000-acre
Yuma Marine Corps Air Station site. In addition, combustible materials such as fuel oil and
organic solvents have been deposited on the ground and burned during fire training exercises.
The Navy has identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil at the site. Approximately
5,700 people live on site and usually obtain their drinking water from the Colorado River
through an irrigation canal. However, during maintenance work on the canal that lasts for
two weeks each year, drinking water comes from an on-station well. An additional 3,300 base
employees use water from this well. The City of Yuma is 2 miles from the site, with a
summer population of 60,000 and a winter population of 180,000. Groundwater supplies
agricultural and industrial users. The city does not use groundwater for drinking water
purposes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HiSTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/22/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils on the site contain various VOCs and other contaminants
including residues from tear gas, ammunition, napalm, paints, and photographic
processing chemicals. The contaminated soil could pose a health hazard to
individuals if it is directly contacted or accidentally ingested. The Colorado River,
which runs close to the site, could become polluted from the site contaminants.
26
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the
entire site and the groundwater.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Marine Corps began an investigation in 1991 to evaluate the
nature and extent of the site contamination. The results of the study will be used
to evaluate different cleanup alternatives and to select the preferred method for
long-term protection of human health and the environment.
Groundwater: In 1991, the Marine Corps began investigating the surface and
subsurface landfill areas of contamination that may be sources of groundwater
contamination. Once the investigation is completed, alternative cleanup options
will be identified.
Site Facts: Yuma Marine Corps Air 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. In January 1992, the EPA entered into a Federal Facility
Agreement with the Manne Corps Air Station Yuma to initiate site investigations.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were required at the Yuma Marine Corps Air Station
site while further studies and cleanup activities are being planned.
Site Repository
Not established.
YUMA MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 27 March 1992
-------
CARSON RIV
MERCURY SI
NEVADA
EPAID# NVD980813646
EPA REGION 9
Lyon and Churchill Counties
Site Description
The Carson River Mercury Site consists of a 50-mile stretch of the Carson River, beginning
between Carson City and Dayton and extending downstream through the Lahontan
Reservoir, which has been contaminated by mercury used in the amalgamation of gold and
silver. In the late 1800s, large amounts of mercury were used during the milling of the
Comstock Lode near Virginia City. Ore mined from the lode was transported to mill sites,
where it was crushed and mixed with mercury to amalgamate the precious metals. Of the
original 75 sites, 12 sites along the Carson River in the Brunswick Canyon area frequently
were used because of the availability of water power. Mercury mine tailings, resulting from
the mill site operations, have been found 5 miles up Brunswick Canyon, 3 miles up Six Mile
Canyon, and within the Carson Plains. Areas near the Comstock Lode where extensive
mining occurred, such as Gold Canyon, also may be major sources of mercury-contaminated
mine tailing piles. Annual rains transport mercury from the tailings piles in the canyons to the
Carson River, where the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) has
documented extensive mercury contamination. The NDEP sampled the water and sediments
from the Carson River and found elevated levels of mercury attributed to the tailings piles in
various areas of the Carson River. Approximately 1,400 people obtain drinking water from
wells within 3 miles from the site, the nearest being within 2,000 feet of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and State actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/04/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater, surface water, sediments, and soils at site areas are contaminated
with mercury. Possible health threats include direct contact with or accidental
ingestion of the contaminants. Additionally, runoff from contaminated site areas
may facilitate the spread of contamination to other unaffected environments.
29
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1991, seven tailings piles containing mercury-contaminated
dust were excavated and removed from the site. Concerns over possible exposure
of vehicle users to contaminated materials prompted this removal. The EPA also
removed two mercury-contaminated tailings piles in the Dayton area to eliminate health risks
posed to children who play in the area. All contaminated materials were transported to a
mineral resource recovery facility.
Entire Site: The EPA began conducting an investigation into the nature and
extent of contamination at the site in 1990. A final remedy to clean up the site will
be selected, based on the results of the investigation, scheduled for completion in
late 1994.
Environmental Progress
Excavation and removal of contaminated tailings piles from the Carson River Mercury Site
have reduced the potential of exposure to contaminated dust while further studies are taking
place and cleanup actions are being planned.
Site Repository
Ormsby Public Library, 900 North Roop Street, Carson City, NV 89701
March 1992
30
CARSON RIVER MERCURY SITE
-------
GLOSSARY
Terms Used in the NPL Book
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. A table of common
toxic chemicals found at NPL sites, their sources, and their potential threats is located
on page G-15
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical manu-
facturing. Acids in high concentration can be
very corrosive and react with many inorganic
and organic substances. These reactions possi-
bly may create toxic compounds 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). This type of Order is not signed by the
PRPs and does not require approval by a judge.
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown
of contaminants in soil or water by exposing
them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis-
ease Registry (ATSDR): The Federal
agency within the U.S. Public Health Service
charged with carrying out the health-related
responsibilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air
through the contaminated material in a pressur-
ized 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.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs): Federal, State, or
local laws which apply to Superfund activities at
NPL sites. Both emergency and long-term
actions must comply with these laws or provide
sound reasons for allowing a waiver. ARARs
must be identified for each site relative to the
characteristics of the site, the substances found
at the site, or the cleanup alternatives being
considered for the site.
G-1
-------
GLOSSARY
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 percent or
more of the drinking water of an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling into
the earth until water is reached, which, due to
internal pressure, flows up like a fountain.
Asbestos: A mineral fiber that can pollute air
or water and is known to cause cancer or
asbestosis when inhaled.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring process
by which a compound is reduced in concentra-
tion over time through adsorption, degradation,
dilution, 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
removing 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, forming salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used
to prevent the migration of contaminants.
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 contaminated
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 else-
where.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from ground-
water and surface water by forcing water
through tanks containing activated carbon, a
specially treated material that attracts and holds
or retains contaminants.
Carbon Disulfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and organic
G-2
-------
GLOSSARY
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 Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitoring,
and analysis of a site to determine the extent and
nature of toxic releases. Characterization
provides the basis for acquiring the necessary
technical information to develop, screen, ana-
lyze, and select appropriate cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the poten-
tial 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 inter-
changeably 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. Also, 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 communication
with the public. The goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related actions,
assuring public input into decision-making
processes related to affected communities, and
making certain that the Agency is aware of, and
responsive to, public concerns. Specific com-
munity relations activities are required in
relation to Superfund cleanup actions [see
Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, 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 together.
Confined Aquifer: An aquifer in which
groundwater is confined under pressure that is
significantly greater than atmospheric pressure.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
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, or the costs incurred by the govern-
ment that the parties will reimburse, and the
roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. If a settlement between the EPA and a
potentially responsible party includes cleanup
actions, it must be in the form of a Consent
Decree. A Consent 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 structure,
typically in a pond or a lagoon, to prevent the
migration of contaminants into the environment.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or substance
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 radioac-
tive materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract
between 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 pre-
serving operations and produced by distilla-
tion of tar, including polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Con-
taminating 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 embank-
ment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a chemi-
cal is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Deletion: A site is eligible for deletion from
the NPL when Superfund response actions at the
site are complete. A site is deleted from the
NPL when a notice is published in the Federal
Register.
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.
G-4
-------
GLOSSARY
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Dioxin: An organic chemical by-product of
pesticide manufacture which is known to be one
of the most toxic man-made chemicals.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materials.
Disposal may be accomplished through the use
of approved secure landfills, surface impound-
ments, land farming, deep well injection, or
incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradi-
ent of a contaminated groundwater source are
prone to receiving pollutants.
Ecological Assessment: A study of the
impact of man-made or natural activity on living
creatures and their environment
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 facili-
ties.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in inking
materials that do not normally mix; e.g., oil and
water.
Endangerment Assessment: A study
conducted 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; 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 Recov-
ery].
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. In this
volume, the feasibility study is referred to as a
site study [see also Remedial Investigation].
G-5
-------
GLOSSARY
Filtration: A treatment process for remov-
ing solid (particulate) 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.
General Notice Letter: [See Notice Letter].
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 and willing-
ness to perform a site study or cleanup.
Groundwater: 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. Hazardous waste
possesses at least one of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxic-
ity), or appears on special EPA lists.
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high
atomic weights, such as arsenic, lead, mercury,
and cadmium. Heavy metals are very hazardous
even at low concentrations and tend to accumu-
late in the food chain.
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to
control or destroy plants, weeds, or grasses.
G-6
-------
GLOSSARY
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site contain-
ing exceptionally high levels of contamination.
Hydrocarbons: Chemical compounds that
consist entirely of hydrogen and carbon.
Hydrology: The properties, distribution, and
circulation of water.
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 controlled
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 precipita-
tion (rain or snow) or from application of
wastewater 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 sub-
stances of mineral origin, not of basic carbon
structure.
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,
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 or incor-
porate 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 chemi-
cal landfills are disposal sites for hazardous
waste. They are designed to minimize the
chance of release of hazardous substances into
the environment [see Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act].
Leach, Leaching [v.tj: The process by
which soluble chemical components are dis-
solved and carried through soil by water or
some other percolating liquid.
G-7
-------
GLOSSARY
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through
or drains from waste, carrying soluble compo-
nents from the waste.
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
complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into several of these phases.
Long-term Response Action: An action
which requires a continuous period of on-site
activity before cleanup goals are achieved.
These actions typically include the extraction
and treatment of groundwater and monitoring
actions.
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, con-
taminants, 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 controlling
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 which
groundwater flows and the types and amounts of
contaminates present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The
EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or
abandoned hazardous waste sites identified
for possible long-term cleanup under Super-
fund. The EPA is required to update the NPL
at least once a year.
Natural Attenuation: [See Attenuation].
Neutrals: Organic compounds that have a
relatively neutral pH, complex structure and,
due to their organic bases, are easily absorbed
into the environment. Water is the most
commonly known neutral, however, naphtha-
lene, pyrene, and trichlorobenzene also 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 potentially respon-
sible parties, although the EPA may undertake
certain investigatory and planning activities.
G-8
-------
GLOSSARY
The 60-day period may be extended if the EPA
receives a good faith offer from the PRPs
within that period. [See also Good Faith Offer].
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, hydrogen, 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 may be 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.
Pesticide: A substance or mixture of sub-
stances intended to prevent, destroy, or repel any
pest. If misused, pesticides can accumulate in
the foodchain and contaminate the environment.
Petrochemicals: Chemical substances
produced from petroleum in refinery operations
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 poison-
ous.
Physical Chemical Separation: The
treatment process of adding a chemical to a
substance 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 determine
its ability to clean up specific contaminants.
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 movement
of the groundwater is influenced by such factors
as local groundwater flow patterns, the character
of the aquifer in which groundwater is con-
tained, 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.
G-9
-------
GLOSSARY
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 creosotes and
can cause cancer.
Poiychlorinated 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 caulking
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 Substances Control Act
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PNAs): PNAs, such as naphthalene, and
biphenyls, are a group of highly reactive organic
compounds that are a common component of
creosotes, which can be carcinogenic.
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 concentra-
tions 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 associated with a Superfund site who
may be liable for the cost of remedying the
release of hazardous substances. This may
include owners or operators of the site or trans-
porters who disposed of materials at the site.
PRPs may admit liability, or liability may be
determined by a court of law. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in the site cleanup without
admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid portions
can be disposed of safely; the removal of
particles from airborne emissions. Electro-
chemical 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 information
about a known or suspected waste site or release
to determine if a threat or potential threat exists.
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 envi-
ronment. 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. Radiation also occurs naturally through
the breakdown of granite.
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.
G-10
-------
GLOSSARY
Record of Decision (ROD): A public-
document 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 con-
struction 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 contamina-
tion at a Superfund site, establish the criteria
for cleaning up the site, identify the prelimi-
nary alternatives for cleanup actions, and
support the technical and cost analyses of the
alternatives. The remedial investigation is
usually done with the feasibility study. In this
volume, the remedial investigation is referred
to as a site study [see also Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at the 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 without
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 re-
maining in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or the particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubber.
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
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 the
store waste.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contaminants
from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution control 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.
G-11
-------
GLOSSARY
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 the 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 neces-
sary for choosing and designing cleanup mea-
sures 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 subsurface
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 smelters
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
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 ap-
proaches: dissolving or suspending them in the
wash solution for later treatment by conven-
tional methods, and concentrating them into a
smaller volume of soil through simple particle
size separation techniques [see Solvent Extrac-
tion].
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
hazardous constituents. Mobility is reduced
through the binding of hazardous constituents
into a solid mass with low permeability and
resistance to leaching.
G-12
-------
GLOSSARY
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
attracting substances. It is used in many
pollution control systems.
Special Notice Letter: [See Notice Let-
ter].
Stillbottom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air Strip-
ping].
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 re-
leases of hazardous substances that may endan-
ger public health, welfare, or the environment.
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, including
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 Wetlands].
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
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 contaminated
areas and, therefore, are not prone to contamina-
tion 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.
G-13
-------
GLOSSARY
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 poten-
tially toxic chemicals are used as solvents,
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 pollut-
ants 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.
G-14
-------
GLOSSARY
Some Common Contaminants at NPL Sites
Contaminant
Category
Example
Chemical Types
Sources
Potential Health
Threats*
Heavy Metals
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Pdyehiorinated
Creosotes
Radiation
(RadianudSdes)
Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium,
Cadmium, Cobalt, Copper,
Chromium, Lead, Manga-
nese, Mercury, Nickel,
Silver, Selenium, Zinc
Trichloroethylene (TCE),
Perchloroethylene (PCE),
Acetone, Benzene,
Ketone, Methyl chloride,
Toluene, Vinyl Chloride,
Dichlorethylene
Chlordane, DDT 4-4, DDE,
Heptachlor, Aldrin, Endrin,
Atrazine, Dieldrin, Toxa-
phene
Polyaromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs), Polynuclear
aromatics (PNAs),
Phenolic Tars, Pentachlo-
rophenol (PGP)
Radium-226, Radon,
Uranium-235, Uranium-
238
Electroplating, batteries,
paint pigments, photogra-
phy, smelting, thermom-
eters, fluorescent lights,
solvent recovery
Solvents and degreasers,
gasoline octane enhanc-
ers, oils and paints, dry
cleaning fluids, chemical
manufacturing.
Agricultural applications,
pesticide and herbicide
production
Electric transformers and
capacitors, insulators and
coolants, adhesives,
caulking compounds,
carbonless copy paper,
hydraulic fluids.
Wood preserving, fossil
fuel combustion
Mine tailings, radium
products, natural decay of
granites
Tumors, cancers, and kidney,
brain, neurological, bone and
liver damage
Cancers, kidney and liver
damage, impairment of the
nervous system resulting in
sleepiness and headaches,
leukemia
Various effects ranging from
nausea to nervous disorders.
Dioxin is a common by-product
of the manufacture of pesti-
cides and is both highly toxic
and a suspected carcinogen.
Cancer and liver damage.
Cancers and skin ulcerations
with prolonged exposure
Cancer
Sources:
Toxic Chemicals—What They Are, How They Affect You (EPA, Reg/on 5)
Glossary of Environmental Terms (EPA, 1988)
'The potential for risk due to these contaminants is linked to a number of factors; for example, the length and level of exposure
and environmental and health factors such as age
* U.S. G.P.O.:1993-341-835:81039
G-15
------- |