&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(5102G)
SUPERFUND:
EPA/540/R-93/014
December 1992
PB93-963215
Progress at
National
Priority
List Sites
IOWA
1992 UPDATE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-7168
December 1992
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Iowa
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460 Environmental Protection Agency
-------
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 xix
THE NPL FACT SHEETS i
THE GLOSSARY
Terms used in the NPL Book G-
-------
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 1980, 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
1980 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
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.
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.
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 she.
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.
VIII
-------
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, r
public health, administration and manage- j
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 j
view of the cleanup process. The major steps i
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 actioas 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# ABCOOOOOQO
Site Description
Site Responsibility:
NPL Listing History
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
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
Iowa
The State of Iowa is located within
EPA Region 7, which includes the four
central States. The State covers 56,275
square miles. According to the 1990
Census, Iowa experienced a 5 percent
decrease in population between 19X0 and 1990, and is ranked thirtieth in U.S. population with ap-
proximately 2,476,800 residents.
The Iowa Environmental Quality Act of 1972, most recently amended in 1991, provides the
State the authority to execute the Superfund program in Iowa. The statute authorizes the State to issue
orders and injunctions against the polluters to clean up contaminated sites and, in the event that
polluters willfully fail to comply, to collect triple the cost of the cleanup. The statute also mandates
the State to provide technical advice and assistance to political subdivisions and to other persons upon
request The Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund was established in 1984. In addition to the 10 percent
contribution from the State required by the Federal Superfund program, this fund can be used for
emergency response, removals and long-term cleanup activities, studies and design activities, opera-
tion and maintenance activities, and the development of alternatives to land disposal. This funding is
only available provided the State's attempts to negotiate with the polluters have failed. Currently, 20
sites in the State of Iowa have been listed as final on the NPL. No new sites have been proposed for
listing in 1992.
The Department of Natural Resources
implements the Superfund Program in the State of Iowa
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
Iowa include:
Electroplating
Facilities
Metal Production
Facilties
Coal
Gasification
Plants
Agriculture
and Pesticide
Manufacturers
Landfills/Storage
and Disposal
Facilities
Manufacturing
Facilities
Facts about the 20 NPL sites
in Iowa:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at eight
sites.
Five sites endanger sensitive environ-
ments.
Thirteen sites are located near resi-
dential areas.
xvii
March 1992
-------
IOWA
Most Sites Have Multiple Contaminants and
Contaminated Media:
Media Contaminated at Sites
Contaminants Found at Sites
Air
Surface
Water
Ground-
water
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Sites
Percentage of Sites
Heavy Metals
VOCs
Creosotes
Pesticides/Herbicides
Acids
Petrochem ica Is/Exp los i ves
Phenols
70%
60%
10%
10%
10%
10%
5%
The Potentially Responsible
Party Pays...
In the State of Iowa, potentially responsible
parties are paying for or conducting cleanup
activities at 18 sites.
For Further Information on NPL Sites and Hazardous
Waste Programs in the State of Iowa Please Contact:
EPA Region 7 Public Affairs
Office
National Response Center
Department of Natural Resc ,,rces:
Solid Waste Section
EPA Region 7 Waste Management
Division: Superfund Branch
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
(913)551-7003
(800) 424-8802
(515)281-4968
(913) 551-7062
(800) 424-9068
March 1992
XVIII
-------
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.
^> 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.
t> 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.
^ 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.
^> 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.
S 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.
XIX
-------
TJ
0)
CD
^
5
^\
^•M
^_
O
0)
^rf
w
5)
(D
JCI
•t^
.E
0)
o
™
Q.
Z
m
^%
QL
D
C
Progress Toward Clea
March
y Remedy Cleanup Construction
d Design Ongoing Complete Delel
•00)
« u
Q>^)
DC (0
(0
0)
~1
<75
0)
(0
IS
~ Q.
C to
0)
tr
S
n
Q
_j
a
z
5
0)
CO
0)
OT
1992
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft
ro rr>
SO so
00 00
R R
ON 3\
0 0
13 13
c =
U. UH
i $
AIDEX CORPORATION
DES MOINES TCE
ft
ft
ft ft
ft
O ON
ON SO
O 3-
rn O
OO O
o «
rt W
c c
UH UH
W §
J J
U
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO, IN
(COUNTRY ROAD X23)
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC.
ft
ft
ft ft
ft
O O
CD O
ro rn
oo oo
0 0
13 13
H —
UH U.
JEFFERSON
SIOUX
t
<|
FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PL
FARMER'S MUTUAL COOPERATIVE
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft ft
0 0
o —
d. Ci
OO tN
o o
ra TO
c c
u. u.
DES MOINES
WAPELLO
IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS
LANDFILL)
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft
ft
en VO 0
go go g^
oo o o
R ~" Q
S S g
13 13 13
c c c
UH UH UH
n
FLOYD
CLINTON
CERRO GORDC
LABOUNTY DUMP SITE
LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM
LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
XX
ft
ft ft
ft
ON VO
S* so
c> ^>
ro — _
CO \O
0 0
13 13
c c
UH UH
WOODBURY
JASPER
I
MID-AMERICA TANNING CO.
MIDWEST MANUFACTURJNG/NORT
FARM
ft
ft
ft
ft
o
ei
0
o
13
c
l~\
CERRO GORDC
Q
NORTHWESTERN STATES PORTLAlx
CEMENT CO.
ft
ft ft
ft
O OV
O rn
r<^ --^
OO 01
O O
13 13
c c
UH U,
•><
DUBUQUE
MONTGOMER
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO.
RED OAK CITY LANDFILL
ft
ft
ft
ft ft
t~- o
30 O_N_
CN O
SN Q
r- oo
0 C
13 13
c c
UH UH
Q
O W
It _J
SHAW AVENUE DUMP
SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft
VO O
OO ON
0 0
V& OO
0 0
13 13
c c
U, U,
Is
CO U.
. &
VOGEL PAINT AND WAX COMPANY
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUN
-------
c
o
O
(0
o
0)
55
-------
AIDEX
CORPORATIO
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD042581256
EPA REGION 7
Mills County
iles south of Council Bluffs
Site Description
The 15-acre Aidex Corporation site is a former pesticide formulation facility located
approximately 7 miles south of Council Bluffs. In 1976, a building used to formulate the
herbicide atrazine and other pesticides was destroyed by a fire. The surrounding soil was
contaminated by water used to extinguish the blaze. In 1980, Aidex filed for bankruptcy.
Cleanup operations were undertaken at the site in 1981. When cleanup began, approximately
3,400 drums containing pesticides were stored in open areas on the site. A concrete pit in the
destroyed building contained about 2 feet of contaminated water, and a large underground
storage tank also held contaminated materials. Soil, groundwater, and surface water were
contaminated by pesticides spills. Approximately 600 people live within 3 miles of the rural
site. A shallow aquifer underlies the site and is contaminated. Within a 2-mile radius of the
site are 42 shallow domestic water wells.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/23/81
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater was contaminated with atrazine, a pesticide produced at the site.
The soil was contaminated with other pesticides including aldrin and chlordane
from wastes stored at the site and as a result of the 1976 fire. The potential
existed for pesticides to migrate off the Aidex site in either the soil or the
groundwater. Flooding occurring in the area could have facilitated migration of
contaminants into the Missouri River flood plain. The threat of direct contact with
or ingestion of contaminated soil and groundwater has been eliminated.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: immediate actions and two long-term remedial
phases directed at cleanup of the soil and groundwater and cleanup of surface contamination
at the entire site.
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In late 1981, the EPA constructed a security fence around
the site to restrict access.
Soil and Groundwater: Cleanup technologies selected to address contamination
by pesticides in the soil and groundwater included: (1) excavating buried wastes
from within the perimeter of the disposal trench and transporting the wastes off
site for disposal in a secure landfill; (2) grading, when necessary, and seeding the remaining
soils; (3) expanding the monitoring well network by adding two wells to monitor mid-range
and deep water quality downgradient of the site; (4) vacuuming the buildings to remove loose
dust from all accessible interior surfaces and washing floors and walls; and (5) testing all
monitoring wells biannually for 30 years or until a determination is made that the site no
longer poses a threat to nearby drinking water supplies. The EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers removed 20,608 cubic yards of contaminated soil and buried wastes. The wastes
were transported off site, and the site was backfilled and graded in mid-1988. The State
followed by collecting biannual groundwater samples from on- and off-site monitoring wells,
beginning in 1987. The EPA collected additional samples from the interior of the on-site
buildings in 1987, 1988, and 1991. Based on these samples, it was determined that the
groundwater is safe and no further cleanup is necessary.
Surface Cleanup: The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers supervised
cleanup work consisting of gathering and placing wastes in approved containers,
storing wastes that were spread throughout the yard, draining and
decontaminating a buried tank and waste pit, and constructing a drainage ditch around the
site to prevent excessive water from entering. This work was performed in 1983, and off-site
disposal of the collected materials followed in a second phase.
Site Facts: The Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA, brought a Federal civil
action, seeking monetary relief against parties potentially responsible for wastes at the site. In
1992, a Consent Decree was entered by the court that required the parties to pay back the
cleanup costs incurred.
Environmental Progress
The removal of wastes to a secure landfill and the establishment of security measures at the
Aidex Corporation site eliminated the potential for exposure to hazardous materials while
cleanup activities were taking place. Site cleanup has been completed and the EPA is
proceeding to delete the site from the NPL.
Site Repository
Glenwood City Hall, 107 S. Locust Street, Glenwood, IA 55134
March 1992 2 AIDEX CORPORATION
-------
DES MOINE
TCE
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980687933
EPA REGION 7
Polk County
hwest of downtown Des Moines
Other Names:
Tuttle Street Landfill
Des Moines Vocational School
Dychem
Dico Company
Site Description
This site is an area or plume of contaminated groundwater that spreads southwest of
downtown Des Moines, in the flood plain of the Raccoon River. The surrounding area is
industrial and commercial, with some recreational parklands. The city's public water supply
was discovered to be contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) in 1976. By 1978, the EPA
had traced the problem to the city's groundwater extraction gallery, with the Dico Company
as the potential source of contamination. Dico disposed of oily wastes from the degreasing of
metal parts by dumping and spreading them as a means of dust control on company property.
Early in 1979, the company voluntarily stopped this activity. In 1984, the Des Moines Water
Works stopped using the groundwater gallery. The EPA ordered Dico to clean up the
groundwater in 1986. During cleanup activities, workers discovered that another plume of
contaminated groundwater was being drawn into the extraction system. An investigation was
initiated to address contamination stemming from the north and west of the Dico property.
The public water system serves approximately 258,300 people.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene, TCE, and vinyl chloride from former
industrial waste disposal practices. The extraction system has eliminated the threat
of contaminated drinking water. Most of the area to the east of the Raccoon
River has been filled to raise the land above flood level. Contaminants may have
been disposed of in those areas along with fill material.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three long-term remedial phases focusing on groundwater
cleanup, source control, and cleanup of the "north plume."
Response Action Status
Groundwater: The remedy for cleanup of groundwater features: (1) collecting
contaminated groundwater with extraction wells; (2) isolating the northernmost
section of the public groundwater supply system; (3) treating the groundwater by
exposing it to air to evaporate 96 percent of the TCE; (4) discharging the treated water to
the Raccoon River; and (5) operating the extraction wells until water collected from all
monitoring wells reveals less than 5 micrograms per liter of TCE for four consecutive months.
Dico, under EPA monitoring, designed and built the groundwater extraction and treatment
system, featuring seven extraction wells and an air stripping system. Pesticide-contaminated
soil was discovered during construction of the air stripping system. Temporary delays occurred
while the soil was sampled and stockpiled on site. Cleanup operations began in late 1987.
Dico has been leading the operation and maintenance of the groundwater system since the
beginning of 1988, and will continue to do so until late 1999 when cleanup is expected to be
complete.
Source Control: In 1989, Dico began an intensive study of the sources of the
pollution on its property. This investigation will identify sources as well as potential
remedies. The study is expected to be completed and a final cleanup remedy
selected in late 1992.
North Plume: In 1988, the EPA began investigating the new area of
contaminated groundwater that was being drawn into the treatment system. The
EPA installed additional monitoring wells to the north and west of the Raccoon
River near the Fleur Drive Bridge and north to about 25th and High Street. The wells have
been monitored to determine the extent of contamination and its source(s) and to warn of
any approaching danger to the public water supply. This investigation was completed in the
spring of 1992. A baseline risk assessment was performed and concluded that no further
action is warranted as the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system will cleanup
the contaminated groundwater plume.
Site Facts: In 1986, the EPA issued an Administrative Order requiring Dico to design, build,
and operate a groundwater extraction system. Dico signed an Administrative Order on
Consent with the EPA in August 1989 to conduct a study of how to control the potential
sources of contamination at its property.
Environmental Progress
Groundwater cleanup at the Des Moines TCE site is currently underway, continually reducing
the potential for exposure to hazardous materials through drinking water.
March 1992 4 DES MOINES TCE
-------
Site Repository
Des Moines City Library, 100 Locust, Des Moines, IA 50308
DES MOINES TCE 5 March 1992
-------
E.I. DUPON
DE NEMOU
COMPANY, I
(COUNTY ROA
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980685804
EPA REGION 7
Lee County
3 1/2 miles southwest of West Point
Other Names:
Baier, James Farm
McCarl Farm
Site Description
The E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. (County Road X23) site, an industrial waste
dump in a rural area of Lee County, consists of two areas off County Road X23, about 3 1/2
miles southeast of West Point. In the early 1950s, DuPont sent wastes from its nearby Fort
Madison paint plant to the two disposal sites, which are about a mile apart and cover 4 acres.
One is known as the Baier farm subsite and the other as the DuPont/McCarl subsite. DuPont
estimates that between 1949 and 1953, a contractor disposed of 48,000 to 72,000 drums of
paint waste at the two subsites. These wastes were placed in shallow trenches and burned,
then the soil was graded flat. The properties drop off to ravines on the northwestern sides.
The company estimates that 4,500 to 7,000 tons of ash and unburned sludges still may exist
on the areas. Approximately 1,200 people depend on private wells within 3 miles of the site as
their sole source of drinking water. Two creeks about a mile from the site are used for
limited recreational activities. Approximately 160 people live within a mile of the site; 1,250
live within 3 miles, with the closest population being 500 feet from the site. There are 40
private wells within a mile, and 330 private wells within 3 miles; the nearest is 500 feet from
the site. Water is consumed by the nearby population as well as local livestock.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and soils are contaminated with heavy metals, including cadmium and
lead, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from former disposal activities.
Potential human health threats consist of ingesting contaminated groundwater and
direct contact with both groundwater and soil. Contaminants also could accumulate
in plants that are consumed by cattle.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In late 1991, DuPont removed contaminated surface material,
incapable of being stabilized, to an off-site Federally approved disposal facility.
Entire Site: In 1985, three groundwater monitoring wells were installed by the
EPA at the Baier subsite. Sampling in 1986 showed elevated concentrations of
metals. Downstream water samples showed similar findings. When the McCarl
subsite was studied in 1986, groundwater and soil samples again revealed metals. In 1989, the
EPA ordered DuPont to perform a study of contamination at the site. DuPont completed the
study in early 1991. Based on the results of this study, the EPA recommended stabilization
and solidification of contaminated soil and monitoring of the groundwater as cleanup
remedies. DuPont is expected to complete the design of these cleanup remedies in late 1992,
with cleanup activities scheduled to begin shortly thereafter.
Site Facts: On July 5, 1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Order to DuPont requiring
DuPont to undertake a study of site contamination and cleanup options at the Baier subsite.
In late 1991, the EPA issued a Consent Decree requiring DuPont to design and conduct the
site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
The removal of contaminated surface material has reduced any risks to public health or the
environment while designs of the selected remedies are being completed.
Site Repository
Idol Raschid Library, 3421 Avenue L., Fort Madison, IA 68901
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, INC.
(COUNTY ROAD X23)
March 1992
-------
ELECTRO-C
INC.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005279039
EPA REGION 7
Linn County
Cedar Rapids
Site Description
The 1-acre Electro-Coatings, Inc. site is a chromium-plating shop in Cedar Rapids that has
been operational since 1947. It lies at the northern edge of Cedar Lake and on the eastern
edge of the Cedar River. In 1976, an unknown amount of chromic acid leaked from a deep
pit into the groundwater. The owners then began a long series of monitoring and cleanup
actions in response to State investigations and requirements. In 1982, the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR) found high levels of hexavalent chromium in a neighboring
company's well. The State required that Electro-Coatings, Inc. determine the extent of
contamination. Electro-Coatings monitored the neighboring wells, installed on- and off-site
monitoring wells, and conducted monthly sampling. Cedar Rapids municipal wells serving
nearly 10,000 people lie within 3 miles of the site. The nearest people live 10 feet from the
site, and the nearest well is 2,000 feet away. Approximately 12,100 residents live within 1 mile
of the site; 109,100 are within a 3-mile radius of the site. Groundwater underlying the
Electro-Coatings site is used for the public drinking water supply and for industrial processes.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 10/04/89
Groundwater is contaminated with hexavalent chromium, a heavy metal, from
wastewater spills. The chief threat to public health is drinking polluted
groundwater. Analysts have not yet determined the total area of groundwater
pollution; however, groundwater resources supplying municipal drinking wells have
not shown signs of chromium contamination. Nearby water bodies, including lakes
and streams, potentially are threatened by site contamination.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1977, after the wastewater spill, the owners installed new
monitoring wells to define the area of groundwater contamination and undertook
some cleanup actions at the site. In 1976, the leaking deep pit tank was removed,
and 18,000 pounds of ferrous sulfate and 6,600 pounds of sulfuric acid were added to the
area to chemically change the remaining hexavalent chromium to the less hazardous form of
the chemical. A new pit tank and floor were installed. Other actions consisted of monitoring
and sampling.
Entire Site: After discovering chromium in the neighboring well in 1982, the State
required the installation of five more monitoring wells to track the extent and
migration of the contaminant plume. An intensive study to determine the full
extent and nature of the contamination currently is underway and is planned to be completed
in 1992. The EPA then will select the most appropriate remedies for site cleanup.
Site Facts: In June 1977, the State issued an Executive Order requiring Electro-Coatings to
install monitoring wells to define the extent of the contaminated plume. Public concern has
been targeted on the contamination of Cedar Lake by Electro-Coatings and other sources.
Environmental Progress
After removing a leaking tank and breaking down the hexavalent chromium to a less
hazardous form at the Electro-Coatings site, the EPA determined that the site does not
currently pose an immediate threat to public health or the environment while investigations
into final remedies are being completed.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
ELECTRO-COATINGS, INC.
March 1992
-------
FAIRFIELD CO
GASIFICATION ^
PLANT
IOWA
EPAID#IAD981124167
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Jefferson County
Fairfield
The Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant site occupies one city block between West Burlington
and West Washington Avenues in Fairfield. The plant produced a natural gas substitute from
coal from 1878 until 1950. The plant has been owned and operated by Iowa Electric Light
and Power since 1917. Since 1950, the utility has used the site as an operations facility. The
main wastes are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), which are found in the coal tar left over from the gasification process, and cyanide
salts left in the iron oxide waste produced when the gas is purified. Operators sold some of
the coal tar and buried some in an earthen pit on the site or dumped it in a nearby ditch.
Disposal methods for the iron-cyanide waste are unknown, but it also may have been dumped
on site. In 1985, the utility found that groundwater near the site was contaminated. The
utility began a monitoring program to assure that private wells were unaffected. The EPA
became involved in 1987 by conducting an expanded site investigation, installing and sampling
on- and off-site monitoring wells, and conducting surface and subsurface soil sampling. In
1989, Iowa Electric found that the foundation for a gas holder was the main source of the
pollution. The gas holder was removed and destroyed in the 1950s, and wastes were dumped
or left in its place. An estimated 1,000 people live within 1 mile of the site; 9,000 live within 3
miles. The local drinking water supply depends on both surface water and groundwater and
serves 11,000 people. There are 23 drinking water wells within a 3-mile radius of the site; the
closest is 1,900 feet away. Shallow and deep groundwater wells are within 2 miles of the site.
The closest well uses the shallow aquifer. Cedar Creek is less than 3 miles downslope of the
site and is used for recreation.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
In 1985, the utility detected PAHs including anthracene and pyrene from the coal
gasification processes in the groundwater near the site. On-site groundwater and
soil contain VOCs such as benzene, toluene, and xylene and the metais, lead and
mercury. Contaminated soil and groundwater could pose a risk to public health.
Private drinking water wells are not contaminated.
10
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the groundwater and soil.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the utility undertook an
emergency cleanup action featuring a groundwater extraction system. Currently
operational, it is designed to contain the contaminated area of groundwater. The
system will continue to operate until the contamination levels set by the EPA and the State
are achieved.
Groundwater and Soil: Also under the EPA's guidance, the utility completed
an intensive study of groundwater and soil contamination at the site in 1990. The
remedy selected includes excavating and incinerating contaminated soil and source
areas, continuing the groundwater extraction and treatment system, and conducting a pilot
study for possible in-place bioremediation of the contaminated groundwater. The potentially
responsible parties began the technical design for the remedy in early 1991, and expect to be
completed with the design in mid-1992.
Site Facts: In 1989, Iowa Electric entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the
EPA to conduct additional investigations. The Utility signed a Consent Decree with the EPA
in March 1991 for performance of the technical design and cleanup activities.
Environmental Progress
The groundwater extraction system currently in use at the Fairfield Coal site has reduced the
level of contamination, while the design of the technical specifications for the remaining site
cleanup is underway.
Site Repository
Fairfield Public Library, Court & Washington, Fairfield, IA 52556
FAIRFIELD COAL GASIFICATION PLANT 11 March 1992
-------
FARMERS' MUTUAL^
COOPERATIVE
IOWA
EPA ID#IAD022193577
EPA REGION 7
Sioux County
Hospers
Site Description
The Farmers' Mutual Cooperative is an agricultural supply and service business that has
operated at this 6-acre site since 1908. The cooperative lies along the eastern side of the
Floyd River and currently stores bulk grain, fertilizers, and pesticides. In 1984, the Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality found volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and grain
fumigant in two municipal wells in Hospers. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources
prohibited the use of these two wells, in addition to a third well nearby. The Hospers
municipal wells serve approximately 1,900 people and are within a 3-mile radius of the site.
There are 109 deep and shallow wells and approximately 1,100 people within 3 miles of the
Cooperative. The closest residence is approximately 100 feet away. Residents use the
groundwater for drinking, irrigating crops, and watering stock.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
m
The groundwater and soil are contaminated with VOCs and various herbicides
such as atrazine and dual. Groundwater contaminants have polluted water under
the Cooperative property and the closed public wells. A sample taken from the
Floyd River indicated the presence of carbon tetrachloride and various pesticides.
Public health could be harmed by drinking contaminated groundwater; however,
Hospers' current public water supplies are not contaminated.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
12
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1987, the Cooperative, under State monitoring, began an intensive
study of groundwater and soil pollution at and around the site. This investigation is
intended to pinpoint the nature and extent of pollution problems and to
recommend the best option for final cleanup. Field work and sampling at the site were
completed in late 1991. Initial plans for site cleanup include pumping contaminated
groundwater and treating it through granular activated carbon. A final remedy selection is
expected in late 1992.
Site Facts: In 1986, the State issued an Administrative Order, requiring the Cooperative to
conduct a study to determine the type and extent of the contamination and to identify
cleanup alternatives. Partial results were submitted to the State in 1987, and negotiations
culminated in a Consent Order, signed in 1987, providing for a groundwater study and
completion of the site study.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL, the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the Farmers' Mutual Cooperative site,
pending selection of the final site cleanup approach.
Site Repository
Hospers City Hall, Hospers, IA 51238
FARMERS' MUTUAL COOPERATIVE 13 March 1992
-------
IOWA ARMY
AMMUNITION
PLANT
IOWA
EPAID# IA7213820445
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Des Moines County
miles west of Burlington
The 19,127-acre Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (IAAP) site's primary activity since 1941 has
been to load, assemble, and pack a variety of conventional ammunitions and fusing systems.
Wastes currently produced at IAAP consist of various explosive-laden sludges, wastewater,
and solids; lead-contaminated sludges; ashes from incineration and open burning of
explosives; and waste solvents from industrial and laboratory operations. Past operations also
generated waste pesticides, radioactive wastes (which have been removed from the site), and
incendiaries. The Army has identified a number of potentially contaminated areas, including
an abandoned 4-acre settling lagoon, the Line 800 Pinkwater Lagoon, which received
wastewater containing explosives from 1943 to 1955. It now holds an estimated 37,000 cubic
yards of hazardous sludges. A second area under investigation involves an earthen and
concrete dam across Brush Creek, the former Line 1 impoundment, which was used from
1948 to 1957. Wastewater flowed through a 3 1/2-acre sedimentation area where explosives
settled out. The liquids subsequently overflowed the dam into Brush Creek. Approximately
100 people live within 3 miles of the site and obtain drinking water from private wells within 3
miles of the base. Surface water within 3 miles downstream of the site is used for recreational
activities.
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
ZGJ
The Army conducted tests from 1981 to 1984 and detected explosives from former
waste disposal practices in surface water and wells downgradient of the lagoon and
dam. In 1984, the U.S. Army detected explosives and lead in creek sediments.
People using Brush Creek for recreational purposes may be at risk due to the
contaminated sludge lagoons. Individuals drinking from contaminated wells also
may be at risk.
14
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1990, the Army began a study to determine the nature and extent
of contamination at the site and identified 43 individual sites requiring
investigation. With the assistance of the EPA, samples were collected from these
potential areas of contamination. After analyzing these samples, the EPA and the Army
determined that approximately three-quarters of the sites need further investigation.
Further site investigation is scheduled to begin in mid-1992 and to continue for approximately
one year. The selection of a remedy for the initial group of sites is anticipated by 1995.
Site Facts: A Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement between the Army and the EPA was
signed in 1988. The installation subsequently was proposed for the NPL, and an Interagency
Agreement was negotiated in late 1990. The IAAP 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.
Environmental Progress
After adding this site to the NPL> the EPA performed preliminary investigations and
determined that no immediate actions were needed at the IAAP site while further studies
leading to long-term cleanup activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
IOWA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT 15 March 1992
-------
JOHN DEERE
(OTTUMWA
LANDFILLS)
IOWA
EPAID* IAD005291182
EPA REGION 7
Wapello County
Ottumwa
Site Description
The John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfills) site consists of a 118-acre tract of land and has
been used for the manufacture of farm implements since 1946. From 1911 until 1973, the
company disposed of approximately 3,000 tons of solvents, paint sludges, acids, heavy metals,
and cyanide on site. The site is located 200 feet from prime agricultural land. Approximately
700 people obtain drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of the site. The main water
supply for Ottumwa (population 27,000) is the Des Moines River; the intake is 4,000 feet
upstream from the John Deere landfills. The river also is used for recreational activities. The
city's secondary water supply, which is used intermittently throughout the year, is Black Lake.
It is located 500 feet downgradient of the on-site landfills.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 02/21/90
Threats and Contaminants
Low levels of various heavy metals from site disposal activities have been detected
in the soil, surface water, and sediments. Also, low levels of methylene chloride, a
volatile organic compound (VOC), were detected in the soil and sediments.
Potential risks may have existed for individuals who accidently ingested or came in
direct contact with contaminated soil and surface water.
16
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
Intensive investigations of site conditions have shown that the site does not pose a significant
threat to people and the environment. To ensure that there are no future threats,
groundwater monitoring and land-use restrictions have been put in place.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: Under EPA monitoring, the John Deere Company began an
investigation in 1990 to determine the type and extent of contamination. Field
work was completed in late 1990, and the investigation was completed in late 1991.
Based on the results of this investigation, the EPA selected a remedy requiring the John
Deere Company to maintain the existing fence around the site, and to continue monitoring
the groundwater to ensure that it remains safe. In addition, a deed restriction now limits site
use to non-residential activities.
Site Facts: In 1989, the John Deere Company entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent with the EPA to conduct an investigation to determine the type and extent of
contamination at the site and to identify alternative technologies for the cleanup. In the
spring of 1992, the company and the Iowa Department of Transportation signed a Consent
Decree requiring the John Deere Company to clean up the site.
Environmental Progress
The EPA will continue to monitor the groundwater at the John Deere (Ottumwa Works
Landfills) site to ensure that site conditions remain safe. The EPA is moving the site towards
deletion.
Site Repository
Ottumwa Public Library, 129 N. Court Street, Ottumwa, IA 52501
JOHN DEERE (OTTUMWA WORKS LANDFILLS) 17 March 1992
-------
LABOUNTY SI
IOWA
EPAID# IAD980631063
EPA REGION 7
Floyd County
Charles City
Site Description
The Labounty Site covers 8 1/2 acres on the Cedar River flood plain. From 1953 to 1977,
Salsbury Laboratories, a manufacturer of veterinary pharmaceuticals, disposed of over 6
million cubic feet of sludges containing various compounds and metals on the site. This has
resulted in the contamination of a shallow groundwater aquifer that connects to the Cedar
River. Investigations by the EPA and the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality in 1977
and 1978 revealed that major waste components were being leached and transported from
the disposal site by groundwater to the Cedar River. The State of Iowa ordered the site
closed in 1977. That same year, Salsbury constructed a 24-well groundwater monitoring
system, and, in 1980, completed a clay cap over the wastes. Approximately 10,000 people live
within 3 miles of the site. The nearest residence is 1,000 feet from the site. People in the
area use groundwater in the adjacent aquifer for drinking water supplies.
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: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and arsenic leached into the groundwater and
surface water from the disposal site. Drinking contaminated surface water and
groundwater or inhaling volatilized contaminants from the site were potential
threats to individuals prior to cleanup.
Cleanup Approach
This site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
18
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination installed
a groundwater monitoring system in 1979 and a clay cap in 1980. The capping has
effectively reduced the leaching of wastes located above the water table. However,
capping was not effective in reducing pollutant leaching where wastes were placed below the
water table. Therefore, between 1985 and 1986 under EPA monitoring, the potentially
responsible parties installed an upgradient groundwater diversion wall. The wall diverts
groundwater around the fill material into the Cedar River. Salsbury continues to sample
monitoring wells and the Cedar River. The EPA has conducted field sampling and reviews
the site to ensure that the remedy remains protective.
Site Facts: The State of Iowa issued an Administrative Order in 1977 that required the
owner, Salsbury Laboratories, to prevent runoff, cease operations, and submit a plan for the
removal of wastes. In 1985, the EPA and Salsbury entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent for the construction of the upgradient diversion wall and monitoring system in the
upper and lower Cedar Valley aquifers.
Environmental Progress
All cleanup activities have been completed at the Labounty Site. The EPA and the potentially
responsible parties will continue to test the effectiveness of the completed cleanup actions.
The site is expected to be deleted from the NPL in late 1992.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
LABOUNTY SITE 19 March 1992
-------
LAWRENCE
FARM
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD000606038
EPA REGION 7
Clinton County
1 mile west of Camanche
Other Names:
DuPont Company Landfill
Site Description
The Lawrence Todtz Farm site is located in a predominantly agricultural area of Clinton and
covers slightly over 6 acres. Municipal solid waste and industrial solid and liquid wastes were
disposed of at the site from 1958 to 1975. The E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company, Inc.'s
cellophane plant buried 4,300 tons of liquid waste at the site from 1972 to 1975. The wastes
were reported to include strong acids and bases, plasticizers, resins, alcohols, inorganic salts,
paints, and pigments. The site was closed in 1975 and capped with approximately 2 feet of
"red sugar" clay and topsoil overlay. One hundred people live within 1 mile of the site. Within
1/4 mile of the site are 10 farmhouses with private wells for drinking water and approximately
12 mobile homes. Murphy's Lake (formerly Willow Lake) and Bandixen Lake, located near
the site, are used for recreational activities such as fishing and swimming. Two chemical
industrial plants are located within a mile of the landfill. Evidence of deer, raccoon, and
cattle has been seen on the site. Wild geese were observed on the site and the surrounding
lakes.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater samples from on-site monitoring wells detected heavy metals
including arsenic, barium, and lead; sodium; and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) including benzene and toluene from the former waste disposal activities
on the site. Sodium was the only contaminant detected at levels above health
guidelines in groundwater samples collected from area residential wells. Analyses of
soil samples collected in 1988 detected only arsenic at levels that may have posed
adverse health effects. Future contamination of surface water (on-site ponds and
nearby lakes) could have occurred if there had been a release from the
impoundment, because the lakes are hydraulically connected to the shallow sand
and gravel aquifer.
20
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire
site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The parties potentially responsible for the site contamination installed
an alternate water supply that included drilling a new well to supply water to three
area residents. This was completed in the summer of 1989. Under the EPA's
monitoring, the potentially responsible parties have graded the site area and installed a 2-foot
soil cover over the impoundment. Cleanup activities were completed in late 1991. Monitoring
of the impoundment and municipal landfill will continue to ensure the long-term effectiveness
of the cleanup activities.
Site Facts: In November 1990, a Consent Decree between the EPA and the potentially
responsible parties was entered in court. Under this Decree, the parties agreed to perform
long-term cleanup of the site.
Environmental Progress
The installation of an alternate water source, and construction of a 2-foot soil cover and
groundwater monitoring system have eliminated the potential for exposure to contaminated
soil and groundwater at the Lawrence Todtz Farm site.
Site Repository
Clinton Main Library, 306 Eighth Avenue, South Clinton, IA 52732
LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM 21 March 1992
-------
LEHIGH PORTUpi
CEMENT CO-
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD005288634
PA REGION 7
o Gordo County
ion of Mason City
Site Description
The Lehigh Portland Cement Company owns and operates this Portland cement processing
facility on approximately 150 acres in the northern section of Mason City. The facility has
been in operation since 1911. The southern side of the site is bordered by 25th Street, and a
small residential area is located to the north of the site. The site is composed of abandoned
limestone quarries and mine tailings piles. Waste kiln dust, a by-product in the manufacturing
of cement, has been discarded in piles throughout the facility, and a large quantity also was
disposed of directly into two of the four abandoned quarries on the property. The quarries
are filled with water and have drained into Calmus Creek directly south of the site. In 1984,
the Iowa Department of Water, Air, and Waste Management (WAWM) conducted a
comprehensive study of Calmus Creek and found contaminants that may have come from
Blue Waters Pond, one of the quarries on the Lehigh site. Another NPL site, the
Northwestern States Portland Cement Company, is situated immediately south of the site and
is separated from it by Calmus Creek. An estimated 31,000 people obtain drinking water from
public and private wells within 3 miles of the site. Wells are the sole source of drinking water
in the area. A small subdivision of about 300 residents is located a mile north of the site. The
Winnebago River, within 3 miles downstream of the site, is used for recreational activities,
especially sport fishing.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
ffi
Groundwater on site is contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic, as well
as elevated pH levels caused by the former process waste disposal practices at the
site. However, no significant levels of contaminants were found in off-site
municipal, or private drinking water wells. Sulfates, and elevated pHs were
detected in Arch Pond and Blue Waters Pond, both on the Lehigh site. Calmus
Creek is polluted, and people who use the creek for recreation or who may eat
fish from it could be at risk. The pH level of soil, sediments, and surface water of
the quarry is high enough to be considered above normal; therefore, direct contact
with these substances could be a health hazard. If the contaminant plume migrates
from Calmus Creek into the Cedar Valley Aquifer, the private wells may become
contaminated and could pose a health hazard to people who use them.
22
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a long-term remedial phase
directed at cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Action: After the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) found
that surface water contamination in the creek was related to contaminants at the
site, a weir was placed in the southeastern corner to control water elevations,
because one of the quarries overflows during heavy rainfall. Dikes also were constructed to
separate three of the quarries; an aboveground piping system was installed, which pumps
water from one of the quarries to another. Lehigh installed three monitoring wells and
sampled groundwater and surface water.
Entire Site: The EPA selected a remedy which includes draining the quarry
ponds, treating the extracted water before discharging it, and consolidating and/or
capping all the cement kiln dust, and installing dewatering wells, if necessary. The
design of the remedy is planned to begin in late 1992.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order, requiring Lehigh to conduct a
hydrogeological investigation of the quarry. In 1989, the State issued another Administrative
Order, requiring Lehigh to conduct a study to determine the type and extent of
contamination on the site.
Environmental Progress
The construction of dikes to isolate the contamination in the quarries and the installment of
a piping system that pumps water from one quarry to another have helped to reduce the
potential for migration of contaminants or accidental exposure to contaminated groundwater
or surface water while the Lehigh Portland Cement Co. site awaits further cleanup activities.
Site Repository
Mason City Public Library, 225 Second Street, Mason City, IA 50401
LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CO. 23 March 1992
-------
MID-AMERIC
TANNING CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD085824688
EPA REGION 7
Woodbury County
les south of Sergeant Bluff
Site Description
The Mid-America Tanning Company site, located south of Sergeant Bluff, covers
approximately 100 acres and has processed hides under several names since 1969. In 1979,
the Mid-America Tanning Company discharged an estimated 1,000 cubic yards of tannery
sludges containing chromium into two unlined trenches on the property. U.S. Tanning
acquired the operation in 1985. Wastes were treated on site. Solids were settled out in
concrete-lined ponds, while liquids were chemically treated and then discharged into an oxbow
lake. The site is in the Missouri River flood plain. Approximately 85 people live within a mile
of the site, and 850 people live within 3 miles.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 03/30/89
Threats and Contaminants
Monitoring wells on site show that the groundwater is contaminated with heavy
metals including arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, and cadmium from the former
process waste disposal practices. The sediments and surface water of the oxbow
lake contain elevated levels of heavy metals. The groundwater, used by local
residents as a drinking water supply, may be polluted with heavy metals; drinking
such tainted water could be hazardous to public health. About 2 miles south of the
site is a wetland used as a nesting site for the piping plover, an endangered species.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
24
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: In 1990, the EPA removed approximately 1,300 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sludge from on-site burial pits. This material later will be
immobilized as part of the final cleanup remedy. The EPA also removed any raw
materials found on site and recycled them, where possible. These initial actions were
completed in late 1991.
Entire Site: Due to financial difficulties encountered by the potentially
responsible party in early 1990, the EPA had to initiate studies into the nature and
extent of contamination at the site. The EPA completed these investigations in
late 1991 and chose the following remedy: on-site immobilization of heavily contaminated
soil and sludge and capping of contaminated areas. Design of these cleanup remedies began
in 1992 and is slated for completion in 1993.
Site Facts: The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the potentially responsible
party in late 1989. Due to financial difficulties, the party did not comply with the initial
actions specified in the Order.
Environmental Progress
The EPA has completed initial actions to address elevated levels of cadmium, arsenic, barium,
and lead in the groundwater by excavating and consolidating contaminated materials. These
actions will contain the source of contamination and will reduce the potential for direct
contact with hazardous wastes on site while a final cleanup remedy is being planned.
Site Repository
Sergeant Bluff City Hall, 401 Fourth Street, Sergeant Bluff, IA 54054
MID-AMERICA TANNING CO. 25 March 1992
-------
MIDWEST
MANUFACTUF
NORTH FARM
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD069625655
EPA REGION 7
Jasper County
illes north of Kellogg
Other Names:
North Farm
Smith-Jones
Site Description
The Midwest Manufacturing/North Farm site contains two subsites: the North Farm subsite,
which is an unlined disposal cell 2 miles from the facility; and the Midwest Manufacturing
subsite, which is the plant facility. The sites were combined because they contain the same
wastes and affect the same population. From 1973 to 1981, under Smith-Jones ownership, the
plant was engaged in electroplating special-order stamped metal pieces, a process that
involved using various heavy metals. The plant currently manufactures high-speed flywheel
ring gears and assemblies for automobiles. Prior to a wastewater treatment plant being
brought on line in 1977, the electroplating waste from the plant was discharged directly into
the North Skunk River. From 1977 to 1978, the sludge produced by this process was disposed
of in an unlined cell at North Farm, 2 miles northeast of the plant. The unlined cell does not
have a soil cap and lacks a leachate collection system or other containment measures to
prevent the release of hazardous substances. A trench near the plant itself also was used to
dispose of the sludge produced by the treatment process. In 1982, the EPA collected sludge
samples from the disposal trench, and concentrations of metals were found to be below the
concentrations that would designate the sludge as hazardous. Groundwater samples identified
the potential for contaminant migration from the disposal trench. During an EPA site visit in
1987, a manmade drainage ditch was discovered to the west of the disposal trench at the
plant. The sediments in this ditch were covered with a black, oily substance that had a
petroleum odor. Stressed vegetation and an oily substance floating on top of the water were
observed in a marshy area located on the western end of the plant property. Approximately
700 people depend on wells located within 3 miles of the site for their drinking water supply.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 06/10/86
26
March 1992
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Midwest Plant city well #1 showed elevated levels of zinc from the former waste
disposal activities during sampling in 1982. Recent groundwater studies found
elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as vinyl chloride,
trichloroethylene, and dichlorothylene and the heavy metals cadmium and nickel.
Surface soils at both subsites contain high concentrations of heavy metals. Adverse
health effects could result from ingesting vegetables grown on contaminated soils
or watered with contaminated groundwater. Consuming contaminated groundwater
may pose a health risk to area residents. The site is located within a critical habitat
of the Indiana bat, which is on the endangered species list of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases directed at cleanup of the
Midwest Manufacturing Plant subsite and the North Farm subsite.
Response Action Status
Midwest Manufacturing Plant Subsite: The EPA concluded a study of the
nature and extent of contamination at the plant site in 1990. Based on the results
of the study, the EPA has selected a remedy that includes extracting and treating
the groundwater through air stripping and filtration, along with capping the site to contain
contamination.
North Farm Subsite: The remedy for the North Farm subsite has been selected
and includes excavation of contaminated soil within and around the disposal cell,
treatment and disposal of the soil in a regulated facility, and backfilling and
grading of excavated areas with clean fill.
Site Facts: Smith-Jones Midwest Manufacturing and Merl Brown were issued special Notice
Letters in September 1987 regarding their potential liability for site contamination.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Midwest Manufacturing North Farm site to the NPL, the EPA performed a
preliminary assessment of site conditions and determined that there were no immediate
actions required to reduce the potential for exposure to contaminants while permanent
cleanup remedies are being planned.
MIDWEST MANUFACTURING/ NORTH FARM 27 March 1992
-------
SITE REPOSITORY
Kellogg City Library, Kellogg City Hall, Kellogg, IA 50135
March 1992 28 MIDWEST MANUFACTURING/NORTH FARM
-------
NORTHWEST
STATES FOR
CEMENT CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980852461
A REGION 7
yCerro Gordo County
f"XMason City
Site Description
The Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. (NWSPCC) site covers 150 acres of a 250-
acre parcel of land in Mason City. The NWSPCC began limestone mining operations in 1908.
The company ceased the mining in 1950 and abandoned the quarry west of the plant. In
1969, the NWSPCC began to use the quarry for the disposal of waste kiln dust containing
hydroxides, potassium, chromium, and sulfates. An estimated 2 million tons of waste kiln dust
were disposed of in the quarry. Over the years, the water level rose approximately 2 feet per
year, filling in the quarry so that it held approximately 420 million gallons of water. Rainwater
runoff drains from the quarry into adjacent Calmus Creek, a tributary of the Winnebago
River. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) conducted an investigation in
1984, when a citizen became concerned over the Winnebago River turning white. Calmus
Creek was found to have a higher than normal pH level. The Mason City municipal wells are
within 3 miles of the site and serve approximately 30,000 people. About 300 people obtain
their drinking water from private wells within 1 1/2 miles of the site. The municipal wells are
connected to the deep Jordan aquifer. The private wells are served by the Cedar Valley
aquifer. Calmus Creek and the Winnebago River are used for recreational activities, including
fishing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
The groundwater is contaminated with sulfates, sodium, and elevated pH from the
former process waste disposal practices at the site. Although the groundwater is
contaminated, municipal and private drinking water wells are not polluted. If the
contaminant plume migrates from Calmus Creek and into the Cedar Valley
aquifer, the private wells may become contaminated and pose a health hazard to
people who use them. Sediments and soils are contaminated with higher than
normal pH. Calmus Creek is contaminated with higher than normal pH, and
people who use the creek for recreation or eat fish from it may be at risk. The
increased pH found in soil, sediments, and surface water of the quarry is
considered caustic; therefore, coming in direct contact with these substances would
pose a health risk.
29
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: initial actions and a single long-term remedial phase
focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: The State ordered the NWSPCC to stop discharges into Calmus
Creek, and the company complied by installing a system that intercepts the flow
and pumps the water back into the quarry. In 1987, the company began treating
the surface water before discharging it into the creek.
Entire Site: The NWSPCC has pumped most of the water from the quarry. The
NWSPCC also conducted an investigation, under State supervision, to determine
the extent of contamination at the site. The investigation was completed in 1990.
Based on the results of the investigation, a remedy was selected. Along with pumping the
water from the quarry, it includes construction of a permanent drain system in the quarry to
collect precipitation runoff and groundwater inflow; installation of a cap over the quarry area
filled with waste kiln dust to minimize infiltration through to kiln dust; installation of bedrock
dewatering wells to collect contaminated groundwater, to prevent migration of contaminated
groundwater, and to maintain groundwater levels; installation of kiln dust dewatering wells, if
necessary; treatment of contaminated waters and final discharge into Calmus Creek; and
continued operation of a dewatering system. The design of these technologies by the
NWSPCC began in 1991 and is scheduled to be completed in late 1992.
Site Facts: In 1985, the State issued an Administrative Order to the NWSPCC to stop
discharges into Calmus Creek. In addition, the Order instructed the company to conduct a
study, under State supervision, to determine the effect of the quarry on the environment.
This study was completed in 1987. In 1989, the State issued an Administrative Order to the
NWSPCC to conduct an additional site study which was completed in 1990.
Environmental Progress
Pumping the water from the quarry and treating surface water prior to release to Calmus
Creek have reduced the potential for exposure to contaminated water and sediments at the
Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. site while the design of the final site remedy is
taking place.
Site Repository
Mason City Public Library, 225 Second Street, Mason City, IA 50401
March 1992 30 NORTHWESTERN STATES
PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
-------
PEOPLES N
GAS CO.
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980852578
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Dubuque County
East Dubuque
Other Names:
Key City Coal Gasification Plant
'The Peoples Natural Gas Co. site is located in Dubuque and covers approximately 5 acres.
From 1890 until 1954, the Key City Gas Company owned and operated this gas plant, where
a natural gas substitute was produced from coal. In 1954, the North Central Public Service
Company took over operations until 1957, when Peoples Natural Gas Company assumed
operations. The company used the site as a storage and maintenance area and did not
manufacture gas. Peoples Natural Gas sold the site to the City of Dubuque, which operates
the Dubuque Municipal Garage on the site. Two waste products resulting from coal
gasification are of primary concern: coal tar sludges and spent iron oxide. Coal tar sludges
were produced during the coal or coke combustion and during the oil injection processes, and
spent iron oxide wastes were produced during the gas purification process. Spent iron oxide
wastes, removed from the three gas cleaning boxes (purifiers), were dumped behind two gas
holding tanks on the site at least twice a year. Approximately 5,400 cubic yards of spent iron
oxide wastes were deposited in the northeastern section of the site. Coal tars were removed
from the gas in the wash box and condenser. These wastes either were sold or disposed of in
pits or holding tanks. Two coal tar waste storage tanks were used at the Key City plant, one
aboveground and one below. Both tanks have been removed. Evidence of materials left in
the underground tank, as well as migration of waste out of the tank, is supported by a study
done by the Iowa Department of Transportation in 1983 while conducting a right-of-way
survey for the proposed extension of U.S. 61. An estimated 60,000 people obtain drinking
water from municipal wells within 3 miles of the site. Approximately 2,400 people live within a
mile of the site, and 21,000 people live within 3 miles. The Mississippi River is approximately
500 feet east of the site. Surface water downstream is used for industrial and recreational
activities. A wildlife and fish refuge is 2 miles downstream, and wetlands are within 1/2 mile
of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
31
March 1992
-------
Threats and Contaminants
Phenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and inorganic chemicals from
the gasification process wastes were detected by the State in on-site wells. Soil
samples collected at the site in 1983 also contained phenols, PAHs, and inorganic
chemicals. Accidental ingestion of or direct contact with contaminated soil or
groundwater may pose potential health threats to individuals. No private drinking
water wells have been identified in the area. The wetlands and the wildlife and fish
refuge may be threatened by runoff from the site.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedial phase
focusing on soil and groundwater cleanup.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: Under EPA monitoring, the parties potentially responsible
for the site contamination removed the contaminated coal tar sludges and soils
containing contaminants above human health standards from within the
construction corridor for U.S. Highway 61. Contaminated soil currently is being incinerated
off site at a federally approved facility. Incineration is expected to continue through late 1993.
Soil and Groundwater: A complete study of the extent and type of groundwater
and soil contamination was completed by the parties potentially responsible for the
contamination. A remedy was selected which requires excavation and incineration
of contaminated soils, and pump and treatment of contaminated groundwater. Restrictions
on land and groundwater use will also be implemented. Design of the remedy is slated to
begin in early 1992.
Site Facts: The EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent with Midwest Gas (of
Iowa Public Service, a successor corporation of Peoples Natural Gas), the Iowa Department
of Transportation, and the City of Dubuque in 1989. The Order requires the company to
remove or treat any contaminated soil. It also requires completion of an investigation to
determine the need for treatment of residual soil and for groundwater treatment.
Environmental Progress
By removing contaminated coal tar sludges and soils, the potential for exposure to hazardous
materials at the People's Natural Gas Co. site has been reduced while further cleanup
activities are being planned.
March 1992 32 PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY
-------
Site Repository
Carnegie Stout Public Library, Eleventh and Bluff, Dubuque, IA 52001
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY
33
March 1992
-------
RED OAK
CITY LANDFI
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980632509
EPA REGION 7
Montgomery County
.1/2 miles northwest of Red Oak
Other Names:
Union Carbide Disposal
Site Description
The 40-acre Red Oak City Landfill is an inactive landfill located within an old limestone
quarry in a rural setting. Of the 40 acres, 20 acres were used for disposal. The landfill is
bounded on the west by Parkwest Road and on the east by the East Nishnabotna River.
Quarrying activities at the site were conducted by strip mining from the late 1940s to the
early 1960s. A limestone rim was left in place between the quarry pit and the west bank of
the river to prevent flooding. Red Oak purchased the site property in the mid-1950s and
converted it into a municipal landfill. From 1962 until 1974, hazardous substances were
deposited in the landfill. The landfill lacks a leachate collection system and other engineering
structures such as a liner or an effective cover to contain the disposed hazardous wastes.
There is a thin layer of soil covering the landfill, and at some points, waste materials,
including 55-gallon drums, are exposed to the surface. The eastern portion of the landfill,
adjacent to the East Nishnabotna River, is being eroded as a result of river bank
undercutting and surface water runoff. In 1981, Union Carbide Corp. and Uniroyal, Inc.
notified the EPA that wastes they had sent to the landfill contained metals, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and alcohol. In 1984, the EPA observed leachate seeping from the
landfill into the river. Approximately 7,000 people within 3 miles of the site depend on
groundwater as a source of drinking water. The nearest residence uses a private well 1,800
feet away from the landfill. There are 250 people living within a mile of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 03/13/89
Threats and Contaminants
VOCs including toluene and xylene and heavy metals including chromium, lead,
and barium from the landfilling practices have been detected in the groundwater
and the surface water. The sediments near the landfill contain toluene. Wells
located near the landfill may be contaminated. Accidentally ingesting or coming in
direct contact with the contaminated groundwater, surface water, or sediments
could be hazardous to the health of people in the area. There also is prime
agricultural land adjacent to the site, which could be contaminated by chemicals
from the site. The landfill is situated in permeable soil, which increases the chances
of the groundwater being contaminated.
34
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The investigative work to determine the extent and nature of the
contamination on site originally was begun by the EPA and then taken over by the
potentially responsible parties. This investigation is expected to be completed in
late 1992. At that time a final remedy decision will be made.
Site Facts: The potentially responsible parties signed a Consent Order in November 1989
with the EPA, in which they agreed to study the nature and extent of contamination at the
site and to evaluate cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
After placing the Red Oak City Landfill site on the NPL, the EPA determined, after a
preliminary assessment of site conditions, that no immediate actions were required while
further investigations leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking place.
Site Repository
Red Oak Public Library, Second and Washington, Red Oak, IA 51566
RED OAK CITY LANDFILL 35 March 1992
-------
SHAW AVENUE DUMP
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630560
PA REGION 7
Floyd County
Charles City
Site Description
The Shaw Avenue Dump site, an 8-acre city dump, is located in southeastern Charles City,
approximately 500 feet east of the Cedar River. The City owns the site and operated it as a
municipal waste dump without a permit. Two areas in the northern half of the site were used
from 1949 to 1953 to dispose of 14,000 to 28,000 cubic feet of arsenic-contaminated solid
waste generated by Salsbury Laboratories in the production of animal Pharmaceuticals.
Sludge from the Charles City wastewater treatment plant, which received liquid wastes
discharged from Salsbury, was placed in the northern waste cells and in an undefined area on
the southern portion of the site. The northern disposal area no longer is in use and has been
covered with soil and vegetated. Between the southern and northern areas, trenches were
used for disposing of lime sludges from the drinking water treatment plant. The City and the
public used this area for open burning of wastes. The site is within a large residential area. A
high school is located approximately 1,000 feet north of the site. Students use a stadium
within 500 feet of the northern waste disposal cells. One residence, 1,500 feet southeast of
the site, uses a private well for domestic purposes. The Charles City municipal water supply
system, within 2 miles uphill of the site, serves 8,800 people. The Cedar River flows through
Charles City and is used for recreational fishing, swimming, and canoeing.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal, county, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/05/85
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with arsenic from the disposal site.
The Cedar River also is contaminated with arsenic. Students playing on school
grounds, city employees grading areas of the site, construction workers on site, and
trespassers may inhale contaminated dust during future excavation. Direct contact
with the contaminated soil, groundwater, and surface water could result in
irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. The site is surrounded by a fence
with no-trespassing signs and a locked gate.
36
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of chemical
fill and contaminated soil and cleanup of groundwater.
Response Action Status
Chemical Fill and Contaminated Soil: The EPA began an investigation of
the site and its cleanup alternative in 1987. The parties potentially responsible for
site contamination took over the investigation in 1988 and completed it in late
1991. In early 1992, the potentially responsible parties began cleanup activities. The remedy
initially called for stabilization of chemical fill and contaminated soil. However, treatability
tests indicated that stabilization would not be effective. All contaminated materials are now
being removed off site to a federally approved landfill as described in the contingency
remedy. Cleanup is scheduled to be completed by late 1992.
Groundwater: An investigation of the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination is expected to begin in 1993, and will result in the selection of
cleanup alternatives.
Site Facts: In March 1987, the EPA sent letters notifying Salsbury Laboratories and Charles
City of their potential responsibility and requested information about their use of the site. A
Consent Order was completed on May 26, 1988. Under this Order, the potentially
responsible parties will conduct an investigation to determine the type and extent of
contamination on the site.
Environmental Progress
The ongoing removal of contaminated soils from the Shaw Avenue Dump site is reducing the
risk of exposure to hazardous materials while the investigations leading to selection of a
groundwater remedy are taking place.
Site Repository
Charles City Public Library, 106 Milwaukee, Charles City, IA 66101
SHAW AVENUE DUMP
37
March 1992
-------
SHELLER-G
CORP. DISP
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630750
EPA REGION 7
Lee County
4 miles northwest of Keokuk
Other Names:
Grimes Property
Site Description
Sheller-Globe Corp. operated an industrial landfill and solvent burning area from 1947 to
1970. The 5-acre site was filled in and sold in 1980 to an individual who built a home on it
and drew water from a 300-foot-deep on-site well. The water from the well contains lead and
zinc, possibly from the distribution lines. The homeowner permanently relocated in the fall of
1991. The site is no longer used for residential purposes. In the past, the Sheller-Globe
Corporation manufactured rubber products, including automobile weather stripping, at a
facility located in Keokuk. Liquids, sludges, and rubber stripping from the operation were
deposited near a ravine with no system for diverting surface runoff. According to the
company, among these wastes were at least 1,000 drums of paint sludge, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), isopropyl alcohol, and resins containing fluorocarbons. Solvents routinely
were burned in the open. In 1987, the EPA found heavy metal and VOC contamination in
soil, groundwater, and surface water during testing. The EPA also observed seepage and an
oil sheen on an intermittent stream near the northeastern edge of the site. More recently,
the EPA also found 52 drums on the surface, as well as scrap rubber and polyurethane foam.
An estimated 1,125 people obtained their drinking water from private wells within 3 miles of
the heavily wooded rural site. Many now obtain drinking water from one of two rural water
districts recently made available.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with heavy metals including arsenic,
chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc and VOCs from the former disposal activities.
Accidental ingestion of contaminated groundwater or soil may cause a potential
health threat. The Mississippi River, approximately 3 miles downstream of the site,
is used for recreational boating and fishing and could be subject to pollution from
the site runoff.
38
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation of the site and the possible cleanup alternatives by
the potentially responsible parties began in late 1990. Investigations to date have
included sampling of surface and subsurface soils, surface water, glacial till
groundwater, and bedrock groundwater. Field work is expected to be completed in late 1992.
The decision on cleanup methods is scheduled for early 1993.
Site Facts: An Administrative order on Consent, requiring the potentially responsible parties
to conduct site studies, was signed October 18, 1990.
Environmental Progress
Following listing of the Sheller-Globe Corp. Disposal site on the NPL, the EPA determined,
after an initial evaluation of the site conditions, that the site did not require any immediate
actions while intensive studies leading to the selection of a final cleanup remedy are taking
place.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
SHELLER-GLOBE CORP. DISPOSAL 39 March 1992
-------
VOGEL PAINT &
WAX COMPANY
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD980630487
EPA REGION 7
Sioux County
Orange City
er Name*:
lei Disposal Site
Site Description
Vogel Paint & Wax Company used a 2-acre disposal area within an 80-acre parcel of land. A
sand and gravel pit was used by the company for disposal of its paint and varnish production
wastes. From 1967 to 1979, the site received paint wastes containing heavy metals, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and mineral spirits. Liquid wastes were dumped into several
trenches from 8 to 12 feet deep. The trenches were left open for extended periods to allow
evaporation. Partially filled and full drums and other debris were dumped on top of the liquid
wastes. The trenches eventually were covered with 1 to 2 feet of soil. The company has
conducted numerous investigations in conjunction with the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) to determine the extent of the pollution. The site lies within a primarily
agricultural area, and Maurice, with a population of 288, is located 2 miles northeast of the
site. Struble is 3 miles south of the site and has a population of 59. The Southern Sioux
County Rural Water System well field, located approximately 2 miles downstream of the site,
serves 3,200 people. Within 1,600 feet upstream of the disposal site is an agricultural well and
a residential well used for drinking water.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
ZEJ
The groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals including cadmium, chromium,
lead, and mercury and VOCs such as benzene and xylene from the former disposal
activities. The soil and surface water are contaminated with heavy metals. Any
contaminated soil above the waste trench area may be a potential health hazard if
airborne dust is inhaled or direct contact is made with the contaminants in the soil.
Contaminated surface water could affect plant and animal life in the intermittent
streams.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on source control and cleanup of the groundwater.
40
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Action: As a preliminary action, a 2-foot thick clay cap was placed over
the disposal area, and floating hydrocarbons are removed from the top of the
water table on a monthly basis. This action has reduced the floating hydrocarbons
from about 2 feet thick to only intermittent presence.
Source Control: After evaluating alternative cleanup methods, the EPA
selected a remedy for cleanup of the site. The potentially responsible parties are
excavating contaminated soils and separating solid and liquid waste for off-site
incineration, recycling, or disposal. An estimated 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils will
be treated using a bioremediation process in a fully contained surface impoundment unit.
Treated soil will be stabilized, if necessary, to prevent leaching of metals, placed back into the
excavation area, and covered. Carbon absorption is being used when necessary to control
losses of VOCs into the atmosphere. Leaching standards for soils have been established.
The potentially responsible parties completed design activities for the cleanup in 1991. Site
cleanup activities began immediately thereafter.
Groundwater: The potentially responsible parties are pumping and air stripping
contaminated groundwater, with discharge to the nearby stream. Losses of VOCs
into the atmosphere from the groundwater treatment process is being controlled
by carbon absorption, as necessary. Health-based standards for groundwater have been
established. The potentially responsible parties began construction in 1991. Construction is
expected to be completed in late 1993.
Site Facts: A State Consent Order has been signed and the Vogel Paint & Wax Co. has
taken responsibility for the costs incurred to date. The site currently is listed on the State
Abandoned or Uncontrolled Sites Registry (SAUSR). Substantial changes or transfer of
property on this registry is prohibited without written approval of the Director of the IDNR.
Environmental Progress
By placing a cap over the areas of greatest contamination and removing the floating
contaminants from standing water, the Vogel Paint & Wax Company site no longer poses an
immediate threat to the public or the environment as additional cleanup activities are being
designed.
Site Repository
Contact the Region 7 Superfund Community Relations Office.
VOGEL PAINT & WAX COMPANY 41 March 1992
-------
WHITE FARM
EQUIPMENT CO
DUMP
IOWA
EPA ID# IAD065210734
Site Description
EPA REGION 7
Floyd County
AJong the northern boundary of
Charles City
The White Farm Equipment Co. Dump site occupies approximately 20 acres along the
northern border of Charles City. The dump is located in an old sand and gravel pit that is
bordered by low-lying areas and farmland. Tractors and other farm equipment have been
manufactured near the dump since the early 1900s. White Farm Equipment operated on land
leased from H.E. Construction Co. until it filed for bankruptcy in 1980. Allied Products Co.
purchased the operation in late 1986. Starting in the 1920s, White Farm's operations
generated foundry sand, sludges, and dust from air pollution control equipment. Since 1971,
the plant intermittently has been disposing of foundry sands, baghouse dust, and other
industrial wastes at the site. Approximately 650,000 cubic yards of these wastes were placed
on site. Nearby residents have complained of dust blowing off the dump. Charles City draws
its drinking water from an aquifer underlying the White Farm Equipment Co. Dump site.
There are about 10,000 people living within 3 miles of the site who use drinking water from
public and private wells within 3 miles of the site, and 2,300 people live within a 1-mile radius
of the site. The contamination from the site flows into the Cedar River, which is used for
recreational activities.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/24/88
Final Date: 08/30/90
Threats and Contaminants
Heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the former waste disposal practices are
contaminating the groundwater. Sediments, soils, and surface water contain heavy
metals. Health of individuals could be at risk if the contaminated groundwater,
surface water, soil, or sediments are accidentally ingested or touched. The
pollutants also may be affecting the Cedar River wetlands, disturbing the ecological
balance.
42
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of the
entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: One of the parties potentially responsible for the contamination
investigated the nature and extent of contamination. The investigation included
characterization of waste in the landfill, determination of contamination spread by
rainwater runoff, detection of contamination spread by air, detection of contamination spread
by dissolved metal, and determination of groundwater movement and evaluation of possible
connections between the shallow aquifer and the drinking water aquifer. The EPA chose a
compacted soil and vegetative layer cap as the cleanup measure. The potentially responsible
parties will design and implement the remedy, scheduled to begin in 1992.
Site Facts: In 1989, the EPA and two parties potentially responsible for the contamination
signed an Administrative Order on Consent. In that Order, one of the parties agreed to take
responsibility for the site investigation to determine the nature and the extent of the
contamination. In 1991, a Consent Decree was signed by the party to design and perform
site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After adding the site to the NPL, the EPA determined that no immediate actions were
required while cleanup activities are being planned and work is started.
Site Repository
Charles City Public Library, 106 Milwaukee, Charles City, IA 50616
WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT CO. DUMP 43 March 1992
-------
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: Anyunconfinedpartofthe
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 pf 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.
De water: 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 fanning, 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 mixing
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
fanning, 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 19X0, 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.t.]: 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
Poly cyclic 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.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A
group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications,
carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope immersion oils, and 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.
Poly vinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride. PVC
is used to make pipes, records, raincoats, and
floor tiles. Health risks from high 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 ground water 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 -23X, 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.
Waste water: 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 Metab
Volatile Organic
Compounds
(VOGs)
Creosotes
Ratfiatfon
(Radionucikfes)
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 (PCP)
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.:1993-341-835:81052
G-15
------- |