&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(5102G)
SUPERFUND:
EPA/540/R-93/025
December 1992
PB93-963226
Progress at
National
Priority
List Sites
MONTANA
1992 UPDATE
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-7276
December 1992
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Montana
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 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-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SUPERFUND
During the second half of the Twentieth
Century, the environmental conse-
quences of more than 100 years of industrial-
ization in the United States became increas-
ingly clear. Authors such as Rachel Carson
wrote passionately about the often-hidden en-
vironmental effects of our modern society's
widespread use of chemicals and other haz-
ardous materials. Their audience was Small at
first, but gradually their message spread.
Growing concern turned to action, as people
learned more about the environment and be-
gan to act on their knowledge
The 1970s saw environmental issues burst
onto the national scene and take hold in the
national consciousness. The first Earth Day
was observed in 1-970, 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 site.
Program had logged more than 2,300 removal
completions since Superfund was established.
The Public's Role
Superfund is unique among federal programs
in its commitment to citizen participation. Al-
though the EPA is responsible for determin-
ing how dangerous a site is and how best to
clean it up, the Agency relies on citizen input
as it makes these decisions.
Community residents are often invaluable
sources of information about a hazardous
waste site, its current and previous owners,
and the activities that took place there. Such
information can be crucial to experts evaluat-
ing a site and its potential dangers.
Residents also comment on EPA cleanup
plans by stating their concerns and prefer-
ences at public meetings and other forums and
in formal, written comments to Agency pro-
posals. The EPA takes these comments and
concerns seriously, and has modified many
proposals in response to local concerns. For,
ultimately, it is the community and its citizens
that will live with the results of the EPA's de-
cisions and actions; it is only fair that citizens
participate in the process.
A Commitment to
Communication
The Superfund program is very serious about
public outreach and communication. Com-
munity relations coordinators are assigned to
each NPL site to help the public understand
the potential hazards present, as well as the
cleanup alternatives. Local information re-
positories, such as libraries or other public
buildings, have been established near each
NPL site to ensure that the public has an op-
portunity to review all relevant information
and the proposed cleanup plans.
The individual State volumes contain sum-
mary fact sheets on NPL sites in each State
and territory. Together, the fact sheets provide
a concise report on site conditions and the
progress made toward site cleanups as of
March 1992. The EPA revises these volumes
periodically to provide an up-to-date record of
program activities. A glossary of key terms
relating to hazardous waste management and
Superfund site cleanup is provided at the back
of this book.
VII
-------
INTRODUCTION
Superfund is, of course, a public program, and
as such it belongs to everyone of us. This vol-
ume, along with other State volumes, com-
prises the EPA's report on Superfund
progress to the program's owners for the year
1992.
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,
public health, administration and manage-
ment, law, and many other fields.
The average NPL site takes from seven to ten
years to work its way through the system,
from discovery to the start of long-term
cleanup. Actual cleanup work can take years,
decades if contaminated groundwater must
be treated. Of course, imminent threats to
public health or the environment are cor-
rected right away.
The diagram to the right presents a simplified
view of the cleanup process. The major steps
in the Superfund process are:
• Site discovery and investigation to iden-
tify contaminants and determine whether
emergency action is required;
• Emergency site work such as removing
contaminants for proper treatment or dis-
posal, and securing the site to keep people
and animals away, if warranted by condi-
tions at the site;
• Site evaluation to determine how people
living and working nearby, and the envi-
ronment, may be exposed to site contami-
nants;
• Detailed studies to determine whether con-
ditions are serious enough to add the site to
the National Priorities List of sites eligible
for federally funded cleanup under Super-
fund;
• Selection, design, and implementation of a
cleanup plan, after a thorough review of
the most effective cleanup options, given
site conditions, contaminants present, and
their potential threat to public health or the
environment.
• Follow-up to ensure that the cleanup work
done at the site continues to be effective
over the long term.
The Superfund Process
From the earliest stages, EPA investigators
work hard to identify those responsible for the
contamination. As their responsibility is es-
tablished, the EPA negotiates with these "re-
sponsible parties" to pay for cleaning up the
problem they helped create. This "enforce-
ment first" policy saves Superfund Trust Fund
monies for use in cleanups where the respon-
sible parties cannot be identified, or where
they are unable to fund cleanup work.
-------
THE VOLUME
How to Use the State Book
I he site fact sheets presented in this book
A are comprehensive summaries that cover
a broad range of information. The fact sheets
describe hazardous waste sites on the NPL and
their locations-, as well as the conditions
leading to their listing ("Site Description").
The summaries list the types of contaminants
that have been discovered and related threats
to public and ecological health ("Threats and
Contaminants"). "Cleanup Approach" pres-
ents an overview of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or planned. The fact
sheets conclude with a brief synopsis of how
much progress has been made in protecting
public health and the environment. The
summaries also pinpoint other actions, such as
legal efforts to involve polluters responsible
for site contamination and community con-
cerns.
The fact sheets are arranged in alphabetical
order by site name. Because site cleanup is a
dynamic and gradual process, all site informa-
tion is accurate as of the date shown on the
bottom of each page. Progress always is being
made at NPL sites, and the EPA periodically
will update the site fact sheets to reflect recent
actions and will publish updated State vol-
umes. The following two pages show a ge-
neric fact sheet and briefly describe the infor-
mation under each section.
How Can You Use
This State Book?
You can use this book to keep informed about
the sites that concern you, particularly ones
close to home. The EPA is committed to
involving the public in the decision making
process associated with hazardous waste
cleanup. The Agency solicits input from area
residents in communities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely to be affected
not only by hazardous site conditions, but also
by the remedies that combat them. Site clean-
ups take many forms and can affect communi-
ties in different ways. Local traffic may be
rerouted, residents may be relocated, tempo-
rary water supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a site can help
citizens sift through alternatives and make
decisions. To make good choices, you must
know what the threats are and how the EPA
intends to clean up the site. You must under-
stand the cleanup alternatives being proposed
for site cleanup and how residents may be
affected by each one. You also need to have
some idea of how your community intends to
use the site in the future, and you need to know
what the community can realistically expect
once the cleanup is complete.
The EPA wants to develop cleanup methods
that meet community needs, but the Agency
only can take local concerns into account if it
understands what they are. Information must
travel both ways in order for cleanups to be
effective and satisfactory. Please take this
opportunity to learn more, become involved,
and assure that hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your community's
concerns.
XI
-------
THE VOLUME
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Provides the dates when the
site was Proposed, made Final,
and Deleted from the NPL.
SITE RESPONSIBILITY
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties taking responsibility
for cleanup actions at the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRESS
Summarizes the actions to
reduce the threats to nearby
residents and the surrounding
environment and the progress
towards cleaning up the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOO
EPA REGION XX
COUNTY NAME
LOCATION
Threats and Contaminants
Response Action Status
xxxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx:
XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XX XXXXXXXXX XX XXXX:
XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX X
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX
-------
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 So/7 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
Montana
The State of Montana is located within EPA
Region 8, which includes the six north central States extending from the mid-western plains to
the Rocky Mountains. The State covers 147,046 square miles. According to the 1990 Census,
Montana experienced nearly a 2 percent increase in population between 1980 and 1990, and is
ranked forty-fourth in U.S. population with approximately 799,000 residents.
The Environmental Quality Protection Fund Act of 1985 provides the State the authority
to make polluters liable for site cleanup, collect penalties and punitive damages from polluters,
and recover costs from polluters who refuse to participate in site cleanup activities. The Mon-
tana legislature expanded the provisions of this statute by passing the Montana Comprehensive
Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act of 1989. The 1989 statute broadened the State's
enforcement authority. In practice, the State is required to attempt good-faith negotiations with
polluters to determine responsibilities for cleanup activities and costs. Taxes collected in a trust
fund from natural resource extractions, and money obtained from cost recovery activities and
penalty assessments are used to pay for State cleanup activities, including emergency response
actions, removal and long-term cleanup actions and site investigations. In addition, the fund
provides the 10 percent contribution from the State required by the Federal Superfund program.
Currently, eight sites in the State of Montana have been listed as final on the NPL. No new sites
have been proposed for listing in 1992.
The Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
implements the Superfund Program in the State of Montana
Activities responsible for hazardous
waste contamination in the State of
Montana include:
Metal Production
and Processing
Facilities
Wood Production
and Treatment
Facilities
Mining
Operations
Facts about the eight NPL sites
in Montana:
Immediate Actions (such as removing
hazardous substances or restricting
site access) were performed at all
eight sites.
Two sites endanger sensitive environ-
ments.
Seven sites are located near residen-
tial areas.
XVII
March 1992
-------
MONTANA
Most Sites Have Multiple Contaminants and
Contaminated Media:
Media Contaminated at Sites
Air
Surface
Water
Sediments
Soil
Ground-
water
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Sites
Contaminants Found at Sites
Percentage of Sites
Heavy Metals
Dioxin
Creosotes
VOCs
Furans
88%
38%
38%
25%
13%
The Potentially Responsible
Party Pays...
In the State of Montana, potentially responsible
parties are paying for or conducting cleanup
activities at six sites.
For Further Information on NPL Sites and Hazardous
Waste Programs in the State of Montana Please Contact:
«• EPA Region 8 Public Affairs
Branch
*f National Response Center
» The Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences: Solid
and Hazardous Waste Bureau,
Superfund Section
® EPA Region 8 Hazardous Waste
Management Division
® EPA Superfund Hotline
For information concerning
community involvement
To report a hazardous
waste emergency
For information about the
State's responsibility in the
Superfund Program
For information about the
Regional Superfund Program
For information about the
Federal Superfund Program
(303)294-1120
(800) 424-8802
(406} 449*4067
(303) 294-7630
(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 (l^>) 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.
O A final arrow in the "Site Studies" cat-
egory indicates that an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the site currently is on-
going or planned.
O A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has se-
lected the final cleanup strategy for the
site. At the few sites where the EPA has
determined that initial response actions
have eliminated site contamination, or
that any remaining contamination will
be naturally dispersed without further
cleanup activities, a "No Action" rem-
edy has been selected. In these cases,
the arrows are discontinued at the
"Remedy Selection" step and resume in
the "Construction Complete" category.
O 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.
/ 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
-------
T3
0)
CO
c
CO
-H-
o
^
•^
o
03
0)
0)
^
(0
\jy
• •••
_J
D.
z
OB
a.
CO
CD
0
1_
«H
1 Progress Tows
0)
o>
a
0 q,
"o a>
E "5.
If
o
Q. O)
3 C
C 0
^— C
00
•o* c
a .2>
E w
E Q
>.T3
"2 S
* o
E £
EC (/)
CO
zz ^
w 3
55
8
11
C (0
a»
0}
ro
a
a.
z
£
5
0)
1
a>
.-=:
cn
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
1
1
E
DEER LODGE
1
s
CO
•^ .
ANACONDA COMPANY
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
1
1
E
^j
f&
O
CO
W
EAST HELENA SITE
ft
ft
06/10/86
E
GALLATIN
i-,
IDAHO POLE COMP ANT
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
1
1
E
LINCOLN
rS
LIBBY GROUNDWATEI
CONTAMINATION
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
m
9°
oo
1
•a
E
MISSOULA
%
Q
UJ
CO
&
MILLTOWN RESERVOE
ft
ft
07/22/87
•a
E
SILVER BOW
O
H
§
MONTANA POLE AND '
ft
ft
06/10/86
•a
E
STILLWATER
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
/v
/ ^^k
/ ^^k
ft / ^w
/ "^ ^^^.
/ => J 1 ^^
/ Q^5 ^W
ft / 1L
L. X
ft
ft
ft
1
•a
E
SILVER BOW
1
"
i
O cu
10 "« «
0 ••= •- | |
SSo
oU
^^
a, &c
i/) _— 3 C
uo
2*t&
«cn
« rt
C/3 _C
J
§
S
t"3
^:
^.
s:
8
Si
|
;s
1
a
|
JS
^
• Si
tj
a
SJ
"3
3
tj
§
=x
3
1
ii
1
u
0
CO
05
id
CO
March 1992
xx
-------
ANACONDA COM
SMELTE
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD09329
Site Description
EPA REGION 8
Deer Lodge County
uthern end of Deer Lodge Valley
Other Names:
Anaconda Reduction Works
Washot Works
Old Works
New Works
The Anaconda Company Smelter site covers several thousand acres at the southern end of
Deer Lodge Valley. From 1884 to 1980, the Anaconda Company extracted copper from ore.
Wastes from smelting operations were distributed over a vast area by mechanical operations,
slurry ditches, and the wind. The smelting processes produced wastes high in metals. The
wastes include about 185 million cubic yards of concentrated mine tailings (ore wastes), about
27 million cubic yards of furnace slags, approximately 360,000 cubic yards of flue dust, and
tens of square miles of contaminated soils. Investigations in 1984 found that Mill Creek, the
closest community to the site, had the highest levels of contamination of any inhabited areas
around the smelter. Mill Creek had a population of 100 people; it is now uninhabited and the
houses have been demolished. Anaconda, with a population of 10,000 people, is 1/2 mile west
of the smelter.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/23/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Airborne contaminants include arsenic, cadmium, and lead from wind-blown
contaminated soil and beryllium from waste disposal areas. Surface water,
groundwater, and soil contain arsenic, cadmium, copper, zinc, and lead from the
smelting operations. Environmental testing of the community and biological testing
of pre-school children led the EPA to conclude that contamination in the Mill
Creek area posed an imminent and substantial threat to the health of residents.
The accidental ingestion of contaminated soil or groundwater could pose a health
threat to the nearby population. Inhaling airborne contaminants also may increase
health risks.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in twelve stages: an emergency action and eleven long-term
remedial phases focusing on the cleanup of specific areas of contamination at the site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Action: Between 1986 and 1987, the EPA and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) temporarily relocated residents of Mill
Creek.
Site-Wide: The EPA prepared an umbrella order and general work plan that
addresses all subsequent study activities on the Anaconda site. ARCO analyzed
and identified suitable locations for a waste repository on the Anaconda property.
The EPA, ARCO, and the State have developed computerized techniques for data handling
and validation to speed analysis and cleanup. Air monitoring data are being collected to
support ongoing and future investigations.
Mill Creek: The EPA selected a remedy for Mill Creek in 1987 featuring:
permanently relocating all Mill Creek residents; stabilizing the area temporarily;
storing relocation or demolition debris and disposing of it, along with
contaminated soils from Mill Creek, in the final cleanup of Anaconda; regrading and
replanting areas disturbed by relocation/demolition activities; monitoring and maintaining the
vegetation and the fence installed around the area; and imposing short-term controls on
access and land use. Mill Creek residents were permanently relocated by ARCO in 1988. All
cleanup activities were completed in late 1988.
Old Works/East Anaconda Development Areas: In 1988, the EPA and
ARCO began a study for an expedited cleanup action in the Old Works area that
is of high risk to public health and the environment. The study addressed
flood-plain wastes and Old Works waste piles. The Old Works study was completed in late
1991; cleanup actions began in 1992. These activities include constructing a stream-side
protection system and site access restrictions. In addition, the EPA is currently conducting an
intensive study of the Old Works subsite. The study is exploring the nature and extent of
pollution at the Old Works area and once completed will recommend the best cleanup
options. It is scheduled for completion in late 1993.
Smelter Hill: In 1988, the EPA and ARCO began an intensive study of the soil
and groundwater contamination around Smelter Hill. Workers collected several
thousand field samples in the course of investigating groundwater, soils, and area
vegetation. The study, which also will recommend the best options for final cleanup at this
subsite, is slated for completion in late 1994.
March 1992 2 ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER
-------
Beryllium Disposal Areas: The EPA and ARCO began a study for expedited
cleanup actions in the beryllium disposal areas in late 1989. The accelerated study
was completed in mid-1991 and cleanup actions began in 1992. The beryllium
disposal wastes are being removed and disposed of in a federally-approved disposal facility.
Cleanup actions are expected to be completed in late 1992.
Community Soils: The EPA and ARCO began an intensive study of
neighborhoods adjacent to the Old Works area. The study was completed in mid-
1991 and cleanup actions started later that year. Cleanup actions include
removing contaminated soils from several neighborhood yards and adjacent undeveloped lots
and replacing the contaminated soil with clean fill. Completion of the cleanup actions is
expected in late 1992.
Flue Dust: When Mill Creek residents were temporarily relocated in 1986,
ARCO covered the flue dust, the most concentrated contaminant on the site, and
treated road dust to make it less mobile. In 1987, the EPA and ARCO began
evaluating an innovative technique to reduce the mobility of the flue dust compounds now
stored on the site. ARCO began an intensive study of flue dust contamination in 1989, which
was completed in mid-1991. A remedy was selected in late 1991 to stabilize the flue dust and
dispose of it in an engineered repository. Engineering designs began in early 1992, with
cleanup actions scheduled to begin in mid-1993.
Arbiter Waste: The EPA and ARCO started a study for an expedited cleanup
action in the Arbiter Plant disposal ponds in early 1990. The study was completed
in mid-1991. Cleanup actions to remove the arbiter waste and dispose of it in a
federally-approved repository began in 1992. Cleanup actions are expected to be completed in
late 1992.
Regional Water and Waste: Groundwater monitoring began in early 1992 to
provide data for future investigations. In early 1993, the EPA is scheduled to
begin studying pollution of the regional groundwater, seeking to establish the
nature and extent of the problem. The feasibility study to propose the best approaches for
final cleanup is expected to begin by 1995.
Soils: In 1991, the EPA and ARCO began a screening study to explore the
nature and extent of community and regional soil pollution. The feasibility study
to select the best options for final cleanup is expected to begin by 1995.
ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER 3 March 1992
-------
Site Facts: In 1984, ARCO entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA
to conduct investigations on 13 areas of the site. A second Administrative Order on Consent
was entered into in 1986 between ARCO and the EPA for an expedited investigation of the
Mill Creek area. In 1988, ARCO and the EPA negotiated a Consent Decree, under which
ARCO would permanently relocate the residents of Mill Creek. In the same year, ARCO and
the EPA also entered into an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct studies on the
Flue Dust and Smelter Hill areas and to conduct expedited cleanup actions for the Old
Works/East Anaconda Development Areas area. In 1990, ARCO and the EPA amended the
1988 Administrative Order to conduct an accelerated cleanup action on the Arbiter Plant and
beryllium disposal areas.
Environmental Progress
Permanently relocating of Mill Creek residents, limiting access to the site, covering flue dust,
and imposing land use controls have reduced threats to public health from the Anaconda
Company Smelter site. However, the EPA has determined that high concentrations of heavy
metals in waste piles, tailings, and soils from the smelter operations continue to pose a threat.
The EPA is currently conducting additional emergency actions to remove heavily
contaminated soils and eliminate immediate threats while investigations leading to final
cleanup activities are taking place.
Site Repository
Hearst Free Library, 401 Main Street, Anaconda, MT 59701
March 1992
ANACONDA COMPANY SMELTER
-------
EAST HEL
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD0062;
REGION 8
and Clark County
East Helena
Names:
Smelting and Refining
ASARCO Inc.
East Helena Plant
East Helena Smelter
Site Description
The East Helena Site is comprised of approximately 100 square miles of residential and rural
agricultural land around the Town of East Helena. A lead smelter is still active on the site.
For over 100 years, lead and zinc smelting operations have deposited contaminants into the
Helena Valley. Public access to the smelter is restricted in the operating areas of the plant.
Approximately 1,600 people live within 1 1/2 miles of the site. Most of the area residences are
hooked up to the municipal water supply system; however, some residents still maintain
private wells.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
I
Air in the vicinity of the site, as well as the shallow groundwater, are contaminated
with heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and lead. Surface soils located in an
8 1/2-square-mile area around the smelter contain the same metals as the
groundwater in addition to chromium, mercury, and copper. Area residents may be
subject to exposure of site-related particulates that have become airborne.
Contaminated shallow groundwater does not pose a threat because it is not used
for domestic water supply, and there is no possibility of direct contact. Health
advisories were issued in 1988 to area residents warning them against consuming
some locally grown produce. Advisories also have been issued concerning Wilson
Irrigation Ditch, a contaminated irrigation ditch that passes through a number of
yards and play fields.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: initial actions and three long-term remedial phases
focusing on source control, cleanup of soils, and the cleanup of remaining contaminated areas
at the site.
Response Action Status
Initial Actions: An expedited cleanup action began in mid-1991 to remove
contaminated soils from residential areas, parks, playgrounds, streets, and alleys.
The potentially responsible party at the site, ASARCO, is performing this work
and expects to complete these removal activities in 1995.
Source Control: In late 1989, the EPA selected the remedy to eliminate a
source of contamination at the site. The process ponds are a source of inorganic
contamination of soils, groundwater, and surface waters. The remedy includes
isolating the process waters from the groundwater by constructing steel storage tanks,
replacing leaking equipment, and doing other repairs. The soils and pond sediments,
contaminated by decades of seepage, will be excavated and smelted. Contaminated pond
process water will be treated by on-site coprecipitation technology. The remedy designs of
these technologies were completed in early 1992. A potentially responsible party began
cleanup activities shortly thereafter. Preliminary studies addressing soil and bioaccumulation
of contaminants in locally raised livestock and crops were conducted by ASARCO in 1987
and 1989. As a result of the studies, the EPA has undertaken a separate cleanup action for
the residential soils and Wilson Irrigation Ditch.
Soils: Based on the completed studies, ASARCO will perform the expedited soils
cleanup action described in the initial actions for this site. In addition, ASARCO
is conducting further studies to evaluate other soil contamination and define soils
disposal options. This study, expected to be completed in 1994, will provide the basis for final
EPA selection of soils cleanup.
Remaining Areas: The work plan submitted in 1990 for the remaining areas
proposed that a comprehensive site-wide study for all contamination and effective
cleanup methods be completed. ASARCO has completed soil, garden vegetable,
grain, and fish sampling, which has confirmed contamination and led to the issuance of local
health advisories. Regularly conducted groundwater sampling within the residential area has
revealed arsenic contamination above drinking water standards in shallow wells. ASARCO
has drilled additional groundwater wells to define the contamination. The study and remedy
alternatives for this phase of site cleanup are expected to be completed in 1995.
Site Facts: In 1984, the EPA and ASARCO entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent, under which the company performed a preliminary investigation into site
contamination. A second Administrative Order on Consent was signed by the EPA, the State,
and ASARCO in 1988 to conduct additional investigations. In 1991, a third Administrative
Order on Consent was signed by EPA and ASARCO for the residential soils removal action.
March 1992 6 EAST HELENA SITE
-------
Environmental Progress
Preliminary evaluations by the EPA determined that removal of contaminated residential soils
and Wilson Irrigation Ditch sediments were necessary. This removal will eliminate the
immediate sources of site soil contamination, while further soil cleanup and investigations
leading to the selection of the final cleanup remedy for the groundwater and remaining areas
of contamination are being completed.
Site Repository
Not yet fully established; some records are located at East Helena City Hall, 7 East Main,
East Helena, MT 59635.
EAST HELENA SITE
March 1992
-------
IDAHO POLE
COMPANY
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD00623227
EPA REGION 8
Gallatin County
Bozeman
Site Description
The Idaho Pole Company began treating wood products with creosote in 1946 at this 50-acre
site in Bozeman. In 1952, the company switched to pentachlorophenol (PCP) in the treating
process. The facility has a history of contamination problems with surface water discharge.
The current wood treating operation has no discharge; however, past spills and disposal
practices have resulted in soil, groundwater, and surface water contamination with PCP and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Groundwater in the area is shallow and flows north
to northwest, discharging into Rocky Creek. The State found quantities of PCP in a tributary
to Rocky Creek in 1978. Access to the site is restricted by a barbed-wire fence and warning
signs. The facility is bordered on the north and west by residential and industrial areas.
Agricultural and residential areas lie to the south and east. The nearest home is less than 1/2
mile from the site. About 1,250 people live within 3 miles of the site and use groundwater as
a source of drinking water.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL USTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater on site is contaminated with PCP, PAHs, and dioxins. Site soils
contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, and styrene.
Surface water on the site contains PCP. Ditches and trenches on the site contained
various forms of dioxins and organic compounds. Accidental ingestion or direct
contact with contaminated groundwater, soil, and surface water are potential health
risks. Surface water runoff from contaminated areas on the site could potentially
harm Rocky Creek.
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial
phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: After its 1978 investigation, the State ordered Idaho Pole
to eliminate discharges to Rocky Creek and to stop disposing of waste in areas
where it was likely to pollute State waters. The company built an intercepter
trench along a portion of the property line to halt some of the PCP migration through the
groundwater. In 1983, the EPA and the State sampled the trench and found that PCP was
moving away from the plant. Under orders from the State Water Quality Bureau, Idaho Pole
installed and is sampling 15 monitoring wells at the site. Sludges produced in vats are
drummed and transported to a licensed hazardous waste disposal site. The intercepter trench
and absorbent pad system recover oily liquids from the groundwater prior to its leaving the
site.
Entire Site: The State began an intensive study of soil and water pollution in
mid-1990. This investigation into the nature and extent of contamination problems
at the site was completed in late 1991. Proposals for site cleanup were opened to
the public in early 1992. Public comment on cleanup alternatives now is being reviewed.
Final selection of a cleanup remedy is expected in late 1992.
Site Facts: In 1978, the State issued a Compliance Order requiring Idaho Pole to take
measures to eliminate discharges into Rocky Creek and to prevent the future disposal of
waste in locations where it was likely to migrate into State waters.
Environmental Progress
The installation of the intercepter trench and absorbent pad system have successfully reduced
the migration of wastes through the groundwater at the Idaho Pole Company site while the
investigation leading to the final cleanup remedies was being completed.
Site Repository
Bozeman Public Library, 220 East Larnme, Bozeman, MT 59715
IDAHO POLE COMPANY 9 March 1992
-------
LIBBY
GROUNDWATE
CONTAMINATIO
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD980502736
Site Description
The Libby Groundwater Contamination site is located on the grounds of the Champion
International Corporation lumber and plywood mill in Libby. Between 1946 and 1969, wood
treating fluids were disposed of and spilled at several different locations on the mill property.
Wastewater and tank bottom sludges from the wood treating fluid tanks periodically were
removed and hauled to waste pits. In 1979, shortly after private wells were installed, some
area homeowners smelled a creosote odor in their water. The EPA sampled the groundwater
and soil and found it to be contaminated. The contaminated soil is within the confines of the
facility; however, groundwater contamination extends into the City of Libby. The City of
Libby and the surrounding areas have a population of approximately 11,000. The site is
bordered by Flower Creek, Libby Creek, and the Kootenai River.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater is contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP) and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), in addition to heavy metals. Soils are contaminated
with PCP, PAHs, and, to a lesser extent, dioxins. Individuals who come in contact
with or accidentally ingest the soil or water from private wells may be exposed to
contamination. If the contaminant plume reaches the Kootenai River or Flower and
Libby Creeks, the wildlife in the area may be harmed by the pollutants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in three stages: an initial action and two long-term remedial
phases focusing on cleanup of the groundwater, and cleanup of the soil, lower aquifer, and
source control.
10
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1985, the Champion International Corporation began a water
distribution plan under which residents with contaminated groundwater wells
agreed to cease using their wells and to use water from the public water system
operated by the City of Libby instead. The source of the public water supply is
uncontaminated water from a reservoir upstream of Flower Creek. The Champion
International Corporation continues to provide monetary compensation to the well owners to
pay for the metered water. The company also sealed and locked the previously operating
wells. The program will be terminated upon the elimination of the threat of contamination or
if other alternatives become available.
Groundwater: In 1986, the EPA selected a remedy to reduce exposure to
groundwater contamination by continuing and expanding the water distribution
plan sponsored by the Champion International Corporation. The remedy also
called for the enactment of an ordinance that prohibits the installation of new wells for
drinking water or irrigation, but allows well installation for use in closed systems. The
company completed all actions selected in the remedy in late 1986.
Soil, Lower Aquifer, and Source Control: In 1988, the EPA selected a
remedy to clean up the soil and lower aquifer and to contain the source of the
contamination by the following methods: excavating and consolidating 45,000
cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris in the waste pit area, treating it by an enhanced
natural chemical breakdown process using microorganisms, and disposing of it in two lined
treatment cells that will be capped; collecting highly contaminated groundwater in the upper
aquifer system and treating it by bioremediation using microorganisms; treating the remaining
contamination by adding oxygen and nutrients to the groundwater through injection wells;
initiating pilot tests and studies to evaluate technologies that may be used to clean up the
lower aquifer; and monitoring the site for five years to ensure the cleanup has been effective.
The EPA has approved the technical specifications for design of the remedial action and the
Champion International Corporation, under EPA monitoring, has completed construction of
the land treatment units and the bioreactor facilities. All contaminated soil has been
excavated, additional monitoring and injection wells are being installed, and treatment of soils
and upper aquifer groundwater has begun. A pilot test to determine the feasibility of
bioremediation treatment of the lower aquifer is complete. The company will complete
additional hydrogeologic characterization of the lower aquifer and monitor the plume. The
EPA and the Champion International Corporation will complete a second risk assessment of
the lower aquifer and have agreed to complete a small-scale feasibility study to facilitate
selection of a final remedy for the lower aquifer.
Site Facts: In 1983, the St. Regis Corporation and the EPA signed an Administrative Order
on Consent for the company to study contamination at the site. The Champion International
Corporation purchased the St. Regis Corporation in 1985 and has taken over its obligations
to the Order. In 1989, the EPA and the Champion International Corporation signed a
Consent Decree in which the company agreed to pay the U.S. Government past and future
oversight costs and to complete implementation of the cleanup action.
LJBBY GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 11 March 1992
-------
Environmental Progress
The provision of an alternate water supply and capping of the contaminated private wells
have eliminated contaminated drinking water sources and the potential for exposure to
hazardous substances at the Libby Groundwater Contamination site while excavation of
contaminated soil and other cleanup actions are taking place.
Site Repository
Office of the County Sanitarian, Lincoln County Annex, 418 Mineral Avenue,
Libby, MT 59923
March 1992
12
LIBBY GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
-------
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR
SEDIMENTS
MONTANA
EPA ID#MTD980717565
Site Description
EPA REGION 8
•• Missoula County
j Milttown
The Milltown Reservoir Sediments site covers 800 acres in Milltown. In 1906, a hydroelectric
dam was constructed, forming a reservoir that trapped sediments from mining, milling, and
smelting operations in the Upper Clark Fork Valley. During the years since the construction,
the reservoir storage has been almost filled with approximately 120 million cubic feet of
sediments. In 1981, Milltown's four community water supply wells, serving 33 residences, were
found to be contaminated with arsenic and other heavy metals. Residents were advised not to
use this water for drinking or cooking and to use alternate supplies of water. Approximately
91 people live within 1/2 mile of the site. The nearest house is 100 meters away. The site is
adjacent to the Milltown Dam, where the Big Blackfoot River joins the Clark Fork River.
The rivers are used for recreational activities.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through a
combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date: 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater and sediments are contaminated with metals, including arsenic and
manganese. The Clark Fork River and Milltown Reservoir contain elevated levels
of copper, arsenic, zinc, and cadmium. An alternate water supply has been provided,
and contaminated wells have been taken out of service; therefore, residents have
little chance of exposure to contaminants by drinking the water. People who swim
or fish in the Clark Fork River arm of the reservoir may be exposed to pollutants.
Fish kills have been reported downstream of the dam. Access to the site is
unrestricted, and the potential exists for direct contact with contaminated areas.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: an initial action and three long-term remedial
phases focusing on the water supply, reservoir sediment source control, and the cleanup of
Clark Fork River.
13
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Initial Action: In 1983, volunteers using National Guard equipment supplied
residences with door-to-door water service on a biweekly basis for three months.
Water supply: In 1984, the EPA selected a remedy to clean up the Milltown
water supply by constructing a new well from a separate aquifer; constructing a
new distribution system; flushing the plumbing system of each house to remove
contaminants from the water system and plumbing; and testing the water quality to ensure
standards have been met. In 1985, the EPA added a supplemental remedy, which included
replacement of household water supply equipment that remained a source of contamination
and continued sampling of individual residences to ensure the sources of contamination had
been removed. The State completed the new water supply system and the installation of
household water equipment in 1985.
Reservoir Sediment Source Control: The potentially responsible party, under
EPA monitoring, is studying the extent of the sediment contamination at the site.
The study is expected to be completed in 1996. A second investigation will be
undertaken to ensure there is no threat to human health or the environment caused by
contamination downstream from the reservoir. The EPA completed a study in 1989 which
indicated that no environmental damage had been caused by the downstream contamination.
The EPA also is conducting a separate risk assessment in consultation with an advisory
committee, which includes representatives from the public and the potentially responsible
parties.
Clark Fork River: An investigation into the nature and extent of contamination
of the Clark Fork River, which is downstream from the reservoir, is scheduled to
begin in 1993. This investigation will evaluate whether contaminated sediment
from the reservoir has been transported by the river and if there are any other potential
water quality problems.
Site Facts: The EPA and a potentially responsible party signed an Administrative Order on
Consent, under which the party agreed to study the extent of site contamination.
Environmental Progress
The construction of new water supply wells and the replacement of household water supply
equipment have provided a safe drinking water supply to affected residents, reducing the
potential health threats from contaminated groundwater while investigations leading to
cleanup of the sources of contamination continue at the Milltown Reservoir Sediments site.
Site Repository
Missoula Public Library, 301 East Main, Missoula, MT 59802
March 1992 14 MILLTOWN RESERVOIR SEDIMENTS
-------
MONTANA POLE
AND TRE
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD0062306
Site Description
EPA REGION 8
Silver Bow County
Butte
The Montana Pole and Treating site is an abandoned 40-acre wood treatment facility in
Butte. From 1946 to 1983, the facility preserved utility poles, posts, and bridge timbers with
pentachlorophenol (PCP). Hazardous substances from the pole-treating operations were
discharged into a ditch adjacent to the plant that ran towards Silver Bow Creek. On site are
five pole barns containing approximately 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. About
16,000 gallons of contaminated waste oil have been collected and are stored on site. Tanks,
vats, pipes, and equipment were cut up and stored in the pole barns. There are forty
55-gallon drums of PCP-contaminated sludges on site. Montana Pole is in a
residential/industrial area. The nearest residence is 100 yards from the site. The nearest
private well is 1/5 mile downgradient from the site.
Site Responsibility:
The site is being addressed through
Federal, State, and potentially
responsible parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 06/10/86
Final Date: 07/22/87
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater and soils are contaminated with PCPs, dioxins, furans, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and metals. The sludge also is contaminated with
PCPs, dioxins, and furans, and PCP has been detected in Silver Bow Creek.
Accidental ingestion and direct contact with groundwater, surface water, soil, and
sludge pose hazards to human health. Contaminants may enter the air naturally or
during cleanup operations, presenting another potential source of exposure to
contaminants.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: an immediate action and a long-term remedial
phase focusing on the entire site.
15
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Action: The EPA completed a cleanup action in late 1988 to halt
the seepage of PCP and diesel oil into Silver Bow Creek. Contaminated soils were
excavated and stored on site. The site has been fenced, and monitoring wells and
oil recovery trenches were installed. A temporary groundwater-soil separation treatment
system was put into operation to separate PCP-contaminated oil from the groundwater. The
treated water is pumped upgradient to infiltration galleries. The State is overseeing the
continued interception of the waste oil. In early 1991, the EPA conducted a cleanup of
oil-contaminated soil, following the release of 3,000 gallons of contaminated oil from a
holding tank. Approximately 16,000 gallons of contaminated oil have been intercepted and
are stored on site.
Entire Site: A potentially responsible party is conducting an investigation to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation is
expected to be completed in early 1993, at which time the EPA will select a
cleanup remedy.
Site Facts: In January 1990, Special Notice Letters were sent to three potentially
responsible parties. A Consent Order to conduct an investigation of site contamination was
negotiated with the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
Environmental Progress
The EPA has taken measures to prevent further contamination of Silver Bow Creek, and
additional actions were taken to remove the immediate sources of soil contamination, to treat
groundwater, and to restrict access to the site. These actions have greatly reduced the
potential for exposure to hazardous substances while site investigations are conducted to
determine permanent cleanup remedies for the Montana Pole and Treating facility.
Site Repository
Butte-Silver Bow Library, 106 West Broadway, Butte, MT 59701
March 1992 16 MONTANA POLE AND TREATING
-------
MOUAT INDUSTRIES
MONTANA
EPAID#MTD0219<
A REGION 8
Stillwater County
Columbus
Site Description
Mouat Industries processed chromium ore into high-grade sodium dichromate in the late
1950s and early 1960s on this site in the City of Columbus. The process produced wastes
containing hexavalent chromium and sodium dichromate. In 1973, the Anaconda Minerals
Company removed a waste pile and treated the area to remove hexavalent chromium
remaining in the soil. In early 1975, gravel was imported and placed on the site from a depth
of 6 inches to 3 feet. By late 1976, yellow mineral deposits containing chromium were evident
on top of the ground. Currently, the property is occupied by a company using
resorcinol-phenol glues in the manufacturing of laminated wood products. Waste from
washing the manufacturing equipment is run through two septic tanks. The remaining liquid is
pumped to an outdoor waste storage pit and later spread on the adjacent land to the east of
the on-site building. The site has been fenced to restrict access. The Yellowstone River and a
public golf course are located south of the site. Migration of contaminants from the Mouat
Industries site has contaminated ponds on the golf course. Approximately 300 people reside
within the vicinity of the site. Private wells are in use within 1/4 mile of the site.
Site Responsibility: The site is being addressed through
Federal and Municipal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 10/15/84
Final Date: 06/10/86
Threats and Contaminants
The groundwater, surface waters, soil, and sediment are contaminated with
chromium. Direct contact with and accidental ingestion of contaminated soil,
groundwater, and sediments are potential health risks; however, private wells are
not contaminated. Hay is grown and livestock is raised in the vicinity of the site.
Bioaccumulation of contaminants in livestock and commercial agricultural products
increases the potential health threat from this site.
17
March 1992
-------
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a single long-term remedial
action focusing on the entire site.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1990, the EPA erected a chain-link fence around a
waste pile. At the request of the EPA, the City of Columbus redirected an
existing drainage ditch that channeled runoff directly onto contaminated soils at
the site. Monitoring wells that were drilled in the 1970s were capped. Removal and treatment
of on-site contaminated soil is scheduled to begin in mid-1992.
Entire Site: The EPA plans to begin an investigation in 1993 to determine the
nature and extent of contamination and to identify alternatives for cleanup.
Completion of the investigation is expected in early 1995.
Environmental Progress
Early actions to restrict access to the site, including erecting a fence and diverting runoff,
have reduced the potential for exposure to hazardous substances from the Mouat Industries
site. The EPA is evaluating the site to determine if additional actions are warranted to
protect public health and the environment while site investigations and cleanup activities are
being planned.
Site Repository
Not established.
March 1992 18 MOUAT INDUSTRIES
-------
SILVER BOW
BUTTE ARl
MONTANA
EPA ID# MTD980502
Site Description
CREEK/,
EPA REGION 8
Silver Bow County
Butte
Other Names:
Clark Fork Site
Butte Site
The boundary of the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area site begins above Butte, near the
Continental Divide, and extends westward along Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork River
to the Milltown Reservoir. The site covers about 140 miles of stream and riparian habitat.
Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork River were used as a conduit for mining, smelting,
industrial, and municipal wastes for over 100 years. Vast mine tailings deposits are found
along the creek and river. These deposits have been dispersed over the entire flood plain and
contain elevated levels of metals. The Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area site is one of four
contamination areas, together known as the Clark-Fork Sites, that include the Milltown
Reservoir, Anaconda Company Smelter, and Montana Pole & Treating, all sites on the NPL.
Site Responsibility:
The 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
Wind-blown particles, groundwater, surface water and soil are contaminated with
heavy metals including copper, iron, and lead. Silver Bow Creek and the Clark Fork
River contain metals from Butte to Milltown. The tailings dispersed along the creek
and river severely limit aquatic life forms and have caused fish kills in the river.
Potential health threats include direct contact with and accidental ingestion of
contaminated soil and groundwater and inhalation of contaminated air particles.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in eight stages: immediate actions and seven long-term remedial
phases focusing on the West Camp/Travona Shaft Area; Warm Springs Ponds; Butte Priority
Soils; Berkeley Pit; Rocker Timber Framing and Treating; Streamside Tailings; and Lower
Area I and Butte soils.
19
March 1992
-------
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In Walkerville, the EPA and the potentially responsible
parties excavated and stabilized approximately 300,000 cubic yards of
lead-contaminated soil from mine waste dumps in 1988. Contaminated soil was
removed from four earthen basements and 23 residential yards. Concrete basements were
constructed, and 18 inches of clean fill and sod were placed in the residential yards. In
Timber Butte, approximately 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were moved to a
temporary on-site repository in 1989. Contaminated soil was removed from two residential
yards. Clean soil was placed on the excavated areas and revegetated. ARCO removed highly
contaminated materials in the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area, under State
supervision. Arsenic wood treating wastes, contaminated soils, and wood chips were hauled to
a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. Equipment and debris were consolidated on the
site and buried. Major areas of the site were covered with topsoil and seeded. In 1990,
approximately 100,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed from 24 waste dumps
and seven residential yards in Butte and Walkerville. In 1991, an additional 11 waste dump
areas were either removed or partially removed and capped in place. Elevated levels of
arsenic and lead were detected in soils at the smelter site. In late 1991, under a Unilateral
Order, the potentially responsible parties removed approximately 40,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil to a temporary on-site containment area. The containment area was
capped and fenced.
West Camp/Travona Shaft Area: In 1989, under EPA supervision, the
potentially responsible parties addressed rising mine waters in the West
Camp/Travona Shaft area by constructing a pumping and piping system to the
sewer line on Iron Street. Mine water has been pumped to the Metro Plant at a rate of
approximately 200 gallons per minute since early 1990. Pumping continues on an intermittent
basis as necessary to maintain the level below the control level.
Warm Springs Ponds: The three Warm Springs Ponds cover 2,400 acres at the
confluence of Silver Bow, Mill, Willow, and Warm Springs creeks. The ponds
were constructed by the Anaconda Company between 1911 and 1959 in an
attempt to trap tailings before they entered the Clark Fork River, which begins immediately
below the ponds. An investigation of the ponds was completed in 1989. Public comments were
extensive and led to a decision to expedite certain cleanup plans in 1990 in a portion of the
area, the Mill-Willow Bypass. The bypass contains approximately 200,000 cubic yards of
tailings and contaminated soils that are a principal cause of fish kills. In 1990 and 1991, the
tailings and contaminated soils were excavated and consolidated in Pond 3. The ponds
contain 19 million cubic yards of tailings and contaminated soils. The selected remedy to
clean up the three active Warm Spring Ponds includes removing the Mill-Willow Bypass
tailings and placing them on top of tailings in the berms of Pond 3; reinforcing all ponds and
upgrading their treatment capabilities; dewatering Pond 1 and covering it with a cap and
vegetation; wet-closing Pond 2; and enlarging Pond 3 to handle a 100-year flood.
Groundwater interception trenches are being installed to divert groundwater to Pond 3 for
treatment. The potentially responsible parties designed the selected remedy in late 1991, and
began cleanup activities in mid-1992.
March 1992 20 SILVER BOW CREEK/ BUTTE AREA
-------
Butte Priority Soils: The Butte area has been divided into 36 high priority soil
areas that will be addressed in two phases. The first phase will address source
areas (mine waste dumps, railroad beds, or other related mines wastes) in or
adjacent to the 36 high priority soil areas and receptor areas (residential yards, gardens,
parks, and playgrounds) in the 36 priority soil areas. Field work is expected to begin in 1992.
Approximately 5 1/2 million cubic yards of contaminated mine waste will be removed or
stabilized in place throughout the cleanup. The second phase will consist of an investigation
that will assess the actions already taken, all other areas of contamination, storm runoff, and
future land use problems in Butte and Walkerville.
Berkeley Pit: The EPA and the State are concerned about the rising water in
the pit because contaminated mine water may eventually migrate into the shallow
aquifer and Silver Bow Creek. The potentially responsible parties initiated an
investigation in mid-1990, but the EPA assumed control in late 1991. The study is expected to
be completed in mid-1994.
Rocker Timber Framing and Treating: ARCO is leading an investigation of
contaminants in the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area. Investigation
activities began late in 1991. Completion of the study and selection of cleanup
remedies are slated for late 1994.
Streamside Tailings: Late in 1991, ARCO, with State oversight, began
investigations into the nature and extent of contamination of the streamside
tailings area. The study is slated for completion in late 1994. Two large-scale
demonstration projects will be conducted during 1992 and 1993.
Lower Area I and Butte Soils: The EPA is currently conducting an expedited
cleanup action to remove tailings and 350,000 tons of manganese stockpiled on
the site. The materials are being stored temporarily on another portion of the
site. The investigations to determine remedy alternatives are ongoing and expected to be
completed in 1994.
Site Facts: Several potentially responsible parties signed an Administrative Order on
Consent to conduct a portion of the work for the Berkeley Pit flooding; the other parties
were issued a Unilateral Order to perform the remaining tasks. The State issued a Unilateral
Order, requiring ARCO to remove highly contaminated materials in the Rocker Timber
Framing and Treating area. In 1989, the EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to
the potentially responsible parties to either discharge the West Camp water to the Butte
Metro Plant, meeting all pre-treatment requirements, or to construct a treatment facility,
meeting classification discharges for toxic metals and drinking water standards for arsenic. In
addition, in late 1991, the State of Montana and ARCO reached agreement on an
Administrative Order on Consent for ARCO to conduct an investigation at the Streamside
Tailings area of the site.
SILVER BOW CREEK/ BUTTE AREA 21 March 1992
-------
Environmental Progress
Numerous cleanup actions have been completed at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area site,
including the excavation of contaminated soil in Walkerville, Timber Butte; the construction
and implementation of a pumping and piping system in the West Camp/Travona Shaft area;
and the removal of contaminated soil in the Rocker Timber Framing and Treating area.
These actions have reduced the potential health threats to the surrounding communities;
however, the EPA has determined that high concentrations of metal in soils and drainage
from the smelter still pose risks.
Site Repository
Butte-Silver Bow Library, 106 West Broadway, Butte, MT 59701
March 1992
22
SILVER BOW CREEK/ BUTTE AREA
-------
GLOSSARY
Terms Used in the NPL Book
This glossary defines terms used throughout the NPL Volumes. The terms and
abbreviations contained in this glossary apply specifically to work performed
under the Superfund program in the context of hazardous waste management. These
terms may have other meanings when used in a different context. A table of common
toxic chemicals found at NPL sites, their sources, and their potential threats is located
on page G-15
Acids: Substances, characterized by low pH
(less than 7.0), that are used in chemical manu-
facturing. Acids in high concentration can be
very corrosive and react with many inorganic
and organic substances. These reactions possi-
bly may create toxic compounds or release
heavy metal contaminants that remain in the
environment long after the acid is neutralized.
Administrative Order On Consent: A
legal and enforceable agreement between the
EPA and the parties potentially responsible for
site contamination. Under the terms of the
Order, the potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanups. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities, and enforcement options that
the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. This Order is signed by PRPs and the
government; it does not require approval by a
judge.
Administrative Order [Unilateral]: A
legally binding document issued by the EPA,
directing the parties potentially responsible to
perform site cleanups or studies (generally, the
EPA does not issue Unilateral Orders for site
studies). This type of Order is not signed by the
PRPs and does not require approval by a judge.
Aeration: A process that promotes breakdown
of contaminants in soil or water by exposing
them to air.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Dis-
ease Registry (ATSDR): The Federal
agency within the U.S. Public Health Service
charged with carrying out the health-related
responsibilities of CERCLA.
Air Stripping: A process whereby volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) are removed from
contaminated material by forcing a stream of air
through the contaminated material in a pressur-
ized vessel. The contaminants are evaporated
into the air stream. The air may be further
treated before it is released into the atmosphere.
Ambient Air: Any unconfmed part of the
atmosphere. Refers to the air that may be
inhaled by workers or residents in the vicinity of
contaminated air sources.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs): Federal, State, or
local laws which apply to Superfund activities at
NPL sites. Both emergency and long-term
actions must comply with these laws or provide
sound reasons for allowing a waiver. ARARs
must be identified for each site relative to the
characteristics of the site, the substances found
at the site, or the cleanup alternatives being
considered for the site.
G-1
-------
GLOSSARY
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand,
or gravel capable of storing water within cracks
and pore spaces, or between grains. When
water contained within an aquifer is of sufficient
quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used
for drinking or other purposes. The water
contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
A "sole source aquifer" supplies 50 percent or
more of the drinking water of an area.
Artesian (Well): A well made by drilling into
the earth until water is reached, which, due to
internal pressure, flows up like a fountain.
Asbestos: A mineral fiber that can pollute air
or water and is known to cause cancer or
asbestosis when inhaled.
Attenuation: The naturally occurring process
by which a compound is reduced in concentra-
tion over time through adsorption, degradation,
dilution, or transformation.
Background Level: The amount of a sub-
stance typically found in the air, water, or soil
from natural, as opposed to human, sources.
Baghouse Dust: Dust accumulated in
removing particulates from the air by passing it
through cloth bags in an enclosure.
Bases: Substances characterized by high pH
(greater than 7.0), which tend to be corrosive in
chemical reactions. When bases are mixed with
acids, they neutralize each other, forming salts.
Berm: A ledge, wall, or a mound of earth used
to prevent the migration of contaminants.
Bioaccumulate: The process by which some
contaminants or toxic chemicals gradually
collect and increase in concentration in living
tissue, such as in plants, fish, or people, as they
breathe contaminated air, drink contaminated
water, or eat contaminated food.
Biological Treatment: The use of bacteria
or other microbial organisms to break down
toxic organic materials into carbon dioxide and
water.
Bioremediation: A cleanup process using
naturally occurring or specially cultivated
microorganisms to digest contaminants and
break them down into non-hazardous compo-
nents.
Bog: A type of wetland that is covered with
peat moss deposits. Bogs depend primarily on
moisture from the air for their water source, are
usually acidic, and are rich in plant residue [see
Wetland].
Boom: A floating device used to contain oil
floating on a body of water or to restrict the
potential overflow of waste liquids from
containment structures.
Borehole: A hole that is drilled into the
ground and used to sample soil or ground-water.
Borrow Pit: An excavated area where soil,
sand, or gravel has been dug up for use else-
where.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a
synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated
materials. The surface of the cap generally is
mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Carbon Adsorption: A treatment system in
which contaminants are removed from ground-
water and surface water by forcing water
through tanks containing activated carbon, a
specially treated material that attracts and holds
or retains contaminants.
Carbon DiSUlfide: A degreasing agent
formerly used extensively for parts washing.
This compound has both inorganic and organic
G-2
-------
GLOSSARY
properties, which increase cleaning efficiency.
However, these properties also cause chemical
reactions that increase the hazard to human
health and the environment.
Carbon Treatment: [see Carbon Adsorp-
tion].
Cell: In solid waste disposal, one of a series of
holes in a landfill where waste is dumped,
compacted, and covered with layers of dirt.
CERCLA: [see Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act].
Characterization: The sampling, monitoring,
and analysis of a site to determine the extent and
nature of toxic releases. Characterization
provides the basis for acquiring the necessary
technical information to develop, screen, ana-
lyze, and select appropriate cleanup techniques.
Chemical Fixation: The use of chemicals to
bind contaminants, thereby reducing the poten-
tial for leaching or other movement.
Chromated Copper Arsenate: An insecti-
cide/herbicide formed from salts of three toxic
inetals: copper, chromium, and arsenic. This
salt is used extensively as a wood preservative
in pressure-treating operations. It is highly toxic
and water-soluble, making it a relatively mobile
contaminant in the environment
Cleanup: Actions taken to eliminate a release
or threat of release of a hazardous substance.
The term "cleanup" sometimes is used inter-
changeably with the terms remedial action,
removal action, response action, or corrective
action.
Closure: The process by which a landfill stops
accepting wastes and is shut down under Federal
guidelines that ensure the protection of the
public and the environment.
Comment Period: A specific interval during
which the public can review and comment on
various documents and EPA actions related to
site cleanup. For example, a comment period is
provided when the EPA proposes to add sites to
the NPL. Also, there is minimum 3-week
comment period for community members to
review and comment on the remedy proposed to
clean up a site.
Community Relations: The EPA effort to
establish and maintain two-way communication
with the public. The goals of community
relations programs include creating an under-
standing of EPA programs and related actions,
assuring public input into decision-making
processes related to affected communities, and
making certain that the Agency is aware of, and
responsive to, public concerns. Specific com-
munity relations activities are required in
relation to Superfund cleanup actions [see
Comment Period].
Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA): Congress enacted the
CERCLA, known as Superfund, in 1980 to
respond directly to hazardous waste problems
that may pose a threat to the public health and
the environment. The EPA administers the
Superfund program.
Confluence: The place where two bodies of
water, such as streams or rivers, come together.
Confined Aquifer: An aquifer in which
groundwater is confined under pressure that is
significantly greater than atmospheric pressure.
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
Consent Decree: A legal document, ap-
proved and issued by a judge, formalizing an
agreement between the EPA and the parties
potentially responsible for site contamination.
The decree describes cleanup actions that the
potentially responsible parties are required to
perform, or the costs incurred by the govern-
ment that the parties will reimburse, and the
roles, responsibilities, and enforcement options
that the government may exercise in the event of
non-compliance by potentially responsible
parties. If a settlement between the EPA and a
potentially responsible party includes cleanup
actions, it must be in the form of a Consent
Decree. A Consent Decree is subject to a public
comment period.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order
on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or
containing hazardous substances in a structure,
typically in a pond or a lagoon, to prevent the
migration of contaminants into the environment.
Contaminant: Any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological material or substance
whose quantity, location, or nature produces
undesirable health or environmental effects.
Contingency Plan: A document setting
out an organized, planned, and coordinated
course of action to be followed in case of a
fire, explosion, or other accident that releases
toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, or radioac-
tive materials into the environment.
Cooperative Agreement: A contract
between the EPA and the States, wherein a State
agrees to manage or monitor certain site cleanup
responsibilities and other activities on a cost-
sharing basis.
Cost Recovery: A legal process by which
potentially responsible parties can be required
to pay back the Superfund program for money
it spends on any cleanup actions [see Poten-
tially Responsible Parties].
Cover: Vegetation or other material placed
over a landfill or other waste material. It can
be designed to reduce movement of water into
the waste and to prevent erosion that could
cause the movement of contaminants.
Creosotes: Chemicals used in wood pre-
serving operations and produced by distilla-
tion of tar, including polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [see PAHs and PNAs]. Con-
taminating sediments, soils, and surface
water, creosotes may cause skin ulcerations
and cancer through prolonged exposure.
Culvert: A pipe used for drainage under a
road, railroad track, path, or through an embank-
ment.
Decommission: To revoke a license to
operate and take out of service.
Degradation: The process by which a chemi-
cal is reduced to a less complex form.
Degrease: To remove grease from wastes,
soils, or chemicals, usually using solvents.
Deletion: A site is eligible for deletion from
the NPL when Superfund response actions at the
site are complete. A site is deleted from the
NPL when a notice is published in the Federal
Register.
De minimis: This legal phrase pertains to
settlements with parties who contributed small
amounts of hazardous waste to a site. This
process allows the EPA to settle with small, or
de minimis contributors, as a single group rather
than as individuals, saving time, money, and
effort.
Dewater: To remove water from wastes, soils,
or chemicals.
G-4
-------
GLOSSARY
Dike: A low wall that can act as a barrier to
prevent a spill from spreading.
Dioxin: An organic chemical by-product of
pesticide manufacture which is known to be one
of the most toxic man-made chemicals.
Disposal: Final placement or destruction of
toxic, radioactive, or other wastes; surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals; polluted
soils; and drums containing hazardous materials.
Disposal may be accomplished through the use
of approved secure landfills, surface impound-
ments, land farming, deep well injection, or
incineration.
Downgradient: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward
lower elevations. Therefore, wells downgradi-
ent of a contaminated groundwater source are
prone to receiving pollutants.
Ecological Assessment: A study of the
impact of man-made or natural activity on living
creatures and their environment
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated,
that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes
discharged into surface waters.
Emission: Pollution discharged into the
atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and
surface areas of commercial or industrial facili-
ties.
Emulsifiers: Substances that help in 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
farming, residential or industrial develop-
ment, road building, or timber-cutting. Ero-
sion may spread surface contamination to off-
site locations.
Estuary (estuarine): Areas where fresh
water from rivers and salt water from
nearshore ocean waters are mixed. These
areas may include bays, mouths of rivers, salt
marshes, and lagoons. These water ecosys-
tems shelter and feed marine life, birds, and
wildlife.
Evaporation Ponds: Areas where sewage
sludge or other watery wastes are dumped and
allowed to dry out.
Feasibility Study: The analysis of the
potential cleanup alternatives for a site. The
feasibility study usually starts as soon as the
remedial investigation is underway. In this
volume, the feasibility study is referred to as a
site study [see also Remedial Investigation].
G-5
-------
GLOSSARY
Filtration: A treatment process for remov>
ing solid (particulate) matter from water by
passing the water through sand, activated
carbon, or a man-made filter. The process is
often used to remove particles that contain
contaminants.
Flood Plain: An area along a river, formed
from sediment deposited by floods. Flood
plains periodically are innundated by natural
floods, which can spread contamination.
Flue Gas: The air that is emitted from a
chimney after combustion in the burner
occurs. The gas can include nitrogen oxides,
carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides,
particles, and many chemical pollutants.
Fly Ash: Non-combustible residue that results
from the combustion of flue gases. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water
vapor, sulfur oxides, as well as many other
chemical pollutants.
French Drain System: A crushed rock drain
system constructed of perforated pipes, which is
used to drain and disperse wastewater.
Gasification (coal): The conversion of soft
coal into gas for use as a fuel.
General Notice Letter: [See Notice Letter].
Generator: A facility that emits pollutants
into the air or releases hazardous wastes into
water or soil.
Good Faith Offer: A voluntary offer, gener-
ally in response to a Special Notice letter, made
by a potentially responsible party, consisting of
a written proposal demonstrating a potentially
responsible party's qualifications and willing-
ness to perform a site study or cleanup.
Groundwater: Water that fills pores in soils
or openings in rocks to the point of saturation.
In aquifers, groundwater occurs in sufficient
quantities for use as drinking and irrigation
water and other purposes.
Groundwater Quality Assessment: The
process of analyzing the chemical characteris-
tics of groundwater to determine whether any
hazardous materials exist.
Halogens: Reactive non-metals, such as
chlorine and bromine. Halogens are very
good oxidizing agents and, therefore, have
many industrial uses. They are rarely found
by themselves; however, many chemicals
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
some volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and dioxin are reactive because of the pres-
ence of halogens.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The
principal screening tool used by the EPA to
evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment associated with abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The HRS
calculates a score based on the potential of
hazardous substances spreading from the site
through the air, surface water, or groundwater
and on other factors such as nearby popula-
tion. The HRS score is the primary factor in
deciding if the site should be on the NPL.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society
that can pose a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health and the environment
when improperly managed. Hazardous waste
possesses at least one of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxic-
ity), or appears on special EPA lists.
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high
atomic weights, such as arsenic, lead, mercury,
and cadmium. Heavy metals are very hazardous
even at low concentrations and tend to accumu-
late in the food chain.
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to
control or destroy plants, weeds, or grasses.
G-6
-------
GLOSSARY
Hot Spot: An area or vicinity of a site contain-
ing exceptionally high levels of contamination.
Hydrocarbons: Chemical compounds that
consist entirely of hydrogen and carbon.
Hydrology: The properties, distribution, and
circulation of water.
Hydrogeology: The geology of groundwater,
with particular emphasis on the chemistry and
movement of water.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge
confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
Incineration: A group of treatment technolo-
gies involving destruction of waste by controlled
burning at high temperatures, e.g., burning
sludge to reduce the remaining residues to a
non-burnable ash that can be disposed of safely
on land, in some waters, or in underground
locations.
Infiltration: The movement of water or
other liquid down through soil from precipita-
tion (rain or snow) or from application of
wastewater to the land surface.
Influent: Water, wastewater, or other liquid
flowing into a reservoir, basin, or treatment
plant.
Injection Well: A well into which waste
fluids are placed, under pressure, for purposes
of disposal.
Inorganic Chemicals: Chemical sub-
stances of mineral origin, not of basic carbon
structure.
Installation Restoration Program: The
specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has
been identifying and evaluating its hazardous
waste sites and controlling the migration of
hazardous contaminants from those sites.
Intake: The source from where a water supply
is drawn, such as from a river or water body.
Interagency Agreement: A written agree-
ment between the EPA and a Federal agency
that has the lead for site cleanup activities,
setting forth the roles and responsibilities of the
agencies for performing and overseeing the
activities. States often are parties to interagency
agreements.
Interim (Permit) Status: Conditions under
which hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, that were operating
when regulations under the RCRA became
final in 1980, are temporarily allowed by the
EPA to continue to operate while awaiting
denial or issuance of a permanent permit. The
facility must comply with certain regulations
to maintain interim status.
Lagoon: A shallow pond or liquid waste
containment structure. Lagoons typically are
used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges,
liquid wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfarm: To apply waste to land or incor-
porate waste into the surface soil, such as
fertilizer or soil conditioner. This practice
commonly is used for disposal of composted
wastes and sludges.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is
placed in or on land. Sanitary landfills are
disposal sites for non-hazardous solid wastes.
The waste is spread in layers, compacted to the
smallest practical volume, and covered with soil
at the end of each operating day. Secure chemi-
cal landfills are disposal sites for hazardous
waste. They are designed to minimize the
chance of release of hazardous substances into
the environment [see Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act].
Leach, Leaching [v.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
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs):
PAHs, such as pyrene, are a group of highly
reactive organic compounds found in motor oil.
They are a common component of creosotes and
can cause cancer.
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.
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC): A plastic made
from the gaseous substance vinyl chloride. PVC
is used to make pipes, records, raincoats, and
floor tiles. Health risks from high concentra-
tions of vinyl chloride include liver cancer and
lung cancer, as well as cancer of the lymphatic
and nervous systems.
Potable Water: Water that is safe for drink-
ing and cooking.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs):
Parties associated with a Superfund site who
may be liable for the cost of remedying the
release of hazardous substances. This may
include owners or operators of the site or trans-
porters who disposed of materials at the site.
PRPs may admit liability, or liability may be
determined by a court of law. PRPs may sign a
Consent Decree or Administrative Order on
Consent to participate in the site cleanup without
admitting liability.
Precipitation: The removal of solids from
liquid waste so that the solid and liquid portions
can be disposed of safely; the removal of
particles from airborne emissions. Electro-
chemical precipitation is the use of an anode or
cathode to remove the hazardous chemicals.
Chemical precipitation involves the addition of
some substance to cause the solid portion to
separate.
Preliminary Assessment: The process of
collecting and reviewing available information
about a known or suspected waste site or release
to determine if a threat or potential threat exists.
Pump and Treat: A groundwater cleanup
technique involving the extracting of contami-
nated groundwater from the subsurface and the
removal of contaminants, using one of several
treatment technologies.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium
and uranium-235 and -238, which break down
and produce radioactive substances due to their
unstable atomic structure. Some are man-made,
and others are naturally occurring in the envi-
ronment. Radon, the gaseous form of radium,
decays to form alpha particle radiation, which
cannot be absorbed through skin. However, it
can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to
affect unprotected tissues directly and thus cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through
the breakdown of granite.
RCRA: [See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act].
Recharge Area: A land area where rainwater
saturates the ground and soaks through the earth
to reach an aquifer.
G-10
-------
GLOSSARY
Record of Decision (ROD): A public
document that explains which cleanup
alternative(s) will be used to clean up sites
listed on the NPL. It is based on information
generated during the remedial investigation
and feasibility study and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
Recovery Wells: Wells used to withdraw
contaminants or contaminated groundwater.
Recycle: The process of minimizing waste
generation by recovering usable products that
might otherwise become waste.
Remedial Action (RA): The actual con-
struction or implementation phase of a
Superfund site cleanup following the remedial
design [see Cleanup].
Remedial Design: A phase of site cleanup
where engineers design the technical specifi-
cations for cleanup remedies and technolo-
gies.
Remedial Investigation: An in-depth
study designed to gather the data necessary to
determine the nature and extent of contamina-
tion at a Superfund site, establish the criteria
for cleaning up the site, identify the prelimi-
nary alternatives for cleanup actions, and
support the technical and cost analyses of the
alternatives. The remedial investigation is
usually done with the feasibility study. In this
volume, the remedial investigation is referred
to as a site study [see also Feasibility Study].
Remedial Project Manager (RPM): The
EPA or State official responsible for oversee-
ing cleanup actions at the site.
Remedy Selection: The selection of the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed without
further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected [see Record of Decision].
Removal Action: Short-term immediate
actions taken to address releases of hazardous
substances [see Cleanup].
Residual: The amount of a pollutant re-
maining in the environment after a natural or
technological process has taken place, e.g.,
the sludge remaining after initial wastewater
treatment, or the particulates remaining in air
after the air passes through a scrubber.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA): A Federal law that established
a regulatory system to track hazardous sub-
stances from the time of generation to dis-
posal. The law requires safe and secure
procedures to be used in treating, transport-
ing, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent
new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Retention Pond: A small body of liquid
used for disposing of wastes and containing
overflow from production facilities. Some-
times retention ponds are used to expand the
capacity of such structures as lagoons the
store waste.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land
into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land and spread contaminants
from its source.
Scrubber: An air pollution control device
that uses a spray of water or reactant or a dry
process to trap pollutants in emissions.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand, and
minerals at the bottom of surface waters such
as streams, lakes, and rivers, that absorbs
contaminants.
G-11
-------
GLOSSARY
Seeps: Specific points where releases of
liquid, usually leachate, form from waste
disposal areas, particularly along the lower
edges of landfills.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in
the ground used for the storage of liquids,
usually in the form of leachate, from waste
disposal areas. The liquid gradually leaves
the pit by moving through the surrounding
soil.
Septage: Residue remaining in a septic tank
after the treatment process.
Sinkhole: A hollow depression in the land
surface in which drainage collects; associated
with underground caves and passages that
facilitate the movement of liquids.
Site Characterization: The technical pro-
cess used to evaluate the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, which is neces-
sary for choosing and designing cleanup mea-
sures and monitoring their effectiveness.
Site Inspection: The collection of informa-
tion from a hazardous waste site to determine
the extent and severity of hazards posed by the
site. It follows, and is more extensive than, a
preliminary assessment. The purpose is to
gather information necessary to score the site,
using the Hazard Ranking System, and to
determine if the site presents an immediate
threat that requires a prompt removal action.
Slag: The fused refuse or dross separated
from a metal in the process of smelting.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial
or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Slurry Wall: Barriers used to contain the flow
of contaminated groundwater or subsurface
liquids. Slurry walls are constructed by digging
a trench around a contaminated area and filling
the trench with an impermeable material that
prevents water from passing through it. The
groundwater or contaminated liquids trapped
within the area surrounded by the slurry wall
can be extracted and treated.
Smelter: A facility that melts or fuses ore,
often with an accompanying chemical change,
to separate the metal. Emissions from smelters
are known to cause pollution.
Soil Gas: Gaseous elements and compounds
that occur in the small spaces between par-
ticles of soil. Such gases can move through
or leave the soil or rock, depending on
changes in pressure.
Soil Vapor Extraction: A treatment
process that uses vacuum wells to remove
hazardous gases from soil.
Soil Washing: A water-based process for
mechanically scrubbing soils in-place to remove
undesirable materials. There are two ap-
proaches: dissolving or suspending them in the
wash solution for later treatment by conven-
tional methods, and concentrating them into a
smaller volume of soil through simple particle
size separation techniques [see Solvent Extrac-
tion].
Stabilization: The process of changing an
active substance into inert, harmless material,
or physical activities at a site that act to limit
the further spread of contamination without
actual reduction of toxicity.
Solidification/Stabilization: A chemical
or physical reduction of the mobility of
hazardous constituents. Mobility is reduced
through the binding of hazardous constituents
into a solid mass with low permeability and
resistance to leaching.
G-12
-------
GLOSSARY
Solvent: A substance capable of dissolving
another substance to form a solution. The
primary uses of industrial solvents are as
cleaners for degreasing, in paints, and in
Pharmaceuticals. Many solvents are flam-
mable and toxic to varying degrees.
Solvent Extraction: A means of separating
hazardous contaminants from soils, sludges,
and sediment, thereby reducing the volume of
the hazardous waste that must be treated. It
generally is used as one in a series of unit
operations. An organic chemical is used to
dissolve contaminants as opposed to water-
based compounds, which usually are used in
soil washing.
Sorption: The action of soaking up or
attracting substances. It is used in many
pollution control systems.
Special Notice Letter: [See Notice Let-
ter].
StillbOttom: Residues left over from the
process of recovering spent solvents.
Stripping: A process used to remove volatile
contaminants from a substance [see Air Strip-
ping].
Sumps: A pit or tank that catches liquid
runoff for drainage or disposal.
Superfund: The program operated under the
legislative authority of the CERCLA and
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) to update and improve environ-
mental laws. The program has the authority to
respond directly to releases or threatened re-
leases of hazardous substances that may endan-
ger public health, welfare, or the environment
The "Superfund" is a trust fund that finances
cleanup actions at hazardous waste sites.
Surge Tanks: A holding structure used to
absorb irregularities in flow of liquids, including
liquid waste materials.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated
by woody vegetation and does not accumulate
peat moss deposits. Swamps inay 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;
detnarks areas that are higher than contaminated
areas and, therefore, are not prone to contamina-
tion by the movement of polluted groundwater.
Vacuum Extraction: A technology used to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
from soils. Vacuum pumps are connected to a
series of wells drilled to just above the water
table. The wells are sealed tightly at the soil
surface, and the vacuum established in the soil
draws VOC-contaminated air from the soil
pores into the well, as fresh air is drawn down
from the surface of the soil.
G-13
-------
GLOSSARY
Vegetated Soil Cap: A cap constructed with
graded soils and seed for vegetative growth, to
prevent erosion [see Cap].
Vitrification: The process of electrically
melting wastes and soils or sludges to bind the
waste in a glassy, solid material more durable
than granite or marble and resistant to leaching.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
VOCs are manufactured as secondary petro-
chemicals. They include light alcohols, acetone,
trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, benzene, vinyl chloride,
toluene, and methylene chloride. These poten-
tially toxic chemicals are used as solvents,
degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because
of their volatile nature, they readily evaporate
into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility,
environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil
and groundwater.
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility that
uses a series of tanks, screens, filters, and
other treatment processes to remove pollut-
ants from water.
Wastewater: The spent or used water from
individual homes or industries.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a
stream or other water body.
Water Table: The upper surface of the
groundwater.
Weir: A barrier to divert water or other liquids.
Wetland: An area that is regularly saturated
by surface or groundwater and, under normal
circumstances, is capable of supporting
vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands are critical to
sustaining many species of fish and wildlife.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
and bogs. Wetlands may be either coastal or
inland. Coastal wetlands have salt or brackish
(a mixture of salt and fresh) water, and most
have tides, while inland wetlands are non-
tidal and freshwater. Coastal wetlands are an
integral component of estuaries.
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for
the protection of wild animals, within which
hunting and fishing are either prohibited or
strictly controlled.
G-14
-------
GLOSSARY
Some Common Contaminants at NPL Sites
Contaminant
Sources
Potential Health
Heavy Metals
Volatile
Compounds
{VOGs) . .
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, Region 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.
G-15
* U.S. G.P.O. .-1993-341-835:81046
------- |