United States        Office of Emergency and    EPA/540/8-90/017
Environmental Protection    Remedial Response     December 1990
Agency          Washington, DC 20460


Superfund	


Progress Toward


Implementing Superfund


Fiscal Year 1989
Report to Congress

-------
                                EPA/540/8-90/017
                                December 1990
   Progress Toward
      Implementing

SUPERFUND

        Fiscal Year 1989
         REPORT TO
         CONGRESS
              Required by
            Section 301 (h) of the
  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
       and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980,
     as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
       Reauthorizartion Act (SARA) of 1986

  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
  77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor         @ Printedon RecydedPaper
  Chicago, IL 60604-3590                ^
 OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              October 1990

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                              Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                          Notice
       This Report to Congress has been subjected to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
review process and approved for publication as an EPA document. For further information about this Report,
contact the Policy and Analysis Staff in the Office of Program Management, Office  of Emergency and
Remedial Response at 202/382-2182. Individual copies of the Report can be obtained from the Office of
Research and Development Publications by writing to: 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268, or by calling 513/569-7562.
                                            li

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                      Foreword
       The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in fiscal year 1989 accelerated the pace of the Superfund
program. More sites entered and progressed through the remedial "pipeline" than in any previous year thereby
raising for the first time in the program's history the prospect of a backlog of projects ready to enter the
remedial action phase. EPA is pleased to submit this  Report documenting the fiscal year's achievements.

       Section 301 (h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or Superfund), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986, requires the Agency to report annually on response activities and accomplishments and to compare
remedial  and enforcement projects with those  undertaken in previous fiscal years.  During fiscal 1989,
Superfund or potentially responsible parties (PRPs) funded 157 new remedial investigation/feasibility studies
(RI/FS), and 157 new remedial designs (RD) (a program high), filling the Superfund remedial pipeline to
capacity at current resource levels and creating the prospect of a backlog of Superfund sites ready to enter the
remedial action (RA) phase of the pipeline. Additionally, the Agency published A Management Review of the
Superfund Program (the 90-Day Study), a comprehensive study of the program that includes recommendations
for its improvement.

       These two events significantly influenced Superfund program activity and are unifying themes of this
Report. The 90-Day Study reinforced the Agency's commitment to using enforcement to compel PRPs to
finance cleanup at sites whenever possible. As a result, PRPs started more RI/FSs (87), RDs (94), and RAs
(51) than at any point in the program's  history.  EPA also reached response settlements with PRPs worth
approximately $1 billion in the fiscal year, and recovered more money ($66.5 million) from PRPs than ever
before. The Agency also met the October statutory deadlines for starting RAs and RI/FSs at 175 and 275 new
sites, respectively.

       In addition to providing an overall perspective on progress in the past fiscal year, the Report contains
information Congress specifically  requested in section 301(h)(l), including an abstract  of each of the 139
Records of Decision that were signed in fiscal 1989; a report on the status of remedial actions, including
enforcement activity, in progress at the end of the fiscal year; and an evaluation of newly developed feasible
and achievable treatment technologies.

       The Report also includes a description of minority firm participation in Superfund contracts and our
efforts to encourage their participation, as required by section 105(f).  The Report fulfills the requirement of
section 301(h)(l)(E) for an annual update on progress being made on sites subject  to review under section
121(c). In addition, this Report satisfies similar reporting requirements of section 121(c).   The EPA Annual
Report to Congress:  Progress Towards Implementing CERCLA at EPA Facilities as Required by CERCLA section
120(e)(5) is included as Appendix D. The report of the EPA  Inspector General on his findings concerning
the reasonableness and accuracy of th£information in this Report, as required by section 301(h)(2), is included
as Ap/endix E.
 William K. Reilly      ^"^^_^/                Don R- Clay
 Administrator                                      Assistant Administrate
                                                   Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                                               111

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                             Fiscal Year 1989
                                         Acknowledgements
       Completing this third annual Report to Congress required the cooperation and contributions of many
staff members associated with the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal departments and
agencies. In particular, the Agency appreciates the contributions made by Bob Alexi, David Ayers, Ken Ayers,
Jan Baker, Deborah Barsotti, Ron Borsolino, David Brooks, Patty Bubar, Steven Buchanan, Carrie Capuco,
Gordon Davidson, Deborah Dietrich, Dave Evans, Jim Fary (project manager), Ray Gassaway, Tom Gillis, Tod
Gold, Rafael Gonzalez, Chris Grundler, Penny Hanson, John Hornbeck, Sven-Eric Kaiser, Helen Keplinger,
Robert Knox, Mary Latka, Sandra Lee, Frank Leony, Ceilanne Libber, Trudy Link, Dr. John Little, Chad
Littleton, Ann Marple, Pat Moore, Karen Morehouse, George Mori, Sally Mosley, Gwen Moyes, Robert
Myers, Richard Nalesnik, Murray Newton, Sara Nicholas, Terry Ouverson, Joan Flatten, Rick Popino, Caroline
Previ, Susan Purdue, Charles Rodden, William O. Ross, Linda Ross, Linda Rutsch, Cynthia Schweitzer,
Melissa Shapiro, Nadine  Shear, Patricia L. Sims, Linda Southerland, Doreen Stern, T. Michael Taimi, David
Tanner, Mark Townsend, Louis Trouche, Betti VanEpps, Hubert Walters, Arthur Weissman, Bob  Williams,
Esther Williford, Howard Wilson, Jim Woolford, George Wyeth, Jackie Zuban, and many others whose
collective efforts made this Report possible.
                                           IV

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                              Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                   Contents
Foreword: William K. Reilly and Don R. Clay                                               iii

Acknowledgements                                                                     iv

Contents                                                                               v

Executive Summary                                                                    xi

Introduction                                                                          xxi

Chapter 1 Key Program Developments                                                 1

1.1     Enforcement Program Activities 	       4

       1.1.1   Integrating Program Priorities:  The One Superfund Program
              Approach	       4
       1.1.2   Enforcement Program Accomplishments in the Field 	       5
       1.1.3   Enforcement Program Accomplishments in Compelling
              Potentially Responsible Parties to Undertake Field
              Work and in Recovering Costs  	       7
       1.1.4   Status of Enforcement Projects in the Remedial Pipeline  	       7
       1.1.5   Current Enforcement Activities	       7
       1.1.6   Other Enforcement Activities	       9

1.2     Summary of Activities in the Remedial Pipeline	       9

       1.2.1   Remedial Activity Status Report	       9
       1.2.2   Budget Constraints	      11
       1.2.3   The Prospect of a Backlog of Remedial Action Projects  	      11

1.3     Remedial Initiatives	      11

       1.3.1   Establishing Priorities for Remedial Actions	      14
       1.3.2   Superfund Environmental Indicators	      14
       1.3.3   Technical Assistance Programs  	      17

1.4     Removal Initiatives	      18

       1.4.1   The Removal Action Process 	      18
       1.4.2   Removal Actions Status Report  	      18
       1.4.3   Actions Taken in Response to the 90-Day Study	      19
       1.4.4   The Superfund Removal Procedures Manual	      22

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989
                                                          Contents
(continued)
       1.4.5   Actions Involving Nationally Significant or Precedent-Setting
              Issues at Sites that are not on the National Priorities List	      22
       1.4.6   Changes in the Revised National Contingency Plan
              that Affect the Removal Program	      22


Chapter 2  Other Response Activities	      23

2.1     Site Assessment	      23

       2.1.1   The Inventory of Sites (CERCLIS)	      24
       2.1.2   Preliminary Assessments	      24
       2.1.3   Site Inspections	      26
       2.1.4   National Priorities List Update	      26
       2.1.5   The Hazard Ranking System	      26
       2.1.6   Additional Guidance Documents and Rulemakings	      28

2.2     Federal Facilities Program	      28

       2.2.1   Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
              and Facility Site Evaluation  	      29
       2.2.2   Federal Facilities and the National Priorities List	      30
       2.2.3   Federal Facility Agreements Under CERCLA Section 120  	      30
       2.2.4   Report to Congress on EPA Responsibility Under
              CERCLA Section 120(e)(5)  	      30
       2.2.5   Federal Real Property Transfer	      30


Chapter 3  Estimation of Resources Required  to
             Implement Superfund	      33

3.1     Developing the Estimate of Resources Necessary to Implement Superfund	      34

       3.1.1  Remedial Program Costs 	      36
       3.1.2  Cost Recovery Revenues  	      36

3.2     Estimate of Resources Needed to Complete the Cleanup of the
       Existing National Priorities List	      39

       3.2.1   Estimated Cost to Complete Current National Priorities  List Sites  	      40
       3.2.2   Major Program Elements Represented  in the Outyear Liability Model  	      42
                                             VI

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989
                                                          Contents
(continued)
3.3     Other Executive Branch Department and Agency Estimates of Resources
       Necessary to Complete Superfund Implementation  	      44


Chapter 4  Other Statutory Requirements for
             the Report	      51

4.1     Use and Development of Permanent Technologies	      51

       4.1.1   The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program	      51
       4.1.2   Technology Transfer Centers	      54
       4.1.3   The Hazardous Substance Research Center Program	      55
       4.1.4   Superfund Research Grants	      55
       4.1.5   90-Day Study Activities	      56

4.2     Minority Firm Participation in Superfund Contracting	      57

       4.2.1   EPA Efforts to Identify Qualified Minority Firms	      58
       4.2.2   Efforts to Encourage Other Federal Agencies and Departments
              to Use Minority Contractors	      58
       4.2.3   Efforts to Increase the Use of Minority Contractors by
              Superfund Prime Contractors 	      60
       4.2.4   Publications of Interest to Minority Contractors 	      60

4.3     Report on Facilities Subject to Review Under CERCLA Section 121(c) 	      60


Chapter 5  Program Implementation  and
            Support Activities	      65

5.1     Community Relations and Public Information	      65

       5.1.1   Community Relations Regulations  	      65
       5.1.2   Technical Assistance Grants Under CERCLA Section 117(e) 	      66
       5.1.3   A Coordinated Approach to Public Information 	      67

5.2     EPA Partnership with States and Indian Tribes	      68

       5.2.1   Subpart F of the Revised National Contingency Plan	      68
       5.2.2   Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts
              for Superfund Response Actions	      69
       5.2.3   Other State Program Activities	      70
                                            Vll

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                                                         Contents
      (continued)
5.3    Health-Related Research and Development	      71

       5.3.1   EPA Health-Related Research Programs	      71
       5.3.2   The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry	      72
       5.3.3   The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 	      73

5.4    Major Superfund Rulemakings 	      73

       5.4.1   National Contingency Plan	      74
       5.4.2   Hazard Ranking System 	      76
       5.4.3   Extremely Hazardous Substances Designation Proposed Rule  	      77
       5.4.4   Reportable Quantities	      77
       5.4.5   Other Rulemakings	      78

5.5    Resource Utilization and Contracting  	      79

       5.5.1   Distribution of Resources Among Program Areas
              and to Regions	      79
       5.5.2   Activities of Other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies	      85
       5.5.3   Fiscal 1989 Superfund Contracting 	      87


APPENDICES	

Appendix A:   Status of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, and
              Remedial Actions, in Progress on September 30, 1989	      91

Appendix B:   Remedial Designs in Progress on September 30, 1989	     131

Appendix C:   Record of Decision Abstracts  	     145

Appendix D:   EPA Annual Report to Congress:  Progress Toward Implementing
              CERCLA at EPA Facilities, as Required by CERCLA Section 120(e)(5)	     305

Appendix E:   Report of the EPA Inspector General	     311

Appendix F:   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Reply to
              Report of the Inspector General	     317

Appendix G:   List of Sources	     321
                                            Vlll

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                                                            Contents
       (continued)
EXHIBITS
Exhibit ES-1    Summary of Fiscal 1989 Superfund Program Activities  	      xii
Exhibit ES-2    Site Discovery and Evaluation and the Remedial Pipeline	      xv
Exhibit ES-3    Summary of Program Activity by Fiscal Year	    xviii

Exhibit 1-1      Funding Needs by Project Category	     xix

Exhibit 1.0-1    Percentage of Remedial Projects Undertaken by Potentially
               Responsible Parties Since the Enactment of SARA	       2
Exhibit 1.0-2    NPL Sites Where Work has Begun	       3

Exhibit 1.1-1    Potentially Responsible Party Response as a Proportion of
               Superfund Remedial Activities  	       6
Exhibit 1.1-2    Number and Value of Superfund Settlements for Fiscal 1987
               through Fiscal 1989	       8

Exhibit 1.2-1    Status of Ongoing RI/FS and RA Projects at the End of Fiscal 1989	      11
Exhibit 1.2-2    Summary of Remedies Selected During Fiscal 1989	      12
Exhibit 1.2-3    Ongoing Work at National Priorities List Sites by Lead,
               for Fiscal 1987 through Fiscal 1989	      13

Exhibit 1.4-1    Removal Action Starts and Completions by Fiscal Year  	      20
Exhibit 1.4-2    Removal Action Starts and Completions by State for Fiscal 1989  	      21

Exhibit 2.1-1    Historical Pre-Remedial Accomplishments by Fiscal Year	      25
Exhibit 2.1-2    Sites Deleted from the National Priorities List During Fiscal 1989  	      27

Exhibit 2.2-1    Number of Facilities on the Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket	      29
Exhibit 2.2-2    Distribution of Federal Facilities on the Hazardous
               Waste Compliance Docket 	      29

Exhibit 3.1-1    Summary of EPA Superfund Actual/Planned Actions by Fiscal Year	      37
Exhibit 3.1-2    EPA Superfund Obligation History and Funding Requirements by Fiscal Year .  .      38
Exhibit 3.1-3    EPA Superfund Staffing Requirements in Workyears by Fiscal Year	      39

Exhibit 3.2-1    Estimate of Outyear Liability to Complete the Existing
               National Priorities List	      41

Exhibit 3.3-1    CERCLA Resource Needs and  Interagency Funding for Other
               Federal Departments and Agencies	      45

Exhibit 4.1-1    Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Demonstration
               Program:  Project Status	      54
Exhibit 4.1-2    Hazardous  Substance Research  Centers	      56
Exhibit 4.1-3    Accepted Superfund Treatment Technologies
               (Development Grants Funded by the Office of Exploratory Research)	      57
                                              IX

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                         Contents
                                                                  (continued)
EXHIBITS (continued)
Exhibit 4.2-1
Exhibit 4.2-2
Exhibit 4.2-3

Exhibit 4.3-1
Exhibit 5.5-1
Exhibit 5.5-2
Exhibit 5.5-3
Exhibit 5.5-4
Exhibit 5.5-5
Exhibit 5.5-6

Exhibit 5.5-7
Minority Contractor Utilization  	
Services Provided by Minority Contractors  	
Amount of Money Awarded for Each Type of Minority Contract

Potential Sites to be Reviewed Under CERCLA Section 121(c)
as of September 30, 1989 	
Fiscal 1989 Superfund Resources to Regional Offices	
Historical Superfund Program Resources to Regional Offices .
Fiscal 1989 Superfund Resources by Program Function	
Fiscal 1989 Superfund Resources by EPA Office and Function
Historical Superfund Program Resource Distribution 	
Fiscal 1989 Interagency Agreements with Other Federal
Departments and Agencies  	
Fiscal 1989 Contract Awards	
59
59
60
62

80
81
82
83
84

85
88

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                          Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                     Executive
                                                                     Summary
      The  Environmental  Protection  Agency
(EPA) continued in fiscal 1989 its  aggressive
efforts to clean up the nation's worst hazardous
waste sites.  More sites  entered and progressed
through the incremental  stages of the Superfund
remedial "pipeline" than in any previous fiscal year.
In May, EPA announced that it had already met
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act  (SARA)  October  deadline for  starting
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs)
at 275 new sites. Additionally, the Agency met the
statutory mandate to start remedial actions (RAs)
at 175 new sites.  In all, the  Agency started  157
new RI/GFSs and 108 new RAs  during  the fiscal
year and the prospect of a backlog  of projects
ready to enter the  RA phase arose for the first
time  in the  program's  history.   Exhibit ES-1
summarizes fiscal 1989 program accomplishments.
      This third Superfund Report to Congress,
required  by  the Comprehensive  Environmental
Response,  Compensation,  and  Liability  Act
(CERCLA), documents these and other fiscal year
accomplishments.    In   addition,  it  highlights
significant initiatives undertaken during the fiscal
year in response to  recommendations of the study
commissioned by EPA's new Administrator, A
Management Review of the Superfund Program (the
90-Day Study or the Study).

The 90-Day Study

      The 90-Day Study, published in May of 1989,
articulates  a clear vision  for  the   Superfund
program that has received broad acceptance within
and outside the Agency.  The strategy set forth in
the Study directs the Superfund program to attack
the  worst sites  first, removing  the  sources  of
immediate threat and then, on a priority basis,
addressing the sources of long-term risk. It places
emphasis on ensuring that the pipeline is filled to
capacity at all  times and that  the sites  in  the
pipeline are flowing from stage to stage as quickly
as possible.  In addition, this Agency study sets
goals for the Superfund program that include:

•    Emphasizing   enforcement  to   induce
     potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to
     undertake  more  cleanups  under  EPA
     direction;

•    Using permanent remedies where possible
     and aggressively seeking innovative treatment
     technologies   that  reduce  the  toxicity,
     mobility, or volume of wastes at Superfund
     sites;

•    Improving efficiency of program operations
     by employing a "One Program" concept that
     would  allow  EPA  to  match  the  most
     appropriate   tools   available   to   the
     environmental  problems  to be corrected,
     regardless  of whether the project  is being
     financed   with   Hazardous   Substance
     Superfund (Fund) or enforcement monies;

•    Encouraging greater community participation
     by broadening public outreach programs and
     allowing the  public  more  involvement in
     remedy selection;

•    Building  solid  relationships with states,
     Natural Resource Trustees,  and the Agency
     for Toxic Substances and Disease  Registry
     (ATSDR)  to  ensure  that  the  Superfund
     process is working as efficiently as  possible;
     and

•    Improving management and administration
     to ensure the Agency's ability to attract and
     retain key Superfund personnel.
                                              XI

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND                         Fiscal Year 1989


'












\


Exhibit E$*l
Summary of Fiscal 1989 Superftmd Frogratn Actii
ENFORCEME1SET PR00RAM ACTIVITIES
Settlements for all PRP Response Activities 218 ($1,033.7
RD/RA Settlements2 71 ($747.6
Unilateral Administrative Orders issued 102
Unilateral Administrative Orders complied with 67 ($233.8
Cost Recovery Dollars ($66.5
REMEDIAL PJROdlAM ACTIVITHS
Sites where work was completed during FY89
Sites with remedial activities in progress on 9/30/89
RODs (Records of Decision) Signed
Kj/ro ^KcrncQiaJ invesugauon/r'easiuiiity otucryj otans
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
RI/FSs in progress on September 30, 1989
(including 11 stand-alone RIs and 16 stand-alone FSs)
RD (Remedial Design) Starts
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
RDs in Progress on September 30, 1989
RA (Remedial Action) Starts
Fund-financed
PRP-financed
RAs in progress on September 30, 1989
- -
ities

million)
million)

million)
million)

8
695
139
157
70
87
669
157
63
94
253
108
57
51
221










--

'



-


                                     Xll

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                         Fiscal Year 1989
         j.     -     f            Exhibit£84  ••-•
      Summary of Fiscal 19S9 §uf>erfiiit*J Program Acitiyftks (continued)
                            REMOVAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
         Removal Completions
                Fund-financed
                PRP-financed

         Removal Starts
                Fund-financed
                PRP-financed
                          J»R£.R£ME0r AL PROGRAM ACIlVlf IIS
 1
 I SOURCES:
                                                        249
                                                        774
                                                         75

                                                        322
                                                        23d
                                                         86
CERCLIS Inventory Sites Added
PAs
Sis
NPL




- Preliminary Assessments
- Site Inspections
o
- National Priorities List (program-to-date)
Sites Proposed for Listing During FY89
Final Sites Listed During FY89
Sites Proposed for Deletion During FY89
Sites Deleted During FY89
1,891
2,228
1,732
1,225
64
101
9
10
Estimated value of work PRPs have agreed to undertake.
RD/RA settlements include RD/RA consent decrees and unilateral administrative orders with
which PRPs have stated their intention to comply.
Includes proposed and listed sites.

CERCLIS; U.S. EPA Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; Progress Toward Implementing
Superfund: Fiscal Year 1989 (Appendix A), OERR; Federal Register notices through September 30,1989.1
                                          xiii

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEEFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
      By the end of fiscal 1989, EPA Headquarters
had  distributed 500  new full  time equivalents
(FTEs) to the regions to begin implementation of
90-Day Study recommendations.

Enforcement Accomplishments

      The  90-day study reinforces  the Agency's
decision to institute an "enforcement first" policy.
The main objectives  of this policy are to compel
PRPs to  conduct clean-up actions and to recover
costs from PRPs for cleanups conducted by  the
government using Fund monies.  As a result,  the
percentage of  response actions  in  the  remedial
pipeline started by PRPs increased to 54 percent
during the fiscal year.  Specifically, PRPs started 53
percent more RI/FSs, 213 percent more  remedial
designs (RDs),  and 145 percent more RAs than in
fiscal 1988.
      The   estimated work  value   of  the   218
response settlements reached in FY89 totaled over
$1  billion, including  71 settlements for RD/RA
activities with an estimated value of $747.6 million.
EPA also  issued  102 Unilateral Administrative
Orders (UAOs). PRPs were in compliance with 67
of these UAOs, with an estimated value of $233.8.
(Dollar amounts  given for negotiated settlements
and UAOs  are estimates of the  present value of
work that PRPs have been ordered  to undertake,
not   money  actually  returned  to  the Fund.)
Additionally, EPA recovered more than  $66.5
million from PRPs to replace Fund money spent to
clean up Superfund sites.
      During fiscal  1988, EPA issued 14 UAOs
with an estimated  value of $136  million  and
recovered  $55.6 million  through  cost-recovery
settlements.    Fiscal  1989  figures  represent
significant   increases   over   fiscal   1988
accomplishments and illustrate EPA's commitment
to using enforcement to compel PRPs to finance
Superfund site  cleanups whenever possible.

 The Superfund Pipeline

       The success of the Superfund Program has
 generally been  determined by the number of sites
 that have been  deleted from the National Priorities
 List (NPL). When a site is deleted from  the NPL,
 however, it has  necessarily passed through  a
 number of steps during which the threat posed by
 the site is evaluated and actions  are  taken to
 minimize and  eliminate that threat. Given the
complexity and long-term nature of the problem at
most  NPL sites,  the  success of the  Superfund
program is better measured by the rate at which
sites are passing through these successive stages to
project completion. The final stage, deletion from
the NPL, is an administrative measure.  If sites are
being addressed at every stage in this "Superfund
pipeline" and are moving steadily from stage to
stage,  the program  is  progressing  toward the
ultimate goal of deleting sites  from the NPL.
     The  remedial  pipeline  is  at  capacity  at
current resource  levels,  although  PRPs  are
conducting an increasing number of responses.  At
the end of the fiscal year, remedial activity was in
progress at 695 sites, including 669 RI/FSs and 221
RAs (compared with 563 RI/FSs, and 132  RAs at
580 sites at the end of FY88).  Ongoing activities
in the Superfund remedial pipeline are illustrated
in  Exhibit ES-2.   Fiscal 1989 accomplishments
include 157 RI/FS starts, 157 actions moving from
the Rl/FS  to the RD stage of the pipeline, contract
awards for RAs at 108 sites, and 51 sites  moving
into the monitoring and site completion stage.
Also, the  Agency deleted 10 sites from the NPL.
Exhibit ES-3 compares  fiscal  1989 program
accomplishments  with   historic   program
accomplishments for activities undertaken before
and after a site enters  the remedial pipeline.
      In the 139 Records of Decision (RODs) and
four ROD amendments signed during the fiscal
year, there were 100 occurrences of source control
treatment technologies. This is the largest  number
of  occurrences  of  source  control  treatment
technologies in any fiscal year.

Establishing Priorities for Remedial Action Projects

      In response to 90-Day Study recommenda-
tions, the remedial  program  undertook a major
initiative  during  the  fiscal year  to  develop a
strategy for ensuring that  sites  in the  pipeline
presenting the worst threat to human health or the
environment are addressed  first.  Previously,  the
Agency funded each RA project as it became ready
for construction. Because of increases in the pace
of projects ready to advance to the RA stage and
funding reductions in the FY89 budget, this first
ready/first funded  approach  was  no   longer
appropriate.  The new strategy developed by  the
Agency includes a  method for prioritizing sites
needing remedial action to ensure that  work is
begun  first at those  sites  presenting the  worst
                                                xiv

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                                     XV

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
threats. In this fashion, the Agency will address
contamination at  sites in stages and ensure that
available  resources  are  spent  first  on  sites
presenting the most serious risks to public health
and the environment. By the end of the fiscal year,
EPA had ranked 88 projects where construction is
scheduled to begin in fiscal 1990, according to the
environmental or public  health  risk each  site
presents.

Superfund Environmental Indicators

      Spurred   on   by   90-Day    Study
recommendations,  the  Agency  continued  its
development   of   a  system  of  environmental
indicators that will help EPA measure the progress
it is making  toward reducing  threats to  human
health and the environment.  The Agency plans to
use these  indicators to communicate to Congress,
the media,  and  the  public  the  environmental
progress made by the Superfund program during
the remedial  process.  Thus, in addition to citing
the number of sites flowing through the pipeline as
proof  of  the achievements of the program, EPA
will  document specific  environmental  progress
made at sites in each stage of the pipeline.
      During the  fiscal  year, the Agency chose
three indicators to be implemented in FY90:

•    Achievement of the health  and ecological
      goals specified in the ROD for reduction in
      the  concentration   of  environmental
      contaminants;

•    Control of an immediate threat to  human
      health   by   reduction  in  the actual  or
      potential exposure of human populations to
      hazardous materials; and

•    Documentation   of   the   amount   of
      contaminated material treated, removed, or
      contained.

The Agency is currently collecting data related to
these indicators in all 10 regions.

Removal Program Activities

       EPA may conduct a removal action on an
NPL  or non-NPL site  to stabilize,  prevent, or
mitigate a release or threat of a release. Because
they significantly reduce the threat a site poses to
human  health  and  the  environment, removal
actions  are  an integral part of the Superfund
program  and  contribute  substantially   to   its
achievements. During FY89, the removal program
continued its  successful  record.   The  Agency
started 322 removal actions, 68 of which were at
sites listed on the NPL.  In addition, the Agency
completed  249 removal  actions exceeding  the
program target by 46 percent. PRPs funded 86 of
the 322 starts and 75 of the 249 completions.
     The Agency also clarified requirements that
regions must meet  when using removal authority
and contracting mechanisms to accelerate the pace
of response actions at sites with remedial work
underway.  Additionally,  in response to 90-Day
Study  recommendations,  the   program  began
assessing NPL sites, where neither a removal  nor
an RI/FS has been undertaken.  The assessments
will determine the sites at which it is necessary to
conduct removal actions  to reduce immediate
hazards to public health and the environment.

Site Assessment

     During  the  pre-remedial  stage  of  the
Superfund  program, the  Agency  undertakes
investigative and analytical activities to evaluate
the threat or potential threat to  human health or
the environment posed by conditions at a site.
Sites enter the program when they are recorded in
the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS).
The pre-remedial stage starts when the Agency
conducts  a  preliminary  assessment (PA) of a
CERCLIS site.  (A PA must be conducted on a
new CERCLIS site within  one year of its entry
into the system).   EPA  completed 2,228 PAs
during FY89 bringing the total number of PAs
completed by the program to  date to  29,297.
Based on the PAs, the Agency determined that no
further  remedial action was necessary at 14,341
sites.  As of September 30,1989, only 2,607 sites in
the CERCLIS inventory still required  PAs.  If a
PA indicates that further evaluation is required,
the Agency conducts a site inspection (SI) of the
site.  EPA completed 1,732 Sis during the fiscal
year,  bringing the total number of Sis completed
                                               xvi

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
by the program to 10,754. Based on the Sis, the
Agency determined that no further remedial action
was necessary at 3,000 sites. Approximately 6,000
sites still require Sis.
      Using information developed in the SI, a site
is scored under the hazard ranking system (HRS)
to determine whether it is eligible for the NPL.
The Agency added 101 new sites to  the NPL in
fiscal 1989 and proposed 64 additional sites. EPA
also deleted 10 sites from the list. At the end of
the fiscal year, there were 1,225 sites proposed for
listing or listed on the NPL.   Program-to-date
totals achieved in the pre-remedial program are
illustrated in Exhibit ES-3.

Estimate  of Resources  Necessary to  Implement
Siiperfimd

      Using the Outyear Liability Model (OLM),
EPA estimates that it will  cost the Superfund
program $17.1 billion after  FY91  to complete
cleanup of sites on the existing NPL. The estimate
is based on planning data for active sites and on a
number of assumptions  about  future sites  and
events.  The actual site data are drawn directly
from CERCLIS. The three assumptions having the
greatest  impact on  the $17.1  billion estimate
include:

•     In FY90, approximately 45 percent of all
      new RI/FS starts will be financed with Fund
      monies.   PRPs,  however,  will takeover a
      growing portion of these clean-up actions so
      that by  FY97,  PRPs will  be  starting
      approximately 65 percent of all new RAs.

•     There will be no new additions to the NPL.

•     The cost of cleanup  will change  as  the
      Agency  adjusts the way  it  uses  existing
      technologies and develops new technologies,
      and  as  the  overall cost  of  technology
      changes.

      The OLM  is  a  computer-based  model
designed by EPA to  produce meaningful long-
range cost predictions, while maintaining flexibility
to  accommodate  a  wide  range  of possible
programmatic conditions.
Federal  Facility   Compliance  with  Superfund
Requirements

     EPA continued to focus special attention on
improving   federal  facility   compliance  with
requirements  under  CERCLA,  and  a record
number  of federal facility  sites  entered  the
Superfund pipeline (the Agency reclassified one,
proposed 52, and  listed eight such sites on the
NPL during FY89). Although federal facility sites
are listed on the  NPL, the Superfund  program
does  not  finance  remedial actions  for federal
facilities.    Instead,  the   federal  agency  or
department responsible for the contamination of a
particular site must fund all remedial activities at
that site.   EPA  entered  into 21  Interagency
Agreements (LAGs)  with  the Department  of
Defense and three with the Department of Energy
during FY89 to facilitate the remedial process at
31 NPL sites.
     To support the federal facilities enforcement
program, the  Agency  doubled the  number of
regional personnel available, and correspondingly
increased the amount of resources allocated to the
program. Also, many regions established federal
facility  enforcement sections  to  facilitate  the
coordination of issues related to federal facilities,
such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)/CERCLA integration.

Development of Treatment Technology

     During FY89, the Agency was very active in
research and development efforts directed towards
identification and testing of new technologies to be
used  in the cleanup of Superfund  sites.  The
Agency awarded  12 grants  for   research  and
development and issued two additional solicitations
for proposals. In addition, EPA established several
Hazardous  Substance Research Centers and  an
Alternative  Treatment Technology Information
Center  in   response   to   90-Day  Study
recommendations.  The Agency also  published a
number  of  information   manuals  concerning
technology-related  research and  development.
     Additionally,  the Office of  Research  and
Development (ORD) expanded the capabilities of
several programs in response to   90-Day Study
recommendations  to  provide  expanded on-site
technical assistance and to facilitate interaction
between regions and ORD.  The programs include
the  Superfund  Technical Assistance Response
                                               XVll

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND
                                     Fiscal Year 1989
        .
   S  g-
      S

      I
          . *,

           *«*«•
»v
i-H
ON
CM
CM
OO
CM

CM
(N
S
00
CM
ON

1

£

OO

1

I
1
CO
o
o
CO
f-
in
T— t
I
00
oo
oo
T-H
8
CO
VO
oo
CO
CO
I— 1
8
o
I— I
§
oo
£
CM
*\
ON
CM
oo
CM^
CM"
oo
oo
CM
|
CM
CM^
t— i
oo
r>
s

s
oo
T— 1
s
'—'
CM
S
i-H
S
CM
CM
if) CM ON f» NO <-H
P~ CM O »O Tt CO
»\ »\ rv
O ^H ^H
i-^
CM vj t"- ON t"- oo
co CM i/i ro i« o
I-H" *•?
r — *o O cS ON cN
co r~ in in ON r--
CM ^H T* ^H
i— 1 i— 1
co i— i co in Tt ^t
•^t >n oo r- ON >n
CO ON i—i
\O OO OO OO Tt CM
.-H
oo oo oo oo ON in
•— i in oo vo CM <— i
oo >o O CO CM CM
co m T-I
i— H
CM ^O CO CO CM >— i

VO ' CO

CM ! CM ! ^ !

f£J ! ! ! ! !
vo

00
CM
O
iH
10

1

1
1
1
t

"m

|

i

i


                     i
                     8
2
«M(
*S
a
TS.   -a


M

                                                                              g
                                                                              CTv
                                     id

                                     !
                                                                     i
                                                                   :f;  s
                                                                        j s
                                                                          -
                                      s   «
                                      >>   *
                                      8   "8
                                     •a ...I
                                                                              9 .
                                                                        ;g "S
                                                                               .
                                                                       53.3   223
                                                                      iS 5* 1   J o
                                     •o ,2 °- S
                                     C M-I U C


                                     111!
                                                                              ..Q

                                                                              18
                                                                              255
                                                                     as
                                                                     -1
                                                                         t P-t 00

                                                                         !"l
                                                                     | 5 a .§ S
                                                                      ill
                                                                            •
                                                                       t T3 -rt .*-
                                                                       g C o M



                                                                        ^ -s 1





                                                                       111*
                                                                      * Cu M -H *i
                                                                     .Sf.SP^ '3
                                               ao "g

                                               1 g

                                               §•2
                                        XV111

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
Team, the Treatability Assistance  Program, the
Alternative  Treatment Technology Information
Center, and the Superfund  Technical Liaison
Program.

Fiscal 1989 Superfund Contracting

      To  support the Superfund program,  EPA
awarded a total of 81 contracts during fiscal  1989,
with a total potential value of $4,998,420,955 over
the life of the contracts.

Minority Firm Participation in Superfund Contracting

      Approximately   $53,699,428   worth   of
Superfund contracts were  awarded to minority
firms during FY89. EPA awarded contracts worth
$51,600,000  through  direct  procurement  to
minority  firms.   Other  federal  agencies  and
departments, and  state and  local  governments
awarded contracts worth an additional $1,862,307
to minority firms using Superfund money obtained
through cooperative agreements and lAGs.

Public Participation

      During fiscal 1989, the Agency began to
expand its community relations program. Changes
to  community  relations  requirements  in the
proposed  revised National Oil  and  Hazardous
Substances  Pollution  Contingency  Plan  (NCP)
reflect EPA's new emphasis on the importance of
including  the  public in  Superfund program
activities.     Additionally,  the  90-Day  Study
encourages EPA to increase the role of citizens in
the Superfund decisionmaking process. The  study
specifically emphasizes that the role of citizens at
sites  being  cleaned  up  by  PRPs  should  be
expanded.
       Also  during  fiscal 1989, the Director of
OERR began to develop a system for ensuring that
all aspects  of EPA  and other federal  agency
Superfund  public  information  and  outreach
programs  operate in a coordinated fashion.   The
system utilizes  an inventory management system
that simplifies  the process by which information
regarding Superfund is shared among the  various
information  and outreach services.  The  Agency
also continued its implementation of the Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG) Program, awarding 26
TAGs with a combined value nearing $1.3 million
during FY89 compared with four during FY88 and
increasing TAG program personnel from 10 to 20.

EPA Partnership with States and Indian Tribes

     The 90-Day Study encourages the Superfund
program to build solid relationships with states and
Indian  tribes.     The  Agency,   therefore,   is
strengthening its partnership with states and Indian
tribes through cooperative agreements and other
mechanisms.  EPA entered into 43 core program
cooperative agreements with states, including one
with an Indian tribe during FY89.
     To satisfy the hazardous waste treatment or
disposal  capacity   assurance  requirements  of
CERCLA section 104(c), a majority of states and
territories had submitted Capacity Assurance Plans
(CAPs) by the end  of the fiscal year.  All states
were required by SARA to submit plans to EPA by
October 17,1989.  Also, EPA published an interim
final rule, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund
State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions, and
a brochure to assist in identifying  sites on Indian
Lands and included a new Subpart F in the NCP
revisions that combines  concepts from  various
sections  of the previous NCP concerning state
involvement in Superfund operations.

Major Rulemakings

     The Agency published proposed revisions to
the  National  Oil  and  Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan on December 21,1988
and the final revised NCP was published on March
8, 1990.  The revisions  reflect  the  CERCLA
section  105 requirement that the NCP be revised
to incorporate the new statutory requirements of
SARA.   For the remedial program, the revisions
incorporate a process to meet statutory clean-up
standards whereby  remedial  alternatives  are
evaluated against nine criteria. In  addition, the
revisions include a new Subpart F that mandates
more extensive  state involvement, and  a  new
Subpart  I  that  establishes  requirements  for
development  of an administrative record.  EPA
also  required  that  community  relations  be
expanded  to  provide  for  increased   public
participation.
     In  another  major  rulemaking effort, the
Agency completed the proposed revisions to the
HRS, the Superfund pre-remedial  tool used to
identify sites warranting consideration for inclusion
                                               xix

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
on the NPL. The proposed revisions to the HRS
incorporating SARA requirements were published
on December 23,1988. The revisions will result in
a ranking system that is more accurate in assessing
potential for exposure, contaminant concentration,
and contaminant toxicity. As a result, the HRS
will  be a better tool for identifying the most
problematic sites.
Health-Related Research and Development

     ATSDR continued  actively researching the
effects that contamination at Superfund sites has
on human health.  During fiscal 1989, ATSDR
completed final lexicological profiles of 10 of the
group of 25 chemicals for which draft profiles were
published   in  late   1987  and  early  1988.
Additionally,  ORD continued  its  research  in
support of the Superfund Public Health Evaluation
process.
                                               XX

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                               Introduction
Approach of the Report

      This Report documents progress made by
EPA toward implementing Superfund during fiscal
1989.   As a result of activities during this fiscal
year that  were not factors in earlier years,  this
Report emphasizes  two  themes:   First,  the
Superfund remedial pipeline is filled to capacity at
current resource levels and, as we enter fiscal 1990,
there is the prospect of a backlog of sites awaiting
the start of remedial action for the first time in the
program's history.  In July of 1989, a total of 88
projects representing $904 million were identified
for construction in fiscal  1990.   This estimate
combines  70 new project starts with 18 projects
needing  $189  million  in  additional  funding
("ongoing" projects) in FY90, and assumes that $35
million would  be required for  operation  and
maintenance (O&M), long-term response (LTR),
and mixed funding. The table below details these
funding needs by priority category. (See section
1.3.1 for a detailed  discussion of the four different
priority categories for RAs.)  Some  of these
projects will be funded by PRPs,  and some may
slip into FY91.

"*&• -4. :'t':Exhii>it.£l.V' -; .... •••
ifunaiftgNeedfet by Pr<6jt&t Category
Project Category Number/Value
O&M, LTR, Mixed $ * ($35 million)
Ongoing Projects 18 ($189 million)
Priority 1 5 ($31 million)
Priority 2 39 ($388 million)
Priority 3 1 ($5 million)
Priority 4 2 ($31 million)
Fourth Quarter 23 ($225 million)
TOTAL NEED 88 ($904 million)
* 1tj&«m^tiyf<3r<>&M)J1
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
        (using the HRS) for listing on the NPL.
        The PA and SI phases are referred to as
        "pre-remedial"  activities.  The "remedial"
        process or remedial pipeline  begins with
        the proposal to add the site to the NPL.

•       Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility Study.
        After the site is proposed for the NPL, an
        18-24  month RI/FS is  conducted.   The
        purpose of the RI/FS is to determine the
        type and extent of contamination and to
        evaluate   and   develop   remedial
        alternatives.  The Agency has established
        a funding goal of $750,000 per RI/FS.

•       Record of Decision. Upon completion of
        the RI/FS, and receipt of public comment
        on the remedial alternatives,  a remedy is
        selected.  The remedy selection process is
        documented in the ROD.

•       Remedial Design. The RD is the develop-
        ment of plans and specifications for the
        selected remedy.  This activity  takes an
        average of one year  to complete and  is
        generally budgeted at $700,000.

•       Remedial Action. An RA implements the
        selected remedy.  The time frame and cost
        for performing an RA are as varied as the
        remedies  selected.    For budget  and
        planning purposes, the RA is assumed to
        require 18 months for completion and cost
        an average of $15 million per  operable
        unit or $25 million per site assuming that
        there are 1.8 operable units per  site.

 •       Operation  and Maintenance/Long-Term
        Response.   Operation  and maintenance
        and  long-term  response activities  are
        conducted after construction is completed
        to ensure  that the remedy is operational
        and  functional  and  to  maintain  the
        effectiveness or integrity of the remedy.

 The 90-Day Study

        At the outset  of his  tenure, the  EPA
Administrator  made a promise  to  conduct an
objective analysis of  the current state of the
Superfund program.  Three  months later, these
efforts  culminated in  an in-depth study of the
program, The Management Review of the Superfund
Program, or the 90-Day Study.  The 90-Day Study
articulates  a  comprehensive  overview  of the
program's  philosophy,  and  provides  concrete,
realistic recommendations.  The study also draws
on  program experience, and many  of the  ideas
presented in  the Study are ongoing trends that
have gained increasing credence over the past few
years.  The 90-Day Study documents these trends,
and suggests  new initiatives, that will  serve as
mid-course adjustments and steer the Superfund
program on a definitive course.
    The 90-Day Study identifies six major conflicts
within the program.

•       The public's desire for both quick actions
        at  sites and  adequate opportunity for
        community   participation   in   the
        remediation and decisionmaking processes.

•       The  expectation   that  as   a  national
        program   Superfund  should   operate
        consistently for the nation as a whole, yet
        remain responsive to varying site-specific
        requirements.

•       Program success is often gauged only in
        terms of the number of sites  completely
        cleaned  up rather than by the extent to
        which  various sites  have  progressed
        through significant  stages of cleanup.

•       The  Agency's  efforts to  meet targets
        mandated  by Congress have  driven the
        program towards achieving administrative
        goals, rather than  actual environmental
        results.

•       EPA has had to strike a balance between
        securing potentially responsible parties to
        pay  for  cleanup  and drawing  on the
        revenues  of the  Superfund.    Primary
        reliance on the Fund will result in swift
        cleanup, but leveraging responsible party
        involvement increases the total amount of
        resources available for cleanup.

•       The Agency has had to grapple with the
        statutorily  mandated  provision  to use
        permanent treatment technologies to the
        maximum extent  practicable, while the
        debate continues about their technological
                                               xxii

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
        feasibility.   Currently,  the Agency  is
        engaged   in   developing  innovative
        permanent   treatment   remedies,   and
        ensuring  the  protectiveness  of these
        remedies.

        To  resolve these conflicts,  the  90-Day
Study  recommends that the Agency  adopt an
environmental priorities approach to site cleanup.
This approach places emphasis on addressing a
larger number of sites in stages, where the margin
of risk reduction is greatest, rather than focusing
narrowly on a smaller number of sites as the rate
of marginal returns decreases.  This philosophy
ensures that the sites posing the greatest public
health or environmental risks are addressed first,
but   remains  cognizant   of   the   long-term
remediation necessary at most sites.  To implement
this approach, the Study proposes that the mission
of the program  encompass three goals:    (1)
control acute  threats  immediately;  (2)  initiate
remedial work at sites posing the  worst  threats;
and (3) carefully monitor and maintain  sites over
the long term to ensure the  protectiveness of the
remedy selected. To achieve these goals the Study
recommends that the Agency employ  a  six-part
strategy:

•       Emphasize enforcement to  induce private
        party response;

•       Accelerate and improve remedial actions;

•       Encourage   the   use   of   innovative
        technologies;

•       Re-energize   the   commitment   to
        community involvement;

•       Improve management and administration
        effectiveness; and
•       Communicate progress  effectively at the
        national level.

        The recommendations  in  the  Study on
methods for achieving these goals both validate
existing trends and articulate steps that  will guide
future work. Those recommendations already in
practice at  the  Agency will continue,  and a
schedule   to   implement   the  remaining
recommendations  has  been  set.     Published
September   21,   1989,  the   90-Day   Study
Implementation Plan includes the 120 tasks that,
when completed, will  effectively transform the
ideas of the 90-Day Study into concrete program
procedure.  The schedule is aggressive - almost 90
percent of the recommendations are  planned for
implementation during fiscal year 1990, and over
half (72) of the tasks will be completed by next
June.  The 90-Day Study is discussed in more
detail throughout  this Report in sections that
pertain to its specific recommendations.

Organization of the Report

       The organization of the FY89 Report has
been modified to reflect its new emphasis.  This
introduction includes a matrix  that  charts the
progress EPA has made to date in meeting specific
statutory deadlines.  Chapter  1  summarizes key
program  developments.  It  documents progress
made in the enforcement and remedial programs
toward ensuring that the  Superfund pipeline is
filled to capacity and that PRPs are conducting or
financing remedial  activities whenever possible.
Chapter  1  also describes  progress made  in
implementing   the  Superfund   environmental
indicators initiative, the site prioritization strategy,
and new technology-related initiatives. In addition,
Chapter   1   summarizes  removal  program
accomplishments.
       Chapter 2 documents  progress made in
other response activities. Section 2.1 presents the
accomplishments of the pre-remedial program and
describes the site discovery and assessment process.
Section  2.2  discusses progress  made  by  EPA to
ensure that other federal agencies are conducting
clean-up activities at federal facility sites.
       Chapter 3 discusses the resources required
to  complete   implementation  of  Superfund.
Chapter  4  presents  reports  on  the use and
development of permanent technologies, minority
firm participation in Superfund contracting, and
sites subject to 5-year review  under CERCLA
section 121(c).
       Chapter 5 consolidates all other program
implementation and support activities, including
sections  on community  involvement  in  the
Superfund process,  EPA partnership with states
and Indian  tribes in the remedial process, health-
related   research   and   development,    major
Superfund  rulemakings, and resource utilization
and contracting.
                                              xxin

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                    Fiscal Year 1989
        Appendix A is a matrix that illustrates the
status  of  RI/FSs  and  RAs in  progress  on
September 30, 1989.  Appendix B is a matrix that
illustrates the status of RDs in progress at the end
of fiscal 1989. All of the RODs signed in fiscal
1989 are summarized in Appendix C.  Appendix D
is the EPA Annual Report to  Congress: Progress
Towards Implementing CERCLA at EPA Facilities
as  Required  by  CERCLA   section  120(e)(5).
Appendix E is  the  EPA Inspector General's
Report  on the required review of this fiscal 1989
Superfund Report to Congress. Appendix F is the
Office of Solid Waste  and Emergency Response
reply to the Report of the Inspector General. All
references used in preparing the Report are listed
in Appendix G.
        For purposes of  brevity and consistency,
when the acronym  "CERCLA"  is  used  in the
Report,   it   refers   to  the   Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,  and
Liability  Act of  1980,   as  amended,  by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986.   All additional acronyms are
highlighted  in boxes at  the  beginning of each
chapter.
        The sources for the information in each
exhibit in the Report are included in the exhibit.
The primary source  for all data  included  in this
Report  is  the  CERCLA Information   System
(CERCLIS). The data in CERCLIS are constantly
being modified to more accurately reflect events
that took place during a particular fiscal year.
Data retrieved from the system on different dates,
therefore, may not be congruent.

Statutory Requirements for the Report

        In addition to providing an overview  of
EPA FY89  progress in implementing  CERCLA,
this Report includes the following information
specifically  required  by  CERCLA sections
301(h)(l)(A) through (G), 105(f), and 301(h)(2):

•      In response to  the requirement of section
        301(h)(l)(A)  to include   a detailed
        summary  of  each  feasibility  study,
        Appendix C contains  an  abstract of each
        record of decision signed during FY89.

•      The   status  and  estimated  date   of
        completion of  each feasibility study and
remedial action,  required by  sections
301(h)(l)(B) and (F), are summarized in
section  1.2.  The status of enforcement
actions  and  a  comparison  of  FY89
enforcement   actions   with   those
undertaken in previous years is included in
section 1.1. Appendix A contains detailed
information  concerning the status  and
estimated  time of  completion  of each
feasibility study and remedial investigation.
The  appendix also provides information
required   by   section   301(h)(l)(C)
concerning remedial actions that will not
meet previously published schedules.

The   evaluation  of  newly  developed
technologies   required   by   section
301(h)(l)(D) is described in section 4.1.

As   required   by   CERCLA   section
301(h)(l)(E),  section  4.3  includes  a
discussion  of  the   progress   made   in
reducing the number of facilities subject
to 5-year reviews under  CERCLA section
121(c).    Section   4.3  also   contains
information that satisfies the requirements
of CERCLA section 121 (c) to report to
Congress:  (1) a list of facilities for which
such a review is required;  (2)  the results
of reviews; and (3) any actions taken as a
result of such reviews.

The  resource estimates  for completion of
CERCLA implementation, required  by
section  301(h)(l)(G),  are included  in
Chapter 3.

Section 4.2  satisfies the  section 105 (f)
requirement  that  EPA  describe   the
participation of minority firms in contracts
carried out under  CERCLA.

The  report of the review conducted under
section 301(h)(2)  by the EPA Inspector
General  on   the  reasonableness  and
accuracy of this Report to Congress is
found in Appendix E.
                                              XXIV

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                         Fiscal Year 1989
Progress   Toward   Meeting   Superfimd-Related
Statutory Requirements

        In response to a recommendation of the
Lautenberg-Durenberger   Report  on   Superfimd
Implementation: Cleaning up the Nation's Cleanup
Program, EPA includes the following matrix, which
                              charts  Agency  progress  in  meeting  statutory
                              requirements imposed by SARA  The matrix lists
                              all   relevant   administrative   and   program
                              implementation   (rather  than   site-specific)
                              requirements by statutory section, describes  the
                              mandated  activity, and  indicates whether  the
                              requirement has been met.  If the activity has  not
                              been completed, its status is reported.
                 Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
    CERCLA S1

    §102(a)
Statutory
Deadline

12/31/86^
Requirement

EPA   to   promulgate  final
regulations    establishing
reportable quantities (RQs) for
all  hazardous  substances  for
which  proposed  RQs  were
published  prior to  March  1,
1986
Status

09/29/86,  08/14/89   --   EPA
promulgated final RQs for all
but two  hazardous  substances
for which proposed  RQs were
published prior  to  March  1,
1986  (51 FR 34534,  54 FR
33426,  54 FR 33418);  RQs for
two remaining substances are
expected to be finalized summer
1992
    §102(a)
12/31/86^        EPA to  propose  regulations
                 establishing   RQs   for  all
                 hazardous substances for which
                 proposed   RQs   were   not
                 published prior  to March 1,
                 1986
                               Completed  03/16/87  --  EPA
                               proposed RQs for all hazardous
                               substances for which RQs were
                               not proposed prior to March 1,
                               1986   (52   FR   8140);  EPA
                               proposed RQs for radionuclides
                               (52 FR 8172)
    §102(a)
04/30/88-7        EPA  to  promulgate   final
                 regulations  establishing  RQs
                 for all hazardous substances for
                 which proposed RQs were not
                 published prior  to March  1,
                 1986
                               08/14/89  --  EPA promulgated
                               final  RQs  for  all  but  13
                               hazardous substances for which
                               RQs were not proposed prior to
                               March 1, 1986 (54 FR 33418, 54
                               FR 33426); 05/24/89  --  EPA
                               promulgated  final  RQs   for
                               radionuclides (54  FR  22524);
                               RQs   for   13   remaining
                               substances  are  expected to be
                               finalized summer 1992
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA.

^ Dates specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
                                              XXV

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
    CERCLA S1

    §104(c)(9)
Statutory
Deadline

10/17/89
Requirement

States to provide assurances of
availability of hazardous waste
treatment or disposal facilities
Status

Completed 03/19/90 --  All  50
states and one territory  have
submitted  plans;   12/29/88  --
EPA issued  guidance  to  state
officials on providing assurances
    §104(i)(2)(A)      04/17/87
                 Agency for Toxic Substances
                 and   Disease   Registry
                 (ATSDR)/EPA to produce list
                 of  100 hazardous substances
                 most commonly found at NPL
                 sites   that  pose  significant
                 human health risks
                               Completed 04/17/87  --  EPA
                               published list of 100 hazardous
                               substances (52 FR 12866)
    §104(i)(2)(B)      10/17/88
                 ATSDR/EPA to produce list of
                 a  total  of  200  hazardous
                 substances  most   commonly
                 found at  NPL sites that pose
                 significant human health risks
                               Completed  10/20/88  --  EPA
                               published list of 200 hazardous
                               substances (53 FR 41280)
    §104(i)(2)(B)      10/17/892/        ATSDR/EPA to add no fewer
                                      than 25 hazardous  substances
                                      to list of those most commonly
                                      found at NPL sites that pose
                                      significant human health risks
                                                Completed 10/26/89 -- List of 25
                                                substances  published  (54  FR
                                                43615);  additional lists  of  25
                                                substances  will  be  published
                                                annually through 1991
 y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
 CERCLA.

 -1 Due annually on this date through 1991.
                                              XXVI

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                         Fiscal Year 1989
                 Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                           (continued)
    CERCLA S1

    §104(i)(3)
Statutory
Deadline

10/17/87^
Requirement

ATSDR/EPA to  prepare  no
fewer  than  25  lexicological
profiles  annually   beginning
October 17,  1987, on each of
the hazardous substances  on
the   list   of  those   most
commonly found at  NPL sites
that  pose significant human
health risks
Status

Completed   10/15/87   --   25
profiles were announced in the
Federal Register (FR)  (52 FR
38340). 18 of these have been
finalized as of 12/01/89 (54 FR
14037, 54 FR  26417,  54 FR
49816).  The remaining 7 are
nearing completion
Completed   12/20/88   --   25
profiles were announced in the
FR (53 FR 51192).  All 25 were
finalized   December   1989;
08/14/90 -- notice of availability
of final profiles published (55
FR 33172)
Completed   10/17/89   --   30
profiles were announced in the
FR  (54  FR  42568) and are
expected  to  be  finalized  in
January 1991; ATSDR plans to
publish an additional 30 profiles
to meet the 10/17/90 deadline
    §104(i)(3)
10/17/90
ATSDR to revise and republish
profiles as necessary, but  at
least once every three years
Not yet due
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA.

-1 Profiles for original 100 hazardous substances on list must be completed by 10/17/90. Profiles for hazardous
substances added subsequently must be completed within three years after addition to list.
                                             XXVH

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
    CERCLA 81
Statutory
Deadline
    §104(i)(5)(D)      10/17/87
Requirement

EPA to promulgate regulations
for the  payment  of costs of
health   effects   research
programs
Status

Completed  03/08/90  --  EPA
believes that  the revised  NCP
satisfies   the   statutory
requirement (NCP Subpart B
(300.160(d); (55 FR 8666)); see
also preamble to proposed rule
(12/21/88,  53 FR  51402).   In
addition, EPA will publish cost
recovery regulations in fall 1990
which will  further clarify the
categorization of these costs
    §104(i)(6)(A)      12/10/882'
                ATSDR  to complete  health
                assessments   for   facilities
                proposed for NPL prior to date
                of enactment
                               Completed  12/08/88 --  Health
                               assessments performed for 951
                               facilities
    §104(i)(10)        10/17/88         ATSDR to submit report to
                     (every two       EPA and Congress on ATSDR
                     years)           activities
                                               Completed 08/23/89v 08/31/90 --
                                               Volumes I and II submitted to
                                               EPA and Congress
    §105(b)
04/17/88
EPA  to  revise the National
Contingency Plan (NCP)
Completed  03/08/90  --  EPA
published revised NCP  (55 FR
8666)
    §105(c)(l)
04/17/88
EPA   to   promulgate
amendments  to  the  Hazard
Ranking System (HRS)
12/23/88   --  EPA   published
proposed   revisions  (53  FR
51962); estimated promulgation
date:  fall 1990
    §105(c)(l)
10/17/88
EPA to establish effective date
for the amended HRS
HRS scheduled to take effect 30
days after publication in Federal
Register;   estimated
promulgation date:  fall 1990
 -1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
 CERCLA

 -f Dates specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
                                            XXVlll

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
    CERCIA S1
    §107(K)(6)
Statutory
Deadline
Requirement

Comptroller   General   to
conduct a study of options for
a program for the management
of the liabilities associated with
hazardous   waste  treatment,
storage, and disposal sites after
their closure
Status

Completed  06/01/90  -  GAO
reported  entitled:  Hazardous
Waste  ~ Funding  of  Post-
Closure  Liabilities  Remains
Uncertain (GAO/RCED-90-64)
                     Annually        Inspectors General to submit
                                     audit reports of all uses of the
                                     Hazardous  Substances  Trust
                                     Fund
                                               Completed   September  1988.
                                               September   1989.  September
                                               1990 --  EPA submitted FY87,
                                               FY88, and FY90 reports
                     01/17/87
                EPA to develop and implement
                procedures to adequately notify
                concerned  local   and   state
                officials of limitations on the
                payment of claims for response
                costs incurred for sites on NPL
                               Completed  02/05/87  --  EPA
                               published notice  of regulatory
                               limitations on response claims
                               (52 FR 3699)
    §H2(b)(l)
                         SI
                EPA to prescribe appropriate
                forms  and   procedures  for
                response  claims  filed  under
                CERCLA
                               09/13/89  --   EPA  published
                               proposed  regulations   to
                               establish  response  claims
                               procedures  (54  FR  37892);
                               11/13/89  --  public  comment
                               period   closed;   estimated
                               promulgation  date  of  final
                               regulations:  October 1990
    §113(k)
                         S/
                EPA to promulgate regulations
                that  will establish procedures
                for public participation in the
                development   of   the
                administrative record
                               Completed   03/08/90   --
                               Regulations included in revised
                               NCP Subpart I (55 FR 8666)
y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA

& Specific deadline not stated in statute.
                                            XXIX

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
                     Statutory
    CERCLA 81       Deadline
                     01/01/88^
                Requirement

                EPA to complete preliminary
                assessments   (PAs)  of   all
                facilities  contained  on  the
                Comprehensive Environmental
                Response, Compensation, and
                Liability  Information  System
                (CERCLIS)  as  of  date  of
                enactment
                               Status

                               Completed 01/01/88
    §116(a)(2)        01/01/89^        Following completion of PAs
                                     EPA  to   complete   site
                                     inspections (Sis)  at  facilities
                                     contained in  CERCLIS  as of
                                     date of enactment, as necessary
                                               Two  regions   met  statutory
                                               schedule; three regions plan to
                                               meet  goal  by  October   1990;
                                               remaining five regions plan to
                                               meet  goal  by  October   1991.
                                               EPA  is currently preparing  a
                                               report to Congress, required by
                                               CERCLA   section  116(c),
                                               detailing why goal was missed;
                                               report expected to be submitted
                                               Spring 1991
    §116(b)
10/17/90
Following completion  of PAs
or  Sis  EPA  to  complete
evaluation of each facility listed
in CERCLIS as  of date  of
enactment, as warranted
Not yet due
                     10/17/89
                EPA  to start  275  remedial
                investigations/feasibility studies
                (RI/FSs)
                               Completed  May 1989  --  275
                               RI/FS starts; 358 RI/FS starts at
                               end of FY89
    §116(d)(2)
10/17/90
EPA  to start  total of  450
RI/FSs  only  if  275  starts
deadline not met
Not applicable - Prior deadline
met
 y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
 CERCLA.

 -^ Dates specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
                                             XXX

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                                                         Fiscal Year 1989
                 Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
    CERCIA S1

    §116(d)(2)
Statutory
Deadline

10/17/91
Requirement

EPA  to start  total  of 650
RI/FSs  only  if  275   starts
deadline not met
Status

Not applicable — Prior deadline
met
                     10/17/89
                 EPA to  start
                 actions (RAs)
               175  remedial     Completed 10/17/89 --  178 RA
                                starts at end of FY89
    §116(e)(2)


    §117(e)
10/17/91


    §/
EPA to start total of 375 RAs
Not yet due
                 EPA to promulgate regulations
                 for issuing Technical Assistance
                 Grants
                                03/24/88 --  Interim  final rule
                                (IFR) published (53  FR 9736);
                                12/01/89 -- amendments to IFR
                                published   (54   FR  49848);
                                estimated promulgation date of
                                final rule: September 1991
    §119(c)(7)
                         51
                 EPA to develop guidelines and
                 promulgate regulations on the
                 indemnification  of  response
                 action contractors
                                10/06/87 -- EPA issued interim
                                guidance  (OSWER  Directive
                                #9835.5);   10/31/89  --  EPA
                                published  proposed  guidance
                                and request for comments  (54
                                FR 46012); 02/27/90  -- public
                                comment period closed; final
                                guidance  is expected  to   be
                                issued January  1991; estimated
                                promulgation   date  of  final
                                regulations: August 1991
    §119(c)(8)        09/30/89^        Comptroller General to report
                                      to  Congress on application of
                                      indemnification  of  response
                                      action contractors provisions
                                                Completed  09/26/89  --  GAO
                                                report entitled: Contractors Are
                                                Being Too Liberally Indemnified
                                                by   the   Government
                                                (GAO/RCED-89-160)
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA.

y Dates specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.

-f Specific deadline not stated in statute.
                                             XXXI

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                         Fiscal Year 1989
                 Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                           (continued)
    CERCLA 81

    §120(c)
Statutory
Deadline

    5/
Requirement

EPA   to   establish   Federal
Agency  Hazardous   Waste
Compliance Docket and make
available for public inspection
Status

Completed 02/12/88 -- Notice of
initial  list  published  (53  FR
4280)
    §120(c)
Every six
months
EPA  to publish updates  of
Federal  Agency  Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Completed  11/16/88.  12/15/89.
08/22/90 - EPA published first
three updates (53 FR 46364, 54
FR 51472, 55 FR 34492)
    §120(d)
04/17/88
EPA shall take steps to assure
that a preliminary assessment is
conducted for each  facility on
the Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket
Completed 04/17/88 -- EPA took
steps  to  assure  that federal
agencies  complied  with  this
process   prior   to   statutory
deadline; EPA  informs federal
agencies of the requirement  to
gather information on sites and
assists agencies in collecting and
analyzing such information; PAs
have not yet been completed at
all federal facilities
    §120(d)
04/17/89
Following PAs, EPA to evalu-
ate  federal   facilities   with
criteria   established   in
accordance with  section  105
under the NCP for determining
priorities among releases; those
facilities  which   meet   the
criteria  are to be included on
the NPL
EPA evaluates federal facilities
where  appropriate in light  of
resource constraints and other
demands; as of August 30, 1990,
116 federal facilities have been
added  to  the NPL  (55  FR
35502); a substantial number of
additional  sites   have  been
evaluated and determined not to
be appropriate for the NPL
 -1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
 CERCLA.

 -! Specific deadline not stated in statute.
                                              XXXH

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                                          Fiscal Year 1989
                 Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                           (continued)
CERCLA §*
    §120(e)(l)
                     Statutory
                     Deadline
Requirement

EPA  and  states  to  publish
timetable  and  deadlines  for
completion of RI/FSs at federal
facilities listed on NPL
Status

Schedules for  completion of
RI/FSs at federal facilities  are
routinely developed pursuant to
interagency agreements (lAGs),
or are published  by EPA and
the state when IAG negotiations
are unsuccessful.   LAGs have
been signed for 34 of 41 sites at
end   of   FY89;   the  seven
remaining LAGs are  currently
being negotiated
    §120(e)(l)
                  10/17/87
Federal agency, department, or
instrumentality to begin RI/FS
for federal facility  listed  on
NPL prior to date of enactment
Not  applicable --  No federal
facilities  were listed  on NPL
prior to date of enactment
    §120(e)(l)
                 Not later than
                 six   months
                 after listing of
                 federal facility
                 on NPL
Federal agency, department, or
instrumentality to begin RI/FS
for federal facility  listed  on
NPL
07/22/81 - First federal facilities
listed on NPL (52 FR 27620);
03/13/89  - EPA policy states
that a CERCLA RI/FS begins at
a federal facility when an LAG is
executed  or  when   EPA  has
approved a workplan pursuant
to the LAG (54 FR 10520); EPA
has approved RI/FS workplans
at 34 of  the  41   sites  and
negotiations   are   currently
underway   for   the   seven
remaining sites; federal work is
occurring at those sites where
workplans have been approved
y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA

-f Specific deadline not stated in statute.
                                             XXXlll

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
                     Statutory
    CERCLA S1       Deadline         Requirement

    §120(e)(2)         Within   180    Federal agency, department, or
                     days   after    instrumentality to  enter into
                     EPA  review    interagency  agreement  with
                     of RI/FS         EPA for completion of RA for
                                     federal facility listed on NPL
                                               Status

                                               EPA policy is to enter into an
                                               LAG with federal facilities (listed
                                               on the NPL) during the RI/FS
                                               stage, prior to the RA stage.  As
                                               a   result,   RA   LAGs  are
                                               completed well in advance of the
                                               statutory  mandate;  34 LAGs
                                               were signed during  the RI/FS
                                               stage;  the seven  outstanding
                                               LAGs   are   currently  being
                                               negotiated and are expected to
                                               be reached within FY90
    §120(e)(2)
Not later than
15   months
after comple-
tion of RI/FS
Federal agency, department, or
instrumentality to begin RA for
federal facility listed on NPL
Not  applicable  -  At end of
FY89, all federal NPL sites were
in the RI/FS stage; the federal
facilities  program   does  not
expect  difficulties  in  meeting
this mandate
    §120(e)(3)        Submit  with    Federal agencies with facilities
                     annual budget    subject  to  interagency  agree-
                                     ments for RA to review alter-
                                     native agency funding to pro-
                                     vide for costs of RA; agencies
                                     to  submit  statement  of the
                                     hazard posed by facilities and
                                     identify consequences of failure
                                     to begin and complete RA
                                               Completed   January  1987.
                                               January  1988,  January  1989.
                                               January  1990  -  Included in
                                               annual budget  submissions to
                                               Congress
    §120(e)(5)        Annually        Federal agency, department, or
                                     instrumentality   to   submit
                                     report to Congress on progress
                                     in   implementing CERCLA
                                     requirements  concerning
                                     federal facilities
                                               Completed May 1989. April 1990
                                               -  EPA's  FY87  and   FY88
                                               reports submitted; EPA's FY89
                                               report will be included in FY89
                                               Report to Congress, required by
                                               CERCLA   Section   301(h),
                                               scheduled to be submitted  fall
                                               1990
 -  Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
 CERCLA.
                                             XXXIV

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
                     Statutory
    CERCLA S1       Deadline
    §120(h)(2)
04/17/88
Requirement

EPA to promulgate regulations
in consultation with General
Services Administration on the
form  and manner  of notice
required whenever any federal
department,   agency,   or
instrumentality  enters into  a
contract  to  sell  or transfer
property owned by the United
States on which a  hazardous
substance was stored, disposed,
or released
Status

Completed 04/16/90 - Final rule
published (55 FR 14208)
    §121(f)
                        5/
                EPA to promulgate regulations
                providing for state involvement
                in  all facets   of   remedial
                response regulations
                               Completed  03/08/90   --
                               Regulations  included in revised
                               NCP Subpart F (55 FR 8666)
    §122(e)(l)(C)
                         5/
                EPA  to  issue procedures  for
                special   notice   regarding
                negotiation  with  potentially
                responsible parties (PRPs)
                               Completed 10/19/87 -- EPA sent
                               procedural  guidelines   to
                               Regional Administrators  from
                               Assistant   Administrator  for
                               OSWER  (OSWER  Directive
                               #9834.10)
    §122(e)(3)(A)
                         5/
                EPA to develop guidelines for
                preparing   nonbinding
                preliminary  allocations  of
                responsibility
                               Completed  05/28/87  --  EPA
                               published interim guidelines (52
                               FR 19919)
    §123(d)
10/17/87
EPA to promulgate regulations
for  reimbursement  to  local
governments for costs incurred
in responding  to  releases or
threatened   releases   of
hazardous substances
10/21/87  -- Interim final rule
published   (52  FR  39386);
estimated promulgation date of
final rule:  February 1991
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA.

-1 Specific deadline not stated in statute.
                                            XXXV

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                 Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
    CERCLA 81
    §126(c)
Statutory
Deadline

Submit  with
FY88 budget
request
Requirement

EPA  to  submit  report  to
Congress on hazardous waste
sites on Indian lands
Status
Completed  11/06/87  -- Report
submitted to Congress
    §301(c)(l)
04/17/87
Department of Interior to issue
regulations for the assessment
of  damages  for  injury  to,
destruction   of,  or   loss  of
natural   resources   resulting
from  a  release of  oil or  a
hazardous substance
Completed  02/22/88  --  Final
regulations  published  (53  FR
5166)
    §301(g)
10/17/87
Comptroller General to submit
report  to  Congress  on  the
results of the insurability study
Completed  10/16/87  -  GAO
report   entitled:      Issues
Surrounding  Insurance
Availability (GAO/RCED-88-2)
    §301(h)(l)        01/01/88^        EPA to submit annual report
                                     to  Congress  on  CERCLA
                                     implementation
                                               Completed May 1989. April 1990
                                               --  FY87  and  FY88  reports
                                               submitted  to Congress; FY89
                                               report is under OMB review and
                                               is scheduled to be submitted fall
                                               1990
    §306(a)
11/17/86
Department of Transportation
(DOT)  to  list and  regulate
under the Hazardous Materials
Transportation   Act  each
substance   designated   as
hazardous  under  CERCLA
(within  30 days  of  date  of
enactment or time of listing or
designation, whichever is later)
Completed  08/21/89  --  DOT
amended Hazardous Materials
Regulations by revising the "List
of Hazardous  Substances and
Reportable Quantities" (54 FR
34666)
 I1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
 CERCLA

 -1 Dates specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
                                            XXXVI

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                       Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
                     Statutory
    CERCLA S1       Deadline
    §310(d)(l)
                         5/
                Requirement

                EPA   to   issue  regulations
                describing manner of notice of
                citizen suits
                               Status

                               01/26/89  --   Proposed  rule
                               published   (54   FR  3918);
                               estimated promulgation date of
                               final rule: December 1990
    §311(a)(6)
07/17/87
Health and  Human  Services
through National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences
to issue plan to support and
develop research and training
program related to evaluation
of the risks to human health by
hazardous substances
Completed 09/14/87 -- Notice of
availability of final version of
plan published (52 FR 34721)
    §311(b)(5)(B)      01/17/87
                EPA  to publish  annually  a
                solicitation  for  innovative  or
                alternative   technologies
                suitable   for   full-scale
                demonstration  at  Superfund
                sites
                               Completed   January   1986.
                               January  1987.  January 1988.
                               January 1989, January  1990 -
                               Solicitations published
    §311(e)
Submit  with    EPA  to  submit  report  to
annual budget    Congress on  progress of the
request          research,  development,   and
                demonstration of alternative or
                innovative  treatment
                technologies program
                               Completed  February  1988.
                               March  1989.  March  1990 -
                               FY87,   FY88,   and   FY89
                               Superfund   Innovative
                               Technology Evaluation (SITE)
                               program reports submitted to
                               Congress
    §312(e)
                         51
                EPA  to  conduct habitability
                and land use study of the Love
                Canal Emergency Declaration
                Area, and to work with New
                York State (NYS) to develop
                recommendations based upon
                the study results
                               Completed  07/28/88  -  Study
                               submitted   to   NYS
                               Commissioner  of   Health;
                               September   1988   --
                               Commissioner issued follow-up
                               report;  issue   undergoing
                               continuing discussion
i'Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA

% Specific deadline not stated in statute.
                                           XXXVll

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
    §118(b)
Statutory
Deadline

01/17/87
Requirement

EPA to grant $7.5 million to
New Jersey for removal  and
temporary storage  of  radium
contaminated soil
Status

Completed  01/15/87 - Grant
made to New Jersey
    §118(d)
07/01/872/        Comptroller General to submit
                report to Congress on study of
                shortages of skilled personnel
                in EPA
                               Completed 10/26/87 -- General
                               Accounting   Office   (GAO)
                               report entitled:  Improvements
                               Needed in Work Force Manage-
                               ment (GAO/RCED-88-1)
    §118(9
03/01/87^       ATSDR  to  submit  report to
                Congress  on the nature and
                extent of lead  poisoning in
                children  from  environmental
                sources
                               Completed 07/12/88  -- Report
                               submitted to Congress
    §1180)
04/17/87
EPA  to  submit  report  to
Congress  on  joint  use  of
vehicles for  transportation of
hazardous substances
Completed  04/20/87 -- Report
submitted to Congress
                     10/17/87
                 EPA  to  submit  report  to
                 Congress   on   radon   site
                 identification and assessment
                               Completed 02/23/90  -- Report
                               submited to Congress
    §118(k)(2)        02/01/87^        EPA to submit annual report
                                     on  Radon   Mitigation
                                     Demonstration Program
                                               Completed  06/12/87.  01/18/89.
                                               02/26/90 --  Three reports have
                                               been submitted;  1989 report is
                                               in  final  draft  form  and  is
                                               expected    to   be  submitted
                                               December 1990
 I/ Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
 CERCLA.

 y Dates specified in statute rather than correlated to date of enactment.
                                            xxxvm

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
                     Statutory
                     Deadline

                     04/17/87
                Requirement

                Department of Energy (DOE)
                to carry out program of testing
                and evaluation of technologies
                which   may  be  utilized  in
                responding to liquified gaseous
                and other hazardous substance
                spills at the Liquified Gaseous
                Spills Test Facility
                               Status

                               Completed   06/30/87   --
                               Memorandum of Understanding
                               developed  among  DOE, EPA,
                               and Department of Transporta-
                               tion   (DOT).     DOE   has
                               suggested  collaborative  R&D
                               efforts   and   has  requested
                               concurrence  on  such  efforts
                               from EPA and DOT
    §121(b)(2)
11/17/86
EPA Administrator to certify in
writing   that   Records   of
Decision (RODs) or consent
decrees   covering  remedial
action, signed within 30 days of
enactment of SARA, comply to
the maximum extent practicable
with Section 121 of CERCLA
Completed 11/17/86 - All three
RODs   signed   comply;   no
consent decrees lodged during
this period
    §126(a)
10/17/87
Department  of Labor (DOL)
to promulgate standards for the
health and safety protection of
employees  engaged   in
hazardous waste operations
Completed  03/06/89  --  DOL
standards  published  (54  FR
9294)
    §126(e)
12/17/86
DOL to issue interim final rule
(IFR)  on worker  protection
standards
Completed  12/19/86   --  IFR
published (51 FR 45654)
    §126(f)
Not later than    EPA  to  promulgate  worker
90 days after    protection standards  identical
promulgation    to  those contained  in  the
of DOL final    section   126(a)   OSHA
regulations       regulations
                               Completed  06/23/89  --  Final
                               standards  published  (54  FR
                               26654)
-1 Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA.
                                            XXXIX

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                Progress Toward Meeting Superfund-Related Statutory Requirements
                                          (continued)
                     Statutory
                     Deadline

                     07/17/87
                Requirement

                States to develop inventories of
                all underground storage tanks
                containing regulated substances
                               Status

                               Completed 07/17/87 -- All states
                               submitted inventories to EPA
    §205(h)
01/17/88
Comptroller General to submit
report to Congress on study of
the availability of  pollution
liability  insurance,   leak
insurance,  and contamination
insurance   for  owners   and
operators of petroleum storage
and distribution facilities
Completed  01/15/88  -  GAO
report   entitled:      Insuring
Underground Petroleum Tanks
(GAO-RCED-88-39)
                     Each   fiscal    Secretary of Defense to submit
                     year             report to Congress on progress
                                     in   implementing   Defense
                                     Environmental   Restoration
                                     Program
                                               Completed March 1988. March
                                               1989. February 1990 -- FY87,
                                               FY88,   and   FY89  reports
                                               submitted to Congress
y Requirements of CERCLA as amended by SARA preceed requirements of SARA that do not amend
CERCLA.
                                              xl

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                       Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                CHAPTER
                                                                                           1
                                                            Key  Program
                                                          Developments
       Significant activity in all program areas
and  on several new initiatives has resulted in
considerable progress in  moving sites into  and
through the pipeline to completion. To date, EPA
has deleted 28 sites from the NPL, 10 of which
were deleted in FY89.  A greater proportion of
those remedial projects underway in FY89 involved
PRP funding than ever before.  Since the passage
of SARA, the Agency has reached agreements with
PRPs for approximately $1.8 billion worth of site
work through enforcement actions. In FY89 alone,
PRPs agreed to undertake or fund approximately
54 percent of all starts of removal actions, RI/FSs,
RDs, and  RAs.   EPA  also reached response
settlements  with  PRPs  worth approximately
$1,033.7 million in the fiscal year.  This represents
more than a five-fold increase in the dollar value
of cleanup work in enforcement settlements since
the passage of SARA. Exhibit 1.0-1 illustrates the
acceleration of RI/FS, RD, and RA  project starts
by PRPs during the post-SARA time period.
       Additionally,  the   removal   program
continued its aggressive effort to ensure that sites
presenting  immediate  threats were  stabilized.
Fiscal  1989 removal program accomplishments
were only slightly lower than the record-breaking
accomplishments of  fiscal 1988.   The  removal
program,   in   response   to  90-Day   Study
recommendations, also began evaluating NPL sites
where RI/FSs had not been initiated or  previous
removal actions had not been undertaken to assess
whether  conditions  at   these  sites  warranted
immediate action. As of the end of the fiscal year,
the Agency or PRPs had begun work at most sites
listed on  the NPL (see Exhibit 1.0-2).
       The record number of ongoing projects
has  filled  the  remedial  pipeline  to  capacity,
requiring the Agency to  develop a strategy for
    Acronyms Introduced in Chapter 1

AOC    -  Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR   -  Applicable or Relevant and
           Appropriate Requirement
ATSDR  -  Agency for Toxic Substances and
           Disease Registry
ATTIC   -  Alternative Treatment Technology
           Information Center
CERCLA -  Comprehensive Environmental
           Response, Compensation, and
           Liability Act of 1980
CERCLIS -  CERCLA Information System
DOJ    -  Department of Justice
EE/CA   -  Engineering Evaluation/Cost
           Analysis
EPA    -  Environmental Protection Agency
ERD    -  Emergency Response Division
HSCD   -  Hazardous Site Control Division
NCP    -  National Contingency Plan
NEIC    -  National Enforcement Investigations
           Center
NPL    -  National Priorities List
OERR   -  Office of Emergency and Remedial
           Response
OMSE   -  Office of Management Systems and
           Evaluation
ORD    -  Office of Research and
           Development
OSC    -  On-Scene Coordinator
OWPE   -  Office of Waste  Programs
           Enforcement
PRP    -  Potentially Responsible Party
RA     -  Remedial Action
RD     -  Remedial Design
RI/FS    -  Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
           Study
ROD    -  Record of Decision
RPM    -  Remedial Project Manager
RREL   -  Risk Reduction Engineering
           Laboratory
SARA   -  Superfund Amendments and
           Reauthorization  Act of 1986
SRP     -  Superfund Removal Procedures

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                          Fiscal Year 1989
                                        Exhibit 1.0-1
            Percentage of Remedial Projects Undertaken by Potentially
                 Responsible Parties Since the Enactment of SARA
     60 T
                                          Pre-SARA1        {      |  Post-SARA
                   RI/FS
                         RA
               1    The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) was signed into law
                    on October 17,1986.

         SOURCE:    CERCLIS
       Acronyms Introduced in Chapter 1
                 (continued)

    START -  Superfund Technical Assistance
            Response Team
    STLP   -  Superfund Technical Liaison Program
    TAP   -  Treatability Assistance Program
    UAO   -  Unilateral Administrative Order
establishing remedial action priorities that focus on
the worst sites and worst problems first. In fiscal
1989,  through  the  Superfund  Environmental
Indicators initiative, the Agency began to assess
not only the quantity of work performed, but also
the quality of environmental progress in reducing
human health and ecological risks.  The 90-Day
Study provided the Agency with momentum and a
clear strategy to continue progress achieved during
fiscal 1989.

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
     s
     OJD
     4)
     fi
     t/3
              0) O)

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
1.1     Enforcement Program Activities

        The aim of the  Superfund enforcement
program is to place responsibility for cleanup of
hazardous waste disposal sites on generators and
transporters of the wastes and on the owners or
operators of the sites. Relatively small investments
of enforcement resources  can yield  significant
environmental and public health benefits.  During
fiscal 1989, the Agency articulated a strategy that
emphasizes the involvement of PRPs at a larger
percentage of sites through greater use of statutory
enforcement  measures,  which  include  flexible
settlement procedures.
        The 90-Day Study reinforced the Agency's
commitment to enforcement activities.  A central
theme  of  the Study  was  greater use  of the
program's enforcement powers to maximize the
amount of PRP-lead work at Superfund sites. The
90-Day  Study   provided   numerous
recommendations for enforcement, many of which
were based  on ongoing  enforcement  initiatives.
This   Report  reviews  the  most  significant
recommendations and  focuses  in particular on
FY89 initiatives and accomplishments related to
them.
 1.1.1   Integrating Program Priorities: The
        One Superfund Program Approach

        EPA believes that it is essential to include
 PRPs   as   full   contributors   to  program
 implementation  from  the  start  of  cleanup.
 Superfund's current authorization of $8.5 billion is
 insufficient  to  address  the continually growing
 universe of Superfund sites. Increasing the role of
 private parties, and thereby conserving the  Fund
 for sites where no PRP can be  identified, true
 "orphan" sites,  among other situations, is a key
 factor in the Agency's planning process.   The
 foremost consideration, however, is the protection
 of human health and welfare and the environment.
 One of the Agency's goals, then, is to integrate the
 Superfund priorities of expediting site cleanup and
 maximizing PRP-lead field work.  To integrate
 these priorities, the Agency has  formulated a One
 Superfund  Program approach  that will  provide
 greater flexibility in overall implementation of the
 priorities.
        Prior to fiscal 1989, at the early stages of
the remedial pipeline, the Agency classified sites as
either  Fund- or  enforcement-lead.   This early
classification led to differing clean-up processes for
the site categories. For example, classification of
a  site as  enforcement-lead often delayed  the
initiation of RAs to allow EPA to conduct PRP
searches, notifications, and negotiations.   Many
times, if those efforts failed, remediation would be
further  delayed  while   EPA  allocated  Fund
resources for the site.
        Under  the  One  Superfund  Program
approach, the Agency completes a thorough PRP
search and  negotiates with  any  viable PRPs it
locates  before  classifying a  site as  Fund-  or
enforcement-lead.  If  the Agency and the PRPs
have not reached a settlement within a specified
period of time, the Agency will proceed to use the
Fund to respond to contaminated sites. When the
Agency chooses to take Fund-lead response actions
under  the One Program approach, it intends to
pursue  cost  recovery both more quickly  and
vigorously than in the past.  The availability of
Superfund resources ensures that  site cleanup  and
protectiveness  of  human   health   and   the
environment are  primary, and that financing is
secondary.
        Under  this new approach, even  when
efforts to include  PRPs in remediation fail  at the
early stages of the remedial pipeline,  the Agency
will continue to consider PRP involvement at later
stages.  Accordingly, the Agency will be able to
initiate  clean-up  actions   quickly,   without
encountering the delays  imposed by making an
initial, inflexible  decision to classify a site as
enforcement-lead. The implementation of the One
Superfund  Program  approach will ensure that
PRPs assist the Agency in undertaking a maximum
number of cleanups.

Implementation  of the  One Superfund Program
Approach

        EPA is using two tools to implement the
One Superfund Program approach.  The first tool
is the establishment of a single, integrated timeline
for all sites regardless of whether the project is
eventually financed by the Fund or PRPs. PRP
searches and other enforcement activities will be
conducted at every site.  The timeline establishes
goals for line managers  to use in planning their
approach  to site remediation.  EPA expects to

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
move the entire Superfund program closer to this
overall model of timely action, using the resources
and  infrastructure improvements provided as a
result of the 90-Day Study. As ongoing projects
progress through  the  stages  of the remedial
pipeline, the timeline will come to  serve as a
benchmark for assessing progress at sites.
        The second tool is  the joint Office  of
Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)/Office of
Emergency  and  Remedial  Response (OERR)
matrix system,  which will enable  managers  to
establish, test, and adjust resource levels by:

•       Identifying the most significant categories
        of program priorities;

•       Listing all program activities to which
        EPA allocates resources; and

•       Estimating the funding level needed  to
        support each activity.

        A  closely  related  concept  is  EPA's
initiative for broad site  management, which is
being developed for use by line managers.  With
these tools and concepts, EPA will  be  able  to
mitigate  immediate threats  while  moving sites
toward cleanup using PRP resources  as the first
source of funding.
        Under the One Program approach, EPA is
organizing  its site activities to ensure that each
region designates a site manager who is familiar
with  both  Fund  responses  and  enforcement
activities.  Ultimately, each person serving in this
newly defined role is responsible for coordinating
clean-up activities. Site managers are supported by
groups skilled in particular areas of the Superfund
process.   Although EPA does not  mandate a
specific form of organization for the support units,
it encourages the provision of an appropriate skill
mix  (including  experts  in  legal,  investigative,
administrative, and technical matters)  to enhance
the enforcement process. Several regions formally
reorganized during fiscal 1989  to implement the
One Program approach through the matrix, and
other regions are moving in that direction.
1.1.2  Enforcement Program
       Accomplishments in the Field

       EPA's   enforcement  program
accomplishments in fiscal  1989 far surpassed its
comparable accomplishments in any previous year.
The Agency increased the percentage of PRP-lead
work in almost all program  areas, including RI/FSs
and the design and implementation of remedial
actions.     The   range  of  accomplishments
demonstrates that EPA is successfully exercising its
enforcement authorities at several stages of the
remedial  pipeline.  Exhibit 1.1-1  illustrates that
Superfund enforcement momentum is increasing.
       PRPs  were  involved   in   a  greater
percentage of RAs in FY89 than in any previous
fiscal year.  EPA completed  eight final RAs for
sites at which the  Agency does not  anticipate
initiating any additional work; PRPs financed five
of these final RA completions.
       With regard to  RA starts, PRPs financed
51 of the total of 108 RAs started in FY89. These
enforcement accomplishments are the highest since
the enactment of SARA, In FY87, PRPs financed
19  RAs,  and  in  FY88,  they  financed  21.
Additionally, of the 157 RD starts in FY 1989,
PRPs financed 94.  (EPA did not track  these data
in a comparable fashion before the enactment of
SARA.)
       Of the 157  RI/FSs started during FY89,
PRPs financed 87, or 55 percent.  This  represents
a continued trend of increasing PRP involvement
in conducting RI/FSs over  the past several years.
In FY87,  PRPs financed 38 percent of the RI/FS
first starts; in FY88, they financed 48 percent.
       The Agency's accomplishments in securing
PRP participation in removal program activities
were only slightly lower than in fiscal 1988. Of the
322 removal action starts, PRPs financed 86.  Of
the 249 removal action completions, PRPs financed
75. (During  fiscal 1988, PRPs financed  108 of 328
removal starts and 74 of 282 removal completions.)

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
    Fiscal Year 1989
     VI
     s
    "•3
     
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
1.13  Enforcement Program
       Accomplishments in Compelling
       Potentially Responsible Parties to
       Undertake Field Work and in
       Recovering Costs

       EPA uses three major  procedures to
induce PRPs to undertake and finance cleanups.
First, under CERCLA section 122, EPA negotiates
enforcement agreements  with PRPs, if the PRPs
are willing to and  capable of undertaking  the
necessary field work. These agreements are either
(1) a judicial consent decree for remedial action;
or (2) an administrative order on consent (AOC)
for removal actions issued by the Agency. Both
forms  of agreement  are  enforceable  in  federal
District Court, and EPA oversees work performed
under both forms of agreement. The Department
of  Justice  (DOJ)   must   approve  cash-out
settlements with values greater than $500,000.
       Second,   if  EPA  cannot  reach  an
enforcement agreement, it can issue a unilateral
administrative order (UAO) against the PRP under
CERCLA section  106.   Under  this  course of
action, EPA directs the PRP to perform  the
necessary field work. If the PRP does not respond
to  the order,  EPA  may  litigate  to  compel
performance and  seek statutory  penalties.  In
addition, where the Agency undertakes cleanup,
PRPs  may also  be liable for treble damages.
Finally, if  EPA  undertakes the  necessary field
work, it will file suit under CERCLA section  107
against the PRPs to recover monies spent and
reimburse the Fund.
       To expedite the settlement process and in
response to the  90-Day  Study, EPA has made
efforts to improve intergovernmental coordination
of Superfund enforcement activities. In particular,
EPA has established a case management planning
process with DOJ to expedite  enforcement and
settlement decisionmaking.

Actions Taken Under CERCLA Sections 106 and
122

       EPA negotiated a total of 218 enforcement
settlements with  an estimated value  of $1,033.7
million in FY89, the highest number and value of
work to  be undertaken  since the enactment of
SARA (see Exhibit 1.1-2). This total includes 49
consent decrees and 22 UAOs for RD/RA work.
The  estimated  value  of  these   71  RD/RA
enforcement activities  is $747.6 million.   The
Agency also issued 147 orders compelling PRPs to
undertake other activities, including 117 removal
actions. The estimated value of these 147 activities
is $286.1 million.

Actions Taken Under CERCLA Sections 107

        EPA recovered $66.5 million during FY89
from PRPs, which represents a continued upward
trend  in  the  cost recovery  program.   EPA
recovered from PRPs $18.86 million in fiscal 1987
and $55.6 million in fiscal 1988.
1.1.4   Status of Enforcement Projects in
        the Remedial Pipeline

        Under CERCLA sections 301(h)(l)(B)
and (F), EPA must report to Congress the status
and estimated completion date of each Fund- and
enforcement-lead  RI,  FS, and  RA project  in
progress at the end of FY89.  Section 301(h)(l)(C)
requires EPA to provide notice of RI/FSs that will
not meet a previously  published schedule for
completions and  to  estimate  new  dates  of
completion.  On September 30, 1989, PRPs were
conducting a total of 366 clean-up actions.  Of
these 366 projects, 10 were ahead of schedule, 113
were on-schedule, and 91 were behind  schedule.
Projects began during the fiscal year accounted for
134 of the total. There also were 28 projects with
no previous estimated date  of completion.  The
projects in progress and their status are listed in
Appendix A
1.1.5  Current Enforcement Activities

        In addition to the value of work completed
by PRPs,  EPA tracks two  other types of cost
information related to enforcement activities:  (1)
dollars allocated to the enforcement program from
the Agency's annual budget  for external support;
and (2) EPA's costs for PRP oversight.

        The Agency's  renewed  commitment  to
including  PRPs  throughout the stages  of  the
remedial pipeline is demonstrated by the increases

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989





ie
........ .OS ' '-.'•
"P
.0
.52'
*&
Ofi
a
o
Xi
^
t^
00
2)
1
»•£•
fe
i-
^ -••
x *S
tc5 4t
C/5
**•«
M
^S3
^
a
•**
':O
o

^/^
^^





; Mixed Funding Decree for
1 RD/RA

^
.2
^— i
•i^
g
C-;
^
, Jfc
^
fN
CS


^^
C
_o
s
s
oi
i-H
^

•^J-
T~H

/-^
G

^
• ^H
s
cs

^2?
>—'
^

V-i
^^
^^3
1
I Unilateral Administrative Oi
I for RD/RA

"e1

i— <
•^H
G
ON
CO
f*/S
^
\^\
^^r


^^
c
.2
|ZZ]
s
ON
O
CO
tS
oo
cs

/>«N
p*
o
M
• f-H
s
(/-)
•*$•
y?$
^^
OO




Consent Decree for RD/RA
I

^
,0
^
• ^H
6
i— H
00
V J.?
^
f^fc
^^1
1M^


c
.2
£3
s
^^^
^^N
^^[

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
in the enforcement budget allocations for fiscal
1989 and 1990. In response to the 90-Day Study,
toward the close of fiscal 1989, EPA corrected its
pricing factors for  performing remedial activities.
Subsequently, EPA increased the funding for PRP
searches  and  oversight  of  PRP-lead  removal
actions in Regions 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.  Congress
also  has   authorized  EPA  to  add  20  civil
investigators to  regional staffs  to perform  PRP
searches and pursue cost recovery.  In FY90, the
Agency will provide analytical support and labor-
saving tools for strengthening the regions' ability
to oversee PRP-lead projects.
       Also,  during  the  fiscal  1989  budget
planning process, the Agency greatly increased its
resource allocations for remedial actions in all 10
regions, in comparison to  previous fiscal years.
These increased allocations will be channeled to
support ongoing  remedial oversight  and  PRP
searches, as well as to initiate negotiations with
PRPs to perform RDs and RAs.
       During the fiscal year, EPA  initiated a
program-wide, flexible  funding approach that  (1)
ensures the success of the One Program approach;
and  (2)   emphasizes  enforcement  first,  while
adhering to a response timetable. This policy gives
the regions the flexibility to shift funds among sites
and  to  move  quickly  between  enforcement
activities and response  activities, where necessary.
Under  the policy,  the  regions  can  transfer
resources among categories  of activities, provided
that  the  region  can  still meet accountability
commitments and notification requirements. The
policy ensures  that if additional resources become
available because EPA reaches a settlement for a
site with a PRP, the region has the opportunity to
apply the resources that were originally allocated
for that site to  cleaning up other high-priority sites
within that region.
1.1.6   Other Enforcement Activities

        In fiscal 1989, OWPE  conducted  The
Removal Enforcement Interface Study that addressed
the initiation and implementation of enforcement
activities for removal actions.   The study made
recommendations for  both EPA  Regions  and
Headquarters  to improve  the  timeliness  and
efficiency of and to  increase the number of PRP-
lead removal  actions.   In particular, the study
addressed  reorganizing regional removal  and
enforcement personnel, expediting PRP searches
and notification, and facilitating negotiations with
PRPs.
       The National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC), located in Denver,  Colorado,
provided  important support to EPA during FY89
in responding to both civil and criminal CERCLA
investigations.  In the area of technical support for
judicial enforcement of Superfund cases, NEIC was
involved  in the development of eight new civil
cases and continued to support the development of
58 criminal and 17 civil Superfund cases.  Also,
within NEIC's Criminal Investigation Program, 77
investigations were conducted on cases involving
some  CERCLA  activity;   two  of  these  cases
involved  no statutory  requirements  other than
those of CERCLA
1.2     Summary of Activities in the
        Remedial Pipeline

        Nine years after enactment of CERCLA
and three years into the Agency's implementation
of SARA,  the level of  project activity  in  the
Superfund  program  has  reached a  peak.   At
current resource levels, the project workload at the
various  phases of the remedial pipeline is  at
capacity and  will remain so for the foreseeable
future.
1.2.1  Remedial Activity Status Report

       During the fiscal year, the Agency or PRPs
started 157 RI/FSs  (PRPs financed 87 of the 157).
Additionally, RDs were begun at 157 sites (PRPs
started 94 of the 157), and RAs were begun at 108
sites (PRPs started 51 of the 108).
       Eight  hundred  ninety   projects  were
ongoing on  September 30,  1989, including  669
RI/FSs, 16 stand-alone FSs, 11  stand-alone RIs,
and  221  RAs.   These  projects  are  listed in
Appendix A  Appendix A also lists  one site that
was removed from the  NPL during  FY89.  This
site is not included in the  figures presented in this
section.
       The status of  the ongoing projects is
summarized   in   Exhibit   1.2-1,  based  on  a
comparison of each project's planned completion

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                          (A
                                                                          8
                                                                          I
                                                                          .3
                                                                          b,
                                      10

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
date at the end of FY88 (where available), with its
planned completion date at the end of FY89.  Of
the 890 projects ongoing at the end of FY89, 265
were on schedule.   This  represents a dramatic
increase compared to the  29 ongoing projects at
the end of FY88 that were on  schedule.  At  the
end of FY89, 18 ongoing  projects  were ahead of
schedule.  Projects begun  in the fiscal year (i.e.,
"new projects underway") accounted for 317 of the
ongoing projects, and  232 projects were behind
schedule.  There were also  58 projects that had no
previously published estimates of completion.
        In addition, there  were 253 RDs ongoing
at 208 sites at the end of FY89.  All of the RDs in
progress and their status are listed in Appendix B.
        The Agency  selected  a wide range  of
remedies  in  the  139  RODs  and four ROD
amendments  signed  in  FY89.   Exhibit  1.2-2
illustrates the number of source control treatment
technology  occurrences for  FY89.   (The   100
treatment   technology  occurrences  in  FY89
represent  the  largest number of such occurrences
in any fiscal year.) Exhibit 1.2-2 also lists the total
number of occurrences of source and non-source
control remediation methods for FY89.
        To   meet   statutory  schedules,  EPA
significantly accelerated remedial  project activity
during FY87-89.  The specific statutory schedules
were to initiate 275  RI/FS  and  175  RAs  by
October 1989. To satisfy  these deadlines, RI/FSs
were initiated at 358 sites,  and RA contracts were
awarded for clean-up work at 178 sites.  As a
result,  the  amount  of ongoing  work  in   the
Superfund program has never been higher. Exhibit
1.2-3  illustrates  the  Post-SARA  (FY87-89)
acceleration of remedial activity at the RI/FS, RD,
and RA stages.
        In  FY89,  Superfund  operated with  a
budget of $1.26 billion.  This was $100 million less
than the President's budget request.  This funding
reduction was  applied  to  RA  funding,  which
resulted in a final operating plan of $384 million
that supported 56 projects.  Through FY89, funds
for RAs have  been awarded on a first ready/first
funded basis.  The  FY89 funding required several
of the  high-cost projects  to  be  phase-funded.
Phase-funding means that only the funds needed
for a specific portion of the selected remedy (e.g.,
site preparation or incinerator test  burn)  were
allocated and  obligated to  the  site.  Additional
funds will be needed at these sites in future fiscal
years.
1.2.3   The  Prospect  of  a  Backlog  of
        Remedial Action Projects

        A major portion (roughly $200 million) of
the FY90 and FY91 RA budgets will be needed te
support the projects that were phase-funded in
FY89, which  will  limit  the  number  of new
Fund-financed RAs that can be supported in these
two fiscal years. Consequently, a queue of projects
awaiting RA funds is developing.
        It is important to realize that all NPL sites
that require further action after  the RI/FS are, by
definition, priority sites.  A critical task for the
Agency is how to rank these sites by  relative
priority.   The  setting of priorities  based  on
protection  of human  health, welfare, and  the
environment will be the  primary consideration
EPA uses to determine which RAs will be funded
first.
 1.2.2   Budget Constraints

        Despite  the  increase  in   PRP-funded
 actions, RA projects ready for funding are likely to
 exceed the available budget for several years. The
 resource-intensive nature of RA implementation is
 the ultimate constraint on the remedial pipeline.
 At an average  cost of $15  million and  at  the
 current levels of PRP participation at the RA
 implementation stage, there are clear limits to the
 amount of RA work that can be undertaken each
 year.
1.3     Remedial Initiatives

        During  the fiscal  year,  the  remedial
program developed a  system  for  prioritizing
remedial actions to ensure that, if a backlog of
sites arises  because of funding shortfalls, sites
presenting the worst threats to human health and
the environment will  be cleaned up  first.  A
detailed explanation of the Agency's process for
setting priorities among RA projects is found in
Section 1.3.1.  The Agency also refined and began
implementing   a  system   of   Superfund
Environmental Indicators. The Agency is planning
                                                11

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                    Fiscal Year 1989
                                     ExMMt 12W
                 Summary of Remedies Selected During Fiscal 1989
          SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIATION

          Treatment Technology'
                Incineration/Thermal Treatment
                Solidification/Stabilization
                Vacuum/Vapor Extraction *
                Biodegradation/Land Application *
                Soil Washing/Flushing *
                Solvent Extraction *
                Volatilization/Soil Aeration *
                Other/Not Specified Treatment Technologies

          Containment Only
                On-site
                Off-site

          NON-SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIATION
                TECHNOLOGY SELECTIONS

                Pump and Treat
                Alternate Water Supply
                Other  (e.g., Natural Attenuation)
                Leachate Treatment
                                          TOTAL NUMBER
                                          OF OCCURRENCES

                                                    100
                                                    30
                                                    18
                                                    17
                                                    10
                                                     6
                                                     6
                                                     4
                                                     9
                                                     31
                                                     24
                                                      7
                                                     67
                                                      8
                                                      2
                                                      7
             *
             i
             2
             3
Innovative technologies.
Includes final and interim action RODs; more than one remedy may be associated with a ROD.
Data is based on 139 signed RODs and 4 ROD amendments.
Categorized by principal treatment technology; treatments used as subsequent components of a
treatment chain are not included.
Data reflect occurrences of technologies selected in the 76 source control RODs that used
treatment as the principal remedy; more than one technology may be associated with a ROD.
        SOURCE:    Based on the ROD Annual Summary Report: Fiscal Year 1989, HSCD/OERR.
                                          12

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
1
1
JM
WO
J«3
o
• 4=
H'
	 5
i
£
<5>
""i-
3'i
^ ^
2\|
1-S:
w..|
' •• 1'
«g Work at National Priori
• MM
-.0
W3
a



2


s a s i s * « : r- , g
"SS'S'^-^'S
l> TJ- 0 ] ^ - i _ os
00 co en ' CN ' ' ' ^ ' r>





o
«


°>N°o'~'I^rrit^r~'aN ! in
^ es
OO O >n | Os | | CN CN | $%
t> CN ON i oo i | CN ^H | £3
00 en in ' CN ' ' JH

CO
CC
a-
<&


ao ^o CN Tt ! \o r~ ! *o
^^ CN CN *O

SSc^-'— i OlcN^HCN >O
^^ CN CN tr>

oo^- SON : i^jq^-'®
4^
CA -C
ed 1 O
ky| _j <^
| § W
rt 2 C C
T3 S g rt
1 | I 1 1 1
"A »-i c^ oL '2 O
U 3^ ^^ *~j >—> *-,
*Z £i *f rr o U
rf ^3 x^ "^ •; *•>
S IL) MH CL C n3
on PL W _I ^i *-•
f^-1 '"™1 »^ , ^5 22
: : i c ^ , u ^
T3T3T3^3 gr^-j §^

« ^Wg^^yCO
J^j rtrtra^:'§£~(Sr2 W3
«||||Slw|fe^
V3 CCC^J'^^'Jrt'OJS?^
fe [Sfcfco.S^^fcOH

U
« i

c3 ^
60 3"
rt V)
*o ^
:" £ c 1
13> S 1
1 1 1 •
; || 1
B|"| |
8 « V, 1
• | II " s
••o | « f1 |
g -S &. B, S
4i a oi ^ ^j

. lUf s H
:t ^9 i 1 1"^
1 1 i J i i |
te aj gj J*. o cd "?
1 '2 1 1 1 1 1-
.-3 £ 0 h, J5 <" ^~
Includes remedial program lead projects ani
Projects at which EPA employees perform '
PRP-financed projects with site clean-up w
The FY87 Report to Congress on Progress
After further data analysis, this number has
FY87 and FY88 data from CERCLIS; rest <
(Appendix D), FY88 (Appendix A), FY89 (


*-< 
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
to use the Environmental Indicators to report to
the public progress being made towards meeting
health and ecological standards at Superfund sites.
Additionally, the  Agency  initiated  several  new
programs to provide  remedial  project managers
(RPMs) and on-scene coordinators (OSCs) better
technical support on-site.
1.3.1   Establishing    Priorities   for
        Remedial Actions

        The remedial action is the phase of the
Superfund site clean-up process during which the
selected  remedy  is  implemented.   All of  the
investigation, assessment, evaluation, and planning
of prior steps lead to the  RA; although duration
and costs vary, the RA is easily the most resource-
intensive step in the remedial pipeline.
        Through  1989, every  RA  project was
funded when it was ready to proceed.  Previous
budget levels allowed funding to  keep pace with
the flow of projects from  the RI/FS to  the RA
phase of  the  pipeline.  During FY89, however,
because of the increased pace at which the Agency
is preparing projects for RAs and the reduction in
the FY89 RA budget, this first ready/first funded
system was no longer appropriate.   RA projects
ready for funding were beginning to exceed the
available  budget,  despite  an increase  in  PRP-
funded actions. At the end of the third quarter of
FY89, $65 million were  available  for  the  RAs
scheduled to begin in the  fourth quarter. During
that quarter, the Agency had planned to initiate 29
projects totalling more than SI 18 million.  The
Agency decided,  however, to  phase-fund several
large projects,  thereby avoiding  the  expected
shortfall  in  fiscal  1989.    In  response to  the
magnitude of the potential shortfall identified in
fiscal 1989, the Agency developed a system for
setting priorities among RAs.
        The  system for setting priorities- among
RAs allocates limited resources to projects at NPL
sites with the highest environmental priority. First,
RAs are categorized into  one of the four groups
shown below.   Within these groups, the RA
projects   are  further  ordered   according  to
environmental criteria.
        Priority 1:  Immediate or imminent threat
to human health.
        Priority 2:  Actual exposure or near-term
exposure resulting in risk  to  human health or
endangered species.
        Priority  3:    An   Agency   for  Toxic
Substances  and   Disease   Registry  (ATSDR)
determination that a probable threat to health or
sensitive environments exists.
        Priority 4:  Potential  for exceeding any
applicable or relevant and  appropriate clean-up
standard or any risk-based site remediation goal.
        The system for  setting priorities among
RAs was tested on the  RA projects planned to
start in the  fourth quarter  of  FY89.  Following
minor modifications, the system was instituted as
a means of directing funds to the worst problems
first.   In July 1989, the  system  was  used to
prioritize 88 RA projects ready to start in FY90.
An EPA Headquarters and  regional review panel
made up of  senior management officials assessed
each project based on established environmental
criteria.  During  FY90, RAs will  be funded in
order of relative priority until budgeted funds are
exhausted. At mid-point, the list of priority RAs
will  be reviewed  and  adjusted to  reflect  any
schedule changes and to exclude projects that have
been  funded  by  other means  (for example,
settlements with PRPs). Also at mid-year, projects
scheduled for  fourth  quarter  starts  will  be
prioritized and integrated into the standing list.
        The system for  setting priorities among
RAs is  based on a set of objective criteria  that
allow comparisons of different projects. Ranking
criteria  address  the relative  instability  of the
contaminants  at  the site,  the nature  of the
contaminants present and their concentrations, the
proximity of the hazardous material to populated
areas, and the threat to environmentally sensitive
areas and/or endangered  species.    Additional
criteria  were designed to address  programmatic
factors,  such as the relationship of the work to be
funded to the overall remediation effort at a site or
related sites.
1.3.2   Superfund
        Indicators
Environmental
        EPA's assessments of the overall progress
made in Superfund have focused primarily on the
number of administrative milestones achieved at
various points  in the  clean-up  process.    For
                                                14

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
example,  the  Agency's   accomplishments  in
addressing emergency problems have been reported
as the number of removals started or completed.
Similarly, progress in implementing overall site
remediation  plans  has been reported  as the
number  of  remedial  action  projects  started or
completed.  Historically, the measure of final site
cleanup has  been the number of sites deleted from
the NPL.
        This Report  contains  a great deal of
information on the administrative accomplishments
achieved by the Superfund  program during and
prior to  FY89;  much of  this  information  is
specifically required for inclusion in the Report by
CERCLA section 301. Although these milestones
are  important, two  major  concerns  have  been
raised about the reporting of Superfund program
progress solely in administrative terms.  First, since
the deletion of a site from the NPL is  generally a
very long-term process, those who believe this to
be  the  appropriate  measure of the  Superfund
program's success have criticized the Agency for
the small number of sites  deleted from the NPL
since the beginning of the program (28 through the
end of FY89).  Second, these milestones do not
convey   the   progress   toward   health   and
environmental  risk reduction made during the
clean-up process prior to the final completion of
all clean-up actions.
        OERR and  the Office  of  Management
Systems  and Evaluation (OMSE) have worked
together during FY88 and FY89  to capture  more
directly the accomplishments of the  Superfund
program by the use  of a  system of Superfund
Environmental Indicators.  The system will report
on  the  progress being made towards meeting
health and ecological standards at Superfund sites
by  tracking  interim and final results.   EPA has
attempted  to ensure that these indicators are
scientifically credible, understandable by Congress
and the public, and applicable to the'wide variety
of  sites  and clean-up approaches.  In addition,
EPA will  attempt to  make the  system  both
practical and efficient to implement by maximizing
the use of existing Superfuml data.

Development of Superfund Environmental
Indicators

        The development of indicators began with
efforts to identify ways to measure progress in
environmental terms and then to evaluate the most
promising indicators of progress in several regions.
During FY88 and part of FY89, EPA created and
then analyzed a  list  of potential  indicators of
progress at Superfund sites.  An EPA workgroup
of headquarters, regional, and project management
personnel  identified  an  initial  group  of  43
indicators. The workgroup also reviewed potential
sources of data to be used  in  implementing an
indicators system, including automated Superfund
data bases, Superfund site files  and reports, and
other non-Superfund data bases.  The initial group
of 43  indicators  was  then narrowed to  eight
potential indicators, since many were determined
to be either duplicative or too narrowly or broadly
focused.  These eight indicators  are:

•      Immediate  reduction   in  exposure  to
       human populations;

•      Volume  of   contaminated   materials
       treated/removed/contained;

•      Reduced concentrations of environmental
       contaminants;

•      Comparison of concentrations with health
       standards/criteria;

•      Comparison   of  concentrations   with
       ecological criteria;

•      Reduced   toxicity  to  test  organisms
       (bioassays);

•      Reduced  levels  of contaminants  in fish
       and shellfish; and

•      Pathways  of exposure eliminated.

       To  evaluate  the  usefulness  of   these
indicators for  measuring  and communicating
environmental  progress,  EPA teams  visited
Regions 1, 3, and 7 to conduct  pilot test studies.
Data were collected on both removal  and remedial
actions in these regions and were  subsequently
analyzed to determine the feasibility of collecting
information for each indicator. EPA continued to
collect site data early into FY89, conducting pilot
test studies in Regions 2 and 6. During these later
pilot tests, EPA relied increasingly on site project
managers  to  provide the necessary data,  since
regional and site management personnel will play
                                                15

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
a major role in future  implementation  of the
system.  These field activities were concluded in
October 1988.

Progress Made During FY89

        In  April  1989, a  feasibility study for
implementing  the  system   that  incorporated
summary data obtained during the pilot studies was
published.  A report presenting the results of an
evaluation of the public's response to the  project
was also published in April.  During May 1989,
OERR  and  OMSE sponsored a workgroup to
determine which of the proposed eight indicators
would be used  for  reporting  program progress
beginning in FY90.  After  this, the workgroup
made a final decision to narrow the list from eight
to three "super" indicators of progress. The three
indicators chosen were:

•       Achievement  of  Final  Health   and
        Ecological  Standards  - This  indicator
        reports on the number and nature of final
        remedies at Superfund sites that  address
        health or ecological goals specified in the
        ROD.  Data will be collected to enable
        reporting on the sites at which health or
        ecological goals  specified  in the ROD
        have  been  met  for  a given medium
        through   treatment,  removal,   or
        containment.

•       Accomplishment of  Interim Actions  that
        Protect  Human Health  from Immediate
        Threat  -  This  indicator   reports  on
        remedial or removal actions  that  protect
        human health from  immediate threat by
        preventing  exposure  to  contaminated
        materials or by controlling contaminant
        migration.   Data will be collected on
        removals or interim  remedial actions that
        have controlled an  immediate  threat to
        human health by preventing  exposure to
        contaminated materials or by controlling
        contaminant migration; and

 •       Documentation  of  Amount of  Waste
        Treated/Removed/Contained  —  This
        indicator reports on the actual volume of
        contaminated material dealt with at a site.
        Data will be collected on the volume of
        contaminated material treated (on site or
       off site), removed (to off-site landfills or
       approved storage) or contained on site for
       a given medium.

       Spurred  on by a recommendation in the
90-Day   Study   calling   for   collection   of
environmental indicator data, the  focus  of the
project changed  during the latter part of FY89
from evaluation  to planning for implementation.
The  results of  the  developmental work  were
assessed to determine the amount of information
that could be  reported on completed  Superfund
clean-up actions. Data collection procedures were
then developed to  summarize the environmental
results of past  clean-up actions.
       A second workgroup meeting was held in
late  July  to  make   final  the  implementation
schedule    for   the   system,   including   the
establishment of major milestones to be achieved
from FY89 through  FY91.   During August and
September 1989, EPA completed the development
of data collection  procedures to summarize the
environmental results of past clean-up actions.
       EPA  completed  collection  of  FY90
environmental indicator data in March  1990.  The
universe of projects for this data  collection effort
included RAs, NPL removal actions, and a subset
of non-NPL removal  actions.  During the period
between  October  1989  and  March  1990, data
collection  teams  visited all 10 EPA Regions.  The
mission of these teams, as in the pilot studies, was
to collect  as  much  site-related  information as
possible, using a variety of data sources. Following
the completion of this effort, all data collected was
analyzed and entered  into the modified CERCLIS.
Modifications to CERCLIS will enable the Agency
to monitor progress  in nationwide site clean-up
efforts on  an ongoing basis.

Future Project Activities

       Current plans call  for  the regions to
collect and report environmental indicator  data
beginning  in  FY91.   When it becomes fully
operational,   the    Superfund  Environmental
Indicators  system  will be a  valuable means of
accurately  measuring and  monitoring program
performance, enabling the Agency to communicate
useful and understandable measures of progress.
                                                16

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
133   Technical Assistance Programs

        The Office of Research and Development
(ORD) initiated four new programs during FY89
to  provide  expanded  technical  assistance  in
response  to  90-Day  Study recommendations.
These  programs are designed to provide needed
support primarily through the use of EPA in-house
experts.  Three of the programs, the Superfund
Technical Assistance Response  Team (START),
the Treatability Assistance Program  (TAP), and
the Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center (ATTIC), focus on engineering technical
support.   The  fourth program,  the Superfund
Technical Liaison Program (STLP), is designed to
facilitate  interactions between  the regions  and
ORD by placing an ORD technical liaison in each
region.

Superfund Technical Assistance Response Team

        ORD and the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory  (RREL)  are  jointly  developing
START.   The  purpose  of the  program is to
provide direct technical consultation and support
to  RPMs  and  Agency  contractors   for  the
identification   and  evaluation   of  appropriate
remedial technologies for specific site problems.
The goal is to establish a cadre of technologists
that will provide  expert advice on  the use of
commercial, innovative, and evolving technologies
for specific sites from the RI/FS scoping phase
through early  RD  phases.   The program  will
involve significant commitment of ORD resources
for each site.  The Agency, therefore, anticipates
that it will have to establish priorities for START
assistance.   Preliminary criteria for  START
support include:

•       Sites   with  the  potential  for  using
        innovative treatment;

•       Sites with the potential for using complex
        treatment technologies;  and

•       Sites presenting complex problems.

Regional managers  will identify sites  for START
support; final selection will be based on available
resources  and  capabilities.     START   was
successfully piloted during fiscal 1989 and is being
implemented nationwide in fiscal 1990.

Treatability Assistance Program

        ORD designed TAP to provide technical
support for treatability studies, thereby facilitating
their performance and ensuring that they are based
on sound technical information.  To meet these
goals, ORD has initiated  a number of technology
transfer activities  and  has  provided treatability
assistance.   The program also has   established
teams of RREL treatment technology experts to
supply technical assistance to the regions and is
augmenting  RREL in-house  treatability study
capabilities to support the regions. The treatment
technology experts will work in conjunction with
START and through short-term technical support
activities to provide treatability assistance.

The Alternative Treatment Technology  Information
Center

        The Agency  created ATTIC to provide
EPA  staff  and  contractors  with access to  a
comprehensive list of technology alternatives for
hazardous waste remediation. The system contains
a wide range of technology information, such as
site program data, treatability studies, industry and
state   alternative   technologies    data,  and
Department of Defense and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization data.  A user can access the system
by contacting a telephone  reference operator or by
using an ORD-supplied computer disk.  ATTIC
will be on line in fiscal  1990.

Superfund Technical Liaison Program

        EPA began to develop STLP in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 1989 with input from personnel at
headquarters and in Regions 3 and 7.  The goal of
the program is to  facilitate interactions between
ORD and the regions by placing an ORD technical
liaison in each region.  EPA  Headquarters will
manage and provide  planning  and evaluation
support to the program.
                                                17

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
1.4     Removal Initiatives
        CERCLA section 104(a) authorizes EPA
to perform cleanups or other actions necessary to
prevent or minimize the risk posed by an incident
(for example, a  chemical  spill)  or  a site  (for
example, leaking drums at a landfill). When there
is such a  release or threat  of a release of  a
hazardous  substance that presents  a near-term
threat to human health or the environment, EPA
generally   responds  with  a   removal  action.
Removal actions are designed to address the most
immediate threats of  toxic exposure.  Section
300.415 of the revised National Contingency Plan
(NCP) further describes the factors for determining
when a  removal action is appropriate.
        Removal actions  are  intended  to be
relatively quick,  low-cost actions the Agency can
take to get response actions underway. The nature
of these actions is reflected in the statutory limits
set forth in section  104(c)  of CERCLA.   In
general, removals are intended to last no more
than one year and cost no more than $2 million.
A removal action may exceed  these limits only
after an exemption has been granted.  There are
two cases in which exemptions may be granted
under CERCLA section 104(c). The first situation
is where  there  is an immediate risk to  public
health or welfare or the environment, continued
response  actions are  immediately  required to
prevent, limit, or mitigate the emergency, and such
assistance will not  otherwise be provided on  a
timely  basis.   The  second situation  is  where
continued response action is otherwise appropriate
and consistent with the remedial action to be
taken.  During  FY89, the Agency issued final
guidance  on the use  of the  exemption  in the
second  case.  The Agency also approved 21 of the
22 requests to exceed the $2 million limit.
 1.4.1   The Removal Action Process

        The removal program takes action on a
 wide variety of sites, using various techniques on
 many types of contaminants. As a result, removal
 actions are grouped into three categories based on
 the urgency of the situation.  The most urgent is
 an emergency, which requires immediate attention.
 An overturned truck that is leaking a hazardous
substance would  be an  emergency.   If  a site
requires  action within a  6-month  period it  is
considered a time-critical action.  A time-critical
action includes  the containment  of hazardous
wastes until a  remedial action can be conducted.
If a site does not require attention for  at least 6
months,   it   is   considered   non-time-critical.
Emergencies, time-critical removals at NPL sites,
and time-critical removals that do not fall under
any other response authority receive the removal
program's top  priority.
       Based   on   a   removal   preliminary
assessment, the Agency may classify the site into
one of the three removal categories or decide that
no further action is necessary. Before beginning a
removal action, the Agency must prepare an action
memorandum  that discusses  the  authority for
undertaking the removal action and describes the
action(s) to be taken, as well as the rationale for
the selected action(s). EPA also must establish an
administrative  record  that  consists  of  the
documents that form the basis for the selection of
the response action.  In the case of an emergency,'
the documentation may not always occur prior to
the response.  In the case  of a non-time-critical
removal,  the  Agency  conducts an  engineering
evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA).  The purpose of
the  EE/CA  is  to  focus  on  the  analysis of
alternatives.   A  description of  the  response
alternatives  identified  in  this  study are  made
available to the public in the administrative record.
       After  the  removal   action  has  been
completed, the OSC is required to submit  a final
report on the removal action.  The OSC is the
official who is  designated to coordinate and direct
removal actions.  The OSC report must describe
the situation  at  the site  as  it  developed, the
response actions that took place at the site, and
any problems that occurred during the response.
1.4.2   Removal Actions Status Report

        Since the inception of Superfund, the
removal program has achieved impressive results.
Removal actions have been conducted at 1,563
sites at a cost of $518,306,753.  The average cost
of a Fund-lead removal action is increasing and is
approaching $500,000. Exhibit 1.4-1 compares the
number of removal action starts and completions
                                                18

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
in FY89 to the program's achievements in previous
fiscal years.
        During FY89, the Agency started 322
removal actions, exceeding the EPA target of 248.
The Agency also completed 249 removal actions in
FY89, which exceeds the target of 171.  Exhibit
1.4-2 displays the number of removal starts and
completions by state.  The number of starts and
completions are only slightly lower than the record
highs achieved in FY88.
        During FY89, PRPs continued to play a
significant role in  the removal  program.  PRPs
were responsible for 86 removal starts in FY89 and
for 75 of the removal completions, which is nearly
35 percent of the total completions for the fiscal
year. This is the largest number of completions by
PRPs  since  the   inception of  the Superfund
program.  Of the PRP removal starts, 27 were at
NPL sites.  Of the PRP  removal completions, 22
were at NPL sites.
        In FY89, 236  removal action starts were
financed using money  from the Trust Fund.  This
includes 41  sites that  are on the NPL.  Of the
removal actions completed during the fiscal year,
174 were financed using  Fund money; 42  of these
actions were at sites on the NPL. There were 224
removal actions in  progress at the end of FY89.
1.4.3   Actions Taken in Response to the
        90-Day Study

        The   90-Day   Study   made   several
recommendations affecting the removal program.
The recommendations included making NPL sites
safer, accelerating responses at  NPL sites, and
completing removal assessments at all unaddressed
NPL sites.  The Agency began to address these
recommendations in FY89.

Making National Priorities List Sites Safer

        The 90-Day Study emphasized that it is the
Agency's  policy  that sites  presenting  the most
acute risk to human health and the environment
will receive the  earliest actions to  prevent the
spread of contamination and to control or  reduce
the risk posed by the site. Taking steps to  ensure
that all NPL sites are made more safe than they
were at the time of listing  to alleviate immediate
risk that  would  be posed  by the site until the
remedial action can be completed is a significant
step in achieving this policy.
        In October 1989, just after the close of the
fiscal year, OERR's Emergency Response Division
(ERD)  issued draft guidance that  clarified the
meaning of a "safer NPL site." According to this
guidance, making  NPL sites safer  involves the
elimination of immediate endangerment to human
health and the environment from physical threats
(e.g., fire or explosion) at a site.  At a safer site,
the near-term risk from releases of contaminants
has been controlled. The endangerment to human
health will be minimized at such a site while the
remediation of the site is being completed.  This
draft guidance  also  explains the  mechanisms
available to  make NPL sites safer, which include
emergency and time-critical removals and removal
authority used  to  address  remedial projects
(discussed under accelerating responses at  NPL
sites, immediately below).

Accelerating Responses

        The 90-Day Study recommended that EPA
take  expedited   approaches  to  site cleanup
whenever possible.  If an accelerated response is
taken at an NPL site (or operable unit), the action
could be completed more  quickly than  if  a
conventional response were  taken.  In order to
accelerate a  remedial action at an NPL site, the
Agency  may either  use removal  authorities  or
removal  contractors and remedial funding.  On
July 6, 1989, EPA issued guidance on the specific
requirements that must be met before this hybrid
approach to a  cleanup  may be used.    This
approach is intended only as a temporary response
option until rapid remedial contracting alternatives
are fully developed. Removal approaches have
been used to speed up remedial action projects on
11 sites to date; three were started in FY89.  In
December 1989, EPA also issued draft guidance
entitled  "Accelerating Response  at  NPL Sites."
This  guidance  summarizes  the  mechanisms
available to  accelerate responses  and encourages
the use of these mechanisms whenever possible.

Conducting Removal Assessments

        On  July  6,  1989,  OERR  issued   a
memorandum declaring its intention to complete
removal assessments at  all unaddressed NPL sites
by the end of FY89. These assessments determine
                                               19

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                        Fiscal Year 1989
                                  Exhibit 1.4-1
             Removal Action Starts and Completions by Fiscal Year
             REMOVAL ACTION STARTS
                   Fund-Financed (1,513)

              KSS1 PRP-Financed (464)
         0
  Fiscal Year  1980   1981   1982  1983   1984   1985   1986   1987   1988   1989
TOTAL

    250


    200


  3150
      0.
       100
                    28
61   139   270    282   233    304   328   322  1,974

             REMOVAL ACTION COMPLETIONS
                                                               208
        50
         0
  Fiscal Year   1980   1981   1982    1983   1984   1985   1986   1987  1988  1989
    TOTAL    0     18    67    108   229   208    176    226   282   249 1,563

  SOURCES:  CERCLIS; Progress Toward Implementing Superfund: Fiscal Year 1988, OERR, April 1989.
                                        20

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                               fif  gS  £^
                               >o  p«vsr
                                  21

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
whether action is necessary to render the site safe
from immediate hazards to public health and the
environment. At the end of FY89, the Superfund
program had initiated 276 removal assessments, of
which 249 had been completed.  Information from
removal  assessments will  be used  to establish
priorities  for  any longer-term  response  action
necessary to complete a cleanup.
 1.4.4   The Superfund Removal
        Procedures Manual

        The Superfund Removal Procedures (SRP)
 manual is the removal program's guidance manual
 covering all of the procedural and administrative
 requirements for removal actions. This manual is
 used  for reference  by  OSCs,  other  response
 personnel, the remedial program staff, and EPA
 enforcement personnel, as well as  other  federal
 and state agencies.  During FY89, ERD began
 developing a new conceptual approach to the SRP
 manual. To make  the SRP manual  easier to read
 and use, ERD is in the process of breaking down
 the single, comprehensive volume into 12 separate
 volumes.  For example, all pertinent information
 on action memoranda  will  now  be located in a
 single volume, rather than being distributed over
 several  parts of the larger document. In addition,
 ERD is in the process of developing a pocket-size
 Field Manual, which will be especially helpful to
 OSCs.
 1.4.5   Actions Involving Nationally
        Significant or Precedent-Setting
        Issues  at Sites that are not on the
        National Priorities List

        In March 1989, OERR issued Guidance on
 Non-NPL Removal Actions  Involving Nationally
Significant  or Precedent-Setting  Issues.    The
guidance categorizes such removals into six groups
and includes the rationale for each category. The
key considerations used to establish the categories
were  whether a  Fund-financed response to  a
particular incident will establish a precedent for
future response actions and whether a response
will commit EPA to a course of action that could
have a significant impact on future resources, if the
problem  addressed occurs  frequently.    The
concurrence of the Director of OERR is required
prior to the initiation of a removal action taken at
non-NPL sites where the proposed action is of
national significance or precedent-setting.
1.4.6   Changes in the Revised National
        Contingency Plan that Affect the
        Removal Program

        In  addition to  incorporating  necessary
statutory changes,  the  revised  NCP  addresses
changes in the removal program, such as:

•       EPA's expectation that  states, PRPs, or
        the remedial program will provide post-
        removal site control;

•       Extension  of  the  time  allowed for
        submission of the OSC report;

•       Clarification on how to determine whether
        identification and attainment of applicable
        or relevant and appropriate requirements
        (ARARs) are practicable in a particular
        situation; and

•       EPA's decision not to establish "trigger"
        levels (for example, a particular maximum
        contamination level) that would  always
        require a removal action rather than a
        remedial action.
                                               22

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                       Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                               CHAPTER
       In addition  to activities at sites  in the
remedial pipeline, the Agency conducted a number
of  other  response  activities  to  ensure  the
protection of  public health,  welfare,  and the
environment.
2.1     Site Assessment

        Among the crucial elements in the timely
response to a potentially dangerous incident or site
are notification to the appropriate authority and
assessment of the situation.   These  activities
represent  the  initial  stages  of the Superfund
process and take place before a site enters the
remedial pipeline.  EPA is made aware of possible
hazardous waste sites in a  variety of ways.  For
example, an individual might report concerns about
a particular site, or local law enforcement officials
or a facility manager might  make a formal report
to EPA.   In  addition,  CERCLA  section  103
specifies that persons  in charge of a vessel or
facility must immediately report any release  of a
hazardous substance that is equal to or greater
than  the   reportable  quantity (RQ)  for  that
substance   to  the  National  Response Center
(NRC). The NRC operates  a 24-hour hotline that
allows for this immediate notification. CERCLA
imposes penalties for failure to comply  with this
requirement.
        The Emergency  Response Division has
developed  various  training/outreach   and
information transfer  programs to support  the
implementation of notification regulations:

•       The Emergency Response  Notification
        System (ERNS).  This national computer
        data base and  retrieval system is used to
        store information on releases of oil and
        hazardous substances.  ERNS provides a
        mechanism for documenting and verifying
                                                                                         2
                                                                              Other
                                                                     Response
                                                                     Activities
   Acronyms Introduced In Chapter 2

DOD  -  Department of Defense
ERNS  -  Emergency Response Notification
         System
HRS   -  Hazard Ranking System
lAGs  -  Interagency Agreements
LSI   -  Listing Site inspection
NFRAP -  No Further Remedial Action Planned
NRC  -  National Response Center
PA   -  Preliminary Assessment
RQ   -  Reportable Quantity
RCRA -  Resource Conservation and Recovery
         Act
SI     -  Site Inspection
SSI   -  Screening Site Inspection
    incident  notification   information  as
    initially reported.

    EPA/Department  of  Transportation
    workshops.  These workshops  provide a
    public  forum  to explain  the  federal
    requirements   for   transporting   and
    reporting releases of hazardous materials.

    EPA On-Scene.  The  purpose  of this
    newsletter is to inform regional personnel
    of the  statutory, regulatory, and policy
    changes   that  may   affect  emergency
    response  program implementation.  The
    newsletter also disseminates information
    on emergency activities taking place in the
    regions.

    Continuous   Release   Compliance
    Assistance. This assistance includes a risk
    screening model that is being developed to
    help the regions identify the sites with the
    highest potential problems.
                                             23

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
•       The   Worker   Protection   Standards
        Workshops. These workshops will include
        an explanation of the standards and a
        description  of  what  state  and  local
        governments must  do to  comply with
        them.

        These  activities,  directed  toward  the
public,  industry,  State  Emergency  Response
Commissions,   Local   Emergency  Planning
Committees,   and  EPA  Regional  personnel,
facilitate the  compliance and understanding of
reporting regulations promulgated by the Agency.
(For details on rulemakings concerning RQs, see
Section 5.4.4.)
        When a site has been identified, regardless
of the substance(s) involved or the significance of
the incident, it is entered into an EPA computer
data base,  known as the CERCLA Information
System  (CERCLIS).   CERCLIS is a  national
inventory  of all sites potentially  appropriate for
listing on  the NPL. When EPA knows of a site,
the site assessment  or pre-remedial1 phase of the
Superfund  process  begins.   The pre-remedial
portion of the Superfund program is intended to
identify those  sites  that represent the highest
priority for further investigation  and  possible
cleanup under CERCLA.  Less than 10 percent of
these sites  have been included in the NPL.
 2.1.1   The Inventory of Sites (CERCLIS)

        When the Agency becomes aware of a site
 where hazardous substances may exist, it is entered
 into CERCLIS.  There were 1,891 sites added to
 CERCLIS in FY89,  resulting in an inventory of
 sites at the end of the fiscal year totalling 31,904.
        The data in CERCLIS primarily provides
 administrative information, such as the completion
 date of the preliminary assessment (PA). In order
 to better  understand CERCLIS sites, the Agency
 completed work on a study that analyzed a random
 sample   of   these   sites   by  their   physical
 characteristics (for example, predominant land uses
 in the site's vicinity). During the year, the Agency
 began work on a similar characterization study of
 those sites on the  NPL.  This study will compile
 data on NPL sites through the tenth major update
 to the  NPL (October 25,  1989).  The  results of
 these  two analyses  will  allow  the Agency to
compare and contrast the CERCLIS universe with
the sites that are on  the  NPL on a region by
region and national basis.  Data from these two
analyses could be used to respond to  questions
regarding policy and statistical issues, to respond
to Congressional  inquiries, and to prepare  for
Congressional   hearings    on    Superfund
reauthorization.
2.1.2  Preliminary Assessments

       The first step EPA takes upon notification
of an incident or site is known as a PA The PA
is  a vital step used by  the Agency to determine
whether further  investigation of a site may be
necessary or whether a removal assessment should
be recommended. During the PA, EPA collects
information that may include past state permitting
activity,    local  population   statistics,   or
environmental  pathways of concern.   All sites
receive a site reconnaissance  unless access to the
area is restricted.
       In  FY89, 2,228 PAs were completed at a
budgeted   cost   of  $15,400,000.    Since  the
elimination of the PA backlog  on  non-federal
facility sites in FY88, the Agency has achieved its
goal of completing a PA within one year after each
site  has  been  entered into  CERCLIS.   This
approach allows the Agency to rapidly identify sites
needing removal or remedial activity.   PAs are
recorded in CERCLIS by completion date and by
the decision based on  the PA (for example, no
further remedial action planned (NFRAP)).  To
date, PAs have been completed on 29,297 sites,
nearly 92 percent of the sites in CERCLIS.  About
50 percent of PAs  to date  have resulted in a
decision to conduct no  further action.  The total
number of sites in CERCLIS that still need PAs is
2,607.   Exhibit 2.1-1 presents  the pre-remedial
program accomplishments from FY80 to  FY89.
This  exhibit   also  displays   site  inspection
accomplishments, as well as the  total number of
sites in CERCLIS for FY80 through FY89.
                                               24

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                              Fiscal Year 1989
       u
       es
    a

    en

    S



    C/5

    "S
    O)


    J=
1-H  <»
   
                                                                           in
                                                                           CM
                                                                           CM
                                                                           (O
                               oo
                               co
                               co"
                               O)

                               O
                               CO
                                                                           co
o
o
o
co"


CO

o
cc
Ul
o
 c

 w
 o

w
                                     CO  h-
                                     CM  0)

                                     °t N
                                     CM" o>"
                                        CM
                       CO    't 0>
                       i-    CO <0
                       O    CO O

                       o"    CM" t>~"
                       CO       CM


                       1-    T- m
                       r*.    o co
                       in    o_ T-

                       N-"    «t" t"
                       CM       CM
                                     CM  *
                                     (O  00
                                     CM  T-

                                     «f  o"
                                        CM


                                     r-  CM
                                     CO  CM
                                     t-  en
                                                                           CM    in  in
                                                                           CM       T-
                                N

                                o"
                                                                                 O)  t

                                                                                 O  CD

                                                                                 CO  CM
                                                                                 o>  m
                                                                                 o  oo
                                                                           CO     r-
                               O     CM  (O
                               O     N.  S
                               in     o_  CM_

                               o"    f"  co"
                                                                                 -st  •*
                                                                                 00
                                                                                 CM  CM

                                                                                 CM" CM"
                                     £ Q
                                     Q- o
                                     £ *•
                                     « n
                                     O **

                                     2-
                                     CM •*

                                     co in

                                     f» f-

                                     T-" O"
                                                                                         r-  CM
                                                                                         CO  CM
                                                                                         CM  O

                                                                                         T-"  of
                                             CO  U)
                                             *  00
                                             «  h-_

                                             T-  N"
                                     N. CM

                                     "
                                     oo in
                                     T- h.
                                     •
                                                  a. -a

                                                  O  £3
                                                                                                     i
go
s-s
i2  U
si
0> <+H

Is
                                                                                                     febg

                                                                                                     £l
                                                                                                     I
                                                    25

-------
Process Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
2.13   Site Inspections
        After the PA, if EPA believes additional
information should be gathered, a site inspection
(SI) is conducted.  There are two types  of site
inspections:  the screening site inspection (SSI)
and the listing site inspection (LSI).
        The purpose of the SSI is to collect data
that will help determine whether a site should be
listed on  the  NPL.   Environmental media are
sampled to determine the nature and extent of the
possible contamination during  the  SSI.   The
Superfund program completed 1,732 SSIs during
FY89 at a budgeted cost of $34,000,000, exceeding
the SSI goal of  1,250 by 39 percent.   There are
6,000 sites where it has been determined that an SI
is necessary but has  not yet been conducted.
        The Agency decides if an LSI is warranted
only after the completion of the SSI.  During the
LSI, the Agency actually scores the site using the
Hazard Ranking System  (HRS) (discussed  in
section 2.1.5).  During FY89, 75 LSIs were started.
These  LSIs cannot be  completed until the HRS
revisions are final.
        CERCLA section 116(a)(2) requires EPA
to  have completed,  by January  1, 1989,  all Sis
necessary  at sites entered into CERCLIS as of the
date of enactment of SARA (October 17, 1986).
In  order  to  maximize  compliance  with  this
requirement,  88 percent of all Sis completed  in
FY89   were   conducted   on  pre-SARA  sites.
Regions 6 and 10 were able to meet the statutory
schedule and the other eight regions  are quickly
eliminating their backlog  of Sis on pre-SARA
sites.  Section 116(c) of CERCLA requires the
Agency to publish   an explanation  of why the
mandated SI goal could not be completed by the
January deadline.  EPA is  currently preparing  a
report to  Congress  detailing why the goal could
not be fully attained in eight regions.
2.1.4   National Priorities List Update

        The NPL is the list of sites that appear to
warrant federal funding for remedial action.  In
general, a site is eligible for inclusion if it obtains
a  score of 28.50  or higher  using  the Hazard
Ranking System. Before a site is included on the
NPL, it is proposed for inclusion and subject to
public comment. EPA proposed 64 sites for listing
on the NPL during FY89.
        At the  end of the fiscal year there were
337 proposed NPL sites.  The number of sites that
were made final on the NPL during the fiscal year
was 101. This brings the total number of sites that
are listed  on the final NPL to 888.  The total
number of proposed and final NPL sites at the end
of FY89 was 1,225.
        The Agency may delete sites from the NPL
if  all  appropriate  response actions have been
implemented or no further cleanup is appropriate.
EPA announced the deletion of 10 sites from the
NPL  this  past  fiscal year.  This is the  largest
number of sites  deleted in any year to date.  For a
complete listing of the site names, locations, and
deletion dates see Exhibit 2.1-2.
2.1.5  The Hazard Ranking System

       The HRS is the scoring system used by
EPA to determine if a site will be proposed for
listing  on the  NPL.   One  amendment made to
CERCLA by SARA requires EPA to promulgate
amendments to the HRS so that, to the maximum
extent  feasible, the  HRS accurately assesses the
relative degree of risk to human health and the
environment posed by sites and facilities subject to
review.   To comply with  this requirement, the
Agency published proposed revisions to the HRS
early in the fiscal year (53 FR 51962, December 23,
1988).  The proposed revised HRS  makes several
changes to the scoring system. For example, the
original  HRS  is  oriented  primarily  toward
population risk rather than individual risk.  EPA
proposed  changes to the HRS that   will more
accurately reflect the potential risk to individuals
and   populations   exposed   to   documented
contamination. For example, EPA proposed to
incorporate into the scoring  exposure  by direct
contact, which is evaluated in the original HRS,
but does  not  affect the site  ranking.   In the
original  HRS, targets  are weighted  based on
dilution and distance only with respect to exposure
by air.  The revised HRS would apply dilution/
distance  weighting  directly, to  other  exposure
                                               26

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989

Sites Deleted from the
Site Name
:: i ,:': Toftdahl Drums
j Matthews Electroplating
""""'' Presque Isle
5>,v, Parramore Surplus
r Cooper Road
Krysowaty Farm
New Castle Steel
Wade (ABM)
(once listed as ABM- Wade)
Voortman Farm
Cecil Lindsey
SOURCE; - :^eralRe&sttrnoti(x
Exhibit -2.1^2 1;,:, :::v:;''" :-/|V;' .:'^,'r. \ \ • ,
National Fribritie^ last Dwrilig MseaJ l9B^
LgcatiQn Deletion Date
Brush Prairie, Washington 1 2/23/8 8
Roanoke County, Virginia 1/19/89
Erie, Pennsylvania 2/13/89
Mount Pleasant, Florida 2/2 1/89
Voorhees Township, New Jersey 2/22/89
Hillsborough, New Jersey 2/22/89
New Castle County, Delaware 3/17/89
Chester, Pennsylvania 3/23/89
Upper Saucon Township, 5/3 1/89
Pennsylvania
Newport, Arkansas 9/22/89
,s published on dates shown. '..::.J :. . :v:..; '•:. •"..:.•










                                     27

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
pathways, such as ground water and surface water.
Also, the proposed revised HRS changes the basis
of the toxicity factor score to account for chronic
exposure to hazardous substances, instead of basing
the  score  primarily on  acute exposures.    In
addition, the proposed HRS makes revisions to the
factors  of  mobility, hazardous waste quantity,
sensitive environments, on-site exposure pathway,
surface water, and air.  (For further discussion of
the HRS, see section 5.4.2.)
        EPA conducted a field test to examine the
feasibility of implementing the  proposed revised
factors,  to determine the resources  that would be
necessary,  and  to assess  the availability  of
information needed for the evaluation of sites.  In
September, the Agency announced the availability
of the field test report  (54 FR 37949, September
14, 1989) and solicited public comment. The field
test results  provide  the Agency  with useful
information on how the proposed revised HRS will
perform with actual environmental data.
        Following the publication of the proposed
revisions and analysis of public comments and the
results  of  the  field   test,  the Agency began
preparing the final HRS for publication.
       Prescore. Prescore is a computer program
       that will  store data,  calculate an HRS
       score, and generate a documented HRS
       package using the revised HRS.

       Increased Oversight of Contractor Activities.
       EPA will increase oversight of  field
       investigation   team   zone   contracts.
       Activities  will include increased technical
       oversight,  cost  control,  evaluation  of
       subcontract requests, and a  review  of
       progress   to  date   and   contractor
       performance.

       The Superfimd Evaluation  Universe Study.
       This study will provide an estimate of the
       potential  Superfund evaluation universe
       through a screening process. In addition,
       it will assess the relative hazard potential
       of various site categories.

       A Site Discovery Pilot. This study will help
       define efficient discovery  methods and
       environmental   settings   of  particular
       concern.
2.1.6   Additional Guidance Documents
        and Rulemakings

        During  FY89  EPA  published  several
guidance documents and rulemakings important to
the  site   discovery  and  evaluation  program
including:

•       Guidance on Hazardous Waste Releases
        on Indian Lands: Beginning the Superfund
        Process (March 1989);

•       Site Investigation Bulletin (April 1989);

•       Guidance   on  Preliminary  Assessment
        Petitions (November 1988); and

•       Regional   Pre-Remedial  Program
        Objectives for FY89 and First Quarter of
        FY90 (March 10, 1989).

        EPA also made substantial progress during
the fiscal year toward completing:
2.2    Federal Facilities Program

       Facilities owned and/or operated by the
federal government are subject to all requirements
of CERCLA and its  implementing program, as
stipulated in section 120  of  CERCLA.   The
Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance
Office  in   the  Office   of   Waste   Programs
Enforcement (OWPE) works with others at EPA
headquarters, the regional offices, and the states to
ensure that federal facilities comply with CERCLA
and  Resource  Conservation and  Recovery Act
(RCRA) requirements.   Specifically,  this office
focuses on the management of the  federal agency
docket, policy  and guidance  development, and
compliance monitoring.
       The  EPA  resources  allocated  to the
federal facilities program increased in FY89, as
regional  personnel  resources for  the  Superfund
federal   facilities  enforcement  program  were
doubled.  In addition, many regions  established
federal  facility  enforcement  sections.    These
specific organizational units facilitate increased
coordination and concentration on issues relevant
                                                28

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                          Fiscal Year 1989
to federal  facilities,  such as  RCRA/CERCLA
integration.
2.2.1   Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
        Compliance Docket and Facility
        Site Evaluation

        The Federal Agency Hazardous  Waste
Compliance Docket,  established  pursuant  to
CERCLA section 120(c), documents the federal
facilities program by:

•       Identifying federal facilities that may be
        contaminated with hazardous substances;

•       Compiling and maintaining information
        submitted to EPA on these facilities under
        the provisions of CERCLA section 120(c);
        and

•       Providing a mechanism to  make  this
        information available to the public.

        The initial  federal  agency  docket  was
published in the Federal Register on February 12,
1988 and  listed 1,095 federal facilities.   Exhibit
2.2-1 illustrates the increase in the number of sites
on the docket  since its first publication.  During
FY89, 128 sites were added and 30 were removed.
The docket listed 1,268 federal facilities at the end
of FY89.
        Of the 1,268  sites,  the  Department of
Defense (DOD) owns and/or operates 634 (50.00
percent),  and  the Department of Interior owns
and/or  operates  315  (24.84  percent).    The
remainder are  distributed  among 16 other federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, listed
in Exhibit 2.2-2. The Agency published a notice of
availability of the  first  six-month  update  and
revisions to the initial list on November 16, 1988.
The second update of the  docket was published in
the Federal Register on December 15, 1989 (54 FR
51472).
        For facilities listed on the docket, EPA has
established a policy specifying that for each federal
facility that is  included on the docket  during an
update,   the   responsible  federal  agency  or
department   must  complete   a   preliminary
assessment and if warranted, a  site  inspection,
within 18  months of publication of the docket.
               Exhibit 2.2-1
       Number of Facilities on the
 Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
2/12/88
11/16/88
12/15/89
       0        400       800   1200
 SOURCE: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
               Exhibit 2,2-2
 Distribution of Federal Facilities on the
  Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
             Department of Defense  634
           Department of the Interior  315
              Department of Energy   70
           Department of Agriculture   56
        Department of Transportation   54
            Civil Corps of Engineers   21
      General Services Administration   20
    Environmental Protection Agency   17
         Tennessee Valley Authority   17
                           NASA   15
           Department of Commerce   14
            Veterans' Administration   14
         United States Postal Service   10
           Department of Health and
                   Human Services    5
               Department of Justice    3
         Central Intelligence Agency    1
       Small Business Administration    1
             Department of Treasury    1
                         TOTAL 1,268
 SOURCE: Hazardous Waste Compliance Db$clt :::;|;
                                               29

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
2.2.2   Federal Facilities and the National
        Priorities List

        The first 32 federal facilities were added to
the NPL on  July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620).  In
FY89, in a  final  rule addressing  only federal
facilities, eight facilities were added to the NPL as
final sites and one site already on  the NPL was
reclassified as a federal facility, bringing the total
number of federal facilities on the NPL to 41 (54
FR 10512, March 13, 1989).   In  addition,  52
facilities were proposed for addition to  the NPL
(54 FR 29820, July 14, 1989).
2.23   Federal Facility Agreements Under
        CERCLA Section 120

        To  facilitate  the remedial process at
federal facilities, EPA entered into 24 Interagency
Agreements (LAGs)  covering 31  NPL sites in
FY89.  Since the program began, 27 LAGs have
been signed. These agreements, between EPA and
the  responsible federal department or  agency,
document some or all of the phases of activity to
be  undertaken, from  the RI/FS  through  the
implementation of the remedial action.
        LAGs formalize the procedure and timing
for submittal and review of documents and include
a schedule for all remedial activities fulfilling the
requirements of CERCLA 120(e)(l).   They also
establish  a  mechanism  to  resolve  any disputes
between the signatories.  LAGs must comply with
the public participation requirements of CERCLA
section 117 and are enforceable by citizens and
states  through  citizen  suits.     Additionally,
CERCLA authorizes  the  courts  to  impose
penalties against federal agencies and departments
for failure to comply with LAGs in suits brought by
states or  citizens.  DOD was a signatory to 21
LAGs and  the Department  of Energy  was a
signatory  to three.
2.2.4  Report to Congress on EPA
       Responsibility Under CERCLA
       Section 120(e)(5)	

       Each federal department and  agency  is
required by CERCLA section 120(e)(5)  to furnish
an annual report to Congress on progress towards
implementing CERCLA at  its facilities.  The
report must include information on the following
areas: progress towards entering into LAGs; cost
estimates for each LAG; public comments on LAGs;
progress  in RI/FSs and RAs initiated  at federal
facilities on the NPL; and progress in RAs at sites
not listed on the NPL.
       Of the 1,268 sites on the federal facilities
docket, 17 are owned and/or operated by EPA as
illustrated in Exhibit 2.2-2; three of these facilities,
however,  were   erroneously  included   and
corrections have  been submitted to the docket.
None of the EPA facilities are currently included
on the NPL.  At all sites, EPA has conducted PAs.
The annual report of progress  remediating EPA
facilities required by CERCLA section 120(e)(5) is
included in Appendix C of this Report, along with
a complete list of EPA facilities and their status.
2.2.5  Federal Real Property Transfer

       When the  U.S. government  sells  or
transfers  real  property  on which  a hazardous
substance was released, disposed of, or stored for
a year or more, the sales contract must, as required
by CERCLA section 120(h)(l), include a notice
that discloses the  type and  quantity  of  the
hazardous substance and  when it  was stored,
released, or disposed of on the property. Similarly,
CERCLA section 120(h)(3) requires that any U.S.
government  department or  agency transferring
federally owned real property must include in the
deed a covenant assuring the transferee that all
remedial action necessary to protect human health
and the environment was taken before the transfer
and that any remedial action found to be necessary
after the property is transferred will be conducted
by the U.S. government.
       EPA is required  by CERCLA section  120
to promulgate regulations on the form and manner
of  the  notice  to  be put  in sales  contracts.
Regulations  were proposed on January  13, 1988.
                                               30

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
These  proposed regulations  indicate  that  the
transfer of residential properties of up to four
dwelling  units acquired  through foreclosure  by
government agencies such as the Federal Housing
Administration and the Veterans Administration is
exempt from the notice requirement.  Further,
property  at which less than 1000 kilograms of a
hazardous substance or less than the CERCLA
reportable quantity  for  a hazardous substance
(whichever is larger) was stored also would  be
exempt from the notice requirement under the
proposed  rule.   The  final  regulations were
promulgated on April 16, 1990 (55 FR 14208).
                                              31

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                         Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                           CHAPTER
                                                                                    3
                                                       Estimation  of
                                       Resources  Required
                           to  Implement  Superfund
       Section301(h)(l)(G)ofCERCLArequires
EPA to estimate the  resources needed by the
federal  government  to  complete  Superfund
implementation.   The Agency interprets  this
requirement to  mean the cost of  completing
CERCLA's implementation through the current
authorization (FY91) and beyond.  This chapter
includes complete information through FY91. The
resource estimate presented in this  chapter is
divided between  resources needed  by EPA  and
those  needed by other federal departments  and
agencies.  An estimate of the long-term costs of
cleaning up the existing NPL is included in section
3.2 of this chapter, together with an overview of
the method used  to develop the estimate.
       As noted in  section  1.2,  the  remedial
pipeline is full and is likely to remain so for the
foreseeable future.  Despite an increase in PRP-
funded actions, the backlog of RA projects that
have not been started will grow for the next several
years.  This is the result of:  (1) the trend toward
use of treatment technologies, which has raised the
average RA cost to approximately $25  million per
site  (assuming  that each site consists of 1.8
operable units and that an RA is conducted on
each operable unit); (2) completion of preliminary
work at many sites, which means that more sites
than ever before are ready to enter the RA phase;
and (3) phase-funding of many RAs undertaken to
date, which means that a substantial  portion of
each year's RA budget is used to move ongoing
projects toward  completion.  To  maintain  the
momentum attained in FY89, it is critical that the
Superfund program continues to  both initiate
scoping actions as new sites are identified and to
aggressively clean up hazards once they are known.
       Congress  provided  EPA  with
$5,623,000,000  in  budget  authority  for  the
implementation of CERCLA, as amended, for the
         Acronyms Introduced in Chapter 3

   DERP   -  Defense Environmental Restoration
            Program
   DOC   -  Department of Commerce
   DOE   -  Department of Energy
   DOI    -  Department of the Interior
   DOL   -  Department of Labor
   DOT   -  Department of Transportation
   FAA   -  Federal Aviation Administration
   FEMA  -  Federal Emergency Management
            Agency
   FMS   -  Financial Management System
   FTE    -  Full-Time Equivalent
   GSA   -  General Service Administration
   HHS   -  Department of Health and Human
            Services
   IRCN   -  Interagency Report Control Number
   MARAD -  Maritime Administration
   NASA   -  National Aeronautics and Space
            Administration
   NIEHS  -  National Institute of Environmental
            Health Sciences
   NOAA  -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
            Administration
   NRT   -  National Response Team
   OLM   -  Outyear Liability Model
   OSHA   -  Occupational Safety and Health
            Administration
   PCB    -  Polychlorinated Biphenyl
   RRT   -  Regional Response  Team
   RSPA   -  Research and Special Programs
            Administration
   USCG   -  U.S. Coast Guard
   USDA   -  Department of Agriculture
   VA     -  Veterans Administration
four-year period, FY87 through FY90. The actual
level of funds obligated annually may be different
than the level of budget authority provided due to
the use of unobligated balances from prior years.
                                           33

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                                Fiscal Year 1989
In millions, the enacted budget authority is as
follows:
        1987
        1988
        1989
        1990
        TOTAL
$1,411.3
$1,128.0
$1,425.0
$1.560.7
$5,525.0
   The resource estimate in this chapter is based
primarily  on  the  responsibilities  and  duties
assigned to EPA  and other federal departments
and   agencies  by  Executive   Order   12580.
Computing  such   an estimate  entails  making
assumptions about the  size  and scope of the
Superfund program,  the nature and  number of
response actions,  participation  by  states  and
private parties, the increasing use of treatment
technologies, and  other  factors.  For  active NPL
sites (sites that have reached or passed the RI/FS
planning stage),  these   assumptions  relate to
management  of the  workload already  in the
remedial pipeline  and the costs of those  actions.
For  inactive NPL sites  (sites that have  not yet
attained the RI/FS planning stage), the model uses
a  wide  assortment of assumptions to estimate
which activities will be necessary  to move those
sites through cleanup and into the delisting stage.
        In  developing  the  resources  estimate
required by  section 301(h)(l)(G),   EPA has
considered several sources:

 •      EPA  Superfund  budgets and  budget
        estimates  for FY88,  FY89,  FY90, and
        FY91,  including budget  requests from
        other federal departments and agencies;

 •      Data submitted  to EPA by other federal
        departments   and  agencies  under  an
        approved General Services Administration
        (GSA)  Interagency   Report   Control
        Number (IRCN), issued  on February  5,
        1988, as required under the provisions of
        41 CFR 201-45.6;

 •      The federal  facilities docket developed
        under section 120(c) of  CERCLA and
        each individual  federal department's and
        agency's Annual Report  to Congress on
        Federal  Facilities  Implementation, as
        required   under section   120(a)(5) of
        CERCLA;
 •     EPA's Report to Congress entitled Extent
       of the  Hazardous Release Problem  and
       Future Funding Needs (December  1984),
       as required under section 301(a)(l)(C) of
       CERCLA;

 •     EPA's  Annual Report  to  the  Office of
       Management  and Budget  on  Pollution
       Abatement Needs at Federal Installations,
       required under Executive Order 12088 and
       based  on  annual  pollution abatement
       plans  (A-106   reports)   by  federal
       departments and agencies; and

 •     Various   EPA  information   systems,
       primarily   the  Financial  Management
       System (FMS).

       These sources will also be used for  future
reports, but at the same  time,  the Agency is
working to identify data requirements, improve
data quality, develop cost estimating methods, and
collect additional information.  Specifically, EPA
has completed a resources estimate for the balance
of the current authorization, FY90 and FY91, and
for  the unfunded period beyond FY91. The initial
results of this effort, presented in  section  3.2 of
this chapter, are based on the current size  of the
NPL.  This long-term effort has been coordinated
with the development of the FY91 budget.
       EPA's  ability  to  project the  federal
resources required  for CERCLA implementation
will improve with more  experience implementing
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, additional actual
cost information, and a better  understanding of
size and  composition  of  the NPL.     Better
coordination with other federal departments  and
agencies   and   additional  data   on   the
implementation    of   the   federal   facilities
requirement of section  120 will  also  help to
improve the estimate.
                      3.1    Developing the Estimate of
                             Resources Necessary to
                             Implement Superfund

                             In estimating the resources needed by EPA
                      to complete the implementation of CERCLA, the
                      Agency typically  focuses its projections on  the
                      expected future costs of the remedial and removal
                                               34

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
programs.    These  programs  are  the  major
components  of the  Superfund  program  and
account for the majority of Fund expenditures by
the Agency.  The estimates of the resource needs
for these program areas are based on  actual
experience from FY87-FY88 and the most current
budgets for FY90 and FY91.
        Developing a complete estimate of Fund
costs  to complete CERCLA implementation is
dependent on a number of factors, many of which
change  as  the  program  matures.   The most
important of these factors are:

 •      Changes in Superfund program policies
        and procedures because of the  revised
        NCP, particularly the clean-up standards
        imposed by section 121 of CERCLA;

 •      Changes in the remedial program because
        of HRS revisions required  under  section
        105 of CERCLA;

 •      Changes in the character and size of the
        CERCLIS  inventory   and,   as   a
        consequence, the facilities that are added
        to the NPL;

 •      The effects of the long period required to
        identify, develop, select,  and  construct a
        remedy, particularly those using treatment
        technologies;

 •      The  level  of state  Superfund  program
        activity;

 •      The  level  of PRP participation  in  the
        program; and

 •      The nature of and demand for removal
        actions.

        Superfund  expenditures  support EPA
activities  in three  major areas:    direct  site
activities, indirect site work, and program support.
The proportion of Trust Fund resources allocated
to each of these program areas may vary over time.
Variations may be brought about by concentration
of activity in certain program areas, changes in the
focus of program implementation, and the maturity
of  the  Superfund  program.   Other  federal
department   and  agency  activities  are  also
supported by resources from the Fund.
        For the  period  from FY87  to FY91,
inclusive, Superfund resources are expected to be
used in the following proportions.

Direct Site Activities

        Direct   site   activities   account   for
approximately 69 percent of total Superfund
resources and funds:

 •      Direct Site  Work (50 percent), which
        consists of:

        Removal  actions,
        Remedial actions,
        Pre-remedial action site assessments, and
        Engineering and design studies; and

 •      Direct Site Support (19  percent), which
        consists of:

        Extended remedial actions,
        Community relations,
        Contract laboratory support,
        Contract management,
        Enforcement,
        PRP settlements, and
        The  Superfund Innovative Technology
        Evaluation program.

Indirect Site Work

        Indirect   site  work   accounts   for
approximately 6  percent  of total Superfund
resources and funds:

 •      Preliminary enforcement and cost recovery
        activities  under section 107  of CERCLA
        (4 percent);

 •      National  Response Team  (NRT)  and
        Regional Response Team (RRT) activities
        (1 percent); and

 •      Health studies  and  research, criminal
        casework,   and   other   miscellaneous
        activities (1 percent).
                                               35

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
Program Support

        Program  support   accounts   for
approximately  25 percent  of  total  Superfund
resources and funds:

 •      Siting capacity and community assistance
        grants,  training,   the   Office  of  the
        Inspector   General,   and  other
        miscellaneous activities  (10 percent);

 •      Research and  support  for other federal
        departments and agencies (5 percent);

 •      Information   management  and  policy/
        planning activities (4 percent); and

 •      General  and   financial  administration
        (6 percent).

        PRPs  contribute   to   the  hazardous
substance clean-up effort  by  undertaking  and
financing voluntary or enforced remedial activities,
thereby reducing the number of remedial actions
that require Fund expenditures.  EPA is currently
developing and implementing policies designed to
encourage PRP cleanups.
3.1.1   Remedial Program Costs

        Expenditures  for  remedial   activities
currently  are  the  single  largest  category  of
Superfund expenditures and are expected to remain
so in the  future.  To project EPA funding needs
for the remedial program, several key factors must
be estimated:

 •      The  projected  size of the  NPL  (the
        estimate presented in section 3.2 relates to
        only the current NPL);

 •      The projected number of RI/FSs, remedial
        designs,  and  remedial  actions to   be
        undertaken;

 •      The average cost of an RI/FS,  RD, and
        RA; and

 •      The direct clean-up actions to be taken by
        PRPs.
       Exhibit 3.1-1 presents summary data on
the  actual  and  planned  elements  of EPA's
Superfund actions.  Exhibit 3.1-2 and 3.1-3 present
data on  EPA Superfund  resource estimates  in
dollars and work years, respectively.
3.1.2  Cost Recovery Revenues

        In  addition to the direct  remedial  and
removal actions undertaken by PRPs, a portion of
the costs of certain Fund-financed response actions
will be recovered from PRPs through cost recovery
actions. The cost recovery revenues obtained from
PRPs will ultimately reduce  the overall costs of
both   the   remedial  and   removal   programs.
Typically,  there is  a three-year delay between
expenditures from  the Trust Fund for final  site
work and the reimbursement of these response
costs by PRPs to EPA
        The  cost  recovery  rate   for  remedial
expenditures is  subject  to a range  of possible
estimates given varying assumptions about: (1) the
probability of successful litigation; (2) the ability to
recover interest costs from litigation; (3) how many
NPL sites will  be  cleaned up by private parties
without expenditures from the Trust Fund; and (4)
the role of new CERCLA settlement provisions,
such as mixed funding and de minimis settlements.
To date, Fund-financed remedial action generally
has been taken at sites where PRPs are potentially
capable of taking clean-up responsibility. The  cost
recovery rate for these sites is likely to be relatively
high. In future years, as the rate of successful EPA
enforcement actions increases,  more  PRPs  will
directly undertake  actual cleanups.  As a  result,
more Fund-financed actions will be taken at sites
where  there is less  likelihood  of  cost recovery
because there are fewer PRPs  connected with these
sites. The cost recovery rate for these sites may be
lower tharr the rate for the earlier sites.
        Although  the   cost  recovery  revenues
obtained from PRPs will reduce the costs  of the
removal and remedial programs, the available  data
for these revenues are not sufficient to allow for an
accurate   estimate  of  the  percentage   of
Fund-financed removal costs and remedial costs
that will be recovered from PRPs.  The Agency is
putting significant  effort into improving its  cost
recovery performance, as is  demonstrated by the

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                              Fiscal Year 1989
                                         Exhibit 3.1-1
                        Summary of EPA Superfund Actual/Planned
                                    Actions by Fiscal Year1
       Activity
  1989
Actual
 1990
Planned
 1991
Planned
     Removal Action Starts2

     Pre-Remedial Actions

           PA Completions
           SI Completions
           NPL Additions3

     Remedial Actions4

           RI/FS Starts
           RD Starts
           RA Starts
           Final RA Completions5
 322
2,228
1,732
  64
  157
  157
  108
   8
 253
2,020
1,660
  50
  88
  104
  46
   8
 253
2,000
1,175
  110
  30
  155
  76
  23
           1 The data shown are for Trust Fund-financed actions and those undertaken by PRPs at
    NPL facilities/sites, except for removal actions.  The numbers shown are by year and are not
    cumulative.

           2 NPL and non-NPL sites.  Fund-financed and PRP actions, first and subsequent starts.

           3 NPL facilities/sites proposed for final listing on the NPL.

           4 Data are for both first and subsequent starts by Fund and PRP lead.

           5 Data represent completion of all construction work at sites.

    SOURCE:     Fiscal 1969 data, Final Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System; fiscal 1990 and 1991 planned activities, Congressional budget submissions.
                                               37

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                           Fiscal Year 1989
       I
        a
        i
        s
          a
          s
          a
        .
        W
        §
        1
        i
        -§
        I



S 8
f I
o 05
                       BO
                       A

                                       !o
                                       S
                                         Ov  -»•
                                         ~  ~
>6  wi   
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                          Fiscal Year 1989
                                        Exhibit 3.1-3
                   EPA Superftmd Staffing Requirements in Workyears
                                       by Fiscal Year
Program Area1
Hazardous Substance
Research
Response
Enforcement
Management and Support
Superfund Support
TOTAL
1 See section 5.5 for more information
SOURCE: EPA Superfund Budget Documents.
FY88
Actual
1,186.5
94.0
1,092.5
928.4
482.9
44.4
2,642.2
on the content

FY89
Actual
1,342.2
103.3
1,238.9
987.6
521.0
37.8
2,888.6
of these EPA

FY90
Estimate
1,469.0
130.1
1,338.9
1,474.9
621.1
44.5
3,609.5
program areas.

FY91
Request
1,468.1
130.1
1,338.0
1,445.6
638.3
44.5
3,596.5


FY87 and  FY88 cost  recovery revenues,  the
highest in the program's history.
3.2    Estimate of Resources Needed to
       Complete the Cleanup of the
       Existing National Priorities List

       EPA has developed the Outyear Liability
Model (OLM) to estimate the long-term resource
needs of the Superfund program.  The  OLM's
design allows it to produce meaningful long-range
forecasts, while maintaining the flexibility  to
accommodate   a   wide  range  of  possible
programmatic   conditions.   The   estimating
approach  uses  a computer-based model that
incorporates many  aspects  of the  Superfund
program and provides numerous points at which
adjustments can be made.
       Conceptually, the OLM estimates which
activities  will be undertaken in the future  by
applying several "generic" activity sequences to the
number of new sites being estimated. Once the
activity flows have been set, individual cost and
workyear factors are applied to estimate the total
cost of new sites.  This estimate is then combined
with  actual planning data on current sites (from
CERCLIS) and  expected  budget  growth  of
program   support   elements  to  produce   a
comprehensive estimate of the cost to operate the
Superfund program.
                                            39

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                     Fiscal Year 1989
3.2.1   Estimated Cost to Complete
        Current National Priorities List
        Sites	

        As of the end of FY89, the OLM has
estimated the total cost to clean up  the existing
NPL  at $26.4 billion (Exhibit 3.2-1).   Major
considerations  contributing  to  this  estimate
include:

 •      No new additions to the existing NPL;

 •      Zero percent annual growth of non-NPL
        removals;
        Zero  percent  annual decline in
        number of NPL removals;
the
 •      Ten  percent  annual  decline  in  pre-
        remedial site starts;

 •      RA  cost factors  will  follow a  pattern
        similar to that which occurred in FY87,
        FY88, and FY89;

 •      Zero percent  annual  growth   for  all
        program  support  and  other  agency
        elements (except those tied to site-related
        activities);

 •      Approximately  45  percent  of  all new
        RI/FS starts will involve Fund lead (that
        is, the Trust Fund will pay 100 percent of
        the cost); and

 •      On average, 80 percent of the Fund-lead
        sites, 50 percent of the PRP-lead sites, and
        100 percent of the federal facility sites will
        require more than one RA before the site
        can  be  recommended  for deletion from
        the NPL.

        The estimate of  long-term Superfund
 liabilities contained in this  report  is  based  on
 planning  data for  active  sites and  a number of
 assumptions about future sites and events.  The
 actual site data are drawn directly from CERCLIS,
 Superfund's  principle site activity data base.  The
 assumptions  represent   a   combination  of
 programmatic directives  (planning  assumptions
taken from the Superfund Program Management
Manual) and historic performance averages.  As a
result, estimates produced by the model will vary
over  time  (both  the CERCLIS data and  the
performance   averages  are updated every six
months  as  a  compromise between stability  and
accuracy) and in response to different sets of
assumptions.   Consequently, subsequent  annual
editions of this Report  will  contain different
estimates.
       Assumptions that have the greatest effect
on the estimate include:

 •     Changes  In PRP  involvement.   To  the
       extent  that   PRPs   assume   greater
       responsibility for cleanups, Fund costs will
       drop   dramatically (the  $26.4  billion
       estimate assumes that in  FY90 PRPs will
       take the lead on approximately 55 percent
       of all new RI/FS starts, but that takeovers
       will rapidly increase the  PRP portion of
       annual RA starts to 65 percent by FY97);

 •      The ultimate size of the NPL.  The current
       estimate addresses the existing NPL only;
        and

 •      Clean-up costs.   Changes in the use of
        existing technologies, development of new
        technologies, and overall changes in the
        cost  of  technology  will  affect  these
        assumptions.

        The total program estimate for completing
the cleanup of the 1225 sites on the NPL as of the
end of FY89 is $26.4 billion, including $6.0 billion
(FY81-FY89), $1.5 billion (FY90),  $1.8 billion
(FY91), and $17.1 billion (post-FY91)  (the outyear
liability estimate) (see Exhibit 3.2.1). The total
program estimate in the FY88 Report was $26.1
billion,  which included an outyear  estimate of
$18.6 billion  (post-FY90).  Principal  contributors
to the difference between the estimate are:

 •      Addition of 64 new proposed NPL sites;

 •      Assuming  a continued aggressive use of
        removals at NPL sites as a way to initiate
        on-site remedial action as   quickly as
        possible;
                                                40

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                         Exhibit 3.2-1
                            Estimate of Liability to Complete the
                               Existing National Priorities List
                                       (dollars in millions)

Program Area
Direct Site Activity
- Direct Site Work
~ Removal Actions
-- Pre-Remedial Work
— Engineering and
Design Studies
- Remedial Actions
- Direct Site Support
Indirect Site Work
Program Support
TOTAL SUPERFUND
TOTAL FY81-FY89
TOTAL PROGRAM
FY90
Operating Plan
998.0
687.6
111.9
57.6
208.2
309.9
310.4
122.7
419.6
1,540.3


FY91
Budget Request
1,211.6
868.2
111.2
45.3
178.1
533.6
343.4
126.4
415.1
1,753.1


Post-FY91
Estimate
11,976.4
7,523.0
377.3
437.2
7,563.6
5,144.9
4,453.4
3,558.0
1,577.7
17,112.1



Total
14,186.0
9,078.8
600.4
540.1
1,949.9
5,988.4
5,107.2
3,807.1
2,412.4
20,405.5
6.015.3
26,420.7
SOURCE: EPA Superfund Budget Documents and Outyear Liability Model.
        Use  of  new  activity  and   full-time
        equivalent (FTE)  pricing factors  (each
        estimate  uses  the budget  formulation
        pricing factors from  the most current
        President's Budget);

        Use of the FY91 President's Budget as the
        source  of FY91  resource  and  output
        levels. (FY91 was estimated by the model
        for  the  FY88  report  and  the FY91
        President's budget includes  revisions to
        FY90 information, most notably a $365
        million reduction in RA obligations.); and
 •     Revising the expected proportion of PRP
       leads  to  more  closely  match  recent
       experience.

       As long as the Superfund  program is
operating, new information  and  data  will  be
collected  and will continuously be added to the
model.   In  addition,  every assumption  in the
model, including  those noted above, may  be
adjusted  to  better depict  future  programmatic
direction  and  refinements  of  previous analysis.
The resources  estimates contained  in subsequent
reports may  change due to the addition of new
                                               41

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
data  and the  adjustment of  the  assumptions
contained in the model.
3.2.2   Major Program Elements
        Represented in the Outyear
        Liability Model	

        To provide a better estimate of the cost of
the program and the flexibility needed to estimate
the costs of future initiatives, the OLM includes
many   components   that   represent   specific
programmatic elements.

Currently Active Sites

        At the close of FY89, remedial efforts had
been started at 997 of the 1,253 final and proposed
sites on the existing NPL (this figure for final and
proposed  NPL sites includes 28 deleted sites so
that costs associated  with  these sites  can  be
included in budget estimates). Remedial plans are
being developed for other sites and initial remedial
efforts are expected to be in progress  at all of
these remaining sites by the end of FY92.
        Data on the active NPL sites are stored in
CERCLIS.  A version of these CERCLIS data is
incorporated into the model  to present  the most
accurate picture of planned activities at active sites.
Because all but a few of the existing NPL sites are
active, these sites will constitute a large portion of
any overall liability estimate for the existing NPL.
        In addition to planned remedial activities,
enforcement activities have a significant impact on
the costs of addressing Superfund sites. The OLM
estimates  occurrence  of enforcement  activities
using past programmatic experience and several
standard sequences of activities, each representing
a different enforcement approach.  Enforcement-
related variables within the model address not only
costs and workyears, but also the shifts in remedial
costs  that  occur  when  the program  assumes
responsibility from, or passes responsibility to, a
PRP. As with remedial activities, all activity costs
and workyears  are  estimated  using Superfund
planning factors.

New Site Starts

        The OLM estimates the occurrence of all
activities and related costs for any inactive NPL
sites, sites that are on the NPL but at which efforts
have not yet reached the RI/FS phase.   The
resource  estimate   included  in  this   chapter
addresses only the existing NPL. The OLM can be
used to estimate the clean-up cost of a larger NPL.
To do this, activities and related costs would be
estimated for the specified number of additional
NPL sites.
        The OLM estimates site-related costs by
assembling activity sequences for each new start
and then determining the cost of those activities.
The user controls the number and scheduling of
new  sites.  The user can  specify  either annual
growth  rates and  an overall  cap  (for example,
increase by 5 percent per  year to a maximum of
200 annually) or an actual number  of annual new
starts (for example,  a constant level  of  150  per
year) for each of the  following types of starts:

 •      Non-NPL removals;

 •      NPL removals;

 •      Preliminary assessments (initiates a pre-
        remedial program  site start); and

 •      RI/FSs (initiates a remedial program  site
        start).

        For the purposes of the OLM, site starts
for the removal, pre-remedial,   and remedial
programs are not linked, but there are enforcement
considerations  for each.   By  "uncoupling"  these
program areas,  it is possible to estimate costs for
the existing program and  to  incorporate a wide
range of possible programmatic changes.   For
example, changes in  either the HRS or the NCP
could redefine the number and types of sites  which
must  be addressed  by  the   program  and  the
objectives of such actions.

Who is Responsible? - Who Pays?

        Aside from the number of sites requiring
cleanup and  the cost of individual cleanups, the
factors surrounding the assumption of managerial
and/or  financial responsibility for a site  have,
perhaps, the largest impact on the cost of the
Superfund  program.   There are many factors
involved in this area, including:
                                                42

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
 m      Emphasis  on  and  effectiveness of  the
        enforcement program; and

 •      Cost-sharing arrangements between  the
        Superfund program and PRPs.

        The  OLM  accommodates each of these
factors with one or more variables, allowing the
estimation of Superfund liabilities for a wide range
of lead and  cost-sharing possibilities.   Related
variables include:

 •      The proportion of sites addressed by each
        lead category;

 •      The number of PRP lead sites eligible for
        cost sharing and the portion of such costs
        assumed by the Fund;

 •      The number of sites that follow each of
        several enforcement paths; and

 •      The  expected  success  of cost recovery
        efforts.

        Choices among these variables may affect
the duration of individual clean-up efforts and the
overall  program by altering the mix of activity
sequences  that  are  used.   The OLM includes
several  different sequences of activities, each of
which is intended to characterize one path that
site-related activities might take.  Also, the OLM
responds to lead and enforcement adjustments by
changing the mix of these activity sequences. Each
of  the  sequences  involves  different activities,
durations, and schedules.  A heavier  reliance on
enforcement,  for example, will  result in longer
elapsed time  between the RI/FS  start and  RA
completion, but will reduce Fund obligations.

Factors  Related to RA Costs

        The  approach  to RA  cost  estimation
revolves  around  the  development   of  seven
technology categories, each with a unique average
cost  and  expected treatment  volume.    The
technology categories  used  in  the  OLM were
developed by researching RODs from FY87, FY88,
and FY89.
        Variables  used  to  estimate   RA  costs
include:
 •      The proportion of sites where a particular
        technology category is employed;

 •      The  average  volume  of  contaminated
        media  at  sites  using  each  technology
        category; and

 •      The unit costs (for example, cost per cubic
        yard of contaminated  media) for each
        technology.

        Adjustments of these variables make it
possible to estimate the fiscal impact of:

 •      Policies that  affect  the   selection   of
        technological  approach  (for example,
        treatment versus containment);

 •      Changes in the contaminants found onsite
        (for  example, if remaining  sites  have
        higher  levels of heavy  metals  than sites
        already addressed, incineration would be
        less useful);

 •      Changes in technology costs; and

 •      Changes in site size, either by policy (for
        example,   a  policy   to   incinerate
        contaminated material at any site where
        the volume is less than 10,000 cubic yards)
        or across an entire  range (for  example, if
        all  of  the   biggest  sites   have  been
        completed, remaining sites will be smaller,
        on average).

Program Support and Other Agency Costs

        Although  not directly  related  to  site
activities, these elements constitute a large part of
Superfund's budget and are included  in the model.
In general, these elements are based on their most
recent budget levels and change at some specified
annual  rate.   Each  of the growth  rates  can be
changed independently, allowing for more rapid or
slower growth, or even for the gradual reduction of
selected areas as programmatic demands  change.
A small number of support elements are linked to
site-related  activities reflecting  an  indirect site
relationship.  In these cases, estimated costs will
increase or decrease from baseline budget levels in
response to changes in the appropriate site activity.
                                                43

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
3.3    Other Executive Branch
       Department and Agency
       Estimates of Resources Necessary
       to Complete  Superfund
       Implementation

       The  second element  in fulfilling the
requirements of section 301(h)(l)(G) of CERCLA
for this Report is to estimate the resources needed
by other federal departments and agencies.  EPA
requested  the  resource requirement  information
from the other federal departments and agencies
under a GSA IRCN issued on  February 5,  1988,
under the provisions of 41 CFR  201-45.6.  EPA
has  sought  to   collect   more  comprehensive
information  for the FY89 report.
       The resource needs of the other Executive
Branch departments and  agencies for Superfund
implementation activities are  met through two
sources:

 •     Hazardous Substance  Superfund (Trust
       Fund)

       Interagency Budget: EPA transfers monies
       to other federal departments and agencies
       from  the  Trust  Fund  to  fund  their
       activities in support of EPA's Superfund
       efforts. This is accomplished through an
       interagency budget under Executive Order
       12580.

       Site-Specific Agreements:   EPA  transfers
       funds  to other federal departments and
       agencies  from  the Trust  Fund through
       site-specific agreements.

 •     Individual Federal Department or Agency
       Budgets

       CERCLA-Specific Funds:  These funds are
       budgeted by the  individual  departments
       and agencies specifically  for Superfund
       activities  and  support as part of the
       President's annual budget submission.

       General Funds:  These funds are used for
       CERCLA activities and  support by the
       individual departments and agencies and
       are   obtained   from  general  budget
       resources  or are taken from resources
       designated for other programs.

       Exhibit  3.3-1   summarizes   reported
resource needs of other federal departments and
agencies.  The following information was provided
by other departments and agencies to supplement
the resource estimates.

 •     Department of Defense. The Department
       of Defense (DOD) has the authority and
       responsibility under CERCLA to clean up
       contamination associated with its past
       activities.   Beginning  in  1984,   DOD
       increased its emphasis on hazardous waste
       cleanup  by  establishing  the Defense
       Environmental   Restoration   Program
       (DERP).   Under  this program,  DOD
       identifies,   investigates, and  cleans up
       contamination and other environmental
       damage  on  its  installations  and on
       formerly used properties. One element of
       DERP,  the  Installation  Restoration
       Program, follows the  procedures of the
       NCP in cleaning up contamination from
       past activities.  The preliminary  studies
       and remedial investigations that have been
       performed for sites in the past few years
       under this program are now leading to the
       identification of needed response work in
       1990 and beyond.

 •     Department of Energy. The Department
       of Energy (DOE) has the authority and
       responsibility under CERCLA to clean up
       contamination association with  its past
       activities. The Environmental Restoration
       and Waste Management Five-Year Plan is
       the  cornerstone  of  the  Department's
       clean-up activities and research efforts.

       As stated in the Secretary of Energy's ten-
       point plan, it is DOE's policy that full
       compliance with  the letter and spirit of
       environmental  laws,   regulations  and
       requirements is  an  integral part  of
       operating   DOE   facilities.      The
       fundamental goals are to ensure that risks
       to  human  health and the environment
       posed by the Department's past, present,
       and  future  operations   are   either
       eliminated  or reduced to prescribed, safe
                                               44

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                                  Exhibit 33-1
               CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for
                     Other Federal Departments and Agencies
                (dollars in thousands/full-time equivalent workyears)
Federal Departments
1987 Actual
and Agencies Dollars FTEs
Trust
Fund
Defense
Energy
Health and Human
Services
. ATSDR 32,439.3
• NIEHS
Justice 10,473
NASA
Transportation
. USCG 4,023.3
Interior 707.6
FEMA 1,173.7
Commerce
• NOAA 1,819.9
Labor
. OSHA 281.3
Veterans Admin.
General Services
Administration
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Agriculture
TOTAL 50,918.1
Agency Agency
Budget Budget
375,900 N/A
47,663 N/A
175
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,615 168.5
6,900 15
1,255 N/A
666 17.8
N/A
--
150 0.3
200
N/A
439,349 376.6
1988 Actual
Dollars
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
402,800
86,953
42,999.9
28,915
18,473
23,900
3,027.6 7,803
1,113.5 9,600
1,969.6
2,429.4 1,695
380.9
--
261
323.1
1,500
99,308.9 534,835.1
FTEs
Agency
Budget
1,060
N/A
175
N/A
163
N/A
27
24
23
17.8
15.5
--
4
--
N/A
1,509.3
1989 Actual
Dollars
Trust Agency
Fund Budget
500,000
112,839
44,499.0
21,915
16,700 22,100
26,000
4,948.2 1,720
1,111.0 24,700
2,509.6 982
2,280.1 1,000
1,008.2
5,000
..
242
2,500
94,971.1 697,083

FTEs
Agency
Budget
N/A
N/A
175
N/A
167
N/A
40
23
23
14
9
--
19
--
N/A
470
                                      45

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                            Exhibit 33-1 (continued)
               CERCLA Resource Needs and Interagency Funding for
                     Other Federal Departments and Agencies
                (dollars in thousands/full-time equivalent workyears)
Federal Departments 1990 Operating Plan 1991 Bndeet Request
and Aeencies Dollars FTEs Dollars FTEs
Trust Agency Agency Trust Agency Agency
Fund Budeet Budeet Fund Budeet Budeet
Defense -- 601,100 N/A - 817,000
Energy -- 289,503 N/A -- 437,853
Health and Human
Services
• ATSDR 45,178.7 - 250 44,500 - 250
• NIEHS 36,254.8 - N/A 21,915
Justice 25,754.2 26,300 187 32,324 26,300 187
NASA -- 30,000 N/A - 32,000
Transportation
• USCG 4,807.6 1,025 34 4,948.2 1,000 36
Interior 1,218.1 22,446.7 45 1,253.5 36,246.7 55
FEMA 1,826.3 1,300 23 1,879.6 1,700 23
Commerce
• NOAA 2,215.6 950 15 2,280.1 950 17
Labor
. OSHA 979.6 - 12 1,008.2 - 12
Veterans Admin. -- 12,000 - - 2,000
General Services - - N/A
Administration
Tennessee Valley -- 1,055 -- -- 2,700
Authority
Agriculture - 19,900 N/A - 29,600
TOTAL 118,234.91,005,579.7 566 110,108.6 1,387,349.7 580
SOURCE: EPA Superfund Budget Documents.
1987-91 Total
Dollars FTEs
Trust Agency Agency
Fund Budeet Budeet
- 2,696,800 1,060
974,811
209,616.9 -- 1,025
108,999.8
103,724.2 74,700 704
111,900
21,754.9 18,163 305.5
5,403.7 99,893.4 162
9,358,8 5,237 92
11,025.1 5,261 81.6
3,658.2 -- 48.5
19,000
411.0 23.3
4,520.1
53,500
473,541.6 4,064,196.5 3,501.9

                                       46

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                    Fiscal Year 1989
        levels.      DOE   Order   5400.4,
        "ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,
        Compensation,   and   Liability   Act
        Requirements" formally  establishes  the
        DOE program responsibilities and policies
        for implementing CERCLA requirements.
        The Order requires that DOE respond to
        releases and potentially imminent releases
        of  hazardous substances  in  accordance
        with CERCLA,  the NCP, and Executive
        Order 12580.  It also requires that  the
        Department   enter   into  Interagency
        Agreements (IAG) with federal, state, and
        local entities for conduct of RI/FSs and
        remedial action under Section 120(e).

        DOE is conducting remedial activities at
        all  16 sites currently listed on the NPL.
        In  addition, as of the  end of FY89,  the
        Department has entered into Section  120
        agreements with EPA and the states at the
        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
        Monticello   Mill   Site   and   Vicinity
        Properties,   and  the   Hanford  Site.
        CERCLA Section 120 LAGs are currently
        under negotiation with federal and state
        regulatory agencies for the remaining NPL
        sites.

        Department   of Health  and  Human
        Services

        Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
        Registry.   During FY89,  the Agency  for
        Toxic  Substances  and Disease Registry
        (ATSDR)   completed   592  health
        assessments, bringing the total number of
        health assessments completed to  1,154.
        ATSDR also completed two pilot studies/
        investigations on  selected  populations
        during FY89; nine health studies were
        initiated.  Over 2,200 health consultations
        were provided at remedial sites.

        In  compliance with section  104(i)(3)  of
        CERCLA, which  requires  ATSDR  to
        prepare toxicologies! profiles on the first
        100 most hazardous substances found at
        Superfund sites, ATSDR completed  25
        during FY89.   Thus,  75 profiles were
        either in draft or final form at the end of
        FY89. ATSDR conducted approximately
1,000 health .consultations to private or
public health  care  providers  in  the
provision of medical  care and testing of
exposed individuals.

The policy and procedures manual for the
National Exposure Registry was completed
during FY88. In FY89, ATSDR initiated
a trichloroethylene sub-registry comprised
of eight sites with  a  population base of
approximately 5,000. A dioxin sub-registry
was also established during FY89, and a
benzene sub-registry will be developed in
FY90. ATSDR continued discussions with
other  agencies  regarding  lexicological
profiles and health assessment research.

ATSDR's   health  education  activities
during FY89 included the continuation of
training for state and local health officials
on  the use of Toxnet and other on-line
systems operated by the National Library
of   Medicine,   the   development   of
environmental health  care studies for use
by the medical community, and education
activities through the environmental and
occupational health clinic network.

National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences.     CERCLA  section  311(a)
authorizes   National   Institute   of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
to conduct research in the development of
advanced techniques for the detection and
evaluation  of the  effects of hazardous
substances  on human health.  In FY89,
nine universities received funding  from
NIEHS to  conduct  78  separate basic
research  studies in  a  grants program
designed to fulfill the requirements of a
Superfund  Basic   Research   and
Professional Training  Plan. The Plan was
developed by NIEHS and approved by the
Department  of Health  and  Human
Services  (HHS) Advisory  Council on
Hazardous   Substances  Research  and
Training as required by Section 311(a) of
SARA

The worker safety training program also
became  fully  operational  in  FY89.
Complete training programs were put in
                                               47

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                    Fiscal Year 1989
        place  by  11  grantee organizations at
        centers across the United  States.   A
        clearinghouse was established by and for
        the  NIEHS   grantees   to   assure
        communication  and  coordination  of a
        nationwide training effort in Superfund
        worker training.   Technical advice and
        assistance  was   provided   during   the
        emergency response to the Alaska oil spill.

        Department of Justice. The Department
        of Justice (DOJ) has two objectives under
        the Superfund program:   to defend  the
        program  from legal  challenges  and to
        compel PRPs to comply   with the law.
        Because of limited resources to support
        Superfund   over   the   long  term,
        enforcement  is  one  of the  keys to  the
        success of the program.

        DOJ  plays  an  integral  role  in   the
        Superfund  program   through   judicial
        enforcement  actions to recover clean-up
        costs, impose civil penalties, and compel
        PRPs to perform cleanups.  To this end,
        DOJ's  three priorities  for Superfund
        litigation are:  (1) lodging and entering
        consent decrees  that provide for privately
        funded remedial action;  (2)  injunctive
        relief actions  to compel privately funded
        remedial  action; and (3) cost  recovery
        lawsuits to recoup  Trust  Fund monies
        spent cleaning up sites.

        National  Aeronautics   and   Space
        Administration.     The   National
        Aeronautics  and  Space  Administration
        (NASA) had a very active and aggressive
        FY89  Environmental Compliance   and
        Restoration Program valued at  over $26
        million.   This  program   is  presently
        planned for continuation into FY90 at an
        additional level  of  $30 million.   The
        purpose  of  this program  is to  enable
        compliance  with  mandatory  statutory
        environmental  requirements   and
        standards. In FY90, approximately $5.8
        million   is  slated   for   air  pollution
        abatement, asbestos  removal, and  PCB
        replacements;  $12.4  million  has been
        allocated for hazardous waste monitoring
        and control;   and   $3.9   million  for
replacement of underground storage tanks
and the upgrade of treatment  systems.
Many other activities are also within the
program including studies, assessments,
remedial  investigations, and feasibility
studies. These activities are valued at $7.9
million.

Department  of  Transportation.   The
Department  of  Transportation (DOT)
estimates that it will use funding from its
budget  to   support   CERCLA-related
activities as carried out by the Federal
Aviation   Administration  (FAA),  the
Research    and   Special   Programs
Administration  (RSPA), the U.S.  Coast
Guard  (USCG),  and the  Maritime
Administration   (MARAD).      No
Superfund  money is  included in  this
report; only funds which are applied from
the Departmental budget  are  included.
The primary funding areas in support of
CERCLA requirements include pollution
abatement  related to  the operation of
DOT facilities and response to any release
or  threatened   release  of  hazardous
substances within the Coastal Zone, Great
Lakes waters, ports and harbors.

Federal Aviation Administration.  All of
FAA's  CERCLA  activities  involve
pollution  abatement.  They  focus  on
hazardous   waste  cleanup  at  regional
facilities and other  clean-up efforts to
remove asbestos and PCBs.

Research    and   Special   Programs
Administration.   RSPA  conducts four
activities   which  support   CERCLA/
Superfund    responsibilities.      These
activities  which  require  funding  and
manpower/FTE   support   include:
rulemaking, technical support, information
and   planning   data,  and   emergency
response training and  support.   RSPA
does  not  have  any  A-106  pollution
abatement projects.

U.S. Coast Guard. The USCG is a major
supporter   of the  Superfund  program
through its  role  as the  predesignated
federal on-scene coordinator (OSC) in the
                                               48

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                    Fiscal Year 1989
        Coastal  Zone for  responding  to any
        release or threatened release of hazardous
        substances in the Coastal Zone.  It must
        also address pollution abatement related
        to the operation of its own facilities.

        Maritime  Administration.     All   of
        MARAD's  activities   in  support   of
        CERCLA  involves    testing   for
        hydrocarbons in storage tank  facilities at
        Kings Point and other locations.

        Department of the Interior. Each of the
        nine bureaus and four territorial elements
        of the Department of the Interior (DOI)
        has provided  support to the Superfund
        program, mostly assisting  the National
        Response  Team   and  the  Regional
        Response  Teams.   DOFs role in the
        program focuses on three general areas:

        Response  Management, including  RRT
        assistance   activities,   incident-specific
        activities, and NPL site remedial response
        activities;

        Emergency  Response   Preparedness,
        including  RRT  participation,  regional
        RRT workgroups, and RRT support; and

        Trust   Resources/Damage  Assessment,
        including coordination of natural resource
        trustee concerns, natural resource damage
        assessment briefings, and  settlements  of
        trustee resources.

        Federal Emergency Management Agency.
        The enactment of SARA in  1986  made
        many of the voluntary preparedness and
        planning   activities   of   the   Federal
        Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
        including activities required by Title III,
        ineligible for funding under the Superfund
        budget after September 30,  1987.   To
        continue the ongoing Superfund assistance
        to state and local  governments  and  to
        support  their efforts to  implement Title
        III, FEMA,  in FY88,  consolidated  its
        funding  requests  under  two  separate
        authorizations of appropriation.
Funding for all Superfund activities was
requested   under   the   Superfund
Interagency Budget, and the remainder of
FEMA's  hazardous materials  activities,
including Title III, was incorporated into
FEMA's own operating budget  (under its
Earthquake and Other Hazards Budget).
Thus, no additional funds were  requested
under Section 301(h)(l)(G) to  carry out
Superfund activities after FY87.

Department of Commerce. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)  carries  out   many  of  the
responsibilities  of the  Department of
Commerce  (DOC)   under  CERCLA
NOAA's  Superfund program goals  are:
(1)   to   strengthen   and   accelerate
technologies to plan for, and respond to,
hazardous substance  releases in  coastal
and marine areas; and (2) to assist EPA in
identifying, evaluating, and mitigating the
adverse effects of hazardous substances on
natural resources  in coastal  and  marine
ecosystems.

These  goals  are addressed  primarily
through NOAA's  efforts to  build  an
effective network  of  Scientific Support
Coordinators  and  core support  groups to
assist federal on-scene  coordinators in
responding   to   hazardous    substance
releases into coastal or marine waters. It
also   has   developed    computerized
contingency plans  for major U.S. ports.

NOAA also acts  on  behalf of  the
Secretary  of Commerce  as a  federal
trustee for natural resources in coastal and
marine  areas  affected   by   hazardous
substance  releases.   NOAA  Coastal
Resource  Coordinators,  funded through
Superfund and assigned to EPA regional
offices, assist the  Agency in evaluating
natural  resource   concerns  at  coastal
hazardous  substance release sites and in
improving coordination with  federal and
state  natural resource  trustees.    The
resource estimates do not include those
resources necessary to meet NOAA's role
as a federal trustee for natural resources.
                                               49

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                    Fiscal Year 1989
        Department   of  Labor.     Funds
        appropriated under  general  lAGs  will
        allow the Occupational Safety and Health
        Administration  (OSHA)  of   the
        Department of Labor (DOL) and states
        operating  OSHA-approved  plans  to
        continue  providing   EPA  and  other
        response   personnel   with   technical
        assistance to protect workers at Superfund
        sites, implementing the  workers  safety
        program  at   Superrund   sites,   and
        supporting the  National  and Regional
        Response Teams.

        OSHA conducts inspections at Superfund
        sites  to  ensure that  employers are in
        compliance  with all  applicable OSHA
        standards,  including  the standard  for
        employees  engaged in hazardous waste
        operations, as mandated by section 126 of
        CERCLA

        OSHA performs laboratory analyses of
        samples  collected  at  Superfund  site
        inspections and maintains and calibrates
        technical  equipment  used  for   these
        inspections.  OSHA's analytical laboratory
        also maintains a computerized system for
        tracking  hazardous   waste  inspection
        activity.   In  FY91,  OSHA will shift
        emphasis from  enforcement to assistance
        and will perform up  to  six compliance
        assistance visits and will conduct six on-
        site plan reviews.  As a  member  of  the
        National  Response  Team   and   the
        associated  Regional  Response  Teams,
        OSHA assists the teams in meeting their
        annual workplans.

        Department of  Veterans Affairs. Prior to
        1989,  no  funds had been  specifically
        budgeted  for  Superfund  cleanups.   In
        FY89 and FY90, Department of Veterans
        Affairs (VA) budgeted $5 million and $12
        million, respectively,  to  meet projected
        costs.  For  FY91, the requested budget
        amount is $2 million.  At present, VA is
        a PRP at a number  of Superfund sites
        including:  Baldwin (FL),  Maxey Flats
(KY), Holden (MO), Envirotek II (NY),
Pristine Co. (OH), Chillicothe (OH), and
Northside-Envirochem (IN).

Department  of  Agriculture. Congress
appropriated  $2 million in FY88, $5
million in FY89, and $20 million in FY90
for hazardous waste management activities
at  the  Department  of   Agriculture
(USDA).    Because  hazardous  waste
management  activities  comprise   both
CERCLA and RCRA compliance, USDA
split  the  monies  between the  two
programs  75/25  (CERCLA/RCRA)  in
FY88  and 50/50 beginning in  FY89.
USDA intends to dedicate its Superfund
effort to planning  and remedial action
efforts at abandoned mines for the Forest
Service and to various other  activities by
the Agricultural Research Service, Forest
Service,  Rural   Electrification
Administration,   and  Animal &  Plant
Health   Inspection   Service.      The
substantial increase from FY89 to FY90
reflects the planned  increase  in the  level
of remedial actions underway.

General Services Administration. During
FY88, GSA conducted PAs for 18 GSA
facilities  that appeared  on  the federal
facilities docket. GSA does not anticipate
that further work will be performed at
these 18  sites.  Therefore, no additional
resources have been specifically identified
for CERCLA activities.   Resources for
environmental studies/corrective projects,
however, are included in the GSA budget
and can be  utilized  for  CERCLA
studies/corrective projects, if necessary. In
addition, GSA currently is involved in five
Superfund site investigations in which it is
a PRP; as a result, it may incur third-party
PRP costs in future years.

Tennessee  Valley  Authority.    TVA's
CERCLA resource  requirements are to
support its cleanup  effort at the Muscle
Shoals fertilizer plant.
                                               50

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                         Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                          CHAPTER
     In  addition  to  reporting  on  program
progress, CERCLA requires EPA to submit annual
reports to Congress on several other activities: (1)
research  on and  development  of  treatment
technologies; (2) minority firm participation in
Superfund contracting; and  (3) progress  in
reducing the number of sites where contamination
remains  after  remedial action  is  completed.
Progress in these areas is described in detail in this
chapter.
4.1  Use and Development of Permanent
     Technologies

     EPA is required under CERCLA section
301(h)(l) to submit an annual evaluation of newly
developed feasible  and  achievable  permanent
treatment technologies.   Superfund technology-
related research and development efforts  are
administered primarily through EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
     During FY89, two solicitations for research
and development proposals were issued (including
one  specifically for Superfund  research  and
development), and 12 grants were awarded.   In
addition, the establishment of Hazardous Subtance
Research  Centers,  the  establishment  of   an
Alternative  Treatment Technology  Information
Center, responses to the  90-Day Study, and  the
publication of a number of information manuals
were significant Superfund research and  develop-
ment accomplishments of the past fiscal year.
                                                 Other  Statutory
                                                      Requirements
                                                     for the  Report
      Acronyms Introduced to Chapter 4

   ETP    -  Emerging Technologies Program
   MBE   -  Minority Business Enterprise
   NAMC  -  National Association of Minority
            Contractors
   OER   -  Office of Exploratory Research
   OSDBU -  Office of Small and Disadvantaged
            Business Utilization
   OSWER -  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
            Response
   PCP    -  Pentachlorophenol
   SITE   -  Superfund Innovative Technology
            Evaluation
   VOCs   -  Volatile Organic Compounds
   WBE   -  Women's Business Enterprise
4.1.1      The Superfund Innovative
          Technology Evaluation
          Program

    In 1986, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and ORD created
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) program.  The goal of the program is the
development, demonstration, and subsequent use
of new and innovative treatment technologies in
the cleanup of Superfund sites across the country.
The SITE program, now  in  its third year, is
continuing to provide the treatment technologies
required for the implementation of updated federal
and state clean-up standards. The SITE program
emphasizes the development of technologies that
may provide permanent  remedies as opposed to
"quick fixes."
    The  SITE program of technology research
and development is focused upon  a number of
technology development  milestones, set by ORD,
to measure the progress of new and innovative
                                          51

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
treatment  technologies.    Further  information
regarding the status of particular technologies in
relation to those milestones can be found in the
SITE Report  to Congress, which is  published
annually by ORD.
      The SITE program is  divided  into five
operational areas, three of which were especially
active  in FY89.   These  three  areas  are:   the
Demonstration Program,  the  Measurement and
Monitoring Technologies  Program,  and  the
Emerging Technologies Program (ETP).

The Demonstration Program

      The majority of the research efforts in terms
of  time  and  cost fall under the Demonstration
Program. The goal of this program is to develop
data on  the performance,  cost-effectiveness, and
reliability of new treatment technologies.  The
Agency  uses   these  data to  determine  the
applicability   of  particular   technologies  to
individual Superfund sites.
      The Agency develops working relationships
with  the developers  of  the  technology.   The
developers are responsible for the  demonstration
of  their  proposed technologies.  Although these
demonstrations often occur at Superfund sites, they
also may  take   place at  the developer's  own
facilities, EPA laboratories, or private sites. EPA's
role in this process involves the sampling, analysis,
and evaluation of all test results.  The Agency thus
has the  opportunity to assess the performance,
reliability, and   cost  of  new  and  innovative
technologies, while the developer is provided with
an  extensive  data set that serves to validate the
capabilities of its technology.
      Solicitations for applications to the SITE
Demonstration Program are made both annually
(the last was  in  January 1989) and  on a  rolling
basis (whenever a developer has  a  treatment
project scheduled with a Superfund waste). Once
a proposal has been accepted, the Agency works
with the developer to find a suitable test site for
the technology.
      In FY89, ORD reported on the completion
of  the  following  seven  field demonstrations,
bringing the number of completed demonstrations
to  14.
      Ultrox  International,   Incorporated
demonstrated its ultraviolet radiation and oxidation
system at the  Lorentz Barrel and Drum company
Superfund site in San Jose, CA. The system uses
a combination of ultraviolet light radiation, ozone,
and  hydrogen   peroxide  to  oxidize   organic
compounds in water. Ultrox International treated
approximately 13,000  gallons of  contaminated
ground  water using the  system.   The system
achieved removal efficiencies as high as 90 percent
for total  volatile  organic compounds  (VOCs)
present  in the ground water.  The removal rates
were lower for some compounds (65 percent for
1,1-dichloroethane)  and  higher  for  others (99
percent   for  trichloroethylene).    The  mean
concentration of the total VOCs  in the effluent
was 12-51 ug/1, compared to a mean value of 120
to 200 ug/1 in the influent.
     Chemfix   Technologies,   Incorporated
demonstrated its solidification/stabilization process
at the  Portable  Equipment  Salvage company
Superfund site in Clackamas, Oregon. The process
is used  to treat  a variety of industrial wastes
contaminated with  heavy metals and  organic
compounds   with   high   molecular   weight.
Proprietary reagents are mixed with wastes to form
a stable, solidified mass.  About forty tons of soil
contaminated   with   lead,   copper,   and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were treated
during the testing. Tests conducted on the treated
waste showed  that lead  concentrations  were
reduced   94  to   99   percent   and   copper
concentrations were reduced 95 to 99 percent.
     Ogden Environmental Services demonstrated
a circulating fluidized bed combuster at the McCall
Superfund site in Fullerton, CA.  The combuster
destroys  a  variety   of  waste   materials   at
temperatures below 1560°F (850°C). Limestone is
injected simultaneously with the waste stream into
the combuster unit, capturing acid gases, thereby
eliminating the need for a scrubber. Ogden used
a combuster to treat 5,500 pounds of high sulphur
acidic petroleum refinery waste.  Results of stack
gas tests indicated that, using carbon tetrachloride
as the  performance indicator, the waste, after
treatment,   met   the   RCRA  99.99   percent
destruction and removal efficiency limit for trial
burns. Acid gas emissions and flue gas particulates
were well below RCRA limits, although further
testing is needed to ensure compliance with local
air standards for  concentrations  of  flue  gas
particulates.   No  significant concentrations  of
hazardous organics or metals were detected in the
flue gas. Carbon monoxide, nitric oxides, and total
hydrocarbon emissions  were within facility permit
conditions.    Additionally,  organics  originally
                                                52

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
present in the waste feed were not detected in the
fly ash bed streams, and PCBs, dioxins, and furans
were not detected.
      Toxic  Treatments   (USA),  Incorporated
demonstrated a full-scale prototype of the In-Situ
Detoxifer at the Annex Terminal Superfund site in
San Pedro, CA.  This In-Situ Detoxifer injects hot
air  and steam into the ground to remove volatile
organics  from  soil.     The   increase  in   soil
temperature resulting from the injection of hot air
and steam causes volatile organic compounds to
vaporize. A steel shroud collects the soil off-gases,
and a gas treatment system separates  the volatile
organics and polishes  the air  and water before
reuse.   The Detoxifer  was demonstrated  on soil
contaminated with common industrial chemicals,
chlorinated solvents, plasticizers, adhesives,  and
paint additives.
      Biatrol, Incorporated demonstrated a pilot-
scale biological  treatment system for  organics in
wastewater at the MacGillis and Gibbs Superfund
sites in New Brighton, MN.   The system uses a
fixed-film bioreactor that contains three cells filled
with corrugated  PVC media on which the  biofilm
grows.    The  biofilm  consists  of  indigenous
microorganisms, and  added  naturally occurring
microorganisms.    During  the  demonstration,
approximately 176,000  gallons of ground water
principally contaminated with pentachlorophenol
(PCP)  were treated.    EPA sampled  influent,
biomass, off-gases, and effluent. The unit operated
well during the test.
      Biotrol, Incorporated also demonstrated a soil
washing system  for soil contaminated with PCP
and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons  at the
MacGills and Gibbs Superfund site.   The system
consists of a soil washer, a slurry bioreactor, and
the fixed-film bioreactor described above. The soil
washer uses water in  a multi-staged series of
intensive scrubbing and physical classification steps
to separate the heavily contaminated fine fraction
(silt, clay, and humic particles) of the soil from the
coarser, less contaminated  sand  fraction.   All
process water used in the soil washer is treated in
the fixed-film bioreactor prior to being discharged
or recycled.  A small portion of the fine particle
slurry  is  being treated by  a prototype slurry
bioreactor.
      Soliditech, Incorporated  demonstrated  its
solidification and stabilization  process,  which
chemically and physically immobilizes hazardous
constituents contained  in slurries, at Imperial Oil
Company Superfund sites, an oil recycling facility
in Morganville, New Jersey.  During the process,
the  proprietary  reagent  URRICHEM™  is
dispersed throughout  the waste and works  to
micro-encapsulate  hazardous   compounds   by
crosslinking  organic  and  inorganic  particles,
coating large particles, and sealing small pores and
spaces.  This sealing process significantly reduces
leaching  potential.  Wastes  treated  during the
demonstration were from three sources at the
facility:  contaminated soils from a marshy area,
used filter-clay material from an existing waste pile,
and an oily sludge from an unused storage tank.
Approximately two to  five cubic yards of each
waste were processed in Soliditech's mobile mixing
unit.    Contaminants  included heavy metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and low levels of volatile
organic chemicals.  Samples of untreated and
treated waste were analyzed for a wide range of
organic and inorganic  contaminants, and  other
physical  and chemical  characteristics.  Samples
were also subjected to several leaching tests. The
treated wastes were evaluated for strength and
durability through tests  such  as the  unconfined
compressive strength test, freeze/thaw tests, wet/dry
tests, and microstructural  analysis.  Preliminary
results are not yet available.  The treated waste
will also be sampled and analyzed over a period of
three to five years.
     EPA  is  currently   working   with   36
technologies under the  Demonstration  Program.
Exhibit 4.1-1 lists the five categories of Superfund
technologies addressed under the Demonstration
Program, and provides the status of each project.

The  Measurement and Monitoring Technologies
Program

     A second component of the SITE program is
the Measurement and Monitoring  Technologies
Program.  This program provides assistance in the
development  and  demonstration of new and
innovative   measurement   and   monitoring
technologies to   be   used in  Superfund site
characterization. Technologies are evaluated under
this  program at  the  Agency's Environmental
Monitoring  Systems  laboratory  in  Las  Vegas,
Nevada.   Technologies are investigated for their
capacity to:

•    Assess the extent of contamination;
                                                53

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                          Fiscal Year 1989
                                     \  Exhibit 4.1-1
                    Sliperfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
                      Demonstration Program:  Project Status
                  Technology Type
            Number of Projects
           Selected    Demonstrations
         Technologies    Completed
       S olidification/S tabilization Technologies

       Biological Technologies

       High and Low Temperature Thermal Technologies

       Physical Technologies

       Chemical Technologies
              9

              5

              7

             12

              3
4

1

4

4

1
        SOURCE:  Based on the March 1990 draft of the 1989 Report to Congress on Superfund Innovative
                  Technology Evaluation.
 •     Determine effects on human health and the
      environment;

 •     Aid in the selection of the most appropriate
      remedial action; and

 •     Monitor the  effectiveness  of a selected
      remedy.

 Projects in FY89 included:  (1) a laboratory analysis
 of   the   Westinghouse  Bio-Analytic  systems
 immunoassay  for   pentachlorophenol   (PCP)
 through a field  test  of these systems on PCP-
 contaminated water at a Superfund site; (2) the
 development  of  a trihalomethane (chloroform)
 fiber optics sensor; and (3) the development of a
 fiber optic sensor for  gasoline and other fuels.

 The Emerging Technologies Program

      A third component  of the SITE program is
 the Emerging Technologies Program (ETP) that
 received substantial  attention in  FY89.  Seven
 projects were  accepted for ETP in FY89.  In
 addition, in July of 1989, EPA issued a request for
proposals.    Forty-seven   preproposals  were
submitted to the Agency by the September 7, 1989
deadline and are currently under review.
     ETP conducts investigation and development
activities  for treatment technologies that have not
yet reached the demonstration stage.  The goal of
ETP  is  to  feed  the demonstration program,
ensuring  a steady flow of  potentially useful,
permanent,  and  cost-effective   treatment
technologies.  ETP awards are in the form of two-
year competitive  cooperative agreements with
developers. Funding levels extend to a maximum
of $300,000 over two years.
4.1.2     Technology Transfer Centers

     The Agency recognizes the importance of the
transfer of knowledge concerning the status of new
and innovative Superfund technologies. The SITE
program  has  responded  to this important need
with the creation of an information clearinghouse
and a technology information center, both of which
collect, synthesize, and  disseminate technology
performance data.
                                              54

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
Technology Transfer Clearinghouse

      The Technology Transfer Clearinghouse has
three components:

•     Up-to-date information on SITE projects,
      including  demonstration  schedules,  and
      demonstration results which are  available
      from the SITE hotline in Washington, D.C.
      The  phone number is (800) 424-9346, or
      382-3000 for local calls.

•     An  electronic  Bulletin  Board  System
      provides summary information  on SITE
      projects,  demonstration   schedules,  and
      demonstration results.

•     The hazardous waste collection of the EPA
      library houses a number of journals, reports,
      and other documents. These documents are
      also available at the regional and laboratory
      libraries.

The Alternative Treatment Technology Information
Center

      In May of 1989 the Agency's Alternative
Treatment   Technology  Information   Center
(ATTIC)  became operational.    ATTIC  is an
automated,  comprehensive  information retrieval
system that integrates hazardous waste data into a
centralized,  searchable  resource.   ATTIC  is
intended to serve as an information focal point for
individuals and organizations involved in hazardous
waste site remediation.
      ATTIC  was  initially  developed  in  the
Hazardous Waste Management  Division of EPA
Region 3.    The  system was  also  successfully
demonstrated  in  other regions  before  being
brought to EPA Headquarters.
      The  information  contained in ATTIC  is
obtained from the ATTIC data base that contains
executive summaries and abstracts from more than
700 technical sources. Plans for  FY90 include the
extension of ATTIC to all EPA Regional offices,
the addition of new data bases, and the extension
of ATTIC via an on-line system to all Agency and
contractor support personnel.
4.13      The Hazardous Substance
           Research Center Program

     The Agency is  authorized  under  section
311(d) of CERCLA to establish between five and
10 hazardous  substance  research centers.   The
centers are to be "equitably distributed around the
country" and funded at a level of $25 million over
a five-year authorization period.  The purpose of
the centers is to perform innovative short-  and
long-term  research  and  technology  transfer
activities relating  to   key  hazardous  substance
problems experienced  in their geographical area.
     Solicitations for research centers were issued
in March  of  1988.    The  Agency received 33
proposals.   The Agency divided  the 10 EPA
Regions into five pairs and awarded a research
center to each pair of regions. The centers were
officially established in February of 1989. Several
features make these centers unique in the federal
assistance program.  The first distinctive feature of
the centers is their local orientation; the research
conducted specifically addresses hazardous waste
issues  experienced in that  center's geographical
location. Another feature is the requirement  that
a center spend  no less  than  10  percent  of its
budget  on  technology  transfer   and  training
activities; this will ensure that the information will
leave the center and reach those who need it (e.g.,
waste handlers and manufacturers).  Finally, on an
annual basis, each center must provide $250,000 of
its own funding for every million dollars awarded
by EPA; this  measure will ensure the center's
vested interest in its own success.   The centers,
their  regions  of operation, and  their research
topics are listed in Exhibit 4.1-2.
4.1.4      Superfund Research Grants

     The Agency's Office of Exploratory Research
(OER)  is  responsible  for  the solicitation  of
proposals for research in all areas administered by
the Agency.  A general solicitation is issued by this
office on an annual basis, under which proposals
for Superfund research may be submitted. Funding
under this program is available for both continuing
research  projects and new proposals.   Funds
awarded for the continuation of work on existing
Superfund projects totaled $770,671 for FY89.
                                                55

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                Fiscal Year 1989
                                     Exhibit 4,1-2
                      Hazardous Substance Research
         Research Center
    The Northeast Hazardous
    Substance Research Center,
    New Jersey Institute of
    Technology, Newark, New Jersey

    The Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic
    Hazardous Substance Research
    Center, University of Michigan,
    Ann Arbor, Michigan

    The Waste Minimization and
    Management Center, North
    Carolina State University,
    Raleigh, North Carolina

    The Hazardous Substance Research
    Center, Kansas State University,
    Manhattan, Kansas

    The Western Region Hazardous
    Substance Research  Center,
    Stanford University,
    Stanford, California
 Location

Regions 1&2
Regions 3&5
Regions 4&6
Regions 7&8
Regions 9&10
    Research Emphasis

In situ treatment technologies
and incineration
Bioremediation and other
techniques for the removal of
organic contaminants from
soils and ground water

Pollution prevention and
techniques to make industrial
operations cleaner
Recovery of metals and other
wastes from mining, and the
cleanup of pesticides from soils

Physical and chemical treatment
techniques for surface and
subsurface contaminants
      OER published a solicitation in March of
 1989 for  grant proposals specifically concerning
 Superfund technologies. The proposals were due
 in May.  The topic for new  research grants in
 FY89 was "Innovative Biodegradation Technologies-
 for Treatment of Hazardous Organic Wastes at
 Superfund Sites." Under the March solicitation, 12
 grants were awarded for new starts at a funding
 level of $1,601,800.
      A  number of Superfund research projects
 have, in the past fiscal year, moved beyond the
 research and development phase. These products
        of the OER Superfund grants program are now in
        actual use at Superfund sites. A summary of these
        technologies is presented in Exhibit 4.1-3.
        4.1.5     90-Day Study Activities

           A number of the management objectives listed
        in the Administrator's 90-Day  Study pertain to
        ORD.   In   specific   response   to   these
                                           56

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFVND
                                                         Fiscal Year 1989
Accepted Siiper^i
                                                                       ies
      (Developiraeiit 
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
      During  fiscal  1989,  contracts  worth
$53,699,428 were awarded to minority contractors
to perform Superfund work.  (This represents 5.0
percent of the total  dollars  obligated to finance
Superfund work.) As Exhibit 4.2.1 illustrates, EPA
awarded the largest sum of funds to minority firms
($51,600,000) through direct  procurement. Other
federal   agencies   or   departments  awarded
$1,862,307 worth  of contracts to minority firms
with funds transferred from the Superfund program
through LAGs.   Contracts worth an additional
$237,121 were awarded as a  result of cooperative
agreements.   (This  total  does not  include  a
$500,000 grant that EPA awarded to the National
Association of Minority Contractors, a non-profit
organization.)
      Minority  firms provide three  types  of
services to the Superfund program:  professional,
field  support, and  construction.   Exhibit 4.2-2
illustrates examples of tasks performed under each
category.
      As  illustrated by  Exhibit  4.2-3,  most
minority firms  awarded  contracts  fall into  the
category of Small Business  Administration 8(a)
contractors. The Superfund  program also awards
prime contracts to minority  firms and Superfund
prime  contractors   use   minority  firms   as
subcontractors.
4.2.1  EPA  Efforts  to Identify  Qualified
       Minority Firms

       OSDBU conducted a number of activities
during the fiscal year to identify qualified minority
firms  and  to inform  them of  opportunities
available in the Superfund program.

•     In   cooperation   with   the   National
       Association   of  Minority  Contractors
       (NAMC),  OSDBU  conducted  training
       sessions  designed  to  make  minority
       contractors  eligible   to  compete  for
       Superfund contracts.   One hundred fifty-
       eight   people  representing  113   firms
       participated in the training.

•     EPA  hosted the  Superfund  Marketing
       Trade Fair in February  1989 to provide
       minority firms the opportunity to meet one-
       on-one  with   both  Superfund   prime
      contractors and state officials responsible for
      Superfund cleanups; 83 participants from
      FY88 training sessions attended the fair.

    OSDBU,  in  cooperation with  New Jersey,
    Rhode  Island,  Texas,  Washington,  and
    Georgia, hosted minority business enterprise
    (MBE)  and women's  business  enterprise
    (WBE) workshops that were designed to better
    familiarize minority  and women  business
    owners  with the  opportunities available in
    Superfund and other EPA programs; a total of
    515 people attended the workshops.

    OSDBU  hosted   its annual   MBE/WBE
    workshop in April 1989, and,  during the
    workshop, emphasized the need for improving
    surveillance of the Superfund program to
    ensure  that  minority  contractors  are used
    whenever  possible.

    OSDBU  conducted a special workshop in
    November 1988 to inform EPA Regional small
    and disadvantaged business utilization officers
    of the need for timely and accurate reporting
    and  to  provide  the officers with the  latest
    information  concerning   the   pending
    procurement  regulations   for   Superfund
    cooperative agreements and state contracts.
4.2.2     Efforts to Encourage Other
          Federal Agencies and
          Departments to Use Minority
          Contractors

    OSDBU,  in  cooperation  with  Superfund
Program officials, Grants Administration officials,
and  the Office  of General Counsel, developed
special  conditions  to  be  included  in  each
memorandum of understanding between EPA and
any  agency or  department  receiving Superfund
monies.   The  special  conditions ensure  that
agencies  or  departments  receiving  Superfund
money are aware of and act on the requirements of
CERCLA section  105(f).  Previously, EPA had
sent letters to all federal agencies and departments
that  receive  Superfund money  stressing the
importance   of  using   minority  contractors.
OSDBU,   however,   developed   the   special
conditions because the  Agency believed that a
                                               58

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND                          Fiscal Year 1989

Type of Activity
Cooperative Agreements
Interagency Agreements
Direct Procurement
TOTAL
?zy- '••:.. :
:f:::;j SOURCBJ Prepared for this T
'::.Yv?'; Exhibit 42-
Minority Contractor
Utilizatiorl:/]
Total Dollars Minority Contractor
Obligated Participation
$ 234,703,272
185,604,949
657,000,000
$ 1,077,308,221
leport. j
$ 237,121
1,862,307
51,600,000
$ 53,699,428

U5;K
Percentage of
Total
1.0
1.0
7.9
5.0

i,,,:^ ;:':»-v ?.-•; ;.:,,,. • BHwwtfiJa-2:::=j
^ Services Provided by Minority
k
Professional
Health Assessments
Community Relations
Feasibility Studies
Data Management
Geophysical Surveys
Remedial Investigations
Expert Witness
Editing
Air Quality Monitoring
Field Support
DrillingAVell Installation
Laboratory Analysis
Contractors f
Construction
Site Cleanup
Excavations
Waste Hauling and Disposal
Security
Site Support
Facilities

•.r..'|6.trRCEf . -1XS, .EPA Officeof SrpaB and Disadvajitaged Business! Utilization, . " : . .' • ;...:: ' \ • ;l^v "^ '•'. '\
                                     59

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
SOI
!' Exhibit 42-3
Amount of Money Awarded for
Each Type of Minority Contract
Type of Total Dollars
Contract (in millions)
Minority Prime 4.7
Contracts
Small Business 34.9
Administration
(8a) Contracts
Minority 12.0
Subcontracts
JRCE; | Prepared for this Report, :

more formalized and uniform measure was needed
to inform all recipients of Superfund monies of the
section 105(f) requirements.  One of these special
conditions requires that  departments or agencies
undertaking Superfund work submit an annual
report to EPA on minority contractor utilization.
4.2.3 Efforts to Increase the Use of
      Minority Contractors by Superfund
      Prime Contractors

      During FY89, OSDBU developed a list of
all  firms that have completed the EPA/NAMC
hazardous waste cleanup training programs.  The
list contains statements from all firms  about their
specific capabilities to undertake Superfund work.
Throughout the fiscal year, EPA's major Superfund
prime  contractors often  contacted OSBDU  to
obtain the general list of  firms or lists of firms
capable   of  performing   specific   functions.
Additionally, OSDBU and OERR sent letters to
and met with prime contractors in an effort to
encourage increased use of minority contractors as
subcontractors.
                                                   4.2.4     Publications of Interest to
                                                             Minority Contractors

                                                       EPA published the following two documents of
                                                   interest to minority contractors:

                                                   •   Superfund:  Getting into the Act - Contracting
                                                       and  Subcontracting  Opportunities  in  the
                                                       Superfund Program, April 1989; and

                                                   •   A  Guide to Help Small, Disadvantaged,  and
                                                       Women-Owned   Firms   -   Identifying
                                                       Subcontracting  Opportunities  Under  EPA's
                                                       Superfund Program, April 1989.
4.3
                                                             Report on Facilities Subject to
                                                             Review Under CERCLA Section
    EPA carefully monitors sites over the long-
term  to  ensure that their  remedies are fully
protective of human health and the environment.
CERCLA section 121(c) directs periodic review of
sites where remedial action leaves any hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site.
Under section 121(c), the review must take place
at least every five years after the initiation  of
remedial action. CERCLA section 121(c) requires
that a  report  be submitted to Congress that lists
the  facilities   for  which periodic reviews are
required, the  results of all the reviews, and any
action  taken as a result of the reviews.  CERCLA
section 301(h)(l)(E)  requires EPA to  report
annually on progress made in reducing the number
of facilities subject to review under section  121 (c).
    In response to 90-Day Study recommendations,
EPA issued a policy that ensures that EPA will
conduct  five-year  reviews  at all sites  where
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain above  levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure following completion of
all  remedial   activities.   EPA,  therefore, will
conduct reviews of a site unless it has been cleaned
to  at  least health-protective levels  that allow
unlimited  use   and   unrestricted   exposure.
Consequently, EPA will  review  all remedies
requiring  any  access or land-use  restrictions  or
controls, including remedies that attain  health-
                                               60

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
protective levels for current use, but that require
restrictions on activities due to limits on exposure.
      EPA is making progress toward the goal of
minimizing the amount of untreated waste and,
therefore, the number of facilities subject to review
under CERCLA section 121(c).  EPA analysis
indicates that the number of RODs specifying the
use of treatment for source control has increased
from 54 percent in FY87 to 69 percent in FY88 to
72 percent in  FY89.   In addition, the number of
RODs specifying the use of innovative  treatment
technologies  has increased from 26 percent in
FY87 to 40  percent  in FY88  to 51 percent in
FY89.   Although there has  been a progressive
increase in the use of treatment, the overall goal is
to use treatment to address the principal threats at
a site. In accordance with this goal, EPA does not
expect to use  treatment on low level waste or at
certain types of sites such as municipal landfills.
      Although CERCLA section 121(c) applies
only to actions resulting from RODs signed after
the enactment of SARA, EPA  believes that it is
inappropriate to distinguish between pre- and post-
SARA RODs in determining  whether to conduct
reviews. In addition, EPA will examine previously
deleted sites to determine the appropriateness of
conducting five-year reviews at any sites that were
not cleaned up to health-protective levels allowing
unlimited use  and unrestricted exposure.
    EPA generally will not delete a site from the
NPL  that requires  a five-year  review  until the
Agency conducts  one such review at that site.  If,
upon  completion  of the review, the site remains
protective of public health and  the environment
and meets EPA deletion criteria, the site may be
deleted from  the NPL.   EPA, however, will
continue to ensure that reviews are conducted  no
less often than every five years.
    Exhibit 4.3-1 is  a list of potential sites to  be
reviewed under CERCLA section 121(c). It should
not be considered  a complete list, and not all sites
listed   may receive  a review.   Considering the
criteria for review, EPA anticipates that most sites
where remedial action takes place will receive
reviews.  The list of sites presented in this Report
consists of sites that EPA has either deleted  or
noticed for deletion from the NPL, sites where
remedial action is complete but the deletion notice
is pending, sites undergoing long-term response
actions, or sites where remediation is complete but
approval of the close-out report  is pending.  EPA
is presently evaluating the sites to determine which
sites meet the requirements for five-year review.
When this evaluation is complete, a final list will
be issued.
                                               61

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
Exhibit 4.&1
l*otential Sites to be Reviewed Under
as of September -3<









































Site Name
A.L. Taylor (Valley of the Drums)
Beachwood/Berkeley Wells
Big River Sand
Cecil Lindsay
Charlevoix Municipal Well
Chem-Dyne
Chemical Metals
Chemical Minerals
Cooper Road
Enterprise Avenue
Friedman Property
Galloway Pits
Gratiot County Golf Course
Harris (Farley Steel)
IMC (Terre Haute)
Independent Nail Company
Jibboom Junkyard
Krysowaty Farm
LaBounty Site
Lee's Lane Landfill
Lehigh Electric and Engineering Company
Luminous Processes
Matthews Electroplating
Middletown Road Dump
Mountain View Mobile Home Estates
Morris Arsenic Dump
Mowbray Engineering Company
New Castle Steel
Newport Dump
Northern Engraving Company
NL Industries/Taracorp/Golden
Oakdale Dump Sites
Parramore Surplus
PCB Spills
PCB Warehouse, Saipan
PCB Wastes
Peterson Sand and Gravel
Poer Farm
Presque Isle
Rose Park Sludge Pit
iitr;-r;:-: -:•.::,,,•:-,/.;.'•'-..:•. ••-,.... •••-.:,„.• "",,...! •
I ' >•••• .-I--'
CERCLA Section
)•* J*V^W\ ' " "-• '
,1989 ;
State
Kentucky
New Jersey
Kansas
Arkansas
Michigan
Ohio
Maryland
Ohio
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Tennessee
Michigan
Texas
Indiana
South Carolina
California
New Jersey
Iowa
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Virginia
Maryland
Arizona
Minnesota
Alabama
Delaware
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Minnesota
Florida
North Carolina
Mariana Islands
Pacific Islands
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Utah

12l!(c)
Region
4
2
7
6
5
5
3
5
2
3
2
4
5
6
5
4
9
2
7
4
3
4
3
3
9
5
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
4
9
9
5
5
3
8
;; •}. •









































                                       62

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                          Fiscal Year 1989
Exhibit 4.3-1
Potential Sites to toe Keviewed Under CERCLA Section Ul{c)


as of September 30,
Site Name
Sylvester
Taputimu Farm
Tar Creek
Taylor Borough Dump
Toftdahl Drums
Tri-City Oil Conservationist
Varsol Spill
Voortman Farm
Wade (ABM)
Walcott Chemical
1989 (continued)
State
New Hampshire
American Samoa
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Washington
Florida
Florida
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Mississippi

Region
1
9
6
3
10
4
4
3
3
4


$Ql&b&;.f&0n$M^^ •
                                    63

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                      Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                            CHAPTER
                                                                                     5
                          Program  Implementation
                                  and  Support  Activities
       The Agency's  progress  in implementing
the  Superfund  program is  increased by  the
participation of States, Indian tribes, and other
federal agencies and departments.  Community
groups, too, are playing a greater role in the clean-
up process.
5.1    Community Relations  and Public
       Information

       The 90-Day Study and the revised NCP
placed new emphasis on the role of community
relations  and  community involvement  in the
Superfund process.   Additionally,  the Agency's
recent shift toward a policy of "enforcement first"
requires an aggressive  effort to reach  out and
include affected communities as an integral part of
the site clean-up process.
       To facilitate  a  constructive exchange of
ideas  and  suggestions in  communities  where
response   activities   are   occurring,  EPA  is
continually revising its  community  relations and
information  programs.   The  changes  to the
programs described here reflect EPA's awareness
of the importance of citizen involvement in the
Superfund process. For example, the Agency has
developed and will distribute an information kit
explaining the Superfund  program.  The box on
the   next  page lists  the  information  and
participation  tools   available to  communities,
groups, and individuals to  encourage and improve
participation in the Superfund process.
 5.1.1  Community Relations Regulations

       The revised NCP discusses the community
 relations  requirements in conjunction with the
 relevant  regulations for  removal and remedial
   Acronyms Introduced In Chapter 5

ARCS  -  Alternative Remedial Contract
         Strategy
CA   -  Cooperative Agreement
CAA   -  Clean Air Act
CAP   -  Capacity Assurance Plan
CLP   -  Contract Laboratory Program
CORAS -  Contract Operations, Review, and
         Assessment Staff
CPCA  -  Core Program Cooperative
         Agreement
CRP   -  Community Relations Plan
CWA  -  Clean Water Act
EHS   -  Extremely Hazardous Substance
ERCS  -  Emergency Response Cleanup
         Services
ESAT  -  Environmental Services Assistance
         Team
IFR   -  Interim Final Rule
MCL   -  Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG -  Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
NPRM -  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OECM -  Office of Enforcement and Compliance
         Monitoring
OSW   -  Office of Solid Waste
PCMD -  Procurement and Contracts
         Management Division
PIC   -  Public Information Center
RASs  -  Routine Analytical Services
REM   -  Remedial Planning Contracts
SACA  -  Support Agency Cooperative
         Agreement
SASs   -  Special Analytical Services
SDIC  -  Superfund Docket and Information
         Center
SMOA -  Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
SSC   -  Superfund State Contract
TAG   -  Technical Assistance Grant
TAT   -  Technical Assistance Team
TES   -  Technical Enforcement Support
TIB   -  Toxics Integration Branch
TPQs  -  Threshold Planning Quantities
                                            65

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
       PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
     AND INFORMATION TOOLS

           NCP requirements
           Technical Assistance Grants
           RCRA/Superfund Hotline
           Superfund Docket
           Public Information Center
           Hazardous Waste Ombudsman
           Program
actions. This new format is distinct from past
versions of the NCP, which explained in a single
section the community relations requirements.

Removal Actions

        The revised  NCP,  published in March
1990, requires that the lead agency appoint a
spokesperson who will inform the community of
the  actions taken at the site and  respond to
inquiries from the public.  At a minimum, the
spokesperson is required to provide updates on the
progress of the  removal action to  immediately
affected citizens and state and local officials.  The
revisions to the NCP require that the lead agency
publish a notice of availability of the administrative
record supporting the removal action and provide
the public with an opportunity to comment on the
record and the supporting documents.
        The rule  requires  a  minimum  public
comment period  of 30 days from the time the
notice of availability of the administrative record is
published.  Because of the  importance of public
comments, and recognizing that the public  may
need more time  to review complex documents,
EPA has sought to clarify that the lead agency has
discretion to extend  the public comment period
upon timely request.  This clarification is now in
the revised NCP.
        In addition,  the revisions  to the NCP
require that when a removal action will last longer
than 120 days, the spokesperson must prepare a
formal community relations plan (CRP). The CRP
discusses citizen concerns about the site and lists
the  community relations  activities that  the  lead
agency  expects to use  during the action.   The
information for the CRP  is gathered through
interviews with members of the community, state
and local officials, and other interested groups.

Remedial Actions

       The revised NCP requires that the lead
agency for a remedial  action prepare a CRP
containing information  on citizen concerns and
future communication activities. The lead agency
must also establish  an  information repository.
CERCLA, as amended by SARA,  requires  the
publication of a notice  and  brief  analysis of the
proposed plan for a remedial action, followed by a
public comment period.  The final plan must also
be  published, along with a  discussion  of  any
significant changes  from the proposed plan.  As
with removal actions, the final  NCP  explicitly
provides  the  lead agency with the discretion to
extend the public comment period for a remedial
action upon timely request.
5.1.2  Technical Assistance Grants
       Under CERCLA Section 117(e)

       CERCLA section 117(e), added by SARA,
authorizes  EPA to award  technical assistance
grants (TAGs) to citizens' groups affected by sites
proposed for or listed on the NPL.  Citizens'
groups are  to use the grants to employ technical
advisors to  interpret the problems and remedies
associated with the NPL site.  The TAG program
was   designed  to   help   citizens   become
knowledgeable about the technical and scientific
aspects of a Superfund site and thus, be better
prepared to participate effectively in the remedial
process.  In FY89, 26 TAGs were awarded to 23
citizens' groups in  all  10 regions, a substantial
increase over the four  TAGs awarded in FY88.
The  number of TAG program  personnel  has
doubled  from 10 to 20 and  will be sustained
through FY91.
       The Agency may  provide  groups  with
TAGs  up to $50,000 per  site.   Any group of
citizens that may be affected by  a  release  or a
threatened release at a site is eligible to receive a
TAG, although the Agency issues only one grant
for each eligible site.  As the program now exists,
the community contributes 20 percent of the total
cost  of the TAG  project  (see  a discussion of
proposed amendments to TAG regulations below).
                                               66

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
EPA  grants  waivers  to  the  matching  fund
requirement only if the recipient demonstrates
financial need and the grant is necessary to ensure
public participation  in  selection  of  a remedial
action.  Citizens' groups may apply for grants at
any time after a site is listed on the NPL,  or
proposed  for  listing, if  a response  action has
begun.   PRPs and certain  other  groups and
organizations  are not  eligible  to receive these
grants.
        EPA has in place the Interim Final Rule
(IFR) for the TAG Program (53 FR 9736, March
24, 1988).   The IFR  allows  EPA  to process
applications and award grants without delay, while
simultaneously developing a final rule.    EPA
expects to operate the program under the IFR for
at least two years before issuing a final rule.
        During the first year of operation  of the
TAG program  under  the  IFR, the  Agency
discovered   several   barriers   inhibiting   public
participation.  EPA, therefore, amended the IFR,
and the revised IFR was issued December  1,1989
(54 FR 49848). The existing TAG guidances will
be revised  to  account  for the new rule.   In
accordance with the recommendations of the 90-
Day Study, the amendments address the following
four areas of concern to the TAG program:

•       Matching   funds   requirements  and
        administrative cap: the 35 percent citizen
        match of the TAG project costs is reduced
        to  20 percent and the 15 percent  cap on
        administrative costs is eliminated;

•       Group   eligibility:      groups  already
        incorporated as non-profit organizations
        and  with   a   history  of  substantial
        involvement at the site can be eligible for
        a TAG without reincorporating;

•       Language clarification: several phrases in
        the IFR will be modified, i.e., "disputes
        with the Agency,"  "challenge to Agency
        decisions," and "waiver only in exceptional
        circumstances,"  because the  public was
        interpreting the language more narrowly
        than the Agency intended; and

•       Previously existing grants: upon publication
        of   the  amendments  in  the  Federal
        Register, current grant recipients  will be
       able to amend their grants to meet the
       new requirements.
5.13  A Coordinated Approach to Public
       Information

       During FY89, an initiative was begun by
the Director of OERR to develop a coordinated
approach to the management of public information
and outreach.  The system utilizes  a simplified
inventory  management  program  for  Superfund
documents, as well as the services provided by the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, the Superfund Docket
and  Information Center,  the  Agency's Public
Information  Center,   the   Hazardous  Waste
Ombudsman Program, the EPA Library's national
system of Hazardous Waste Data Collection, and
the   Center   for   Environmental  Research
Information.   In addition, the  Department  of
Commerce's  National  Technical  Information
Service is  the public archive of choice for  all
Superfund documents.  The Superfund Documents
Coordinator and the communications staff strive to
ensure that information is shared among all of
these outreach entities.
       The basic outreach concept is built on a
system   of   documents  coordination  and
management.    Documents  are  assigned  an
inventory "home" according to type, and these are
listed   in   an  annually  published   catalog  of
Superfund  Program Publications  that is widely
distributed.  Agency policy with respect  to these
documents  is that single copies are available upon
request for a charge, if stock is available.
       The Superfund Docket  and  Information
Center (SDIC) was  initially created  as a records
center  for  all CERCLA rulemaking actions and
regulatory  decisions.  The docket provides the
public with access to regulatory support materials
for proposed and final  rules, and receives and
compiles  public comments during the rulemaking
process.   In  compliance with the  Freedom  of
Information Act, the public is allowed access to
docket materials after approval  of the Office of
General Counsel and announcement in the Federal
Register.  The SDIC also serves  as the inventory
"home" for an  assigned inventory of  Superfund
program directives, and the staff is knowledgeable
about  the  availability  of documents assigned to
other inventory locations.
                                               67

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
        The RCRA/Superfund Hotline addresses
both technical and non-technical questions, and is
a good general source of information about the
Superfund  program,  including ongoing issues.
During FY89, the Hotline received 173,458 calls,
of which 16,118 addressed Superfund issues.
        The Hazardous Waste Data Collection in
the EPA Library is designed to provide reference
information, including literature search functions,
for  the public on all aspects of hazardous waste
technology.   Current  and superseded  program
documents are archived in these collections  and
may be viewed by the public.

Public Information Center

        The  Public  Information  Center  (PIC),
addressing nontechnical issues only, received 7,478
calls  in FY89.   Of this  total, 4,797 addressed
Superfund issues directly; 2,681 calls addressed the
more general topic of hazardous waste.
        The   center   distributes    all  EPA
publications  on  Superfund and  other  major
environmental topics to the public.  In addition,
the center refers the public to specific EPA offices
that  are  able  to  provide the  most  useful
information.   When  the public  expresses  an
interest in a particular topic for which there are no
resource  materials,   the  center  informs  the
appropriate EPA program office,  so that  the
program  office  can  develop  the  requested
materials.

Hazardous  Waste Ombudsman Program

        The  10  regions  and EPA  headquarters
have   Ombudsman  Offices  that  serve as  an
additional, impartial source of public information.
In FY89, the regional and the headquarters offices
combined  received  more  than  1,000 calls  and
letters. The purpose of the Ombudsman Offices is
to  assist private citizens  and  members of the
regulated community who have been unable to
resolve hazardous  waste  issues  through other
channels. The program assists environmental and
citizens' groups and trains regional representatives
to  serve as local ombudsmen.   The  program is
intended  to supplement  existing  channels of
problem resolution, not to replace them.
5.2    EPA Partnership with States and
       Indian Tribes

       Under  CERCLA section  104(A),  the
President may allow states, political subdivisions,
and   federally  recognized  Indian  tribes   to
participate  in clean-up operations at Superfund
sites.    The  Agency  continued  in  FY89  to
strengthen  the relationship between the federal
Superfund program and states and Indian tribes.
Initiatives undertaken include a consolidation of
regulations  to facilitate the implementation of
CERCLA requirements.
5.2.1   Subpart F of the Revised National
        Contingency Plan

        The final revised NCP was published in
March 1990, and includes the regulations required
by  CERCLA  section  121(f)  to provide  for
substantial and meaningful state involvement in
the Superfund process.
        The completely new  Subpart F  of the
revised  NCP  combines  concepts from  various
sections of the existing NCP concerning state
involvement in Superfund  operations into one
subpart. In addition to a general section, Subpart
F contains five additional sections that elaborate
different   aspects  of   the   federal/state/tribe
relationship.
        Of these five sections, the first deals with
Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOAs).
SMOAs are useful in  documenting the roles and
responsibilities of parties involved in Superfund
operations, such as EPA oversight requirements,
the specific nature of lead and  support  agency
activities,  and  the schedules for respective review
of Agency and state documents.
        Another section of Subpart F documents
the state assurance requirements  under the NCP.
CERCLA section 104 requires that  EPA secure
applicable assurances before remedial actions are
pursued at Superfund sites.   These assurances
include cost-sharing,  operation and maintenance
responsibility,  interest in  real property,  off-site
disposal, and waste capacity.
        The last three  sections  of  Subpart F
address the requirements  for state and tribal
involvement in removal, remedial, and enforcement
                                                68

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
response,  and  state involvement  in EPA-lead
enforcement negotiations.
5,2.2   Cooperative Agreements and
        Superfund State Contracts for
        Superfund Response Actions

        In January 1989, the Agency published an
IFR,  "Cooperative  Agreements and  Superfund
State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions"
(54 FR 4132, January 27,1989). Added to 40 CFR
Part 35 by this IFR is the completely new Subpart
O, which describes in detail the uniform operating
procedures  for  the establishment  and  cost-
monitoring of all CERCLA-funded Cooperative
Agreements (CAs) and Superfund State Contracts
(SSCs). The rule covers all such agreements and
contracts issued after January 27,1989.
        Subpart O describes two mechanisms for
implementing Superfund remedial activities. SSCs
are required when  the EPA or  political sub-
division assumes the lead in a Superfund remedial
action.  CAs are required when states, political
subdivisions, or Indian tribes, whether as the lead
or support agency, require the financial support of
the federal Superfund program.

Cooperative Agreements

        Under a CA, EPA may authorize states,
political subdivisions, or Indian tribes to perform
the lead or support  role  for  clean-up activities.
States enter into CAs when they assume the lead
in a Superfund clean-up operation to  ensure the
transfer of funds from  the federal government.
Indian   tribes   meeting  certain   minimum
requirements enter into CAs through a process
similar to that for states.  A political subdivision
can participate in a CERCLA  remedial response
action as  the  lead  agency, the  primary  party
planning and implementing the response action, or
as a  support agency furnishing data, reviewing
documents,  and  assisting  the lead  agency  as
requested.  To receive funds directly from EPA to
lead a cleanup, a  political  subdivision must enter
into a cooperative agreement with EPA  When
this  occurs, EPA, the  state,  and the political
subdivision are required to enter into a three-party
SSC  to  ensure  compliance  with statutory
responsibilities assigned to EPA and states under
CERCLA. A political subdivision can also receive
CERCLA  funds  through  the state to  perform
clean-up activities under the state's CA with EPA.
In this case, the state remains accountable to EPA
under 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O for the successful
completion of the task.
        A specific type of CA may be used to
clarify the support role of either a state, Indian
tribe, or political subdivision.  A Support Agency
Cooperative Agreement (SACA), formalizes in a
CA the arrangements for a state's participation in
support agency activities.
        Core Program Cooperative Agreements
(CPCAs)  may be secured by states or federally
recognized Indian Tribes  to  conduct  CERCLA
implementation activities that are non site-specific.
CPCAs are designed  to  allow  states to  receive
funding to develop and maintain the ability to
participate in CERCLA responses. Such activities
may   include  developing   appropriate  state
Superfund  laws,  hiring   and  training  staff,
establishing a central filing system, and providing
management and clerical support.
        In FY89,  43  CPCAs  were awarded  to
States including one to the Navajo Indian Tribe.
With the  increased involvement by states in  the
Superfund clean-up process, it is expected that this
program and the capabilities of states will continue
to grow.

Superfund  State Contracts

        An SSC is always required in the event of
an EPA-lead remedial action, and also may be
required in the event  of a political subdivision
lead.   An SSC documents  a state's  CERCLA
section   104  assurances   (operation  and
maintenance, cost-sharing, acquisition of interest in
real property, and off-site storage, treatment and/or
disposal and 20-year waste capacity) when the state
is not the  lead agency.
        The  SSC authorizes  EPA  to  collect
payments from states or political subdivisions, as
described  in  CERCLA section 104.   Federally
recognized Indian tribes are exempt from providing
most  of the  CERCLA section 104 assurances;
Indian tribes are required to assure EPA that they
will accept title to and acquire interest in real
property.  In the event that an Indian tribe enters
into  a  CA with  the  federal  government, this
assurance  may be  documented  in that  CA   In
addition to assurances, the SSC outlines statements
                                               69

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
of work and lists in detail any site-specific program
requirements. Among other requirements, Subpart
O requires that an SSC also  include cost-share
provisions, a  statement  of  contract  purpose,
sanctions for failure to comply with contract terms,
and a site access provision.
        In cases of EPA-lead remedial activity, a
simple two-party SSC is  required.   In the event
that a political subdivision is authorized to execute
the lead role hi a Superfund remedial activity, a
three-party SSC may be entered into among EPA,
the state, and the political subdivision.  In this
case, a party other than  the state or the federal
government is being authorized to act as the lead
agency, and an SSC is therefore needed to ensure
compliance with statutory responsibilities assigned
to EPA and states under CERCLA. Guarantee of
such compliance is a top priority in the  remedial
process, and therefore the SSC is required to be in
place before a political subdivision  is eligible to
receive transfer funds from  the Agency under a
CA.
5.2.3   Other State Program Activities

        The increasing number of CAs and SSCs
between the  federal government and the states
make manifest a growth in state involvement in the
federal Superfund program. This trend is perhaps
most clearly  illustrated by  the increase  in the
number  of  state-lead,  fund-financed  remedial
actions.  These actions numbered 24 in FY87 and
have increased to 39 in FY89. The degree of state
participation   in Superfund  activities  is  also
increasing in  proportion to the expanding number
of  all  Superfund  activities  (pre-remedial  and
remedial).  State responsibilities increase in three
ways:  (1)  sites evaluated for placement on the
NPL that do  not eventually get nominated for the
NPL are turned over to the states, which are then
responsible for cleaning  up those sites  to the
satisfaction of their constituencies; (2) except  in
the case of federal facilities, states must share the
costs of all remedial actions at NPL sites; and (3)
states are  always responsible  for operation and
maintenance   activities   at  NPL  sites  after
completion by the federal government of remedial
activities at the site. Core Program Cooperative
Agreements  can be awarded to  states  to allow
them to develop the capabilities to meet many of
these added responsibilities.

Report on State Superfund Programs

        In FY89 EPA also undertook a study of
the clean-up capabilities of the 50 states.  The
resulting report includes descriptions of state laws,
program  structures,  funding  mechanisms, and
clean-up  procedures.   The study  and  report
represent the  efforts of  the  state and  Local
Coordination Branch of the Superfund program to
collect and organize information on state clean-up
programs.   This will help the  Agency in its
evaluation of a state's ability to contribute to or
manage Superfund clean-up procedures.
        The  report found that  25  states  are
engaged  in the  management  of removal and
remedial actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites,
through  state  funding  or  state  enforcement
activities. Of the remaining states, 14 are capable
of managing state- or PRP-lead cleanups, but they
as yet  have not developed a Superfund program;
six states have emergency response programs, but
limited remedial action capabilities; and five states
have yet  to establish programs  for addressing
either  emergency  or  remedial  hazardous  waste
response actions.
        The report documents the fact that many
states  have enacted CERCLA-type  laws.  For
example, 19 states currently have priority lists for
state sites, and many states have a system for the
ranking of hazardous waste sites (some states use
EPA's  MRS).
        The principal sources of funding for state
program administrative and personnel costs are
state  clean-up  funds, state general funds, and
federal grant monies.

Waste  Capacity Assurance

        The Agency in FY89 intensified its efforts
to secure waste capacity assurances from the states.
Waste   capacity  assurances  are one   of  the
assurances required of the states by CERCLA
section 104(c)(9).  As mandated by CERCLA, no
SSCs or CAs to fund remedial  actions are to be
entered  into  after October 17,  1989  without
assurance from the states of adequate hazardous
waste treatment or disposal facilities.
        The Agency has chosen  to implement this
statutory mandate by requiring the states to submit
                                                70

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
Capacity Assurance Plans (CAPs). CAPs form the
basis for a reasonable assurance that a state has
adequate capacity to manage its hazardous waste
for a 20-year  period.  CAPs also  must address
issues of  interstate or  regional agreements for
waste importing and exporting, as needed.
        The responsibility for reviewing the CAPs
is to be shared by EPA regional personnel, and the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW).    The regional
personnel will use their detailed local knowledge
to evaluate  aspects of CAPs dealing  with state
laws,  waste minimization  programs, and state-
specific data.  The review recommendations  of
OSW  will  address  issues  of  both  national
consistency and interstate waste management.  In
reviewing the CAPs, the Agency will  place a strong
emphasis on the component of waste  minimization,
which it views as a focal point for future hazardous
waste capacity assurances.
        Complete CAPs must address each of the
following:

•      The  state's   current hazardous  waste
        management system;

•      Hazardous   waste  minimization  and
        recycling plans;

•      Projected   future   hazardous   waste
        generation, imports, and exports; and

•      Projected   future   hazardous   waste
        management systems.

        If the submitted CAP is deficient in any of
the above areas, the regional office will provide the
state  with suggestions for improving the plan,
which must be subsequently resubmitted.  As  of
November 20,1989,47 states and Puerto Rico had
submitted CAPs.  After review and  approval, the
states will be eligible to be assisted  by the  federal
government in undertaking remedial actions.  The
submitted CAPs are currently undergoing Agency
review.
53     Health-Related Research and
        Development

        CERCLA   authorizes  EPA  and   the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
to conduct health-related research programs. This
research   is  conducted  primarily  by  three
organizations:    EPA,   the  Agency  for  Toxic
Substances and  Disease  Registry (ATSDR), and
the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS).  The EPA program focuses on
the development and evaluation of lexicological
test methods, exposure assessment methodology,
and   risk   assessment   and   characterization
techniques.   ATSDR  continues  to  produce
lexicological profiles for  hazardous  substances
found at NPL  sites, as required by  CERCLA.
Finally,    NIEHS   supports   multidisciplinary
biomedical research through grants to universities.
       In FY89, a discussion group among EPA,
ATSDR,  and NIEHS was  created  to  coordinate
activities,  prevent duplication  of research,  and
develop new projects.
5.3.1  EPA Health-Related Research
       Programs

       EPA health-related research is conducted
primarily  through  two  offices:  the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) and the Toxics
Integration Branch (TIB) of OERR.

Office of Research and Development Activities

       ORD health and risk assessment research
addresses  specific   data  needs  and   methods
development and validation related  to exposure
assessment,  toxic  effects assessment,  and  risk
characterization  used   in   various  CERCLA
activities.  The emphasis of the research is on
applied research and the major activities are:

•      Exposure assessment: the issues addressed
       include bioavailability, bioaccumulation,
       exposure to  products of degradation and
       treatment   residues,   field   method
       validation, and improved characterization
       of exposure via dermal  and inhalation
       routes from soil, sludge, sediment, and
       drinking water;

•      Toxicity assessment: addresses health and
       environmental effects documents, health
       effects  assessments,   and   reportable
       quantities work on hazardous substances
                                               71

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
        or mixtures  for  cancer,  neurotoxicity,
        reproduction,  developmental   and
        immunotoxic   effects,  and   the
        establishment  of  inhalation  reference
        doses or their default values; and

•       Risk  characterization: the  issues include
        chemical mixtures response prediction and
        validation and application of method to
        actual scenarios, and development of risk
        assessment methods for short-term and
        intermediate-term exposures.

        In addition to conducting health-related
research, ORD provides technical  support on an
ad hoc and  long-term basis  to  Fund-lead and
enforcement-lead activities for monitoring, fate and
transport, engineering and treatment technologies,
modeling,  and health  and  environmental  risk
assessment. Technical support is provided through
funding of research projects and technical support
centers.   The emphasis of technical support is
shifting towards increased usage of ORD personnel
and equipment to support  Superfund activities.
This   will   be   accomplished  by   increasing
accessibility,   providing   quicker   responses,
distributing  research  results  and  applications
efficiently, and  training Superfund  staff  and
contractors in new technologies.  The principal
activities are:

 •       Monitoring:    aerial   imagery   and
        photography is used for site identification
        and assessment;

 •       Fate and transport:  support activities  in
        this  area provide chemical-specific fate
        and transport data for  a specific medium
        and  related potentially exposed  human
        populations and environmental receptors;

 •       Engineering  and  treatment  techniques:
        activities in this category provide active
        site-specific support in the removal and
        remedial  action  process  of technology
        selection;

 c       Modeling: advice and guidance is provided
        on  the  use   and   limitations   of
        mathematical models including uncertainty
        analysis;  and
•      Health and environmental risk assessment:
       support activities in this category provide
       assistance   on  the   development   of
       advisories and clean-up levels for site-
       specific cases or for specific scenarios,
       including  wetlands  and  mining  sites,
       assistance to the regions for ecological
       evaluations,  review  of  difficult   risk
       assessments as requested by the program
       offices  and  regions,   and  increased
       efficiency    and   accessibility  of  the
       Integrated Risk Information System.

Toxics Integration Branch Activities

       TIB was created in FY87 within OERR to
consolidate the health  and environmental  risk
assessment activities in one branch, and to act as
the point  of contact between EPA and ATSDR.
TIB is  responsible  for identifying  health  and
environmental research needs,  developing  policy
and guidance  documents for conducting  health
assessments and risk assessment at Superfund sites,
providing training and assistance to regional offices
on  risk  assessments, and  maintaining  a  risk
assessment quality assurance program.
       In FY89, TIB published the revised  and
updated Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund.
The Human Health Evaluation Manual (Volume
1),  published in September, provides guidance for
developing health risk information at Superfund
sites and  replaces  two  previous EPA guidance
documents:     the  Superfund  Public  Health
Evaluation  Manual  (1986)   and  the  Draft
Endangerment Assessment Handbook (1985).  The
Environmental Evaluation  Manual  (Volume II),
published   in   March,  provides   guidance  for
environmental assessment at Superfund sites.
5.3.2   The Agency for Toxic Substances
        and Disease Registry

        The ATSDR research program focuses on
assessing  the  relationship between exposure to
toxic substances and the resulting human health
effects.    Specifically, CERCLA section  101 (i)
requires ATSDR, in  consultation with EPA, to
produce  lexicological  profiles   for  hazardous
substances commonly found at NPL sites.  EPA
and ATSDR identified the first 200 substances for
                                                72

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
which profiles have been or will be developed in
the Federal Register in two notices on April 17,
1987  and October 20, 1988 and a list of 25
additional  chemicals  on  October  26,  1989.
Additional lists of 25 substances will be published
annually through 1991.
        A lexicological profile involves an analysis
of available lexicological and epidemological data
to determine health effects from exposure  to  a
substance. The profile determines if adequate data
exist to esiablish exposure levels lhat cause health
risks, and if not, ii identifies the lexicological lests
necessary to determine these levels.
        The development of a lexicological profile
occurs in two stages.  Firsi, an announcemenl of
the availability of the draft of a profile appears in
Ihe Federal Register, followed by a 90-day public
commeni period.  After Ihe commenl period, all
commenis are considered for incorporation into
Ihe profile.   The  profile  is  Ihen finalized and
published.
        Fifteen of the first 25 chemical profiles
were made available in final form (54 FR 14037,
April 6, 1989; 54 FR 26417, June 23, 1989; 54 FR
49816, December 1,1989), and the remaining final
profiles are  presently being prepared. Drafts of
the profiles  for the 25 chemicals in the second
group were made available for public comment in
the firsl quarter of 1989, and are being revised to
reflecl Ihe additional information provided during
Ihe public commenl period.
        In  addition  lo  Ihe  developmenl  of
lexicological profiles,  ATSDR  conducted 592
heallh  assessments in  FY89, bringing Ihe  total
number of health assessments completed to 1,154.
Over 2,200 heallh consultations were provided al
remedial sites, and approximately 1,000 health
consullations  were conducted  for  private and
public health care providers in the provision of
medical care and testing of exposed individuals.
Two   pilot   studies/investigations  on   selected
populations were completed during FY89, and nine
heallh sludies were initiated.
        The policy and procedures manual for fh"
Nalional Exposure Registry was completed duriu5
FY88.   To  develop  a  chemical  sub-registry,
ATSDR first identifies a  population  lhal  has
potentially been exposed lo Ihe chemical.  The
individuals identified are then asked to complete a
heallh questionnaire every year.  The results will
be analyzed  in an atlempl lo documenl long-term
heallh  effects resulting from exposure  lo  Ihe
chemical.     In   FY89,  ATSDR   initialed  a
irichloroelhylene sub-regislry comprised of seven
siles with a  population base  of  approximately
5,000.   In addition, a  dioxin sub-regislry  was
established during FY89.    ATSDR continued
discussions  wilh   olher   agencies   regarding
lexicological  profiles  and  health   assessment
research.
        ATSDR's  health   education   activities
during FY89 included Ihe continuation of Iraining
for slate and local heallh officials  on Ihe  use of
Toxnel and olher on-line systems operated by Ihe
Nalional Library of Medicine, Ihe developmenl of
environmenlal heallh care sludies for use  by Ihe
medical  community,  and  education  activities
Ihrough Ihe environmenlal and occupalional heallh
clinic nelwork.
53.3  The National Institute of
       Environmental Health Sciences

       CERCLA   section  311(a)   aulhorizes
NIEHS lo conducl research in the development of
advanced  techniques  for  the  detection  and
evaluation of Ihe effecis  of hazardous subsiances
on  human heallh.   In  FY89, nine universities
received  funding  from  NIEHS lo  conducl 78
separate basic research sludies in a granls program
designed lo fulfill Ihe requirements of a Superfund
Basic Research and Professional Training Plan.
The Plan was developed by NIEHS and approved
by  Ihe HHS  Advisory  Council  on  Hazardous
Subsiances Research and Training as required by
Section 311(a)  of CERCLA.
       The worker safely Iraining program also
became fully operational  in  FY89.   Complete
Iraining programs were pul in place by 11 granlee
organizations al centers across Ihe United States.
A clearinghouse was eslablished by  and for Ihe
NIEHS grantees lo assure communication and
coordination of a  nationwide Iraining  effort in
Superfund worker training. Technical advice and
assistance was  provided  during  the emergency
response  lo the Alaska oil spill.
5.4    Major Superfund Rulemakings

       During the fiscal year, Ihe Agency reached
significanl milestones in the developmenl of major
                                               73

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
rulemakings  in  direct  response  to  CERCLA
statutory requirements: EPA published proposed
revisions to the NCP and the HRS.  The Agency
also proposed rules designating SARA extremely
hazardous  substances  as  CERCLA  hazardous
substances and adjusting reportable quantities for
CERCLA hazardous substances. These and other
key rulemakings initiated by EPA are discussed in
this section; additional rulemakings are discussed,
as appropriate, in other sections of the Report.
5.4.1   National Contingency Plan

        On  December  21,  1988, pursuant  to
section  105  of  CERCLA,  EPA published  a
proposal to revise the NCP (53 FR 51394).  Final
revisions to the NCP were published on March 8,
1990  (55  FR  8666).  The NCP  is the  primary
regulation directing government and PRP cleanup
of releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants, and discharges of oil. It outlines the
steps  that must be followed in responding to  a
situation in which hazardous substances or oil are
released or are likely to be  released into the
environment.   The NCP  was  first promulgated
under section 311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and  was  last  revised,  under   CERCLA, on
November 20,  1985.   The  proposed and  final
revisions to the NCP include the following.

Proposed NCP Revisions

        The primary purpose of the proposed
revisions  was   to  incorporate   new  statutory
requirements.  The revisions  also set forth EPA's
revised  approach to responding to the release of
hazardous substances.  Important  changes in this
approach have been suggested by EPA's experience
in implementing the response program since  1980.
The  revised NCP reflects more  accurately the
sequence in which response actions are taken, and
clarifies the roles, responsibilities, and activities of
all  parties involved in a response action.
        The  proposed  revisions  to  the  NCP
addressed the following four key issues pertaining
to the response program.
•      Remedy Selection

       For the remedial program, the proposed
revisions outlined a process whereby site problems
and threats are identified and defined and a range
of remedial alternatives is developed and screened.
Promising alternatives are then analyzed against
nine criteria.  After considering state and public
comments and reevaluating the proposed remedial
alternative relative  to the same criteria, EPA
selects the response action.

•      Earfy Action/Streamlining

       The proposed NCP also encouraged and
provided the opportunity for taking "early action,"
i.e., undertaking response activity before or during
the RI/FS process.  Early actions are initiated to
contain and/or reduce the level of contamination,
or  to bring  hazards at  a site under  control.
Related  to early  action is  the  principle  of
"streamlining."  This principle  encourages  the
tailoring of activities conducted  during the RI/FS
and  selection  of  remedy to  the scope and
complexity of the site problem.

•      Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
       Requirements

       Section 121(d)(2)(A)  of CERCLA,  as
amended,  requires  that  all remedial  response
actions at least attain state and federal applicable
or   relevant   and   appropriate  requirements
(ARARs).  The  proposed  NCP  provided  an
extensive explanation of the circumstances  under
which provisions of RCRA, as well as other federal
and  state  standards or regulations, are potential
ARARs.   The proposal described points in the
RI/FS  process  when certain types of ARARs
should be  identified and provided details regarding
the  identification and communication of state
ARARs.

•      Administrative Record

       The proposed revisions also incorporated
the statutory requirement for an administrative
record that consists  of documents that form the
                                               74

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
basis  for the selection of a  CERCLA response
action. New Subpart I states that the record shall
include all documents that form the basis of the
Agency's decision when  it selects  the response
action for a site.  Subpart I  also specifies when
new documents may be added to the record after
a decision document is signed. The rule proposed
that the record  for  remedial actions shall be
available at the commencement of the RI/FS.  The
NCP  further proposed that the record shall be
available for review at a location at or near the site
and at an office of the lead agency or at another
central location.
       Other   important   provisions  of   the
proposed NCP are discussed in relevant sections of
the Report.

Final NCP Revisions

       Following  publication  of   proposed
revisions to the NCP, the Agency received more
than  100 letters  containing approximately 2,800
individual  comments  from  state  and  local
governments,  other federal   agencies,  industry,
environmental  groups, and the general  public.
During the year, EPA analyzed these comments in
an  effort to develop final revisions to the NCP.
The  proposed   issues   discussed  above  were
incorporated into the final NCP  revisions.   In
addition, the final NCP includes the following key
revisions.

•      Program Goal, Expectations, and
       Management Principles

       The  preamble  to the  proposed NCP
described program expectations regarding the types
of remedies likely to result from the selection of
remedy process and  principles  on which EPA
intends to manage the Superfund program. In the
final regulatory text, the Agency establishes as its
goal remedial actions that protect human health
and the  environment, maintain protection over
time, and minimize untreated waste.  The program
expectations and management principles have been
included  as well.

•      Risk Range for Superfund Cleanups

       This section of the proposed rule stated
that  for  known  or   suspected  carcinogens,
acceptable  exposure   levels  are   generally
concentration levels that represent an excess upper
bound lifetime  cancer  risk of between 10"4 and
10"7.  The lower boundary of the risk range has
been changed to 10"6 in the final rule. The point
of departure remains 10"6 and is cited as a goal for
all remedies.

•       Use of Maximum  Contaminant Levels and
        Goals

        This section of the proposed rule reflected
the Agency's determination that, except in high
risk  situations,  maximum  contaminant  levels
(MCLs) rather than maximum contaminant level
goals  (MCLGs) generally shall  be considered
relevant   and   appropriate  standards  when
determining acceptable exposure for ground water
and surface water that is or may be a  source of
drinking water.  The final rule has been  modified
to provide for the use of MCLGs as potentially
relevant and appropriate standards where they are
set at levels above zero.  When an MCLG is zero
it  is  not  relevant and  appropriate,   and  the
corresponding MCL will be considered.

•       Use of the Nine Criteria

        In the proposed NCP, the detailed analysis
of alternatives involved  an assessment of each
alternative against each of nine criteria categorized
into three groups:  threshold, primary balancing,
and modifying criteria. The first step of remedy
selection  involves  an  evaluation of the  major
tradeoffs among  the alternatives in  terms of the
nine criteria. The final rule removes the threshold,
balancing, and modifying labels from the discussion
of the nine evaluation criteria during the detailed
analysis of alternatives where  these criteria are
given equal weight.  This  hierarchy of criteria has
been placed in the selection of remedy regulatory
text,  where the criteria  are  actually  used as
threshold,  balancing,  and  modifying  criteria.
Among the balancing criteria, additional emphasis
is   placed  on  long-term  effectiveness   and
permanence, and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through  treatment.  Cost  is among the
factors  considered  in   the  development  and
screening of remedial alternatives; the role of cost
has been revised in the final rule to indicate that
costs must be grossly  excessive compared to the
effectiveness they provide before an alternative
may be eliminated.
                                                75

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
5.4.2   Hazard Ranking  System

        On  December  23,   1988,  the Agency
published proposed  revisions to  the HRS, the
Superfund tool used to identity sites warranting
consideration for inclusion on  the NPL (53 FR
51962).  The proposed changes to the  HRS will
make it  a more comprehensive ranking system.
Major changes include the incorporation of an on-
site exposure "pathway," a  new exposure pathway
that considers among other factors, direct contact
with soils. Proposed changes also include adding
new threat categories, including the human food
chain, to the surface water pathway,  and making
the definition of "sensitive  environments" more
inclusive.  In  addition,  the revised HRS  will
consider both acute and chronic health  effects.
The revisions will result in a ranking system that
more accurately assesses potential for  exposure,
contaminant  concentration,  and  contaminant
toxicity.  As a result, the HRS will be a better tool
for identifying the most problematic sites.  The
HRS is expected to be published in final form in
1990.

Field  Testing Program

        During the year, EPA undertook a field
testing program to assist in finalizing the HRS.
The nationwide field testing had several objectives:
(1) to test  the  feasibility of implementing the
proposed HRS factors; (2) to determine resources
required (e.g., cost, technical hours) for specific
tasks under the proposed HRS; and (3) to assess
the availability  of information needed for the
evaluation of sites with the proposed  HRS and to
identify difficulties with its use.
        To   meet   these   objectives,    EPA
Headquarters and all  10  EPA Regional offices
performed site inspections at 29 sites nationwide.
The sites were selected either because the regions
had planned work at the site or because the sites
had specific features EPA wanted to test using the
proposed HRS revisions, such as potential human
food  chain exposures, direct contact  threats, and
potential air releases.  Because  sites  were not
randomly selected, the ability to extrapolate these
results to the greater universe of CERCLA sites is
limited.  Nonetheless, EPA believes that the field
test results provide a useful measure of how the
proposed HRS revisions may affect site scoring.
The Agency published a summary of the field test
results in the Federal Register on September  14,
1989  (54 FR 37949)  and has made the  report
available  for   public  review  and   comment.
Additional field tests are continuing.

Potential to Release Component

        A  major change to  the  HRS   is the
addition of  a  "potential to  release component"
when calculating the risk of exposure via the air
pathway. This addition is the result of statutory
requirements, EPA experience, public comments,
and   the  Science   Advisory   Board's
recommendations.

On-Site Exposure

        The  proposed  revisions  include risks
associated with the possibility of being exposed
while on the site.  Potential on-site risks were not
originally  included  when developing  the HRS
because the Agency assumed that  threats from
direct   contact  would  be   mitigated  through
emergency removal actions.  EPA's experience at
NPL  sites such  as Times Beach, Missouri, and
Mountain View Mobile Homes in Globe, Arizona,
however, has  shown that at some sites risks
associated with direct contact or on-site exposure
still exist after removal actions are completed.

Surface-Water Contamination

        EPA also proposed to change the method
by which a score is determined for the threat posed
by  surface-water  contamination.   The revision
amends the surface-water pathway score  to include
threats posed by contamination of the human food
chain and contamination of water that is used for
recreational purposes.  The updated  HRS will
evaluate the possible  effects on the aquatic food
chain of an actual or potential release.

Human Exposure to Contaminants

        The original HRS evaluates the potential
for  human exposure to contaminants at sites, but
it does not give additional consideration when
actual human exposure is documented.  Also, the
                                                76

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
current  HRS  does   not  differentiate  among
different levels of human exposure.  It is oriented
toward  overall population risk as opposed to
individual risk.  CERCLA section 105(c) requires
EPA  to assure that  to the  maximum  extent
feasible, the HRS assesses accurately the relative
degree  of   risk  to   human  health  and  the
environment  posed by sites  that are evaluated.
Thus, the revised HRS will reflect  the potential
risk to individuals and to populations  exposed to
actual contamination.  This will be accomplished
by attaching more importance to the ground- and
surface-water pathways at sites where  there is
documented proof of the contamination of wells or
drinking water.
5.4.3   Extremely Hazardous Substances
        Designation Proposed Rule

        EPA published on January 23,  1989 a
proposed rule designating 232 extremely hazardous
substances (EHSs), as defined in section 302 of
SARA,  as  hazardous  substances  pursuant  to
section 102 of CERCLA (54 FR 3388).
        Although 134 substances listed as EHSs
under SARA Title III were  already CERCLA
hazardous  substances,  232  EHSs  were  not
designated  as CERCLA hazardous substances.
Currently, only  releases of those EHSs that are
also CERCLA hazardous substances are required
to be reported to the National Response Center.
With the proposed rule, EPA intends to reduce
potential confusion concerning the different SARA
Title III and CERCLA requirements by ensuring
consistent procedures for reporting releases of all
EHSs.  In addition,  the  proposal  facilitates  an
expedited determination of the need for a federal
response to such releases. Final action on this rule
is expected during November 1990.
        In  a related  rulemaking on August 30,
1989, the Agency proposed reportable quantity
(RQ) adjustments for the 232  EHSs (54 FR
35988).   By  adjusting the one-pound reporting
triggers,  EPA  will reduce the  reporting and
response burdens on the regulated community and
on  the government.  In addition, EPA proposed
RQ adjustments for  19 EHSs that are already
listed as  CERCLA  hazardous  substances,  but
which have RQs greater  than their  threshold
planning quantities (TPQs). To adjust the RQs of
these 251 substances, EPA proposed to apply the
methodology used to establish TPQs as part of the
RQ adjustment methodology for those CERCLA
hazardous substances meeting the EHS screening
criteria. EPA plans to finalize the adjusted RQs
for the  232  substances concurrent with  the
promulgation of the final rule on designation.
5.4.4  Reportable Quantities

       The  Agency  published   three   final
rulemakings during the fiscal year adjusting the
RQs for specific CERCLA hazardous substances.
Two rules adjust reporting levels for 264 CERCLA
hazardous  substances, the majority of which are
carcinogens.  A third rule adjusts  the reporting
levels of 1500 radionuclides, including 757 specific
radioisotopes.
       Section 102(b) of CERCLA sets an RQ of
one pound for hazardous substances, except those
substances  for which different RQs have  been
established  pursuant to section 311(b)(4) of the
CWA.   Section 102(a) of CERCLA authorizes
EPA to adjust RQs for hazardous substances and
to designate as hazardous those substances that,
when released into the environment, may present
substantial danger to the public health or welfare
or the environment.   Currently, there are 724
CERCLA  hazardous  substances.  Radionuclides
are  also   considered   CERCLA   hazardous
substances  because  EPA  designated  them  as
hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
       RQ adjustments enable the Agency  to
focus its resources on those releases that are most
likely to pose potential threats to public health or
welfare or the environment.  These adjustments
also  relieve the  regulated   community  and
emergency response personnel from the burden of
making and responding to reports of releases that
are unlikely to pose such threats.

Reportable Quantity Adjustment Final Rules

       EPA published in the Federal Register on
March 16,1987 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) to adjust  RQs  for  273  CERCLA
hazardous  substances (52 FR 8140).  Two final
rules  adjusting  the  RQs  of 260  of the 273
hazardous  substances were published during this
                                              77

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
fiscal year, on August 14, 1989 (54 FR 33418, 54
FR 33426).   RQs  for four additional hazardous
substances that were not proposed for adjustment
in the March 16, 1987 NPRM were also included
in these final rules.  Because the Science Advisory
Board is currently reviewing the classification of
lead metal, lead compounds, and lead-containing
waste streams as potential carcinogens, the Agency
will  adjust RQs for these substances in a future
rulemaking.  The  RQ adjustment for the  final
substance, methyl isocyanate, also will be addressed
in a future rule after EPA receives human health
effects data related to the Bhopal, India release.
        The  Agency  published the  final  rule
adjusting  the statutory reportable quantity of one
pound for all radionuclides in the Federal Register
on  May  24, 1989  (54 FR  22524).   In  the
rulemaking, the Agency finalized  RQs for 1,500
radionuclides, including 757 specific radioisotopes.
Radionuclide RQs are expressed in units of curies
rather than  pounds because  curies are a more
common  unit  of  measurement   for  radiation
protection, allowing for more timely reporting and
response, if necessary.
 5.4.5   Other Rulemakings

        EPA published on June 23, 1989 a final
 rule requiring the application of worker protection
 standards for employees  engaged in hazardous
 waste  operations pursuant to section  126(f) of
 SARA (54 FR 26654).  These standards will apply
 to state and local government employees in states
 without approved state plans  under section 18(b)
 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
        On  January  26,  1989, the  Agency
 published a proposed rule prescribing the manner
 in which notice of citizen suits is to be provided as
 required by section 310 of CERCLA (54 FR 3918).
 The rule prescribes the manner of service of the
 notice, the contents of the notice, and the timing
 of the notice.  CERCLA, as amended by SARA,
 authorizes persons to commence citizen suits under
 CERCLA after providing notice in the manner
 prescribed by regulations.  Final action on this
 rulemaking is expected during 1990.
        On July 19, 1988,  the Agency published a
 proposed rule  clarifying the federally permitted
 release  exemption   from   CERCLA   release
 reporting and liability provisions  (53 FR 27268).
Section 101(10) of CERCLA defines the  term
"federally   permitted   release"   by  specifically
enumerating certain releases subject to permits or
authorizations under other federal environmental
laws.    On  July 11,   1989,  EPA  published  a
supplemental notice clarifying the first of three
proposed options for  defining the scope of the
CERCLA exemption for releases permitted under
the  CAA  and  soliciting   comments   on  the
clarification (54 FR 29306).  Final action on this
rulemaking is expected in late 1990.
        On June 21, 1989, EPA published a final
rule prescribing criteria for awarding up to $10,000
to any individual for information leading to the
successful prosecution of any person for a criminal
violation of CERCLA (54 FR 26142). Pursuant to
section 109(d) of  CERCLA,  the  Agency has
established regulations which set  forth who  is
eligible for an award and who within EPA shall
make the determination of eligibility.  The rule
also establishes the criteria for payment  of an
award, and provides assurance of confidentiality to
those who provide information.
        The   Agency  published   a proposed
regulation on September 13, 1989 to establish the
procedures for filing,  evaluating, and  resolving
claims for costs incurred for responding to releases
of   hazardous  substances,   pollutants,   or
contaminants asserted  against the Fund (54 FR
37892). The regulation is intended for use by any
individual, private entity, PRP, or foreign entity
eligible to  submit a claim  pursuant to  sections
lll(a)(2) or 122(b)(l) of CERCLA.  Final action
on  this rulemaking is expected in Summer 1990.
        EPA promulgated a final rule on May 30,
1989, that establishes and governs the procedures
for EPA's arbitration  of small CERCLA section
107(a) cost recovery claims (54 FR 23174). Section
122(h)(2) of CERCLA authorizes the head of any
department or agency with authority to undertake
a   response  action  under   CERCLA  to  use
arbitration when response  costs  do not exceed
$500,000 at a facility (excluding interest) and when
the case has not been  referred to the Department
of Justice for civil action.
        The Agency issued  an IFR establishing
procedures for the administrative assessment  of
civil penalties on May 16,  1989 (54 FR 21174).
This IFR applies formal Administrative Procedure
Act hearing procedures to all EPA administrative
penalty authorities  under CERCLA section 109.
The  rule   provides   that   the   administrative
                                                78

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
assessment of CERCLA section 109 penalties will
be  governed  by EPA's Consolidated Rules  of
Practice Governing the Administrative Assessment
of Civil Penalties and Revocation or Suspension of
Permits (40 CFR Part 22) and  by supplemental
rules relating specifically to  penalty assessments
under section 109 of CERCLA.
5.5    Resource Utilization and
       Contracting

       This section presents data and information
on the utilization of resources from the Hazardous
Substance   Trust   Fund  for  Superfund
implementation  activities  by  EPA  and  other
Executive branch departments and agencies  in
FY89. The data and information included in this
section  were  obtained  primarily  from  EPA
Superfund budget documents and the EPA Budget
Analysis  Resource System.   Superfund resource
requirements of EPA and other Executive branch
departments and agencies for fiscal  1990 and 1991,
and beyond FY91, are discussed in Chapter 3.
5.5.1  Distribution of Resources Among
       Program Areas and to Regions

       EPA uses Superfund resources  in four
major areas:

•      Hazardous Substance Response;
•      Enforcement;
•      Management and Support; and
•      Research and Development.

Both EPA Headquarters and the Regional offices
perform  these  Superfund activities.   Regional
activities  are funded by monies transferred to the
Regions.   Fiscal year and historical transfers to
Regional offices are shown in Exhibits 5.5-1 and
5.5-2.  In addition, EPA transfers resources to
other federal departments and agencies to assist
them  in  meeting their responsibilities  under
CERCLA  The Agency also transfers funds from
the Superfund appropriation to state governments
and other private sector organizations (e.g., the
National  Governors Association) to assist EPA in
the implementation of CERCLA
        In FY89, the Agency utilized a total of
$1,543,719,500 from the Hazardous Substance
Superfund   appropriation  for   CERCLA
implementation,   including  SARA  Title  III
activities.  As part of this  total, EPA utilized
$101,341,800  for Superfund  general interagency
support to other federal departments and agencies,
including Superfund Interagency Budget transfers
and  site-specific   interagency   agreements.
CERCLA activities in FY89 were supported by a
total  of  2,850.8  workyears  at   both   EPA
Headquarters and in the Regional offices. Exhibits
5.5-3, 5.5-4,  and  5.5-5 illustrate  current  and
historical resource utilization.

Hazardous Substance Response

        The two Hazardous Substance Response
programs  ~  Spill and  Site  Response  and
Hazardous Substance  Response Support  - are
responsible for protecting public health and the
environment from dangers associated with releases
of hazardous substances into the environment.
These programs provide the necessary funding and
support  to   undertake  short-term  emergency
responses and long-term site  cleanups.  Activities
include responding to spills and emergency releases
of hazardous substances, conducting remedial work
at abandoned hazardous waste sites, and providing
training and technical  support to Agency, state,
and local government personnel.

Enforcement

        The    primary  goal  of  Superfund
enforcement activities is to achieve the maximum
possible response  from potentially responsible
parties.   Superfund enforcement  activities are
conducted through  four  programs:   Technical
Support - Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring  (OECM),  Technical  Enforcement,
Legal Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations.
        The   OECM  program  supports  the
Superfund activities  of the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC), including  special
environmental monitoring  work, evidence audit
control  processes  to  ensure proper  chain-of-
custody procedures, cleanup of federal facility sites,
and  nonbinding  preliminary  allocations  of
responsibility.    The   Technical  Enforcement
program develops the technical documentation for
Superfund enforcement and initiates enforcement
                                               79

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                                      80

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                            Dollars  (thousands)
         I
        •8
                                                                           CO O

                                                                           CD (N
                                                                           in cj
                                                                           O> 00
                                                                           CO CM
                                                                           CO CD
                                                                           co r^
                                                                           c~. co
                                                                           in CD
                                                                           cb cvi
                                                                           r~ i-
                                                                           •<*• co
                                                                           i-~ CM"
                                                                           in co
                                                                           in co
                                                                           CM en
                                                                           i- in
                                                                           T-~ CO"
                                                                           co
                                                                             co
                                                                             CM
                                                                           q •
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
Exhibit 5*5-3
Fiscal 1989 Superfund Resources by Program Function

Dollars
Program Function (in thousands)
Hazardous Substance Response * 1,221,012.7
Enforcement 151,044.7
Management and Support 99,724.4
Research and Development 7 1 ,937 .7
TOTAL $ 1,543,719.5
Full-Time
Equivalents
1,238.9
987.6
521.0
103.3
2,850.8
W'-:
1 j : . * IiKiltHjes funds used for Interagencj; .sutpport and SARA Title III aeti vities.

: '".:.-'••::'•.• • . ' "•:•'
SOURCE: EPA Siiperfund Budget AnaIysi$Ke$ource System,


actions. The Legal Enforcement program provides
the legal staff for CERCLA enforcement.   The
basic purpose of Criminal Investigation, under the
direction of  NEIC,  is  to  initiate  and conduct
criminal investigations under CERCLA.

Management and Support

        Superfund  management  and  support
activities provide the financial, administrative, and
support  services  necessary  to  manage  and
implement the Superfund program.  This includes
financial management to track and report on the
use  of  the  Hazardous  Substance  Superfund;
administrative management of contract personnel,
information systems, office and laboratory services,
and safety training; and services for space, utilities,
and  other  non-personnel support  needs, which
include computer services.
        Management  and support  also includes
legal services, auditing services, policy analysis and
program evaluation,  budget  development  and
oversight, effective communication with interested
parties outside the Agency, and laboratory support
for Superfund research. The Agency performs its
Superfund  management and  support activities
under the following nine program areas: Financial
Management;   Administrative   Management;
Support  Services;  Computer  Services;  Legal
Services; Office of the Inspector General; Office of
Policy, Planning,  and Evaluation;  Office of the
Comptroller;  and  Office  of  Research   and
Development.

Research and Development

        Superfund  research  and  development
activities support the Agency, states, and industry
in resolving technical problems that inhibit the
effective implementation of removal and remedial
actions.   Much  research  focuses on adapting
existing technologies and scientific information for
the purpose of controlling hazardous waste.
        Superfund  research  and  development
activities are designed to provide the program with
(1) methods for sampling and analyzing hazardous
waste  materials  needed   for  quality assurance
protocols;  (2) techniques  for  field  response
personnel to use in evaluating potential sites; and
(3) engineering and other technical guidance for
federal, state, and  local  officials  to use  when
responding to releases at uncontrolled hazardous
waste  sites.   Superfund  research  also  includes
evaluation of personal protective devices  and
engineering controls to protect hazardous waste
workers and improve their efficiency.  Superfund
research and development activities are conducted
through the following seven programs:  Scientific
                                                82

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND                          Fiscal Year 1989
"••'•*• I .,.. Exhibit 5.5-4

Fl&al 1989 Saperftmd Resources by EPA Office and Function!
























Dollars
EPA Office and Function (in thousands!
Hazardous Substance Response * 1,221,012.7
AA Solid Waste and Emergency Response 392,759.9
A A Air and Radiation 444.3
AA Water 1,427.5
A A Pesticides and Toxic Substances
AA Research and Development 1 ,9 1 2.6
Regions Total 824,468.4
Enforcement 151,044.7
AA Solid Waste and Emergency Response
AA Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Regions Total
Management and Support 99,724.4
AA Policy, Planning, and Evaluation 3,332.8
AA Research and Development 215.9
AA Externtal Affairs 409.4
AA Administration and Resources Management 59,138.7
Inspector General 6,612.3
General Counsel 792.7
Regions Total 29,222.6
Research and Development 71,937.7
AA Resarch and Development 7 1 ,937.7
SUPERFUND TOTAL $1,543,719.5
Full-Time
Equivalents
1,238.9
242.3
6.0
3.0


987.6
987.6



521.0
11.5

1.1
216.1
53.4
10.3
228.6
103.3
103.3
2,850.8





















•-.,,.;


* Includes resources utilized for interagency support and SARA Title in activities. ;.
SOURCES : EPA Superfund Budget Documents; EPA Budget Analysis Resource System.



                                     83

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989
                         Dollars (thousands)
                                                                          cq in

                                                                          ci o>
                                                                          in T-
                                                                          oo Is-
                                                                          CM" co
                                                                          CM •*

                                                                          CM t^




                                                                          CM" •*"


                                                                             co

                                                                             T~



                                                                          co en
                                                                           CM o
                                                                             in
                                                                             o
                                                                           cq cq

                                                                           c\i cd
                                                                             SCO
                                                                             CM

                                                                           T-~ CD"
                                                                             o
                                                                             CD
                                                                             co

                                                                             9
                                                                           cq

                                                                           co
                                                                                  <4- .3
                                                                             CD
                                                                             in"
                                                                           CO •*

                                                                           Tf CO
                                                                           CM CO
                                                                           I*- CM
                                                                           t~  co
                                                                           CM •*
                                                                           in r^

                                                                             o"
                                                                             co
                                                                           cq i-
                                                                           iri co
                                                                           r^ co
                                                                             CM

                                                                              "
                                                                             « (0
                                                                                  lie
                                                                                   §
             a



             I
             O
                                            84

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
Assessment; Monitoring and Quality Assurance;
Health Effects; Environmental Engineering and
Technology; Environmental Processes and Effects;
Exploratory Research; and Technical Information
and Liaison.
5.5.2   Activities of Other Executive
        Branch Departments and
        Agencies

        EPA  manages an  interagency  budget
process the results of which are incorporated in a
consolidated   budget  request  for  the  entire
Superfund  program under the requirements  of
Executive Order 12850 (signed by the President in
January 1987). The activities of other Executive
Branch departments and agencies are divided into
two basic categories.  The first category includes
activities taken in  response to spills or actions
taken that support specific site remediation.  The
second category is support for ongoing activities
that are generally  not incident-specific.   These
activities are related to each agency's specific area
of  expertise   and   include developing  program
policies and guidance, conducting health research,
training response  personnel, litigating civil and
criminal cases, and  providing  scientific  and
technical advice to EPA on-scene  coordinators.
This subactivity includes the following interagency
Superfund programs.  (Exhibit 5.5-6 presents the
FY89 interagency agreements with other Executive
Branch departments and agencies.)

Department of Health and Human Services

        The Agency for Toxic Substances Disease
Registry was established under CERCLA, and its
health authorities  were significantly expanded in
1986   under  SARA.    ATSDR   investigates
complaints of illness or disease related to exposure
to hazardous  substances, conducts health studies
and surveys,  develops appropriate testing  for
exposed individuals, and develops and maintains
information  on  the  health  effects  of  toxic
substances.  ATSDR is statutorily  mandated  to
perform health assessments  for new sites within
one year from the date the site is listed in an NPL
update. ATSDR is also required to undertake the
following additional and expanded activities:
SI
Exhibit 5,5-6
Fiscal 198? Interagency Agreements
with Other Federal Departments
and Agencies ;
Federal ^^
Department thousands)
or Agency
Health and
Human
Services
- ATSDR $44,499.0
- NTEHS 21,900.0
Transportation
- USCG 4,948.2
Justice 25,100.0
FEMA 1,439.6
Commerce
- NOAA 1,907.5
Interior 1,062.2
Labor
- OSHA 485.3
TOTAL $101,341.8

WRCEs EPA Bw%<* Aaa&sis Resource -Sswftm .
•       performing health assessments by citizen
        petition;

•       ensuring that studies and research results
        undergo peer review;

•       distributing health education information;
        and

•       reporting to Congress on health-related
        activities.

        The National Institute of Environmental
Sciences   carries   out   other   Superfund
responsibilities.   NIEHS  manages  a university-
based program of basic research  grants directed
towards unsolved environmental and human-health
problems related to hazardous substances.   The
Institute also  manages  grants  to  non-profit
organizations for training and education of workers
who are, or may be, engaged in activities related to
hazardous substance removal and  containment at
remedial or emergency response sites.  The basic
research grants span the areas of basic biomedical
studies in epidemiology, biomedicine, and human
                                                85

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
health exposure and integrated non-biomedical
studies in engineering, geosciences and analytical
chemistry.   Worker  protection grants provide
training to workers in preventing health problems
caused by exposure to hazardous substances.

United States Coast Guard

        The United States Coast Guard (USCG)
has been delegated the authority under CERCLA
to respond to any release or threatened release of
hazardous  substances involving  coastal  zones,
Great Lakes waters, ports, and harbors.   The
USCG  also provides  training  to  maintain  this
response   capability,   conducts   necessary
enforcement activities in its areas of responsibility,
and maintains the National Response Center.

Department of Justice

        The Attorney General has responsibility to
conduct and control judicial litigation arising under
CERCLA  EPA prepares the required  technical
and legal documentation, assists the Department of
Justice  (DOJ)  in  the  negotiation  of consent
decrees for privately financed response actions, and
has  the prime role in  administrative matters.
When DOJ receives  a  referral from  EPA, it
reviews the referral package and files a complaint
with the court.  After filing,  DOJ goes through an
intensive process of litigation, which includes:

 •      completion of the discovery process;

 •      motion practice;

 •      support of on-going negotiations; and

 •      work with expert witnesses and program
        staff.

 DOJ will ultimately bring matters to trial,  prevail
 on motions (e.g., summary judgments), or settle
 cases to the satisfaction of  all parties with court
 approval.

 Federal Emergency Management Agency

        Under CERCLA, the Federal Emergency
 Management Agency (FEMA) has been delegated
 the authority to conduct controlled evacuation and
 relocation  activities  at  Superfund  sites when
necessary. FEMA supports federal, state, and local
government  efforts  to  respond   safely  and
expeditiously to releases of hazardous substances in
order to protect public health and preserve the
environment.  This  is accomplished by providing
relocation  assistance  in removal  and remedial
operations, assisting the NRT and RRTs in their
preparedness activities,  and developing training
courses for state and local officials.  EPA supports
FEMA  in  establishing  core  staff  in  both
headquarters and regions to effectively perform
delegated functions such as working with the states
to develop state relocation capabilities.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Superfund program has
three principal goals:

•       to strengthen and accelerate development
        of technologies;

•       to plan for, and respond  to,  hazardous
        substance releases in coastal and marine
        areas; and

•       to assist EPA in  identifying, evaluating,
        and  mitigating the  adverse  effects of
        hazardous substances on natural resources
        in coastal and marine ecosystems.

        NOAA  ensures   that   Fund-financed
response actions in coastal and marine areas are
conducted in full  compliance with CERCLA
Also,   NOAA  provides   for  the  purchase,
development, and field  testing of state-of-the-art
sampling and  analytical equipment necessary for
efficient and safe response operations associated
with implennnting the Superfund program.

Department of Interior

        The goals of the Department of Interior's
(DOI) Superfund activities are to:

•       ensure that the Department maintains  a
        state  of readiness  to  support EPA and
        Coast Guard responses;

•       protect natural  resources from the effects
        of hazardous substance releases; and
                                                86

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
•       assure   appropriate   consideration  of
        natural resource concerns throughout all
        phases of CERCLA implementation.

        DOI is a participating agency in the NRT
and  RRTs under the guidance of the National
Contingency Plan. Executive Order 12580 and the
NCP designate DOI as Federal Trustee for certain
natural resources lost or damaged as a result of
hazardous waste or substance releases.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

        The  Occupational  Safety  and  Health
Administration (OSHA) is responsible for ensuring
that employees at Superfund sites are provided safe
and healthful working conditions.  In  cooperation
with the states, OSHA issues occupational safety
and health standards and enforces those standards
through a program of on-site inspections.  OSHA
conducts inspections on its own initiative and also
in  response  to  reports  of imminent  danger,
fatalities and catastrophes, employee complaints, or
referrals from other agencies.   Finally,  OSHA
administers   training  and technical  assistance
programs to encourage  and assist employers'
voluntary compliance with the requirements of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
5.5.3   Fiscal 1989 Superfund Contracting

        EPA manages ongoing contracts in five
major  categories to  implement  the  Superfund
program:

•       Headquarters/regional  policy  implemen-
        tation analysis and support: eight contracts
        with a potential value of $86,383,898 over
        the  lifetime of the contract  supported
        EPA   Headquarters   and   regional
        management,  analytical,  and  technical
        development   and   implementation
        programs.     Under   these  contracts,
        contractors  provided both technical and
        non-technical assistance.

•       Contract laboratory services: 160 contracts
        with a potential value of $217,850,751
        were active in FY89 (these figures do not
        include subcontracts for special analytical
        services).    The  Contract  Laboratory
        Program   (CLP)   provides   laboratory
        support for both  removal and remedial
        actions.    The   greatest  number  of
        Superfund contracts fall into this category.

•       Removal action support: 17 contracts with
        a  potential   value   of  $823,141,863
        supported the removal program. Removal
        program  contracts provide  EPA  with
        support services in emergency response,
        other  (non-emergency) removal actions,
        spill prevention, and analytical services.

•       Remedial action support:  61 remedial
        action contracts provided EPA technical
        assistance during RI/FS, remedial design,
        and  construction   stages  of response.
        These contracts have a potential value of
        $7,430,003,073.

•       Enforcement  support:    14 enforcement
        contracts  assisted  EPA in cost recovery
        and   litigation   support  operations.
        Combined they have a potential value of
        $1,003,523,537.

The potential value of a contract is the  total
potential dollar value of that contract throughout
the potential performance  period of the contract.
In some cases, the potential performance period of
currently  active  Superfund  contracts  extends
beyond  the  existing Superfund  appropriation
period.
        Exhibit 5.5-7 lists  FY89  contract awards
and their potential value. There were no contracts
awarded in FY89 in the  headquarters/ regional
policy   implementation analysis   and  support
category. The following section describes contracts
awarded in the other four categories and initiatives
that were taken during the fiscal year to improve
Superfund contracting.

Contract Laboratory Program

        EPA's CLP has worked  with increasing
success to build up the nation's laboratory capacity
and  simultaneously to ensure that the  quality
control  and chain-of-custody procedures required
to yield analyses that will hold up in court are in
place. The CLP was established in 1980 to provide
large volume, low-cost analyses. The CLP provides
                                                87

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
           i    E*hil?il 5.5-7     :
       Fiscal 1989 Contract Awards
                                Total
    Contract  Number of  Potential
    contract   Contracts  Value ($) *
    Laboratory       40     56,242,713

    Removal          4     47,334,528

    Remedial
       (ARCs)        27  3,959,764,860

    Enforcement
    Support          10    935,078,854
          *  Figwejs rej^seat tfee total potential
             Value ovef ihe life of the canfirabt.
   SOTJRCE:  Active Superfund. Contracts Listing,
     •I       FY1988- imu,$< EPA Office of
  •   : :       Administration.        '    i  :
laboratory services for removal, pre-remedial, and
remedial ac ions.  Depending on capacity needs,
the Agency,' wards multi-year contracts for organic,
inorganic, a id dioxin analytical services.
        In  FY89,  123 laboratories  had CLP
contracts in place. Forty contracts were awarded
during the fiscal year.  During FY89, the CLP was
able  to meet  regional  demand  for  analytical
services.  The CLP performed a total of 67,778
routine analytical services (RASs) and  38,288
special  analytical  services  (SASs).   RASs  are
contracts which specify the procedures a particular
laboratory  will follow, while SASs are contracts
which include unique sampling work (e.g., a quick
turn-around analysis).  Total expenditures by the
CLP for these services in FY89 were $27,764,181
for RASs and $8,539,428 for SASs.
        Overall,  the  Agency's management  of
analytical  services has improved and streamlined
the clean-up process.   The CLP maintains three
data bases on Superfund analyses. Each data base
serves a unique  purpose, allowing the CLP  to
monitor analytical activities over the course of the
Superfund  program.    In  addition,  the CLP
integrates these data bases into four data support
systems that ensure that the program controls the
quality of work performed.
       During  FY89, support of the laboratory
program  through  the Environmental  Services
Assistance Team (ESAT) contracts also continued.
Two ESAT contracts provide assistance to EPA's
Regional  offices  in  laboratory, analytical,  and
review services.   The ESAT  contracts are worth
approximately $35 million each and cover different
geographical zones  (the  eastern zone  includes
Regions 1-3 and 5 and the western zone includes
Regions 4, 6-10, and headquarters).

Removal Support Contracts

       The removal  program has  traditionally
been supported  by Emergency Response Cleanup
Services  (ERCS)  contracts.   Under the  ERCS
contracts, contractors perform removal actions on
a zone basis: Zone I consists of Regions 1-3; Zone
II consists of Region  4;  Zone  III consists  of
Region 5; and Zone IV consists of Regions 6-10.
In  addition,  EPA  has  developed  and  begun
implementation of a strategy for awarding smaller
removal contracts on a regional basis, i.e., "mini-
ERCS."
       The removal program also is supported by
Technical Assistance Team (TAT) contracts, which
serve as adjuncts  to the ERCS contracts.   The
TAT  contracts  provide for initial site  response
support, determinations of the size and nature of
the site,  and support for  on-scene  coordinators
during actual  cleanup.   These  contracts  are
performed  on  a zone basis.   The  eastern zone
covers Regions  1-5,  the Environmental Response
Team in Edison, New Jersey, and headquarters; the
western zone covers Regions  6-10.  The TAT
contracts have a combined potential value of $219
million over a five-year period of performance.

Remedial Support Contracts

        In FY88, EPA began the implementation
of  the Alternative  Remedial Contract Strategy
(ARCS),  a substantial change in  its  remedial
contracting program. The ARCS concept is aimed
at  maximizing  competition in  the  remedial
program,   providing  additional   incentive  for
improved performance, injecting more contractors
into  the  remedial  contracting  program,  and
promoting project  continuity.   Under ARCS,
numerous smaller remedial response contracts are

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
awarded continuously in each region or, in some
cases, in  several regions  combined.  Work is
assigned to  these contracts based on quality of
performance. The program will emphasize keeping
the same contractor involved in all phases of the
clean-up  process.   The regions  have complete
responsibility  for  management  of  the  ARCS
contracts.
       EPA awarded the first ARCS contracts in
Regions 3 and 5 in January 1988.  By the end of
FY88, EPA  had awarded 18 of the anticipated 45
ARCS contracts.  In FY89, the Agency awarded
the remaining 27 ARCS  contracts.  The  ARCS
contracts range from $60 million to $289 million in
potential value for 10-year periods of performance.
ARCS contracts contain large subcontracting pools
to  maximize  the  numbers  of  contractors
participating.
       Prior to the use of the ARCS contracts,
EPA used Remedial Planning (REM) contracts to
support the activities  of the  remedial program.
There are presently two large REM contracts (III
and  IV)  and  two smaller  minority firm  REM
contracts that are active.   The REM III and IV
contracts are scheduled to terminate during 1990.
Thereafter, the majority of EPA projects will be
assigned to ARCS contractors. In addition, EPA
maintains  Interagency  Agreements with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation to provide technical support in the
areas of  engineering  design,  construction, and
construction management.

Enforcement Support Contracts

       During   FY89,   EPA   phased   out
enforcement  support  contracting  under   the
Technical  Enforcement Support (TES) 3 and 4
contracts.   In place of the TES  contracts, EPA
awarded  eight zone-based enforcement support
contracts in FY89.  Six of these contracts were
awarded in December 1988 and two were awarded
in March 1989.
       Under  these  contracts,  the  country is
divided into four geographical zones:  Zone 1
consists of Regions 1  and 2;  Zone 2 consists of
Regions 3 and 4; Zone 3 consists of Regions 5, 6,
and 7; and Zone 4 consists of Regions 8,9, and 10.
Each zone  was awarded  two   of the  eight
enforcement support   contracts.    These  new
contracts  do not restrict enforcement support
activities to a particular region, but allow EPA
personnel flexibility in determining which Regions
within a specific zone enforcement activities should
be initiated in.

Initiatives to Improve Superfund Contracting

       During  the  fiscal  year,  OERR   in
conjunction with the Procurement and Contracts
Management   Division  (PCMD),  undertook a
number of initiatives to improve contracting under
the Superfund program.   In December  1988,
OERR created the Contract Operations, Review,
and Assessment Staff (CORAS) to oversee and to
work to improve Superfund contract management.
This  staff  performs  assessments  of  current
practices,   makes   recommendations   for
improvement,  and assists in implementing such
improvements.  In addition, CORAS conducts a
great  number  of  information  transfer activities,
including a Bulletin, a regional forum, and various
meetings and  seminars.   CORAS  also provides
tools to assist  contract managers such as training
courses, guidances, and handbooks.
       OERR also  created  two  specialized
training courses for contract managers.  The first
is  a work  assignment management  course  for
headquarters personnel who are responsible for
managing contractors.   All headquarters work
assignment managers  have taken this course and it
will be given on a continuous  basis  in the  future.
The second course is similar to the first and was
designed  for RPMs to improve their management
of contractor  personnel.  This course has been
given  in  all 10 regions  and is now part  of  the
RPM/OSC Academy.
       In FY89, PCMD decentralized some of the
contracting  officer functions  by  placing staff
directly in the regional offices.  This change greatly
improved the  coordination and  communication
between   Superfund  program  and  contracts
personnel and created  significant benefits  for
program  staff.
       Pursuant  to the Superfund Management
Review, PCMD also began addressing the issue of
conflict of interest under  Superfund  contracts.
PCMD is currently addressing this issue in several
ways:

•      Precluding   headquarters   support
       contractors from also holding  response
       action  contracts;
                                               89

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
•       Requiring contractors to report potential
        conflicts;

•       Improving  guidance to EPA staff and
        contractors; and

•       Sending out  review  teams to  assess
        contractors' conflict of interest prevention
        systems.

        In  addition to  these efforts,  OERR
initiated a conflict of interest review process within
the Superfund program that must be performed
before work assignments are sent to PCMD.
       Also   pursuant   to   the   Superfund
Management Review, OERR  established a task
force to take the lead in preparing a long-term
contracting strategy for the Superfund program.
The task force will review all aspects of Superfund
contracting.  The goal of the task force wUl be to
recommend contracting alternatives that will serve
the program's needs for the next decade and
beyond. The long-term contracting strategy for the
Superfund program should  be developed by the
summer of 1990.
                                               90

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
              Fiscal Year 1989
                                                          APPENDIX
                                                                 A
   Status  of  Remedial  Investigations,
                        Feasibility  Studies,  and
                                   Remedial  Actions
                                         at  Sites  on  the
                        National  Priorities List
  in Progress  on  September  30,  1989
     Appendix A  satisfies the  combined
statutory requirements  of CERCLA sections
30l(h)(l)(B) and (F). This appendix provides a
report on the status and estimated completion date
of all  remedial  investigation/feasibility  study
(RI/FS) and remedial action (RA) Title I projects
in progress at the end of FY89.  This appendix
also provides notice of RI/FSs that EPA presently
believes will not meet its  previously published
schedule for  completion, as  well as the new
estimated dates of completion, as required by
section 301(h)(l)(C). Estimated completion dates
for these projects were  previously published in
Appendix A of the FY88 Report entitled Progress
Toward Implementing Superfimd: Fiscal Year 1988.
In addition to the statutory requirements, this
appendix lists remedial projects begun in FY89
that were ongoing at the end of FY89. Activities
at multiple operable units, as well as first and
subsequent activities, are listed.

•    Region - EPA region in which the site is
     located.

•    State — State in which the site is located.
Site Name -- Name of the site, as listed on
the  NPL,  Supplementary Lists  and
Supporting Materials, June  1988 and
October 1989, OERR.

Location -- Location of the site, as listed
on the NPL.

Operable Unit - Operable unit at which
the corresponding remedial activity is
occurring.

Activity -- Type of project  in progress on
September 30, 1989.

Lead - The entity leading  the activity, as
follows:

EP:  Fund-financed with EPA employees
performing the project, not contractors;

F: Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
Superfund remedial program;

FE: EPA Enforcement program-lead;

FF: Federal Facility-lead;
                                  91

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                    Fiscal Year 1989
        MR:  Mixed funding; monies from both
        the Fund and PRPs;

        PRP:  PRP-financed and conducted;

        PS:  PRP-financed work performed by the
        PRP under a state order  (may include
        federal  financing or  federal  oversight
        under an enforcement document);

        S:  State-lead and Fund-financed; and

        SE:  State enforcement-lead (may include
        federal financing).

        O (Other), SN (State-lead and -financed,
        no Fund money), and SR (State-ordered
        PRP response) activities are excluded from
        this status report because they do  not
        include federal financing.

        Funding Start - The date on which funds
        were allocated for the activity.

        Previously Published Completion Schedule
        - For projects  ongoing at  the  end of
        FY88  that  continued  into  FY89,  the
        quarter of the planned completion date
        for  the activity, as of 9/30/88, the end of
        FY88. This  column is blank  for projects
        that were not begun until FY89.

        Present Quarter  Estimated Completion —
        The quarter of the planned  completion
        date  for  the  activity,  as  of 9/30/89.
        CERCLIS compiled this information on
        October 20,1989. To complete some gaps
        in the data, CERCLIS compiled additional
        planned completion dates on April 3,
        1990, and April 6, 1990. An asterick (*)
        next to the completion date indicates  that
        the date was taken from the later date.
        Some activities were not updated in the
        April 4,1990 data, so a few activities with
        estimated completion  dates in FY89 or
        earlier still remain.
Status ~ Status of the project, as of the
end of FY89, as follows:

On-schedule projects are designated by a
zero (0).

Projects  that are  behind schedule are
designated by a numeral indicating the
number of quarters  that the project  is
behind schedule and a minus sign (e.g.,  -
4)-

Projects that are ahead of schedule are
designated by a numeral indicating the
number of quarters  that the project  is
ahead of schedule (e.g., 4).

Projects for which EPA has not estimated
a completion date are designated by an
asterisk  (*)  in  the Present  Quarter
Estimated Completion column.

Projects  that were begun in FY88 are
described as new in the status column.

Projects described as DNE, for date newly
entered, have funding starts in  previous
fiscal years and  no date in the Previously
Published Completion Schedule column.
These  sites,  for numerous reasons, were
not  entered into CERCLIS during the
fiscal year of the funding start, or a change
in the status of the  site or activity now
requires that the activity be published  in
the FY89 Report.  For example, several
activities with the status of DNE were
state enforcement-lead or state-lead and
financed before FY89 and therefore, did
not  fall  under  the  requirements  of
CERCLA section 301(h)(l)(B).  During
FY89, a lead  change resulted  in Fund
money  being  used  in  the  clean-up
activities.    Therefore,  they  are  now
included in this appendix.

The  sites   designated  by  R,   Montco
Research Products, Inc., FL, was removed
from  the  NPL  on  March 31,  1989.
Investigation subsequent to listing on the
NPL  revealed  that  the   level   of
contamination does not warrant inclusion
on  the  NPL.   It is  included in this
                                                92

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                            Fiscal Year 1989
       appendix to clarify the change in status
       from  FY88, is  not counted in remedial
       activity totals.
                                          93

-------



















i
*~
c.
CO
cu



CO

•—
**"

"5
,5
<- <

co ci
ai ui
c ex
i «


|
1
1

O
L.
a.







































UJ 00
»-• o*
B"
i— *
coo
ro

h- Of
1-4 UJ

ca uj
co a.

1UCO
n

co'
SCO
CO
i- oe.


t- a.
CO
z
••"CO

UJ UI Q II
CO — 1 UJ II
ui a. a: n •*

a. o en u

H
Sn
UJ II
3~_J II
O 1- 3 II
•-• UJ O II
S-JUJ II
Q. X II
of z cj ii
O. O CO II
U II
C3 O
z i— ii co
g< jj g

u- CX
o
S !! o.
"j ''g
— J II ^
>- II
1- II
•— II
> II

h^ II
CJ II <
< ii S


1 II
Of UJ t- II
a. ca z ii
O
O II CO
O II D)
-^3
II Z





^
H-
ii 1
si
n j>4
II c.
II CD
ii a.
u
n — <
I) CU
II c.
!! i
UJ II • «J


Z II K- CO
1- II J«i" *
•-• II U 4-»
CO II CO CO
II OU ••-
II —•
II — '
ii cu cu
II c. O
II 3 C
II CO O
II _J ^
SoiiG
ac ii *~
«—
1

O


ro









g
O
"s.
fe
CX
Of
°"



CO
u.
X.
Of











^
o
Woodsto













a
t-
o
CJ

o

'3
CO
c.
cu
S
I
-1
1—
CJ

CM
O

0


CM



5

CM



fe
a

g
0.

°"



CO
u.

2











g
01
South in













M-
1


c
o
I
f=
g
I/I
TJ
0
6

ro'
1

0


**i"









g
^

g


u"



CO
u.

Of












D)
Sterlin










a
0
o
to
4-*
C
t!
Q.

CU
X
cu
1—
Q)
1
CU
Of
^-
CJ

>^"
ooo

OOO


s^ «^ sj"



ooo

N*~*~*



00 CO CO
N-OCM
OCMi-

T- OCO
0«-0
a o.
O£ Of




(A
u_
*x
4 4 *•*
O£ OC Q£











g
4->
D)
South in




CD
1
UI
3
CU
z
•4-
o
0)
u

'E
cu
CO

t_
41
o
u
cu
Of
to
4-J
c
o
CO
i—
o

in
3 3 UIO
C C o

OCX 00


»*K> rOCM



§

CM



Sco «fe
oom in^
T-O O(M

O^O^ e>m
oo oo






(A CA
u. u-
X, "s.
fg ^ g^ (j;











C
 'co
< CO
Z g

>O N-
O




10



§

10



Is.
CO
^

g









oc



CM






j.
I
c_
j8
CO
D)
H-

__,


M—
•g
(D
•M
E


g


1
u
cu
Of

cu
O)
L.
o
cu

CO
cu
c.
CO
u
*

CO
CM
1

o*


T~



§

ro



8
eo

g






CO
u.

2













Grove I a


















1
"J2
CO
u
u
g

o*
1




ro









g
S

1
CX
g
CU






g











f
o
Westbor


















1
CX
o
c
1
31
2
O
T~
CM
i




CM



g

**



B
I

§






V)
U-

0£



^







CO
u
Billen"


















L.
CO
CX
41
CO
C-
0
g
*"*
*
•
r-
t 1
f^ t^
00


*J" I*O



gg

•*"*



ss
in CO
^- T-

CMCO
00






CO
u.

in —
u. Of











"2
O
H-
"8
CO
1
















41

to
"2
o
H-
"8
CO
z
z
2
CM
«•"
inroro
t i i

ooo


CM *™ >^



§§0

•~(XI*~



CO 00 CO
rOCMCM

~ss






V> CO


O£ O£ O£



^_ f>J »/N









Ashland










g-

o
cu
4-»
K)
CO



CO
U
U
CD
N
1
Z
*
ro

i
Ot
03


^J"



8

CM



co
2

g






u>
u.

Of



CM








JC
4J
3
a.
gr
u_ ***
CJ
. ^» 0) UJ
Q. 41 -C CJ
U O)4J V
of c ^
O) O " t-
c ej? o
•-s^ Ji CJ
C- C. 4J
0> Q CO D)
cy Jj •*• c

• —CO U
O>SC X CU
UJ-C"M c

0 0 8 C
lJ-2c
00. I- 0

1- CA C
O CD CA CO
J3 ca cj
C-TJ 3 =
CD CU
5C 4-> 41 CO
CA 4-* CO
U _ * CO 4-»
Q eu co o
E u— a.
5-c.c cu
— ' O 1— Of
a.~-~
*
^
*~"
CM

Os


w*



§

ro



to
CM

g






CA
U.
•v.
Of













Palmer


















to
cu
u
L.
o
to
01
Of
CJ
CO
o.
*
in
T—
r\j
CJ
o


s^>



§

CM



fe
in

°
a.
Of




CO
u.

Of













1
CD
CO


















CO
cu
u
*t
I
CO
CO
2
^o
*"
1

Qs


V*



§

CM



cS
o
ro

°
a.
Of




CO


Of



^_









3
o













e-
o

ca
u
1
u
B
CO
cu
c.
CO
§
^
*"*
94

-------
CD
U
ca
mo

^
\-Cf.
*~ u
—I CO
           CO CL
2             111
             CO
           u.


           co-
             §00
             00
           — UJ
           K~ fV*
             SC3
             O
           UJ<

           UJ-J



           oS

           CO UJ
i
^
i-

O UJ

UJ UJ O
CO —I Ul



u

CO O UJ
=>£!





u
Zh-

ZK
=> en
1^
g
Ul
^




1—
U

1
O£ Ul h-
CL CO Z



§

s
3


















UJ



Ul
t~





1-

Oi

:: *
II 0)
II C
II
II
II
II
II <>
II
II
II «-
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
nS

lift
"i
I
II
II
II
II GO
II U.
II X.
II >-
u at
u
n
n
n
M
M
M T3
II I.
II 0
M M-
II TJ
II 0)
u m
:: *
II CU
II Z





II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II 01
II CO
II T»
II 0>
II _J
II
II CA
II -
!!&
n >
n — '
M — •
II D
n co
n <
M s:
u
co

*




*


*



*


*





O
•X,
(M
O
«—
O.



00
u_

t— 1
Of








g
o


£
c
CO

CL
c
0
4J
u




g


,
o
u

0>
u
CO
L.
C3
Of

3
<
^
ol

O




<>






r~
0

T—





S

PJ
O
u.



00
u-

!««
a:






_^
u
'5

ca








c
o

+J
CO
4->
CA
L.



CD
Z


unswic
L.
ca
Ul
*
o
CM
^




§






o
O

^





fe
Xs
IA
i
CL
Of




U.

_«
Of






a.
o
3:
.c:
O
v>












o
c

*
o
u


CO
o


CJ
g
E

Ul

.
PJ
0




8!






(\J
OK

?o





08
^^
OK
t™
^^
*—
*—
a.






^
*







a.
o
.IZ
c

'5

















«s

M-
"E
CO


u

3
UJ

PJ
PJ
^




§






o
eo

Kl





lf\
CO

Ii
§




CO
u.
X,

a:




c
o
i
CO

o
z

















_^


H-
•D
CD
_l


u
3.
z
ro
PJ
PJ
1




1>






0
o

to





18
•X,

o
CL
f\






CO
u.








L.
CU
o
a














*+-
CD



(0
D.
'o

c
s:
i_
a>
o
0
3.
Z
.
PJ
X
g



S!


PJ












g

in
o
g




CO
u.

».«
Of






L.
CU
o
•g
o

g
1

'i
CO
4-*
g
0


01



_
g

L.
19

U


U
g
4-*
O

3-
Z
tn
CM
0




§>






0
t>

st





S

PJ
(V
fc
o







00
u.








1
o
CJ






B
a.
c_
o
CJ
01
— o
ca co
O CA
5) CO •
<- 01 a.
~i ^ t_
-• 0
— • CA U
CO CO
CUT! CO
z: o> o

0> CA O)
CO— t.
L,-. 3
CO — '
eo OJ — •
L. U CO
cu o o>

3:
z
-o
CM
•J-

o
-
5:
«-
I
X,
in
0
CL
Of
CL
en
«x
D£



•g

1
Of












CD

ra
CL
o
"o
4-*

^
z

CM
M

<>
PJ
§
*
f-
1

§
a.

CO
•v
Of



•o
u
o
H-
£



^"

§•
Ul
c-
0)
4->
CD
3


1

u
i
en
§
CD
CO
z

CO
CM
3
c
t>
-


I
v»

CL
gf
CO
•X
Of


L.
§
CA

i
00



^

H-
CD

£T
CO


c
CD
CO
mersworth
o
CO
z

a


^fm
o*
+3"


S
^^

*4-
1
_J
»^
CD
L.
4-*
c

u
Q£

S
o

S
*
§
*
I
>x
S

u.


Of


•a
."

'i
CO









01

CA


T3
.1
CA
CO
0
**

CM
ro
(M
1
e>
-
§
to
1
a
Xj.
<9
CL
O£
CL
c/>
t
ct:
1
L.
•2J
S
X.
IZ
o
o
c









a

^

3

terson/Pur
cu
CL
04

ro
ro
o

£
•*
(>
•*
I
X,


u.
CO
^
Of
PJ



L.
4-t
c

S














G
CO
u.
o
u

CL
Of

to
,_

g
to
§
PJ
I
•x


u.
CO
^
Of
2
H!
4J
'i
CO
f
4-1
L.
0
z
CD
c
1
CO
1
0)
1

CA
cu
• L.
o o
CU.

-S
CA
±-s~
.— .MO
z « c
co-^ *"
c *
•- 0) CA

CO^JE
Of

in
ro

(D

u


•g
CO
c
1.
01
CA
01
"»
U

to
a
i
8i
(M


1

S
CL
cc
CL
CO
xl
Of



c
o
I











^4

a

BC
g
CD

5

f"..
to
                                                                          95

-------





























o
CO

*-
t.
CO
cu


CO
u
CO

u.


"2
H-
t- <
I 2
CO O
z
D) ULJ
C O.
•— D-
4J «r
Implemen
TB
(0
g
i—

CO

cu
L.
0)
o
c.
a.



























































coo
UICO
•-O
S«—

i- »
oo o

>-
i-* U)
-I CO
"•S.
CO UJ
l-i I—
CO CX.
 00
^2
Q U
UJ <
UJ —1
ce <
u. o
O UJ

CO Ul
3 ce.
i—
< 0
1— Z
CO <






























CO
=
1—
<

CO

Ul
K- •— _l
UJ UJ Q
in —i iu
UICL =C
Of £ CJ
CL O CO

OOOUJ

Si^s
— UIO
ui o. a:
Of E CJ
Q- O OO
CJ


Z 1—
g<
3 CO


o
<
UJ
1

>-
H-

>
1—
CJ
<



1
Of 111 H~
&CO Z
< o








OCATION
_J
























111
1
111
1—
CO







CO


C3
ce


1
1 X
t ft)
1 C
1
1

1
1
1 O
o


s^


1
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


1 00
! o
«-
1 V
8

1
i a.
i oe
i ex.

i
i
i
1 CO
i x.
i —
i oe




(M









ingfield
i t-
i a.
1 OO















i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i — •
i — •
i •—
!$
1 C
i ro
i _i
1 CU
i •—
i >*-
1 O>
II C
ii •—
II C-
i a.
1 OO
ii
II TJ
II — •
II 0


II >


II T-
1

M
1
O






r-
O


ro



5


ro







^
r«-
CM
X,
O
o








CO
x.

oe














lington
c-
3
m
























— •
ro
c
ro
CJ
4J
O
cu
c.
4-*
CO
g

CL


>


^—


8
i
«-
i



i
i
i
«-


«—



1 O*


i -»
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i in
!«
IcM
1 v.
1 0s
1 O
1
[
1
1
1
i (O
1
1
1
1
1 CO
x^

oe





i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i a
i •—
1 JC
CO
1 C
1 Jt
1 0
1
15
ill
1 CO
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i,
i cu
i e
i >.
i — •
1 O
i a.
l»
i •
i <
i
i
1 Z
1
1
1 CM

1
1 O
1 «»

3t

C




5


W—













1
S

CM


a.
ri




CO


ce














lington
•£

























Q

CO
o
4J
CO
X
CO



z


CM


^

O






<>


*—



<>


*~






1
CM

O











ce










a.

j=
CO
o
3C

























ro
u.
^
cu
cu
C-
CJ
D)
O
CO


z


CM


CM

OCM






8J§


•*«-



SitS


>»«-






II
<>0j

0§








CO
^

ce. oe














4J
L.
8.
cu
s
u
m















u


c_
cu
oo

0
oB


ca
S
at
4-1
U


S
c.
ca


z


CM


3

x

C




5;


CM













g
S

8








CO
^^

ce.














o
o
L.
CO
m






















c.
n
a.

ro
^3


1
c-
co


z


CM


3

V- *-
1 1





§5


r~ «—



g§


-*•*






Ǥ
fc'o
oro

~§



(0 CO




CO
^

tt Q£








a

^
0)


H-
0
L-
|
t-
<0

























»
CO
X

u.
c

CO


^


CM


in

? ?
CU CU
c c



*
°. °


ro ^













o^ o^
?3 CM
•x ^
O O











o: ce














— • t-»
cu cu
•^ -s
C. N
ro —
U- UJ






















d
CJ

D)
.£ o
Jri I_
2 1.
1— U


— • ro
o o
CO JC
O CJ


z z


CM CM


*O P*»

inui

a



* *
o5t»


roro



g


CM






coco
in in

00


a.
oe




CO CO
^ S^

ce ce














4J
L.
a
C>


ro «-«-



§


ro






eS Sco
§^4- in
«-O

N- or^
o oo



CO




OO CO
SJ" t

oe oe oe














>• i-
a cu
g .>
4^ Of
n
U CO
CO E
Ot H-












ro
o

i
JC
CJ


cu

:

1—
d-co
o 0*0
iC fl)
.-. >-4->
O> CO


o u
CO. 1 CU
jc •— o
CJ CJ ^


z z


CM CM


O* O
N* U">

CM
t





g


(M



g


«*






S
a
x»
8








00
ij"

oe







a.
JC
CO
c
3
O
I—

naminson
c
CJ















-





CD 4J
*^ ro
•-'i
JC CD
CO 4J
i§
o u
1—
c cu
o *->
co ro


ETJ

CJ U


z


CM


in

O






5


i«



c>


«-






co
°
X,,
S











r*f







Q.
"S

2(

H-

>
o
1






















i
ro
_j

t.
o
z
•

u.


u


z


CM


CM
in

O






<>


r~



5


«~






|
5
•x
cS









U-
"X,

C£.














L.
(U
CD















,
a
t_
o
u

C4
j?
4^
a
0
u
emical
JC
CJ

1
CO
o
CJ


z


CM


ro
in

CM
1





§


(M



s


•*






co
in

o



CO




CO
ij"

ce







a
JC
CO
c
3
o
1—
cu
.?
!Z
ca
o






















1
L.

CA
|
c
o
CO

T>
CO
oo
a.
CJ


z


CM


in

o






c>


CM



5:


CM






g
CJX
CM
^x
s


CL
D£




(A
U.

Of






o.
JC
CO

Q
1—


o
o
c.
co
i
ro
00






















o
c

CD
4-»
cu
a
ro
i_
u
V)

o
o
c.
3
U


Z£


CM


in
in

CM






§


CM



g


•*






cS
0

8








CO
LU
x»

Of







a
JZ

J^



£_
CO
D)
D)
UJ

























"8
o
Of

JC
ro
"a
0


z


CM


S
96

-------






















O
s

u
m
CJ


(0
(0



"D
M-
*- <
5. x

 o
z
O) 111
•— o.
g "*

i
1
•O
L.
ra
I—
CO
CO
01
u


t_
CL








































^
coo
LUCO

f~-
COO

>-
*-* LU
_ ^
CO LU
CO O.
< LU
UI CO
"".8
CO
gen
CO
v* UJ


0 O
£ O.
CO
UI Z

z
~ CO
UJ <

o: 3!
LU O
O UI
CO UI


< o
H- z
co<



















CO 1
3 1
1—
h-
to
§1
LU

CO — 1 UI
111 0.3:
°* 5°
Q. O en

CO O UI
S~ _i
1— O
i— LU a
> -JLU
UI d. 3=
Of £ CJ
a- gen

z_
•—Of
o<
Zl-
2"

g
LU
>-
1—

>
1—
<


1
Of UJ 1—
Sai







z
o
1—
<
CJ
o
_J



















UJ
X,
3
z

LU
1—
CO

CO
a
Of

0



1
1 «-
0

t—

1
1
T-

«-



1
1 CO
1 X,
1 O
i CM
i •««.
o


i
i
i
i
1 CO
»x
1 Of


1
1
1 ^__
1
1





1
1
1
1
1 0>
1 — •
1 •—
1 >
1 >•
i ro
i m











i
i
i
i
i
i •
1 O
1 CJ
\ >.
i ra
1 Of
I i
1 X
i
i L.
1 0>
1 -4-
i ra

1 U
i*
1 c.
1 0)
1 N
1 C
i eu
1 a
1 Z
1 CM
1
in
o




t>

^—



5

f—




g

CM
SN
O






CO
v.
Of









a
jz
§
o
1-
vesham
LU




















X
4-1
t-
1
O.
CO
LU
Z
CM

CO
in
LU LULU
Z Z Z
000



§00

(^J (\J ff)










co co co

ooo
•o *Q *o
ooo


LU LU U.



CO CO CO
^.-V^N
of of o:










c
§
u
u
c
ra
4-*












g

4-*

L.
4-t
CO
'E
1
C "-
O 01
••- 4-*
1 . *-
ra N,
Ri
5:
O








2








a

c
3
O

01
u
o
u.










^
1
a
^


,J-
I
4-*
§
u
01
DC



ra
01
u
jo
LU
Z
CM

3
CM
1



0

T™



g

10




e8

in
JI


LU





LU







Q.

j:
CO
o
1-

i
4-*
L.
CL
















n
%
-
M-


O
X
0
L.
O
LU
Z
CM

5
o




r>

V—



o

«—




in

CO
r\j
i


LU



CO
V.
Of










u

CO

ca j=
4-* C
CO 3
(0 O
UI 1—


















CO
01

L.
+J
LI
LU
CM

CM
•O
O




0

v~



0

T"




§
>N,
O
1






CO
^
Of













(0
"o
4-*
8
£
















O
CJ
CO
eaner

CJ

01
ra
4-*
CO
1
ra
C9
z
CM

3
a
c



g

to










3
.
in
i








Of












0)
O)
•o
Of
I
0

















01
4J
CO

T3
ra
Of
0)
s
Of
§
C9
Z
CM

in
to




0

^j-



8!

*—




g
•NN,
n
S:
o








Of










3
c

o
1—
§
4-*
c
ra



















i
CD


t-
t_
I
0>

CM

S
O UI
z
o



So

(\l ^f



§

CM




SS

CM CM
OO
^0^


CO CO
n 0



CO CO
--.N^
Of Of













§
4-J
0











4-1


CL

g
4-1
5




ercules, I
ac
z
CM

fe
3
C



O

^^










S
N-»

1






CO
•>»
Of










CO
o
1-
c
i
ra
t-
LU























ra
LU
g
'5>
D)
3;
z

S
CM




0

to



o

«—




fe
«S.
S
•N»


CO



CO
-N,
Of







Q.


1
1-

"8
01
a






















e
L.
O
LU
|

Z
CM

2
0




0

^~



5:

«_




S
"s.

c?
o






CO
«>.
Of











01

N.
O
CM
1






CO
>N,
Of








O)

o
L.
o
CO
c
o
4-*
ra


















Q.
c.
0
CJ
X
01
4-1
o
_J
ra
u.
"
z
CM

JC
f
C



0

^J-










S
»N,

S






CO
•N,
Of













c
4J
O


















g
C,



z
ca
1
1

z
CM

R
a
c



0

^—










S
>N,

CM

CL
Of



CO
V.
Of










o.
jz


1-
g
CO
•5
UJ























ra
CO
i
c
*
z
CM

FC
CM




§

CM



g

^




CO

£
C?

CL
Of



CO
«N,
Of









Q.
JZ
CO
c
3
O
h-
inslow
3



















ra

to
CO
=)
!_
CL
H.
O
O)
C
*
z
CM

j£
O




0

CM



5;

CM




13
-•N

>~.








Of



CM










1
o.






















M-
•g
ra
_i
L.
.2-
«i
CM

K
CM
I



0

«"*



§

to




CO

O
O






CO
^
Of














1



















S



-------
OUJ
       CM   O   O   O    3O   O   3
        i                    O           Of
                            C           C
                      CM    M«-   •*   fO   «-   CM
                                                                                O   O     O   r-   O   CM Ul
                                                                                *™   «—     O   C3   t—   C^ *™
                                                                                O*   O»     O*   t^   O^   O* C^


                                                            «-«- f) M CM CM K>   «-   •«»     K>   -»   CM   «-»-   CM








g)

•—
(_
ID
01
>-

Is
.2

I
H-


t^

o
O> UJ
C O.
4-* <



«S
8-
T3
(.
ID
g
»-
-
GOO t-

>- >
^ Of »"^
i— UJ 1—
•-> E <
m ui
CO OL
SUI I
CO Of Ul t-
§"" S cnz
O O


O CO
»-^ UJ
So
O
»»•* Of
i— a.
CO

>~ z
z o
1-1 CO i-
r-. ^ O
SU -1
<

Of <
u. o
OUJ
=JOf
o* o o ^~

M CM ^ CM


,S S S fe
1 O «- O «-
ro 50 o JM
g 8 S g
i
i a. a. a. a.
of ec of of
^
i
i
i
1 CO CO CO CO
! •>> *> v, ^
1 Of Of Of Of

!CM r- »- ^
i ;

u
to
OL.
.2" d)

^11

1 t- 1- O
1 ID Of
i a. x ^
' S - 1
i J5 -• >.
1 V) ID ID
1 *C CD SE





c>

*"


gfe
II
fe8







CO
V.
SS







•s

L.
o
m

c
"c
ID
L.
U.





«—

^*


§
0
S



CO



CO
X.
Of









^0.



g
i










1
in
1













a

f^
ID
L.
o



^-


IIIHII |
CM CM KJ CM CM CM CM t


§
S
g







CO
V
Of









£



CJ
Warren





§

IO


S
*s.
CM







CO
^
Of







Q.
IA
§
O


ID
Callow





§

M


1
*x
g

a.
Of






Of







a

•g



i—
Edison





1> S

CM ro


Ss* s^
CO QQ
O T- T-
S>O *Q
00







CO CO CO
^ ^t
Of Of Of

CM v~ C\J





_a
!c

g



X 0)
ID U
1 i!
u o
o — •
Of u.





g

ro


8§
0(5?
g?i

O. O.
Of Of
a"



CO CO
^^
Of Of

^~ CM










4J

2
(A
ID
CJ





UJ I
*- \
CO U
             ^   I   cS


          CI    t>
Aerosys
Meta
                                  -   CO
                                11
                                   'E    «
                                   £    2
                                   N.    O
o-   5
4->   U
                                             0


                                              g
                                      §    §
                                                  a.
                                                   IA


                                                  1
                                                        e-
                                                       cS
                                                        4)
                         I
II
co c.
> «>
                                                                                          I
                                                                                       ?S   cS    -
                                                  a 5
                                                 •§8
                                                 0.0
                                                                   S
                                                                   jr
                  o
                  CO
                  i?
                  J
                  I
                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                         u
u
u
4-*
CO

i?
                                                                                                                    D)
                                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                                    (A
                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                    8
                                                                                                         5      g
                                                                                                                 u
                                                                                                                 (O
   CD II
   a. n
             CM   CM   CM   CM

                                    Z    Z


                                    CM    (M
                                               CM


                                               B
                                                                             z   z

                                                                             CM   CM
                                                                                             CM    CM    CM    CM
                                                                                                  i>    Si
                                                  98

-------
CM    ro    o   ui


















o
1
£_
flj
O


"m
o
"-
**•

•2
S


S. X

CO O
z
? s
•- ct


1
L.
<0
1
w
V)
O
L,






























^
coo
ui ca
§*~
|— *
COO
to

_ uj
^ Ic
CO UJ
COCL
< UJ
111 CO


CO
§in
CO


4 o
C3 O
1- CL
CO

z
— CO
p
UJ -J
a: <
u- o
O UJ
V) UJ
H-
£§












CO
UJ

UIUIQ
CO _J UI
iua.sc
of E u
CL o co

CO O 111
3 •-• _l

S"" —1 UJ
CL X
Of E CJ
CLO CO

zV
•— oc
o<
"•

3
-a

)_«

>
.c
j£


1
OC LJJ H>
Q_ CO Z
oo








2
1-
5
S











u,

i
CO

»
C3
as i

i
i


i
i «-«»
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i c$8
i ss
g?

1
I
1 CO CO
1 CL CL
1


' ul if
! -xx^
i of a




i
i




"t
1 O
1 L.
1 O
| CO
! 2
1 01
1 —
1 H-
1 3!
1 0)
1 Z







1

1
1
1
1
1
1
i a
1 O

i
i >•
o
1 — •
1 — •
I <
1 Shei Id
i Z
1 CM
1
IS


5


^


l>

^.




1
"•N,,
g






CO
x;
Of














ra
"o
i









8
.£
|
u
01
i
CO
z

0


Sl>


sr v*


§g

>*IO




II
0?
gi

CLCL
CL CL



CO
^
ci of




»— CM









sauken
E
CL









O
u
CO
u
1
x:
o
*a
5
co
CM

tx-


t>


CM









g
K
in
o


CO





^














x:
I













8
Of
g
z

s


5


v


§

to




1
•x
c9

(/)
Q.



CA
^t
Of










"2
o
H-
C.
01
JC
4-1
3
Of
4-1
0)
ra
UI










(A
II
CL'M

00
CA O
1 Univer
(Chemi
CM

&


l>


CM


§

to




fe
1
g






CO
-s
Of










2
"Z





v«


5:

,.




a
v^
g






CO
v;
Q/














01
o>
c

i
o
CO

0>
ra
•D
Of
|











"o
u

1
z
CM

CM
O


g


s^









1
in
«™
'x
g

CO




CO
V.
Of














ra
1










|
u
CO
4)
a
4-»
CO
ra
1
CM

S


g


CM


S

CM




fe
5
CM






CO
t;
Of











Q.


I—
1







0
•"•
to
01
u
01
o
8
!?
Q.
2
a>
ji
u
•5
ra
CM

3


§


ro









•x
1
CM
O

CO




CO
X.
ee








a

1
3;

H-
O
(A
a.













E
(D
u.
1 Wi Ison
z
CM

in
o


l>


W"









1
in
CM
x^
g

CL
«
CL



CO
^
Ql














(D






C
(D
a.
g
I
Q.
S

Chemi ca
8
4-*
(M

§


l>


CM









1
V.
1^
O









ro«-


§

ro




II

gg








22











X


u
CL










TJ
ll
u.

i
c.



CM









1

s






CO
X,
Of














1
1







1
n_
«
i


i
o
08
2
3
CM

2
           99

-------
*
a
u
c
u
c
c
o
*•
C
c
c
O >
CO COO
O UICO
1 i*
0) C/)O
CD «-• IU
.2 5£
U. •-• 1-
(/> CL
• • < UJ I
"D uj in c
men ting Superfui
APPENDIX A
NVESTIGATIONS, 1
IN PROGRESS ON

1  ^3 ac
O> < Q
O h- Z
CL





















ri\bviwuo rncdtni
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
.EAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
>- n
i— u
>::
••^ n
t- n
< I!
i ii
e uj i— u
L CO Z II
3<=J II
n
n
n
Z II
O II
— II
1— II
<. II
U II
O II
-1 II
II
II











II
II
II
II
II
il
i
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ul II
III
Ul II
t- II
*-• II
CO II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I- II
CO II
U II
K II


o
e>
CM
en
X,
OC
01
ID
?
i

CD
U.

CA
ID
Ul





















.
0
U
c
o

'5
o
L.
U
z
CM

in

CSS
^•CM
||
8g
in

&. tc.
£
8.
£
CD

O


















_,
CD
U
1
o
ji.
"ci
CL
•g

fe
U
z
CM

^O
»*
Ul
z
o
tx
CO
S
in
in
x>
tt
Colesville

H-
O

1-
















M-
•g
CD
_J


a.
'o
'E
3
Z
d)


Colesv
z
CM

IX,

Ul
z
0
in
CO

x.

CO
o
L.
CD
Z

0

5





















_,
M.
E
CO

01
Cortes
z
CM

CO

CMO
1
t>(>
lOsf
gg
Q. CL
OC OC
in
x.
oc ac
of Endicott
I

01
CD
ID

£

















01
U-


O>
CO
ID
v

Endico
z
CM

O

i i
O» Os
§CM
CM
0. CL
ce o:
CO
^.
0:0:


2

_e
Ul


















o
c

8
IA
1
01
4-'
C
Ul
o
CD
u.
Z
CM

O
CM
CM
1
^
O
CL
CO
X,
ac
CA
ID
u_

ID
t.
ID
CO
ID
Z









§
(A

^




00
1


i
g


Forest
z
CM

,_
CM
CM
g
to
fe
1
O.
DC


OC
CA
ID
U_
c
01

C3
4-*
g
W






















CO
3

L.
O
s:
UJ
u
S
CM

CM
CM
to
CL
cc
c/>
X,



g

CA
ID
£





*— \
O
.,_
CA
'E
o

t-



o
a.
"S
L.

g
u

CM
t>
CM
8

X,
oc
t
C

C
CD
C.
U.





















d
u
CD
c
ID
CL
01
Genzal
z
CM

^
CM
i
to
t
CM
X.
CM
CO
CO
X.
ac


8

O

















t
£


1
•5
i_
0
8
DC
U
•5
"3
U
Z
CM

in
CM
CM
1
CM
CM
g


CC
J*
ID
CL
0)
sc

H-
o

o





















x
1
u


ID
CD
a:
z
CM

*O
CM
CM
8
(A
•x
CC


J*
01

ID
CL






















M-
E
CD
_J

Hertel
z
CM

|X
CM
0
CK
t»
st
CM
1
CL
OC
U>
X,

to

CA

0
£










B-
o
u

(_


^
0
CL

O
Of
V
CD
0
5

Hooker
z
CM

CO
CM
O
•J-
CM
X,
CL
in
X.
OC
CO
ID
u.

ID
i,
ID
CO
CD
Z





















£
in
1


Hooker
z
CM

O
CM
CO
§
r-
fe
in
i
CL
OC



CA
"io
u.

10
L.
CD
D)
CD





















L.
CU
ar

Hooker
z
CM

O
IO
010
Or-
OO
CMvt
CM«-
OO
OO
0. CL
OC OC.
CL O»
CO CO
x,x.
OC OC.
CA
CD
U-

ra
L.
10
CO
ID
Z





















CD
V
L.
J=
i
CO

t.
o>
|
z
CM

,_
ro
o
Si
Si
c|
CM
g


"al
t.
01
ac
§
V)
1





















CA
CO
t_
CU
ac

Hudson
z
CM

CM

Ul
O
to
fe
in
CO
CO
x.
OC


a

CA










^

14.


CD

x.
L.
CO


CD
CO
1
u
§

a.
CA
z
CM

ro
J2
1
£
in
Qj,
1^
OC
Johnstown '

M-
O

h-


















^

H-
CD
>-
0
§

1
Z
CM

^.
to
100

-------
1
u
CD
CU
CO
VI

•0
§
14.
C. <
x

u> a
•- cu


f
•{3
u
CO
CO
CO
L.
D)
O
t-
Cu




















c/To
coo
ro
1" OC
— Ul
m ul
V) Cu
2UI
en
z
• o
en
gen
en
i— Ul
1— Of
£ a.
en

M en
IB

£
i|i i |
cc <
u* o
O UJ
en ui
h-
en <





















PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
.EAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
>-
i—
>
H-
<

1
a: ui H-
o. m z
O< 3







LOCATION



















Ul
5



t-
co
C3
Of

^
1 (M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 X.
1 »-
1 (M
1 V.
r—
1
1
i en
i
i
i
i en
1 Up-
1 X,
1 Of

i
i
i
i




i
i
1 01
rmingdal
1 CD
1 U.






1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
1 CL
1 t-
1 O
1 U
1 »
1 ••-
1 4J
1 X
1 CU
1 1—
1 L.
1 CD
1 E
1 C
1 CD
1 !».
1 >-
1 Z
1 CM
1
in
ro
ooo
CM CM CM
OOO
OOO
(MCMCM
111
§§§
en
Jx
22S

^_ ^_> f\j









rseheads
o
re










- •


u.


3
I
>.
^
g
*
£
CM

2
CO CO CO
CO 00 CO
%o o* ^o
(NO ru
isi


22S








CO


CO
u.
CO
L-
co
en
CO

z


















CO
c
CO
o
I

X
(M

ro
o
CM
0
en
v
Of











|

CJ
















CO
L.
O
00
1
en
|

-1
X
CM

S
SI
(M
1
0.
gf


Of









CO
O)
c
I
en
o
CJ













d
c-
0
u
t
cu
44
+J
CO
en
§
j=
CO
L.
CO
*•
z
CM

&
ON
1
II
en to
V,-x
Of Of


*"• CM








U
1

0






8



o
u

CD
U

1
4-1
£
(a
u
CD
CD
^
z
CM

O
i
o
CM
ro
5
a.
Of
in
v.
Of











eatfield

3













cu
10
3

Of
3
co
CO
O)
CO
z
z
CM

5
o
CM
1
Ou
Of
CO
V,
Of







CO
.J;
(_
o.
CD
D)
O
CD
C_
CD











Q.

O 4->
u c
CO
t~ — *
§CL
CO
CL D)
If
«l
t. 44
CO CD
D) U
Z <-»
Z
(M

CM
•4-
1
<>
(M
0
CL
Of
CO
"X
Of











CD
en
JZ
4-*
O
z







	 ,


V(.


CD


.§•
O
|
S
en
j=
o
z
z
CM

3
So
«-C\J
So
•*CM
§fe
CM CM
s!
a.
Of Ul
to
•v.
Of Of


^~ CM








1

O

















T)
01
u.
I
C
CD
O
Z
CM

•4-
0
0
CM
0
CM
1
CL
Of
en
X,
Of











S
c/)

:c






^
^


CD
U

g

U

eo
C
0)
"o
en
iSr
CO
co
CL
z
CM

in
o
«?
o
o
ro
S
5
s


Of











0
O)
0)
3









CO
cu
u


l_
O)
en


c
4-*
1
§
3
"o
CL
Z
CM

-O
0
0
O
ro
^
CM
O
CL
Of
en
v.
a:








L.
CU
4^
C
cu
u
I

en






CL


H-


CD



Of
K
E
1
CO

en
z
CM

S
0
0
CM
O
CM
O
Cu
Of
en
X,
a:








CD

CO
O
"o

i—






d
u
8.

Cu



g

44
CD
X,
^
•g
01
c
!5
O
ce
Z
CM

S
0
0
CM
O
CM
|
O
o
Cu
<£

x.
Of







1
CO
3=

yack/Sag
o
z













1


4-»
(A O
0) U
L. t-
|1

||
CC C9
z
CM

S
0 CM 0
OOO
CM T- ro
o* o*
ro ro
in o GO
*O O* h*»
ooo
Cu
Of
en en en
X, X, X,
OS Of 01


"~








_cu
CO >. '>
... „ „
0 -0 --

< en 3
















X
s 1
E 13 CU
u. C 0£
CO CD
u_ _J [_
tco
2
CO .^ IP.
en en en
z z ^
CM CM CM

O T- CM
in in in
0
ro
o
o
ro
fe
S
1

X,
Of











ncklaen

_,_!

















CA
t_
i
en
1
"o
en
z
CM

ro
in
101

-------



























o
1

t_
ID
01


ID
»)

u.


"5
H-
1- <
«>
a x

00 O
D> Ul
c o-
••- A
C *

i
|
T
to
g
i—
V)
0)


ro
o
0.



















































„
coo
uico
>-i o«
§"~
i— »
00 O
to

•-. Ul
*-* — o:
i— a.
00
Ul Z

ly
o o
Ul <
Ul —1
Of <
u. o
o ui
s:
00 Ul
~~i rtf
1—

co<
























00 II
3 II

< II
t- II
00 II

gll
Ul II
Z 1— Z) II
Ul Ul O II
CO —1 Ul II
ui a. x n
oe £ cj M
a. o co n
CJ II

n
Z II
00 O Ul II
Si— —i M
1-3 M
t— i Ul O 1
> — 1 Ul 1
UJ a. ic i
Of 3LCJ 1
a. ooo |


Z h- II
•- OS II
o «t M
Z 1- II
3 to n
u.

31!
Ul II
—1 II
>- II
1— II
— II

^ II
CJ II
< II



1 II
Of Ul 1— II
Ul i t—t II
O- CD Z II
O<3 II







II
II
II
Z M
2!!
i— n
< ii
CJ M
O II
—1 II
II
II











II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ul II
Z II

Ul II
h- II
— II
COM
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1— II
CO II

a n
Of II

¥_
t




Q
CN


to




o
o

CM






8

O
0

a.
Of
**~



CO
-X
Of















X
(0
c.
0
£





















.

IF_.
H-
?
ID
_J
O>
Cfl
a>
in
^_
z

CM

in
o






O


yj-




5

N^






1

O
V

a.
Of
Ck,



CO
X,
Of















IA

o>
c
o
v>
«- ID

«- CM



O>— •
xS


3 '^~
00 3
01 U
ID 10
ID 01
4-> U
IA C
Ol O

^_
Z

CM

-O
in
o






O


^




5

*~






&

o
to
~








-*s





(VI







X
o
c
~o

»*-
o
§
0
1—
















— t



1
-1

10
Municip
°o

y_
Z

CM

in
CM
1





0


CM




§

yf






§3

0>
S







(/>
*x
O£

















J^
U
'5
L.
ro
2






















m*
m~l
H-
?
a
0
'E
CO
3
^
z

CM

CO
in
3
ai
c




o


r-













g

o
CM









Of

















C
ID
CO




















i
§•
mmf
Ol
I
0
.c
u
s
m
3
^
z

CM

O
in
•o
i





O


V—




g

to






g

g
§







00
X,
ft.

















ID
L.
'o
























O
u
o
M
L.
O

^_
z

CM

§
0






O


to




5:

ro






§

0
to
o







00
x.
Qf












ID
1_
S
4-
^
01
"O
u
o
u.




















-
M-

2
ID
ID
4J
"Z
U
L.
(D
m
Q,
a.

CM

NO
0






o


«»




5

t~~






»

CM

a.
Of
o>.



CO
•x
Of

















U)
&
o















to


0)
3
X
g;

00
o
1
u.
K
a.

CM

s
0






o


CM




5;

CM






e8

s
o

a.
Of
°~



CO
•v.
Q^
















o
I
o
a:
























0)
01
CJ
ID
c_
O>
u.
Of
a.

CM

IS
0






o


^-




5:

^—






g

1
o

CL
Of
**~



CO
X.
Of

















to
o
-5























.^
Landfil
uncos
~*
ij.
a.

CM

3
0






c>


to




81

t^l






1

s

a.

Q.



CO
X.
Of














(0

o
c
o
Ol
u
t.
ID
CO
























I.
ID
U
Ol
O
CJ
Of
Of
a.

CM

in
3

j^




c>


Nf













CO

o
s*
o

a.
Of
o.





Of














ID
4-*

— •
<
(0
O)
o












a>


01
3

X
—
Q.
O.
D
00
u
—
1
CL.
4-»
_.
<
(0
O)
OJ
>

0.

oa

s.
1
1 3
1 0>
1 C
1
1
1
1
1
1 O
1
1
1 «—
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1


1
1
1
!o
1 CO
1 X.
i co
1 O
s
1
1
1
1
1 Ul
1 U-
1
1
1
1
1 (/>
1 Lk-
1 *X
1 C£
1
|
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

i >•>
1 4->
\ C
t D
1 O
t O
I
1 
1 —•
\ -M
1 CO
1 (0
1 U
1
1 3
1 0)
I Z
|
1
1
|
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1 CO
1 CD
1 C
1 "O 
1 OJ~^
1 4J — ^
1 CO O



1 
1 O — 1
1 C i
1 O-'
1 v*  M
1 _. (0 _
1 — • t 	 •
1 "- +- *H
i •poa'o
1 CD *O "3
1 _l C -I
1 ID
1 ££!/> ±t
1 Ol 01
1 O> Ol Ol
1 I_ I_ t-
1 O ID CJ
1 X 01 X
I E — ' E
1 L. 01 I-



CM




S

CM






g

CM
1


CO
Q-



00
^
n.
















-a
o
3
Ul

S
o
o
4J
C.
Ol








(0


H-
T?
ID



U


t-
Ol
CO
s

4J
s Sanita
01
o
CJ
Ul
0

to

g
0 3

C




§5


CM«-




§

CM






«f>

§1

OL O.

CL. O.





rv ^














£
CJ

U
CO
3
CO
01
a







^
d
CJ


ID
o


.c
CJ

1.

CM-
CO M-
OL ID
O 00

OL CO
CJ 4->
10
OJ>-
1 	 >
Ol
CD U
"o o
Q ^^
Ul
0

ro

^
3

c




o^


to













g

o
1



u.





s











•g

o
o
0)

to
ID
U
3
Ol
Z



1


o
IDC?
O ID
O^J

-|
•r- ID
M- C_


ID od



ID -^
O »-'^-

otf 3 "O
~E~v 2
10 01
Ol CD 01
U L.
IDT] O
3 *
o_-<
Ul
a

to

^
102

-------
S
S
CO
1
         S"
—I CO

5 3j
1-11—
CO CL
< LU
UJ CO



>
  SCO
  CO
         •-•Of
         s°-
"S
ra
?
S
CL
         U. O
         O UJ
CO UJ
=> Of
to ii
3 II 3
t— II w
< II C
1— II
CO II
§11
UJ II

Ul Ul O II
to _i ui ii

of z o u
CL O to II

z !!
CO O UJ II
3 — i _i ii

•— Ul Q II
> -J Ul II
in CL ac ii
Of E CJ II
OL O to II

to o
Z t- II CO
•"« Of 1 **•*
Q< C>
Z 1- 1 CM
g tO 1 -X
§i!
Ul II u.
>- II
1- II

> ij <»
P ^
CJ II m
< II Of
• u
Of Ul 1— II
8>3§l!



u
M
n
§11
u
—• M
>- n
< u
CJ II t.
O II 41
— I II >
II O
II 0

II
II
1
1


II
II
II
II
!! „
!! i8
UJ II CO
Z II U
II <-
Ul II O
1— II U.
to !! _«-
II L.
II 01
ill
1— II Ul
to ii o
U 1 M
Of 1
R
^
*




t>


CM



s:


CM




g
i
CL
Of



CO
^
Of







4-*
L.
3
Z
y
"C
h«^
• «t—
O1*-


OB CO
Hi
t- 4J
3 C
O CO
O OL
Z
4^ &
O O
!-• W
• z
Ul ^^
Ul
o
M

S
._ a

c



° §


M fM



S


CM




£ I
4 (M
O CM
8 2

u. i
**• at


CO
^
Of Of







_0)
*3 -n
(A O
ra o
0 3
1 1








J


|
d L.
u a
by Chemical
vey & Knott
H^ l_
ra a
ac z
Ul Ul
O 0
M M

1C !2
0 3

c



5 f>


«- CM



5


T—




1 1
O O
IS
CL
CO Of



to to
^ ^,
Of Of





4->
C
ra
ra
O 01
Q CL
in 4->









c
ra

a.
2
•g
~ I
8 1
of ra
S %
UJ Ul
o o
Kl Kl

fc S2
0 0 g

c



O11 O^ ^K


CM MM



o*- o*


CM M




fe ||
o ty» i^»
M CMCM
*" »
«— O CM

to



to to
^ ^
of Sof






>.
:-*
0)
(U U
9 1
CO 4->
ai a
a co

—

o
L.
CO CO
3 g
co 3
— > t.
u a
o
-s |
8 X
'Z -p
5 1
T] — 1
1 t
CO C
4-1 a
CO iri
S g
ro fo

!? a
^- CO
UIUI

o o



ss;


•J" "^











feS
coo
rvjcsi
si
CL
Of



CO CO
^•v
Of Of

CM CM





1
L.
1
u










01
to
§
Of
I
-J
g
M

CO
M «-
1




° CO


CM •*



C> 00


T- M




S 08
^ V-
> V
r* «*
o o
CL CL
Of Of



co to
«^ «v
Of Of

Y- CM





(0
i I
CO —
3C Ul

c

«
10
t_

>
01
CO
01
L. 01
CL C
O CO
-Atlantic Wo
d. Gravel &
i i
g g
M ro

fM g


c c



o* o*


M •-











00 CO
O CO
M CM
§ S
a.




O)
^
^ ^^
fX Q£







1 i
£ ^2
"o o


o>
c


(D
0)
{_


JM-
1
•g J
a >.
£• §
co o
z u
ai a
JC —
4-f ^
I i
g g
M M

cS co
o o





S g


M •*



ON CO


M •*




1 fe
II
CL
a:



CO
it
2 5

T™ f\J



a.

1
1—
c_
4-* — •
0 -Q
o E
CO <










y |
» °"
ddin Plating
ler Asbestos
a ja
2 2
M M

3 CO
2 *o

c



8! »


•* CM



S


•^




1 1
O CM
8 1
CL CL
%. £
CL CL


CO (O
UL LL.
5 s







^ i
U CO
O B
c ^
01 — i
o 5
|
'5

>• 0


.-1 t_
8 a


0 ^
Of ..j
S w
5 c?
" 1
£ ^
• o
i I
2 2
M M

e3 S
M 
C L?
ra J^
o ra
4-> £
01 JC
3 co







0)


ra
± CO
i S
ra w
_J 4J
ra
— CO
co en
0) C
CO CO
2 2
M M

§ 5
o o





ON S


CM •*



C> 5


CM >!•




S 00
I I
CL
Of
""


CO
* S
Of Of

C\l *™~




f
I
o c
CO O
C w
3 4^
t. *r-
co o.











c
! =
c *
'I S
CO CO
2 2
M M

fM M
                                                          103

-------
S3!!
                                                   O  M)  (MO  O   3EO  N*  O  fO
1989
>IES,
1 989
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
.EAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATI
ID 1— . >-
CU COO I—
»- ro •—
10 1-4 Ul 1—
u _i m u
co 1-1 z <
•- m ui
U. to-4 |—
CO O.
•b ui co of ui i—
3 x o*mx
t « c/T0 0< =
CU 5BCO
Q. X O CO
CO Q £o-
Z < O
O) Ul C3 O
C Q- »o-
'i * Sz
E z *" O
Z °CJ _1
•0 ui<
ID Ul -J
g "S
i— u. a
o ui
CO £
SCO Ul
— 1 (VJ
t_ t—
O 2 Z
«x w<:







Ul
Ul
1—
CO



1—
CO
C3
Of


\ O> O CO
«- o *- o oo «- o
1
1 CL CL CL CL
1 of of Of Of
\
1
1
1 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
1 Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of

o
O 0)
Q. co u
i jr o fti i^
1 CO C7) ~O O)
1 O) C CU — C C
1 L. 2 — • > ID 3
i g o — • o en co u
IJJH- O L.Q. OQ.IOQ.
i to cj o- "- c. _i "- s —
1 'D L. 4Z O X,£ JC
13 CU CU C-CO"O COCO t-CO
It- 0) ID 33 O 4^3 O.3
I-M O-M OO L. CO U. O
ICO u. CO —II- U - E CUM- _J
n _. _* <-. »- >. D U t-IDID
IIT2UOCU 1— ID-JO
ii e .
II O t- Q *O 10 — • Cl
UN *-* £ >• 4->4->c
II^OtfCE O — rf O to-
ll 3 CUO C. 0) 4-i O
ii m cj ci u o Q co o
!!<<<< < < <
II CL 0. CL CL CL CL CL
IIIOIOIOIO IO to to
•^ in »o Is- co (>* o
v- «^- «— «— v- ^- IM
: 06/08/89 1 91 nei

IM

CU
CO
CO
(D
a












ID
CO
8.
CO
a
CO
CO
ID
i
o
2
to
5
(M
ro
g
o
(M

3


aven
u
o















ID
0
1
u
cu
ID
0
2
to
s
IM
1
*
8
ro
1
C\l
o
CO
Of

1
(A
o>!c
C CO
CO 1—















g
M
•M
at
CO
ID
Ul
CL
to
ro
o
IM
o
o>
to
CO
C*
CL
CO
Of


c
1









CO

ID
*
g
(M
1
0
CO
X,
Of
a.
CO
O)
Wei sen











ro
>-
cu
O)
I
10
CO
o
4->
3
J2
1
ac
2
to
g
IM
to«-
§§
II
si
CO
x>

ID
JC
4J
53
11
0 O
Z 1—















Landfill
5
~&

2
to
g
IM
(M
IM
1
xi
(M
O
O.
Of
CO
Of


1
Heller








d
u

£
t-
3
4J
0
n)

+-»
L.
cu
"iu

CL
to
o
(M
r
o
o
IM
II
(MO
is
££
OL Qb
CO
Xj
v— (M

C
O
0 a
L_ CO
!!
O 1-















T3
§
Of
C
O
CO
c.
cu
1
z
2
to
§
IM
to
to
IX
CO
s
CL
Of
CO
Of

a.
^
o
1-
o
Buffal















CO
_J
10
u
1
=
O.
to
g
IM
to
to
IX
0
ro
o
OL
Of
CO
x,
Of

O.
JC
t-
c
1
4-*
CO















To
o
o;
V)
t_
HI
1
3:
2
to
o
IM
I
§
xt
fe
O
s
CO
"N.
oc
(NJ

a
i—
'5















_j
"io
L.
•f
•^
2
to
j:
IM
C
CK
1
K
IM
CO
x.
Of


g
Scrant












_0)
o
f
cu
I_
o
CO
cu
c.
0)

*
2
to
IM
IM
                                   104

-------
1
L.
ID
01

8
M



TJ
"+-
L- <
1 2
co a
en ui
c a.
•— a.
c "*
I
1
"g
CO
i
t—

CA
01

a.






















co"o
LUCO
1— «.
coo
>-
H-l UJ
— 1 CO
CO UJ
CO CL
< UJ
UJ CO
"".S
CO
§00
-a
I— o:
38
» a:
i— a.
CO
UJ Z
— c CO
o c_>
UJ<
UJ —1

u- a
o uj
CO LU
=> Of
< 0
t— z
CO <






















PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
.EAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
>-
I—
»*
>
1—
CJ
^


1
Of LUI-
Sca z
t-3






§
1—
S
o
_J

















UJ
Z
<;
z
UI
h-
co



h-
(/>
ID
Of


i°
1
1
1
1
!o
1 O
1
1
1 »»
1
1
1
1 O
JO
1
1
1 -»
1
1
1
1
1
i co
1 V,
1 O
i to
1 ^
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 CO
1 u.
1 v»
1 •-•
i tn


\
1
1
1



Q.
1 •—
1 JC
1 tA
1 C
1 3
1 0
1—
C.
o
i










1
1
1
1 •—
1 H-
1 TJ

1 ID
1 _l
I
C.
1 0
1 "~
1 4J
1 ID
1 4-<
I'E
1 ID
1 CO
P
1 0)
1 C
1 O
j 4-J
1 M
1 <
i a.
i to
i
to
CM
in
i
o
(M
O


<







JC

L.
0
ca
01
o
u.
•a
o
















4>
tA
3
M-
Qf
ID
g
ID
3
ID
_J
2
to

•*
CM
O
CO
5?
(M
8


<











g
i
ID
-J












01

CO
g

4J
CD

ra
04
c


_i
2
to

in
CM
i
0
8
CM
O
u.

CO
at







^
4-»

g
U
C
J>1
S
L.
U-











ra
o
0>
o

His
01
o— •
ID
^l
L. EL
^C tA
>>Q
01 *J
JX L.
L. 0)
oi a
4^2
oi a.
a.
to

-0
CM
3 OCM 3
Oi i o>
INJOJ
CO CO CO O
" v^ "
>o tnin o
^ Is 1
Q- a.

CO CO
1 2-1 2











c °
t- 01
01 — •
"io •— il














T3


u.
.- &
< 5
B c Q
*~ o iv
C 4J 0)
c. o> c.
OJ — ^ U
^2 -^
'to .•- "
Z Z X
222
to to to

t^ CO O
CM CM CM
0
§
1
O


2











0)
1
en
CO
UJ

















~*
—*
H-
"E
CD

CA
1
2
to

o
CM
§
CM
(M
£
o
o
8

CO
Of







a

JC

1-
1
ID







9
ID


OI
Id
CO

1
1
a
%«

3 -n
U 4->
ID V)
4- "-


ID 0>
11
2
to

*-
(M
i
S!
CM
O
to

CO
a











g
4J
t.
•S ^
o o
co c

_
tA
~^

y
?

CA "r^
ID C

01 01
51
01 O

*" c

ID IA*
01 U
< C
C 01
41 U


JC — •
4-1 4->
C. C
O 01
Z U
2
to

CN1
CM
in
o
to
CM
8

at
K











•o
V
M-
ID
3C






1*1
g
IA tA
ID'—

01 O
IA 0)
£.
oi a.
O CO
O C-
^ 01
CM C
n x
CU 'v^
< .
c c
a>


o i
z <
a.
to

to
CM
o
i
Si
CM
|
^«

CO
en






a.
IA
c
3
O
1—
X
c.
Dl
S
O








tA CA
ID 01

HI O
IA ID
^l
0) ID
O IA
v^ O
in'E
o
ID C.
OI 4->
<_OI
§LU
C
a. ID
u
f >r~
4-1 L.
L. OJ
O E
Z <
2
to

•*
CM
O
Si
CM
O
to
i

CO
Of











01
1
E
ID






g
3
to u
ID ID
M-
0) C 01
.wz!13

c o_ >»
V O

ID^ S
0) < to

i o \f
o x o
a. oi c
Of *-<
Z-3 CJ
2
ro

in
CNJ
CM
O
i
S!
CM
8
C3

CO
Of










CO
01
I
JC
4J
L.
o








IA
ID

"S
IA
01
U
C
o

N.
ID **
01 •
*
CD

'E
ID
CO

1
2
to

r^
CM
§
fe
c\j
0
a.

CO
a:










oT
1

01












_

1
ID

C.
o
*~
*+-
o



u
T3
O
2
to

CO
CM
CM
*
§
CM
fe
in
CM
g
UI

CO
Of











u
I
L.
u

















— *
•r-
"Q
CO
—i


1
2
to

R;
8
oo
tO CM
a. a.
Of Of

CO
of at











g
4-1
1
CL















4)

Q.
O
.^
N
g
+J
L.
i
CD
O.
2
to

o
CM
105

-------




















ex
1
u
CO
cu


1o
$

•g
5
H-
t- •<
§• x
co 'a
O) LU
C CL

*•* <
c

1
T-,

ro
2
O
1—
(A
 LU a
> — 1 LU
LU a. z
a: X o
tt. O CO
u
C3
2 1—
3 00
u.

§
LU

>-
1—
—.
>
1—
r i
<

1
CK U) t-
qn i ,^
a. ca z
O <=>







§
•-<
t-
<
u
o
J
























i
UI
v-
VI
t-
co
u
ee

10 0
i
i
i
i
i
ii
i «- «-
i
i
jro ^
i
i
i *- «-
o o
ro •*
i
i
i
i
i
r-- r--
1 CO CO
1 *x ^
1 CM CM
1 ^s X.


1
a.
LU ee

i
i
i
1 CO CO
1 V, ^
i ee ee.

i
i
i
i





i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i •—
i — •
1 0
i co
i a.










i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
•a
t.
1 CO
1 >-
1
1 — •
1 «-
1 CO
i .-
1 O
1 CD
i a.
: 2
i ro
i
v-
3 3

C C


§£


•* CM








II
CM CM
00






CO












to
'•g.
1
j*
CL















.
U
c


CA
0>

£
1
Publicker In
2
ro

a
3

c


§


•*








§
S
CM






CO
^
ee












o
1
4J
a
3:
























c.
ee
2
ro

S
LU
Z
o


»


CM








fe
vO
CM
0

CO
ft




CO
^
ee







S

L,
0
m
g
CO
c.
(U
H-
H-
~»























(0
Resin Dispos
2
ro

N
3

c


C>


CM








1
2
£

CL
g




CO
^
ee





Q.
JC



H-
§
X
1
^























O
u
CO
u
Revere Cherni
2
ro

8
LU

O


0-


CM








fc
CM
™

U>
n




CO
-X
ee










•g
I
|
g
a.










"8
4-1
CO

— *

ee







a.


§
t-
•2
o
H-
"ca
























>•
Salford Quar
2
ro

[M
^.




§


"*


g
^




fe
0
o

CL
Of




CO
«x
ce







a
JC

g
°
1
ca

CO






















[_
I
Shriver's Co
2
ro

§
3

c


C>


ro








g
t
1






CO
>s
ee







CO

«

a.
M-
o

























L.
o
Stanley Kess
2
ro

§
3 3

c c


O§


CM«-








II
P§
00






v>
^.
occe







a.


E
i—
c
1
Z






















c

1
8

























5
H-
2
ro

r-
,

c


5


•*








1
S
0

CL




CO
>.
ee











t,
O
f
CA
S
u























.
g
Transicoil,
2
ro

CM
o a a

c c


§«-«-
^K ^h


•*ro«-


§
^.




§§g
85§
0?0

ill
OL KL U.



CO
>,
"eice.ee.










§
1.9-
U CO
ao

























1
0
2
ro

3
ro




§


CM


S
ro




S
I
g






CO
V.
ee





CL
JC
W


H-
o
o
I

























-
M-
1
2
ro

5
ro




§


•*


5
ro




N.
o
0

0.




CO
•x
ee











I
4-*
4-*












c
CO

CL
t
S

L.
O

CO
1
LU
Westinghouse
2
ro

in
UI

o


8!


*-








1
S
0

CO




CO
>x
ee












g
CO







4J
i

CL
g
CO

CO

.
3


o

CO
1
LU
cu
1
1
1
2
ro

CM
«••




§


ro


§
CM




fe
5
j;






CO
-^
05







_D.
JC

g
1—
g
J2
u
CO
"3




















T
o
4-*
CO
J
_J
l_
i
2
ro

S
o




^—


ro


0
ro




1
X,,
it

a.
oe
^



CO
•x






a.
•^



h-
c
CO
CJ
<2




















CA

Q
§)
™
William Dick
2
ro

CO
3

c


(>


CM








1
X,
is






in
•**
ce











CO
2
4-*












Q.
L.
O
u


— •
^
o
u
CO

CO

4-*
CO
i
Arrowhead As
5
ro

CM
106

-------















CO
O

CO
CU


CO
en
"~


•g
5
H-
C- <
1 *
CA O
Z
D> UJ
C CL
•— O.

EJ


•g
3
o
i—
CO

u
o

CL



















2
F-
<
k-
CA
Z
SS^
UJ CL a:
cvSin
CA O UI

1-1 uio
> — i ui
UJ CL a:
CKX U
CLOCA
u
S-
i<
£w
CA O Q

»-• O 111
t- - >-
CAO 1-
IO »-•
>- >
*-• LU h-
— I <
m ui
en CL
< ill i
111 CA Of UJ H-
11 ^1 1 1 ^K,

-S o-
•-«
CA


V-
cn
C3
Of

!o
i
i
i
i

«>
*~
5:
i
1 T-
1
1
1
1
1
07/23/87
i
1 CL
1 Of
1
1
1
1 CA
1 ""s
1 Of


1
1
1 v**
1
1





I
1
1
1 J=
1 *-<
1 3
1 O
it
\s.









i

| 8

i
i -
1 CO
1 CU
1 ••-
\ c.
1 4->
1 CO
I 3

I -•
!*
1*
1 U
1 -r-
1 *-•
15
1 4->
1 <
ig
i to
I
0
CM
O





5;
CM
5

CM



09/30/88

OL
Of



CA
^
Of



CM









ID


§
u.



















g

CO
i
u.
1
§
to

in
CM
«_





§
—
s

CM



02/15/88






CA
t
Of







>.
C

u

•o



Chester














.
o
c


d
u
c.
CO
.CO
Of
00
u
5
IO

CM
CM
^

c



§
*-






01/25/89

CL
Of





S



fyj









£


u
L.
O





















1
o
c
i
5
to

to
»_
1




§
CM
§

f—



08/15/87


UL



CA
vi
Of







X
§

CJ

^
U

H-
Chester











L.

C
S

^


CA

ID
C.
13
CU
en
1
cu
o
5
to

$
3

C



5
to






08/29/89






CA
^
Of
















8
CD
(A











^

«4-
I

x


g
u
averns
u
o
io
5
to

in
o





S
*
s

^-



12/31/87

CL
Of



CA
^
Of







>>
§
o
ej

CO
'E
CO
>
en
CL



^
C

a

0.
>•»

g.1
a -
CJ 0 1-
C C-
4-> O CD
1 X°
°" eii"
4-» 4J •
£J£
$
10

s
«- 3

£


«
§5
*•*•
a

*^



04/03/87
11/08/88






en en
•v-t
Of Of



«— (\J












Newtown
















8


CO
u

1
J=
o
§
L.
o
5
to

in
CM
o





S
•*
§

^^



06/30/88






CA
t
Of













C
o

Farring
















^

CL
C
c.
^
•*
E
§
M

CO
in
CM
3 2

C C



$5
I0r-






09/08/89
09/06/89

O. CL
Of Of



CA
t
Of 0^



v— CM








CO
'E


4->



















g
10
01
c_
CD
U
—1
§
to

CN
SQ
o





5:
to
s:

IO



12/31/87

CL
Of



2

Q^
















-C
u











"8
o

ID
'E
•r-
0)
C. *-v
•r- C
es

8S
!£ L.
Is
Of CL
5
to

s
3tO
V i
e



§<>
«»-
s

CM



09/29/89
09/28/88






en
v>
So:



r-CM




x
4-*


Q
U

u
Frederi
















o

CU
L.

£
4^
C.
CD
1
Of
§
Nl

5
CM
IM UJ

O



5S!
to-
e>

^H



09/15/88
09/15/88

CL CL




CA CA
•^v.
Of Of



f\l IO












Saltvil










CO
•g
o
CL
CO

g_
CO

o
CU
ID
^
"co
en
5
to

oi
CM
^_
t




S
"*
§

to



09/18/87






en
^v
Of













^
u
3
Chuckat


















o
u

CA
CO

CD
CA
§
to

CM
x

£j



S!
CM






06/30/89


CA



CA
«x
Of
















Suffolk
















3^

H-
•g
co
4-1
U
*
O
M-
3
$
to

CM
IU

0


*
§
*•






06/30/86


CA



CA
^
Of













L.
O


Of
a





















tanium
t»
CA
=3
§
to

in
•o
CM
3 3

C K



8§
«-to






01/11/89
05/17/89






CA
'x
Of Of
















O
c.
4-*
Z





















CO
o
1
g
u.
s
to

CM
O





s
CM
r-

CM



06/03/88








S
















Leetown



















5

Pestic
g
1
g
to

55
CM
0





§
"•
§

V**



02/22/88

Cu

a




§













CO
ID
CU

OL
'5
a.















eu

g

"g
o
rginia i
5
1
§
10

S
(M
107

-------
i
CD
U
CA
1
oo   a
 O)   Ul
 c   a.
•—   a.
s   •*
coo
ujco


i*.
coo"
   to
I— C£
—I CO
en uj
en a.
< UJ
Ul U
          03 O
          I— Q.
          en
          UJ Z



          Ii
           o u
           UJ<

           UJ -I
           ct <
                                                   w
                                           g!
                                                        «*CM   «-   «-
                                           8!
                                                 	   CO CO   CO   CO
                                           O    COCM   OCO   N-   IX
                                           ro    CMO   ro«-   CM   CM

                                           §    Is   si   I   «t
                       UJIIUU.U.U.U.    u.    a: uj   uj      a:
                       -JIIIIU-U-U.U-    U.    CLU-   U.U-   O.
                             II < — < —.
                             ii of en at at
uol    m    at
,
C£
UJ
a.
o











































































n
3 til
S§!i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
n i
u i
u i
gu i
n i
•-I M i
h- II 1
Sll 1
II 1
O II 1
_J II 1
II 1
II 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


1
1
1
1
1
1
1

II 1
II 1
II 1
II
II 1
II 1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
UJ II
S II
< II
Z II
II
Ul II
1— II 1
1-1 II 1
00 II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II


1— II
CA II

C3 II
at u




«-r-CMIM










O)
L.
2
in
L.
V
•D
— •
•i-
JC
u


















4-»
C
ID
— •
a.
§

4-t
•—


C
E
<

X
E
i_
<




1 .Q
1 CO
1 — »
1 <


_J
<
1
1 •*
I
1 •
1 O
1 -O
                                                «-CM   «-C\J
                                                 CO

                                                 a.

                                                 j=
                                                        8
                                                  c      -<
                                                         u
                                                         01
                                                         4->
                                                         (D
                                                                1
                                                                 o
                                                                 u
                                                                5
                                                                 s
                                                                 (O
                                           e    P
                                           CM    CM
                                                      R   S
                                                      CM   CM
                                                                                              CM   O   O      O
                                                                                    CMKICM«-«-      CM-*«-      ^CMr-
                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                   o.
                                                                         8   g    8   8   fe   3   S      fe    8   S     8
                                                                         £   <5   ,>   P?   £   £   £      S   S   ^     £
                                                                         Si   xl   :;   si   ;;   d   xl      Si   S   S     d
                                                                         o   ro    M   o   «-   o   "O      o
                                                                         oooo«-oo      «-
                                                                                                           CM   m
                                                                                                           o   o
                                                                               |x   O


                                                                               II
                                                                               CM   CM
                                                                               «-   O
                                                                         g
                            CL
                            oe
                            Q.   U.
                                           O.   CL
                                           Ot   O£
                                           Q.   Q-
00   CO        00   C/)   M
u.   u-        u-   u.   u.


O£   O£   O£   O£   QC   D-
                                                                           X        •-
                                                                           co   x:    >    o
                                                                           a    CO    CA   ~Q
                                                                           O    V    Ol    C    0)
                                                                          —   -j   ,c   jo   —

                                                                           CO   ••-    ID    I-    CO
                                                                          C3   3=   CD   O   Q
                                                                                                                           ID
                                                                                                                           CO
                                                                                                                i   I   I
                                                                                                                U   £   Q.
                                                                                s
                                                                          U   O)

                                                                          i
                                                                          S

                                                                          8
                                                                      CO
                                                                     ex

                                                                      S
                                                                          O)   •—   —•
                                                                                                                     e-
                                                                                                                     8
                                                              CA
                                                              ID
                                                              O
                                                              U
                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                     (3
                                                                                                                                   •g
                                                                                                                                   CO
de
So
                                                                                                                                             co
                                                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                                              i   S
assau
                       r2
                       CM
                                                                                     ^^   |x   ^^   CO   CO
                                                                                     CM   CM   CM   CM   CM
                                                                                                                                        $
                                                                     108

-------
 en   ui
 c   CL
•—   o.
          -i co

          co ui
          co CL
             5ui
             CO
          u.

            .g
          C3 O
          Q CJ
          Ul <
          *t o
          h- Z
          CO <
                    §u.i:
                  i--._j n
                  —   — u
                  Of£U II
                  CL S CO II
                    U    II
                  « Ul O II
                  > _J Ul II
                  U10.X U
                  Of £ CJ II
                  CL O CO II
                    U
                    Z H- II
                    •— Of II
                       §< II
                       I- II
                          §11
                          II
                       Ul II
                       —I II
     — II
     gii
Of Ul I- II
LU _J —. U
O. CD Z II
o < ra ii
                       O II
                             8.
                             to
                          II 4-1
                          II CD
                          II CO
                          II
                          II CD
                          II -U
                          II CD
                          II —I
                          II
                          II t-

                          II -9

                          85
                       Ul II I-
                       s: u
                       < II CO
                       Z II CD

                       Ul II "D
                       I- II OJ
                       —• II 4-"
                       CO II CO
                          II —
                          II —•
                          II
                          II O
                          II U

                          !!g
                          n •**
Kl
i

§
•*
o
ON
•-
1
O
to
o




Of







E
CO
z
H-
D
<
/-

CD
U
to
CO
O
to t-
CU CD
O Q.
'> CO
<- CO
cu
«°^
5 co
L. -f-
Q— •
•— O

_J
•*
g
CM
Of




§
-
CO
1
-

UJ
CO
^
Of




cu
to

"o
3:





8

IK
CO

ontco Research Pr
£
_,
s.
OX
CO
CM
O UJ

o
§ss
CM CM
8
CM
Sfe
SiS
8S

IU Ul
CO
^
U. O£


E
CD

£
JS
L.
O
TC.










unisport Landfill
£
_,
sf
g
to


<>
to
o
o
*
§
^v
o
8
CL
Of
CO
^
Of







CO
1-







B
0
CJ

o
X
CD
CO
0
CJ
0
CD
CU
CL
_l
•d-
CM
to
i

§
«-
8
CM,
fe
^
8
CL
Of








>.
OJ

z:







£
£
o
1
1
OJ
CL
_l
*
S!
CM
O


§
to
S
to
S
o
S


CO
CO
u.
o;
l_
03
a.

0)
O
L.
i
tu
CL








Q.
0
CJ

CO
L.
CL
CU
o
t_
OJ
CL
_,
xr
S
T-


o
o>
-
8
**
S
o
g
Q.
Of
Q-
^
o:
cu

^*


g
CO
u
03








L .
1
03
_J
1
a:
cu

—
^
^
°
Q.
Of
CL
CO
v^
Of





•o
c
(D

^.
Of






CO
8-
03
t—








1
o

ixty-Second Stree
(0
_j
sr
co
a
3

C
§
^*


8
in
-
CL
Of
CO
t.






j=
CD

CD
rc







a
8
L.
CU
tandard Auto Bump
CO
_J
st
8;
CM
3

C
81
«-


s
^
1
CL
Of








g

CD
(.
CO








(0
1
CL

u
I
g
CO
_l
^
o
o
10
3

C
£
(M


S
^
1










g

CU
U










ower Chemical Co.
t-
_i
>*
o
to
CM
i

0


CM
fe
csl
§
0.
Of
CO
^
Of





c

CO
CO








1

73
§
Of
L.
4-*
S
1
cu

_l
•d-
CM
O
to
O



«-
<>

*^
in
-N.
O
CL
oe.
CO
-x.
C£




U
'5

U
CD








_

1
03
_J
g
o
CO
cu
"3
u
c.
tu
a:
g
v3
8
to
3

c
r~
M


S
1
jn
CL
Of
CO
^



C
o

c

CO
g









if

03
CO 1—
L.
Q) 4)
SS
0 I-
C. CD
cos:
CO JC
5g
CO CO

<
sf
o
to
3 O 3

c
S §5:
CM IOIO
§
to
GO CO CO
r*» «~ N.
rf'r-
§CU~"
to cu

co c
^i flj \^
. L^^-5
8- £88
O O CO
cj t. en
o «c ^ o
4-f L.
SCO CD O
C D)u-
£ OfU>'<
S<
CD
in o
o o
ro m
                                                                     109

-------
i
         ooo
           ro
         m ui

         in CL
1
.

.8
oo  o

CO  Ul
C  Q.
M-  O.

         u. o
         OUI

         CO Ul
         =30:
< i
i- i
in i
3 Ul 1
t-«_i i
UIUI Q i
to _i ui i
CL S CO i
O 1
CO O Ul


MUI Q
> -J 111
UICL X
OfE U
CL O 00

C9
•-« ce

13 CO

o
^
III
>-
K-
1-4
>
••*
1—
<
1
ee ui h-
Sco z
< Z)



z
LOCATIO













i
Ul
1-
5
CO
o
Of


CM
1



s
CM


8


-»•




3
X,
8
I X*
g
i
1
1
1


i
i
! oe
i
i
i
i

i
i
i
1 4->
1 C
! '5
I CL
I
1 4-"
1 CA





1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
i-D
1 t-
1 CO
1 X-
Distler Brick}
!£
i »*
i
(X,
ro
7



§
._


8


^^




S
X»
8

g








£



>.
o
u

Jefferson














Distler Farm
£
•*

S

1



V>
«*










8
X,

Xs
g

CL
ce



in
x.
oe







Olaton




£_
D
O

I
CO


o
CJ
CO
5
o
4-1
CO
X
L.
o
U.
£
s,

g
ro
o



S
CM


C?


CM




g

in

c?

CL
oe



in
^
oe





^,

I
x











.
^
1
1
1
£
^

o
ro
CM



s
,_


8


ro




CO
x.
S

8

CL
oe



in
X.
ce







Hillsboro








CD

ro










8

CO

CO
o






(A
X,
Of




i


5
01
CL








H-
ro


d
u
c
o
'E
CO
in
CL
"8
ee
£
^.

(M
ro
i



S!
,_










8

t

£






in
x.
Of

CM





Brooks














Smith's Farm
£
s*

ro
ro
i



5;
CM










8

O
>s.
CM
O






oo
x.
oe




0)
fr—

Shepherds











d
u
(0
(A
Q
B.
CO
o
X
u
1
c.
£
•*

«*
ro
1



8!
,_










8
X,
in
CM
x^
g






CO
V
O£




0)


Jacksonvi











I

2,
|
I
u
u
,,

in
ro
o



t>
,.


l>


^_




CO

ro

iS






oo
X,
*







Aberdeen











o

'o
Aberdeen Pesti
U
z
,,

-o
ro
CM
i



S
ro


§


«_




CO

o

o






CO
x.
Of







Concord
g

4-*



'e
CO
g
u
t.

w
*
I
L.
C9
i
m
u
z
^

IX.
ro
i



S!
^










8
X,
CM

g


u.



00
X.
oe




4-»


U
|
IA
S








CO

0
CJ
1
z
CO
«•
Camp Lejeune t
u
z
^

CO
ro
o



ex
._


ex


*••




1

o

0


CL



in
*^
oe




01


Fayettevi









d
u
u
!
o
Carolina Trans
u
z
^.

o
ro
o
i



«—
^.


8


CM




8
x^

Xs
0

CL
ce





3







~v
I
jj
to
L.




1
u.


5
01
JC
w
Celanese Corp.
u
z
^

0
ro
CM
i



5
,_


§


ro




g
•"X
K»
r—

0

^
Of
1X1


e/>
x.
Of







Cordova

01
en
CD
c_
0


|

08

I
CO
-J
Charles Macon
o
,3.

CV)
ro
i



!>
ro










g

J2

CM

CL
Of



in
X,
Of







Aberdeen

c
CD

CL



|


t
a
o
U
Geigy Chemical
CJ
z
,4.

CM
CM
ro
i



§
fO


o
o


CM




jg
v^
O

g

CL

°"


in
X,
Of







4-*

CM


O
O.


*J"




CO
X.»

X.,,



Ul



w
^
oe.







D)
(D
ce






+-•

1
'E

a>5
CD V
jn
C 6
— ' CD
0 U.
CO "
t- O
O — 1
Z x^
CJ
z
Nt

rx.
f\l
ro
i



5
ro


I?


ro




S

JO

g






CO
LL.
5







i



CA


CL

rvice
01
in

c
CD
I—
• 0
Potter's Septi
u
z
^

f3
ro
                                                       110

-------
•3
<
fc
_§"j

uj m o
OO -J UJ
UJ tX S
oe z u
Q. O OO

§O uj
1-4 _J
-•UJO
> — 1 UJ
UJCX Z

D. O OO

S_
•-i Of
a <
u.
§60 Ox O
UJ CO ^
v >-«O UJ
t. S" -1
CD 1— - >•
cu ooo t-
- £•* 5
CO »-» UJ H-
a> *•• JE <
•r- muj
oo a.
• • ». .0 o < o
L. < C/>
§- 5 2 S3
co a i— os
en ui § O
c a. — o:
•f- a. H- a.
4-> < M
c ui z
§> •_ as
z o
— to -.
1 4* §
; l§ s
to ui-J
3 OS <
O — '
i— u. a
°£
« M UJ
0 30S
C. h-
ai < Q
o P z
t- CO <
a.











z
UJ

CO


1—
CO
a:

O* Ox


«-«**-«-«-«-•* <»cM ro
1
1
1
1
1
i ro •* «* ro ro
i
i
i

i
,S|8|S83||§
O CM M fo «- CM > C  c

i .v -o "TO c cj> "O'E
1 C C. O Cl) C 3 CO

! -S " " I 5 i- 'E ^S
i cau -JZU.3CU o u
i a. *J u CD i-i co
1 caaXUEL. U
i M- cu — • u c 3 a. -a.
1 • O 00 CO — ' —• 1- C
1 U U CO O ~O O— '
ICCUO-'r-'i- "_O •u-'
! _ +j ._ c o . E O MO
i CO 1— v CU O t- ZR fl) 3
1 * CD 4^ JZ O> O (D "*» 4^
C 3 CO CJ CO U. O t-
13 CO *«* O CO

CO—'OCUCOOCUCO COCO
OOOOOOOOOOCOOOCO CO
1
KRRR[?RR^ R
I
c


OX


^











1
CM
g

u.



CO
^
oe











g
M
<

















s
3
ss

CO
CO
u
CO
•*
(O
0






CM



§

(M





1
(M
S

|



CO
^
oe











CO
"o
u





















•g
o
H-
H-
3
m
i^
i
u
CO
"*
R
3
c


!>


^j-











1
K
§







$











a
$
O





















s

'x
o

i
u
CO
u
CO
*
3
3
c


»


«~











1
~
§







g











Jackson



CO «

Ou C-

§•*
CO CU
^ 4->
U O
CD CO
-> o

• u
cc
N- 03

M t-
•^ g
|i
M
t) CO
4-»
OTJ
co ci)
u 
CO

1
a.
00
?
1
m
c
o
4-*
g
(_
<
Z
t-
**
CM
3
3
J"


S


«_











S
a
g

CL
g



CO
xt
oe









0)

Colliervil















o
U

i?

1
*i
I
(.
<
c.
0)
•^-
3
5
•*
3
i



S


CM



§

^_





fe
§


CL
oe



tn
**
oe











Lewisburg





















1
o
CD
L.
M
z
^
z
1—
•*
3
T °S
c


<> OXOX


CM roro



§ §

ro ro





CO CO 00
«- ~
O C
4-1 3
CO <
Q.
S |
X <
!_
O C
CO —
X Z
z z
1— 1—
Sf x»
3 3
s
c


O*


ro











1
%}
g

u.



CO
^.
oe











V
O)
T3
oe
CO
o














^x
0
(/)
5

s
m
eserv
O£
0}
f
o:
CD
o
1—
^*
3
1 V
C C


CK ON


CM rvj











1 1

s s

ex
oe



CO M
^ ^
Of Of











57
cu —
§ s
£ S





/-v

£


£J

c

31
L.
(Q
3C


& S
o —
u o.
CO CO
u o
'P "
V CO
S 5
-• X
o cu
u —
U 'cZ
> 3
z z
1— 1—
«t -*
CO O*
3 3
111

-------






















o-
c?
«~
c.
CO
o

__
ra
CO

U.


"O
•4-
c- <
01

3 —
CO Q
g I
"- OL
4-> ^
i


6-


T>
t_
ra
3
O
1—

U
in
01

CO
o
c.
a.
























































„
coo
in co
.-.o
S*"
h- •.
CO O
ro

— Ul
_ £
m LJ

LO a.
< LU
111 CO
z
-o
CO
Z CO
o co
—. UJ
I— OS
§1
h- a.
CO
m z

z
_J O


a u
UJ <
£
LJU -J
as<

u. O
O LU

CO LJ
3 Of
t—
< O
H- Z
CO <



































CO II
Z II
O UJ II
h- >— _l II
Z h- => II
UJ UJ O II
CO _l UJ II
ui a. a: ii
OSSECJ II
a. o co ii
CJ II


II
CO O UJ II
3-1 _i ii
O h-ID II
•— uj a ii
> _iuj n
UJ CL 3: II
as z: cj u
a. o co u
CJ II


C3
Z h- II
*-« as ii
SSii
13 CO II
u-

O II
< II
111 II

>- II
1— II
— II
> II
•*" II
h- II
CJ II




1 II
as ui i— ii
ui ' •— * ij
a. co z n
O «t 3 u






n
n
n
z u
O n
— . u
I- u
< n
CJ II
O II
-i n
n
ii
















n
u
M
n
n
ii
u
u
n
u
n
n
n
ii
UJ II
5!l
Z II
II
UJ II
1— II
—1 II
CO II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II


1— II


C3 II
as u



n «-
n i
ii
it
it
n
n
n
II 0
no
H
II •*
II
II
II
II
II
II O
no
n
ii
n ro
n
n
n
u
M
n
n
II >O
n «5
n ^x
II 
ii at
u •—
n t-
n <-
II O
n •£

n
ii
M
ii
ii
u
n
n
n
ii
n
M
n
u
M
ii
n
n •
II U
II C
II >-i
II
II -
II g
II 1
ii ra
l!o
II 0>
ii as
n
II 4->
II C.
II 01

II O
II CO
n
II O
n E
n o
ii <
n
n
n _i
n
n
n in
n
u •
II O
n in
n ro
i

Si

•*













g
a
v^
0-

o.
OS




CO
•X
OS














Ol


£

b.
t-
10
3





















o>

V. l_
f- L.
"O Q-
_J CO
o>
4-> O
C U-

CJ^


CO.*
ID O
o. a
a co


—t


in


in

I

Si

CM













g
£

0

CL
as




CO
-x
as








3
ra
o>
"H
03
L.

"

ra
u


(A
ra
UJ


























0
u

L,
01
c
UJ

ra

ID
*_t


—i


in


in

3
Ol
C

0

CM













§
S

2

OL
as






5















c

at
Ol

S
3
























Q.

0
CJ
01

'>
S


Cfl
c
1



_l


in


in

1

S!

«~













CO
S:
o

o


u.




CO
•x
as

















4J
01

"o
—3




















c ra
— • i.
CL <
C cn
o c
— o
i?

ti

< at


oca
— CO
— o
O -J



—1


in


in

i

8

*~













g
o
o

0


U-




00
^x
OS

















^J
01

o
~3




















g

CL

*j ra
• r- O>
1 "*
fc O)
< c
V. 1_
E 3
C. 4-*
< u
m
4-* M-


"o SE
~1 N^


—1


in


in
in
ro
o

o

•*




o








co
X,
^



UJ




CO
^x
Of













4-i
§
O
u

o
at
ra

Q









tf_
O


y

ro
c.
m


CO
o>
3

o>
Ol
u

CO
in
Ol
L.
^s C.
0)
0) >
0) ••-


i en
C. ID
c. CL
0) 3



*J


in


>o
in
ro
o

O

>*




o








ro
co
r-

^


UJ




CO
V,
Q^













o
01
CO
u


o

4-(
-
o 4-T
?§
o o
•<- CJ

CJ Ol
CO
4-* ID
in CL
Ol 3
3 0


















IA
ra
01
^

A)
i

?
01
OS

Ol
C3
O
•E

u
1.
01



-J


in


CO
in
ro
o

o

s*




0








CO
•x

£


UI




CO
X,
OS













o
CO
ra
o


o

4-*
CA
01


















4-*
C
ra
CL


ID
01
L.
1—
Qt
CO
0>
CO
0)
0)
C3
O
3£

C.
I_
01



—1


in


O
in
ro
«- a
i Ol
c

gtS!

CM CM




O
O








h-O
COCO


feS









o^ oe
















d)


ro
cn
to





















(A
0)

£
£
^J
u

u
01

LU
0>

•
ra
CO
ra
_j


—i


in


§
ro
1

(M

CM













§5
o
x^
§

CL
OS
CL



CO
-X
oe.

















[ »
c

|
•























B
u
c

oT
o

0)
CO


o

N
c
0>



_J


in


5
ro
o

0

CM




O
o








in
co

•*x
S

CL
OS




CO
X,
OS














CJ

0)


c
ra
C3












c.
0)

^J




ra
0)
.j
Q.
l_
O
O
ID
c_
ra
h-
V,
CO
0>
L
4-1
IA


Q

__,
Z


-J


in


S>
ro
O UJ
o

oo
OO

roro




0

to






33
CM CM

ii

CL
Of UJ
CL Ll-



CO CO
X.X,
OS OS















TO

O


U
O
OS




























^

CL
CO

-
Ol
CO
ra
CL


-J


in


ro
ro
1

o

CM




O








S
CM
X.
1



CO



CO
•v
OS














Ol
c.
01
•o


01
CO




















o
CJ

01
L.
m
•g
L.
ra
3:

VI
CO
CJ


Q
at
c_
ra
o.


-j


in


S
ro
CM 111
i Z
o

o o
oo

(MM




g

.4-






33
55?

00


u. u.
""



CO CO
•v-x
OS OS














0)


L.
Ol

L.
ra
CJ









j i
ra
z

•o

ro

u

o

ro
L.
CJ ^\
Q.O
O ^3
O
•r- Q)
t- C7)
flj O
— • O£

O H-

co — •*

0^
V) 3


-J


in


Jg
K>
i

S

ro













co
CM

O


111
**"



CO
•x
OS
















ID
c
c
ra
ra
CO




















£
• r—

•£
<
4-1
1
o

£_



£
ra
>
ra
CO


—i


in


S
ro


*

*




o








CO
>

o

CL
Of
CL



CO
^
Of














T>

OJ

H-
H-
Ol
jr
CO



















u
c

•t
1
o
0
UI
CO
=j

2
01

*J^

(U
w


_J


in


!o
M
112

-------





























1

t_
CO
CU


"co
.2


"b
jg
H-
t- <
8. x
3 —•
V) O
z
O) UJ
C O.
•r- D_



1
TO

ID
3
O


to
CO
CD

O>
O
(_
Q.






















































too
LU CO
•_• O
I"-

coo
ro
£c*
•-* UJ
— a-:
CO LU
CO CL
< LU
LU CO
Z
-o
eo
z c/>
o co
—. LU
1— CC
ca o
— a:
i- a.
eo
LU Z

~l
si

LU —1
a: <

LU O
O UJ
s:
 LU
=3 a:
t-
< o
t- z
en «c


























i

K-
to
Z
O LU
»-«_J
UJLUO
tO _J LU

Oi E CJ
o. o to
CJ

Z
tO O LU


— LU 0
> -J LU
LU Q. 1C
Of £ U
a. o to

£_
*-i O£
O <
Z t—
3 

§
LU


1—

>
t—
<

l
OS LU t-
O_ CO Z
00









Z
o
i—
3


























UJ
UJ
H-





H-
0
a:


ii i
II C
II
II
II
II
II CM
II 0
II
II
II (M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1,3

u ro
II V

u
11

II


II CO
i! -x
II Oi

II
II
II
II






II
II
II
II
II
II TJ
II t-
II O
II M-
II J*
II U
II 0
II Oi







CD
C

1

c
o
CJ
II
II L.
II V
II 4->
II CO

II -Q
:: §
II O
II t-

II
II TJ
II <-
!£
!!•£
II O
II a:
u
n 4J
n to
II CO
II CU
II JC
II 4->
n 3
»o
eo
u —i
II in
II
So
ro
0





o


ro



^_
0



ro





§
*^x
$

S






CO
•x
Oi













c

En
LU
|








4J
C

s
en
CD
C
CD

V
4-*
CO
CO
3
d
u


•£ o
CD "
If
o— •
o— •

tl>f-
1- 0
_1
in

f>
ro
3
CJ
C




t>


xj-














g

£

in
o
CL
Oi






s















CO
1
CO




















to
o
c


*^l

X'
CD
u
I
CJ
"o
u

to
01
>
_J
in

°
ro






S!


CM














O
CO

CM
Xx
o
CL
Oi




to
Xx
U.















zt
8
(A





















TJ
(D



8.
o
E
3
s:
j/
o
o

at
•n
I

_j
in

f;
ro
-o
i





8!


ro



^
o



^—





8
Xx
0^
CM

0
a.
a:




CO
x>
Oi















-C
4^
M-
**-
'H
a
















y




L.



CM



^
O



«—





CO

in

S
a.
Oi




CO
x.
Oi















VI
o
a
















tl_
H-


CD
_^
CD
a.

u
'E
3
L
T3
O



"o
CJ
Z
in

[0
ro
0





5>


ro



^.
0



ro





«
^V
R

g






(/>
^
a:















4-*
t_
ro
si
LU




















<_
CD
.C
±t

LU

T3
t.
CO
CO
Oi

CO
t_
i
u
z
in

f*
ro
3





t>


ro














3

CM

§

CO




CO
X,
Oi















CO
.V
CO
3
CO
j:
to
E










^

H-


ca




£
•,

ro

o
i_
'E
1
CO
o
Oi
to
CO


g
a
z
in

1C
ro
Y





3


ro



o
o



CM





g

CM

g

LU




CO
X,
a:















V
4-*
1_
0
o.
CO



























o
CD
CJ

V
JC
to
u.
z
in

fx
ro
3





O


x]-














CO

ro

is






V)
*x
a:















(D
8
o
CO
o















•
?E
CO CO
_i eo

Z 0

08 CD
_J
£eo
TJ W
CD — '

0)
CD O
CD O

Z
in

£
ro
3





o


sj














co

ro
X,
s
0-
Oi




en
x.
a:















"o
o
CD
CJ
















y





o

CO
to
&
to
a
?
CO

CU
CO

z
in

o
CO
ro
o





§


ro



o
o



ro





Jg

CM

g






CO
•x
Oi















4-f
L.
CO
SL
LU





















T3

CU

u_
CU
3
CU
Cl
L-


c.
CD

Z
in

co
ro
3





t>


^-














3

^

CO
O

Oi






5















c
o
t-
CD


























a
(Bragg)
c
o

CO
31
z
in

co
ro
3





*


*














CO
Xx
x*
O
X.
in
o
CL
o:
°"



en
x;
Oi














c.
erno
^
£
















.



CO


_Q
O
C
V
•a
CO
CO
to
j:
4->
L.
CO
U
u
z:
z
in

ro
ro
o





3


CM



O
CO



CM





S

o

fe
CL.
a.






"













c
o
4^
g
1
m
















^
c
o
4J
.1




CO
M-
ro
^
to


CO
CU
z
z
in

co
ro
3





r-
o


ro














§

ro
x.
w






en
^x.
a:















to
U
1



















c
o
to
'>

a

o
4-*
CD
CO
O
4-*
O

CO

-------






















1
CD
CU


CD
<0
'•"•

•a
3
M-
L. ^
8. X

co a
z
en ui
C CL
— CL
*•• <

j
•a
L.
CD
c!
i—

to
CO
cu
D)
O
L,
CL










































||
i"".
coo
ro

— LU
*-« £
CO Ul
co CL
2LU
CO


CO
§00
en
— . Ul
h- Of
3 O
•~> Of
h- CL
CO
UIZ
Z

o u

Ul _J
oc <
LU O
O Ul

in ui

 n
•— LU O II
> -IUI 1
Ul CL 1C 1
re £0 i
CL O CO 1

u
z e- n
*-• Of II
§< n
Ul
LU
§11
II
Ul II
>- II
1— II
— II
> II
1— II
CJ II
< II


Of Ul I— 1
CL m z ii
O < :3 n





n
u
n
§11
1!
O II













II

II
j]
II
II


II
ii
Ul II
1— II
1— II
CO II
II
II
1
1
II
II
II
en 1
C3 II
Of II


o





8


CM


§


CM



r>-
*s.
I




CO
^
Of













i
"o
u



















D)
C
4-1
CO


CO
4-1
CO
i
U
H-
in

g
to
ro
i




CM
O


N


e>


10



fe
*x
8
CL
Of



in
^
Of










X

o
c
CD
a>
f
u




















^
1
_J


•-1

cu
U)
s
in

o
o
ro
0





S


CM


§


CM



IV
*x
i
CL
Of



in
***
Of












o
CO
o
o




















-
o
4-»
CO
s

cu
1
in

e>
rO
CM
i




S


CM


8


•^



1
*x
O
CM






Of













i
1




















CO

C
Ul

cu
N
1
in

8!
ro
2

C



8!


«-









g
X,
a
§




en
v»
Of












•g
cu
en
x:
g
CO







cu
CO
CD
CU
g
•—
CD
CU
U


L.
CU
CO
oa

CO
en


t.
o
H-
CU
i
in

S!
ro
._
i




S!


«-


e>


^



g
X,
1




in
•^
Of













a>
c
to
c
CD
_J




















D)
C
CD

CL
CO
I
in

j*
ro
o





s


CM


§


CM



CO

O
CL
Of



in
^
Of













CO
1




















£
d"
|


c
CO
u
i
in

o!
to
m





§


ro


e>


CM



cS

a
in
o
CL
Of



in
•^,
Of













c
CO
t-
73

















O
U

4-*
0
1
cu
a

c
o
to
I
in

S
ro
2

c^



S!


«-









g
x»
o
CL
Of



in
-^
Of












•s.
cu
CO
o
-3
.J
en












cu
•^1
2

4-»
3

.?
^
a.
L.
o
u
X
1
CO
in

o
ro
CM
i




§


CM


g


xj



S
x»
CM
CL
Of



in
^
a:



CM








%
CJ
N
t-

en




















o
L.
L.
CO
Lu

00
C
CU
m
£
in

g>
ro
fM





§


ro


5


«—



3
^
o




en
>.
0!













S
I
z
£



















O
C
«"


z
»
t-
o
H-
o
CO
E
in

&
ro
o





§


-*


0


«^



g
X»
1






O£













•a
L.
O
H-
4-1
U
ca




















g
4-*
CD
'E
CO
CO


c.
L.
3
CO
£
in

o
o

0





§>


ro


0


ro



cS
*X
I
a.
°"


en
^
Of











ca
'a.
CD
Of
CO
c.
u



















H-
•g
CO
_J
JC

L.
i

cu
4-*
4-*
3
CO
in

o

o





5


CM


<>


CM



g

1




CO
-X.
o:







cu

CO

cu
4-1
C
CD
en
ca
CO














o
c



[I

?

c
o
4J

CD
CJ
£
in

CM
o

.J.




*
§


CM


g


CM



£

1






S












t_
g
u
.
&
L.
CU

3

CU
L_
CD
U
in

in
o
-*
o





t>


•*


§


^



eel
»S^
!

en


in
•*^
Of









O.
JC

o
h-
C
o
4-*
CO
O



















•g
CO
cu
L.
CD
C3


CU
3
O
in

0
**
ru
i




5>


ro


c>


««



eo

§
5
CL
Of



in
•v,
a:













1
CO
-C

ca





















CD
u

'o

L.
U
_«)
Lu
in

^
^
O





g


CM


5


^



g

in
0
Ul



en
>x
Of











CO
TD
'a
CD
Of
^
CD
L.
C3



















eu

cu
OS


CO
4-*
L.
eu
'o
u.
in

§
'•"S'
ro 3t

£



§§


CM CM


g


ro



II

11
ex
Of





Of Of












eu
1

o


















«
4-»
O
L.
CL
CU
CO
CO


'£
O
u_
£
in

g
"41
O





§


*»


§


^J



s
*x
O
55




en
xt
Of



*""









CD
U























-

H-
"g
CO
i
in

o
•»<•
114

-------
I
         coo
         tueo
         — O
         l— ac
         _i Ul


         ^§g
         ca ui

         co CL
         t UJ
         UJ CO
I—   ^   VI

§•   x   2;
D)   UJ
C   CL
•—   a.
 a>
 ui
 ai
         gg
         •-• Of
         I— O.
         CO
           SC
         < o
         I— Z
         CO <
31!
*- u
«S II
P II
CO II
§11
Ul II
l- — _l II
z i- n u
UJUI O II
CO -J UJ II
uj a. x u
of x u u
a. o co u
u
Z II
CO O UJ II
3 ~ _i u
O 1— 3 II
>3S!!
uj a, x H
o: x cj u
a. o co u
CJ II
Z 1— II
ls!i
u.
a M
211
u
-i u
>~ l
t- i
*-i i
> l
£ i
U 1
< 1
1 II

SCO Z II
< 3 II




II
II
LOCATION




n
II
i!
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
Ul II
ill
n
Ul II
1- II
— • II
CO II
II
II
II
II
II
II
!!
CO II
C9 II
a: M


o
Ch
ro
t>
fo
fe
in
o
8

u.



CO
x.
Of








01

Greilickvil


,
0
CJ
^

1


t
CM
1
^^
O

u.



CO
X,
Of






CO



Rochester H











Landfil
_i
00
Z

>*
Si-
1
CM
§
3
I

UJ
u.



CO
x.
oc





a


VI
c
Oshtemo Tow










1
CO
s
X
in

in
^»
ro
i
§
8
S
JO
CM

CL
Of
CL



CO
x.
Oi










Kentwood










M-
I
1
£
X
in

*
oo
•*»-
•*«-
oSS
«-ro
sg

CO CO



CO
x.
Of Of










Metamora










Z
1
CO
(0
c.
I
X
in

o
sj-
i
§
st
fe
8
CM

CL



CO
X.
of










Kalamazoo
4-*
0>
0

CO

u
0
CJ
01
u


u
01
CO
(0
8
o.
o
DIM-
ti
— a
X -I
x
in

CM
•4-
o
fe
o
i

0.
Of
a.



CO
x.
Of










.£
tfi
C
CD
_J










0
1
o
I
X
in

CM

CM
i
81
CM
fe
it
5

CO



CO
x.
Of










i
L.
ta





to
at
c.
"Jo

'u
4-»
fe-l
i
L.
to
JZ
c-
o
z
X
in

CM
CM

in
i
*
ro
CM
<0
1

CO





Of










Cadillac










j?
CO
CL
01
U
1
! Northe
x
in

CM
st-
o
c>
CM
S
CM
1
CM

U.



CO
X,
Of










Grandvi lie










U)
CO
o
1
s
u
'E
CO
?
o
X
in

«*
st
o
00
^S
CM
g

u.



CO
X,
Of










Ossineke
c
o

4-*
g
§""

g
CJ

0)
4-*
CD
3
L.
CJ
0>
[ Ossine
s:
in

in
>t
o
8
^
§

Ul
u.



CO
x.
Of








f
V)
o
1—
g
4-f
CO
o




t
Q
CJ
"co
u
g"~

j:
u
CO
o
CJ
o
CO
o
x
in

JS

m
£
CM
O
is

0.
£



CO
x.
Of










>.
u
Ol
u.







8


H-
o
d.
5
.?
D)
CO
U
£
X
in

IX,
I*
5
1
a
g

u.



CO
X,
Of










01
CO
L.
u







g

CD
i
"a
u
1
c5
i
X
in

00
.*
!
g
8
o

u.



(0
x.
"«










Muskegon










«S
g
CO
CL
«
CO
01
£
CL
X
in

a

•>*
CM
CO
i
o

o.
Of
O.



CO
x^
Of










Petoskey





•a

u.


1
o
1
! Petosk
x
in

o
5
CM
i
oS
0
in
o

CO



CO
x^
Of




a
|jz




t-
I
i
o










t
o
ca
1
ca
ca
Of
3£
in

*-
3
                                                            115

-------





















1

ID
ID
>-

ID
tn


i.
•g
S
s-

1 S
CO O
en UJ
c o.
•- a.
4-« <
|
|
"E
ro
3
O
H-
in
8
D)
O
U
OL,










































coo
UJ 00
S2:
i— »
coo
M

I-H UJ
•-* £
CO UJ
co a.
< UJ
UJ CO
2

CO
Z CO
o co
1— OC
SC3
0
•-4 Of
i— a.
CO
Ul Z
> •-
z
i— CO
o u
s*
Of <

o S

CO UJ
< a
H- Z
CO <






















CO
H-
j»C
CO
O UJ

Z ^~ 3
ui ui a
CO _JUJ
iuo.3:
of z u
a. o co
u
CO O UJ
8—1 — i
(-3
— • ui a
> — 1 Ul



0
FUNDING
START
§
UJ
>-
H-
e-
>
V—
^j

1 S^
II t~ +>
II 0) C
ii *-• ra
II C — •
ii •-• a.
n
II — C
I Rockwel
(Allega
II £
it in
u
CM
3
0



*••
O-


^-



0

^—





12/18/87
o_
Of
o.



CO
^.
of













N
S



















g


d
u
j=
in
'E
u.
o
o
Of
in

M
ro
CM
i



(•V
o


CM



§

sj-





06/19/87

CO



CO
^
r*













-•
X






















<_
«)
Of
01
in
[ Shiawas
in

^
3
o



«..
Qs


CM



0

CM





09/01/87

£



CO
V.
Of









a

g
cl
i—
u
£









>.
4-t

L.
O
-C.

^


— TO


o.*O
w C
*»- w
o
1*
o in
U— '

H-
1!
CO *^
in

in
3
3(\J
C


C5 C3
O* O^*


M ^*



00

fO





ss
c5S
a.
Of
CL CO



CO

2 Of







Q.

i
in

i—
j^
ID
O
C
01
0)
u



















^

H-
^
CO
ro

at
en
0)
in

•o
3
CM



O
CO


>*



g

CM





03/11/88

u_



co
^v
Of












O)
1
in
'>
ID















E"

Q

_Q.
jz
to
O
1—
T3
~Z

**-
1
£
in

1^
3
o



o
o


^



§

•*





06/24/87

CO



CO
x»
Of













tn
5)
L.
D
CO
















in


3

^j
.2-
u

tn
c.
CO
£
in

co
3
o



*""
o


9—



O

^B.





01/29/86
0.
£




~-
Of







a

1
3
O
ID
'o
2
ID
























01
ID
_J
L.
ID
1—
Z
in

o
3
O



«-•
o


-^



o

s^«





09/21/87
Q.
£



CO
-^
Of













8
I
1





















•
u
c
1
CJ
[ Thermo-
z
in

0

o



CM
0


^



8i

^~





09/28/88

u.



CO
•^
Of









4->

g
U
C
o
J=
9
o























0)
ID
0
1—
£
in

T_
^
oo



v O
O- O*


s^ M



0§

**S" tO





09/29/86
05/30/85

u. u.



CO
•v.
Of Of











-g
t>
L.
u
4^
ID
CO





















^n
"oj
u.
"o
3
[ Verona
£
in

CM
3
o



t_-
0


«—



o

^->





09/10/87

CO



CO
•v.
Of







fr
h-
in
c

ra
CL
4^
c
ID
a>
ID
01
a.





















^
•|
ID

•5
ID
3
in

M
5
UJ
X
o


«—
o<


to











09/28/88
a.
oe.
a.



00
^
Ct-




































0)
en
CO
§
Of
31
O
3
in

^.
5
ooo



CM CM CM
OOO


T- T— «—



SIBiS!

V T** *—





in in in
is is is
O. Q. O.
Of Of Of
o. a. o.





Of Of Of









L,
0)

i
CO
^
1
ID
U
CO










v^

oi


ID
L.
CO

c
L.
0)
J=
•M
L,
O ^
4-> CL
1 Burling
Baxter
z
in

m

UJ 3 3
Z 0> 0)
Sec

* *
ooo
ooo


MM-*











co co co
«-oo

CO CO CO



CO CO
S1^
Of Of Of




*~








£
1
CO















«-r


H-


J
X
l_
ID
4-1
'E
ID
CO
c.
in

*d
5
*



*



*



*

*





12/15/86

CO
a.





Of













o
^
t_
u.


















O
u
en
c
t_
3
£
M-

ID
Z
4->
C_
in

l>I
5
M



^_
O


»»



0

^_





06/30/87

CO



CO
it.
Of









Q.
tn

0
i—
?
ID
L.
U
ID















^



ID
_J

fe
4-»
'E
ID

4 LaGrand
£
in

co
XT
0



,_
Qt,


S*



0

•*





co
s
M
O

CO





Of








o
4->
ID
C
ID
U
r
Ic
01

















0)

CO

o
m
i
c.
01
j:
0)
_j
£
in

o
5
116

-------












i
*~
L,
ro
01


TO
at

^
•g
5
1 2
in o
z
•£ ot
4J <
7;

"S
CO
g
t_
w
w
01
t_
CD
O
t.
CL




















W
§11
Ut II
1— —• _1 II O
z t- 3 no
Ul UJ O II
Ul O. Z II «••
g£ CJ II
O CO M
U II
C0§ ' **
*•< UJ O 1 t^
> -JIU 1
Ul a. a: n
££ CJ II
O GO II
U II
=?£«£
|g||S
«
CO O OH
ui co - n
COO 1— II
ro — n
>- > II CO
i— LU P^ II ^,
« z «c !i S
CO UJ
co a.
5LU 1 II
co at ui t- n
z a. co z n *~
»o o o n
is
.-. UJ
SO
o
1- O- ||
Sz !! §
> -• Z II 4J
Z O II £
*-* CO •-« O)


ui < M oi
X II Z

a: <
u. a •
OUJ 0
in LU
"^ at o)
1— — '
< Q 0
!- z a.
os
ii 43
II E
u 5

i

n ^
II 01
u m
n V
n •
!| S
Ul 1 W
ml
£ •*
CO II (0
II —
II — •
|i 5

ill
£!!!
is ii in
0£ II
gj
in
1-UIOO Ul
'i g

So? <><><>

»-«*^-»-CM


O* CO *r~
xr -^-


conN>r^eo
or>-ocMm
ro«-ro«-*-

u. u.
CO CO U. U. U.




CO

at otu-at







c
o
.c
a)
L.
CO
1
















w

^-*
'£
i
4->
O)
'[I
ca

1
i
in

,_
in
f S

§ *

fO ^


§
^-


1 1
P Rl
•v. ^»

CO CO




CO CO
•^ ^s
c< at




a.
1
X
i—
§;
2 E
C9 CD
S0>
0.













•


M-

a
_j
ca
•E -S
ca
01 c-
0 <
a 1
£
I S.
i I
m in

C\l K)
in in
3°°
1
*
s<*§

sj «— fO


Ss:§
St-M


09/30/87
09/04/86
09/04/86
0. 0.0,
gfgg




coco

c< o:


CM ff\ "^



f.
CO
a.
w
i
— J
(V)













t
a.
c.
o

_ jj
8J
g""flL
_ „
^1
<5 *
S

O CO
i
in

^
in
7 |

t> 5

CM «-


5
«-


06/30/87
09/25/89

CO u.




CO CO
^ >^
at at


v— CM





L.
CO 01

1 1






C/7

L.
1
<



•a
 3
'at co
i i
in in

in ^
15 S3
O UJ UJ
g g
*
§ & §

"•^ *•$•*—


§
Sf


in 1^ K
o 0s o
M CM to

CO V) CO




CO CO

at at at





X
§
o
u w
>
§ f
I 8

I 5
I i
tn in

o *~
5 5
o

I?

Kl


§
ro


CM
T—
0.
£




CO
^
at


CM





g
4-»
|










01

o
CJ

c
o
4J
g

oa
a
_o
f.
CJ
T!

<
§
in

(M
5
~ ||

§ £<»

CM Ntro


g
Sf


<- CM
w
.*" 2
J2 5
CJ ID
+>
*J W



















g

a: c-
*N- N-
?-T- CM
0. 0.
at at
u. a. o.




CO
^
SS 2







c
o
C E
O O
'c "«
3 CO

















H-

ro
w
w
01
o —
ii S
"ro v
"L cj
W 01
3 w
•n ca
C 0)
g g
in in

Is* CO
^o ^o
117

-------
l/>
§
Jr
t-
v>
gu,1



LU Q. 31
Of £ U
O.O CO
U
CO O LU
ZJ-t-l
Ot-3
** UJ O
>_1LU
LU O. X
Of X U
Q. O V>
U
li
§i-
co
co c/To o
«•• »-« O» Ul
I- g- J
CO H- • >•
- JO •-•

— •• I— Of *••
CO i-* UJ H-
o _j co o

— en ui
"~ co oT
• » 
9! 2 °°
Q. X O CO
3 >-i — ui
CO 0 >-Of
Z < C3
O) LU U O
C O. •-• Of
•— a. i— a.
VI < (/>
C LU Z
Si! > — z
S z o
% 11 I
^ P S
i «s
l~ U- Q
OU1
w z
U CO UJ
cu 3 a:
i_ i—
O) < 0
i N* o »- o at at o
i i CU (U
1 C C
1
i 0
1 O* CK C> O^ O» (^ O*

1
1 «* «- •* K> «- CVJ «-

1
1
^h O C3 O ^~
!co o^ o^ c% o^
1
1
1 *~ *~
1
1
1
1
Ss. r>- K o o> iv
CO CO CO CO CO CO
! > ^ ^ ^j ^ ^ ^
1 *- CM  fo T- ro o cvj
o o «— o o «*
1
1 Of Of Of O!


1
1
CO CO CO CO
^C 4C *•* ^^ **^ ^ **^
i of of of of of S oe


1
1

1





1
1
1

i cu
i fl| cu — •
X 6 J3 C CO C
_l — O c. •- O
J< C fJ CU C. 4J
z of a: o o ui o


^

i
»- S T- CM
i  o  it fc &
CM CM 0 «~ CM •- to

Of C£ O£ *** LU Q£




co to tn co co co
X. ^X ^ ^ ^t ^s
f^ fV ]y fyf fy »y /v














CU V
i c g .2 -
flj -^ 4-» C •£
O) C D tO O — ' C
— ' 3 (0 t- +J CD CD





»- Ift 0
1 1



os O* §


T~ «•— ff)



SCS C3
O" O»






111
fo fo ro

CL CL
«\> fv




CO CO CO
»». ^ •>>
Of Of Of














4)
^ 3
•r- CO
III





   II
Ul II
H- II
-< II
CO II
   II
   I
O II
Of II
    J^
    s
                            o
                            u
                       =   S
i   =!J?

*   =*
            OU
fr   S
O   O!
U
                   o

                   X
                   o
     g     C
                     0
                     00
                     C.
                     co
                                     t_
                                     4^
                                     U)
                                3
cu
cu
    ~0


    8"

    — o
    —• u
                                     "- O
                                     CO
                                     V O
                                     -a
                                     C
                                     ra
                            ->   JD   4J    •-
                            CD    CU   CO CO   ^
                     0


                     in
                                0


                                in
                              C (..
                              CO CO
                              CO 3
o

in
                         o

                         in
                                                          —    C   cu   —'
                                                          2-    cq   3   co
                                                   S

                                                   CL
              o
              a.
                       cu
                       "co
                       o

                       I
              in


              fc
                            ?
                            CO
a
u
                                                                   —
                                                                   S.
_eu


'>
                           o

                           in
3


in
                                 a
                                 o   o

                                -   1
                                 CO   Z
                                     .?
                                :=
                                £   S
                                U   UJ
                                                                     §   3
     co
CO   U.

!    g
         CO   CO

         2   *
         a   v
         w   —
                                                                                        W   CO
                                                                                                           u
                                                                                                           c
                                                                                                  co   •>-   —>
TJ   C

O   5


JS   o
-•   o
                                           cu
                                           o>
                                     •g
                                                                     inininininininin
                                                                                          «
                                          118

-------




















SI

i"
h- •
fO

h" OE
*-* sc
CQ UJ
"— 1—
coo.
< Ul
Ul CO


en
§cn
CO

Zee
SC9
o

1— O.
CO


z
— CO
So
3C*
Ul _l


U. Q
O lu
CO Ul
o ce
i-
< a

en  -1 Ul
Ul CX 3: 1
0! ZO 1
a. o en


FUNDING
START
§!
S!

>- 1
»-
E
1— !
«t 1



1 1
Ot Ul I—
cx co z
O<=> 1







1




(. t ,
<
o
_l


























•sc.

Ul

en





en

ID 1
Of 1



















i

i



i







i


i







i

i


i
i
i
i














•D
I £
CO
_j

! J=
1 CA
1 <

1 >•
—*
U.
i.
1 CU
IE?


-*
CA
CO
1
!U

I




1



0




c?

to





§
to




06/30/87





CO
^x
O£











a.



5

h—

C
u
UL.


















^ /
O



oe

ofl
!
CO
c.
1—
s,
u

1


3

in

1

CXJ
1




§

•^





s
CM




06/19/86
ex




en
~>.
Of


















.
rookfie
CO














•


M-
•55
C
CO


eu
u
eu
c/>
CO
CO

Q.
o
c.
cu

CO
CO
E


3

in

5
**
CM
1




t>

v—





§
10




09/30/85





CO
X.
Of


















cu
i Iwauke
s:














o
D


,^.
O

cu
cu
C9
U
X
1
c.
c.
c


_
c.
<
CA
CA


3

in

gi
-*
O




§

"4*





§
^.




08/14/87
^
Of



CO
V
u



















Ju:
Jr

























1
CO
4V

i
CO
o
1

1


3

in

55
<

i\j





»
CM




09/30/88

en



CO
v;
Of



















§
4-f
0
a
<

























2
S*



•C
3
CD
X

3t
Z


3

in

eS
**
O




§

CM





§
CM




03/30/87





en
t
at



















c
a
.c
CA
<














»-«



O
u

O)
c

4-*
CO

Ul

|
§

I


3

in

§
itf
O




§

%^





s
^




04/08/88





CO
•x
Of



















CD
M
CA
CD
CD
C
o























M-
•Q
S
_J
1


3
CO
CA
CO

1


3

in

e>
^
gtVJ
0



ss

CM Sf





§
CM




09/29/88
09/29/88







22



















arrison
sc




























E*
O
N
"a

0


3

in

cp
s*
o




5

^-





s:
^




04/11/86
0.




CO
•x
Of




















CO























cu
>
Of
«a
1
!_
CO

C
CO
^~

en


3

in

1

0




8!

v-





8!
,_




07/07/88
cx
Of



en
X,
u



















c
eu
£
8.
to

























«4-


co
cu

o
ft


2

in

o
o
in
o




s

*—





5
r-




04/15/88
ex
Q.



CO
X.
Of


















c
toughto
en

























1
o
4->

CJ
1
•g,

en


3

in

o
in
o




-








10




11/25/87
cx
0£



CO
X.
Of 1










a
•—
c.
CA 1
C
3E
O
f-


c.
2,
ex i
i
CO 1
_i

i




i



i
i









i
i
i


i
!
4-> 1
ex i
t-
cu
— •
eu i
CU 1
§


3
1
in i
i
CM 1
o
in i
1 O
i
i


o
o
1
1 •*
1
1
1
1
1
§

1

1
1
05/15/86
CL
a:



1 CO
i -x
1 Of

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

I
1
1






1 10
JZ
CO
E
o
1

1
1














1









c
1
-
•o
o
o
3
J*


Of

^D

8
in
s
C



S

•*











03/29/89


























C
ospuoutp
Ul





























ex
cu

u
C9


<

^O

o
in
3J
C



§

s$-











07/25/89
CX
C£





2


















4V
'i
en
i-
0
u.























0

I
cu
4-*
CA
CD
3

CD
L.
CA
3



<

-0

in
o
in
o




§



CA

U
CD
-3


<

>0

o
in
o




§

*j-





§
^




04/15/88





CO
\
tt















0)


•r-
acksonv
->


















>,.
«4-


CD


unicipal


•g
o
oc
CA
CU
I?
Of


<

>o

o
in
in at CM at
c c



geSSS

•^ tO v~ sf





85 S
ro ro




09/23/83
07/12/89
04/19/88
07/12/89
ex ex




en co en
x,x. x.
of ce u- of















eu


»»•"
1
So
-3




























O
C
o
CO
4-1
C.
cu


<

\Q

co
o
in
119

-------
8
1
coo
uj co

a?

H>  >.
WO
  CO
>-
I— Oi
.-.Ul
—I CO

m uj

co o.
< uj
uj in
 fc   <
 §•   ><
in   o
 c   a.
"•   O.
t;   <
i— a.
to
   S
          o u
          UJ<
          O LU

          CO UJ
          n a:
          i—
          < o

          £3
V> II
to ii
§11
UJ II
z £ 3 i!
UJ UJ O II
CO —I UJ II
ui o. s: ii
o£ X. u n
rx o to n
O II
cooui I!
3£|J
> —1 UJ II
uj o. 3: II
a: £ o n
a. o co u
U II
21—11
»-i Of II

u.
a n
< n
UJ II
>- n
t- u
•-• n
> n
•- u
t- ii
U II
< u
i n
CH UJ 1- II
n i _ i »_ |{
a. a] z ii
O <£ Z> M


II
II
II
§11
II
i— II
1- II
Sll
II
O II
-1 II
II
II



H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
UJ II

Z II
II
UJ II
1- II
« H
II
II
II
ii
II
1- II
U II
Oi II


3 O
4)
C


CM «-
O* O*

«M M


*—

ro




00 00
^S *-.
O t-
'•O N-

D-
o;







O£. Oi





^

.
o
o




c
CO
ex
c
o
'§
<


<
CD
c
CO
"ai
'5
o

<
•a

fO
in
0 -*
1


S 8!

CM •*


-* T-
o o

CM •*




>O N-
co co
in o
CM K1
*

o —
c. O
CO U
o to

8


fe
g
CO
CO
'5
>- o
t- ^J
(U
c *-
— o
4) CO

o
— • U)
O 41
o
O) O.
•5 C3
3 %
o a.
< <
%o ^

-* in
in in
i I


f\j *-
o o

Nfr (M









CO CO
O (VJ
co ro
o o

a.
O£.



c/>
Ll_


o£ oi







O
N
1 1

u u







e-
o
u

"- C
g 'E
u '£
fe 1
L.
08 g
h- ••-
< U
3: s;
"*O *O

>0 1^
in in
3 3
OJ Q)


«- CM

ro ro









8 8
is ^
f^ o
O 0

a. a.
Of Of



in
u.


IX Oi






J4
u
o
Of
v n

LV 5






>.
L.
(U
_c
H-
S a.
| S

O t,
T3 CO
f" 
« .E
O. 3
Z E
 (A

S U
U (A

CO (D
U v^
g
U

0
in
o


§

CM


§

CM




§
1
CM
O

a.
g
u.


to
u.


Of









1

u
£_
C
'H
u

(/)
CO
•g
•M
to
CD
88
if
o
t-
41 41
.£ »
L. CD
01 cn
II
CO CO
ac 3:
^
O

«-
in
i i


8! o

«- >*









8 8
CM M
55 S

CL
Oi
n tfi
u. Vt


tn in
LU LU


Oi Of





£•

U

JZ —•
CO •—
—t U

o u





~?
?
5 a
>. <3
C u
CD
4J D)


H-
T3 O
(0 Q£
Jr 1
— • CO
to —•
o ^>
£ O

0 0
u u

CM tO
in in
° 11


0 OO

•* -»KI


g

sf




§ §§
1 II
grvjcM
r- «—


a. u. u.
UJ U.U.


C/l (/> CO
u. u. u.
**^ ^X,^.

a: 0£ of





-M ^*

CJ CJ

CO CO

o o





*—
o
•D O
L. fO
CO
^ L?
C 41 —
3 WT3
-1 CD—"
> "•:;
Q. 3

a <-^
O 41
jj u, 41
41 U
41 t_ (_]
C/3 4>
J= 41 •5
S*4 "cl?
•r- t/>
H- 1— V/
0 0
LJ U^

CM CM
in in
LU 3 O
Z 41
a c


§ S §

*» v* K)


§

m




MO O» N-
co co co
•NS, ^x, v^
s a a
sis

a. Q-
Q£ 0£
cy) O- o_



u.
•*x

a: a: a:





Q)
L. "O
CO O
t- 3:
a. CA c
"DO

C3 U. 3C






1 J
c
C/> O
E ». CJ

>> o
" S 1
cn c j;
o a: CD
LU *J
i .2 5L
•*- t. c_
co m u
XXX
XO NO NO

^O h^ CO
CM CM CM
in in in
                                                                 120

-------
Z !! > * o>















t-
<
i—
CO

1 CU
I C
1
I

cu
c



•P.
C



UJ

o



-

2



,

JJ



o





,

g



3

C



CM
1




UJ
z
0



«-o !
i i
i
i
i
i
3

C



00 3r-

£3



3

£



X X

c c



3

£



UJ

0



gn u
UJ II II
(—•—-IMP
Z 1- 3 II t>
















UJ
c/>
UJ

(X



Ul O 1
-J UJ
ex x

O eo
u


I
I
i sr
i
i
i


&


CM





II
Z II










o
co
e>

u
CQ



"CD
CO




"D
=
c. <



co a

D) UJ
c ex
•— ex



1
TJ
U
CO

o


CO
U)
cu

D)
O
U
ex























co o
ujco
•-• c>
CO
g

s
Of
CX








O UJ
i

§«>


SHO





§

c>


«"•





«*


«•"





&


^f





£


»™





5;


to





<>


(M





§


s^>





i?


sf





C§§ 1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
§


CNJ





e>c>e>e>


«~ ^f *^ «""





t>


(M





5: §


V™ >1"





§


^-





*


*





O^ CX 00 ON II O> &> O*








1






** * i ii
1— 3 II II
UJ o


sf



«—i


CM

-IUJ 1
exx n

O to


FUNDING
START



^
UJ
i
i
i

12/28/88


i
i





06/28/89



o.
5=
O ^* ~^ 1 w w>
1— » >- II
00 O
to

» UJ
*~ ac
CO UJ
•-i »—
CO O.
< UJ
UJ CO
z
-o
CO
SCO
CO
•_ UJ
1— K
•f C3
C3 O

i- ex
CO
UJ Z

z
>— CO
s <
J£

Of <

u- o
o uj
ac
C/> UJ
=> o:

< 0
t- z
co<
















t—

>
i
i




H^ i!
CJ II 4
< II Of



1







i
^«,
Of








12/18/87
03/31/89










22








09/24/84





C/)




2








12/30/88




Of
z




2




K UJ t- II
fe








































CD Z II
< 3 II











Z
2
H-
-1


































i
1 X
i +-•
i "-
1 O
1
1 — •
CD
CA

CJ
















1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1















L.
O

























u
H 4->















Z
1 i-
1 Q
1 •'-

oo ii u
n




1 — •
II eg
II 4->
II CA
!! 2r


























CO

C3



1 U

\z

1 -O
o>
CM
in




TJ
4-*
_J

1
cu
u.
Ii.

X
1—

XJ
0
to
in












|
g
x















D)



UJ


i


-§
U,
1

4-*
I

a
o

x

-0
,_

in












h lands
o>
as



























ex

TJ
u
3
c
CD
D)
x

x
i—

•o
CM
to
in












u
CD
CO































«

U
1


X
h-

•0
to
to
in




09/27/89










QC




N













(D
(A





























5

_
c5

i
o

x

>0
^.

in




09/26/88








CO
t
Of




CM













U
X
L.
£
J






















*-t


§
4J
x
CO

CO 3
S"~ ID1
CO

1 ~J
Q> ^^

X

0
in
ro
in




06/30/89



ex
£
tx


CO
t
Of


















CU
CD
_J
1
CA
























U
1

H-
cu
Of

o


c.
u
o
Of

x

0
^

in




05/04/89










2























03/31/87








e/>
^
Of


















arkana




06/26/85










Of


















CJ
TJ
sffO 1

1
II
1
1
1
1
04/16/87
06/28/88
i
i
i
i

U.CO |


1
!
22

1

1

!

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i




11/29/88





CO




Of













CA
•4-
«4-
3
— »
| 0
Sll ^
II O
c- II C
r-*^ **





00 00 CO 00
oooo-j-
1111



ex ex
Of Of



00 CO
v.-^
Of Of Of Of

















CA
0
'o
£
X — C II 3 CA
C- CU 1- O II O CU
CJ


























CA
ex

a
CA
&
CA
o
1
CO

x
i—

<0
h.

in
i—



















o
CJ

S

'>
I_
CU
CA
CU
CX

"8
O

CD
1
H-

X

>0
CO

in
CO

























d
CJ
CO
o
1
J=
CJ

I
c.
1—

X
1-

-o
o
to
in
CJ 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• 1
O 1
CJ 1
U



























a











S**
o
CJ

o

CA
CD

TJ
CU
CA


CU
U






07/03/89



ex
Of



CO
^
Of


















c
o
a.
CA
cu
3

















•i

0
CJ

o«
CA
C.
§
6
II C CU
O) II O Z
CM ^
•r~ \

4-> II
0 II
CA II
0 II •
CU II D.
c. ii e.
U II 0
i
CJ
TJ 1
CU II X
4-> II CU
c B3
= i
i
X 1
1
1


<

r^
0 II T-
sf 1
sf
in n in

UJ
CJ
1—
CA
cu
c

'o
ca
cu
o

2

'"•
CM
sf
in
cu
TJ^
4->TJ
C CD
0 0
CX Of
3 X
•— O
• CJ
n i *^

<

l>-
to
sf
in






09/29/89
03/31/89



£L
CO Of



CO CO
^ ^
o: of















CO
TJ

CL TJ
CO — •
Of CD
CD CD
CJ U-


















CL

C
o
4-»
CD
O
C •£

"" '»
• CD
CA CD
D)
£ «
4-> O
CD CJ
V 2
o "cu
4^ »#-
— • CO
UJ U.

£ 2

f~ IV-
sf in
sf sf
in in






08/01/89





ex
OL


CO
-s
Of



















-------
K
I  2
       I".
       coo

       >.M
       i— ee
       « u

       -x
       OQ UJ

       co a.
       
5 <
y 2
ae ui i-
UJ ~J *•• *—
a. CD z
OO
n
n
u
§!!
LOCATI
Camanche



u
n
n
n
n
n
i
i
i
i 6
ii E

JE 1 u,

II 4->
111 ^
1- O

CO
0)
1
ii a
n — i
Ml! **
C3 II N.
C£ II
3
in
1 *


S §
•- •*


§
«-

(X CO
co co
1 1
§ g


Q. LU

CO CO
>x V.
oi ee
«~  C
c. n
0 X
4->
•g $
•2 -g
at ...
< <
^

O 0
-S in
in in
i i


5 5
"- *-





o* o^
1 1

a.
a! §f

CO CO
NN -X
ce ee



X
4J
CJ 01
<0 3
z a
o
o
c

CJ

CD
4-*
O O
a. u
SCO
ID


CO CD
E 3
01 a
o> co
o 8
z a.
< <
K S.

«- (M
in in
in in
»- in
i i

*
S 5
^ *-


SO^
CO
** ^*

fe §
§ ~
vj- in
o o

a.
«, if

CO CO
x> >.
a ae


X
CJ
^ CO
CD 0)
° t
TO CO
at -f**
Ctf L>







^
Tf

5 5
4^ «

S 1
° 3
"D (D
< <
K i>~

M »»
in in
in in
i i


s s
•* «»





g s
S S
II

a.
S. £

CO CO
V. V.
ee ae


£
u
Charles
Wichita
g
CD
c
1
1 c
5 o
Q O
• L.
O 0)
" S
c •*
E c

5 c.
S- u
T3
E ca
CD £
u.
4-< £
£ o
5 (M
< CO
I*- IN.

in ~o
in in
in in
Z'f'f


5:881
«M»-»-


55
^_ ^

|§fe
,58$




CO CO
>x«v.
2 oe oe


o
CJ
Cherokee

CD
t—
CO
CD
1

CO
O> 4->
g§
WU

XCU
4J CU
1°

1!
1!
CO
t-.

in
in
i


5
CM





g
1




CO
>,
oe



o
2
O
LU







o
CJ

2r
01
c

a
oe
(_
O
4-*
CO
0)
o.

fs»

CO
in
in
T 2



CM «-


S
M

oo co
1 1
o g

o.


CO
LU
X.
oe. K


X
4_f
Maiden
Kansas C






d d
u u
D) — •
r S
3 'i
4-1 
1^
0£


0)
S
I



£
CD
D-

|

B C

x8>
f"

.?!
CJ4=
01 (-
JZ o
g
N-

S
in
1 T°


S S3
•* «-M


as
«*ro

CO CO CO
CM >Oin
•- oo


CO

CO
t
Z £$




Liberty
Imperial
CM
"g

-
CO

g"-
L. ••
oro
Ii
§"~<

CO
oe CD
- 4^7
CD 3 01

1 1-
1 11
i i
X. •>.

5o S
in in
x o


g 5
K) «-


5
_

S S
S CM
S cl

O.
oe

tn co
t t;
oe oe


1 2
(0 
Ui Z-
0
1 1
CO 4->
w o
z z
i i
N. K

3 So
in in
3:  CO
CM vt


S
CM

S S
O CO
§ 1




CO
^^ 4
OC Q£


CO
_*
•»-
Sikeston
Moscow M

en
ID

a) co
.- cu

.1
§4->
CO
W.C
CO O
Q) "H

g -g g
4-* CO JC
CO CO
— • f.
a. tg
4-* C
3 J= U
a co «t
g i


vQ f*—
in in
                                                122

-------
























1
u
CO
01


CO
UI
U.


1
t. <



OO O
e g
'ii *
MI


j







(A


L.
D)
O

O.

















































COO.
LUCO
S£
3
1— >
ooo
1*1

l~ OS
_ UJ
5 ui
*-• i—
co a.
< UI
UJ 00
u.
~z
oo
zoo
O CO
_• UI
1- OS
38
_. OS
i— a.
UI Z

z
—• 00
=!2
o o

UJ _1


u. a
O UJ

CO UI
3 as
i—
< o
1— Z



























00
3 in
h- i

00

Sll
UI 1
l-i- -1 1 0
UJ UJ O
IU O. 3C t^
OCX U 1
a. o co ii
u ii


— j g
CO O UJ 1

—i LU o ro
> — 1 UJ
UI IX 3= 1
OS 9C U 1
0.600 M
Z 1— II «-
ZJ 00 II >.
"• 8


O II
211
ii

>- n
i—

>
£
< S


i n
Of UJ 1— II
iu -i —• ii 1*1
a. co z n
OO II






u
n
II .C
§11 0
II (0
— . 1  C>§


«- rom




N- >O CO
^ win
1*1 «M«-
(M CON-
«- oo


00 U. U.




OO CO
^ -^
as as u.



~ -~





|
n a>
L.  00
















1

g
a
(/)

x

£_
§
S o
*" 'fe.
o. oo
X C
I 1


i i

r>- N.

2 g
in in
o




§

Ki





§


1*1




09/29/88


a.
as




CO
^
a:



-









(D
1
N










_•



^
c
(D
-J
•
o
u
u

u

(/>

ra

a
o
c
1


g

^

p:
in
OO ><- 3 X X




8^ C> 0 § CX C> §

J*l «- *• f*1 ** «- •*





O* *• ^5
o^ o^ o*


l*l«- CM




CO CO CO CO CO CO CO


a.
u. as




OO 00 00 00 00
«^>x^ -x^
as os as as u. a; as



O'-rj-tf^o--









»>
O)
c
en
CO
a:












C
o


a
'i
CO
1

L.
O
4J
(D
J
"g
c.
C9
- II
— • II C.
i- II 
> II C
CO II 0)
3 II O
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u
II
II
C II
O 1
•*- i
*-• II
CO II
C II
••- II
E II
CO II
4-> II
§:: co
(J II 4-»
II O
C- II 3
0) II "D
4J II O
CO II 1-
3 II O.
II
U II _W
1 0

"u ! oi
01 II "Q
> » o
CO II L.
3 II CO
II
II

II
^ Ico

s lie
in i in
i i




§s

v* (M





COO>


rj(*i




09/07/88
0^/07/87


a. o.
OS OS




oo
^
OS OS



»-(M








01

>
1
01

























.c
u
"•3
(3
CO
'E
u
o
H-
CO
U


8

CO

s
in
||°




Sf>C>

(M ^± CM





<>


(M




ss!








2*C t/)
o: u_



~~M






en
g

ii
Q.
00
o
1




















01
01
c.
u

L.
CO
01
u
4-*

"co
c.
4-*
g
U


8

CO

fc
in
||




55

(M v-













09/30/89
03/30/89


o.
OS




00 00
"^s
OS OS



«-CM






4-»
U

01
2
i
u
























s
in
01
CO
00
•
CO
o
1
u


8

CO

R
in
|||||||T||°|




v* O* O^ ^^ v* v* O* O^ O* O^ O* O^

tO fO ^f "^ *^" itO ^~ hO **" *"~ ^" *&





g §


>» ^-




IIIIIIIIIIH







CO
t
SSS2SSSS5SS2



—• ~~~MM^>*-*^'"










L.
1
o























1>

oo
§
OS
i_
o


8

CO

si
in
123

-------
    cn

       gn
    UJ II


UJ Ul O II
cn _i iu ii

at ae o n
o. p cn n
  o   n
                in o ui ..

                8 £3!!
                •••• LLI    "
                                                41   ^f iu   CM ^^ c^ in C3 x
                                                     i  z    ii    i    5
                                                       o               c
                                  S8!8!  §   *   8S
                iu Q. ae
                o: £ o
                a. o cn
                                                  «-fOrj^tCMo   CM  «- «-   »-N.inino«-eoinin   «-
                   _tr!'Mr-fJ  PP~  r-   r-  MM   p eg .-.-CM ro CM r-r-   o
u-     KIMNO   o   r>.r\j   0.0
       ooo   o«-o   o  o   o«-   o»-
I
 g
'
 n
 - II
           h- II
           »-i II
           > ii            coco        coca          coca        coco
           i-«ll            U.U.        U.U.          U.U.        U.U.

           un<- n
                uu —i —i u o -o co  *-«-^  «-   «-  T-CM   »-CMKi«*oo«-in>ot^   T-
a. a.
gfgf
cn in
u- u.
>N>«
aeee
0.0. 0,
£SfSf
CO
u.
•x
eeu-ac
in
CO
u.
"X
at
fS IM
COO.U.
ca
u.
•x.
ocu- at
CO CO CO
co co ca
u. u. u.
eeosoe
ca
CO
u.
v
Of
                a. co
                O
                     >
                     2 i!
                         |
                                                 e
                                                 o
§"*•-<
     a    o
II
UJ II

z !!
n
UJ II
1— II
•-* II
cn u
u
n
n
u
n
II
n
II
i— n
ca n
a n
a: u



^

«»•»

•D
C
CO
_J

2r
g
-<
8
co

§
in
w-
^
i^.
•ij
C
ID




CO
J=
CO
c.
ID

8
CO

s
o
ID


01

"L
CO
z
i
c
If"
c.
CO

8
00

C\J
00
in
**
g

a.

CO
*j
a

u.

S-
8
oe
8
09

s
in
CO
<
_c

CO


5



_J-
g
ot
8
CO

in
                                                                                      T-O  roino
<>£<£



Mcvjru
                                                                                    8!
                                                                £55

                                                                MKIK)
                                                                                                           8!8!8!

                                                                                                           (\jr\JIM
                                                                                                      8!   §5:5:   8!8!8!
8!

CM





8i


CM
                                           §§
                                           |a
                                           Is
                                                                                             g   s
                                                                                                                    sss

                                                                           CO
                                                                           a
                                                                           ui
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       m
                                                                                                I
                                                                                              4,1"

                                                                                             £8
                                                                                                       O   (U
                                                                                                       0   8
                                                                                                       _4)   o:

                                                                                                       "o   c
                                                                                                       a.   S
                                                                                      CO
                                                                                             00
                                                                                                      oo   oo


                                                                                                      3   S
                                                                                                      in   in
                                                                                                           ca

                                                                                                           ctf

                                                                                                           £

                                                                                                           g
                                                                                                           CD
                                                                                                           CO



                                                                                                           §
                                                                                                           in
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  oa
                                                                                                                              2
                                                                                                                             ca


                                                                                                                             IE

                                                                                                                             00
                                                                                  o
                                                                                  in
                                                             124

-------
Z3HOOMOO3
1— II 1 CD
< II C
>~ n
CO II
gll
UJ II
ui ui o ii
CO _l UJ II
uio-a: n CM CM CM. CM «- «-
C£ Z CJ II
a. O co ii
U II


II CM CM O CM CM
X II O O OO O O
en o ui ii
S-i _j n
1— ZD II
•— LU O II CM CM M CM «-
> _J Ul II
ui a. 3; ii
a: z o ii
o. O en n
O II


C3 CO CON. CO COO
Xt- II CO CO CO CO CO CO

§ (- II CM CM CM CM O M
"- oooooo

co eo*o o ii
o uico < H
r- i— f> Ul II Ul
§*- ^jiicnu-cococou.
CO 1— - >- II
CD CO O 1— II
>- K» •— II
>- :>iicncncocncnco
CO ~UJ l-l|-^^> 	 ^,-v.
CO •— Z «c!!a£0£Oj:C£0£C£
•- 00 Ul
U. »-• 1—
co a.
• • < Ul 1 II
"o ui co eg ui i— n
C U. UJ-J- 'IICNJKl^J-U-vN-CO
3 Z Q. CO Z II
M- -O O < O II
C- < CO
CD XV>
a. x o en
3 •-* •— LU
en o t- a:
01 5 So
C OL -—as
••- a. t— a. n
4-» < C/> II
C LU Z II
§> — Z II CU
X O II D)
•—CO •— II T3
— • Z 1— II O
a. — i o < u — i
E <— ej u
•— —1— O II <-
• O CJ _1 II CD
13 Ul< II CD
<- z ii a
CO Ul _l

o •— •
1- "- 0
O LU
CO 3C
CO CO Ul
CD 13 a:
C. H-

0 5i
L- 00 <
flu

f^

II CD
II CD
II t-
II CJ
II
II 3
II O
ii m
n
n <-
II CD
u >
u — '
ui H en
ac n
< II CO
Z II (0
II
ui n "o
1— II CU
—• M 4->
CO II CO
II ••-
II — •
II
II CU
II U
II C.
II 0
II ^


I— II
CO II


C3 II
Oi II



c c c






















CO CO CO

£M§
iss


en en en





a: os. a




«- CM CM





a
z

c
t.
CD
4-t
CO
CO
CU
JC
8
CO























CU
4-*

en

'x
8

Arsenic T


o
z


co


CM
O
in
3
C



§

^
















1

f\J
f**
N
r-

a.
a.



CO
v
^




r—









^

Q
cu
ii




























(U
Q)
CJ

Wh i tewood



V)


co


50
o
in
OOOCM3 3 3 O O Ul «- O «- 3 3 CM
' c C S *i" Q ' ' C C '



SISSSJS! «>§§ gsgsgg i>e>

CMMCMM«- CM •* Kl MK> «- M «- M M •*





CM 4" in ^" K* Kl 1^ CM W3 OO «~ O> T— CO *— CO
r-T-CMi-CM O C/)C/>(/}(/>C/)C/) (/)(/) 4-* -M <1> 4-» £ > flj 4-»
"D "DCCT3— ^fcXI O — '
cn ••— o o o> — • OT










TJ ^
* D « > CO J=
— ' Q O> "D -M
.2 £-!'§§£.

a> +J4-»^^vxa^^d
co co £L NX h~ d. ^ -M
CO 0 O i- t. Q -•
— * ••- o 4->4-»OCA o c oj *-t co e j:
(/) -^ — / il) H- O 4-> v<.p-.CU+->Q CTDI — — • JC
< _ * o o L. co u c ca QJ o
(O.p.ir-0) C — • CD O <1J > — • 4-»
— i > -M -M a. 0) 4-*x:L.u"Dcuco
— * "D C C O T3 t-OCOC-r-OCO
3c z z z a. o a. oc to ^ ^ t- 3:



Z3 H3 13 3 Z3 13 *^ 33 3 3


CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO COCO


Nfr inON-COO^OT- CMM
0s O 0* O» ON ON O O OO
II
O 11 -4"
II i
II

1
I
§OJ
0

CM CM



i
i
§i T-
1 0

II
CM II CM
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Sll CO
II CO
•^ II "X
T- i m
o i »-
*** n ^x
N- II O
O II O
II
II
II
II
UJ II
u- II u_
II
II
II


> II CO
CD II •
> II 4J
Ul II CO
II
II
II
1

II
II
II
II
II
II
1
O 1
CM 1
1
XI
CD 1
3 II
JC II
O) 1
•— 1
31 1
1
• 1
CO 1
• II
13 II
~- II
• II
TJ II •
a: H o
II CJ
CD II
O) II 1-
58-8
t- n S
Mystery B
Apache Po
n
ii
511 IM
ii <
n
n
00 II O
II
< II •
-J- II in
OHO
*O II >O
125

-------

























ON
I

C-
10
01


to
CO
lr"

•g
J

§• x
CO O
O> UJ
C CL
'i <

|
"Z
ID
3
O
CO
CO
CD

CO
O
t_
CL













































fc
ooo
in CO
•-i ON
§*~
1— 1


>-
1-4 UJ
*-• §E
CO 111
CO Q.
2U1
CO
Lk.
.5
CO
§00
CO
*"* UJ
si

1— Q.
GO
111 Z

<2
S u
UJ<
UJ _J

*-»
O UJ
GO UJ
= 0!
t—
< O






















s
1-
<

CO
UJ
h- M_|
UJ 111 o
GO — I UJ

CL O CO

Z
CO O UJ


— lUQ
> _J UJ
uj o. a:
O£ £ CJ
CL O 00

to
Zl-
ii
3 CO


g
Ul

>-
1—

>
1—
<


Of Ul (-
III 1 t^
&CO Z
< 13




z
o
l-l
1—
<
3




















1
UJ
1—
CO



h-
co
C3
o:


1 O
1
1
1
1
1
ON


«^
1
1
is
1
1
1
1 -*
1
1
1
1
1
l§
1 «-
1 -x
IM
o

1
1 CL
1 Of

1
1
1
1 CO
1 X,
1 CC


1
1
i T»
1
1




1
1
1
1 E
1 ID
1 X
1 CO
1 CO
1 CO
1 CO
1 SC












1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ndfill
II ID
jj
il E
II (0
II X
II ID
CO
1 CO
CO
1 X
II M
II <
II O
II
NO
NO
(M 3 Ul UJ 3
i S> Z Z O>
C o o c



00000


%J* V* 1^ ^" N^


o


IM





cSoocScSco
fNJOIMCMCO
IMIMCMrvjO

o^ooo

CL CL
of of




GO CO CO CO CO
X.X.X.X.X,
of of of of of


«*" tO "4° in NO





X
-2§
rax:

O E*
(J QJ
GO 1-



















ID
01
L.
CO
CO
i
CO
c
ID

s
ON

h-'
NO
tM





§


^—


s


f)





s
o

o

CL
C£




CO
•^
5











(D
i









c
o

4-*
g

'i
ID


u
L.
01
4-*
s
ID
CD
L.

ID
0)
M
o

CO
NO
3





Ox


f/J











1
o
rvj
x^
§


CO




CO
X.
Ctf










X
'c
1
Cu












c
ID)
a.

4-1
s
L.

(/>
,3
IM
ID
u
c
CO
"o
t-
o
4-1
M
ON

ON
NO
x
01




§


^f











1
f\J

IM
o

CL
u.






C£


OJ



_Oj

I
L.
X
I





CO
(0

1

CO

0)

£

v

L. ID
&OI
t-
c- <
ca a
Ol c.
|:
i< —
••- *>-
CJ:
oi u
o *->
CL ^
s
O>

0
3
•g
0)




0>


CJ











1
»•

0


V)




V)
•**
(£








o

CO
(/>








in

o

g
•5


3
ca


CO
Ol
u
1
o
u
u
z
1

1
2
O>

T-
NO
3
iV




ON


I\l











s
?
•^
c?


CO




GO
x.
Of








0>

ID
GO














•
u
c


CO
01
u
Ol
0
o
L.
u
0

1
2
ON

rj
NO
o





s


^f


s


^.





s
1

s

Q_





CO
^
gg







to
1
o
CJ
o
ID
cc



















B
Q.
L.
o
u
(D
I
IV

1
2
ON

ro
NO
^
1



*
§


-*


s


^J





8
o
NN^
0


CO




CO
«x
Of








s
(a

u
CO
c
CO
CO




















(A
CO
L,
01
ro
"8

1
u
ON

N*
NO
10
1




§


Kl


g


^





8
s
NV.
g







GO
X.
Of








>•
o
o
i
CO
(U
L.
u_




















1
'5;
4-*
1


ID
2
o

in
NO
3 3
0) A)
c c



oo


^" V*











II
NIM

00


U. U-




00 CO
X.X.
Of Of










•g
u
L.
01



















01
CO
ID
ca
u
c.
0
u.
L.
*

u
ID
CJ
2
O-

NO
NO
^_
1




§


^_


g


^J





co


^

CL
Of




CO
X.
K









ID
O)
c
ID
o
u



















Ol
c
8
4->
CO
18
CO
CD
1

(0
o
0
2
o

f-
NO
3
Ol




ON


IM











1
ON

o


CO




CO
X,
Of








1
c
ia
1




















o
i
c
i_
CL
CO
1—
CJ
u
o

co
NO
3
Ol




g


(M











1

•^
g









Q£








X
0
4J
c
Ol
u
CO
01
u
u















Ol
D>
ID

o
4-*
GO
ticide
CO
Ol
CL
Ol
t-
o

01
o
2
ON

ON
NO
3
Ol




0


V











1
(M
*Sv
8


GO






Of







Ol
c/)
0
—3
c
CO
CO
J^
o
GO


ID
o
—3
on
c
CO ID
GO L.
Ol

3 O ^N
o ^^
GO T3 4J
• .- ID

O-U CL
c_ c_
o— o
O CO CO
u- O
C- -1
2Sc
U ID
O CO •
0-r- D.
'i~* o
Ol Ol CJ
GO U
XT ^^ 5
O +•» t_
C. C 4J
•i- ID CO
ID— • C
U_ CL "-
CJ
o

o
f\J
NO
41





*


*


o


,_





IX
co
x,
in
o




^_











g
x.

in
o


CO
OL.



GO
X,
Of








o

<
o
CO
CL




















•a
L.
JS
u
CO
a.

01
It
Ol
2
o

IM
«o
3
Ol




o


**











g
X,
X.
o


CO
O—



CO
x.
Of








CO
L.
10

o
ID
c
CO
CO














»_

"
ID

ID
u
CO
4-1
GO
a
u
o
o

c
2
ON

ro
NO
3
Ol
c



§


^J.











1

x»
o


CO
CL



CO
X.
Of








o
c

3
CJ












CO
4-*
c

£

g-

u

CO
x.
g
CO
L.
0)
4-*
c
2
o

(NJ
NO
126

-------
 CD
 U
 (A
1
M-
 t-   «*,   \f*
 £   x   3
 (D

 g
 CA
 CA
 to
>IES,
1989
PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
.EAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE STATUS
LJ ^ ^
1— • >-
COO h-
ro *-i
>- >
—> UJ 1—
d §E <
CO LU
CO O-
< Ul I
Ul CO Of Ul 1-
SO- CO Z
o o
to
§to
to
*-• UJ
C3 O
— Of
i— a.
to
LU Z
z~ §
~ to ~
§1-
<
< •_ G
SG S
UJ <
£
UJ ~l
Of <
u. o
O LU
CO LU
=> Of
l-

to<










UJ
1—
to
1



£
u
O;

1
1
1
1 * *
1
1
! rocsi«-«M >* to
1
i O ro o
| CO 00
! ro  0
O CO U
z " o
C 0
O 3C CA
It- -CO
1 •— ~J -5
! g g g
1 O O O
1
in >o Is-
^ >o ^o
o
1
CM
O
*—
u_


to
^
Of











•
o
4-*
CO
CD

	 ,
CO
c
o

CD
Z
0)


>
0
2
CD
L.
3
(D
_J
g
O

OO
O
o
v>
O
(M
I
to


to
•X
Of











?
u
Of














Q.
,3


0
"o
CO


Jj
g
0,

N
O
§
s
I
V.


(A
^
K











V
C
CD
CO












O
0
§
o


u
CD
CO
N
4-1
C
x
Of Of











V
1
o













Q.
L-
o
u
u
H-

o
CD
o.
1
c.
(0
U)

i
g
0

s
81
1
o
u.


to
V
Of











o
4J
i
to

^
A)
t_
CO
eg
CA
1
Q
3


o
^
V
CA
CO
CO
01


0
u.
L.
L.
0)

CO
£
g
O

CM
(\if\jc\l
ooo
u. u. u.


to to to
-^-s-x
Of Of Of



--CM.*







o
CO
c.
u
CO
in










§*"*

0*3
ui co
CO C
CO —
U 4->
feg
u. u

L- (_
'<. £

1L> 3

ii
g
0

ro
S
1
CM**
Is


C/>
^v
S C£











g
+J
t_
O
"D
u-



















-
"o
o
u
£
g
O

i
o** o*
ro CM
II
£ i
to u.


(A (A
~x V
Of Of











CD
§
CA












g

(0
* *-•
•s "
4-* C.


D) 'n
CO >
O Z
00 4J
4-1
O O
t- C-
£ £
g g
t> O

in -O
T- CM
(M (M
(>
(M
V *«.
•J- O
O-
CO Of


to to
V ^
Of Of











o
CO O
3 O
(A t-













£
o
8CJ
1- CO
i °

1 1
0 U
!c 0)
*-• in
... o
— • L-

£ £
g g
c> 0

*o ^o
(>
(M
1


to
~N
Of










CD
U
(D
O
<0
4-*
C
CD
CO










Q.

O
u
t_
0

u
1
to
I

<0
Z
g
o

o
•*»» -*^
lip
u. u. u. u.


00 CO CO CO
•W.x»^
Of Of Of Of







o
c



-------
roN-  ro  ro   ro   oo«-  OCM«-   o   o*-   a:
 i  i    i    i    i         i      ti          id)
o
c.
CO
4>
CD
CA



1
M-
(- <
1 X
i/> O
g S
'i «


E

1
..,

CO
3
O
1—

CA
in
0)
L.
1?
C-
o.






















uioo
i— »
coo
— UJ
*••* 5C
DO UI
CO O.
•3- UI
UI CO
u.

CO
SCO
en
1-1 UI
Sea
.-.§
1— CL
CO


jjjj
•-* en

S u

UI _l
ae <
u. o
O UI

in ui


< 0
e/><






















PREVIOUS PRESENT
FUNDING COMPLETION COMPLETION
.EAD START SCHEDULE SCHEDULE
-——5 sssss —~~s~—s~~s— sizsssssszz
:E 04/10/86 2 90 *
>RP 05/11/89 4 94 *
— • II MH U.
>~ II
sl
*—* II
1- II
< ii a: oe


> u
Of UI 1— II
UI — 1 •— II «r- N*
O- DO Z II




!!
n
Z II
O II
•-• II
h- II
< II
CO II
O II
—1 II
II
II










II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II


ill
Z II
II
UI II
II
II
II
II
II
II
h- II
CO II
(3 II
Q£ II


§
I
o


u.



(M









CD
D)
CD
CD

















B

-
M
01
CO
en
5
4-»

Jj
o-
g
o

(M
3
*
CM
§
OL
^
C£



-



O
4-»


O

CO
O.
CA
CO
UI


"8
4->
CA



0>
£j
Q."

o o"
U C
0)
§1
0) ^N
O t
N 01
O -C
cu

J-g-
gS
Is
tn
C N

O£ CD
g
0

to
3
III
CM CM CM
u. u. u_
CO CO CO
^>x«^
a. CK a:



-to-t






o


CD
C.
O
CD
CO


















8.
O

g
o
CD
C.
O
CD
CO
g
O

^
3
*
85:
ii
CO C/)
CO
»-
ce of



-CM






g
o<

CO
3
88S
CM fOO
sis
CO CO CO
•x^-^
ee. o< of



--CM








01
4J
_,
UJ















CO
0)
L.

^
CU
Ij
s
01
1
u

g
en
u
0

(?*
3
00 00 00
CMOO
to oo-*
000
CO W CO
^s^^
KCZCX.



-to in



CD
CD
L.
M
L,
CO
a.

c
1
CD
m















CM
CD
01
L.

^
CU
— '
CD
0)


c
CD
CO
g
0

o
$
8
8
3
CM
(M
8
CO
^>
ce.



-








to
1
CO
_c
















to
CO
0)
t-

^
V
-^
1
0)
-s
u

g
CO
g
o

«—
%
tOO fOCM
C^ ON Os ON
N* tO CMCM
•st CM
^h t^ ON ON
N^N""- >».'sv
CM *~ NO NO
(MO «-«-
SS 88
11. U.
co co en en
•v^ ^.>x.
o£ o: or a:



— tO —CM







 a
"o! E
CD 0)
t3 n

g J=
v> co
g g
e> o\

CM to
in in
NO NO
>S 04/19/89 * *
>S 04/20/89 3 90
kk M.
CO CO
~x ^
ct ce



- -







0)
— • 01
CD CA
> O
>N "3
% g
en co


















B

• oT
u u
L.
> 0)
(A CO
U
•>- 4^
t> U
C >
.? 0
c/> en
g g
o o

-* in
(8 "^
OK
1
en
O.
en
•x
ce



r—









CO
O
CA













O
O

c
o
CA
T3
UI
CO
'cTJ
L. L.
O CO
r±
CO O
u a.
C CD
01--'
JC CO
4-> 

NO

*
fe
CM
CM
0.
CO
^
ce



-







01

01
CA
O
ce










c
o


CO
4-1
1


t_
I-

u
Nt-
'o
CD
a.
c
u
0)
jr

g
ut
g
O

J^
in
o
         128

-------
I
I
fr
•s
ex.












































<

5^

O
Z
Ul
CX.
cx.




































































coo
— §
§ *""

coo
to

_ Ul
•^ 3E
m ui

too!
28
"".g
e/>
SCO
CO
i-t Ul
SS
oo

t/)

X
MEDIAL I
ACTIONS
Ul —1


u. a
O UJ
CO Ul


£§

























3
i—
<
h-
V>
Ul

Ul UJ O
CO _l UJ

ex. o co



z
CO O Ul

O 1- 13
—i Ul Q
>— 1 Ul

off 5
ex. o co



Z 1-
— • Of
ss
£">


e
s

>-
1—
~
>
1—
4t



1
02 Ul 1—
g-ojz








g
LOCATIi























1-
s;





i—
M


g

i
i x
i 
Mountain













i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i •
1 O
1 c
1 — •
1
1 -
1 CA
1 O
i s.
1 -C
i ex.
i i
1 CO
i i.
1 4->
X
Q.
1 CO


1 <
1 U


1 O
1
CO
in
ooo uisr

o



OC?§0


IO CM tO CM




So S



tOCM CM






(SoSoocS
^«. ^. ^o r*»
OCMOO
gin-^oo
ooo



Of




V> CO
Xs«s>
OCOfOfOf












2


o
o
a

c



o


to















1
CM
1



CO




CO
**
Of












CO
c_
CO
CJ
CO
CO
CO
















^«

j?
•5


3
CO
g
t.




u


0
1
o





0


CM




5



CM






fe

CM
O



CO




CO
^
Of














Fresno








x











3f
S

>
c
5
£



















O
4J

O
o
1
CO
.§•
Ij
1-


g


o
3
a

£



o


CM















co
-^
^



CO




CO
X,
Of














Turlock











in
CM
oo
£

^

'5
CO


8
crowave.
•£
2
h-


g


o
i
?

£3



*


*















S
^
o



CO




CO
^x
Of














t n «-
CM no
o no
n
n
n
of n of
0. II 0.
II
II
II
co n u>
•~^ n ^*.
of n of
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
HI II
•3 III
1 iil
3 II CO
co ii a:
n
n
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n «•*
• II (A
o. no
i- no)
0 II •-
u n c.
n a.
u n t-
•— II 0)
C- II 4J
4-> II C
o ^ n ui
eg 4J n
-•cue.
Ul CO II  a. n x
(A no>
D  II 0
f CO II v
en > n
C ill S
•- C n S
4-> c n o
83 II «-
CO II C.
3^ II <
n
n
< no
U II —
n
it
o no
n «-
••o n S
oo





S!S!


i- CM




SIS



«-OJ






in h*
SP
oo



Of




CO C/>
>x^.
Of Of














•*















00
^>
1



Of






s













o
Pocatell











0
CJ
O)
c

u

>.
Of














Portland






















•P^
g
CO
ex.
"8
'£
^


cc
o


0
K
-o
3

c



Si


to















g
CM
§








CO
•t
Of














I


















U)



t_
O.
Forests
•g_
g
~^


a:
O


0
R
•o
3

c



g


«~















S
8
1



tx.






5













8
CO
Q
CO
JC


















s
y


t.
ex.
CO
CO
'tl
c
L.
CO



g


0
s
0«-





0§


-*«-




oco



»* >*






CO 00

in in
oo



ex. ex




CO CO
•tl^
Of Of














1






















I
u
1
Jj-
"3
1-


g


0
1C
•o
•o





0


*•




g



ro






CO
?











Of













V)
Corvalli














.
o
c

^

-------
t-   <
     x
     o

I
CL
I— Oi
» UJ
—I CO

m uj
-H I-
co o.
  SUI
  CO
b.


co-
  SCO
  CO
•-I UJ
          — CO
          -.§
          O UJ

          CO £
                   - SB
                 CO
                   —
                 UJCL a:  n
                 cez u  u
                 a. o co  n
                   u    u
                        Sn
                      UJ II
                 3~_i u
                 Ot- 3 n
                 !•• Ill f\ II
                 > —I UJ II
                 ui a. z n
                 o; z cj n
                 o. O co n
C3
Z 1—
i— Of
§«I
p
CO
u.
Q


_l
>-
1—

>

1—
u
<
t
o: uj i—
ui _i —
S§§
II
!!
n
ii
n
n

n
n
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
u
n
n
u
u
8
£

1



u.



(/)
u_

z




g
S
M
1


u.
u.



CO
u_

Of




co-
co-
IM
i


Of
z






g




                      I- II
                      CO II
                    C   ID
                    ID   (9
                    n
                    0)   41
                             c   c
                             a   ID
                             o   u
                             I
                                  *   *

                   5   §   si   sss

                   Kl   •*   •*   -*«-KI
                                           CO
                                                     •*   o
               CM   ro




               S   §


               CM   IO
                                                          «-   OJIM
                                                                                     «-•»>»
                                                                                                     «-   o   o>
                                                                                                     O   CO   CO


                                                                                                     >*•*•*
                             g   2888   fe   £5   8   £   88   8   8
                             *   £££   £   ^   S   Pf   ^>i«   •*»   S   •*»   ^>   •>•>•   •*»
                                                        8   fe  CO      c3
                                              _-    -   >«   **•  ""•      ^
                                              CO   r—    ^   ^  r*      »O
                                              CM   M    O   CM  CM      O


8   8tgg  5   g   g   S   S~S~   S~   &   £   §   §  £      S
                                                                                                                    CO


                                                                                                                    IM
               CL

     O.U-Q.   of
^u.2
                                                                                                      a.
                                                                                                      at
                                                                                                      o.
                                           COCO     COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO        CO


                                           oeSot   oe   tH   at    oe   Zee   ce    tx   ol   ce   OL   oe
                                                                         o
                                                                         CJ
                                                                   2    €
                             I)    O   —•    O
                             J=    ID    O   •—
                             U    K-   CJ   O-
                                  M
                                  4->
                                  ID
                             o
                             o
                                            o
                                           JC
                                           CO

                                            L.
                                            ID
                                            I)
                                      -•    X
                                      —.    ID
                                      «»-   00
                                      ^~
                                      73   4J
                                       C    C
                                       a    -
                              L.
                        *^    o>

                        "1    c   ^
                        d    oi   u7
                        zoo
                    S-   g   S   -o
                    8   ^   ^   I
                    u    t-   t.   c
                         £000
                        u.   u.   a:
                        5   S   S
                                                                                                     jr

                                                                                                     "ID
                                                                      o   4>   o
                                                                      BO   00   CO

                   .tt    CO   D)   L.     <
                    CO   -I   O   <      I
                   >-   *-*   -I   I      O
                   v/             O     O
                         W   M   O     «-
                                                                           i
                                         I

                                         O
                                         O
                                         CM
                                              s
                                              I   8
                                              «   3
                                                                                     M


                                                                                     L.
                                                                                                        4>
                                                                                                        U 4
                                                                                                        •-J^
                                                                                                        < U
                                                                      O   O   O    O    3    Of
                                                                      H-   M-   H-    J3    4>   J= CO
                                                                      C   C   C    t,   ^   UW
                    S   5   S   §     §
                                                          o   o   o   o
                                         §
                                         o

                                         i
§
o
§

o

                                                                                                           ID
I
CO

§

o

KI
                                                                                                                         f--
                                                                                                                         co
                                                                                                                         O-
                                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                                         a.
                                                                                                                         cc
                                                                                                                    u.   a.
                                                                             o.

                                                                              c

                                                                              4)

                                                                              CA
                                                                                                                        1
                                                                                  8
                                                                         co    co        co
                                                                         u.    u.        u.
                                                                         ^    V.        V.

                                                                         "OL    "OL   at   Z
                                                                                                     i    §   ^   i
                                                                                                      (Q    O   4>   (0
                                                                                                                    1
                          '5   JH
                           5S    S?
                                                                                                                              o
                                                                                                                              u
I

S
                                                                                                                    g
                                    Si
                                    I!
                                    O II
                                                                                       CO
                                                                                       •s. ii
                                                                                       —• n
                                                                                       Of II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          u
                                                                                          II
                                                                                       «- II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          II
                                                                                          II


                                                                                          i!
                                                                                            ID II
                                                                                            >- II
                                                                                               II
                                                                                               II
                                                                                               I
                                                                                               !!
                                                                                               n
                                                                                               n
                                                                                            di!
                                     C II
                                    •— II
                                    4-> II
                                     ID II

                                    CL«
                                                                 130

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                    Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                      APPENDIX
                                                                               6
                                   Remedial  Designs  in
         Progress  on  September  30,  1989
      This appendix lists the remedial designs
(RDs) in progress at the end of FY89 and their
estimated  completion schedule.   Activities  at
multiple  operable  units, as well as first and
subsequent activities, are listed.

•   Region - EPA region in which the site is
    located.

•   State -- State in which the site is located.

•   Site Name ~ Name of the site, as listed on the
    NPL,  Supplementary Lists  and Supporting
    Materials, June 1988 and  October 1989,
    OERR.

•   Location -- Location of the site, as listed on
    the NPL.

•   Operable Unit - Operable unit at which the
    corresponding remedial activity is occurring.

•   Lead  — The entity  leading the activity,  as
    follows:

    EP:   Fund-financed with EPA employees
    performing the project, not contractors;

    F:  Fund-financed and federal-lead by the
    Superfund remedial program;

    FE: EPA Enforcement program-lead;

    FF: Federal Facility-lead;

    MR:  Mixed funding; monies from both the
    Fund and PRPs;
PRP: PRP-fmanced and conducted;

PS:  PRP-financed work performed by the
PRP under a state order (may include federal
financing  or  federal  oversight under an
enforcement document);

S:  State-lead and Fund-financed; and

SE:  State enforcement-lead  (may include
federal financing).

O  (Other), SN (State-lead and -financed, no
Fund money), and SR (State-ordered PRP
response)  activities are excluded  from this
status report  because  they  do not include
federal financing.

Funding Start ~ The  date  on which funds
were allocated for the activity.

Present Quarter Estimated Completion - The
quarter of the planned completion date for the
activity, as of 9/30/89.   CERCLIS compiled
this information  on October 20, 1989.  To
complete some gaps in the  data, CERCLIS
compiled additional planned completion dates
on April 3,  1990,  and  April  6, 1990.  An
asterick (*)  next to the completion date
indicates that the date was  taken from the
later date.  Some activities were not updated
in  the April 6, 1990 data, so a few activities
with estimated completion dates in FY89 or
earlier still remain.
                                        131

-------
1
          I
          m
          £
           a.
           o
           o
     o    en
     z    z
     UJ    CD
     CX    •—
     cx    en
     <    uj
           a
           O

           en
                  ig!!
                  »tx  ll

                  ? w  n
                        u
                        n

                     911
                     UJ  II
                     —I  II
                        II
                        II
                        II
                        It
                        II
                        II
                        II
                        II
                        II
                        II
                        II
                        II
                     UJ II
                     £ II
                        §11
                        II
                        II
                     UJ II
                     (— II
                     — II
                     CA II
                        II
                        II

§
CM






1
CM
O




CX

CX







«—














L.
3
 o ex 5; ex
ro CM CM** CM CM ro CM **






N- CO COCO N- CO  CO JO C- CU E CO
Xi T! co 4-> 3 — • 4->a>
_ •_ c CO J3 — • i-C
oi-x eu o — cora
3=cai— 33oa a — i





4-»
CO

L.


a.



M- ••-
1 £

_j j^
L.
4-J (0
CA £

O t- (A
UJ H- (0
CJ
~ § •§
• ii- 4-*
Q. 4-* CO

U CD
— • 0>
O) O U
c a c 4-»

O t_ v^ J^ CL
L. eu CU "D L.
•I-CPD) cxca o — *
DCI- ooex era
o •- o ex — • •-. 01
o en cu ex  ••-
C Q) O 4J 31 — • O
"O O — • E CO O
t-ct- ODC cncu
•F- C CD O "U O 1 W
(DCDjr occ. cyo
m cj cj a: » •-• ce. o:



£ Z £ £ £ £ £ £





fMM-J- m\O^ COCX

0 0 •- T-
CM s* vt CM






CO CO CO CO
in o cj\ eo
O If} CM T-
£ i 1 §




a. a.

a. a.







CM «- T- ro















c a
t- O

co n u C
C. CO CO •*-
o 3 en 3




























CO
"D 4-*
CD ex
*~ " _
O) CO — >
CO CO -i^
> 3 H-
"w X C
en c. co
0) _l
co e
o -. c O.
(J CD CO O
4-> h- L.
C 4-> .C
ir- d) O 4->
v c u c
o •— co •»-
£ o. en 3


UJ UJ Ul UJ








ex tx ex
CM %!• *»






CO CO CO
«- in M
O «- CM
co ro ex
o o o




ex ex
en cz a
ex ex







CM CM «-













L.
L-
§ •§
0) 4-» C
C f/) O
a E1 1
Q. ••- O
UJ ^; 	 i





(/) (0
UJ
i^ TJ

'> CO
L.
O C
 o
03 CD
*-» C
C

C 01 CA O)
O M CO (0
C. O O I-
.»- CD C3 03
> O
C od ofl
UJ E
T-— tO

4- (D 03 -^
0) 4-» 4-» C

b«i o O I-


3: a: 3d
z z z







5
^t






S
^
^





U-








(M













"O

H-

1































0)
V
CO
CO


g.
3

CO

^
CD
O



O£






II
s|s
CM jj ro
u
u
n
u
n
n
ii
 II Z
II
II
j|CM
l\
II
00 U O*-

                                                            132

-------
CO
u
CA
1
I

•g
0)

3
    03


    X
in
UJ
o

_!



S
guj
P
FUNDING
START
1

i

Uj£
3§







8
H-
<
U
O
_l









UJ
5
z
UJ
(A

H*
C/)
0
jv

^K ^K C^ ^K
CM %tCM -4-
CO 00 CO 08
"s *>»•>» *>.
O CMCM «-
CM CMCM *-
1 is is
i u. u. u. u.

1
1
1
1



a.
j:
i £
I j£
1,2
1 T3 £
1 O -Z V
I. 4) <0
0 ••- ^
JS H- CD
-i L. N
t. M- •-
CD CD — •
1 3C u- UJ

|
1
1
\
1
|
8
I
1? -
•S 2
O) U V
£ 2 g
i x *" "
! u! ^ "in
! *, S .5i
£ 2 i
' 3 ^D ^
1 CD U U
1 _ __ __
1 Z Z Z
j CM CM CM
O «- CM
CM CM (M
O
""
06/01/89
ex
£












I
K


t-

CA
CD
*
CA

4)
!b
*w» ID
U
&l
OJC
u u
II
Q B
U 1—
Z
CM
CM
§5:
CM«-
06/26/87
06/26/87
tntn








o.

jz

L.
•M
CA
O
5



—
,„
H-

— J

1
u.
u
CM
Si
§
K>
04/04/86
U.








Q.
£
C

1-
g


E
§
a:








4-*
U
o.
o
I
0
z
CM
in
CM
§
*~
03/31/87
in








a
f
c

H-
g
L.
O
u.
?
M-
1
_J
.£
j^

c
o

ae
4)
lorenc
u.
z
CM
vO
CM
8
ro
05/22/86
V)







a
i


h-
t.
4)
CA
41


C3









£
(O
(9
Z
CM
CM
CMO
00
tO-r-
05/25/89
12/09/87
U.U.












1
O£
C
Cl






CD
to

§
1
o
a:
g
(3
Z
CM
00
CM
§
K1
01/09/88
1







OL

CA
2

l-
•o
s



ex









E
L.
CD
U.
4)
(3
Z
CM
a
»
«~
09/30/88
o.
oc.
O.









a
jr
CA
1—
g
CA

2








— ^
Landfil
B
CO
1
c
w
z
CM
O
§
M
03/20/87
u.







Q.
!c
M
S

H-
g
c.


0.









X
I
c.
0.
f?
CD

Z
CM
fo
§
•*
09/29/88
u.













9

•M
a!









Landfill
8.
"**
CM
CM
§
CM
01/06/88
U.








J=
O)
Q
U
c
^
c
(0
LH
U-








4-«
/Aerosys
u
CO
4)

Z
CM
R
^S
K>-
05/25/89
12/09/87
U. U.





O
D)
g
i_
o

CA

C
O
TL.
41
CO
§

o;

Q)
g
CO
c_
o
ir/West i
ontcla
x
z
CM
M
O
*~
03/24/89
en



CM



a
'•g


*-

D)


O
4V
o

.E
3

3C
a.

j=
|
o>
I

z
CM
in
§
**
08/03/88
u.












41
•^












Q.
L.
O
u
ai
4-»
~o
u
CA
CD

Z
CM
8
S
ro
06/26/87
IX



CNJ






4>

C
CO
CA
CO
4)
a.









andfill
4)
O
'£.
a.
z
CM
N.
O
*~
03/24/89
CO







J.
3
o
o
00

.^






--
41

"s
O.
U
|
§
Of
z
CM
S
                                                  133

-------










i
L.
CD
>•
"co
U
CO
U.
|
I
cn
to
Ol
C X
4-> O
c z
Q> UU



1
L.
(0
1
CO
CO
01
L.
C?
u
ex


















o
§
*^"
ro
CO
LU
h-
a.
LU
ROGRESS ON
a.

z

cn
z
o

cn
LU
a
_j
o

LU
u_
O

cn
h-
cn










£P^"

z
CM
5
§
to

01/13/88










a.
1
h-
to
2














•
U
C
!>-«
8
u
a
4)
u
s.
g
a)
u
3
z
CM
CM
-*
i>
._

09/30/88











waintown
«f/5






















4-»
L.
OJ
Q.
O
(_
a.
i»—
'5
z
CM
ro
5
,_

04/14/88











o
t-
CD
CJ
1
CO




















cS
4-*
CD


fi
CJ
f
t-
g
u
u
*
CM
^
§
,_

09/29/88






CNJ



X
o
u
1
o.






















CD

3
rewster
CO
z
CM
in
8!
(M

09/30/89











§
CD




















§
L.

od
"S
L.
L.
(0
CO
s
CO
z
CM
S
s
CM

03/28/89


o.
DC
O.






I
CO
u
u
H-
O
H-






















CD

O
lothier
o
z
CM
r-
S
CM

04/29/88









c_
a.
0)
"o
i—























0)
1
o
CO
CO
3:
CM
S
s
ro

12/01/86


ex
ex






(0
CO
u.
CO
CO
CO
2


















^
CD
<
cn


CO
u
I
u
c.
0)
8
3:
z
CM
O
*
*-IO

09/28/84
05/18/89


o.
CO Of
a.






C-
>
§
1
X





















CO
CO
u
a.

c
o
cn
"S
X
z
CM
O
in
§
*_

06/15/88


Q.
Q.






"2
o
1
m
M.
o
i—




















i


,5-
0
1
4-*
^
Z
CM
tn
gsss
«-«-«- CM

in r*^ c^ co
oo co oo co
ryi^oM


ex
co cn oc cn
a.






CO
CO
u.
CD
1_
cn
CO
z
























CD
C
CD
U
"*
Z
CM
CM
in
i> °Se
•- !*>>»»

03/31/89
06/26/87
06/26/87










CO
layville
old Spring
u u




















D.
 CJ
CO
C- X
u «-
o
oil 4->
TJ CO
C CD
CO
cn c
o
S 5
1 i
"* z
z z
CM CM
R S
25;§S
«-»-«*Nt

3000


a
a.



u ro ro ro


































134

-------















o
8
*~
L.
ID
4)
>-

m ,f
to
o
M

U.
,,
1

L.
4>
S-
CO
m



u o
C z


n o.




1



h-


(/)

n,
2
o.















_2S
seJlJo
Of S 
1
1 «-
1
1



1 «-
1 X.

1
1
1
1 °-
1
1


1
1

1








!
1
X
a
m
L.
4)

O




























M-
"8
CD
1
J=

4»
CO
2
o
1 s_
1 z
1 ...
1 "1

in
in
00
oS
--




10/01/88
07/28/88



0,0.
££
















4)
£

M

U





























£

a
H-


ca
|
CO
s
(M

in

c*
to




09/30/89




u.

















CD
a.

%
a




























8

(A




CO
£
(VI

in
0
0
-




09/29/88




u.



















ro
o
































o
u


o
o
s
CM

CO
in

0
**




09/30/88



a.
Of
a.

















N
co
•r-
O
c
§
-J





























v>
4)
U
'i
o
o>
c

"H.
'S
Ul
C9
Of
a.
(NJ

»
in

S
to




68/60/50



o.
£
















ID
+J
4)
S

"S
u
L.
ID
m






























X
u
ID
U.

C.
•g
1
a.
CM

S
Q
0
to




04/27/89



a.
£

















CD
V>
— •
<
CD
D>
41
>






















CO
«*
— ^
Q)


X
_^
a
1

u

i
ID
4->
— *
<
ID
0)
4)
>
a.
CM

S!
, 0
| 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
88/9Z/80
i

i
! °~

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I X
1 -M
1 C

1 O
t CJ
1
1 41
1 — •
1 *-•
1 CO
1 CD
1 O
I
1 3
1 41
1 Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 CO
i ro
i
l"8
1 +•>
1 5!
£2
C3C3
eac8 JA
ca COH-
co co"n
41 41 CO
C- t- —I

ID ft* 4)
_-— . 0)
41 41 C.
O 0 CJ
Ul
a
to

IS
§ 5 §8
-* %* lOtO
| | S3
x* O. «-V-
*X X, ^s^X
g iS 2?
0. O. OL Q.
Of Of Of Of
a. o. a. a.



1 S C.
£ 1 I
* CO Q
jj -
•r-
1 1 -

v <- Z
Q C ^
W fe «J
to +*
X v a
So "5. ^
as K- a
UJ Ul UJ
o o o
K1 to tO
tg ^ in
SS §
••»«- >»
ts? s
00 CO

OO 0
Q.O.




i i
—/ o
LJJ X
g
i.
K-
§o
3
*• -s
CO C
eg
_^ 2r
4) CD
> X
2 c
U t-
41
•s *
I i
CO CO
i i
ho M
5 to
§ § §5:
CM ro «-CM
O 00 f^ CO
1 ^ Sa

K r\j rocvj
0.
Of U. U. U.
o.
a a.
fc

S
41 m
\ I I

z
a. — •

8 r iH
co CL C
3. 1 -t
CO J*
« J2 1
"i fe "o
«C CQ 00
222
to to to
So* o
of) JN.
S o:
to to
1 1
O CM
X^ X.
IO O

u. u.
4)
^
CO
ten
JD
U 0

ID
CO

o
.
Ul — '
" I
C CO
S JD
X S?>
2 ?
u o
2 2
to to
ix K
135

-------
CO
    z



i   £
UJ   O

CL   CO
guj!l
2=j ii o
h-g 0>
"jS !!
Ilii10

S "



S--I
5 02 ii ^
i*"5
I*"1™


n
n
§u
n ,
ii i ii 1^
—i n
n
n



n
*>~ !!
ss I!M




I
LOCATION
Lock Haven


















n
u
ii
u
ii
u
n
n
M
M
n
SITE NAME
Drake Chemical

>— ii *c
en ii £

Sllro

P

8 §

CM CM





05/05/89
09/28/88




u. u.







.s- &
"S "~

f^^
(D
I— J=
nt
Weisenberg
North Whit<






















"2
CO
^.
*





06/03/88
10/01/88




CL CL
ua:
0.0.









jz
8
L.
0
m
i

























McAdoo Associates

2

ro

fc

S S

»- ro





03/23/87
03/23/87




u. u.












Erie
Eagleville

























° ?
1 5
L.
CJ »
+^

Q
U
CO
Front Roya
Spot sylvan

























ri §
—• OT
« •"
x "
•** m
•^ ID
ti. — »
8 "
5 -5
< —i

§ 5

ro ro

S $

(>

ro





07/27/88




CL
DC
CL











Saltville





















CL
CO
CO
&
CO
Saltville Waste Di

$

ro

N
00
!!*
£b
u
•* !! ^-
II
II
lj
II
||
II
09/30/88
02/28/86
u
n
M
II
«iiLt
0. || u-
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
(M II «-*
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
t-> II
C II
CO II CO
CO II L.
Point Plea
Chi Idersbu
u
i
ij
n
M
II
lj
n
u
u
i
ii
n
ii
n
i
u
n
ii
n
:i

HE
II CO
II —
II Q.
0) II O
ci!!1^
CO II ..-
West Virginia Ordr
Alabama Army Annnir
u
> II _l
S ii <
II
ro u •*
n
u
ii
SOS
*
* S §

*!*>•*





fe | |
S & 0
s ~ ~
il § §




til
**• Q. OL




(M «— «—






g -g o
ti 2 S
'E ~ "2
C O 4)
< Z CL





CO
o
c_
<


CD

C.
+-•

-2 c
c *^ o
I-H 4-» tt-
g*J
CD
M — • C
S •• 1
JC JC CD
4-» W 4-»
g 2 i
w c o
v o t.
•w E CU
Anniston Army Depc
Ciba-Geigy Corp. (
Perdido Ground Wat

_j _i _i
< < <

N* Vf >t

§ 5 Si
                                        136

-------
1
*f-


I
     I
 U)

 8
         1
          CO
          s:
UJ
g
o
£
co

o

co
UJ
Q
o

CO
          CO
=3 || J~
O II °"
UJ II
= « T-
0 II
V> II
II
§5
< life
(/) II ^*
o*
o
II
II
31:°.
111 || OL
_l II O.
II
U
II
II
II
II
gll
II
*-' II
h- II
< II
3!!-
-J 'I u
II 3
M CO











C
CO

o_


!!«



ji "o
u
II ^^
!! .
|| 0
<->
u
£ !! —
5 ra
< o
ii '=
K !! "
!!"
«
-
II T
!!-
II CO
to i! -1
C3 II ^
OS II ~*
s
O* 0s O* &» O^ O* 0s O* O1*

to T-c\jro ro 4, to «- •* v*

O> OCQCO COmN-r^inO
co co co co ra g ra ra ra ra
in ro in i> co > o o 5 o
CM O «- *- O jxj IO CM CM IO
o r^. N. •* h- ^ **• «- *o o
O OOO O o O r- O O


O. O. O. O. ...
u. 0:0:0: o: ty u. u- LI- u-
0. 0. 0. Q. <"



.c
u
TO
£" m
§C O O
O E — • (/)
4-» — j to *j 3 tJ
O UJC CD CD "O C O O
 >p- 3 it- (D OJ O — '.GO
o. £ o a= 3 Zi c_) o 3 M
Q.
t_
r* O
*-• en u
c m
(0 CO
— -O  O
— » « .1- —

(J t_ C
(DO O JC
W 3 O O C
c c  '(X
ow "b c o X ro TJ
8<0 — ' CjC>sU  (0 C CO «•- D
0>T) O — 1 CO O "D 4-* >• O O O
u Si intoC'^-t-'r- t.
cj4J4-»-o co j= cp e o o
U) W (D 4-» CD  3; 4-» Q> (/)
C"-COO« *JJ=3T3
(D — ' O O£  CD -CO
•-CD « .c: CD -M i_a>3E
 C — • o, L_ c_ o ra ia 3: •- ^
EO o<— on— (-. CD o^: o>






«-


1
^N.


ex

o.




>*
§
CJ
JC.
o
CO
(U
ex



























CD
4-»
'>
L.
CD
g
o.


o
8 §

eg CM

OS O*
1 °
»^ r—
0 0


(X 0.
OC DC
ex o.




X X
CJ O
t_ L.
CO (D
O tj




























u
"Q
I
o
o •
u u.
< CO
^ ^

in o
o o
o o

ro ro

o o
co co
R! ^
co in
0 0


a.
ce. u.
a.






ra
•D -r-
1 1
o — •
— o
u. CJ





0






CO
u



CJ
•o

o

u

o ro h-
o o o o


D- a. a.
u. o: a: o:
a. a. a.




cu
— ro >.
> o C
cu CD
4-> >- ra .a
4-» ^3 C 0)
cu -• c •-
>, cu ro — '
ra jz 2 ro
u- CO C/) C/)











c
o

4-1
ra

S.  >• E
0) — • SI
VI CU O
CU £
c- en • oB
Q. v> U
•u . £ -5
0 D- L.
o L. ra
3 O to 4J
O 0 cy)
ra cu c — •
u- cu u c
C 4-> O
cu co E ••-
£X _. CU 4J
CJ U U 2
O O CJ CJ
Z 2 Z 2

O O T- CM
O «- r- »-
                                                      137

-------
         I
         o
         ro
n
o
ca
I
s
•o
1-
(0
s
I—
o
ss
         CO
         en
         uj
         O

         _j
O

CO
35 LU II
|g(8
s!g jj to
S CO II
u "
FUNDING
START
04/19/88
ii
Si!
UJ II U-
— 1 It
1
II

1
3-ii.-
"11!
<=> II




II
II
II
III
8U
— 1 II c

" *X





















n
u
u
n
u
u


i
?l-
S! «•
 i u
I ^**
i &
• .5?
HS

Kl 8

O II ...
Of II •*

to

§ 8
CM CM


02/08/89
01/31/89

CL
Ll_ fy
Q_













xiana
rton

O CO

























D)

ii
S
a
o o
S £
S i
41 jc
g u
a. 3

u u

-* •*

•* in

§
«-


06/29/89


U.













S
J2
u
ID











C
ID

CL in

c"u
o o
IA 3
M
U O
(D -M
-3 0

• 01
86
" c
- CO
in o
u u
3 «
can Creosote !
listed as Am
U U
<£

z

st

•o
II
8|5
^ jj CM

||
09/25/89
12/05/88
n
u
n
Sijjg
I
1
II
II
II

II
1
1
I
1

10 II
attanoogi
Ividere
JT II 0)
U II CO
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II


1
j
1
II
II — •
II —
II "-
II M-
II 'O
II C
II ID
II —1
1
la.
|5
0 «
CO II t.
." ii >
i I! "Ji
< 1 CO
u
n
Z II -J
u
u
u
t 2


>- CO
CO —1
























8


3
Salvage Yard
le Electical I
o Is
c. v)
>. CO
01 -I

_J _l

in in

& S

s §
to to


04/28/89
01/23/89

CL CL
£ £













S =
D) TO
O .C
j^ (/)

ZV £
























^
|

ex -.
t- ^^
o
0 -5
o> u
1 i
eg jz
X U
•E o
CD U
J3 U>
4-> >*^
5 5

_i —i

in in

«- CM
CM CM
«
5 §
IO CM


9/25/89
12/28/88

a
u. £













5 1
> s
c •*-•

N u.

























O

g
C_) tt
§01
t 1
'? t
UJ U-

z z

in in

K JM

55 §5
to toro


§*" O^
00

CL CX
c£ acu-
0. CL













0) t-
CL 10




























01
! I
» O
i 1
o >
M
- .C
ID C


Z Z

in m

in so
CNJ CM

§
sf


07/12/88


UJ
u.













onsville

N





















O


-*
H-
•g
ID
_J
side Sanitary
£
o

z

in

IV
CM

§
CM


09/08/89

a
CL













1_

C/)

























a.

0
CJ
ur Recycling
1
aT
C/)

z

in

00
CM
*
s §5;
CM roto


09/27/89
09/14/88
06/27/88


U. U. U.




^"








(D 0)
D '>
CT M
t_ -r-

zz o


























V)

I t
JJ 0)
* 8
$ 8
5 1

« «

in in

O 0
CM fl

S §
CM IO


08/18/89
06/27/89

a. CL
£ £







&


cu

01
ID
ID
O fl>
+J 0)
3 O.



























C ^
d Disposal, I
County Landf
3. »
O" M
.J £

jj jr

in in

«- CM
to 10
                                                     138

-------
          SfcSII
          Egg!!
          gg"M!
           z-»
           £ CU II


           3; co u
             ii
             Ul II
             -I II
               II
               II
g
o
c.
CO
cu
>-
.
CO
o
CO


••
g
V4-
1
c/>
m
C31
C X
4-> Q
ft) Ul

ft) r>

e-
. &. ui r-
0 Ul-l"
to Sjg^
a:
Ul
CO
Ul
i—
CL
Ul


O
CO
PROGRES

•z

CO
o

CO
Ul
a









g
»-«
<
O
_J









II
II
II
II
II






II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II









XI
L.

CO
       Ul


       Ul
       DC.


       LU

       O


       C/)



       |


       V)
  I
  I





i!

Ul II
H- II

  II
  II
  II
  II
  II

  II
  II
  II
             00

O O O
«- •* ro
fe « §
2 S S
000
D-
U_ rv it.
0.
CL
a Jc
•r- CO
JC C
CD O
C- t- TJ
U. C1J CO















CO |
cu 5
T °
4J a
•D CO X

"" 0 '>
O 1- <
U
5 CD •
CO CO
O 0
z a: z>
£ £ £
in in in
to >* in
to ro ro

(M CM
I §
^^ ^^
1 §

W C/>





1 =;
cu cu
=c m











.

d £
Refinery C
nitary Land
T3 CO
CO CO
ft)
JC C-
<_ §
z z
£ Z
in in
ro ro

°
ro
1

1

CO



cu

t-
CO
U
o.

~J
c
o


CO
c
4-*
c
o
u

cu

s
cu

CO
L.
ex
«J
z
in
s
*
§
CM
s
5
$

CO

Q.
JC
CO
i
o
H-
1
cs
CO
o









_rf

»4-

co
Sanitary L
cu
>
o
c.
1
z
z
in
o
ro

00
II
oro
*x**»
%om
00

c/> u.





l_
1
<





CO
CD
1

CO


cu

g
cu
CO
&?
> 4-*
•Q'CO
< c.
JC ?
4-> O
II
Z
in
0

0 0
O** h»-
w CO
0 0
0 CM
S S
OL
O£ "
O.




§
g S
C jS
O (D
t- t_
•"• Q






0

0
o

I

c
o
•-i CO
4J
ojf CU
8 •"
1 2
J= ~
u
"8 I
•— CO
— ' O
— • L.
0 0
in in
«- CM

O 0
T- ro
1 1
O (M
CM CM
§ 8
0.
u- Of
a.



ci>
— • CO
'E 1
— • CO
CJ 4->
t- J=
•f CO
u <














M- Jt^
r? 8
CD "-
—1 CD
CD CO
C- Tl
CU — •
3t fl»
0 -r-
m u.
§ g
in in
ro -3-

0
1
~
g

U.





4-*
nion












^

•E
CO
_J
CO
CO
cu
o
X
UJ
CD
u
CO
1
o
in
in
Nt

0
CM
S
*N.
8
CL
cc
0.
CL
J=
c
3
O
H-
C
o
(0
cu
M-
cu



CO
CO

s
CO


u

g

B
0
CJ
o ^*
c. d
CD CJ

0. O
c t-
:— CD
CO CL
CD O
-i a.
3:
O
in
-o

0 0
1 1
fo S
fe 8
a.
ac u.
a.




C
? >*
(D O
0) C.
y H-










o
C

*
d
0
•g
0)
• «J
C Q.
•-• CO
t-
•• O
t «
•t- T3
4J (1)
CO 4-*
'H 'E
0. =3
§ §
in in
l^ co
* *
00
II
^•^
§g

U. U-





cu
c.
CJ
D
CD
Ul






T3
CU

u.

—
cu
3
e Municipal
u
CD
U
3
CD
Ul
3
in
o

O* O**
«- to
1 1

§ 5
0.
a: u.
a.
a
g

i-
co o
— • CO
— • CO
CJ X





_,
£


CD
_1


c
Disposal,
ump
cu o
4-«
CO N
CO CO
•b jc
•»~i u
z co
3 3
in in
O 
-------
£23|JOJJO
QJ iti Q Ji ||
ifpri"
iSlili
2 o ii o

II Ji
§ ii & ii „
uj ii at \\  O CO II
C Z Z II
C* UJ O II
So.— II
a> o. co u
— ' < UJ II
Q. a n
E n
•— _i n
< n
X) i- II
t- Q II
ID UJ II
gZ II
UJ II
1— D£ II
C II
CO U. ,, O II
SO •- II
4J II
i. CO ID II
a> =j CM
0 (- H •- II
c- < E II
0. h- ID II
CO 4J II
C II
0 II
U II
• ii
C- II
II 4) II
5 |! ID II CO
* U !! o
"01!°"
!! n "O
3 II C
!! ID II —
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
II
II
X "D "D II
+-> O O JC II
CJ 3 3 c. II CU
COCOC OCIIJC
O)CCjQ4^CO 4J II C
c-Zc.c-o'ioooiira
00 UB Ii. CJ Z O U- *T" II CJ
II
II
II

II
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

II
II
CO II
L. II
0> II
1 ii
O II
• H- II
£ g ii
1-1 10 1
4-> U II
-• .0) H- II
a ca at i
co • c. c. -—16
Quo •Mt-oiant-
Q.CCO CO :& CJ •— II ra
«•— L. S « 1 1—
3 C — ra cj cj c ai
>•« jc* ro M >- ii c
01 OIUJCCOOI_IHOI
— • o •— c *J co co n t.
•r- O ||
II
	 II •

§«—
o

INJ IM
1 1



u. u.




(\i in








X


4^ 3
u u
co ai
ra 01
§JX
L.
M Ol
C. JC
< CJ



















CO
ra
o> ^^
4J X

01 U

C 01
Q. O Ol
K *~* *s
5 o
0 £fc
4V g U
'G u -

CO .* C.
C 00
ID <-
C. J= ID
< CJ 1-


CO CO

h- N-



^§ -o
s:§ § §

rocvi »- «M
vf r*^ o» (^
floo eo co
COr- (M CM
roro CM CM
(Mm in in
«~0 0 O


O. O.
cn oo o: a:
a. a.




*~" CM *•" ^~












CO T3
oi ai — <
_. — , ai
— • c. ••-
••- ra >»-
CO O C
— • • c.
— • w a
UJ CO CO

























.9
•co a 
— t JZ
'> £ •?
= 1 £
^ -r- "3
UJ U. U.


i i i

N. N. N.



00 O*O
•NO ^> N>
140

-------
















ifX
co

£
f_
ca
01
>-
ca
0
CO
Lu


T3
£
H-
1
CO
CO
0)
C X
'i i
CD UJ
E a.
CD a.
— • <
f

L,
S
Q
I—
a>
u
|
f\















9 II
n LU II
g_J II
*£o!i
UjUJLU
«ag [|
*** 5" CJ II
£1"!!



z- »
± OS II
eJEii
§00 II
u-

II
II
§::
LU II
_J 1)
||
0 "
00
O1*

*~ I II
». rv 111 H- II
* DC LU ' Jj
O UJ —1 ~
N"l Q_ CO 2E *'
5 < =3 n
Q;
UJ
ca
z
UJ
i—
a.
£ »
"' n
_ n
0 = "
° O II
v> ;="
£ SI!
g 0 II
o -1 ||
02
o, "

Z

CO
Z
u

t/>
UJ
a
i
<
Q
LU
jr
iii
a:
s ::
§ !!
1 ii
00 "
II
II
II
11
II
II
UJ II
s: n
gii
UJ II
t~ II
•-H II
CO II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

1— II
CO II

CJ II
OL II



*—
o>
V-




1
s
g










«-









(0
L.








U)
CO
TJ
0
4J
CO

— •
CD
U
f^
O
^s
-V
CD
CD

CJCM
2*2
• r— CD

5
O£ CA
"x — •
O U-
4->
-
* n * * u
§ 8J§ § * sis: sigigg §§§§ s:§§ § g § §»§ g s;
ii ii
r- «-fO ^* *|*~ CNJCNJrOtM «-KlfOrO ^- r- (\| K> »- K> fMJItM ^* ^t
1 II
t II
1 It
1 II
1 II
1 II
§ || § |!!| §§§§ fefegfe ggg | g | siis § |
| || 2 §jjw s|^fc |§§^ ss^ ~ § | §i| K |
in OOO CM O-jj-J- >o«~>O^> (MIMKICM mi^ii? O> ^ K) •* I O o in
0 00 T- 00 0000 T-T-OT- OOO ° O ° ° 1 «~ ° °
II II
II II
II II
II II
u. u. u. a. £»£ cowu-u, U.U.U.U. "-"-"- „. ui ^ fellfe co ^

II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II ll
«- CMOJ O> T-|I»- »-»-r>JCM T-CMCVIKI in- x n E
MO) X 4J *-> II h-
r- II C 4-* '*- C II •*>
O II ••- C CJ 3 O II CD
co IICDt- D O — II — •
CD « II — • Q. O CDO — < II CO
oa tn ii — • c/j u u co ii T) x
CO C II •- L. C. C U II V) •— C
C CO •— T3 II > O CD S2 CD •— >. "~ II 4-> C O
OCD 4->COIIT]£ > E E.U.Q4-III4JCDCO
I-E CONIICOCO C CO E4-IJOCIIOOU
CD •— CO O II CD T3 CD T3 O — •— O II O J= 3
> i— 3: u ll — i •— a < UQ.— ICIICAO.I—
II II
II II
II II
II II
II II
II 10 II
II CD II
II ••- II
II 4-» II
II U Ll
II CD II
II U. II
II O II
II I- II
n a_ ij
n n
II ~O II
» CD n
CM 4J n
ON CO II ^N
"*" M C II 4-* CO
*•» II C •— II C CD
CO II O E II CO I.
C II ir- CO II — *  II O.
E II CO C II «-"
CO II C O II 4J t.
*J II ^ ••- U II CD O
C • II CD £ II CD U.
OOIICD COXIIUL.
CJ CJ ll t- 4-* — J II 4-» ••-
II U — • C CD II CO «(
l_4-*ll (o _j O>IICO
o c ii t- c co o •- n 01 ~n —
V CD II CO CD •— 4J II L. C CO
COEII U CD CO I— t-OlltffMC
^U.11 —* 4-* C- 4^CCDCOII inO
CD ••- II JS O •*- < CO ••- 4-» O II JC v^ -r-
>-4->T23IIO CO 3 CO CO •— II CO «•>
4->'r- c cr ii — • • c 13 4J 3 -p ii ra . m
"-CO n UJ II D g .r- CC CO II 3 O C
— • O IIC3>* 5 CO i-i3T3CCIICC
•— J= t- O II *-> 'i- V O C 11 T3 •- CD
O O U)4->IICO<— *D C .V £ 3 O II C 4J
COCO DIlT-CJ CO 3 CD O — ' II CD • C
U-CD CO^IIC Ct O CDi-C.— *IICQCOi-i
m en ii i- — • z C.CDC3CDM— '
X CCDIIOCO U CJ — ' OIICOC
CDCO ••-Oll'+-t- CD >« O)>v"*IICOt-O
<<-•» 4->l.ll>— 4^ > ^ Tl D) J3 *J II — O M
CE (OCII--C c o C 2 3> C II 73 s-i- COOIICOCD CD O CoE'r-OIICOD
v> i- n: s; M u o o o: cnw-JXIl—Ih-
1 II
§O UJ UJ 1 O O O O OOI-I— IINNN
£ ZZIUU U U CJ CJ I 13 II < < «t
1 II
K t^- t^o-ucooo co co co co co co no oo
II II
II - II
CMKI •* in ii »d o «- CM ^-in>ON.iicooo
t^ S- I^I^III^CQ co co co co co co ii co co o
141

-------
















O-
CO
o-
8 *""
O »
«- 0
t- M

CD o:
01 Ul
>- CO
z:
— • UJ
CO 1-
u o.
to uj
•r- CO
u.
§

C co
3 CO
•4- UJ
I- Of
01 O
CO Q.
m
o> 2
c x --

4J Q CO
C z z


01 a. co
— < UJ
p O

<
-o *~
I- O
CO UJ
O UJ


c/) u.
to O
01
C- CO
at ^
O 1—
t- <
a- i—
CO















^ ii
O Ul M
ss|j §
lu^u j »»
g- § CO II

0

gi-,iS
*"" £r !! i^1
O ^ jj <\j
2" "§
n
n
Q " a.
_j n o-
u
n


i ii
a ui *~ !!
UJ _l ~ T-
Q. CO 5 !
o< r> M








II

n
3 !!
o
»-« n
t- n
< u
3ii
n























n
U


II
II
II
II
ji
n
n
n
Ul II
Z II
CO II
jj
II
II
II


CO II

U II
K II



3T O
°* 0
 0
a. ej

01 4->
C/) C
O 01
-s E

C t-
CO 4->
CO U)
c
.£= N-l


CO CO



ft (Q
<- o
0

—
g sis
— 0 t. C
x 3— ro
-5 «-•
8 1^
S. ^|c
1 ir£
— O 01 4J
§~" -~ ^ o
CO O CO
O u. w w


g 2

O 0

«- CM
O O
*
* §§
* «-•*




Sea m
n oo
,"> inin
SP CMO
~ II


CO
a. "•"•






«— «— *~














01
« ra
i 1
c/> a:

























^x

c
(Q
a.

0)
§ g
g C
w -5
V
a §
t. O
O X
X §
m <-



g g

O1" ON

S! §

S
r-




1

«—
^










CM














O
«
O
"a
c
CO
CO



























8



o
00
u
t-
co
co
N
I
_l


s

0

S!
« *
§r\i«-«-
Q\ (^ O^
v* «-CMCM




S S§8
«~ S-"^1^
«— f^J ^. Y.
cS Sll


a.
a.






CM CM-*-*











t.
CO

t £
^ g
g *
X Ul
















_^^




(Q



• T—

•S S
r_

01
u Jr
4-» — -
i 1
4-» 03
(0 U
ft c
O C/>


g g

0 0

§ fe
* *
5:5:8!
CMCM«-




SScS
5^1^
«— T— f\J
lls











II *^
II *""
|| 1
II

II u_
II

II

II
'[
II

II
II
II
II
II
II
Jl
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
" S.
II CO
II U
II 0
II O.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Fl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II •
II O
II U
II
II O)
II C
ii —
n —•
II O
II >-
II U
II 01
ii ce.
n
n t-
!!£
II
ii-g
n >-
n 3:
n
II O
II "-
!!£
II O
II CO
ii a.
n
u
IIS
II
II
II O
n »-
n
I! (
10
n O
II CM

° S!
-* CM




§ 8
Os ^
CM f\j
1 s


a. ^
a. ^






v-9 «—














ortland
olbert
a. cj































_,
0 1
•. t.
1 0
C3 (J


g 3

o o

S S
CM CM
142

-------
                  52   8   S«
 s
o
K)
              rouiin  «-  «-
m

5

a.
LU

LU
U



I
a.
        §
to
z
o
at

u.
O
       C3 II
       at u
                                     143

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                        Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                         APPENDIX
                                                                                  c
                 Record  of  Decision  Abstracts
   This appendix provides detailed descriptions of
FY89 feasibility  studies (FSs), as required by
CERCLA   section  301(h)(l)(A).     These
descriptions are based on Records of Decision
(RODs) signed from October  1, 1988 through
September 30, 1989. The RODs of the first and
second  remedial  actions   of  the   Fairchild
Semiconductor (Mountain View Plant), CA, have
been combined into one ROD abstract.  EPA
signed  139 RODs  in  FY89  and  four  ROD
amendments, which  are  summarized  in this
appendix by 143 abstracts.

   Each abstract provides background information
on the Superfund site, including the date on which
EPA signed the ROD, former user of the site, type
of operation,  contaminants of  concern,  and
previous clean-up actions.  Each abstract  also
includes a description of the remedial alternative
selected in the ROD and provides information on
the use of alternative  or  resource  recovery
treatment technologies  and on  the performance
standards or goals for the site. Each abstract also
includes the site's NPL rank for sites on the NPL.
Proposed NPL sites and all federal facility sites are
placed into groups (Gr) corresponding to  groups
of 50 on the final NPL.  The table of contents for
this appendix also lists the NPL rank  or group
number for a site.   Federal facility  sites are
identified by placing an  "(F)" after the site's group
number. All sites abstracted in  the appendix are
listed alphabetically according to the site name and
are grouped by EPA Region.
                                          145

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                       Fiscal Year 1989
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                   ROD ABSTRACTS
REGION      SITE

   1          Auburn Road Landfill
              Baird & McGuire
              Kellogg-Deering Well Field
              Norwood PCBs
              O'Connor Co.
              Pinette's Salvage Yard
              Saco Tannery Waste Pits
              South Municipal Water Supply Well
              Sullivan's Ledge
              Wells G&H
              W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Acton Plant)

   2          BEC Trucking
              Bog Creek Farm
              Byron Barrel & Drum
              Caldwell Trucking Co.
              Chemical Insecticide Corp.
              Ciba-Geigy Corp.
              Claremont Polychemical
              Clothier Disposal
              De Rewal Chemical Co.
              Ewan Property
              Federal Aviation Administration Technical
              Fulton Terminals
              Glen Ridge Radium Site
              Marathon Battery Corp.
              Montclair/West Orange Radium Site
              North Sea Municipal Landfill
              Pepe Field
              Picatinny Arsenal
              Port Washington Landfill
              Preferred Plating
              SMS Instruments, Inc.
              Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.
              Vineland State School

   3          Ambler Asbestos Piles
              Bally Ground Water
              Craig Farm Drum
              Croyden TCE
              CryoChem, Inc.
              Douglassville Disposal
              Havertown PCP
        STATE     NPLRANK   PAGE #
Center
NH
MA
CT
MA
ME
ME
ME
NH
MA
MA
MA
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
565
14
451
890
788
676
333
579
743
349
38
837
332
538
52
Grll
184
799
654
575
188
Gr 10(F)
562
197
858
198
702
692
Gr7(F)
291
627
535
42
419
655
512
924
801
927
106
487
150
151
152
153
155
156
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
195
                                           146

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                Fiscal Year 1989
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                   ROD ABSTRACTS
                                        (continued)
REGION      SITE

   3 (cont)     Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard
              Henderson Road
              Kimberton Site
              M.W. Manufacturing
              New Castle Spill
              Ordnance Works Disposal Areas (Amendment)
              Publicker Industries, Inc.
              Reeser's Landfill
              Strasburg Landfill
              Whitmoyer Laboratories
              Wildcat Landfill

   4          Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps
              American Creosote Works, Inc. (Persacola Plant)
              American Creosote Works, Inc. (Jackson Plant)
              Amnicola Dump
              Cape Fear Wood Preserving
              Carolawn, Inc.
              Celanese Corp. (Shelby Fiber Operations)
              Chemtronics, Inc. (Amendment)
              Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
              Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal
              Newsom Brothers/Old Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
              Smith's Farm
              Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
              Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant)
              Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds

   5          Adrian Municipal Well Field
              Alsco Anaconda
              Auto Ion Chemicals, Inc.
              Big D  Campground
              Bowers Landfill
              Byron Salvage Yard
              Cemetery Dump
              Cliffs/Dow Dump
              Cross  Brothers Pail Recycling (Pembroke)
              E.H. Schilling Landfill
              Galesburg/Koppers Co.
              Hedblum Industries
              Industrial Excess Landfill
              Ionia City Landfill
STATE
NPLRANK   PAGE#
PA
PA
PA
PA
DE
WV
PA
PA
PA
PA
DE
NC
FL
TN
TN
NC
sc
NC
NC
AL
FL
MS
KY
AL
AL
FL
MN
OH
MI
OH
OH
IL
MI
MI
IL
OH
IL
MI
OH
MI
778
404
888
258
488
581
44
852
838
266
842
142
51
623
418
672
767
203
864
130
131
287
744
249
753
473
717
337
764
834
182
684
668
653
396
652
638
536
175
808
196
197
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
                                           147

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFVND
                Fiscal Year 1989
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                   ROD ABSTRACTS
                                       (continued)
REGION      SITE

   5 (cont)     Kysor Industrial Corp.
              Laskin/Poplar Oil Co.
              Miami County Incinerator
              Midco I
              Midco II
              New Brighton/Arden Hills (Amendment)
              New Brighton/Arden Hills
              Ninth Avenue Dump
              Northernaire Plating
              Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
              Outboard Marine Corp.
              Waite Park Wells
              Wauconda Sand & Gravel
              Wausau Ground Water Contamination
              Wausau Ground Water Contamination
              Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc.
              Whitehall Municipal Wells
              Windom Dump

   6          Homestake Mining Co.
              Motco, Inc.
              Pesses Chemical Co.
              Sheridan Disposal Services
              Sheridan Disposal Services
              South Valley
              United Creosoting Co.

   7          Arkansas City Dump
              Chemplex  Co.
              Cherokee County
              Doepke Disposal (Holliday)
              Findett Corp.
              Hastings Ground Water Contamination
              Johns' Sludge Pond
              Kern-Pest Laboratories
              Solid State Circuits, Inc.
              Lawrence Todtz Farm
              Vogel Paint & Wax Co.
STATE
NPLRANK   PAGE#
MI
OH
OH
IN
IN
MN
MN
IN
MI
MI
IL
MN
IL
WI
WI
IN
MI
MN
NM
TX
TX
TX
TX
NM
TX
KS
IA
KS
KS
MO
NE
KS
MO
MO
IA
IA
678
569
69
262
865
40
40
438
64
136
87
781
132
905
905
812
606
496
663
27
920
866
866
88
537
100
Gr4
55
234
Gr 10
386
571
687
517
154
804
238
239
240
241
243
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
                                           148

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND
                                                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                    ROD ABSTRACTS
                                         (continued)
REGION

   8
   10
SITE

Burlington Northern Railroad (Somers
 Tie-Treating Plant)
Libby Ground Water Contamination
Monticello Radioactively Contaminated Properties
Sand Creek Industrial
Woodbury Chemical Co.

Atlas Asbestos Mine
Beckman Instruments (Porterville Plant)
Coalinga Asbestos Mine
Coast Wood Preserving
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mountain View Plant)
Fairchild Semiconductor (South San Jose Plant)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (Salinas Plant)
IBM (San Jose Plant)
Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant)
Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroviile Plant)
Litchfield Airport Area
Nineteenth Avenue Landfill
Purity Oil Sales, Inc.
Raytheon Corp.
Sacramento Army Depot
San Fernando Valley (Area 1)
South Bay Asbestos Area

Commencement Bay, Neashore/Tideflats
Northside Landfill
Northwest Transformer
STATE     NPLRANK    PAGE #
MT
MT
UT
CO
CO
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
WA
WA
WA
Grll
528
629
36
300
288
665
289
305
Grl6
310
284
Grll
879
704
283
119
329
880
Gr7(F)
390
306
394
918
694
276
278
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
302
303
                                           149

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                         REGION 1
             (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)
                                                                                NPLRank: 565
                             AUBURN ROAD LANDFILL, NH
                                 Second Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29,1989
    The Auburn Road Landfill site consists of four
former land disposal areas on 200 acres of land in
Londonderry,   Rockingham   County,   New
Hampshire. The four disposal areas, referred to
as the Old Town Dump (3 acres), the Tire Dump
(4 acres), the Solid Waste Area (6 acres), and the
Septage Lagoon (1 acre),  are sources of soil and
ground-water contamination at the site.   Land
bordering the site is occupied primarily by private
residences, and includes wetlands, streams, and a
pond.   In 1979, after verifying that industrial
wastes were being disposed of at the site, the state
prohibited further disposal of drums.  Since 1980,
69  monitoring wells  have been  installed and
numerous test pits have been excavated at the site.
In 1986, EPA removed approximately 1,000 drums
of waste materials from the site, the majority being
removed from the Old Town Dump area. The first
operable  unit for  the site was  completed  in
December 1987, when all  residences identified as
being potentially impacted  by  site ground-water
contamination were connected to  a local public
water supply. Concurrently the site owner erected
a seven-foot high  fence  around the Old Town
Dump, the Tire Dump, and  the Solid Waste area.
A second drum removal was  conducted in October
1988 when EPA removed  16 drums from the Old
Town Dump and 300 drums from the Tire Dump.
This ROD  represents  the second  and  third
operable units for the site  and includes ground-
water  remediation and  reducing residual  soil
contamination which is a contamination source to
ground water.  The  primary  contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including benzene, toluene, TCE, and PCE,
and metals including arsenic and lead.

    The selected remedial action for this  site
includes downgradient ground-water pumping and
on-site treatment using chemical coagulation and
precipitation to remove metal contaminants  and
air  stripping  to  remove  VOCs,  which will be
collected in a vapor phase  carbon adsorption
system;  on-site  discharge to  recharge  trenches;
ground-water   monitoring;   and  placing   a
multilayered natural and synthetic cap over each
source area. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $24,100,000, which includes
annual present worth O&M costs of $1,460,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Target clean-up  levels  were selected for
ground-water  treatment that  are consistent with
drinking water  standards set by  Safe Drinking
Water Act MCLs or proposed MCLs.  Chemical-
specific ground water goals include benzene 5 ug/1
(MCL), toluene  2,000 ug/1 (MCL), PCE 5  ug/1
(PMCL), TCE  5 ug/1  (MCL), arsenic 50  ug/1
(MCL), and lead 50 ug/1 (MCL).  Direct contact,
ingestion, and inhalation of soil contaminants and
further migration of contaminants to ground water
will be prevented by capping.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              150

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc 14
                                  BAIRD & MCGUIRE, MA
                                      Third Remedial Action
                                        September 14, 1989
    The Baird & McGuire site is a former chemical
manufacturing  facility in northwest  Holbrook,
Massachusetts,  approximately 14 miles south of
Boston.  The 20-acre site is situated in a wetland
area within the 100-year floodplain of the Cochato
River which lies to the east. From 1912 to 1983
the company operated a chemical manufacturing
and  batching   facility   on  the  property.
Manufactured  products  included   herbicides,
pesticides,  disinfectants, soaps, floor waxes,  and
solvents.    Waste disposal  methods  at the  site
included  direct discharge into  the soil,  nearby
brook and wetlands, and a former gravel pit (now
covered)  in  the  eastern portion  of the site.
Underground disposal systems were also used. The
South Street wellfield, part of the municipal water
supply for  Holbrook, is within 1,500 feet of the
Baird &  McGuire property.  The last operating
well was shut  down  in  1982 due to  organic
contamination which possibly originated from the
site. EPA  conducted a removal action at the site
in 1983 after a waste lagoon overflowed, spreading
contaminants  into  the  Cochato   River.   The
company ceased operating shortly thereafter.  A
second removal action was conducted in 1985,
following the discovery of dioxin in site soils. EPA
also conducted an Initial Remedial Measure at the
site from  1985  through  1987  that involved
constructing a new water main to direct water away
from the site, removing building structures,  and
installing a temporary cap.  In 1986, a ROD  was
signed to address  on-site ground-water treatment
and incineration of contaminated soil.  This ROD
addresses   the   Cochato  River  sediment
contamination.   The primary  contaminants of
concern  affecting  the  sediment  are  organics
including  PAHs  and  pesticides,  and  metals
including arsenic.

     The selected  remedial action  for  this site
includes   placement  of   river   silt   curtains
downstream of the site; excavation and on-site
incineration of approximately 1,500 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment; backfilling excavated areas
with clean  fill and on-site  placement  of treated
sediment; restoration of wetland areas; and  long-
term surface water and sediment monitoring.  The
estimated  present  worth cost  for  this remedial
action is $1,656,000, which includes annual O&M
costs of $22,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Sediment will be treated  to  a 10"5  to  10"6
excess cancer risk level.   Chemical-specific  goals
include DDT 19 mg/kg, chlordane 5 mg/kg, PAHs
22 mg/kg, and  arsenic 250 mg/kg.  In addition,
environmental exposure to the above contaminants
will be reduced to the  mean  Sediment  Quality
Criteria that are numerical standards protective of
aquatic life and its uses.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               151

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NFL Rank: 451
                          KELLOGG-DEERING WELL FIELD, CT
                                     Second Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The  Kellogg-Deering  Well Field site  is  a
10-acre contaminated  municipal well field  in
Norwalk,  Fairfield  County,  Connecticut,  that
includes adjacent source areas that contribute to
the well field contamination.  The site lies within
the  Norwalk  River's  100-year  floodplain and
consists of four municipal drinking water wells that
supply approximately 25 percent of the water for
the 45,000 residents in Norwalk. The city detected
elevated  TCE levels  in the wells during routine
monitoring in 1975 and subsequently shut down
unacceptably contaminated wells  until a redwood
slat treatment system was installed in 1981.  EPA
conducted a remedial investigation between 1984
and 1986 leading to a 1986 ROD that required the
city to operate  an  air stripping unit.    EPA
conducted a subsequent remedial investigation in
1987  that  further  defined  the  contaminated
ground-water area and identified the Elinco/Pitney
Bowes/Matheis Court Complex, located east of the
site and upgradient of the well field, as a source of
ground-water  contamination.   This  ROD, the
second of three planned operable units, addresses
the major source area. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes.
    The selected remedial action for this site
includes on-site in situ vacuum extraction followed
by carbon adsorption to remediate soil underlying
the major  source  area at the  court  complex;
ground-water pumping and on-site treatment using
air stripping followed by off-site discharge; and
periodic sampling of ground water, soil vapor, and
indoor air.  The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $9,100,000, which includes
a present worth O&M cost of $3,034,000 for 30
years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Chemical-specific  goals  for  ground-water
cleanup are based on MCLs and include benzene
5 ug/1, toluene 2,000 ug/1, TCE 5 ug/1, and PCE 5
ug/1.   EPA has  established  soil clean-up goals
based on a  soil leaching model. Chemical-specific
soil clean-up goals range depending on the soil
type and include benzene 1.2 - 36.7 ug/kg, toluene
5,523 - 169,552 ug/kg, TCE  12 - 358  ug/kg and
PCE 33 - 1,036 ug/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional   controls  will  restrict  soil
excavation  and well installation in  contaminated
areas.
                                               152

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRante  890
                                    NORWOOD PCBs, MA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 26-acre Norwood PCBs site consists of
several  industrial  and  commercial  properties,
parking areas, and vacant lots in Norwood, Norfolk
County, Massachusetts.  Significant site features
include the Grant Gear property to the north, an
office  park complex  which extends  along  the
western portion of the site, and residential areas
which   border the  site  to the  west  and north.
Meadow Brook, which discharges to the Neponset
River,  and an  associated wooded wetlands area
make up the north site boundary.  Four piles of
sediment  sludge, previously dredged from  the
stream, are located on  the south bank of the
brook.    Site  contamination   originated from
disposal practices of previous businesses, primarily
electrical equipment manufacturing, that operated
from  the  building now owned by Grant Gear
Realty Trust.  In April 1983, the State responded
to a citizen report  of previous industrial waste
dumping at the site and took surficial soil and
sediment   samples   which  confirmed  PCB
contamination. In June  1983, EPA removed 500
tons of PCB-contaminated soil from the office park
complex and Grant Gear properties and disposed
of it off site.  The State  implemented an Interim
Remedial Measure in 1986 to limit access to areas
with high surface contamination  on the Grant
Gear property  by constructing a 1.5-acre cap. The
primary contaminants  of concern affecting soil,
sediment, ground water, and building surfaces are
VOCs  including TCE and PCE,  other organics
including PCBs, PAHs, and phenol, and metals.

    The selected source control remedial measures
include excavation, solvent extraction,  and on-site
disposal of approximately 31,000  cubic yards  of
unsaturated soil and  dredge pile sediment and
approximately 3,000 cubic yards of Meadow Brook
sediment followed by installing a soil cover over
the treated soil; off-site incineration and disposal
of extracted oils containing PCBs; flushing and
cleansing portions  of  the Grant  Gear drainage
system;  cleaning and  sealing roof surfaces, and
decontaminating machinery, equipment, and floor
surfaces in the Grant Gear building which exceed
TSCA clean-up levels; ground-water collection in
a barrier drain trench with on-site treatment by
carbon adsorption  for  PCBs, air stripping for
removal of VOCs, and precipitation/filtration for
removal of metals; wetlands restoration; long-term
environmental monitoring of ground water, soil,
sediment, and building surfaces; and institutional
controls restricting ground-water and land use.
The estimated present worth cost for this selected
remedy is  $16,100,000,  which includes  annual
O&M costs for up to 10 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    To assist in the establishment of clean-up
standards, EPA has divided the site  into three
sections: Section A is the area of soil and dredge
sediment north of the  Grant Gear  fence and
adjacent to  Meadow Brook; Section B includes
areas   within  the  Grant  Gear  property and
surrounding commercial properties; and the final
section is  the Meadow Brook sediment area.
Chemical-specific soil target clean-up levels for
Section A are PCBs 1 mg/kg and PAHs 2 mg/kg
based on a 7 x 10'6 cancer-risk level; for Section B,
PCBs  10 mg/kg (25 mg/kg for soil covered with
pavement outside Grant Gear) and PAHs 6 mg/kg
based  on a  10"6  cancer-risk level, and TCE 24
ug/kg   and PCE 60  ug/kg based  on preventing
contamination to ground water above MCLs. The
clean-up level for sediment in  Meadow Brook is
PCBs 1 mg/kg based on  1.5 x 10"7 excess cancer-
risk level, and  PCBs 0.5 ug/kg for discharge  to
Meadow Brook.  Ground-water target clean-up
levels  were established based on Federal and State
MCLs for TCE 5 ug/1, PCE 5 ug/1, and four other
organics.

Institutional Controls

    Controls  will be designed  to  ensure that
ground water on the zone of contamination will
not be used as a drinking water source,  and  to
prevent disturbance  of  contaminated untreated
subsurface soil  within the  Grant Gear property,
                                              153

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                             Fiscal Year 1989
sediment in Grant Gear drainage systems and soil
under paved areas outside Grant Gear.
                                          154

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  788
                                     O'CONNOR CO., ME
                                    First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 27, 1989
    The O'Connor Co. site covers a 9-acre area
near the city limits of Augusta, Maine.  The area
neighboring the site consists of woodlands, a small
poultry farm,  private properties and residences,
and wetlands.  A portion of the site is also located
within a 100-year floodplain.  The F. O'Connor
Company began operating a salvage and electrical
transformer recycling business at the site in the
early 1950s.  Because of previous oil spills the state
investigated the site in 1976 and found the surface
water, sediment, and soil contaminated with PCBs.
As a  result  of  this study,  the  F.  O'Connor
Company   constructed   two   surface-water
impoundments  (lagoons)  to  control   further
migration of oils from the site. In 1977, the State
ordered the F. O'Connor Company to discontinue
use  of  the  lagoons.   Subsequently, the lagoon
waters were pumped into several on-site storage
tanks and the sediment was excavated, deposited in
a low area onsite, and covered with a clay cover.
The sediment  created a  barrier for surface water
and formed an upland marsh onsite.  In May 1987,
EPA and the state  jointly  issued  an  amended
Administrative Order to F.  O'Connor Company
requiring field investigations and extensions of the
existing  fence   to   areas   where  additional
contamination   was   found.     The   primary
contaminants  of  concern  affecting  the  soil,
sediment, ground water, and surface water are
VOCs including benzene, other organics including
PCBs and PAHs, and metals including lead.

    The  selected remedial action for  this  site
includes pumping and off-site treatment of lagoon
and upland marsh surface water; excavation and
on-site treatment of approximately 23,500  cubic
yards  of contaminated soil and sediment using a
solvent  extraction process followed  by on-site
disposal of residuals; on-site treatment of  gases
from the solvent extraction process; extraction and
off-site  treatment  of  solvent  residues  using
incineration; on-site treatment by solidification of
soil and sediment that do not achieve target clean-
up  goals  after  treatment, followed  by off-site
disposal; backfilling and upgrading the excavated
area with clean soil and treated soil; ground-water
pumping and  treatment using activated carbon
adsorption followed  by on-site  reinjection; and
sediment  and ground-water  monitoring.  The
estimated  total cost  for this remedial action is
$14,221,000 which includes annual O&M costs of
$56,000 in year one, $54,000 for years two to four,
$92,000 for year five, and $65,000 for years six to
thirty.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Target cleanup  goals were based on a 10"5
excess cancer risk. Individual goals for soil and
sediment include PCBs  1 mg/kg, PAHs  1 mg/kg,
and lead 248 mg/kg;  for ground water, PCBs  0.5
ug/1 and benzene 5  ug/1; and  for surface water,
PCBs  0.065 ug/1 and lead 1.94 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

    Deed  and land  use restrictions to prohibit
ground-water use will be implemented.
                                               155

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc 676
                              PINETTE'S SALVAGE YARD, ME
                                    First Remedial Action - Final
                                           May 30, 1989
    The  Pinette's  Salvage  Yard  site is  located
approximately one mile southwest of the town of
Washburn,  Aroostook  County,  Maine,  in  the
northeast corner of the state. The site consists of
a vehicle repair and salvage yard and an adjacent
undeveloped area containing  wetlands.    Land
surrounding the site is used for residential, general
industrial,   and  agricultural   purposes.     An
undeveloped forest and a wetlands area are also
adjacent to the  site.  The water supply for the
approximately eight  to  ten residences  located
within a one-half mile radius of the site is obtained
from private wells located in  the deep, bedrock
aquifer below the site.  Municipal wells,  used to
supply the drinking  water to the residents of
Washburn, are located one mile northeast of the
site.  In June 1979, three electrical transformers
were removed from Loring Air Force Base by  a
private electrical contractor and allegedly brought
to the site where they ruptured while being moved
from the delivery vehicle.  Approximately 900 to
1,000 gallons of dielectric fluid containing PCBs
spilled directly onto the ground. A removal action
was  performed in  late  1983 which  included
excavation and off-site disposal of 800 cubic yards
of municipal PCB-contaminated soil from the site.
Subsequent investigations at the site  revealed the
presence of a wide range of PCB concentrations in
the surface and subsurface soils. The highest levels
of PCBs are in the general area of the transformer
fluid spill.   Surface migration of PCBs extends as
far as the undeveloped land adjacent to the salvage
yard.    In  addition,  soil contaminated  with
chlorinated benzenes  was found in the spill area.
The total  volume of contaminated soil above  5
mg/kg PCBs and containing  other organics  is
approximately  2,200 cubic yards.   Detectable
concentrations of PCBs and benzene compounds
were  identified in both  the  shallow  and  deep
aquifers localized within and slightly downgradient
of the spill area. This remedy is designed primarily
to  address soil contamination  and, to the extent
practicable,  ground-water  contamination  at the
site.    The primary  contaminants  of  concern
affecting  the soil and  ground water are VOCs
including benzene, organics including PCB; and
metals including lead.

     The selected  remedial action for  this site
includes excavation and off-site incineration of 300
cubic yards of soil  containing greater than 50
mg/kg PCBs;  excavation  and  on-site  solvent
extraction of 1,700 to 1,900 cubic yards of soil
containing  between  5  and 50 mg/kg PCBs and
other   organic  contaminants,    with   off-site
incineration of treatment process effluent and on-
site  treatment  of air emissions;  excavation  of
approximately  500  cubic yards  of  surface soil
containing  between  1  and 5 mg/kg PCBs to  a
minimum depth of 10 inches and placement, along
with treated soil, in  the area where more highly
contaminated  soil was  excavated,  followed by
additional soil covering and revegetation; on-site
ground-water   pumping,   and  collection  via
interceptor trenches, with treatment using filtration
and  carbon adsorption, followed by discharge of
treated water  into  the  shallow  aquifer; access
restrictions; institutional controls;  and sediment,
ground-water, and surface-water monitoring. The
estimated  present worth  cost for  this site  is
$4,367,000  which includes annual O&M costs of
$135,000 for years one to two, $42,000 for years
three to five, and $20,000 for years six to thirty.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Target clean-up goals were established for six
soil  contaminants including PCBs 5 mg/kg (based
on a state  clean-up  level slightly more stringent
than a 10"5 excess cancer risk level) and benzene
260  ug/kg.  Target goals  were provided for seven
ground-water contaminants including PCBs 0.5 ug/1
(Maine's Maximum Exposure Guidelines), benzene
5  ug/1  (MCL), 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene  680 ug/1
(based on 2 x 10"2 reference dose level), and lead
5 ug/1 (MCL).  Due to the technical impractibility
from an engineering perspective of obtaining the
PCB target clean-up goal in the  ground  water,
EPA is invoking a waiver from  compliance with
this  goal.
                                                156

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
Institutional Controls

    Institutional controls will be established  to
prevent use of on-site ground water for drinking
water purposes both during and, if necessary,
following overall site remediation.
                                             157

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc  333
                             SACO TANNERY WASTE PITS, ME
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 27, 1989
    The Saco Tannery Pits site is in Saco, Maine,
approximately 15  miles  southwest of Portland,
Maine.  The 233-acre site is in a rural area which
includes forests and wetlands, and lies within the
100-year floodplain of Stuart Brook.   Between
1959 and  the early 1980s,  a  leather  tannery
operator used the site to dispose of process wastes
in two 2-acre lagoons and 53 smaller disposal pits.
EPA and state investigations in the early 1980s led
to  a removal  response action which  included
pumping  liquids  from  three waste  pits  and
neutralizing the remaining sludge  from the pits.
The ROD  addresses both  source control and
ground-water   remediation   and   identifies  a
contingency plan in the event the state legislature
fails to enact the necessary institutional controls
within two years.  The  primary contaminants  of
concern affecting  the  sediment, sludge, ground
water,  and  surface water  are metals including
arsenic, chromium, and lead.

    The selected remedial action is contingent
upon the state enacting legislation within two years
designating the site as a permanent conservation
area. The remedy includes pumping and off-site
treatment and discharge  of water from waste pits
and lagoons followed by covering and revegetating
waste pits,  lagoons and associated  wet areas;
compensation  for  six  acres  of  lost wetlands;
ground-water and  surface-water  monitoring  to
determine whether contaminants exceed specified
action  levels  which would require further site
evaluation;  and implementation of  institutional
controls.  If legislation is not passed to restrict
future use of the site, a contingency plan will be
implemented  which   includes   excavating  and
solidifying soil and sludge from the waste pits and
lagoons with on-site disposal in a RCRA-permitted
landfill,  and  ground-water  and  surface-water
monitoring.  The estimated present worth cost for
the  selected   remedial  action ranges   from
$9,211,600 to $10,551,400, which includes present
worth  O&M costs ranging from $2,500,000 to
$3,800,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Target  clean-up  levels were developed  for
sediment and sludge contaminants which exceed a
carcinogenic risk of 10"7 or a noncarcinogenic risk
greater than a total Hazard Index of 1.0. Specific
clean-up goals include total chromium 2,000 rug/kg
(based on the Ecological Risk Assessment), lead
125  mg/kg (health-based state target  level), and
arsenic  60 mg/kg.  ACLs were  established  for
arsenic in ground water. If other contaminants are
detected above  MCL  levels, an evaluation of
additional remedial action will be made.

Institutional Controls

     If the state designates the site a permanent
conservation area,  land and ground-water use and
deed restrictions will  be implemented as part of
this  designation.
                                                158

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRanfc  579
                    SOUTH MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY WELL, NH
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       September 27, 1989
    The 250-acre South Municipal Water Supply
Well site is approximately two miles south of the
Town of Peterborough, in Hillsborough County,
New  Hampshire.     The  site  includes   the
Contoocook River, the Noone Pond System, and a
wetlands area.   Also on  the  site are the New
Hampshire Ball Bearings  Incorporated  (NHBB)
manufacturing   facility,   several   commercial
establishments, and several apartments. Land use
in the vicinity of the site is rural and undeveloped.
Ground-water flow beneath the site is generally
eastward from the NHBB property towards  the
South Municipal Well. The town of Peterborough
discontinued use of the South Well in May 1983
after the state discovered VOC contamination in
water samples taken from  the  well.  Subsequent
investigations   revealed   that  a  plume   of
contaminated ground water extended from under
the NHBB property to the vicinity of the South
Well.  VOC contamination was also detected in
soil on the NHBB property, and wetlands sediment
was found to be contaminated with PCBs, metals,
and   PAHs.    Investigations   attributed   the
contamination to in-house  chemical releases that
were subsequently washed out through floor drains
or slop sinks to outfalls, or washed out through
facility doors.   Exterior releases contributed  to
contamination at the site through the draining of
a truck-mounted waste solvent tank. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the  soil and
ground water are VOCs including PCE, TCE, and
toluene;  the primary contaminants of concern
affecting the sediment are organics including PCBs
and PAHs, and metals.

    The selected  remedial action  for this  site
includes ground-water pumping from the highly
contaminated NHBB area  plume and treatment
using   a    phase   separation    settlement
tank/pretreatment system,  air  stripping, carbon
columns  for  air emission control,  and on-site
discharge; ground-water pumping from the dilute
plume outside the NHBB area and treatment using
air stripping, carbon columns, on-site discharge; in
situ vacuum extraction of 7,500 cubic yards  of
contaminated  on-site  soil;  excavation and/or
dredging  with dewatering of 1,170 cubic yards  of
wetlands  sediment and off-site disposal; wetlands
restoration with clean fill, surface contouring, and
revegetation;  implementation   of  institutional
controls  restricting  ground-water use and well
installation;   and   long-term   ground-water
monitoring.  The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $7,387,769, which includes
an  estimated present  worth  O&M  cost   of
$3,992,105.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Target clean-up levels for ground water were
based on  SDWA MCLs including PCE 5 ug/1, TCE
5 ug/1, and toluene 2,000 ug/1.  Target clean-up
levels  for soil  were  established   to  reduce
contaminant  migration  to ground water  and
include PCE 4.5 ug/kg, TCE 1.5 ug/kg, and toluene
1,500  ug/kg.  Soil target levels will attain a 3 x
10"10  excess cancer risk level.   Target clean-up
levels for sediment include PAHs 1.1 ug/kg and
PCBs 1 ug/kg, which will attain an excess cancer
risk of 2.9 x 10"7 for PCBs and 1.3 x 10'6 for PAHs
for a total risk of 1.3 x W6.

Institutional Controls

    Institutional controls will  be established to
prevent well use  and well installation in areas of
contaminated ground water.
                                              159

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 743
                                  SULLIVAN'S LEDGE, MA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           June 29, 1989
    The Sullivan's Ledge site is a 12-acre disposal
area  in  an  urban  area  of  New  Bedford,
Massachusetts.  The site is bordered by a country
club and marsh  area to the north  and small
businesses  to the east and west.  The site was
operated originally as a granite quarry and includes
four 150 feet deep quarry pits. Between the 1930s
and 1970s, the quarry and adjacent areas were used
for disposal of hazardous materials  and other
industrial wastes.  Site investigations conducted in
1986 and 1988 revealed high concentrations of
PCBs  in soil  and  sediment,  and  VOCs  and
inorganics in on- and off-site ground and surface
water.  Surface runoff and ground water from the
disposal area discharge into the adjacent stream,
which drains into the country club golf course and
the Middle  Marsh Wetlands area.  In addition, a
small portion of the site lies within the stream's
100-year floodplain.  EPA concluded that the
contamination   includes  on-site   soils   and
PCB-contaminated sediment washed offsite to an
adjacent stream and  wetland areas, and wastes
disposed of in the former quarry pits.  This ROD
addresses   source   control   and   migration
management; a subsequent ROD will address the
Middle Marsh area. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, ground water,
and surface water are VOCs including benzene and
TCE, organics including PCBs  and PAHs, and
metals including lead.

    The selected remedial  action  for this site
includes excavation/dredging of 24,200 cubic yards
of soil and 1,900 cubic yards of sediment with on-
site treatment using solidification, followed by on-
site  disposal;  construction   of  an  11-acre
impermeable cap; air monitoring; diversion and
lining  of the stream adjacent to the  site; active
ground-water pumping  and  passive  underdrain
collection with treatment using oxidation/filtration
and  UV/ozonation  with  off-site  disposal of
contaminated residuals (ground-water disposal will
be  determined after further studies); wetlands
restoration/enhancement; sediment, ground-water,
and surface-water monitoring; institutional controls
including ground-water use and access restrictions.
The estimated present worth cost is $10,100,000;
O&M costs were included  in the present worth
cost but were not  provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     On-site soil clean-up standards for PCBs and
PAHs were health-based using a 10"5 cancer risk
level and include remediation of soil contaminated
with total PCBs above 50 mg/kg and/or total PAHs
above 30 mg/kg. Off-site soil will be tested further
before  chemical-specific  goals  are  provided;
however, off-site soil  with PCBs greater than 10
mg/kg (based on a 10"5 cancer risk level) will be
excavated and disposed  of onsite, and soil with
PCBs greater  than 50 mg/kg will be solidified
onsite. The sediment clean-up standard for PCBs
is  the interim mean sediment quality  criteria
(SQC) value of 20 ug/gC.   Where total organic
carbon (TOC) is  less than or equal to 10 gC/kg,
target treatment for sediment will be 0.2 mg/kg
PCBs.    Because  of  the  geology of  the  deep
fractured bedrock and possible presence of dense
non-aqueous phase liquids, EPA considers ground-
water treatment to MCLs technically impracticable.
Active ground-water  collection system  clean-up
standards for VOCs will reduce VOCs to a range
of 1-10  mg/1  and/or  until an  asymptotic curve
indicates   that   no  significant   concentration
reductions  are being  achieved.   Passive ground-
water collection system clean-up standards will be
based on state AWQS.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional  controls will be implemented to
prevent the use of ground water for drinking water
and to place deed restrictions regulating land use
at the site.
                                               160

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  Nl'LRank:  349
                                      WELLS G&H, MA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 14, 1989
    The Wells G&H site encompasses 330 acres
within the zone of contribution of two municipal
drinking water wells known as Well G and Well H,
commonly referred to as Wells G&H, in Woburn,
Massachusetts. The area near the wells consists of
industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational
development. The Aberjona River flows through
the site, and a substantial on-site wetlands area is
associated with the river's floodplain. Wells G&H
were developed in the 1960s and provided over one
quarter of the Woburn community water supply.
In 1979 the state closed the wells and provided the
community with an alternate water supply after
detecting  several  chlorinated  volatile  organic
compounds   (VOCs)  in  the  wells.     EPA
investigations beginning in 1981 resulted in the site
being divided into three discrete operable units:
first, five properties inside the perimeter of the site
boundary that were identified as source areas of
contamination; second, a central area immediately
surrounding Wells G&H with extensive  ground-
water contamination; and third, a segment of the
Aberjona River and associated wetlands containing
contaminated sediment.  Between 1983 and 1989,
EPA issued several Administrative Orders to site
property owners   requiring  clean-up  activities
including limiting site access and removing drums
and  debris.  This ROD addresses remediating
contaminated soil and ground water found at the
first operable unit, the five properties identified as
principal sources  of contamination, and further
evaluating  the  remaining  operable  units.   A
subsequent ROD will address the second and third
operable units which include the central area of
the site and  the  river sediment.  The  primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sludge,
debris, and ground water are VOCs including PCE
and TCE, other organics including carcinogenic
PAHs (cPAHs), PCBs, and pesticides,  and metals
including lead.
     The  selected remedial action  for  this site
includes  in  situ  volatilization,  using  carbon
adsorption for treatment of the extracted vapor, of
the 7,400 cubic yards of soil contaminated with
VOCs only; excavation and on-site incineration of
3,100 cubic yards of the remaining contaminated
soil and backfilling the excavated areas; ground-
water pumping and treatment in the five source
areas, using pretreatment  for metals followed by
air stripping and vapor phase carbon filtering with
either discharge on-site to the Aberjona  River or
reinjection into the aquifer or both; removing and
disposing of 410 cubic yards of sludge and debris;
and  ground-water monitoring.   The estimated
present worth  cost  for this  remedial  action is
$68,400,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Three approaches were used to determine soil
clean-up levels. The first approach was based on
protecting ground water from VOC contamination
from the soil and includes individual goals for soil
of PCE 36.7 ug/kg and TCE 12.7  ug/kg.  The
second approach was based on a 10"6 cancer-risk
level and includes individual goals for cPAHs 0.694
mg/kg, PCBs 1.04 mg/kg, and 4-4'-DDT 23.5 mg/kg.
The third approach established a clean-up goal for
lead  at 640  mg/kg based on a target blood lead
level of 10 ug/dl. Ground-water clean-up goals for
the aquifer were established at MCLs and include
PCE 5 ug/1  (based on  TCE) and  TCE 5 ug/I.
Effluent levels for discharge to the Aberjona River
were based state  AWQSs; if  discharge is to the
aquifer, MCLs will be met.

Institutional Controls

    EPA recommends that deed and land use
restrictions be implemented to restrict use of the
aquifer in the vicinity of the site.
                                              161

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRank: 38
                     W.R. GRACE & CO., INC (ACTON PLANT), MA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Acton Plant) site
is in Acton and Concord, Massachusetts.  The
American Cyanamid and Dewey & Almy Chemical
companies formerly owned the 200-acre site where
they  manufactured explosives, synthetic rubber
container  sealant  products,  latex  products,
plasticizers,  and resins.   In 1954 W.R. Grace &
Company purchased  the  property  and  began
producing container  sealing  compounds,  latex
products, and paper and plastic battery separators.
Effluent wastes from these operations flowed into
several unlined lagoons and were later buried in
on-site waste areas, including an industrial landfill.
After a  1978  investigation revealed  that ground
water in the vicinity of the site was contaminated
with VOCs, W.R. Grace & Company agreed to
fully restore the aquifer.  An aquifer restoration
system was  installed in  1985  which recovers and
treats ground water under the site's waste disposal
areas.   Subsequent  samplings, however,  have
indicated that the system  has  only minimally
reduced  the ground-water  contamination  at  the
site.  This first operable unit primarily addresses
the source  contamination and includes minimal
modifications  to the  aquifer restoration system.
Further   ground-water  remediation   will   be
addressed in a subsequent ROD.   The primary
contaminants   of concern   affecting  the soil,
sediment, and sludge are VOCs including benzene
and toluene, other organics, and metals including
arsenic.
    The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes excavation and  off-site incineration of
highly  contaminated  soil  and  sludge;  on-site
solidification of less contaminated soil, sludge, and
sediment followed  by on-site  disposal  in  the
landfill and capping of the landfill; covering  and
monitoring other waste areas; modification to the
aquifer restoration system to address air stripper
emissions controls; and environmental monitoring.
The estimated total cost for this remedial action is
$7,058,000, which includes an estimated O&M cost
of $2,468,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil clean-up goals were established  for five
indicator compounds  to  ensure that any further
contaminant migration to the ground water  will
not  result  in ground-water   levels  exceeding
drinking water  standards  (including  MCLs).
Chemical-specific goals were provided but specific
goals  for each contaminant varied depending on
the location of the waste area on site. The overall
cumulative risk associated with  the soil clean-up
levels is 8.34 x 10-7.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                                162

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                          REGION 2
                        (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
                                                                                 NPLRanfc  837
                                    EEC TRUCKING, NY
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 28, 1989
    The EEC Trucking site, also  known  as the
Binghamton Equipment Company, is in the town
of  Vestal,  Broome County,  New York.   The
3.5-acre site is an open lot which overlies a Class
II aquifer.   Land use neighboring the  site  is
primarily  commercial/industrial,  but  includes
wetlands or marsh area to the west.  Prior to the
mid-1960s,   the  EEC Trucking  site  was  an
unimproved marshland. The original owner, Haial
Trucking,  filled  some of the marshlands with
various fill materials, including fly ash from a local
power company.  EEC Trucking, Haial Trucking's
successor,  operated a combination truck body
fabrication and truck maintenance facility. Paint
thinners  and  enamel  reducers   used   during
operations, and  waste hydraulic  oil and waste
motor oil reportedly generated during operations
were stored in a drum storage area  on the western
portion of the site.   A  1982 state inspection
identified approximately 50 drums, 20 of which
contained  waste engine  or cutting oils,  enamel
reducers, paint thinners, and waste solvents.  The
drums in the storage area were removed in 1983
along with some stained soil around the drums. In
1988, extensive sampling of ground water, surface
water, and soil revealed low-level contamination.
The suspected source of on-site ground-water and
surface-water contamination  appears  to  be a
leaking underground storage tank on a neighboring
property. Remedial activities are currently being
undertaken at the neighboring site to address any
ground-water or surface-water contamination  at
the site resulting from the tank's leakage.

    The selected remedial action for this site is no
further action.   A monitoring program will be
established to ensure that this remedy continues to
be  protective   of   human   health   and  the
environment. The estimated cost for this remedial
action will be determined during the development
of the proposed monitoring program.

Performance Standards or  Goals

    Not applicable.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              163

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRanfc  332
                                  BOG CREEK FARM, NJ
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                          June 28, 1989
    The Bog Creek Farm site is a 4-acre disposal
area consisting of a man-made pond,  bog, and
trench in Howell Township, Monmouth County,
New Jersey. The site is bordered to the north by
Squankum Brook, to the west  by two residences
and a riding stable, and to the south and north by
open fields.   Between 1973 and  1974, organic
solvents and paint residues were dumped around a
trench in the eastern  portion of  the  property,
creating  a highly contaminated soil area.   Some
chemicals migrated into  a shallow underlying
aquifer,  creating  a  contaminant  plume  that
discharged to the pond and bog  along the northern
border of the site and  to  the north branch of
Squankum Brook.  In  late 1974, the property
owner removed some  waste from the disposal
trench and covered the  trench under  direction
from the Howell Township Health Department. A
1985 ROD selected a first operable unit remedy
that involved excavating the soil from  the waste
trench, pond, and bog areas, and incinerating the
soil onsite. This second operable unit focuses on
remediating the contaminated ground water in the
shallow  aquifer  and  the  contaminated   brook
sediment.  The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the sediment and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, toluene and xylenes,  and other
organics including phenols.
     The selected remedy for this site includes
ground-water pumping and treatment using air
stripping, hydrogen peroxide/ultraviolet photolysis
oxidation, carbon  adsorption, and reinfection;
excavation of brook sediment, followed by on-site
incineration and on-site disposal; and stream bed
restoration using  clean  sand or  soil of similar
consistency to the existing material. The estimated
present worth cost for  this remedial action is
$6,927,000, which  includes annual  O&M  costs of
$663,000 for ten years of ground-water treatment.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Because there is no  human exposure  to
contaminated ground water, the clean-up goals are
based on protection of the surface water (north
branch of Squankum Brook) rather than human
consumption of ground water.   The  goals  are
derived from limits that would allow for  surface-
water discharge under a state NPDES  permit.
Chemical-specific   goals   include  petroleum
hydrocarbons 15 mg/1, total lead 56 ug/1, benzene
5  ug/1,  toluene 74  ug/1,  and phenol  47  ug/1.
Individual contaminant goals were not specified for
brook sediment.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               164

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc 538
                              BYRON BARREL & DRUM, NY
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29, 1989
    The Byron Barrel & Drum site is in Genesee
County, New York, and occupies approximately
two acres of an eight-acre tract of land. The rural
area surrounding the site includes woods, wetlands,
and agricultural land, with  approximately 320
people living within a one-mile radius of the site.
The site  is a former salvage yard  for  heavy
construction equipment, some of which remains
on-site along with other debris.   From 1978  to
1980,  the site  owner  reportedly  abandoned
approximately  200  barrels  of hazardous  waste
without a permit.  Some drums were  reportedly
ripped open, causing the hazardous waste  to mix
with the soil, and ultimately buried  onsite.  The
state and EPA discovered these barrels in 1982 and
initiated an investigation  that resulted  in the
removal   and   disposal  of  the   drums  and
approximately 40 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and debris. A subsequent remedial investigation in
1987 revealed that solvent spills have contaminated
two major areas of the site, resulting in soil and
ground-water contamination. This remedial action
addresses  the  two  contaminated ground-water
plumes and residual soil contamination which have
been releasing contaminants into the ground water.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and  ground  water  are  VOCs  including
benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes, other
organics including PAHs, and phenols, and metals
including chromium and lead.

    The selected  remedial  action for  this site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water
using precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration to
remove metals,  and  air  stripping  and  carbon
adsorption  to  remove  organics,  followed  by
reinfection into the aquifer and, if necessary, off-
site discharge of excess treated water; disposal of
ground-water  residues  at an  off-site  RCRA-
permitted facility; treatment of 4,100 cubic yards of
contaminated soil using in situ soil flushing; further
evaluation  of 1,100  cubic yards  of inorganic
contaminated soil to determine ultimate disposal;
dismantling and decontaminating debris followed
by off-site disposal; and  air and  ground-water
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $5,572,000, which includes
annual O&M costs of $259,700.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground water will meet state and  Federal
ARARs including MCLs.  Specific ground-water
clean-up levels include  benzene 5 ug/1  (MCL),
toluene 2,000 ug/1 (MCL), xylenes 440 ug/1 (MCL),
PCE 5 ug/1 (based on TCE MCL), and TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL). Soil will meet site-specific action levels,
which  will ensure  that  organic and inorganic
contaminants will not leach into the ground water
at levels above MCLs.  Specific soil clean-up levels
include toluene 45,000 ug/kg, xylenes 8,200 ug/kg,
PCE 140 ug/kg, and TCE 47 ug/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              165

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 52
                             CALDWELL TRUCKING CO., NJ
                                     Second Remedial Action
                                       September 28, 1989
    The 11-acre Caldwell Trucking Co. site is in
Fairfield Township, Essex County, New  Jersey.
The site  is situated  on an  extensive  100-year
floodplain  of  the  Passaic River  and  neighbors
Deepavaal Brook and numerous wetlands,  as well
as residential and commercial properties.  From
the 1950s to 1984, the Caldwell Trucking Company
dumped, and allowed others to dump, septic wastes
into unlined lagoons and later into steel holding
tanks at the site. An EPA investigation conducted
between 1984 and 1986 revealed that on-site  soil
and a municipal  well were contaminated with
VOCs,  PCBs, and metals.   The investigation
resulted in a 1986 ROD which  provided for  soil
remediation, restoration of a municipal well,  and
residential hookups to municipal water. Ground
water, however, remains contaminated because of
a TCE-contaminated plume which extends 4,000
feet from  the  site towards the  Passaic  River.
Additional sources of  the plume have been
identified, including the neighboring General Hose
facility that will be addressed by other federal  and
state authorities.    A small seep to Deepavaal
Brook's tributary, which is  recharged by  ground
water, is  also  contaminated with TCE.    This
response  is  the  second  remedial action   and
addresses the remediation of contaminated  off-site
ground water.   The primary  contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water  are  VOCs
including TCE.
     The selected remedial action for this site
includes pumping and treatment of off-site ground
water using air stripping with off-site discharge to
the Passaic River; installation of a drainage system
to eliminate  surface exposure to  contaminated
ground  water; sealing  ground-water wells; and
ground-water monitoring. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $11,540,000
that includes annual O&M costs of $315,000 for 30
years. If, however, access to private properties and
public roads  needed for implementation of this
remedial action cannot be obtained, EPA and the
state will implement a contingency remedy that
includes  limited  treatment  of  ground  water,
remediation of surface water, and sealing ground-
water wells.

Performance  Standards or Goals

     This  operable  unit invokes a waiver from
federal and state drinking water standards based on
technical impractability, because  it would  take
more than 100 years of pumping and treatment to
attain state drinking water standards (e.g., TCE 1
ug/1).  Instead, the  remedy will  achieve interim
clean-up levels  that allow for  potable  use  of
ground  water with minimal treatment.    Air
emissions   and  effluent discharges  from  the
treatment facility will comply with state ARARs.

Institutional  Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               166

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                        Group: 11
                           CHEMICAL INSECTICIDE CORP., NJ
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Chemical Insecticide Corp. site is part of
a  94-acre  industrial  development  in Edison,
Middlesex County, New Jersey.  From 1958 to 1970
Chemical Insecticide Corporation (CIC) produced
and stored pesticide formulations at the property
resulting in soil, surface-water, and ground-water
contamination.  The site is  currently vacant and
consists of the remaining building foundations,
asphalt roadways, a one-acre wetlands area, and a
surface-water drainage ditch  bordering the site to
the east, which ultimately drains into the Raritan
River.  Between 1966 and 1969, CIC was ordered
by  the city to close on-site lagoons,  dispose of
leaking drums, and stop  wastewater discharge.
Subsequent  RI/FS investigations  revealed  the
extreme complexity of the site due to the number
and variety of contaminants (herbicides, pesticides,
and metals) and the physical  characteristics of the
site. To address concerns relating to high levels of
contamination in the drainage ditch, EPA installed
a fence to limit  access to  the ditch,  in 1988.
Subsequently, EPA removed contaminated surface-
water run-off that  had collected in a parking lot
onsite, and repaired the ditch to  prevent future
overflow incidents.  This operable unit represents
an   interim   remedial   action    to   address
contaminated surface-water run-off from the site
until the  source of contamination, the soil, is
remediated.  Future operable  units will address
contaminated soil and ground water.  The primary
contaminants of concern  in the soil which may
affect the  surface water  are  organics including
pesticides, and metals including arsenic.

     The selected remedial action for  this site
includes clearing and grading the site; covering the
entire  site with  an impermeable surflcial cap;
constructing  a  surface-water  run-off diversion
system;  controlling the  release  of  collected,
uncontaminated surface-water run-off from the
site; and surface-water monitoring.  The estimated
present worth  cost  for this remedial action  is
$1,420,211, which includes annual O&M costs  of
$37,184.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The selected  remedy does  not provide for
treatment;  rather,  it requires monitoring  of
collected surface water and provides values  of
allowable  discharge  to the  storm  drain system.
Chemical-specific discharge levels were provided
based on state standards, including arsenic 50 ug/1
(based on state WQS) and five pesticides.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               167

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc  184
                                   CIBA-GEIGY CORP., NJ
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           April 24, 1989
    The  Ciba-Geigy  Corp.  site  is  in  Dover
Township, Ocean County, New Jersey.  The site
covers 1,400 acres, 320 of which are developed; the
remaining area is  largely wooded.   The  site is
bounded by industrial, commercial, residential, and
recreational areas.  The Toms River, which derives
surface  water  primarily  through ground-water
baseflow, runs through the northeast sector of the
property.  The aquifer system in the site  area is
tapped by municipal, industrial, and private wells.
The manufacturing facility, presently owned by
Ciba-Geigy  Chemical Corporation, has been  in
operation since 1952 and is composed of numerous
buildings, an industrial wastewater treatment plant,
and a lined reservoir for emergency storage  of
treated and  untreated wastewater.  From 1952 to
1988, a  variety of synthetic  organic  pigments,
organic dyestuffs and  intermediates,  and epoxy
resins were manufactured  at the  site.    The
company disposed of chemical wastes on  site in
several  locations,  including  a  5.2-acre  drum
disposal  area (containing approximately 100,000
drums); a 3.9-acre lime sludge disposal area (used
for  disposal  of inorganic wastes);  a  12-acre
filtercake disposal  area  (which received  sludge
from the wastewater treatment); five backfilled
lagoons comprising 8.5 acres; and a calcium sulfate
disposal  area.  The drum disposal area  and lime
sludge disposal area were closed and capped in
1978. About this time, the filtercake disposal area
was also closed and covered with soil.  Ground-
water contamination  is  migrating  from these
inactive disposal sites easterly towards the Toms
River.  Currently,  the  company  generates  both
liquid and  solid wastes.  The liquid wastes are
treated on  site in a wastewater treatment plant
before discharge to the Atlantic Ocean. The solid
wastes are disposed of off site, and sludges  from
the wastewater treatment plant are disposed of in
a permitted, double-lined, on-site landfill.  EPA
began investigating the site in 1980.  Throughout
its operation, the facility has  routinely violated
treatment and disposal permits, including accepting
hazardous off-site waste beginning in 1981.  The
landfill reportedly was  leaking as early as 1981,
precipitating  remedial  measures  by the  state
including  issuance  of a consent  order  forcing
Ciba-Geigy to  close part of  the landfill  and
monitor ground water and leachate. In 1984, after
discovering that Ciba-Geigy was illegally disposing
drums containing liquids and hazardous waste in
the  landfill,  the state ordered  Ciba-Geigy  to
remove  14,000  drums.     In  1985,   leaking
equalization basins associated with the wastewater
treatment plant led Ciba-Geigy to close the basins
and  to begin remediation of the contaminated
plume from these basins.  Currently, contaminants
are present in leaking drums, waste sludges,  soil,
and ground water.  This ROD addresses the first
operable  unit focusing on  the remediation  of
ground-water contamination in the upper  aquifer.
Remediation  of  the on-site  source areas  and
deeper aquifer  (if needed) will be addressed in
future operable units. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including  benzene,  PCE, TCE, and toluene, and
metals including arsenic and chromium.

     The  selected remedial action for this  site
includes sealing contaminated residential irrigation
wells; on- and off-site ground-water pumping with
on-site treatment using filtration, reverse osmosis,
and   GAC  in  an   upgraded  version  of  the
Ciba-Geigy wastewater treatment plant, followed
by temporarily retaining the ground water in basins
for monitoring and  subsequent discharge to the
Toms  River;  and implementation  of a river and
ground-water monitoring program.  The estimated
present worth  cost for  this remedial action is
$164,500,000,  which  includes  annual  O&M  of
$12,539,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground water  will comply with all CWA
requirements and will  be treated to meet  the
proposed New Jersey State Surface Water Quality
Standards including benzene 1 ug/1,  PCE 1  ug/1,
TCE 1 ug/1,  toluene 26  ug/1, total chromium 50
ug/1, and arsenic 50 ug/1.  The New Jersey MCLs
                                                168

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989
will be attained for the aquifer.  Specific goals for        exceed 5 ug/1, and single contaminant levels for
the aquifer include benzene 1 mg/1, PCE 1 mg/1,        possible carcinogens or noncarcinogens are not to
TCE  8 mg/1,  and chromium  0.05 mg/1.   For        exceed 50 ug/1.
unregulated  VOCs   in   the   aquifer,  single
contaminant  levels for  carcinogens are not  to        Institutional Controls

                                                       Not applicable.
                                             169

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 799
                            CLAMMONT POLYCHEMICAL, NY
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 22,1989
    The Claremont Polychemical site is a 9.5-acre
abandoned chemical production facility in Oyster
Bay, Nassau County, New York. Land in use in
the area is devoted primarily to light industrial and
commercial operations. Contamination at the site
took place between 1968  and 1980 and  resulted
from ink and  pigment manufacturing operations
that generated wastes including organic solvents,
resins, and wash wastes. The site consists of a one-
story  building with  a contaminated sump,  five
5,000-gallon  wastewater   treatment   basins
containing sludge, and six above-ground tanks,
three of which still contain waste materials.   The
initial discovery of site contamination occurred in
1979 when the county found 2,000 to 3,000 waste
drums, some uncovered and others leaking. By the
following  year many of these drums were either
removed or reused  in the  plant;  however, the
county  had by this time identified  an  area of
organic solvent contamination east of the building.
Subsequently,  a 10-foot layer of soil in the area of
contamination was  excavated and placed on  a
plastic liner. The liner has since deteriorated and
monitoring   has   identified   ground-water
contamination under the site. In October 1988, a
removal action was conducted that included the
removal of liquids in the treatment basins and the
classification,  separation,  and storage   of  the
approximately 700 bags and drums of waste.  The
first operable unit for this site will address soil and
ground-water  contamination and will be  initiated
after  the second operable  unit.  This second
operable unit  addresses the wastes in containers,
above-ground  tanks, wastewater treatment basins,
and a sump. The total volume of wastes at the site
could  be as  high  as  100,000 pounds  of  solid
materials,  10,000 gallons of liquids, and  25,000
pounds of sludge.  The primary contaminants of
concern in drummed and packaged liquids and
solids, and in treatment basin sludge, are VOCs
including benzene, toluene, TCE, and PCE, other
organics, and metals including arsenic, chromium,
and lead.

    The selected remedial action for  this site
includes compatibility testing on the contents of
each treatment basin, above-ground tank, sump,
drum, and bag with bulking and consolidation of
compatible wastes and pumping the contents of the
above-ground tanks, treatment  basins, and sump
into storage tanks; analytical testing of composite
samples of drums or bulked wastes to determine
appropriate treatment or disposal methods; and
transporting the wastes for off-site treatment or
disposal as appropriate.  The estimated present
worth for this remedial action, assuming treatment
using incineration,  is $1,339,000 with no O&M
costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The RCRA-listed wastes will be treated using
the best demonstrated  available  technology  or
treated  to attain  specific  treatment levels,  as
appropriate, to comply with RCRA land disposal
restrictions.  Chemical-specific levels were  not
specified.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               170

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 654
                                 CLOTHIER DISPOSAL, NY
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        December 28, 1988
    The Clothier Disposal site is located in a rural
area near the town of Granby, Oswego County,
New York. It is a privately owned, 15-acre parcel
of land, of which approximately 6 acres have been
used for waste disposal. Land use in the vicinity of
the site is predominantly agricultural.  A wetland
passes through the site to the west of the area used
for waste disposal.  Ox Creek also flows through
the site in a northerly direction, feeding into the
Oswego River, and a portion of the site is located
within the 100-year floodplain. Ground water flow
patterns  clearly  indicate that flow is toward Ox
Creek.  In 1973, drums of chemical waste were
discovered on the Clothier property, despite State
denial of a landfill permit application.  After the
New   York   Department  of   Environmental
Conservation brought suit, the owner made several
attempts  to  clean  up  the property.     These
attempts, however, resulted in drums being broken
and drained.  Subsequently, additional dumping of
roofing materials, household wastes  and junked
vehicles occurred at the site. Based on data from
the remedial  investigation and  State  sampling,
EPA established the need for a removal action for
2,200 drums  located on  site.   A  number of
potentially   responsible   parties   under   an
administrative order on consent  removed  1,858
drums.  EPA removed the remaining drums and
visibly contaminated surficial  soil  and  debris
associated with the drums.  This remedy addresses
the low-level residual soil contamination remaining
on site.  If the results of ground-water, surface-
water and sediment sampling determine a need to
remediate the ground water and/or the wetland, a
subsequent   operable   unit   remedy  will  be
undertaken.  The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil are VOCs including  toluene,
xylenes, and PCE, other organics including PAHs,
PCBs and phenols, and metals.

     The  selected remedial  action  for  the  site
includes placement of a one-foot soil cover over
the  contaminated  areas  and  regrading   and
revegetation of the site; installation of rip-rap, as
needed, on the embankment sloping towards Ox
Creek to  prevent soil erosion; construction  and
post-construction air monitoring;  institutional
controls  preventing  the  utilization   of  the
underlying ground water, or any land use involving
significant  disturbance of  the  soil cover;  and
long-term ground-water, soil, sediment and surface-
water monitoring. The  estimated present worth
cost for this remedy is $500,000, which  includes
annual O&M costs of $27,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Because the remedy addresses containment,
chemical-specific  standards  or  goals   are  not
applicable.

Institutional Controls

     Well restrictions will prevent the use of
underlying ground water.  Land use restrictions on
residential use, or any use involving excavation at
the site or significant disturbance of the soil cover.
Any  institutional controls,  including   but  not
limited to deed restrictions or easements, shall be
consistent with New York law.
                                               171

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRunk: 575
                              DE REWAL CHEMICAL CO., NJ
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The  De  Rewal  Chemical  Co.  site  is  in
Kingswood Township,  Hunterdon County,  New
Jersey.  The 3.7-acre  site lies within the 100-year
floodplain of the Delaware River and consists of a
former dumping area, a garage, a private residence,
and a building formerly occupied by the De Rewal
Chemical Company.  Between 1970 and 1973, the
De   Rewal  Chemical   Company  reportedly
manufactured and stored a textile preservative and
an  agricultural  fungicide  on site.   The  State
discovered   De   Rewal   Chemical   Company's
improper chemical handling practices in 1972, but
was unsuccessful in forcing the company to comply
with  permit requirements.   The   De  Rewal
Chemical Company continued to improperly dump
chemicals on site, including one incident in which
a tank truck containing 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of
highly acidic chromium solution was  allowed to
drain onto the soil and eventually to the Delaware
River. In 1973, the State ordered the company to
excavate and  place  contaminated soil on  an
impermeable liner. The company reportedly only
placed a portion of the contaminated soil on an
uncovered   plastic  sheet  before   filing  for
bankruptcy.  The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil  and  ground water are VOCs
including PCE, TCE, and toluene, other organics
including PAHs, and metals including chromium
and lead.

    The  selected remedial action  for  this  site
includes excavation of 8,000 cubic yards of soil
with  on-site thermal treatment of 2,100  cubic
yards of organic-contaminated soil  followed by
solidifying the soil and ash residue along with the
remaining  5,900  cubic  yards  of  inorganic
contaminated soil and on-site disposal; monitoring
and  controlling  air emissions  generated  during
thermal treatment; pumping and off-site treatment
of ground water at an off-site industrial wastewater
treatment  facility;   ground-water   monitoring;
provision of a treatment system for the  on-site
residential  well; temporarily  relocating  on-site
residents; and preparing a cultural resources survey
to ensure compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act.  The  estimated present worth
cost  for the selected remedial is $5,097,000, which
includes O&M costs of $865,400.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Contaminated soil which exceeds state action
levels will be  excavated and treated to meet state
action levels.  Specific soil cleanup goals include
total VOCs 1 mg/kg, chromium 100 mg/kg, and
lead 250 mg/kg.  Ground water will be treated to
meet state SDWA MCLs.  Specific ground-water
cleanup goals include TCE 1  ug/1,  PCE  1  ug/1,
chromium 50 ug/1, and lead 50 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will be  implemented
restricting  further  property use to  ensure  the
integrity of the solidified mass.
                                               172

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 188
                                    EWAN PROPERTY, NJ
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 43-acre Ewan Property site is in the New
Jersey Pinelands in Shamong Township, Burlington
County, New Jersey.  The site neighbors forests
and forested wetlands, farmland, and residences.
An aquifer underlying the site contains a plume
contaminated  by  on-site  disposal  practices.
Between 1974 and 1975, the site owner reportedly
buried  uncontained  and drummed hazardous
wastes in an on-site disposal area.  In 1982, the
county was informed  of  the possible hazardous
waste  dumping  and  initiated   ground-water
monitoring  and  soil  sampling  programs  the
following year.  Both  the ground  water and soil
within the  disposal  area   were  found  to  be
contaminated  with  VOCs  and  metals.    This
remedial action  represents  the second  of  two
operable units  for  the site.  The 1988  ROD
addressed the treatment of 4,500  cubic yards of
source waste, including buried drums and other
heavily  contaminated  materials.   This  second
operable unit  addresses the  remediation of the
residual soil that will remain after implementation
of the first operable  unit and  the treatment of the
contaminated  ground water.     The   primary
contaminants of concern affecting the  soil and
ground water are  VOCs including  benzene, PCE,
TCE,  toluene,  and xylenes, and metals including
chromium and lead.

    The selected  remedial action  for this  site
includes excavating and treating 22,000 cubic yards
of soil using solvent extraction and soil washing,
followed by redepositing treated soil on site as
clean fill; treating and disposing of spent solvent
off site; treating spent wash water on site using the
ground-water  treatment  system; regrading and
revegetating disposal areas; pumping and treatment
of ground water followed by reinjecting treated
ground water into  the  underlying aquifer; and
environmental monitoring. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $35,152,447
which includes annual O&M costs of $1,903,980.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Soil will be treated to meet state Solid Waste
Regulations and concentrations that would not
deteriorate  ground-water  above ground  water
remedial objectives.  No specific levels for soil
were  provided.  Ground water will  meet state
water quality  criteria (SWQC) to protect ground
water in the New Jersey Pinelands and Federal and
state  MCLs to protect drinking  water  supplies.
Specific  ground-water treatment levels include
benzene  1 ug/1 (SWQC), TCE 1 ug/1 (SWQC),
toluene 2,000 ug/1 (MCL), xylenes      44 ug/1
(SWQC), lead 50 ug/1 (MCL), and chromium 50
ug/1 (SWQC).

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              173

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    Group: 10 (F)
         FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TECHNICAL CENTER, NJ
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 26, 1989
    The 5,000-acre multipurpose FAA Technical
Center  site  is  a  federal facility  eight  miles
northwest of Atlantic City, in  Atlantic County,
New Jersey. The site includes a jet fuel farm, an
air terminal, a state national guard fighter group,
the extensive  facilities  of the FAA Technical
Center, and the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir.
Atlantic City's municipal water supply is provided
by nine ground-water supply wells  located  just
north of the reservoir on FAA property as well as
by water drawn directly from the reservoir. Land
use in the site vicinity includes  forested land and
commercial and residential areas. There are 25
known  areas  of  contamination  at  the FAA
Technical Center.  This is the first ROD for an
area of contamination at this  facility.  Further
areas of contamination will be addressed in future
RODs.  Soil and ground water at the site  are
contaminated with VOCs  apparently attributable
to the  jet  fuel  farm.   Subsurface jet  fuel
contamination is probably the result of leaking
pipes, storage tanks, and spills associated with
above ground  and  underground storage  tanks,
associated valves, piping, and  dry wells, or a truck
loading stand.  As an interim remedial measure,
free product recovery pumps were  installed in
 1988-89 in three on-site wells to  recover  the
hydrocarbon plume  floating  on the  water table.
Product  is   currently  being  extracted   and
incinerated offsite.   The total volume of spilled
free product has been estimated at 360,000 gallons,
the total volume of contaminated soil found in two
hot spot areas was estimated to be 33,000 cubic
yards,  and the total  volume  of contaminated
 ground  water  was  estimated  to be  13,300,00
 gallons. The jet fuel farm will be closed within the
 next  year  as new facilities  come on line.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and ground water are VOCs including benzene,
toluene, and xylenes, and other organics including
PAHs (naphthalene) and phenols.

    The selected remedial  action for this  site
includes  in situ  soil  vacuum  extraction  (soil
venting)  and   off-gas  treatment  using  either
incineration  or  activated  carbon  adsorption;
extraction of free product floating on the plume
followed by off-site incineration;  ground-water
extraction and addition of nutrients for subsequent
reinjection and in situ biodegradation of residual
ground  water  contamination;  and ground-water
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $583,000, which includes a
total present value O&M cost of $200,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground-water  clean-up levels are based on
state  and  federal  MCLs,  whichever is  more
stringent, and include benzene 1 ug/1 (state MCL),
xylene (total)  44  ug/1 (state MCL), and toluene
2,000 (federal MCL). Total phenols will meet the
state Ground Water Quality Standard of 300 ug/1.
The soil clean-up levels are based on  state  Soil
Cleanup Action  Levels, which  are  TBCs,  and
include 1 mg/kg for  total priority pollutant VOCs.
For total petroleum hydrocarbons the action level
is 100 mg/kg.   No  chemical-specific  ARARs for
soil contaminants were identified.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               174

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 562
                                 FULTON TERMINALS, NY
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 1.6-acre Fulton Terminals site is in Fulton,
Oswego County, New York.  The site is bordered
to the west by the Oswego River, and a section of
the site lies within the river's 100-year  floodplain.
Commercial  and industrial  operations  are the
primary land uses in the vicinity of the  site. Spills
and leaks of chemical wastes stored in  eight tanks
at  the  site  resulted  in  soil  and ground-water
contamination.   The wastes  were produced as a
result of a combination  of former asphalt and
roofing manufacturing operations conducted from
1936 to 1960, and a more recent hazardous waste
storage operation.  From 1972 to 1977, Fulton
Terminals,  Inc., operated  a  staging and storage
area for hazardous wastes  destined  for off-site
incineration. In 1981, following a citation for not
meeting federal  and  state  standards  for  the
operation of a hazardous waste storage facility,
Fulton   Terminals  initiated  a  cleanup  which
included emptying and removing four  storage
tanks.  From June 1986 to May 1987, EPA and the
PRPs undertook removal activities that  included
securing the  site, removing all remaining storage
tanks, excavating and removing approximately 300
cubic yards of contaminated soil and tar-like waste,
and partially removing and plugging a storm sewer
pipe running to the Oswego River.  This remedy
addresses the low levels  of soil contamination
remaining at the site and a plume of contaminated
ground water which threatens the Oswego River.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water  are VOCs  including
benzene,  TCE,  and  xylenes,  other  organics
including PAHs, and metals  including arsenic.

    The  selected remedial  action for this  site
includes excavation and low  temperature thermal
treatment of approximately  4,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and backfilling the treated soil,
provided  it  passes  the  TCLP  Toxicity  Test;
placement of a one foot cap of clean top soil over
the site; ground water pumping and treatment on
site using air  stripping and  carbon adsorption,
followed by reinjection or other type of recharge
into the aquifer; disposal of soil and ground-water
treatment  waste residues  at  a  RCRA-approved
offsite hazardous waste facility; air monitoring; and
ground-water monitoring  for three years.   The
estimated  present worth cost for  this remedial
action is $4,031,000,  which  includes  an  annual
O&M cost of $732,000 for three years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil treatment levels are  designed to prevent
leaching to ground water that will result in levels
above MCLs. Chemical-specific soil goals include
TCE  2 mg/kg, benzene 1.4 mg/kg, and xylenes 8
mg/kg. Ground-water clean-up levels will meet the
more  stringent of federal and state drinking water
standards, including  TCE   5 ug/1  (MCL)  and
arsenic  1,000 ug/1 (MCL). Several contaminants
such as  benzene, xylenes, and certain metals  may
exceed drinking  water standards at  the end of
remediation because  they  are detected at higher
concentrations   upgradient,   and   have  been
determined to be naturally occurring in the area.
Naturally occurring wastes are not addressed under
Superfund.

Institutional Controls

    Institutional  controls will  be  applied to
prevent use of the underlying ground water due to
the high  concentration  of  naturally  occurring
metals in the ground water surrounding the  site.
These controls  will  include well  construction
permits   and  water   quality certifications  in
accordance with state law.
                                               175

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc  197
                                     RIDGE RADIUM SITE, NJ
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           June 30, 1989
    The Glen Ridge Radium site is in the Borough
of Glen Ridge and the town of East Orange in
Essex  County, New  Jersey.   The  site  covers
approximately   90   acres   of   residential
neighborhoods including  306 properties.   The
Montclair/West Orange Radium site is adjacent to
this site and is being addressed concurrently under
one remedial action.   The  soil at the  site  is
contaminated to varying degrees with radioactive
waste materials suspected to have originated from
radium processing or  utilization facilities located
nearby during the early 1900s. The waste material
was disposed  of  in  then-rural areas  of the
communities.      Houses   were   subsequently
constructed on or near the radium waste disposal
areas.  Some  of the radium contaminated soil is
believed to have been used as fill in the low-lying
areas, and some of the fill was mixed with cement
for sidewalks and foundations.  Temporary radon
ventilation systems and gamma radiation shielding
have been  installed and maintained by EPA and
the state to reduce indoor exposures.  In June
1985, the state initiated a pilot study and excavated
portions of  the  radium contaminated soil and
disposed of  the  soil off  site.   The primary
contaminant  of concern  affecting  the soil and
structures is radium226 which decays to radon gas.

    The  selected remedial  action  for this site
includes excavation of approximately 41,000 cubic
yards  of  highly  contaminated  soil  and  an
unspecified amount of debris followed by off-site
disposal; installation and maintenance of indoor
engineering  controls  at   less   contaminated
properties; environmental monitoring to ensure
remedy  effectiveness;  and   continuation   of a
treatment technology study for future actions.  A
final decision for the less contaminated properties
has been deferred until after the 60-day  public
comment period extension. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial  action is $53,000,000
with no O&M costs.

Performance Standards  or Goals

     The  radium226-contaminated soil  will be
excavated to a concentration of 5 pCi/g above
background concentration at the surface (top 6 in)
and 15 pCi/g above background in subsurface soil.

Institutional  Controls

     A decision to implement municipal or county
health ordinances (e.g., permits for home repair or
outdoor activities, deed  restrictions) was deferred
as a result of public comment.
                                                176

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                NPLRank:  858
                            MARATHON BATTERY CORP., NY
                                  Third Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29, 1989
    The Marathon Battery Corp. site is a former
battery  manufacturing  plant  in Cold  Springs,
Putnam County, New York. The site is composed
of three study areas: Area I, which consists of East
Foundry Cove Marsh and Constitution  Marsh;
Area  II, which encompasses  the  former plant,
presently  a   book  storage  warehouse,  the
surrounding grounds, and a vault with cadmium-
contaminated sediment dredged from East Foundry
Cove; and Area III, which includes East Foundry
Cove  (48 acres),  West  Foundry Cove and the
Hudson River in the vicinity of Cold Spring pier
and a sewer outfall.  Contamination in Area  III
emanates  from   plant  wastewater  that was
discharged via the  city sewer system into the
Hudson River at  Cold  Spring Pier or, in some
instances, through  a  storm  sewer  into  East
Foundry Cove. A Record of Decision (ROD) was
signed for Area I in September 1986 with clean-up
activities to includes dredging the  East Foundry
Cove  Marsh.  The second ROD  for this site was
signed  in  September   1988  and  included
decontamination of the battery plant and soil
excavation in Area II. This 1989 ROD represents
the third and final operable unit for the site and
addresses sediment contamination in Area III. The
primary  contaminants   of  concern  affecting
sediment at the site are metals including cadmium
and nickel.

    The selected  remedial action  for the site
includes dredging of approximately 55,000 cubic
yards of cadmium-contaminated sediment in East
Foundry Cove to a depth of one foot, followed by
on-site chemical fixation and  off-site disposal;
sampling and analysis of the area adjacent to and
under Cold Spring pier and dredging approximately
900 cubicyards of cadmium-contaminated sediment
from this  area followed by treatment with East
Foundry Cove sediment; sediment monitoring and
performance of a hydrological study of Area III to
determine if West Foundry Cove is a depositional
area  and in need of remediation; and long-term
sediment monitoring. The estimated present worth
cost for this selected remedy is $48,499,500, which
includes annual O&M costs of $21,303,330 for the
first year and $132,700 for years 2-30.

Performance Standards  or Goals

    The  risk   assessment  for  the  site  used
references  doses  because   neither  of   the
contaminants   of   concern   are   considered
carcinogenic.     The   acceptable  sediment
concentration  of  cadmium   is  220   mg/kg.
Expectations are that by dredging the upper layer
of contaminated sediment,  95% of the cadmium
contamination will be removed. It is anticipated
that   following   remediation,  cadmium
concentrations in the dredged areas will not exceed
10 mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              177

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  198
                    MONTCLA1K/WEST ORANGE RADIUM SITE, NJ
                                      First Remedial Action
                                          June 30, 1989
    The Monclair/West  Orange  Radium site is
located  in the towns  of Montclair and West
Orange  in Essex County, New Jersey.  The  site
covers approximately 120 acres of  residential
neighborhoods. The Glen Ridge Radium site is
adjacent  to  this  site  and  is  being  addressed
concurrently under one remedial action.  The soil
at the site is contaminated with radioactive waste
materials suspected to have originated from radium
processing or utilization facilities located nearby
during the early 1900s.  The waste material  was
disposed of in then-rural areas of the communities.
Houses  were subsequently constructed on or near
the radium waste  disposal areas.  Some of the
radium-contaminated soil is believed to have been
used as  fill in low-lying areas, and some of the fill
was  mixed  with  cement  for  sidewalks  and
foundations. Temporary radon ventilation systems
and gamma radiation shielding have been installed
and maintained by EPA and the state to reduce
indoor exposures. In June 1985 the state initiated
a   pilot  study,   excavated  portions   of  the
radium-contaminated soil and disposed of the soil
off site.  The primary  contaminant  of concern
affecting the soil and structures is radium226 which
decays to radon gas.
    The  selected  remedial action  for  this  site
includes excavation of approximately 41,000 cubic
yards  of  highly  contaminated  soil  and   an
unspecified amount of debris followed by off-site
disposal; installation and maintenance of indoor
engineering  controls   at   less   contaminated
properties; environmental monitoring to ensure
remedy  effectiveness;  and  continuation  of  a
treatment technology study for future actions.
EPA deferred  a  final  decision  for  the  less
contaminated properties until after a 60-day public
comment period extension. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action  is $53,000,000
with no O&M costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The  radium226-contaminated  soil  will  be
excavated to a  concentration  of 5 pCi/g  above
background concentration at the surface (top 6 in)
and 15 pCi/g above background in subsurface soil.

Institutional Controls

     A decision to implement municipal or county
health ordinances (e.g., permits for home repairs
or  outdoor  activities,  deed  restrictions)  was
deferred as a result of public comment.
                                               178

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  702
                        NORTH SEA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL, NY
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 131-acre North Sea Municipal Landfill site
is on eastern Long Island in Southampton, Suffolk
County, New York.   The site is south of Little
Peconic Bay, in an area of extensive ponds, coves,
and wetlands. The 131-acre active landfill overlies
two aquifers  and neighbors private homes that
obtain their drinking water from private domestic
wells.  Two landfill cells, a proposed cell and a
series  of  14 lagoons  are  also on   the  site.
Municipal solid waste, refuse, debris, and septic
system  waste from residential,  industrial,  and
commercial sources  have been disposed of at the
site since 1963.  From the early 1960s to 1985 Cell
#1 received approximately 1.3 million cubic yards
of municipal waste and septic sludges. Subsequent
ground water monitoring revealed a contaminated
plume migrating from cell #1 toward  a nearby
cove.  Cell #1 was closed and partially capped in
1985, and a storm water diversion system was also
installed to collect storm water and recharge it.
Cell #2, which was equipped  with a leachate
collection  system  and  accepted approximately
80,000 tons of municipal waste annually, has been
closed  since October 1989.    The town  has
constructed Cell #3, which is now in operation.
From the late 1960s to 1986,14 lagoons were used
to dispose of approximately 11 million  gallons of
septic  waste.   The lagoons were subsequently
excavated and backfilled.  This is the first of  two
planned  operable  units  and addresses source
control through remediation of Cell #1  and  the
former sludge lagoons.  A subsequent Record of
Decision will address ground and surface water
contamination.   The primary  contaminants of
concern affecting the soil and sludge are VOCs,
other organics including  PAHs, metals including
arsenic and lead, and other inorganics.

     The selected  remedial  action for this site
includes covering Cell #1 with a low permeability
cap;  implementing   site  security  and   deed
restrictions;  sampling sludge/soil  in  the  former
sludge lagoons; and long-term air, surface water
and  ground  water  quality monitoring.    The
estimated present  worth cost for this remedial
action ranges  from  $7,700,000  to  $8,300,000,
depending on the  type  of landfill cap selected.
These figures include an  estimated annual O&M
cost ranging between $190,000 and $200,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Capping of the landfill reduces emissions of
methane gas and VOCs, and reduces percolation of
precipitation  through  the  landfill  and  thus
migration of hazardous substances  into ground
water.  Individual contaminant goals were not
specified for this source control remedial action.

Institutional Controls

     Site security and deed restrictions will be
implemented.
                                              179

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  692
                                       PEPE FIELD, NJ
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29,1989
    The Pepe Field site is a former disposal area in
the town of Boonton, Morris County, New Jersey.
The 3-acre site is an inactive, municipally owned
recreational facility in a predominantly residential
area. From 1935 to 1950 the E.F. Drew Company
used the site to dispose  of wastes generated from
processing vegetable oils  and  soap  products.
Materials reportedly deposited onsite by the E.F.
Drew  Company were diatoroaceous  earth and
activated  carbon  filter  residue,  incinerator and
boiler ash, boiler  ash, lime  sludge,  and  soap
residue.   Residents living adjacent  to the site
complained about objectionable odors originating
from the site. To reduce odor emissions, the town
implemented elements  of the  odor  abatement
program proposed by the Drew Company. During
the 1960s, the town covered the site with soil and
installed  a leachate collection and  treatment
system. Although these  measures reduced the the
odor problems, some incidents were still reported.
Investigations   revealed   gas   concentrations
exceeding  the lower  explosive  limit in the soil
vapor at the perimeter of the site and  in an
apparent soil gas  plume  extending  below  the
property  adjacent  to the site.   The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil found in
the landfill include hydrogen sulfide and methane
gases.
    The selected  remedial  action  for  this site
includes maintaining the site cover; installing and
maintaining a landfill gas collection and treatment
system using  carbon  adsorption;  disposing of
carbon offsite; upgrading and maintaining the
existing leachate collection and treatment system;
ground-water monitoring; and implementing deed
restrictions to  prevent waste disruption.   The
estimated present  worth cost for this  remedial
action is $1,293,700, which includes an estimated
O&M cost of $108,000 for the first two years and
$93,000 for the next 28 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Ground  water and soil already  meet state
drinking  water standards and state  action levels.
Leachate   quality  will   comply  with   state
requirements for discharge  either to a publicly
owned treatment  works  or  to  a  nearby  river.
Emissions  from the  gas treatment system will
comply  with  state  air  pollution  regulations.
Chemical-specific cleanup goals were not specified.

Institutional Controls

    Deed restrictions will  be implemented to
prevent waste disruption.
                                                180

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    Group:  7(F)
                                 PICAHNNY ARSENAL, NJ
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       September 28,1989
    The Picatinny  Arsenal is  a munitions and
weapons research  and development installation
covering 6,491 acres and containing 1,500 buildings
in Morris County, near the city of Dover, New
Jersey.  Ground-water contamination above state
and federal action levels has been detected in the
vicinity of Building  24, where past wastewater
treatment practices resulted in the infiltration of
metal plating waste constituents  (i.e., VOCs and
heavy metals) into the ground water. Two unlined
lagoons alongside  Building 24, thought to be a
source of contamination, was eliminated during a
1981 action during which the unlined lagoons were
demolished, contaminated soil  removed, and two
concrete  lagoons  installed.    Two  additional
potential sources of contamination are a dry well
at Building 24 and a former drum storage area at
Building  31, directly  across  the  street  from
Building 24.  This interim ground-water clean-up
remedy is designed to prevent deterioration to
Green Pond Brook, a major drainage artery onsite,
while the arsenal as  a whole is evaluated.   The
primary contaminants  of  concern  affecting the
ground water are VOCs   including TCE,  and
metals.
    The selected interim remedy  for  this site
includes  ground-water  pumping  and treatment
using  a pretreatment system for the removal of
metals and solids and air  stripping to remove
VOCs; GAC filtration of  VOCs from the  air
stripper exhaust and air stripper effluent; discharge
of treated ground water to Green Pond Brook; and
effluent and air monitoring.  Cost data was not
provided because USAGE was preparing to offer a
competitive bid contract for the system.

Performance Standards or Goals

    ARARs  will  be used  to  establish effluent
quality and allowable VOCs emissions;  however,
ARARs for ground-water clean up will  apply to
the final  remedial  action, not this interim action.
Chemical-specific cleanup levels, therefore, were
not established.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              181

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRante  291
                           PORT WASHINGTON LANDFILL, NY
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 30, 1989
    The Port Washington Landfill site is on the
eastern portion  of Manhasset Neck,  Nassau
County, Long Island, New York.  The 139-acre
municipally owned site consists  of two landfilled
areas separated by a vacant area. This Record of
Decision addresses the 53-acre inactive landfill on
the  western  portion of the  site, which  is  the
suspected source of methane gas thought to cause
furnace explosions in residences neighboring the
landfill during 1979 through 1981. From 1974 to
1983 the  landfill operator  accepted incinerator
residue, residential  and commercial refuse,  and
construction rubble for disposal. Because extensive
air monitoring, performed in 1981, revealed high
methane levels  in  several areas residences,  a
venting system was installed to prevent subsurface
gases from migrating west of the landfill  and to
destroy hazardous chemicals commonly detected in
sanitary landfill gas.  In 1981, the county also
determined the presence of VOC contaminants in
a drinking water well on site, which has since been
removed from service. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs  including PCE,  TCE, and benzene, and
other organics including methane gas.

     The selected remedial action  for  this site
includes capping the landfill; rehabilitating the
existing gas  collection system  and  installing
additional vacuum extraction vents; ground-water
pumping and treatment using a metals removal
process and air stripping followed by discharge to
an  aquifer recharge basin;  and environmental
monitoring using ground-water and landfill gas
wells.  The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is $42,580,000, which includes a
present worth O&M cost of $16,247,000 for 30
years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
SDWA MCLs and  state standards for drinking
water.  Chemical-specific goals were not provided.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               182

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfo 627
                             PREFERRED PLATING CORP., NY
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 22, 1989
    The 0.5-acre Preferred Plating Corp. site is in
a light  industrial  area  of Farmingdale,  Suffolk
County, New York.  The site is bordered to the
east and west by commercial and light industrial
properties, to the north by a large wooded area,
and to the south by a residential community and a
U.S. Army facility. More than 10,000 people live
within a  3-mile radius of the site.   Between
September 1951 and June  1976, Preferred Plating
Corporation operated a metal treating facility that
resulted in the generation, storage, and disposal of
hazardous  waste.    Untreated  wastewater  was
discharged to four concrete leaching points directly
behind the facility. Site investigations conducted
by the county as early as 1953 revealed heavy metal
contamination of ground water and cracked  and
leaking on-site leaching pits. Ground water is used
for  drinking water  supplies  by  the   entire
population of both Naussau and Suffolk counties.
The nearest  public water supply well  fields are
located  approximately one mile southeast of the
site.  This operable unit addresses the  overall
ground-water contamination attributable to the
site; a second operable unit will be undertaken to
more   fully   characterize  and   identify   any
contaminated soil and  to investigate potential
upgradient sources of contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the  ground
water are  VOCs including TCE and PCE,  and
metals including chromium and lead.
     The selected  remedial action  for  this site
includes  pumping  and  on-site treatment  of
contaminated  ground   water  using  metal
precipitation, carbon adsorption, and ion exchange
followed by  reinjection  of the treated ground
water; off-site disposal of 220 gallons per day of
wet cake generated by the water treatment  plant
and  spent carbon filters to a RCRA subtitle  C
facility;  and  periodic  ground-water  monitoring.
The estimated present worth cost is $9,327,400 for
12 years with an annual O&M cost of $920,900.

Performance Standards or Goals

     On-site ground-water clean-up standards for
the contaminants of concern were based on SDWA
MCLs   and   State  Ground   Water   Quality
Regulations.  Because this Record of Decision  is
only part of a total remedial  action  that will
include another operable unit, the selected remedy
by itself will not meet all chemical-specific ARARs
or be capable of restoring area ground  water to
ground-water quality  standards  until upgradient
source areas are removed.  In the event  a second
operable unit fails to identify or control the source
area, a waiver for technical impracticability will be
sought.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               183

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  535
                               SMS INSTRUMENTS, INC., NY
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 29,1989
    The 1.5-acre SMS Instruments, Inc. site is in a
light industrial and residential area of Deer Park,
Suffolk County, New York.  Since 1967 the site
has been operated as an industrial facility which
overhauls military aircraft components. Past waste
disposal practices included discharging untreated
wastewater from degreasing and other refurbishing
operations to an underground leaching pool.  In
1980 the site owner removed 800 gallons of VOC
and metal-contaminated wastewater from the pool,
and subsequently filled  it with sand and sealed all
drain pipes. In  1981 the county required the site
owner to  leak  test a 6,000  gallon underground
storage tank (UST) used to store jet fuel.  Because
tests indicated leakage,  the tank was emptied and,
in 1988, was excavated and removed. This Record
of Decision represents the first of two operable
units  at the site and addresses ground-water and
soil contamination.   Source areas include the
former UST area, the leaching pool, and spill areas
where wastes were formerly  stored in drums.  A
subsequent operable unit will investigate suspected
sources of upgradient contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
ground water are VOCs including PCE, TCE, and
xylenes, and metals including chromium and lead.
     The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes treating approximately 1,250 cubic yards
of soil using in situ steam stripping or air stripping
depending on the results of a planned treatability
study; and ground-water pumping and treatment
using air stripping followed by reinjection through
on-site wells.   The contingency plan  for  soil
remediation  includes  excavation  and   off-site
incineration of contaminated soil. The estimated
present worth cost for the selected remedial action
is $1,195,800,  which includes an annual present
worth O&M cost of $437,576.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Treated  ground water will  meet state  and
federal  drinking  water   standards  prior  to
reinjection.  Specific ground water cleanup goals
include TCE 5 ugA (MCL), PCE 0.7  ug/1 (state),
xylenes 5 ug/1  (state), chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL),
and lead 25 ug/1 (State).  Soil will be treated until
all VOC contaminants of concern attain a soil
contaminant level of less than 10 ug/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               184

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRank:  42
                           VINELAND CHEMICAL CO., INC, NJ
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 28,1989
    The Vineland Chemical Co., Inc.  site is  in
Vineland, Cumberland County, New Jersey.  The
site is in a residential/industrial area and borders
the Blackwater Branch stream, a tributary to the
Maurice River, which ultimately flows into Union
Lake.  The Vineland facility  consists of several
herbicide  manufacturing and storage facilities, a
wastewater treatment facility, and several lagoons.
The facility produces approximately 1,107 tons  of
herbicide  waste by-product salts, EPA hazardous
waste number K031, each year which were stored
on site in uncontrolled piles on the soil,  in the
unlined lagoons, and in abandoned chicken coops.
Furthermore, arsenic-contaminated wastewaterwas
discharged into unlined lagoons until 1980 when
Vineland  Chemical  Company began   treating
wastewater.  Since 1978,  hazardous waste salts
produced at the site have no longer been stored on
site for more than 90 days and are disposed of off
site by licensed   shippers;  however,  the  past
improper  storage of those salts have resulted  in
extensive arsenic contamination of soil,  sediment,
and ground water because of the high solubility  of
the salts.  The ground water underneath the plant
discharges into the Blackwater  Branch stream and
has resulted in contamination of sediment  in
Blackwater Branch, the Maurice River, and  Union
Lake. The site has been divided into four discrete
operable units to facilitate remediation:  sediment
in  the 870-acre Union Lake; sediment in  the
Maurice  River and  Blackwater  Branch stream
areas; soil associated with the Vineland  Chemical
Company facility; and ground water underlying the
site. The primary contaminant of concern affecting
the soil, sediment, and ground  water is arsenic.

    The selected remedial actions for this site will
be  implemented in four discrete operable units
(OUs).  OU 1, the plant site source control,  will
include in situ flushing of 126,000 cubic yards of
arsenic-contaminated soil,  54,000 cubic yards of
which will be excavated and  consolidated with
72,000  cubic  yards   of   undisturbed   soil;
decontaminating on-site storage buildings (chicken
coops); and closing two impoundments followed by
 off-site treatment and disposal of the wastewater
 and sludge recovered  from the impoundments.
 OU 2, the plant site ground water, will include
 ground-water  pumping and treatment  followed
 either by  reinjection,  off-site discharge to the
 Maurice River, or reuse for soil flushing; and off-
 site treatment and disposal of residue sludge from
 ground-water  treatment.  OU  3, the stream and
 river   areas sediment,  will include excavating,
 dredging, and treating  62,600  cubic  yards of
 exposed and buried sediment from the Blackwater
 Branch  and   its  floodplain  using water  wash
 extraction  followed  by on-site  redeposition of
 treated sediment; treating and off-site disposal of
 sludge  residue from the  water  wash extraction
 process; implementing  a three-year period of
 natural  river  flushing  for  the  Maurice River
 sediment    after   remediating   the
 arsenic-contaminated ground water; and selection
 of a water wash contingent remedy for the river
 sediments if levels persist above action levels.  OU
 4, an interim remedy for the Union Lake sediment,
 will include  dredging,  excavating,  and  treating
 sediment from Union  Lake using  water  wash
 extraction followed by redeposition into the lake;
 treating and disposing  of  sludge residue off-site;
 and sediment and surface water monitoring. The
 estimated present worth cost for these remedial
 actions is $66,384,636, which includes estimated
 annual  O&M costs of $3,463,463  for the short
 term and $38,010 for the long term for the plant
 source control, stream and river sediment, and lake
 sediment  operable units;  and a  present worth
 O&M  cost of $5,155,053  for the  ground water
 operable unit.

 Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil, sediment,  and ground-water clean-up
goals for arsenic are based on 10"6 health-based
levels and MCLs.  Specific goals include 20 mg/kg
(soil and surface sediment), 120 mg/kg (submerged
sediment), and 50 ug/1 (ground water).
                                               185

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                             Fiscal Year 1989
Institutional Controls

   Not  applicable (may  be determined and
implemented at a later date).
                                          186

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 419
                              VINELAND STATE SCHOOL, NJ
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 30,1989
    The 195-acre Vineland State School site is in
the  northern part  of the  city  of Vineland,
Cumberland  County,  New  Jersey.   The  site,
commonly   referred   to   as   the   Vineland
Developmental Center, is a residential treatment
facility for mentally  handicapped women and is
comprised of numerous buildings to care for the
1,300 residents. In addition to the facility, the site
includes farmland, a hospital care facility, facility
maintenance  shops,   and  an   unregulated
incinerator.  The site overlies three aquifers which
serve as major sources of drinking water for the
county.   There  were  numerous allegations of
improper waste disposal at five separate on-site
subsites.  Subsite one, a former landfill which has
since been  used to  covered  and  vegetated,
reportedly had been used  to dump mercury and
arsenic-contaminated pesticides.   Data from the
remedial investigation, however, could not confirm
these  allegations.     At   subsite  two,  PCB-
contaminated fluid spilled and spread over a 1-acre
area. The State remediated subsite two in 1988,
which included  demolishing and disposing of
approximately 3,900 tons of PCB-contaminated soil
and concrete  pads off site.  Subsite three  was
a  garbage  dump  for  10  years  before  being
backfilled and used as a baseball field.  Subsites
four and five were pits where transformer oils and
chemicals  were  dumped   in  the  mid  1950s.
Investigation  results  of the  subsites excluding
subsite two,  which  was  cleaned up in  1988,
revealed only low levels of contamination.

    The selected remedial action for this site is no
further  action.    The  risks  posed  by the
contamination in  these  areas  are   within the
acceptable range as determined by the state and
EPA.   As a  precautionary measure, however,
ground water and disposal areas will be monitored.
No costs were specified  for this remedial action.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Not applicable.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               187

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                           REGION 3
            (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)
                                                                                   NFL Rank: 655
                               AMBLER ASBESTOS PILES, PA
                                   Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The  Ambler Asbestos  Piles site  is in  the
southwestern portion of the Borough of Ambler,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.  This second
operable  unit  for  the   site  addresses   the
CertainTeed asbestos pile portion of the Ambler
Asbestos  site.   The CertainTeed asbestos pile
contains asbestos scrap materials and encompasses
approximately 3.5  acres of a 5-acre  tract.   Land
around the site is used for industrial, commercial,
residential, and transportation purposes. The site
is bordered to  the southeast by the  Stuart Farm
Creek floodplain and associated wetlands system,
and  to  the west by  the   Wissahickon  Creek
floodplain.  The CertainTeed pile was created by
the disposal of asbestos-cement scrap originating
from asbestos pipe manufacturing operations at the
CertainTeed  plant.    In   addition,   asbestos-
contaminated   sludge  from  a  process   water
treatment settling pond was also disposed of at the
site.  Asbestos waste disposal continued from 1962
until 1977 when the state ordered the CertainTeed
pile  closed.    At  present  the  pile  contains
approximately   110,000   cubic   yards   of
asbestos-related waste material which is covered by
approximately 22,000 cubic yards of soil. Several
inorganic contaminants have also been detected in
the soil and debris of the pile as well as in surface
water and  sediment from  Stuart  Farm  Creek.
Because  the  actual sources  of the  inorganic
contaminants in the creek have not been identified,
a verification study will be performed to define the
source of  these  contaminants.  The primary
contaminant  of  concern   affecting  the  soil,
sediment, debris, and surface water is asbestos.

     The selected  remedial action  for  the site
includes  regrading the pile plateau to  promote
proper storm water drainage; placing a soil cover
with geotextile reinforcement on portions of the
pile plateau and slope where the soil cover is less
than two feet deep; performing a verification study
to determine the source of inorganics in Stuart
Farm Creek; installing erosion control devices to
protect the toe of the pile from scouring by Stuart
Farm   Creek;  implementing  erosion   and
sedimentation controls  to  facilitate  vegetation;
restricting site access; monitoring  air and surface
water;  and  post-closure  maintenance.   The
estimated present  worth cost  for this  remedial
action is $753,000, which includes annual O&M
costs of $21,700 for the first five years and $10,200
for years six to thirty.

Performance Standards or Goals

     This  remedy  addresses   containment  of
asbestos-contaminated debris; therefore, no clean-
up level is provided for the debris.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will  be established to
restrict future land use to surficial activities by
authorized personnel.
                                                188

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank:  512
                    BALLY GROUND WATER CONTAMINAHON, PA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                          June 30, 1989
    The Bally Ground Water Contamination site is
a municipal water supply well field in the Borough
of Bally in Berks County, near the Philadelphia
metropolitan area.  The Bally Well Field and the
springs to the northwest of the site are the public
water  sources  for  approximately  1,200  Bally
residents.  The area near the site includes wetlands
to the north and a manufacturing plant (the plant)
1,000 feet to the south of one of Bally Well Field's
municipal wells (Well No. 3).   Since  the 1930s
degreasing solvents containing methylene chloride,
TCA, methanol, toluene, and TCE have been used
in manufacturing at the plant. One of the plant's
facilities  includes a  drum storage area which
contains   empty  drums,  waste  oil,  and spent
degreasers.  A 1982 state water quality check
identified  the  plant  as  a  source  of VOC
contamination in Bally's municipal wells.  Former
lagoons underlie the plant and are also considered
potential sources of aquifer contamination. From
December 1982 to March 1987 the Borough of
Bally did not use the contaminated Municipal Well
No. 3 for water  supply although the water was
periodically pumped and discharged into a nearby
pond to contain the contaminant plume. Pumping,
however, had the effect of drawing VOCs deeper
into the aquifer.  The well was completely shut
down in March 1987. Results of additional ground
water contamination studies indicated that 19 of 35
wells sampled contained detectable levels of VOCs.
Currently a plume of VOC-contaminated ground
water extends  from the  plant to the east  and
northeast.   Plume contaminant  movement has
become more controlled since  pumping and air
stripping  pilot  testing began  at Well  No. 3.
Ground water is the focus  of this remediation
because   no  remaining   source   of   VOC
contamination has been identified on the site. The
primary contaminants  of  concern  affecting  the
ground water are VOCs including TCE.

     The selected  remedial action for this  site
includes  abandoning  appropriate  wells in  the
attainment area; pumping and treatment of ground
water from Municipal Well No. 3 by air stripping
with either vapor phase carbon, regenerable vapor
phase carbon, or vapor phase catalytic oxidation,
followed by  discharging  treated   water  to  an
adjacent  stream  or into the  municipal potable
water system, as  needed,  to  provide  a suitable
alternative  water  supply; implementation  of
institutional  controls  restricting  the  use  of
operable private wells and the construction of new
wells within the attainment area; and  performing
ground-water and surface-water monitoring to
measure contaminant concentration and migration.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action ranges  from $2,950,000 to $3,640,000, which
includes O&M costs from $105,000 to $189,000
depending on the chosen treatment  option.

Performance  Standards or Goals

     Ground water will be treated to meet MCLs
or  PMCLs when  final MCLs  are unavailable.
Chemical-specific  goals include  TCE  0.005 mg/1
(MCL).

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will be implemented to
restrict the use of operable private  wells and  the
construction of new wells.
                                              189

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc 924
                                  CRAIG FARM DRUM, PA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The   Craig   Farm   Drum   site   covers
approximately  117 acres near  the village  of
Fredericksburg in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.
The area around the site is dominated by farmland
and forest,  and  a creek crosses  the  southern
portion of the site.  The site consists of two
abandoned strip mine pits which were later used
for disposal  of  distillation  residue containing
resorcinol and other high polymers.  From 1958 to
1963 the Koppers Chemical Co. disposed of 2,500
tons of resorcinol production residue in 55-gallon
drums in the  pits.   Resorcinol is  an organic
compound used  as an  adhesive  enhancer  in
commercial    products   such  as   tires  and
Pharmaceuticals.  Investigations in  1984  revealed
that the majority of drums were broken or crushed
and were without lids. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil and ground water are
VOCs including benzene, other organics,  phenols,
metals including  lead and chromium, and other
inorganics.

    The  selected remedial action  for  this site
includes  the  excavation of 32,000  cubic yards of
soil from the two disposal pits  and surrounding
area with on-site treatment  using  solidification;
placement of treated soil in a newly excavated and
lined on-site landfill followed by capping; passive
collection of ground water using a seep interceptor
system with off-site treatment; and  performing a
ground water verification study. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is
$5,188,000, which includes estimated annual O&M
costs of $124,000 for 30 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil will be  excavated until  the  organic
compound resorcinol is no longer detectable (<50
mg/kg). Ground-water performance levels include
benzene  0.005   mg/1  (MCL),  phenol 3.5  mg/1
(AWQC), chromium 0.05 mg/1  (MCL), and lead
0.05 mg/1 (MCL).

Institutional Controls

    Deed notices will be implemented to notify
property owners  of contaminants at the site.
                                               190

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank:  801
                                    CROYDEN TOE, PA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       December 28,1988
    The Croyden TCE site is located in Bristol
Township, Bucks  County, Pennsylvania.  VOC
contamination in the  ground water has  been
detected over a 3.5-square mile area referred to as
the study area.  The study area is  predominantly
residential with an estimated 3,000 residents. A
small southeastern  portion  of the study area
containing elevated levels of VOCs, particularly
TCE, and numerous potential source areas have
been identified and are referred to collectively as
the "focused area of investigation." This smaller
area  is composed of the Croyden  residential
community  and   several  manufacturing   and
commercial  establishments.  The  study area is
bordered on  the south by the Delaware River.
Neshaminy Creek, which borders the study area to
the west, and Hog Run Creek which flows through
the focused area of investigation, both discharge to
the river.  Although the source of  contamination
has not been identified, the contaminant plume
appears to be flowing south-southeast  into  the
East Branch of Hog Run Creek and probably into
the Delaware River. EPA identified the Croyden
site following a series of studies beginning in 1984
conducted on the Rohm & Haas site, an industrial
landfill, located on the southern boundary of the
site.   The  primary contaminants  of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
TCE and PCE.

    The selected remedial action for this site
includes connecting approximately 13 residences to
the public water supply system via the construction
of new water services lines, mains, hydrants, and
valves; and ground-water monitoring to ensure that
homes located  outside of the TCE-contaminated
zone will not be at risk from the migrating plume.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $106,000 with annual O&M cost of $3,400
for 30 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    This operable unit does not address treatment
of contaminated soil or water.  The remedy will
prevent human exposure to concentrations of TCE
in excess of federal, state and local health-based
ARARs.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              191

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc 927
                                    CRYOCHEM, ING, PA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 19-acre CryoChem, Inc. facility is a metal
fabricating facility in the village of Worman, Earl
Township, Berks  County, Pennsylvania.   The
facility consists of a workshop area, a warehouse,
and an office building which are all located in the
southern four acres of the site.  Between 1970 and
1982, Cryochem reportedly used chemical solvents
to clean dye from metal welds at a rate of two to
three 55-gallon drums per year.  The facility also
reported that a solvent spill had occurred at some
unspecified time in the past.  Spilled solvent is
suspected to have collected in the workshop drains
and  flowed,  through  underground channels,
towards a stream that flows across the site.  Spilled
solvent has also migrated through the soil column
and has contaminated the ground water underlying
the site. Ground-water samples, collected between
1981 and 1985 by the state and EPA, revealed that
an on-site production well, nearby residential wells,
and on-site soil have been contaminated.   As a
result of drinking water  contamination,  EPA
installed activated  carbon  filters in 13 homes in
1987.  This Record of Decision, the  first of two
operable units, addresses the distribution of clean
water to residents  whose water supply is affected
or   potentially   affected   by  ground-water
contamination.  The  primary contaminants  of
concern  affecting  the  ground  water are  VOCs
including TCA, DCA, TCE, DCE, and PCE.
     The selected  remedial action for this first
operable unit includes installation of dual-activated
carbon adsorption units or continued maintenance
of existing carbon units at affected homes until a
permanent   clean  water  supply  is  developed;
implementation of periodic sampling at potentially
affected   homes;   construction   of   a  new
uncontaminated water supply to serve affected and
potentially affected residences and businesses; and
periodic sampling of residents outside the affected
area. The  estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action  is  $1,260,000  which  includes
annual O&M costs of $80,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground water will meet SDWA MCLs or an
excess cancer-risk level less than 10"6 if an MCL
has not been developed for a  particular chemical.
Target cleanup levels for ground water include
TCA 200 ug/1 (MCL), DCA 0.38 ug/1 (based on a
W6 cancer risk), TCE 5 ug/1  (MCL), DCE 7 ug/1
(MCL), and PCE 0.66 ug/1 (based on a 10'6 cancer
risk).

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               192

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRank:  106
                              DOUGIASSVILLE DISPOSAL, PA
                                   Second Remedial Action - Final
                                         (and Amendment)
                                           June 30, 1989
    The Douglassville  Disposal  site is a 50-acre
abandoned waste oil processing  facility in Union
Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania.  The area
surrounding  the site includes agricultural land,
residences, and light industrial development. The
site lies  almost  entirely within  the 100-year
floodplain of the Schuylkill River, which borders
the site to  the north  and east.  The Schuylkill
River is used for municipal and industrial water
supply,    recreational   purposes,   and   waste
assimilation.   Further  downstream of the site,
seven public water supply users  draw water from
the Schuylkill River. From 1941 to 1979 the site
operated  as  a  lubrication  oil and  waste solvent
recycling  facility.   Wastes generated from  the
recycling processes were stored on  site in several
lagoons.   The site consists of a former waste oil
processing area and various waste disposal areas.
Because of the site's size and the  complexity of the
various on-site activities, the site has been divided
into 10 source areas of contamination.  Disposal
areas  include  two backfilled  sludge disposal
lagoons (source areas four and five), an oily filter
cake disposal area (source area two), an oil drum
storage area (source area  eight), an  area where
waste oil sludge was  landfarmed  into the  soil
(source areas three and six), the former processing
facility/tank farm area  (source area one), a small
backfilled  lagoon  (source  area nine),  an  old
incinerator  (source area seven), and an area of
scrap metal and tanks  (source area 10).  In 1970
heavy rain caused a lagoon to overflow and breach
safety dikes;  two to seven million gallons of waste
flowed into the Schuylkill  River. Two years later,
a hurricane caused the Schuylkill  River to overflow
its banks and inundate  the entire site, releasing an
estimated six to eight  million gallons of waste.
EPA subsequently  drained  and backfilled  the
lagoons.  Beginning in 1979 operations changed to
refining waste  oils for use as fuel in industrial
boilers. Oily wastewater sludge  from the refining
process was  landfarmed in the  area  until 1981,
when the state  mandated operational corrections
to the  landfarming practices.    All  operations
ceased in 1985.  The  1988 Record  of Decision
(ROD)  addressed the risks associated with the
former processing facility/tank  farm area, which
were impediments to any future soil and ground-
water remediation. This second and final response
action   addresses  soil   and   ground-water
contamination   remaining  after  the  former
processing facility/tank farm and associated wastes
have  been  removed  offsite.   This  ROD  also
amends, in part, the 1985 ROD, which outlined the
remedial action for the source areas designated as
two,   four,   and  five but  deferred  a  decision
regarding  ground-water contamination.    The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, toluene, and vinyl chloride, other organics
including PAHs, PCBs, and phenol,  and metals
including lead.

     The selected remedial action  for this site
includes excavation and on-site thermal treatment
of 48,400 cubic yards of  soil  and sludge  from
source area  two,  and  600 cubic yards of oily
sediment from the drainage ditch that runs  from
source area  nine,  followed by  backfilling  ash
residue   into  source  area two;  covering  the
backfilled  area with  clean  soil  followed  by
revegetation; capping of source areas one,  four,
and five with one foot of fly ash and  two feet of
soil followed by revegetation; if ash residues exceed
EP toxicity levels solidification would be required
prior to onsite disposal;  capping  source  areas
three, six, and nine (approximately 10 acres) with
one  foot of clean soil followed by revegetation;
implementing institutional controls to prevent soil
disturbance  and well drilling; ground-water and
surface-water monitoring; and establishing ACLs
for ground water.   The estimated present worth
cost   for  this  remedial  action  ranges  from
$39,430,000 to $53,769,000  depending  on whether
ash residue requires solidification prior to disposal.
                                                193

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
Performance Standards or Goals                      7.1 ug/1, and lead 227 ug/1.  Lead emissions to the
                                                    air will not exceed NAAQS and state air quality
    The selected remedy will treat soil that exceeds        standards which are set for lead at 1.5 ug/nr (on a
a 10"6 cancer-risk level. Ground-water protection        quarterly  average).
standards will be alternate concentration  levels
(ACLs) and will be established as the maximum        Institutional Controls
existing concentration measured in the monitoring
wells.   The ACLs  include benzene  2,000 ug/1,            Institutional controls will be implemented to
toluene 2,300 ug/1, vinyl chloride 1,200 ug/1, phenol        restrict area access and ground water use.
                                               194

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NFL Rank: 487
                                   HAVERTOWN PCP, PA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 29,1989
    The Havertown PCP site is in Havertown,
Delaware County, Pennsylvania, approximately 10
miles west of Philadelphia. This 12 to 15 acre site
consists of a wood treatment facility, an adjacent
manufacturing facility, and Naylors Run Creek
which drains the area. Land use in the vicinity of
the site consists  of commercial  and  residential
properties.  Contamination at the site is due to
improper disposal of wastes generated from wood
preserving  operations.   From  1947  to  1963,
PCP-contaminated oil was  dumped into a well
which  drained  into ground water beneath  the
facility. In 1972, the state identified contaminated
ground water discharging from a storm sewer into
Naylors Run. From 1976 to 1982 EPA performed
containment  activities including  installing filter
fences in Naylors Run and sealing a sanitary sewer
pipe.   In 1988 EPA  installed a catch basin in
Naylors Run to trap  discharge from  the storm
sewer  pipe.  Other onsite  wastes  include  five
holding  tanks   filled  with  PCP  and  VOC-
contaminated wastewater and numerous 55-gallon
drums of unanalyzed waste materials.  This Record
of Decision (ROD), the first of two operable units,
will address the remediation of surface water  and
the disposal of drummed and tanked wastes.  A
subsequent  ROD will  address  the  impact  of
contaminated soil on ground-water contamination
at the site. The primary contaminants  of concern
affecting the surface water are VOCs including
benzene,  toluene,  and  TCE,  other organics
including phenols, diorins, PCP, and PAHs, metals
including arsenic and chromium, and oils.

    The selected remedial action for this site
includes off-site land disposal of 200 drums of soil
and oily debris, and off-site treatment and disposal
of 6,000 gallons of wastewater stored in on-site
tanks; soil monitoring; installing and operating an
oil/water separator at the storm  sewer effluent
point to Naylors Run; multimedia monitoring; and
implementation of site access  restrictions.  The
estimated present worth cost  for this remedial
action is $1,158,200, which includes an estimated
annual O&M cost of $110,000 for years one to five
and $45,000 for years six to thirty.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Cleanup goals for the site are based on a 10"6
risk level.  Specific surface water cleanup goals
include   reducing  the  discharge   of   PCP-
contaminated oil to Naylors Run  to  less than 5
mg/1  which  translates  to   a  surface  water
concentration of 17 ug/1. In addition, surface water
concentrations for benzene,  toluene, TCE and
other VOCs will be reduced by 17%.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               195

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 778
                          HEBELKA AUTO SALVAGE YARD, PA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                         March 31, 1989
    The 20-acre Hebelka site is located in a rural
area of  the Weisenburg  Township in Lehigh
County,  Pennsylvania.    The  site  is  bordered
primarily by agricultural  fields;  however, three
residences are located on or immediately adjacent
to the site.  From 1958 to 1979, the property was
used as an automobile junk yard with intermittent
periods  of activity involving salvage operations.
Debris including two large piles of battery casings,
empty  drums,  junk cars, and  scrap metal were
accumulated on  site.    A site  inspection  in
December 1985 revealed lead in soil downgradient
from  the   battery  piles,   and  chromium  in
downgradient sediment. Lead concentrations were
highest in surface soil samples (<3ft) ranging from
200 to 65,000  mg/kg.  This Record  Of Decision
addresses source control; a  second operable unit
will  address   migration   pathways   such   as
downgradient sediment and  ground  water.  The
primary contaminant of concern at the site is lead.
    The selected  remedial action for this  site
includes excavation and on-site fixation of 5,000
cubic yards of soil,  followed by off-site disposal of
treated soil at a sanitary landfill; excavation  and
recycling of  1,000 cubic yards of battery casings;
and  soil  backfilling  and  revegetation.    The
estimated present  worth cost  for this remedial
action ranges from $6,073,436 to $6,884,652; the
greater  cost reflects the additional expense of
disposing  of the battery casings  if recycling is
impractical.  No O&M costs are expected.

Performance Standards or Goals

    The soil will  be excavated down to a lead
concentration of 560 mg/kg based on health-risk
calculations.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               196

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc 404
                                   HENDERSON ROAD, PA
                                   Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29,1989
    The Henderson Road site is a 7.6-acre site in
Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania.  O'Hara
Sanitation  Company, Inc. has used  the  site for
waste storage, waste recycling, vehicle maintenance,
and parking and office facilities since 1974.  The
area surrounding the site is zoned for industrial
and residential use.  The site is bounded by the
Pennsylvania  Turnpike,  the  Conrail  property
including train tracks, Henderson Road, and Frog
Run. The Upper Merion Reservoir, located 2,000
feet upgradient of the site, serves as part of the
water source  for approximately 228,000 people.
Prior to  1974 the site was operated  by  the Ellis
Concrete  Company as a  concrete  preparation
plant.  During this operation cinders may have
been placed on the western portion of the site and
on adjacent railroad property. In 1974 William J.
O'Hara,   Inc.   began  landfilling   trash  and
construction debris on central and eastern portions
of the site until  1984.  Between  1974 and 1977
William  J.  O'Hara,  Inc.  alledgedly   injected
industrial waste  into a  160-foot  onsite well.
Furthermore, liquid waste, sludge, and drums may
have been  disposed of in  the landfill.  The  first
operable unit for this site, as described in a June
1988 Record of Decision, included pumping and
treatment,  using  air  strippers,  of contaminated
ground  water.   This  will be  accompanied by
additional characterization  of the injection well,
exavation of oil pit sediment if found, removal of
significant  waste  within  the well  if  feasible,
institutional controls, further characterization of
saturated and unsaturated zones, possibly direct
treatment in the unsaturated zone, monitoring, and
periodic evaluation of cleanup goals.  The second
operable unit addresses  all surface sources of
contamination  at  the  site.    The   primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil  and
ground  water  are  VOCs  including  benzene,
toluene,  PCE, and TCE, and  other  organics
including PAHs.  The predominant carcinogenic
risk for the landfill operable unit (LOU) is based
on  the prediction of movement of  leachate to
ground water.  Of the 19 chemicals of concern
identified for the LOU, bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
and six volatiles are considered by EPA to pose the
greatest threat to ground water. Other routes of
exposure include those from ingestion of soil and
inhalation of fugative emissions.

     The selected remedial action for this operable
unit  includes  installation  of  erosion  controls;
regrading and capping, including possibly moving
the  on-site watermain;  installing a short- and
long-term   leachate   collection  system   with
treatment and discharge  to be determined during
design; excavation and on-site  consolidation  of
trash,  soil,  and cinder currently located  at the
adjacent  Turnpike  property with  appropriate
remediation of wastes left in place at the Turnpike
property;  further  sample  collection  and  data
evaluation in the western portion of the site
leading to a determination regarding  treatment
and/or capping in that area,  and contingent ground
water recovery; monitoring of ground water and
leachate; and institutional controls. The estimated
present worth cost  for  this remedial  action is
$7,265,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$213,260.

Performance Standards or  Goals

     Treatment prescribed for this landfill operable
unit is designed to achieve an on-site risk of 4.2 x
10"6.  Soil cleanup  is based  on depth from surface
not on concentrations of contaminants.   Clean-up
standards   for  the  aquifer, which  has  been
considered as Class IIA, are identified consistently
for both operable units and  are based on the most
conservative  value derived from the following:
MCLs,  MCLGs, aquatic water quality criteria,
drinking  water  equivalent  levels,   suggested
no-adverse effect levels, models  developed  during
the risk assessment, processes  described  in the
Superfund Public Health  Evaluation Manual, and
specific values developed by EPA where no other
ARARs exist. MCLs were  used where available.
Alternate  concentration  limits are proposed for
1,1-dichloroethane,  1,2-dichloroethane,  benzene,
1,2-dichloropropane,   and   trichloroethene.
                                               197

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                              Fiscal Year 1989
Chemical-specific ARARs are  proposed in the       Institutional Controls
LOU ROD for 56 constituents.
                                                     Institutional controls will be used to restrict
                                                 activities that would interfere with remediation at
                                                 the site.
                                            198

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 888
                                   KIMBERTON SITE, PA
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                           June 30, 1989
    The Kimberton  site is  in Chester County,
Pennsylvania, near the Philadelphia metropolitan
area.    The  site  encompasses   an  industrial
production  plant  currently owned  by Monsey
Products Company, Inc., and adjacent properties
within the  neighboring village of  Kimberton.
Water quality  testing since 1981 has  revealed
numerous area domestic and commerical potable
well water supplies contaminated with VOCs. A
portion of this contamination originated from the
on site industrial production plant, which disposed
of wastes in several lagoons during the 1950s. An
EPA investigation in the spring of 1982 revealed
the presence of organics, including TCE and DCE,
in local ground water, surface water, and soil. In
mid 1982, fifty seven, 55-gallon drums  from an
abandoned on-site septic system were excavated,
removed,  and disposed  of off site.   In 1984 a
remedial action program was initiated to  excavate,
remove, and dispose of approximately 2,050 cubic
yards of soil from three  former lagoon areas that
were  highly contaminated with VOCs.   These
lagoons are in proximity to numerous private water
supply wells and less than  1  mile from French
Creek, which  is used for public recreation and
fishing. VOCs are believed to ultimately discharge
to surface waters  to  the  north and  east in the
village of Kimberton via  the  ground water.  In
1985, 67  residential  and commercial wells were
sampled   and   found    to  contain  various
concentrations  of TCE,  DCE,  and  vinyl  chloride.
As a result of these findings, the  former and
current owners of the plant agreed to provide 23
residential  and commercial locations  with  an
alternate source of drinking and contact water as
an interim solution under the  first  operable unit.
This   second   operable  unit  addresses  the
contaminated   plume  and  the   source  of
contamination.  The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water and surface
water are VOCs including TCE and DCE.

     The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes the continued provision of alternate water
supplies through GAC treatment system and/or
potable water supply storage tanks; pumping and
treatment of ground water using an air stripping
system with  on-site  discharge  to an adjacent
stream; long-term  ground  water  monitoring;
collection and treatment of surface water at the
local ground water discharge point using an air
stripping system; and institutional controls to
restrict ground water use.  The estimated present
worth  cost  of this  remedial action is $2,630,000,
which includes annual O&M costs of $175,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The current goal of ground-water remediation
is  to  achieve  natural  background  conditions.
Ground water will  gradually meet MCLs through
air   stripping,   natural  flushing,  and  VOC
degradation. VOC-contaminated ground water will
be treated to attain MCLs including TCE 5 ug/1,
DCE 7 ug/1, and vinyl chloride 2 ug/1.  Surface
water will be treated to meet ambient water quality
criteria including TCE 21,900-45,000 ug/1 and DCE
11,600 ug/1.  Because the site is  located  in  a
nonattainment area for ozone, air emissions from
the air stripping system will comply with state air
toxic guidelines.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will be implemented to
restrict the installation and  use  of new ground-
water extraction wells within the area affected by
ground-water contamination.
                                               199

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  258
                                M.W. MANUFACTURING, PA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                          March 31, 1989
    The  M.W.  Manufacturing site  is  a former
copper  recovery facility  located  in  Montour
County, Pennsylvania, two miles north of Danville.
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) maintains a storage area immediately
north of the site, and farmlands and wooded lots
are adjacent to  the site on  the west and south.
Mauses Creek flows in a southerly direction  past
the site.  Several private residences, motels, gas
stations, restaurants, and a Head Start school are
located just north of the FennDOT storage area
and rely on private ground-water wells for drinking
water.   M.W.   Manufacturing was  engaged in
secondary copper recovery from scrap wire, using
both mechanical and chemical processes. Granular
carbon wastes generated by the chemical process
was dumped on  site, and spent solvents and acids
were allegedly disposed of on site. In 1972, M.W.
Manufacturing   filed  for  bankruptcy  and  the
Philadelphia National Bank acquired the property.
Warehouse 81 Inc. acquired  the site in 1976, and
subsequently formed a  limited partnership with
Domino Salvage, Inc. to recover wire at the site
using  mechanical  recovery  only.   The initial
remedial investigation revealed several areas posing
potential threats to  public  health:   the carbon
waste pile,  four wire-fluff waste piles, a surface
impoundment, buried lagoon  and contaminated
soil, drums and storage tanks.   This  remedial
action addresses the concerns for direct contact
with  and   migration   to    ground  water of
contaminants from the carbon waste pile.  The
remaining areas are  the subject of a long-term
remedial investigation and feasibility study.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
are VOCs including PCE and TCE, organics
including PCBs, and metals including lead.

    The selected remedial action for this site
includes   excavating   the   carbon  waste  pile
(approximately  875 cubic yards of contaminated
waste and contaminated  underlying soils) and
transporting the waste off site to an incinerator
facility and  disposing of the ash in an off-site
RCRA hazardous waste landfill.  The estimated
capital cost for this remedial action is $2,061,000.
Since on-site remediation activities are anticipated
to require less than one year, there are no O&M
costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Excavation of soils will be based on visible
contamination.  The carcinogens will be treated to
less than 2 ug/kg for  each individual contaminant
which corresponds to the risk range of 10"4 to 10"6.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               200

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  488
                                  NEW CASTLE SPILL, DE
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 28,1989
    The  New  Castle  Spill  site  is  a  former
manufacturing  facility  0.5  mile north  of New
Castle, Delaware, and is in the 100-year floodplain
of the Delaware River.   Commercial enterprises
and residences  neighbor the site and  receive
potable water from the deeper of the two aquifers
underlying the site.  The six-acre area associated
with  the  site  consists  of municipal  property,
wetlands,  and the Witco manufacturing facility
which   produced   plastic   foams   using
(2-chloropropyl)-phosphate.  In 1977, because of
dead  grass near the facility's drum storage area,
Witco investigated the area and determined that
four  to  five  drums  of  tris  had spilled and
contaminated the soil and the shallow aquifer.
The state subsequently  pumped and discharged
contaminated ground water into adjacent wetlands.
A 1988 remedial investigation revealed that there
is no  longer a source of contamination at the site
and that tris has contaminated the shallow aquifer
but not the deeper aquifer. This limited response
action addresses the ground-water contamination
in the shallow aquifer.  The primary contaminant
of  concern  affecting  the  ground   water  is
(2-chloropropyl)-phosphate.
     The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes natural attenuation as the treatment of
the principal threat to ground water; ground-water,
surface-water,  and sediment  monitoring;   and
implementation  of institutional  controls.   The
estimated  present  worth cost for this remedial
action is $466,147, which includes O&M costs of
$25,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Because there  are no ARARS  for  the
chemical of concern, (2-chloropropyl)-phosphate,
EPA has established a TBC  criterion of 4.4 mg/1
which is based on an average daily intake of 0.125
mg/kg/day.   Achieving  the  TBC level  through
natural attenuation is expected to take four years.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will be  implemented to
restrict further installation of wells in the shallow
aquifer.
                                               201

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 581
                       ORDNANCE WORKS DISPOSAL AREAS, WV
                                First Remedial Action (Amendment)
                                       September 29, 1989
    The Ordnance Works Disposal Areas site is on
the west  bank  of  the Monangahela  River  in
Morgantown, Monongolia County, West Virginia.
Several chemical facilities have operated at the site
since the early 1940s, producing substances such as
hexamine, ammonia, methyl alcohol, formaldehyde,
ethylene diamine and coke.  This operable unit
addresses  on-site contamination  found in  the
following areas: an inactive landfill where solid and
chemical wastes were disposed of; a scraped area
which consists of bare soil adjacent to the landfill
where solid wastes were buried; two former lagoon
areas  which  were  closed following  a  clean-up
action  in 1976;  and several streams located in the
southern  portion of the site.  This Record  of
Decision (ROD) supersedes a 1988  ROD which
was rescinded after public comments prompted
further investigation. The primary contaminants of
concern  affecting the soil and sediment  are
carcinogenic PAHs, and metals including arsenic
and lead.

    The selected remedial action for  this site
includes  excavation and  on-site treatment  of
approximately  425  cubic  yards of  inorganic
contaminated soil from hot spots in the scraped
area and lagoon area using solidification, followed
by  placement of the  treated  soil in  the landfill
before capping; installing a multimedia RCRA
Subtitle C cap  on  the landfill and regrading and
revegetation; excavating approximately 13,460 cubic
yards of organic-contaminated soil and sediment
from the lagoon area, scraped area, and streams,
with on-site  treatment  by  bioremediation  in  a
treatment bed;  ground-water, surface-water, and
sediment  monitoring;  and  implementing  deed
restrictions to prohibit residential and industrial
construction at the site. A contingency remedy has
been selected which would include soil washing of
contaminated soil as the principal treatment. The
estimated present worth cost  for this remedial
action is $8,332,000, which includes annual O&M
costs of $88,200 for four to ten years.

Performance  Standards or Goals

     Clean-up goals for  carcinogens  (e.g.,  cPAHs
and arsenic) are based on a 10"6 excess cancer risk
level.  Chemical-specific soil and sediment goals
include cPAHs 44.7 mg/kg, arsenic 88.8 mg/kg, and
lead 500 mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Deed restrictions will be imposed to prohibit
residential  and  industrial  construction  in  the
landfill  area  and residential construction in the
remaining areas of the site.
                                               202

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRank:  44
                            PUBLICKER INDUSTRIES, INC, PA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           June 30, 1989
    The Publicker Industries, Inc. site is a 37-acre,
abandoned manufacturing plant in  Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  A chemical company lies to the
north, a marine terminal to  the south, and the
Delaware River  to the  east.   Although the
immediate area surrounding the site is primarily
industrial, approximately 400,000 people live within
one mile of the site. From 1912 to 1985, Publicker
Industries owned  and  operated a liquor  and
industrial alcohol manufacturing plant at the site.
The plant included 440 large tanks, storage drums,
product  stock, chemical  laboratories,  reaction
vessels, production buildings, warehouses, a power
plant,  and several hundred miles of above- and
below-ground  process lines.  Petroleum was also
stored on site  during the late  1970s  and the early
1980s.     Publicker   Industries   discontinued
operations and sold the property in 1986.  EPA
evaluated site conditions  in 1987 following two
explosions and a large fire. Tankers, pits/sumps,
and numerous process lines were found to contain
fuel oils or other contaminated oils. EPA initiated
an emergency removal action in December 1987 to
stabilize  the  site  and  control  the threat of
additional  fires  and  explosions.   Emergency
removal activities  included on-site  bulking and
storing of solid and liquid waste streams; disposing
of highly reactive laboratory wastes  and cylinders
off site; crushing approximately 3,100 emptied
drums; wrapping overhead pipelines insulated with
asbestos;  and  implementing a  24-hour  fire and
security watch. According to EPA estimates, over
one million gallons of bulked  waste  materials
remain  on-site stored  in  dilapidated tanks and
drums. Twelve waste streams have been identified,
including base neutral liquids and solids, organic
liquids and solids,  oxidizing liquids and solids,
water reactives,  chlorides, crushed  empty metal
drums,  and contaminated oils.   This  remedial
action is designed to stabilize the site and enable
continued site clean-up of soil, ground water, and
asbestos.  The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, and
other organics including PCBs and pesticides.

     The selected  remedial  action  for  this site
includes off-site treatment and  disposal of the
various  waste  streams  in  RCRA-permitted
facilities; demolition of above-ground process lines,
with proper packaging of contaminated insulation
and  on-site  storage pending disposition  in  a
subsequent remedial action; and off-site disposal of
hazardous  chemicals recovered from within the
lines. The estimated capital cost for this  remedial
action is $13,900,000; there are no O&M costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

     This initial  remedy action will stabilize the
site and remove the threat of fire or explosion by
removing, treating, and disposing  of waste streams
off site.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               203

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEEFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  852
                                  REESER'S LANDFILL, PA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                          March 30,1989
    The Reeser's Landfill site is an inactive unlined
municipal refuse dump located approximately five
miles west of AUentown, Pennsylvania. The site is
situated  in a valley  used  predominantly for
farming; however, there are residences to the west
and northeast. Principal drainage in the area is via
Iron Run,  and the landfill drains via a series of
seeps along the landfill perimeter and a network of
surface channels. The 15-acre landfill is located on
the southern portion of a 51.5-acre private parcel
of land, and historically operated as  an open pit
iron mine.  After mining operations  ceased local
residents used the site as a dump, and in the late
1960s the property was leased to Reeser's Hauling
Service.  The landfill, which was never  issued a
solid waste permit, reportedly received a variety of
wastes including domestic, commercial, industrial,
and demolition wastes, and possibly battery wastes
and drums.  In 1981, after a fire burned in the
northern corner of the landfill for several months,
the state ordered Mr. Reeser to properly close the
landfill to  comply with state  municipal  waste
disposal regulations.  This has yet to be carried
out.   EPA investigations have determined that
there is no direct contact threat from the site soil
or from  ground water.  Additionally, Reeser's
Landfill has not adversely impacted the receptor
stream, Iron Run, as evidenced by the presence of
similar   contaminant   levels  upstream   and
downstream from the site.  The water quality of
off-site and  on-site  ponds  was  also  similar.
Therefore, it was  determined that no remedial
action  was  necessary.   There are no  primary
contaminants of concern affecting this site.

     The remedial action for this site is a no-action
remedy with ground-water review within five years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Not applicable.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               204

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 838
                                 STRASBURG LANDFILL, PA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           June 29, 1989
    The Strasburg Landfill site is a 22-acre facility
in western  Newlin Township,  Chester  County,
Pennsylvania.   The surrounding  area  includes
farmland and 200 homes within one mile of the
site. Two creeks, Brandywine and Briar Run, flow
within 0.5 mile of the site's western, southern, and
eastern  borders and receive surface drainage.  A
major aquifer  underlying  the  landfill  provides
drinking water via private  wells  to all  local
residences.  These private wells are as close as 720
feet to  the  landfill. In  the spring of 1979 site
owners began accepting industrial wastes and heavy
metals which, by year's end, included more  than
1,000 cubic yards  of  polyvinyl chloride wastes,
2,052 cubic yards of industrial wastes and sludge,
and 35,000  gallons of heavy metal sludge.   In
December 1979, the state claimed that industrial
wastes from the landfill caused excessive siltation
of Briar Run Creek, and eight months later the
state prohibited the site owners from receiving any
additional industrial wastes.   In  1980 sampling
revealed VOC contamination in the ground water
and by  April 1983  leachate seeped at a rate  of
several gallons per minute from the southeastern
portion of the landfill.  After  charging  the site
owners with operating violations and subsequently
suspending  their  operating permit, the  state
ordered the landfill to  be closed.  As  part of the
closure  plan, leachate was collected and stored in
5,000 gallon tanks,  and the landfill was regraded
and covered. The leachate is currently transported
daily to  an off-site treatment facility.  Additionally,
surface  water  runoff  was directed  toward  a
sediment pond which discharged directly into Briar
Run  Creek.   Proposed  corrective measures,
however, were never  completely  implemented.
Several  seepage areas  have since been observed
near the landfill.  One  large seepage area is  near
the southeastern corner  of the landfill.  Liquid
from  the  seep  ultimately flows  into a  sediment
pond  near the eastern edge of the landfill which
drains via a drainage  channel towards Briar Run
Creek. During heavy rainfalls, the sediment pond
overflows  into Briar Run Creek.  The  state has
performed analyses of seep water from Briar Run
Creek and of leachate from a manhole near the
sediment pond and has monitored ground  water
for VOCs. Three residential drinking water wells
contain multiple organic compounds.  The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the  sediment
pond  and  ground water are VOCs including TCE
and benzene, toluene, and xylenes.

    The  selected  remedial action for  this  site
includes leachate collection, using  an interceptor
drain, and off-site treatment; and provision of an
alternate water supply to affected residences by
installing point-of-use activated carbon treatment
systems at residences  with contaminated ground
water above levels  of concern.   The  estimated
capital cost for the remedial action is $42,850, with
estimated  annual O&M costs of $4,500.   Costs are
based on an  estimate of three residences  requiring
an alternate water supply.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Treated ground   water concentrations  for
carcinogenic contaminants will be such that the
aggregate carcinogenic risk would be less than 10"6.
Target   concentrations   for   noncarcinogenic
contaminants will ensure a Health Index less than
1.  Because  of an ARAR waiver  for the leachate,
no chemical-specific clean-up goals were specified
for the leachate seep.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               205

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  266
                             WHITMOYER LABORATORIES, PA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           June 30, 1989
    The 22-acre Whitmoyer Laboratories site is
located in Jackson Township,  Lebanon  County,
Pennsylvania.   Land use surrounding the site is
predominantly agricultural; however, there is some
residential, commercial, and industrial development
within 1.5 miles of the site.   This includes a
manufacturing plant to the south; a pharmaceutical
factory to the east; a large, active limestone quarry
to  the west;  and an elementary  school  to  the
northwest of  the site.   Portions of the  site  are
within neighboring Tulpehocken Creek's 100-year
floodplain. The creek, which is bordered by small,
open  wetlands areas,  is  being  proposed  for
inclusion in Pennsylvania's scenic river system, with
a "priority 1A status."   Priority 1A status would
designate the stream as being in most urgent need
of  protection.    In  1957,   site  owners began
producing organic arsenicals at the site. In 1964,
widespread   ground-water  contamination  was
discovered on site leading to  the placement of
concentrated wastes in a concrete vault  and  the
initiation of ground-water pumping and treatment.
Sludge from the ground-water treatment was later
consolidated  in  lagoons.    In  1987 an EPA
investigation revealed  that approximately 69,000
gallons   of   concentrated   liquids   had  been
abandoned on site in 18 tanks and  14 piping units.
The   wastes  include   5,000   gallons   of
water-immiscible  liquids,  25,000  gallons   of
water-miscible liquids with a high arsenic  content,
and 39,000 gallons of water-miscible liquids with a
low arsenic content. All the tanks and piping units
are within 400 feet of Tulpehocken  Creek; 27 of
the 32 tanks  and piping are  within 150 feet.
Because  the  site slopes toward  the creek,  any
release from a tank or piping  failure is likely to
contaminate the creek.   Flooding of the creek
could cause failure  of these tanks, resulting in
catastrophic release of contaminants to the creek.
Additionally, contaminants released from the tanks
and piping units could migrate to ground water
and/or the drinking water supply lines serving the
site.    Because  the  concentrated  liquids  pose
significant health and environmental threats, their
removal is  addressed in this  first operable unit.
Subsequent operable units will  identify potential
soil,   ground-water, and  surface-water/sediment
contamination and additional remedial actions that
may be necessary.  The primary contaminants of
concern in  the concentrated liquids are  VOCs
including PCE, and metals including arsenic.

    The selected interim remedial action for this
site includes consolidating, transporting off site,
and then treating, using  thermal treatment or
biodegradation, or recycling approximately 69,000
gallons of  concentrated  liquid  wastes  at  a
permitted RCRA facility, followed by disposing of
treated water  in off-site  surface  water  and
disposing of solid  residues in an off-site landfill;
decontaminating 32 tanks and approximately 2,000
feet of piping to meet  RCRA Subtitle C closure
standards and disposing of the tanks and piping on
site;  and treating  and  disposing of the  cleaning
agent  residues  off   site  at  RCRA-permitted
facilities. The estimated capital cost of this interim
remedial action is $475,000, with no O&M costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

    This interim remedial action will comply with
ARARs.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                                206

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRante 842
                                  WILDCAT LANDFILL, DE
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        November 28, 1988
    The  Wildcat Landfill  is located 2.5 miles
southeast of Dover, in Kent County, Delaware. A
2.7-acre  pond,  formed by  the  landfill blocking
natural drainage from upland  areas, is  located
along the northwestern border  of the site.  The
pond and the landfill are located along the west
bank of the St. Jones River and are bordered to
the north and  east by the  river and associated
marshlands,  and  to  the  south and west  by
residential and commercial development. Portions
of the site lie within the 100-year floodplain of the
St. Jones River.  The landfill was addressed in the
first operable unit ROD signed in June 1988. This
operable unit details the selection  of a remedial
alternative   which   addresses   the   largely
environmental concerns the landfill poses to the
pond and  associated biota.   The landfill  was
operated as  a   state-permitted  sanitary  landfill
between  1962 and 1973, accepting both municipal
and industrial wastes.  Industrial wastes suspected
to have  been disposed of  on site include latex
waste and paint sludges.  During its  11  years of
operation, the facility routinely violated operating
and  other  permits  issued  by the  regulatory
agencies. In August 1973, the facility was ordered
closed by the  state  and the site  owners were
required to cover the site with soil and vegetation.
EPA began investigating the site in  1982.  Surface
water and sediment in the pond were contaminated
by inorganic constituents leaching from the landfill.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
sediment and surface water in the pond are metals
including arsenic, chromium and lead.

     The selected remedial action for this  site
includes draining, filling, and revegetating the pond
area consistent with the landfill cover selected in
the previous  ROD; constructing  a new pond
elsewhere on the site; implementing institutional
controls for land use restrictions; and ground-water
monitoring upgradient of the  new pond.  Pond
water will be discharged to St. Jones River, to the
north of the site.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Prior to  draining, the pond water will be
analyzed to ensure that Federal Water Quality
Criteria are met at the ground-water  discharge
location.

Institutional Controls

     Land use restrictions will be implemented to
prevent development  on the  area of  the filled
pond.  Restrictions will also be made  to ensure
that the integrity of the new pond is maintained.
                                               207

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                           REGION 4
                  (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
                                    South Carolina, Tennessee)
                                                                                  NPLRank: 142
                           ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMPS, NC
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           June 30, 1989
    The Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps site is a former
disposal area in Moore County, North Carolina,
approximately   1.6  miles  west-northwest  of
Aberdeen.   The site is in a rural area,  on the
property of Partners in the Pits, LTD and Yadco
of Pinehurst Inc., and bounded on the south by a
railroad, on the north by the sixth fairway of the
Pit golf course, and  on  the east and west  by
undeveloped property.  Although the rural area is
sparsely populated, residential growth is expected
in the near future. In August 1984, the state was
alerted that pesticides had been disposed of at and
around  the  site for a number of years. A state
inspection  revealed  that  soil and  debris  were
contaminated with pesticides. In June 1985, EPA
initiated an emergency response action to excavate
and remove on-site contaminated surface soil and
two buried trenches.   The  soil and  debris were
disposed of off site.  In  1986 pesticides  were
detected in drinking water  from four  municipal
wells and three private wells in Aberdeen causing
EPA to reinvestigate  the site.   A subsequent
investigation   identified   additional  trenches
containing approximately 12 million  pounds of
pesticide  wastes.   A  test  burn, conducted  in
December  1986, incinerated 12,000  pounds  of
pesticide-contaminated soil  and debris using a
mobile  incinerator.   Residual ash was  stored  on
site in twenty-seven 55-gallon drums.  Additional
removal funding was provided to excavate, shred,
screen,  and stockpile approximately 22,000  cubic
yards of pesticide-contaminated materials.  The
predominant contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and debris are chlorinated organo-pesticides.

     The selected remedial action  for this site
includes excavating and homogenizing stockpiled
pesticide-contaminated  wastes;   treating
homogenized wastes in an on-site, mobile thermal
treatment  facility   and   reinjecting  process
wastewater or scrubber blowdown into the thermal
treatment facility; analyzing ash to demonstrate ash
is  nonhazardous; monitoring  air emissions; and
redisposing residual ash on-site.  The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action  is
$14,533,000.  There  are  no annual O&M costs
associated with this remedial action.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The selected remedy will attain federal and
state ARARs; however, no chemical-specific goals
were provided.   Clean-up criteria established for
the stockpile are to background levels and to the
RCRA EP  toxicity  levels.   The  air pollution
control system will achieve performance standards,
which are defined as hydrogen chloride less than 4
pds/hr and paniculate matter  of less than  0.08
grains/dry ft  in  the  exhaust gas connected  to 7
percent oxygen content.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               208

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 51
                          AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS, INC
                                 (PENSACOIA PLANT), FL
                                First Remedial Action (Amendment)
                                        September 28,1989
    The 18-acre American Creosote Works, Inc.
(Pensacola Plant) site, is in a dense moderately
commercial  and residential area of Pensacola,
Florida, approximately 600 yards from Pensacola
Bay and Bayou Chico.  American Creosote Works,
Inc. operated a wood preserving facility on site
from 1902 to 1981.   During this time, process
wastewater containing pentachlorophenol (PCP)
was discharged into two 0.9-and 1.8-acre unlined,
on-site surface impoundments.   Prior  to  1970,
wastewater in these ponds was allowed to overflow
through a spillway into  the neighboring Bayou
Chico and Pensacola Bay. After 1970, wastewater
was periodically  drawn  from  the  ponds  and
discharged  to designated on-site  spillage areas.
Additional discharges occurred during periods of
heavy rainfall when the ponds overflowed.   In
March 1980, the city found considerable quantities
of oily, asphaltic, creosotic material in the ground
water near the site. Because of the threat posed to
human health and the environment due to frequent
overflows from the waste ponds, EPA and the state
performed an emergency cleanup in 1983, which
included dewatering the two ponds,  treating  the
water  via  coagulation  and   filtration,  and
discharging treated water to the city sewer system.
The sludge in the ponds was then solidified and
capped.  EPA signed a ROD in 1985 requiring all
on-site and  off-site contaminated solids, sludge,
and sediment  to  be  placed   in  an on-site
RCRA-permitted  landfill.   Because  the  state
concurred with the selected remedy,  no remedial
action was taken.  Consequently, a post remedial
investigation was conducted in 1988 to characterize
the extent of contamination followed by a post
feasibility study in  1989 to identify, develop, and
evaluate alternatives. This ROD is the first of two
planned operable units and addresses remediation
of contaminated  surface  soil.   A  subsequent
operable  unit   will  address  treatment   of
contaminated subsurface soil, sludge, and ground
water.   The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the surface soil are organics including
dioxins, carcinogenic PAHs, and PCP.

     The selected remedial action for  this site
includes excavating and treating 23,000 cubic yards
of  PAH-contaminated  soil  using solid-phase
bioremediation in an on-site land treatment area
followed by on-site disposal of treated soil in the
excavated  areas or  spreading the soil over the
entire  site;   implementing  temporary  erosion
control measures to preserve surface water quality;
collecting  leachate and drain  water for spraying
over  the  treatment  area  to  moisten   soil;
monitoring dissolved oxygen,  pH, nutriertts, and
soil moisture content; removing debris, repairing
fences, sampling the cap and disposing of drums
containing drilling mud; and  implementing  land
and ground water  use restrictions. The estimated
present worth cost is $2,275,000 which includes an
O&M cost of $319,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Soil cleanup  levels  are based  on cancer
potency factors (CPF) and 10"5 excess cancer risk
levels.   Soil clean-up goals include  cPAHs 50
mg/kg, dioxins 2.5 ug/kg (based on 2,3,7,8 - TCDD
toxicity equivalency), and PCP 30 mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Ground-water and land use restrictions will be
implemented.
                                              209

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 623
            AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS, INC. (JACKSON PLANT), TN
                                      First Remedial Action
                                          January 5, 1989
    The American Creosote Works, Inc. (Jackson
Plant) site is  located immediately southwest of
Jackson, in central  Madison County, Tennessee.
The 60-acre site is in a partially developed area,
and is bounded on the southwest by the South
Fork of the Forked Deer River, on the west and
north by Central Creek (a tributary to the South
Fork of the Forked  Deer River), on the east by a
lumber mill, and on the south by the Seaboard
Railroad. American Creosote Works conducted
wood preserving operations using both creosote
and PCP from  the early  1930s  until December
1981.   Wastewater sludge from the treatment
processes is   listed as  RCRA  KOO1   waste.
Untreated process  wastewater  and  potentially
contaminated stormwater runoff were discharged
directly into Central Creek until  1973, at which
time a levee was constructed to retain  surface
water runoff.  The  soil borrow pits  used for the
levee construction became sludge storage lagoons.
A wastewater  treatment system was installed on
site during 1974 and 1975, and operated until 1981.
Reportedly, a "few" loads of filter sludge from the
treatment system were spread on the back road on
the east end of the property, and a recirculation
pond overflowed more than once.  In March 1983
five unlined lagoons containing creosote and PCP
sludge and water overflowed, prompting the first of
two EPA removal actions.  In  May 1983 the first
removal  consisted  of pumping  and  treating
approximately 30 million gallons of water, placing
the remaining untreated oil/water mixture in empty
tanks on site, stabilizing the contaminated soil and
sludge  remaining in  the lagoon material, and
covering two lagoons  with a clay  cap.  A  second
removal action was conducted in March 1986 after
several storage tanks  were  determined  to be
leaking.  The plant process facilities, including the
treatment building, storage tanks, piping,  ponds,
and  filters, are considered a point source of
contaminants due to leakage from these structures
and adjacent pits. Furthermore, several tanks and
pipes are structurally unsound and open to
precipitation,  posing  a threat  of  overflow or
sudden,  major  release of contaminants.  This
remedial action  will focus on  reducing  surface
contamination resulting from degradation of the
tanks and  site structures, and  minimizing the
potential for  increased  contamination  due  to
flooding while further  information is developed
and analyzed.  A subsequent remedial action will
address  contaminated  soil,  ground  water, and
surface  streams.   The  primary contaminants of
concern affecting the sludge, site structures, debris,
and tanked liquids are  VOCs and other organics
including PAHs and phenols.

     The selected  remedial  action for this site
includes consolidation and incineration of sludge
in the vicinity of the buildings and tanks; on-site or
off-site incineration of the oils and sludge from the
tanks; treatment  of tanked process liquids on site
using a sand  filter,  filter  press,  and  carbon
adsorption unit, followed by discharge to a surface
stream;  decontamination and off-site disposal of
site structures (e.g., buildings, tanks, pipes) in a
RCRA Subtitle D facility; construction of a flood-
protection dike; deed restrictions and  site fencing;
and site stabilization including monitoring on-site
water  levels behind  the  dikes  and  pumping,
treating (as  needed), and discharging impounded
water pending a final remedy.   The  estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action ranges
from $5,000,000 to $6,000,000. Annual O&M costs
were not provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Remedy reduces potential for direct exposure
to  sludge   and  process  liquids while  further
investigations are conducted. Quantitative goals
were not provided  for final site remediation.

Institutional Controls

     Deed  restrictions  will  be  implemented to
restrict  further use of the site.
                                               210

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRank:  418
                                    AMNICOIA DUMP, TN
                                    First Remedial Action - Final
                                           March 30, 1989
    The Amnicola Dump site is an 18-acre inactive
construction  debris  disposal  site  located  in
Chattanooga, Tennessee. The site is located along
the   east   bank   of  the  Tennessee  River,
approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the intake for
the primary drinking water source for the city of
Chattanooga.  The site is bordered on the north by
dense vegetation and vegetation-covered debris,
and on the south by an industrial research facility.
The site drains westerly towards the river. During
the 1930s the Amnicola Dump site was reportedly
used  for clay mining  operations,  resulting in
several water-filled pits.  During the period  from
1957   to  1964  construction  debris  and  other
unidentified wastes were occasionally disposed of
in  many of the open pits.  The site  was  then
operated as a dump by the city of Chattanooga
until  1973, predominantly receiving construction
debris including  a substantial  amount  of waste
wood which was subsequently incinerated on site.
The ashes eventually filled 12 acres of the 18-acre
site.  The only industrial waste reportedly disposed
of at  the site was latex waste. Unauthorized waste
dumping and concerns about leachate discharge in
proximity to the drinking water intake area led to
closure of the site in  1973.   Closure included
covering,  grading   slopes,  filling  depressions,
draining standing water, applying rip-rap along the
western perimeter, constructing drainage ditches,
and seeding the entire surface area of the fill.  The
current owner and operator has  been burning,
storing,  and  handling  creosoted  railroad   ties,
contributing to elevated PAHs in surface soil.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris, and ground water are organics  including
PAHs, and metals including chromium.
     The selected remedial action  for  this site
includes excavating and screening 600 cubic yards
of   contaminated  soil/debris  with   on-site
solidification/fixation  of  400  cubic  yards  of
contaminated soil and 200 cubic yards of debris
(debris   exceeding  clean-up   goals  or  LDR
requirements will be disposed of off site), followed
by on-site disposal of solidified mass; monitoring
of ground water for four years; conducting a public
health assessment five years after completion  of
the  remedial  action; and implementation  of
institutional controls including ground-water and
land use restrictions.  The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $640,000 with O&M
cost of $384,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Soil will be treated to the health-based clean-
up goal of 100 nig/kg total cPAHs. Ground water
will be bought to ACLs through ground-water use
restrictions.  Individual ACLs  were provided for
nine contaminants, including chloroform 86 ug/1
and chromium 890 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

     Land use restrictions will be imposed on the
site to prevent the accumulation of contamination
exceeding the surface soil clean-up goals as a result
of handling, storage, or burning creosoted railroad
ties.   Ground-water use  restrictions   will  be
imposed within a reasonable distance from the site
in keeping with the establishment of ACLs.
                                                211

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  672
                          CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING, NC
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                          June 30, 1989
    The 9-acre Cape Fear Wood Preserving site is
in  Cumberland  County, North Carolina on  a
41-acre tract of land. The predominantly flat site
is  comprised  of the  wood treatment  facility,
wetlands, and undisturbed forests.   A variety of
land uses exist in the area  including industrial,
agricultural, and residential.  The Cape Fear Wood
Preserving facility operated from 1953 to 1983 first
using  a wood-treating  process  that  included
creosote and later switching to a technique known
as  the copper-chromium-arsenic (CCA) process.
Liquid and  sludge wastes generated by both of
these processes were pumped into a drainage ditch
and an unlined lagoon.  In  1977, as  a result of a
state  site investigation that revealed  coal tar
creosote contamination, the property owner was
ordered to remove 900  cubic yards of creosote
contaminated soil. In 1984 EPA conducted a site
investigation which  resulted in  an emergency
removal action.  This action included excavating
contaminated soil and sludge followed by off-site
disposal and pumping  lagoon water into on-site
storage tanks.  In 1986, 500 gallons of creosote
spilled  from  a  storage tank   causing  EPA to
conduct a second emergency response. Emergency
response   activities    included   removal   and
solidification of  10  cubic  yards  of sludge and
pumping of 15,000 gallons of  CCA waste water
into  on-site  storage  tanks.    The   primary
contaminants  of  concern  affecting   the soil,
sediment, ground water, and surface water are
VOCs including benzene, other organics including
PAHs, and metals including arsenic and chromium.

    The selected remedial   action  for  this site
includes off-site disposal of CCA salt crystals found
in the drainage system and solidified creosote at a
RCRA  landfill  and  off-site    disposal  of
asbestos-containing pipe insulation in the county
solid waste facility; removal and decontamination
of  on-site pipes  and tanks to be sold for  scrap
metal or disposed of in the county solid waste
facility; excavation and on-site treatment of soil
and sediment using soil flushing as the preferred
alternative or a low thermal desorption process to
remove  organics  followed by soil washing  or
fixation/stabilization/solidification   to   address
inorganics (a soil washing treatability study will
determine if the preferred alternative would be
appropriate) followed by placement of treated soil
and  sediment  in  the   excavated   area   and
revegetation; pumping with on-site treatment of
ground  water and surface  water with  off-site
discharge at a POTW or a surface stream; sale of
50,000 gallons of CCA solution to a buyer,  if no
buyer  is   found,  CCA  solution  and  CCA-
contaminated wastewater will be treated using the
ground-water treatment system; and ground-water
monitoring.  The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action  ranges from  $14,370,000 to
$14,910,000  including present worth O&M  costs
which range from $1,020,000 to $1,310,000 for 30
years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    The ground-water clean-up criteria established
for this site are benzene 5 ug/1 (MCLs), cPAHs 10
ug/1 (CLRQL) and noncarcinogenic PAHs 14,350
ug/1. For surface water the criteria are arsenic 12
ug/1 (AWQC), chromium  11 ug/1 (AWQC), and
copper 14 ug/1 (background). The soil criteria are
arsenic 94 mg/kg, benzene 0.005 mg/kg (CLQRL),
chromium 88 mg/kg  (background), carcinogenic
PAHs  2.5  mg/kg, and total PAHs  100  mg/kg
(background); and the sediment criteria are total
PAHs 3 mg/kg, arsenic 94 mg/kg, and ciuomium 88
mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               212

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 767
                                   CAROLAWN, INC, SC
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       September 27, 1989
    The Carolawn, Inc. site is an approximately
60-acre, abandoned waste storage and disposal
facility in  Fort Lawn, Chester  County,  South
Carolina.  Rural and agricultural areas surround
most of the site.  Four residences lie within 300
yards  of the site, and approximately 30 single
family residences lie within a 2-mile radius of the
site. The site is bordered to the east by Fishing
Creek, which empties into the Catawba River 8
miles  south of the site.   Approximately 2,500
people  receive  their water  supply from  the
Catawba River. Storage trailers and tanks and as
many as 480 drums of solvents and liquid and solid
wastes  have been stored  inside a 3-acre fenced
portion of the property since 1970. An additional
660 drums  and 11 storage  tanks  were located
outside the fenced  area to the north.  Drums,
waste, and contaminated soil were removed from
the site by EPA in 1981, and all nearby residences
were provided an alternative  water source.  An
additional 17 storage tanks were removed in 1986
by the PRPs. Contaminants have been detected in
ground water flowing underneath the site which
discharges  into Fishing  Creek.    This  ROD
addresses remediation of contaminated  ground
water.    A  subsequent  ROD  will  address
remediation of the contaminated soil, if necessary.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs including TCE, and metals
including lead.
    The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes  ground-water pumping and  treatment
using one or more of the following methods: air
stripping,   biodegradation,   activated   carbon
filtration,  and  metals  removal,  and will  be
determined during the remedial design stage based
on the level of contaminants found and the treated
ground-water   discharge   point   selected;
implementing  deed   restrictions;    plugging
condemned  wells;  disposing the  two  inactive
incinerators  and   two  remaining  drums;   and
monitoring ground water and soil.  The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action ranges
from  $1,141,071 to  $1,356,305, with  a present
worth O&M cost for over 30 years ranging from
$753,433 to $916,723, depending on the extent of
treatment and ultimate discharge point for  the
treated water.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Ground  water  will meet SDWA  MCLs.
Target clean-up levels included TCE 5 ug/1  and
lead 5 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

    Deed restrictions will be implemented.
                                              213

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEBFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 203
                            CELANESE CORP. (SHELBY FIBER
                                     OPERATIONS), NC
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                          March 28, 1989
    The 450-acre Celanese Corp. site is a polyester
raw-material   production  facility   located  in
Cleveland County, North Carolina.  The plant's
facilities  include   a   plant   production   area,
wastewater treatment area, former waste disposal
areas, and a land farm area.  The adjacent land is
rural, and some residences are located within 1
mile of the site.  The plant began operations in
1960 as Fiber Industries, Inc.  and manufactured
polyester polymer chip and filament yarn using the
chemicals dimethyl terephthalate  and  ethylene
glycol.  The plant's waste treatment facility was
constructed  in   phases  concurrent  with  the
manufacturing plant; thus, in the years prior to the
completion  of the treatment facility, chemical
wastes were dumped directly into a drainage ditch.
Treated effluent has been discharged to Buffalo
Creek since the mid-1960s when Fiber Industries,
Inc. completed  construction  of  the treatment
facility.  Celanese Corporation bought the site and
facilities in 1983.   In addition to the discharge
from  the wastewater  treatment  plant, Celanese
Corp.  also  discharges  alum-treated  bandcaster
water directly to Buffalo Creek.   Several  areas
around  the  plant  have been used for  waste
disposal, including  old  burning pits for normal
plant wastes (polyester and trash), a glycol recovery
unit (GRU) sludge burial area,  two soak-away
ponds used to contain treated sanitary sewage from
1960  to 1969, and a former  drum storage and
staging  area.   Four additional  buried waste areas
are located to the north  and outside of the main
plant perimeter fence:  a polymer and fiber landfill,
a construction debris  landfill, a  21-acre sludge
disposal area, and a drum storage area which
temporarily stored 2,000 to 3,000 drums of waste
chemicals and solvents  from 1970 to 1978.  The
drums were removed by 1978.  A 1988  ROD
addressed  extraction  and   treatment   of
contaminated ground water.  This second operable
unit   addresses   source   control   including
contaminated sludge and soil associated with the
GRU trenches and burn pit  areas.  The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
sediment are VOCs including benzene and TCE,
other organics including phenols and PAHs, and
metals including lead and chromium.

     The  selected  remedial  action for this site
includes  excavation of 3,710 cubic yards of GRU
sludges,  plastic chips,  burn  pit residuals, and
sediment with on-site incineration of contaminated
soil  and  GRU sludge  and  chemical  fixation
(solidification) of incinerator ash, plastic  chips,
burn  pit  residuals  and  sediment,  followed  by
disposal  of  the inert, solidified  material in  the
excavated area; regrading and filling  of excavated
area; and ground-water monitoring. The estimated
present worth cost for this  remedial action is
$3,500,000; O&M costs were not provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The  selected   remedy  will attain a 10"6
cancer-risk level as it removes the source of the
ground-water contamination.  No chemical-specific
standards or goals were provided.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable. ,
                                               214

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 864
                                 CHEMTRONICS, INC, NC
                            First Remedial Action (Amendment) - Final
                                          April 26, 1989
    This   ROD  amends  the  April  5,  1988,
Chemtronics,  Inc.  ROD  which  included  an
incorrect calculation regarding the chemical quality
of the ground water.  The Chemtronics site is an
active waste disposal facility located in a rural area
of Swannanoa, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
The 1,027-acre site was developed as an industrial
facility in 1952 and was purchased by Chemtronics,
Inc. in 1978.  Approximately 10 acres of the site
were used for waste disposal operations. Records
indicate the  presence  of 23  individual  on-site
disposal areas (DAs) which are grouped into six
discrete areas:  DA-6, DA-7/8, DA-9, DA-10/11,
DA-23, and the acid pit.  From 1952 to 1971 solid
waste  materials  and  possibly   solvents  were
incinerated in pits and chemical wastes, including
waste materials generated in the production of the
chemical warfare agent 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate
(BZ) and  the tear gas agent o-chlorobenzylidene
malononitrile (CS), were placed in 55-gallon drums
with a neutralizing solution, and then buried on
site in trench-type landfills.  From 1971 to 1975
small volumes of liquid wastes were disposed of in
on-site pits and trenches,  and solid wastes, rocket
motors, explosive wastes, and  other waste types
were burned.  From 1975 to 1979 Chemtronics,
Inc. constructed  pits and  trenches as  needed, for
the disposal  of  spent acid and  various organic
wastes. In 1980 the state  ordered Chemtronics to
discontinue all discharges  to site pits and trenches.
The pits were subsequently backfilled.   Starting in
1979, Chemtronics installed a 500,000-gallon lined
lagoon  over an  old  leaching   field for  the
biotreatment of wastewater. The incompatibility of
the liner with the brominated  wastes introduced
into the lagoon caused the lagoon to release its
contents. The lagoon was  reconstructed in August
1980, using a different liner, and deactivated in
1984.  In  September 1984, the U.S. Army Toxic
Hazardous Materials Agency sampled two drums in
DA-10/11.    These drums  were suspected  of
containing wastes  from  the production of BZ.
Although  no BZ was found,  EPA initiated  an
immediate removal of these drums in January 1985
due to heightened public awareness of the site.  In
the original ROD the selected remedial action for
the contaminants and contaminated soil in DA-23
was  soil   fixation/stabilization/solidification,
followed  by capping.  This  remedy  has  been
changed to capping only. The original remedy was
selected due to the concentration  level of the
contaminant benzylic acid a benzophenone found
in  the  ground  water  downgradient of  DA-23.
However, a transcription error was discovered in
the analytical results for this ground-water sample.
The laboratory reported the concentrations as
470 mg/1 instead of 470 ug/1. Subsequent sampling
verified that the correct concentration was in the
0-470 ug/1 range.    Therefore,  EPA elected to
change  the source control  remedial action for
DA-23 to capping only. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil, sediment,  ground
water and surface water are  VOCs  including
benzene, toluene, PCE, and  TCE, other organics
including  pesticides  and explosives,  and metals
including arsenic, lead, and chromium.

     The  selected  remedial  action for this site
includes multi-layer  capping of DA-6, DA-7/8,
DA-9, DA-10/11, DA-23 and the acid pit  area;
ground-water pumping and  treatment  using air
stripping,  carbon adsorption, or metal removal
with treatment and  discharge to be determined
during  design;  sampling of  pond  water  and
sediment and if necessary, surface-water treatment
using the ground-water treatment system and on-
site  disposal  of sediment;  implementation of
institutional controls and access restrictions; and
sediment,   ground-water,   and   surface-water
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is  $2,248,900 with an annual
O&M cost of $501,900.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground-water clean-up levels are provided
based on  MCLs and several TBCs.   Individual
goals include TCE 0.005 mg/1  (MCL), benzene
0.005 mg/1 (MCL), PCE 0.007 mg/1 (RSD), toluene
2.0 mg/1 (PMCLG), RDX 0.035 mg/1 (USAIWQC),
                                              215

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                             Fiscal Year 1989
TNT 0.044 mg/1 (PPLV), lead 0.05 mgA, PCBs 10       Institutional Controls
mg/kg (TSCA), RDX 95 mg/kg (PPLV), TNT 305
mg/kg (PPLV), and CS 43.3 mg/kg (PPLV).                Institutional controls will be implemented;
                                               however, none were specified.
                                          216

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPESFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NFL Rank:  130
                         CIBA-GEIGY CORP. (Mclntosh Plant), AL
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       September 28, 1989
    The 1,500-acre Ciba-Geigy Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant) site is  in  southern  Washington County,
northeast  of Mclntosh, Alabama.   The  plant's
initial operations, which began in 1952, were
devoted solely to the manufacture of DDT.   In
1970,  the  facility expanded  its  manufacturing
operations to include herbicides, insecticides, and
chelating and sequestering agents. Other products
produced  by  Ciba-Geigy  include resins  and
additives used in the plastics industry. Wastes and
residues generated during production operations
were  managed  on site.  In  1985, EPA  issued
Ciba-Geigy a RCRA Part B permit for active waste
management units on site. The permit included a
corrective action  plan requiring  Ciba-Geigy  to
remove and  treat contaminated ground water and
surface water at the site.  In 1987, as part  of this
plan, Ciba-Geigy installed a ground-water pumping
and treatment system which has been effective in
addressing the ground-water contamination. This
first of three planned operable units addresses
ground-water  contamination   in   the  shallow
Alluvial aquifer.  The second operable  unit will
address the deeper Miocene aquifer and the final
operable unit will address contamination of soil at
eleven former  waste  management areas.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs including benzene and
toluene, other organics including pesticides, and
metals including arsenic.

    The selected remedial action for this site
includes no further action for the shallow aquifer
beyond continued ground-water pumping and on-
site  treatment  using  an   existing  biological
wastewater treatment system, followed by discharge
to the Tombigbee River under an NPDES permit,
and ground-water and effluent  monitoring.  The
estimated  annual O&M cost for this remedial
action is $325,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Ground-water  clean-up goals are based on
Safe Drinking Water Act  MCLs or proposed
MCLs.   Ground-water clean-up  goals  include
benzene  5.0  ug/1  (MCL),  toluene   2,000  ug/1
(PMCL), and arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL).

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              217

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 131
                    KASSOUF-KIMERLING BATTERY DISPOSAL, FL
                                      First Remedial Action
                                         March 31, 1989
    The Kassouf-Kimerling Battery Disposal site,
formerly known as  the  Timber  Lake  Battery
Disposal and the 58th Street Landfill, is located in
Tampa, Florida.  The site consists of a 42,000 ft2
landfill  area  in  which empty  lead-acid  battery
casing and fill dirt were deposited in September
1978. The estimated volume of fill is 11,350 cubic
yards.  Land use in the area includes  residential,
commercial, and industrial development to the
south; and undeveloped land  occupied by  small
lakes and marshes to the north, east, and  west.
Surface water flows from the west marsh to the
east marsh by way of a canal cut through  the site
and eventually  discharges  into the Palm River.
This  remedy addresses the landfill wastes and
contaminated underlying soil. A second and final
operable unit will address contaminated sediment
and surface water in  the adjacent wetlands.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
debris,  and ground water are metals including
arsenic, cadmium, and lead.
    The selected remedial action  for  this site
includes excavation  of the landfill wastes and
contaminated  underlying  soil,  followed  by
treatment using solidification/chemical fixation and
on-site disposal  in  the  landfill area.   Specific
protocols for  treatment will be determined by
bench-scale testing.  The estimated present worth
cost for  this  remedial action  is  $2,500,000 to
$3,500,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    The soil and debris in the source area will be
treated  to  meet  RCRA criteria  including EP
toxicity concentrations.  Ground-water standards
including MCLs and AWQC will be met over a
short  period of time due to the excavation and
fixation of the landfill materials.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              218

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 287
           NEWSOM BROTHERS/OLD REICHHOLD CHEMICALS, INC, MS
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 18,1989
    The 81-acre Newsom Brothers/Old Reichhold
Chemicals,  Inc.  site  is  in  Marion  County,
Columbia,  Mississippi.    The  site  is  in  a
predominantly residential area and was used as a
wood processing facility under several owners from
1936  until  1977,  when  a  fire and  explosion
destroyed the facility.  Site activities included
producing tall oils, turpentine, calcium and zinc
resinates, and  polymerized  and rubber resins.
Furthermore,  PCP was apparently  mixed  with
diesel oil and sold, and xylenes were used in a
number of processes. A state investigation in 1976
revealed that wastewater containing phenols, oil,
and grease  was discharging to a small creek.
Further investigations resulted in EPA performing
an  immediate  removal action in  1984, which
included the removal of over 600 surface drums
from the site and  excavating  and  draining  two
ponds, one of which was subsequently filled with
clean fill.  On-site buried drum areas were the
target of another EPA removal action conducted in
1987-88.   Approximately  3,900  drums  were
excavated and shredded,  drum contents were
disposed of off site, and 1,920 tons of soil were
removed. In addition there is an extensive system
of concrete drains that served to collect and drain
spilled wastes  and rainwater that has an area of
runoff of approximately 300,000 square feet. There
is an estimated 650 cubic yards of bulk hazardous
substances remaining on site consisting of black
tar-like waste material and a resin  material in
three excavations and in the drainage system. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and bulked wastes are organics including
PAHs, PCBs, and PCP, and metals.

     The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavation and off-site disposal of 30,300
cubic yards of contaminated soil and 7,300 cubic
yards of contaminated pond and creek sediment;
excavation and off-site incineration of 650 cubic
yards  of   tar-like  waste  material   and  any
soil/sediment containing RCRA hazardous wastes,
followed by off-site disposal; draining, filling, and
capping on-site ponds; recontouring the site; and
ground-water monitoring  for  five years.   The
estimated  present worth  cost  for this remedial
action is $14,180,000, which includes an estimated
present worth O&M cost of $520,225.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Soil, sediment, and waste material  cleanup
goals were  based on 10"6 excess-cancer risk.  A
chemical-specific soil and sediment  goal was
selected for cPAHs  as  10 mg/kg.   Additional
soil/sediment levels were developed  for  other
organic-contaminated  areas  including PCP  1.2
mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               219

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERJFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc 744
                                     SMITH'S FARM, KY
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Smith's Farm site is a 560-acre property in
a rural area of Bullitt County, Kentucky.  The site
is bordered on the north, east, and west by forested
hills and on  the  south by  a residential  area.
Within the 560-acre property there is a 37.5-acre
landfill that, until recently, was permitted by the
state for the disposal of solid waste. The owner of
this landfill was cited at various times by the state
for permit violations.  The property also includes
an 80-acre area upgradient of the permitted landfill
on  a mile-long  ridge between two  intermittent
creeks where the unpermitted disposal of drums
containing hazardous waste occurred over a 20-year
period.   EPA investigations from 1979  to  1984
resulted  in the removal of 6,000 surface drums
containing   hazardous   waste   including
PCB-contaminated waste.  This remedy addresses
contaminated on-site  soil,  sediment, and drums
within the 80-acre area.  A second operable unit
will address  the  remaining  potential  threats
associated with  the  landfill, deep ground-water
aquifers,  and other  suspected  areas  of drum
disposal.  The primary contaminants of concern
affecting  the  soil  and  sediment are  organics
including PCBs and PAHs, and metals including
lead.

    The  selected remedial  action for this  site
includes excavation and on-site  incineration of
approximately 26,200 cubic yards of contaminated
soil, surface drums, buried drums, and fill material
from  Area B (as defined in the  RI/FS),  and
approximately 5,200 cubic yards of contaminated
on-site  sediment  from  the  valley  streams;
solidification/fixation of approximately 50 percent
of the treated material followed by placement of
all  treated or solidified  material  in  Area B;
incineration of a small volume of hot spot material
in  Area  A  and  consolidation of waste  and
construction  of  a  RCRA  cap over  Area  A;
construction  of a  leachate-collection system to
collect leachate from Area A;  access restrictions
(fencing) around contaminated areas; ground-water
monitoring for up to  27 years; maintenance of the
RCRA cap and the leachate collection system; and
leachate removal and disposal for up to 30 years.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedy
is $26,900,000, which  includes  O&M costs of
$1,330,000.

Performance  Standards or Goals

    Action levels for  contaminated soil and/or
sediment  were determined based  on an  excess
lifetime cancer risk of  10"5 with the exception of
lead which was based on a hazard index less than
1. Specified goals include PAHs 5 mg/kg, PCBs 2
rag/kg, and lead 500 mg/kg.

Institutional  Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               220

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 249
                STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (COLD
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       September 27, 1989
               PLANT), AL
    The Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant)
site  is  in  Bucks,  Mobile  County,  Alabama,
approximately 20 miles north of Mobile, Alabama.
The area is predominantly industrial, with a few
small rural residential communities within a few
miles of the site.  The Mobile River borders the
site  to the east.  The Cold  Creek plant began
operating  in 1966 under the ownership of the
Stauffer Chemical Company and is currently owned
and operated by ICI Americas, Inc.  Until 1974, an
unknown  amount  of sludge and solid wastes
containing  a variety of herbicides  and pesticides
were placed in two waste disposal sites, referred to
as the Cold  Creek  North  and  South Landfills.
Both were closed in 1974 with geomembrane caps
and  side-wall liners.  One clay-lined lagoon was
used for neutralization of wastewater until  1975,
and was closed  in 1978.  A new membrane-lined
pond was constructed to replace it and is currently
in use.  Under a consent agreement with EPA,
Stauffer completed a remedial investigation in May
1988, which identified contamination of the soil,
pond sludges, swamp sediment, and ground water.
Although there are four media of  concern at the
Stauffer site, this remedial  action addresses the
contaminated ground water, because ground water
is the source for drinking water  for the  area.
Additional  RODs  are  planned for the source
control operable units and the Cold Creek Swamp.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground  water are VOCs  including carcinogenic
compounds such as carbon tetrachloride, and other
organic compounds including pesticides.

    The selected remedial action for the ground-
water operable unit at this site includes a modified
ground-water intercept and treatment system with
surface-water discharge.  This alternative involves
continued operation of the existing intercept and
treatment system, which consists of aeration via
spray nozzles with discharge  to a treatment pond
and  then to the Mobile  River;  installation  of
additional extraction wells, based on ground-water
quality characteristics, water-table gradients, and
pumping  activities  at  the  site  and  adjacent
properties;   design  and   implementation   of
modifications  to  the  treatment  system;  and
monitoring  of   effluent,   ground-water
concentrations,  and  pumping rates.    Further
investigation and treatability studies are necessary
before EPA can determine  the remedial action for
the source units (soil and pond sediment) and the
swamp.  Bench and/or pilot-scale testing of in situ
treatment alternatives for some of the source units,
such  as  a  wastewater  treatment  pond,  is
appropriate as part of the remedial  design.  A
range of treatment technologies including thermal
desorption  and  vapor   extraction   is   being
considered.  The estimated total  capital  cost for
this remedial action is $3,119,200, which includes
O&M costs.   Specific  O&M  costs were not
provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground water will meet state and federal
ARARs including MCLs and risk reference doses
(RfDs) developed  by EPA   Chemical-specific
clean-up goals include carbon tetrachloride 5 ug/1
(MCL).    Surface-water  discharge  must  meet
concentration  limits  specified in  the  NPDES
permit.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              221

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 753
                  STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO. (LEMOYNE PLANT), AL
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 27, 1989
    The Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant)
site is  in  Axis,  Mobile  County,  Alabama,
approximately 20 miles north of Mobile, Alabama.
The area is predominantly industrial, with a few
small rural residential communities within a few
miles of the site.  The Mobile River borders the
site to the  east.   The LeMoyne facility  was
previously  owned  by  the  Stauffer  Chemical
Company, which began operations in 1953.  Now
the RCRA-permitted  facility is currently owned
and operated by Akzo  Chemicals, Inc.,  which
purchased  the  facility in 1987.   Multi-product
organic and inorganic chemicals are manufactured
at  the facility.   From 1965 to  1974,  under the
operation of Stauffer, waste from the plant was
placed in an unlined landfill located approximately
one mile east  of the main plant.  The waste
included 11,000 to 12,000 tons of brine  muds in
addition to  plant  refuse,  used samples,  and
absorption oil.   The landfill was closed in 1975
with an impermeable membrane cap and side-wall
liner.  Wastewaters  from the processes were held
in  ponds, some of which discharged to the Cold
Creek Swamp.  All of the ponds except one are
clay lined and have been closed under the direction
of  the state.  New membrane-lined ponds were
installed during the 1970s to replace  the  closed
ponds.  Under a consent agreement with EPA,
Stauffer completed a remedial investigation in May
 1988, which identified contamination of the soil,
pond sludge, swamp sediment, and ground water.
Although there are four media of concern at the
Stauffer site, this remedial  action addresses the
contaminated ground water, because ground water
is  the  source  for drinking  water  for  the area.
Additional  ROfts  are  planned for  the  source
 control operable units and the Cold Creek Swamp
 operable  unit.   The  primary  contaminants of
 concern affecting  the ground water  are  VOCs
 including carcinogenic compounds such as carbon
 tetrachloride,  and  other  organic  compounds
 including pesticides.

    The selected remedial action for the ground-
 water operable unit at this site includes a modified
ground-water intercept and treatment system with
surface-water discharge. This alternative involves
continued operation of the existing intercept and
treatment system, which consists of aeration via
spray nozzles with discharges to a treatment pond
and  then to the Mobile  River; installation of
additional extraction wells, based on ground-water
quality characteristics, water-table gradients, and
pumping activities  at the site  and  adjacent
properties;   design  and   implementation  of
modifications  to  the  treatment system;  and
monitoring  of   effluent,   ground-water
concentrations,  and  pumping  rates.    Further
investigation and treatability studies are necessary
before EPA can determine the remedial action for
the source units (soil and pond sediment) and the
swamp.  Bench and/or pilot-scale testing of in situ
treatment alternatives for some of the source units,
such  as  a wastewater  treatment   pond,  is
appropriate as part of the remedial  design.  A
range of treatment technologies including thermal
desorption   and  vapor   extraction   is   being
considered.  The estimated total capital  cost for
this remedial action is $3,119,200, which includes
O&M costs.   Specific O&M  costs  were  not
provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground water will meet state  and  federal
ARARs including MCLs and risk reference doses
(RfDs)  developed by  EPA   Chemical-specific
clean-up goals include carbon tetrachloride 5 ug/1
(MCL).    Surface-water  discharge  must meet
concentration  limits  specified  in  the  NPDES
permit.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               222

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 473
                           SYDNEY MINE SLUDGE PONDS, FL
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29, 1989
    The Sydney Mine Sludge Ponds site occupies
9.5 acres of a 1,700-acre former phosphate mining
site in Brandon,  Hillsborough County, Florida.
From 1973 to 1981, the county rented the site for
disposal of septic wastes, waste automotive oils,
grease trap wastes, and manufacturing cutting oils.
An estimated 16  million gallons of wastes were
deposited  in three small pits.   An  EPA site
investigation in 1979 identified organics and heavy
metal contamination in monitoring wells near the
waste pits. Sampling was also performed in Turkey
Creek, which flows through the mine site about a
mile  from  the  waste  pits.    Upstream  and
downstream sediment samples exhibited elevated
levels of metal.   Disposal  operations ended  in
September 1981 when the State denied issuance of
a second operation permit for the site.  The State
and county began a two-phase cleanup effort  in
1984. The first phase included construction of a
slurry wall around the waste pits; excavation and
on-site incineration of approximately 10,900 cubic
yards of  pit wastes;  and pumping and  onsite
treatment  of ground water.   The second phase
included excavation of approximately 15,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soil with on-site treatment
by  air-drying followed by off-site disposal.  This
operable    unit   addresses   ground-water
contamination  at  the  site.     The  primary
contaminants of  concern  affecting  the ground
water are VOCs including benzene, toluene, TCE,
and xylenes.
    The selected remedial  action for this site
includes continued ground-water pumping with on-
site treatment by air stripping and spray irrigation
on  land adjacent  to  the  waste  disposal  site;
evaluation of the existing ground-water pumping
and treatment system and implementation of any
necessary modifications to improve the operation;
continued   ground-water   monitoring;   and
implementation  of  deed and  ground-water use
restrictions.  The estimated present worth cost for
the selected  remedy is $2,448,000 which includes
an annual O&M cost of $576,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    The ground-water remediation goals are based
on state primary drinking water standards (PDWS)
or PMCLs.  Chemical-specific goals were provided
for nine chemicals of concern including benzene 1
ug/1 (PDWS) and toluene 2,000 ugA (PMCL).

Institutional Controls

    Deed restrictions  will  be  implemented  to
restrict  ground-water use onsite  and within  a
reasonable distance of the site.
                                              223

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                          Fiscal Year 1989
                                         REGION 5
                      (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)
                                                                               NPLRante 717
                        ADRIAN MUNICIPAL WELL FIELD, MN
                                  First Remedial Action - Final
                                      September 29,1989
    The Adrian Municipal Well Field site is  in
Adrian, Nobles County, Minnesota, a city which
relies solely on ground water for its municipal
water supply.  In  1983, the state detected  VOC
contamination in two of the six wells at the site,
and  by  1985  the  city  had  replaced  the
VOC-contaminated  wells with two  new wells.
Subsequent ground-water sampling indicated that
petroleum  releases  from  underground  storage
tanks (UST) are sources for soil and ground-water
contamination.      Although   ground-water
contaminant  concentrations exceed federal and
state drinking water and surface water standards,
no further action will be taken by the Superfund
program because the program does not have the
authority to  address  clean  up  of petroleum
releases. EPA will, however, formally transfer the
site to its UST program in  October  1989 for
further action. There are no costs associated with
this remedial action.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Not applicable.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                             224

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  337
                                  ALSCO ANACONDA, OH
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 8,1989
    The Alsco Anaconda site is a 4.8-acre former
sludge disposal area in Gnadenhutten, Tuscarawas
County, Ohio. The site lies within the Tuscarawas
River's  50-year  and  100-year  floodplains and
neighbors  the   Alsco  Anaconda   aluminum
manufacturing plant which  has operated since
1948.  Contamination at the site occurred from
1965  to  1978 when wastewater  and wastewater
treatment  sludge  from  the plant,  containing
hazardous aluminum processing wastes  (FO19),
were disposed of in an unlined settling basin and
a sludge pit.  In 1978, the  plant owners  began
dewatering the treatment sludge prior to disposal
of sludge off site in the settling basin and a former
swamp  area.   This  ROD  is the first of two
operable  units   at  the  site   and  addresses
remediation of the contaminated soil and sludge.
Because  leachate  from  the sludge  may have
contaminated the ground water and surface water,
a subsequent ROD will address  the appropriate
remedial action for those media.  The  primary
contaminants  of concern affecting the soil and
sludge are organics including PCBs,  and metals
including chromium, cyanide, and arsenic.

    The selected  remedial  action  for this site
includes  excavating  50  cubic  yards of sludge
contaminated with greater than 500 mg/kg of PCBs
followed by  off-site incineration and disposal;
excavating  8,820  cubic  yards   of  aluminum
processing waste sludge and underlying soil from
the settling basin and sludge pit contaminated with
less than 500 mg/kg of PCBs followed by off-site
treatment and disposal or reuse; backfilling and
revegetating excavated areas;  and implementing
institutional controls including site access and deed
restrictions.   The estimated capital cost for this
remedial action is  $4,161,066  with no associated
O&M costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil clean-up  goals will meet clean closure
levels which require soil and sludge to be excavated
until remaining soil contaminant concentrations
attain a cumulative excess cancer-risk level below
10"6 and a cumulative HI value of less than one for
critical effect.  Chemical-specific clean-up goals
were not specified  but will be established during
the remedial design.

Institutional Controls

    Site  access   and  deed  restrictions  will
implemented.
                                              225

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  764
                            AUTO ION CHEMICALS, INC, MI
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 27, 1989
    Auto  Ion Chemicals,  Inc. site  is a  former
plating  waste  treatment  and  disposal  facility
occupying approximately 1.5 acres of vacant, fenced
land in Kalamazoo, Michigan.  The site is bounded
to   the   north,   east,   and   west  by
commercial/industrial facilities and lies adjacent to
and within the floodplain of the Kalamazoo River.
Ground water at the site is not currently used as a
source of  drinking water.  From 1964 to 1973 the
facility received chrome and cyanide plating waste.
Heavy metals were precipitated from the  plating
waste and deposited  in an on-site lagoon, and
wastewater was discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Leaks  and  spills from  storage  tanks,  lagoon
seepage, and other site activities resulted in soil
contamination.   In  1983 EPA  conducted  an
emergency surface removal  and, in 1986, they
demolished the site structures which housed tanks
and storage  facilities.  This  first operable unit
represents a source control remedial action for the
soil. A second operable unit will address ground-
water contamination.  The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil are organics including
PAHs, and metals including  arsenic, chromium,
and lead.
     The selected  remedial  action  for this site
includes  excavation and  off-site stabilization of
approximately 7,200 cubic yards of contaminated
soil; off-site disposal of treated soil in an approved
land  disposal  area;  and  replacement  of the
excavated soil  with  clean fill.   The estimated
capital cost for this remedial action is $3,332,988,
with an estimated annual O&M cost of $5,900.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Soil posing a carcinogenic health risk greater
than 10"6 will be excavated and  treated to meet
RCRA  land   disposal   restrictions   for  soil
contaminated with F006 waste. The treated soil
must pass the  TCLP test prior to off-site land
disposal.    Chemical-specific  contaminant  goals
were not specified.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               226

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 834
                                BIG D CAMPGROUND, OH
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Big D Campground site is in Kingsville,
Ashtabula County, Ohio.  The site consists of a
1.2-acre landfill created out of a former sand and
gravel quarry.  From 1964 to 1976 the site owner
accepted approximately  28,000  cubic  yards  of
hazardous materials for disposal which included up
to 5,000 drums containing solvents, caustics, and
oily substances.   A  1986 remedial investigation
identified the  landfill as the primary  source  of
contamination in  soil outside  the  landfill and
ground  water  underlying the landfill.   Ground-
water contamination is  of significant  concern
because it is migrating towards the drinking water
supply wells of nearby residences and  Conneaut
Creek which is adjacent to and south of the site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs including PCE
and TCE, other organics, and  metals  including
chromium and lead.

    The selected  remedial  action  for  this site
includes removing and incinerating  up to  5,000
buried drums, bulk wastes, and up to 30,000 cubic
yards  of contaminated soil  followed by on-site
disposal of nonhazardous ash residue;  pumping
and treatment of 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 gallons
of ground water using an on-site granular activated
carbon system followed by on-site discharge to
Conneaut  Creek; and ground-water and surface-
water monitoring.  The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $39,000,000, which
includes annual O&M costs  of $320,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    This remedial action will reduce health risks
identified  in  the ground water to a  cumulative
Hazard Index of 1.0 or less and a  cumulative
carcinogenic risk of 10"6 or less.   Ground-water
clean-up goals are  based on MCLs and include
TCE 5 ug/1 and chromium 50 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

    Deed and land  use  restrictions  will  be
implemented.
                                              227

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  182
                                  BOWERS LANDFILL, OH
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                          March 24, 1989
    The 12-acre Bowers Landfill  site is in rural
Pickaway County, Ohio, within the Scioto River
floodplain. Fifteen residences lie within a 0.5-mile
radius of the site.  Information on the types and
quantities of waste disposed of at the site is not
readily available;  however, landfill operations,
which started in 1958, consisted solely of municipal
refuse disposal until 1963.  From 1963  to  1968,
however, industrial refuse and chemical wastes
were also  disposed of at the site.  Operations
ended in 1968.  The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and
ground water  are  VOCs  including PCE  and
benzene, other organics including PAHs and PCBs,
metals including lead and chromium, and other
inorganics.

    The  selected remedial  action  for  this site
includes removal of surface vegetation and debris
such as domestic waste and drums followed by off-
site disposal at a hazardous waste landfill or solid
waste landfill  if wastes  are  determined  to  be
nonhazardous; erosion controls including surface
regrading in areas prone to flooding and erosion;
excavation  and  dewatering  of drainage  ditch
sediment followed by on-site disposal; replacement
of the discharge pipe; construction of a soil and
clay cap with quarterly inspections for leachate and
gas formation; implementation of site access and
ground-water use restrictions; and ground-water
monitoring.  The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $4,300,000, which includes
annual O&M costs of $116,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Chemical-specific  clean-up  goals  were not
provided; however, clean-up levels will be based on
MCLs where available and a 10"6 cancer risk for all
other contaminants.

Institutional Controls

     Site access and ground-water use restrictions
will be implemented at the site.
                                                228

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  684
                                 BYRON SALVAGE YARD, 1L
                                       Third Remedial Action
                                           June 30, 1989
    The Byron Salvage Yard site is in rural Ogle
County,  Illinois and is  approximately 3 miles
southwest of the city of Byron.  The site, which
includes the Byron Salvage Yard and Dirk's Farm,
is bordered by a forest preserve district to the
north, an operating nuclear plant to the southeast,
residential property to the south, and an open field
to the west.  The site is bisected by two 15 to 30
feet deep ravines  draining surface-water runoff
through the ravine waterways to the south branch
of  Woodland Creek, which flows to  the Rock
River. During the 1960s, the salvage yard owner
accepted  miscellaneous wastes  and  debris for
disposal including drums of electroplating wastes,
oil sludges, cutting  wheels, solvents, and scrap
metal.    Industrial  waste dumping reportedly
occurred  on the site during periods of heavy
rainfall so that most of the waste would be carried
off site by the resulting surface water runoff.  In
1976, the Illinois EPA documented the presence of
cyanide and heavy metals in soil, surface water, and
ground water in and  around the site.  In 1986 the
state initiated clean-up activities which included
excavating  buried   drums  from   the ravines;
removing surface drums; excavating soil heavily
contaminated by heavy metals or organics;  and
excavating soil with concentrations 100 mg/kg or
greater of cyanide.  In situ treatment of cyanide-
contaminated soil  less  than  100  mg/kg  was
performed but low levels of cyanide still remain.
Water quality  sampling,  performed  in  1984,
revealed   that  off-site  ground   water   was
contaminated with VOCs, primarily TCE. The two
aquifers  which underlie  and  surround the  site
contain elevated levels of  VOCs, metals,  and
cyanide. Private residential water supply wells that
were affected by the contaminated ground water
were temporarily supplied with bottled drinking
water.  In  1986,  an EPA-approved emergency
action led to the installation of in-house carbon
filtration units at 10 residences in the Rock River
Terrace subdivision located a 1/2 mile northwest of
the  site.    A  1986  state ROD  extended  the
municipal water  supply system from Byron to the
Rock River Terrace subdivision.  This operable
unit addresses  the ground-water contamination
emanating from the site and is the  third of four
operable  units.    The  primary  contaminants
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
benzene, PCE, and TCE, metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead, and cyanide.

     The selected  remedial  action  for  this site
includes removing all wastes generated during the
remedial investigation; adding a one-foot soil cover
to the affected portions of the site and regrading
and  revegetating the  new  surface; monitoring
surface   and   ground   water;   plugging   and
abandoning  monitoring wells  no longer in use;
providing an alternate source of drinking water by
extending the water main of the municipal system
to 27 additional residences; and implementing
institutional controls. The estimated present worth
cost is $1,1080,000, which includes annual O&M
costs of $16,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Because an alternate water  supply will be
provided, MCLs for ground-water contaminants
will  not be  exceeded at the  tap  for affected
residents.  In lieu of MCLs, EPA is establishing
clean-up levels based  on alternate concentration
limits (ACLs) which will be set at  contaminant
concentrations  currently  found in  the  aquifers.
Maximum concentration limits, for Ambient Water
Quality Criteria and/or  Illinois Water  Quality
Standards, will be attained in a nearby pond and
river.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will be implemented to
preclude future use  of the  ground  water in
undeveloped  areas  where the  ground  water  is
contaminated due to the site. These controls may
include deed restrictions or mandatory hookups to
public water  supplies,  plugging and abandoning
residential wells, and/or other such actions.
                                               229

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                NPLRank:  668
                                  CEMETERY DUMP, MI
                                 Second Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29,1989
    The 4-acre Cemetery Dump site is a former
sand and gravel pit in Rose Township, Oakland
County, Michigan.  During the late 1960s or early
1970s, approximately 300 to 600 drums, containing
paint sludges, solvents, PCBs, and  oils,  were
illegally dumped and buried on site. A1985 ROD
addressed  the  soil  cleanup   which  included
excavation  and  off-site   disposal   of
visually-contaminated soil  and drum fragments.
Soil which  was  not visually contaminated  was
sampled and backfilled with clean soil into the
excavated areas. Subsequent soil and ground-water
sampling indicated that zinc contaminants in the
ground water exceed the federal secondary MCL,
a  nonenforceable standard based on  taste  and
odor, not protection of health. Zinc contamination,
however, is most likely a result of monitoring well
construction materials.  No  other contaminants
exceed federal or state environmental standards.
    The selected remedial action for this site is no
further action because previous remedial activities
appear to provide adequate protection to human
health and the environment. Ground water will be
monitored annually, and a 5-year review will be
performed to ensure that the site continues to pose
no threat to human health and the environment.
There are no costs associated with this no action
remedy.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Not applicable.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              230

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc  653
                                   CUFFS/DOW DUMP, MI
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 27, 1989
    The  municipally  owned 2-acre  Cliffs/Dow
Dump site is  in a  wooded  recreational area
adjacent  to  the  Dead  River in  Marquette,
Michigan. From 1954 until the early 1960s, wastes
generated by the Cliffs-Dow Chemical Company's
charcoal manufacturing plant were deposited at the
site.   The  wastes,  which  included tar  and
tar-contaminated fill materials, were deposited to
fill a small bog depression. The 200 cubic yards of
exposed tar deposits  are  the primary source of
contamination in the soil; however, the remaining
9,400  cubic  yards  of  fill  material  containing
charcoal   and  wood  intermingled   with
approximately 200 cubic yards of tar,  are also a
contamination source.  Results  of pilot  studies
indicate that ground water is undergoing in situ
biodegradation as it flows downgradient of the fill
and poses no  risk  to  human health  or the
environment.    The  primary  contaminants  of
concern affecting the soil are  VOCs including
benzene, toluene, PCE, and  xylenes,  and other
organics including PAHs and phenol.

    The selected remedial action for this  site
includes excavation and off-site incineration of 200
cubic yards of exposed  tars; excavation of 9,400
cubic yards of fill material intermingled with tars,
and segregation followed by off-site incineration of
200 cubic yards of buried tars encountered during
the excavation; forced aeration biological treatment
of the 9,200 cubic yards  of residual contaminated
fill material after replacement  in  the excavated
area;  installing a soil cover and revegetation  of
bioremediated   fill  area;  implementation   of
institutional controls including deed restrictions
preventing new well installation and disturbance of
fill material until  health-based goals have been
achieved;  and ground-water and air monitoring.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is  $2,842,165,  which  includes  estimated
annual O&M costs of $63,280.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground-water contaminant levels, which are
already  below levels of concern, will further
decrease  through  biodegradation  and  natural
attenuation once the source material is removed.
EP A's Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual
was used to develop health-based goals for source
areas; however,  no chemical-specific goals were
provided.

Institutional Controls

     Deed restrictions will be implemented  to
prevent  the future use of ground water, including
the establishment of drinking water wells within
the vicinity  of  the contaminated ground-water
boundaries, and will also  prohibit disturbances  of
the fill materials during the biological  treatment
process   until  health-based  goals  have  been
achieved.
                                               231

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  396
                CROSS BROTHERS PAIL RECYCLING (PEMBROKE), IL
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 28, 1989
    The Cross Brothers Pail Recycling site is a
former pail and drum recycling operation located
in Pembroke Township, Kankakee County, Illinois.
The 20-acre site, approximately half of which was
used for waste disposal, is in a semi-residential
area interspersed with  small  farms.  Recycling
operations, which involved draining empty drums
and pails containing paints, dyes, and inks onto the
ground,  resulted in the formation  of  a waste
residue layer approximately 6 inches thick over 10
acres of the property.  In addition, crushed pails
and drums were buried in  10 trenches  located
around the site.  Operations  continued at the site
from 1961 until 1980 when the state closed the site
and ordered  a  cleanup.  An Initial Remedial
Measure was signed in 1985 that required clearing
the disposal area of all vegetation and removing
6,438  tons of contaminated  surficial  soil,  542
drums  containing wastes, and 572 empty drums.
From 1986 to 1989,  the state  conducted additional
studies to define the nature and extent of ground-
water and residual  soil contamination.   The site
can be divided  into two areas: a 6.5-acre area
characterized  by   small  local   areas  of  soil
contamination and  a  3.5-acre  area that contains
contamination throughout the unsaturated zone
(approximately  33,800  cubic yards  of  soil).
Ground-water contamination is the principal threat
at the  site. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting  the soil and ground water are VOCs
including benzene,  PCE,   TCE,  toluene,  and
xylenes, and other organics including  PCBs.

    The selected remedial action for  this  site has
been divided into two operable units.  The first
involves resampling a localized PCB-contaminated
soil  area  followed by  excavation  and off-site
incineration  of approximately  5  cubic  yards
(dependent upon resampling results) of soil with a
PCB  level exceeding 10  mg/kg.   The second
operable unit addresses  ground-water and  soil
remediation.  The 6.5-acre area  will be covered
with a 6-inch vegetative cover, and the 3.5-acre
area will be covered by 6 inches of gravel. Ground
water will be pumped and treated on site with
discharge  onto  the 3.5-acre gravel area via an
irrigation  system, thus establishing a "cleansing
loop" and  inducing soil flushing through the area
of  VOC  contamination.    Deed  and access
restrictions will be implemented.  The estimated
present worth cost for  this  remedial  action is
$2,076,500, which  includes an annual  O&M of
$59,235 for 15 years.

Performance Standards or Goals
     Ground-water  clean-up levels  will  meet
currently promulgated MCLs, a cumulative excess
lifetime cancer risk  not exceeding 10"6, and  a
hazard index ratio less than or equal to one.  No
chemical-specific ground-water clean-up goals were
provided. PCB-contaminated soil will be excavated
such that a level less than  10  mg/kg (based on
TSCA Spill Policy) remains on site.

Institutional Controls

     The  site  will  be  secured  through  the
installation  of fencing and initiating  a deed
notification requirement identifying EPA and state
concerns regarding activities at the site.
                                               232

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  652
                              E.BL SCHILLING LANDFILL, OH
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29,1989
    The E.H. Schilling Landfill site is in Hamilton
Township, Lawrence County, Ohio.  The site is a
2.7-acre landfill  on a larger tract of land.   The
predominantly rural area  neighboring  the  site
includes approximately 50 residences, which are
between 0.25 mile and 1.5 miles from the site.  The
landfill was created by constructing a dam across a
small valley. Both the landfill cover and dam have
been  described   as  inadequate,  and  leachate
containing hazardous substances is being released
through and beneath the dam. From 1969 to 1980,
the landfill operators accepted both nonhazardous
and hazardous wastes including  styrene, phenol,
acetone, alcohol, wastewater treatment sludge, coal
tar compounds, and cumene. Results from a 1988
investigation reveal  that  soil  and  sediment
contamination is limited to the area immediately
adjacent   to  the   dam,   and  ground-water
contamination is limited to the monitoring wells
immediately surrounding  the landfill and  the
monitoring  wells  downgradient of  the   dam.
Contamination  appears to be due to  leachate
runoff.  The primary  contaminants  of  concern
affecting the soil, sediment, and ground water are
VOCs including benzene, other organics including
PAHs, pesticides, and phenol, and  metals including
arsenic.

    The selected remedial action  for this  site
includes excavation of 500 cubic yards of sediment
and 750   cubic yards  of  surface  soil  for
consolidation in the landfill; construction  of a
2.7-acre RCRA cap to contain 100,000 cubic yards
of landfill waste;  construction of a clay  berm to
improve dam stability; construction of a perimeter
cut-off wall to eliminate the lateral flow of ground
water into the landfill waste; construction of an
interceptor drain outside the cut-off wall to drain
ground water away from the landfill; dewatering
the landfill of 7,000,000 gallons of leachate and
treating the leachate using metal precipitation, air
stripping,  and  carbon  adsorption  to  remove
organics  and  sulfide  precipitation  to  remove
inorganics, followed by discharge to surface water;
treatment and discharge of an additional 1,000,000
gallons   of  wastewater  generated  during  the
remedial  action; ground-water monitoring;  and
implementation  of  access   and   institutional
controls.   The estimated  capital cost for  this
remedial action is $6,444,000, with an estimated
annual O&M cost of $99,000 for 30 years.

Performance  Standards or Goals

     Soil  will be excavated and consolidated to
achieve  a cumulative  risk  of less than  10"6
carcinogenic risk and a cumulative noncarcinogenic
hazard index  less than  or equal to one. Ground
water will be treated if it exceeds action levels
which have been established as a cumulative cancer
risk   of  less  than   10"6  and  a   cumulative
noncarcinogenic hazard index less than or equal to
one.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls include site access  and
deed restrictions.
                                               233

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NFL Rank: 638
                              GALESBURG/KOPPERS CO., EL
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                          June 30, 1989
    The Galesburg/Koppers Co. site is a 105-acre
area located approximately 2 miles south of the
city of Galesburg in Knox County, Illinois.  The
land surrounding the site is sparsely populated
with the Burlington Northern Railroad yard to the
north, a  landfill to the east, and four residences
and a  lumber  yard to  the south  and west.
Farmland abuts these areas.  Burlington Northern
Railroad Company operated the site as a railroad
tie treating plant from 1907 to December 1966. In
1966,  the Koppers Company, Inc.  leased  the
production plant from Burlington  Northern  and
resumed  operation of the  facility.   Treatment
operations consisted of pressure treatment of the
railroad ties using a mixture of creosote and coal
tar or creosote and fuel oil.  From 1971 to 1976,
pentachlorophenol   (PCP)  was  used  in  the
treatment process. Key contaminated areas at the
site include a slurry pond, a northern and southern
creosote lagoon, a PCP-contaminated  lagoon, a
waste  pile storage area,  two backfilled drainage
ditches, and two former  spray wastewater fields.
Contamination has been found in soil,  ground
water, surface water,  and  on-site and  off-site
sediment.  This ROD addresses all contaminated
media.    These  actions, in  combination  with
remedial  actions at the Steagall Landfill site, are
intended  to eliminate off-site surface-water  and
sediment contamination  as well.  The primary
contaminants  of concern affecting the soil  and
ground water are organics including PCP, phenols,
and PAHs.

    The  selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes  excavation and on-site consolidation of
approximately 15,200 cubic yards of contaminated
soil with on-site biological treatment of soil and
implementation  of   a  biological  monitoring
program; construction of shallow ground-water
interceptor trenches and deep pumping wells with
pumping and on-site  pretreatment of shallow and
deep ground water using an existing wastewater
treatment system to  achieve clean-up objectives,
discharging  treated  ground water  to  a publicly
owned  treatment   works  (POTW)  for  final
treatment or on-site treatment should the POTW
pretreatment standards not be achieved; ground-
water monitoring; and implemention of site access
and land use restrictions.  The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $4,286,844,
which  includes  an  estimated  annual  O&M of
$170,012.

Performance Standards or Goals

     No  chemical-specific  clean-up  goals  were
established for  soil at the site.  The soil will be
excavated six inches beyond visible contamination.
Samples will be taken after excavation to assess the
mitigative efforts and to confirm  remediation to
health-based levels.   Additionally, soil  will be
treated to  background toxicity  levels.  Clean-up
goals for ground water were based on a 10"6 excess
carcinogenic risk goal.

Institutional Controls

     Site access and  land use restrictions will be
implemented for the area of  contamination in
accordance with the anticipated consent decree.
                                               234

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 536
                               HEDBLUM INDUSTRIES, MI
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29, 1989
    Hedblum Industries site, an automotive parts
manufacturing plant, is  approximately one mile
southwest of the town  of  Oscoda, in  AuSable
Township, losco County, Michigan.  In addition to
the plant, the site consists of a 10-acre industrial
park, a wetland area, and residences including the
AuSable Heights subdivision. Ground water flows
beneath the plant and subdivision and discharges
via a bayou into the AuSable River.  Between 1968
and 1972, the previous plant operators discharged
cooling water, rinse water, and approximately 4,000
gallons of waste  TCE onto the ground.   In 1973
VOCs  were detected  in residential wells in  the
AuSable subdivision.  Contaminated wells were
replaced with  deeper wells which  by 1977 also
showed traces of contamination. Subsequently, the
Oscoda Township Municipal Supply System was
extended to residents through the installation of a
new water main.  An underground storage tank
containing TCE, TCA, and PCE was removed from
the  site  in  1980.   The primary  contaminants
of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene,  toluene,  xylenes,  TCE,  and
PCE, and metals including lead.

    The selected remedial action  for  this  site
includes ground-water  pumping  and treatment
using activated carbon adsorption with discharge to
the bayou; and ground-water and soil monitoring.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action  is $1,379,000, which  includes  an annual
O&M cost of $264,000 over four to five years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Ground  water will  meet  SDWA MCLs.
Target clean-up levels for  ground water include
benzene 5 ug/1, TCE 5 ug/1, and lead 50 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              235

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  175
                           INDUSTRIAL EXCESS LANDFILL, OH
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                           July 17, 1989
    The 300-acre Industrial Excess Landfill site is
in  Uniontown,  Stark  County,  Ohio.   Several
hundred residences are within a half mile of the
site, and all  residences  and  businesses in the
Uniontown area rely on ground water from private
well supplies.  Surface water at the site flows to
Metzger Ditch which is located along  the eastern
border of the site. The site was operated  as a
mixed industrial and refuse landfill from 1966 until
1980. Large amounts of fly ash and liquid wastes
including latex and spent  organic solvents were
disposed of in the landfill between 1968 and 1972.
To prevent the spread of contaminants associated
with these wastes, several emergency actions have
been undertaken.   In 1986, an active methane
extraction system was installed to prevent the off-
site migration of explosive  levels of methane gas.
In April 1987, EPA installed air strippers in eight
residences and two businesses due to the presence
of  low levels of volatile organic compounds. In
September 1987, EPA signed a ROD to provide an
alternate water supply to  100 homes west of the
site to  ensure that the community  received safe
drinking water while the final remedial action for
the site was implemented.  This ROD represents
the final remedial action for the site and addresses
the source area, gases generated within the source
area, and  contaminated   ground  water.   The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, vinyl chloride, and PCE, other organics
including cPAHs, and metals.  Air contamination
by methane gas is also present at the site.

    The selected  remedial action  for this site
includes installing a multilayer RCRA cap over the
site to prevent surface-water infiltration; expanding
the  existing   methane   venting    system   to
accommodate the potential increase of landfill gas
due   to   the  cap;  extracting  and  treating
approximately 256 million gallons of contaminated
ground water by air stripping, carbon adsorption,
and flocculation/sedimentation/filtration to achieve
compliance  with  Clean  Water   Act  NPDES
discharge  criteria  for  surface  water discharge;
continuing the  pumping of  ground water to
maintain a lowered water table and protect ground
water  from  additional  contamination  by the
landfill; treating surface water from ponds at the
site, if necessary; and dredging sediment from the
ponds and ditch and incorporating them under the
cap;  multimedia monitoring;   and  institutional
controls restricting future use of the site.  The
estimated  present worth  cost  for this  selected
remedial action is $18,548,000, which includes an
estimated  annual O&M  cost of $440,000.

Performance Standards  or Goals

     The selected remedy will ensure  that landfill
gas concentrations beyond the site boundary will
not exceed  5 percent  methane.  Ground-water
cleanup is based on a 10"6 excess cancer level and
will be treated to achieve MCLs in the aquifer and
discharged in compliance with  Clean  Water Act
NPDES requirements. Specific ground-water goals
include benzene 5 ug/1 and vinyl chloride  2 ug/1.
Permit limits are established in accordance with
Ohio EPA  Aquatic  Life Quality Criteria for
discharge  to  Metzger Ditch.  Acute and chronic
limits for  the ditch discharge were  provided in the
ROD.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional  controls will be imposed to
restrict future use of the site property.   Future
construction  or public  use of the land will be
prohibited.
                                                236

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NFL Rank:  808
                                 IONIA COY LANDFILL, MI
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 29,1989
    The  Ionia  City Landfill  site is a  20-acre
municipally owned landfill in the southeast corner
of Ionia, Michigan.  The site is bordered by the
Grand River to the south, a tributary to the Grand
River  to  the  east,  and  a  light  commercial/
residential  area to the north.  The site lies within
the 100-year floodplain of the Grand River.  The
landfill was operated from the  1950s until about
1969, during which time industrial,  commercial,
and municipal wastes were disposed of at the site,
including  drummed  liquids  and  solids  from
industrial sources.   Drums of ignitable liquid
wastes were reportedly burned until 1965.  A state
investigation  in  1981  revealed exposed drums
containing  paint wastes, thinners, and  industrial
solvents  as well as elevated   levels of  metals.
Furthermore,  VOC-contaminated  and  metal-
contaminated ground water was detected.  EPA
investigations began in 1982 and revealed VOC
contamination in the Grand River tributary surface
water.  Follow-up investigations by EPA led to an
immediate  removal action in 1984-85 by the city,
under  an  administrative order, which included
fencing   a  portion of the  site,  removing  and
disposing of exposed drums, covering depressed
areas, and stabilizing areas of erosion.  Current site
risks  result from subsurface  wastes (or point
source)  from  a  1/4-acre  area  in  the  northern
section of the landfill.  The estimated total waste
volume  is  5,000 cubic yards consisting of badly
deteriorated buried drums and associated wastes,
and contaminated soil.   In addition there  is a
contaminant  plume in an underlying  shallow
aquifer.  The first operable unit  addresses the
point source area.  A  second operable   unit
addressing ground water has been deferred until
the completion of the ground-water monitoring
plan.    The  primary contaminants  of concern
affecting the  soil  and debris are VOCs including
vinyl chloride and methyl chloride, other organics,
and metals including chromium.

    The  selected remedial action for  this site
includes in situ vitrification of the defined point
source area and an adjacent margin of safety zone,
including  an  off-gas collection  and treatment
system;   access   restrictions;   ground-water
monitoring; institutional controls to restrict site
use; and upgrading the landfill cover and repairing
the side slopes followed by revegetation.   The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $3,630,525, which  includes an estimated
annual O&M cost of $112,750  for year one and
$51,000 for years two  to  ten.   If a pilot test
indicates that the selected remedy is inadequate, a
contingency alternative of partial excavation with
on-site incineration will be implemented.

Performance  Standards or Goals

    Target clean-up  levels  for  the  soil-refuse
matrix to  determine the extent of excavation will
not be established; instead, the extent of excavation
will be based on the extent of buried drums and
additional sampling.

Institutional Controls

    Site use  restrictions will be implemented.
                                               237

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 678
                              KYSOR INDUSTRIAL CORP., MI
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Kysor Industrial Corp. facility is a large
truck parts manufacturing plant in the  Cadillac
industrial park in the city of Cadillac,  Wexford
County, Michigan.  Approximately 40 industries
operate  in  the  1-square-mile  industrial  park
including Northernaire, another Superfund site.
The Northernaire site will be addressed by the
ground-water remediation portion of this  action as
well.    There  are  several  private  residences
including a trailer park within the industrial park,
and another residential neighborhood lies adjacent
to the northern boundary of the park.  The city of
Cadillac's water supply well field is located near
the center of the  park, and ground water beneath
the site generally flows towards the city wells. The
Clam River flows  through the southeast portion of
the site draining runoff from the site.  The Kysor
facility  commonly uses  solvent  cleaners  and
degreasers;  past  disposal   practices  included
dumping barrels of spent solvent directly on the
soil  behind  the  plant.     Kysor  excavated
approximately 700 cubic yards of soil in 1981 after
contaminants  were discovered in  ground water
samples.  Ground-water contamination has since
been  detected   throughout   the  shallow  and
intermediate aquifers underlying the  park.   At
present the deep aquifer (in which the Cadillac city
well  field  is  located)  is  not affected  by this
contamination. The remaining soil contamination
is relatively localized  and is from 6 to 25 feet in
depth.   The  primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water  are VOCs
including toluene,  TCE, PCE, and xylenes, and
metals including chromium.

     The selected  remedial  action for this site
includes a two-stage ground-water pumping and
treatment system using carbon adsorption for the
removal  of chromium  and air  stripping  with
vapor-phase carbon adsorption for the removal of
VOCs and  discharge to  the  Clam River; in situ
soil vacuum extraction with air pollution control
equipment;   ground-water   monitoring;   and
institutional controls  including site  access and
ground water  and  land  use restrictions.   The
estimated present  worth cost  for this remedial
action is $16,000,000, which includes present worth
O&M costs of $5,000,000 over 60 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground water will meet or exceed state and
SDWA MCL standards. Target clean-up levels for
ground water include xylene 440 ug/1, toluene 40
ug/1,  PCE  1  ugA, TCE  5 ug/1,  and  chromium
(hexavalent) 50 ug/1.  Soil will meet state, RCRA,
and CAA standards. Target clean-up levels for soil
include xylene 141  mg/kg, toluene 724 mg/kg, and
TCE 0.07 mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional   controls  will   be  established
including site  access and ground-water and land
use restrictions.
                                               238

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 569
                               LASKIN/POPLAR OIL CO., OH
                                   Third Remedial Action - Final
                                           June 29, 1989
    The 9-acre Laskin/Poplar  Oil  Co. site is  in
Jefferson  Township,  Ashtabula County, Ohio.
Included on the site are: a residence, a greenhouse
complex, a  boiler house/garage containing four
boilers, a  smokestack, four oil storage pits, one
underground and  32 above ground oil  storage
tanks,  a retention pond, a freshwater pond, and
miscellaneous small buildings.   In  the  1960s,
storage pits and tanks were installed to store waste
oil  for the boilers that heated the greenhouses.
The Poplar Oil Company continued to accept the
waste oil  throughout the  1960s and 1970s.   In
1981, EPA found PCBs in on-site ground water
and soil  which resulted  in  several emergency
actions that  included  draining and  regrading 2
retention ponds, diverting surface runoff to other
retention ponds, removing off-site and incinerating
302,000  gallons  of  waste  oil,  treating  and
discharging   off-site  430,000   gallons    of
contaminated surface water, and solidifying 205,000
gallons of sludge. From 1985 to 1986, the Poplar
Oil  Company  removed  an additional 250,000
gallons of waste oil and wastewater  in response  to
an  administrative order.  Two  additional  orders
were issued ordering workplan development and
incineration of materials in  the pits, tanks, and
heavily contaminated  soil.     The  primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, on-site
structures, and debris are organics including PCBs,
PAHs, pesticides, and dioxin, and metals including
lead.
     The  selected remedial action for this  site
includes draining on-site freshwater and retention
ponds  with  off-site  discharge  and  refilling;
thermally treating  contaminated soil, ash,  and
debris from the  boiler house area with  on-site
disposal of ash if the ash can be delisted, otherwise
off-site disposal in a RCRA landfill; demolishing
and   thermally  treating  or   decontaminating
dioxin-contaminated structures;  constructing an
up-gradient   ground-water  diversion   trench;
installing a multi-layer cap over contaminated soil
exceeding  a   10"°   excess  cancer-risk   level;
monitoring  surface  and  ground water;   and
imposing  access and land  use restrictions.  The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $11,000,000, which includes present worth
O&M costs of $1,000,000.

Performance Standards or  Goals

     No specific  clean-up  goals were provided;
however, remediation goals will prevent exposure
to contaminated soil and debris  exceeding a  10"6
cancer-risk level or a total hazard index  greater
than 1.

Institutional Controls

     Land use and access restrictions will be
implemented   to  prohibit   site   use,    land
development, and ground-water extraction.
                                               239

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 69
                           MIAMI COUNTY INCINERATOR, OH
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                           June 30, 1989
    The  Miami County Incinerator  site is in
Concord Township,  Ohio.  The 65-acre site is
approximately 1,500 feet west of the Great Miami
River; the Eldean Tributory of the  river runs
across the northwest corner of the site.  The site
consists of the incinerator  building and adjacent
property, including a former scrubber wastewater
lagoon, an ash disposal pit, an ash pile, a liquid
disposal  area, and trench  and fill  landfill areas
north  and   south of  the  Eldean  Tributory.
Operations began in 1968, when large quantities of
spent  solvents, oils, and  drummed  and  bulk
industrial sludges were accepted for disposal.  The
facility generated scrubber wastewater  and  ash
quench water, which were disposed  of in  the
wastewater lagoon. Incinerator fly ash and bottom
ash, non-combustible  materials, and  unburned
refuse were disposed of in  a landfill north of the
tributary, and  an estimated 104,000 to  150,000
barrel-equivalents of liquid waste were dumped or
buried on  site.  After closure of the  facility in
1983,  the Ohio EPA found detectable  levels of
chlorinated hydrocarbons in drinking water wells
near the site. Three residences, the Miami County
Highway Garage, and the incinerator facility were
supplied with  alternate water supplies  in  1986.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are  VOCs including PCE,
toluene, and TCE, other organics including PCBs,
PAHs, dioxin, and pesticides, and metals including
lead.
    The selected remedial actions for this site are
specific to each area of contamination and include
excavation and on-site consolidation of ash wastes
and contaminated  soils onto the landfills with
capping of landfills and previously excavated areas;
pumping and  treatment  of ground water with
discharge to POTW; vapor/vacuum extraction of
liquid disposal area using carbon filters; continued
testing of soils, ash, and  tributary sediment; and
provision of an  alternate water supply  for area
residents and businesses.  The estimated present
worth  for  this remedial action is  $19,400,000,
which  includes  an estimated   O&M  cost  of
$4,666,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Specific   clean-up  levels  have  not   been
established at this  time; however, they will  be
based  on MCLs, a hazard index of 1, a 10"5
cancer-risk level at the waste boundary (i.e., edge
of cup), and a  10"6 cancer-risk level at the nearest
receptor.

Institutional Controls

    Deed and  land  use  restrictions  will  be
implemented to prevent any future use of ground
water.
                                                240

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRank: 262
                                          MDOCO I, IN
                                    First Remedial Action - Final
                                           June 30, 1989
    The MIDCO I site  is a 4-acre,  abandoned
industrial  waste recycling,  storage,  and disposal
facility in  Gary, Indiana.  The surrounding area is
partially rural, including wetlands.   Residential
neighborhoods lie to the west, south, and east, with
some residents living as close as 900  feet from the
site.   Twelve drinking water  wells  have  been
identified  within approximately one mile of  the
site. The  Calumet Aquifer, one of the two major
aquifers underlying the site and providing water to
these wells, is  highly susceptible to contamination
from surface  sources.  Recycling,  storing, and
disposing  of industrial wastes began at the site
sometime  before June 1973. Within a three-year
period, the  site owners accepted and stockpiled
approximately 6,000  to  7,000  55-gallon drums
containing bulk liquid waste, and four bulk tanks,
each 4,000-10,000 gallons.  The facility closed in
December 1976 after a fire burned approximately
14,000  drums of  chemical waste.   Operations
resumed in  October 1977 under new  ownership.
By February 1979, the new owners abandoned  the
facility, leaving thousands  of drums  and waste
chemicals  unattended.   By January  1980,  an
estimated  14,000 drums were still stockpiled on
site. In June 1981, severe flooding caused water in
the area to drain  west into a  neighboring city;
contact with the flood water reportedly resulted in
skin burns.    In 1982, EPA initiated  a surface
removal action which included removing extensive
surface wastes, an underground tank, and the top
one  foot  of contaminated soil.   Because  these
activities  did   not  address  the  contaminated
subsurface soil, sediment, and ground water, EPA
has initiated this first remedial action to address
the above-referenced  contaminated  media.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment,  and  ground water are VOCs including
benzene,  toluene,  and  TCE,  other  organics
including  PCBs, phenols, and PAHs, and metals
including chromium and lead.

   The selected  remedial  action for  this  site
includes   soil   vapor  extraction  followed  by
treatment  of 12,400 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and subsurface materials using solidification/
stabilization and on-site disposal; excavation and
on-site solidification/stabilization of approximately
1,200 cubic yards of contaminated  sediment  in
surrounding  wetlands;  covering  the   site  in
accordance  with   RCRA  landfill   closure
requirements; ground-water  pumping  and  deep
well injection in  a  Class I well  if EPA grants a
petition to allow land disposal of waste prohibited
under RCRA; if a petition is not approved, ground
water will be treated  using  air stripping and a
liquid-phase  granular   activated  carbon  polish
system to meet EPA requirements (LDR treatment
standards), followed by deep well  injection  or
reinjection   into   the  aquifer;  ground-water
monitoring;  and  implementation  of deed and
access restrictions.  The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $13,989,000, which
includes annual O&M costs of $525,000, if ground
water is treated;  or $10,728,000, which includes
annual O&M costs of $188,000, if ground water is
not treated.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Clean-up action levels were provided for soil
and  ground water.   Soil and sediment will  be
treated  if they  exceed any of  the  following
risk-based levels: cumulative lifetime  carcinogenic
risk   equal   to   10"6;   cumulative   chronic
noncarcinogenic index equal to 1.0; or subchronic
risk index equal to  1.0.  Ground water will  be
pumped and treated  if it  exceeds  any of the
following  risk-based levels:   cumulative  lifetime
cancer   risk  equal   to   10~5;   Cumulative
Noncarcinogenic Index equal to 1,0; Subchronic
Risk equal to  1.0;  primary  MCLs; or  chronic
AWQC (for aquatic  wildlife) multiplied  by  a
dilution factor  of 3.9.   If only  one constituent
poses a cancer risk equal to or greater than 10"5,
the MCL, if promulgated, will be the  clean-up
action  level.   Chemical-specific goals  were not
provided for soil, sediment, or ground water.
                                               241

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989
Institutional Controls

   Institutional controls will include site access
and deed restrictions.
                                            242

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFVND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRante  865
                                         MIDCOn, IN
                                    First Remedial Action - Final
                                           June 30, 1989
    The MIDCO II site  is a 7-acre storage and
disposal facility in Gary, Indiana. The surrounding
area is predominantly used for industrial purposes,
and includes 34 other potential hazardous waste
sites. The underlying aquifer is highly susceptible
to contamination from surface sources because of
the high water table; however, in the vicinity of the
site, the aquifer is used primarily for non-drinking
water purposes.  The same operator as at another
Superfund site, MIDCO I, began waste operations,
including drum storage at MIDCO II during the
summer of 1976.  Following a major fire at the
MIDCO   I  site  in  January  1977,  MIDCO
transferred the operations from the MIDCO I site
to  the  MIDCO  II site.   Operations  included
temporarily storing bulk  liquid and drum wastes;
neutralizing acids and caustics; and disposing of
wastes by dumping wastes into on-site pits, which
allowed wastes to percolate into the ground water.
One of these  pits, the filter pit, had an overflow
pipe leading into a ditch, which drained into the
nearby Grand Calument  River.  By April  1977,
approximately 12,000 to 15,000 55-gallon drums of
waste materials were stored on site. Additionally,
an  estimated ten badly deteriorated and leaking
tanks were holding wastes  including  oils, oil
sludges, chlorinated solvents, paint  solvents, paint
sludges, acids, and spent cyanides. In August 1977,
a fire at the site destroyed 50,000 to 60,000 drums.
Although  most  drums  were  badly damaged a
substantial number of drums, including 75 to 100
drums containing cyanide, survived  the fire.  EPA
conducted a preliminary investigation resulting in
the installation of a 10-foot high fence around the
site. In 1984 and 1985, EPA conducted emergency
removal activities including repairing and extending
the site fence; removing  most of  the remaining
drums, tanks,  and debris  from the site's surface;
and removing the sludge  pits and  filter  pit
contents.  The resulting  PCB-contaminated soil
pile was removed and disposed of in an off-site
hazardous waste landfill in early 1986, and most of
the cyanide-contaminated pile  was  also removed.
Removal activities ended in January 1986.   The
primary  contaminants   of   concern  currently
affecting the soil, sediment, and ground water are
VOCs  including benzene,  toluene,  TCE,  and
xylenes, other organics including PCBs, and metals
including arsenic, chromium, and lead.

     The selected remedial action  for  this site
includes excavation and treatment of 35,000 cubic
yards of contaminated soil  and waste materials
using solidification/stabilization followed by on-site
disposal; excavation and on-site solidification/
stabilization of 500 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment; covering  the site in accordance with
RCRA landfill closure requirements; ground-water
pumping and deep well injection in a Class I well
if EPA grants a petition to allow land disposal of
waste prohibited under RCRA; if a petition is not
approved, ground water will be treated using air
stripping and  a liquid phase granular activated
carbon polish system to meet EPA requirements
(LDR treatment standards), followed by deep well
injection or reinjection into the aquifer; ground-
water monitoring; and implementing deed and
access restrictions.  The  ground-water treatment
and   underground  injection  portions   of  the
remedial action  may  be combined  with the
remedial action for MIDCO I.   The estimated
present worth  cost for  the  remedial action  is
$18,596,400, which includes annual O&M cost of
$733,000,  if  ground   water  is  treated;  or
$14,419,000, which includes annual O&M costs of
$301,000, if ground water is not treated.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Clean-up action levels were provided for soil,
sediment, and ground water.  Soil and sediment
will be treated if they exceed any of the following
risk-based levels: cumulative lifetime carcinogenic
risk   equal   to   10"5;   cumulative   chronic
noncarcinogenic index equal to 1.0; or subchronic
risk  index equal to 1.0.   Ground water will be
pumped  and treated  if  it exceeds  any of the
following risk-based levels:  cumulative lifetime
carcinogenic  risk  equal  to  10"5;  cumulative
noncarcinogenic index equal to 1.0; subchronic risk
                                               243

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                 Fiscal Year 1989
equal to 1.0; primary MCLs; or chronic AWQC for        Institutional Controls
protection of aquatic life multiplied by a factor of
3.6.  If only one constituent poses a cancer risk            Institutional controls will include site access
equal  to  or greater  than  10"5,  the MCL,  if        and deed restrictions.
promulgated, will be  the  clean-up action  level.
Chemical-specific goals were not provided for soil,
sediment, or ground water.
                                               244

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 40
                          NEW BRIGHTON/ARDEN HILLS, MN
                              Fourth Remedial Action (Amendment)
                                        August 11,1989
    The New Brighton/Arden Hills site is an area
of organic solvent contamination in ground water
northwest of Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The site
includes the cities of New Brighton, Arden Hills,
and St. Anthony as well as the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition plant.  This ROD amends a June
1986 ROD calling for the installation of a new well
to provide part of the drinking water supply to
New Brighton.  Because of major changes in site
conditions, EPA has concluded that a new well is
no  longer necessary to protect human health in
New Brighton.  Originally it was anticipated that
low contamination levels in Well #7 (one of nine
municipal wells) could not be assured and that a
replacement well in a deeper aquifer was needed to
provide an alternate supply of water.  However,
further data from Well #7 indicate contamination
is not increasing. Moreover, a large water supply
will be provided by  the  U.S. Army  to  New
Brighton as part of a litigation settlement,  and a
system has been installed by the U.S. Army to
prevent further contamination from the suspected
sources.
Therefore, EPA believes it is no longer necessary
or cost effective to complete the project. There
are no  contaminants  of  concern  affecting  the
ground water associated with Well #7.

    The selected  remedial action for this ROD
amendment is no further action for the Well #7
operable unit and ceasing the installation of a
ground-water supply well remedy selected in a June
1986 ROD.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Because the objectives of the  operable unit
affected was to provide an alternate water supply,
rather than cleanup of the site, clean-up standards
are not applicable  for the amendment.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                             245

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 40
                          NEW BR1GHTON/ARDEN HILLS, MN
                                    Seventh Remedial Action
                                         August 11, 1989
    The New Brighton/Arden Hills site, also known
as  the  Twin  Cities Army  Ammunition Plant
(TCAAP) site, is in New Brighton, Minnesota.
Land use bordering the four square-mile site is
largely residential.  Past disposal of ammunition
manufacturing  wastes  on   site  resulted   in
contamination  of  ground  water beneath  and
downgradient  of the site.  A total of 14 waste
disposal   locations  have  been  identified  and
assigned  as Sites A through K.  During remedial
investigations at Site D, soil was discovered to be
contaminated  with PCBs and other organic and
metal contaminants. A soil gas extraction system
was implemented to remove the source of volatile
organic contamination and reduce the potential of
migration to ground water.  In implementing the
soil gas extraction system, PCB-contaminated soil
was removed,  stockpiled near Site D, and sealed
with a plastic liner material.  This interim remedy
addresses  the  treatment   and   disposal   of
contaminated  soil that is stockpiled near Site D.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil are  VOCs including TCE  and PCE, other
organics  including PCBs, and  metals including
arsenic and lead.
     The selected remedial action for  the site
includes on-site treatment of approximately 1,400
cubic yards of stockpiled soil using mobile infrared
thermal treatment technology; analysis of treated
soil  to ensure the PCB treatment goal is met,
followed by placement of treated soil in an area
near  Site  D;  discharge  of treated  scrubber
wastewater to the TCAAP sanitary sewer system
and ultimately to a POTW; decontamination and
removal of  equipment  used in the treatment
process; and air monitoring during soil treatment.
The  estimated total cost for the selected remedy is
$1,200,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The treatment goal for soil is  PCBs 2 mg/kg
and  is consistent with Toxic Substances Control
Act treatment levels.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               246

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 438
                                 NINTH AVENUE DUMP, IN
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                           June 30,1989
    The Ninth Avenue Dump is a 17-acre, inactive
chemical and industrial waste disposal site in Gary,
Indiana.   There  is industrial,  commerical,  and
residential development in the surrounding area.
There are  approximately  60  industrial  and
residential water supply wells within 1 mile of the
site.  Interconnecting ponds and wetlands areas
border the waste disposal areas to the north, west,
and south. The wetlands areas to the east and to
the south of the site are relatively undisturbed.
Hazardous waste disposal occurred at the site from
the early to mid-1970s, with some filling associated
with  clean-up  activities  continuing until 1980.
Industrial, construction, demolition, and chemical
wastes were  accepted  at  the  site.    Specific
industrial wastes which were accepted at the site
include oil, paint, solvents and sludges, resins, and
flammable,  caustic,  and  arsenic-contaminated
materials. A state inspection in 1975 revealed that
there were approximately 10,000 55-gallon drums
at the site. Additionally, the state  estimated that
500,000  gallons of liquid industrial waste were
dumped, and 1,000 drums were buried on site and
in contact with ground water. As a result of 1975
state  orders  and  1980  EPA orders to initiate
surface cleanup, the site operator removed drums,
tank cars, and  some contaminated soil from the
site's surface. The first ROD, signed in September
1988, addressed remediation of an oil layer floating
on the  ground-water surface and will include
construction   of   a slurry  wall   around  the
contaminated portion of the site and  excavation
and on-site storage of contaminated soil.   This
second and final remedial action  addresses the
remaining  threats  to  the  site which include
contaminated soil, sediment, fill material, ground
water (generally on site), and oil collected during
the first operable unit. The primary contaminants
of  concern affecting  the  soil,  sediment,  fill
material, and ground water  are  VOCs  including
benzene,  TCE,  and toluene,  other   organics
including PAHs and PCBs, and metals including
lead.

    The  selected  remedial action  for   this  site
includes  excavating approximately 36,000 cubic
yards of the most severely oil-contaminated waste
and fill materials from the area inside the slurry
wall, on-site thermal treatment of excavated waste,
fill, and previously extracted oil, followed by filling
the excavated area with incinerator and ground-
water treatment process residues, discarded drums,
contaminated sediment removed from on- and off-
site ponds, and  trench spoils; covering the area
contained by the slurry well with a  RCRA cap;
pumping and treatment of ground water inside the
slurry wall with reinjection of most of the ground
water  within the slurry  wall to  promote soil
flushing;  pumping and treatment of contaminated
ground  water   outside  the slurry  wall  with
reinjection  or   discharge  to   surface  water;
dismantling, decontaminating, and removing the oil
storage unit constructed under the first operable
unit;   continued   long-term   ground-water
monitoring;  air  monitoring during  remedial
activities; and implementing institutional controls
to protect the site and restrict ground-water use.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action  is  $22,209,000 which  includes an  annual
O&M cost of $489,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil excavation is not designed to clean the
area to  meet health-based  clean-up levels but
rather to remove the most highly contaminated fill
material and to ensure the long-term effectiveness
of the containment and ground-water components
of the  remedy.    Chemical-specific  treatment
standards for soil were not provided. Target clean-
up levels for ground water are based on MCLs or
a 10"5  cumulative carcinogenic risk, whichever is
more  stringent,  for  carcinogens;  and   MCLs,
MCLGs,  or an hazard index of 1,  whichever is
more stringent, for noncarcinogens.

Institutional Controls

    Deed   and  access   restrictions   will  be
implemented to  prohibit  use of ground  water
under the site and to protect the cap.
                                               247

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc 64
                              NORTHERNAIRE PIATING, MI
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Northernaire Plating facility is a former
electroplating facility in the Cadillac  industrial
park  in  the  city of Cadillac, Wexford County,
Michigan. Approximately 40 industries operate in
the 1-square mile industrial park including Kysor
Industrial,  another  Superfund site.  The Kysor
Industrial site will be addressed by this action as
well.    There are  several  private  residences
including a trailer park within the industrial park,
and another residential neighborhood lies adjacent
to the northern boundary of the park. The city of
Cadillac water supply well field is located near the
center of the park, and ground water beneath the
site generally flows towards the city wells.  The
Clam River flows through the southeast portion of
the  site draining  runoff from  the site.   The
Northernaire  Plating  facility provided  custom
chromium   and  nickel   plating  finishes  to
automobile and other metal parts.  Improper waste
handling and faulty sewer systems are believed to
be responsible  for  releasing toxic compounds
(including  hexavalent chromium,  chromium, and
cyanide) to  the soil  which have subsequently
leached from the soil to the ground water. A 1985
ROD addressed  the  soil contamination  and
included  excavation and  off-site disposal of
contaminated soil and sewer sediment.   Ground-
water contamination  has  since  been  detected
throughout the shallow and intermediate aquifers
underlying the park. At present the deep aquifer
(in which the Cadillac city well field is located) is
not affected by  this contamination. The  primary
contaminants of  concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including toluene, TCE, PCE, and
xylene, and metals including chromium.

     The selected remedial action for this site
includes a  two-stage ground-water pumping and
treatment system using carbon adsorption for the
removal of chromium and air stripping with vapor-
phase carbon adsorption for the removal of VOCs
and  discharge  to  the Clam River; ground-water
monitoring; and institutional controls including
site  access and  ground-water  and  land  use
restrictions. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $16,000,000, which includes
present worth  O&M costs of $5,000,000 over 60
years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground water will meet or exceed state and
SDWA MCL standards. Target cleanup levels for
ground water include xylene 440 ug/1,  toluene 40
ug/1, PCE  1 ug/1, TCE 5 ug/1, and  chromium
(hexavalent) 50 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional  controls  will be   established
including site  access and ground-water and land
use restrictions.
                                                248

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  136
                       OTT/STORY/CORDOVA CHEMICAL CO., MI
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Ott/Story/Cordova  Co.  site is in Dalton
Township,   Muskegon  County,  Michigan.
Beginning  in  1957,  various  specialty  organic
chemical  manufacturers  operated  at  the site,
producing  intermediate items  used in  making
Pharmaceuticals,   dyestuffs,   and   agricultural
chemicals.   Soil  and water  contamination  was
noted  as early as the 1960s, probably resulting
from  discharge of  production  vessel clean  out
wastes and wastewaters to on-site unlined lagoons,
and drums of waste that were accumulated on site.
In  1977, several thousand cubic yards of lagoon
sludge and several thousand drums were removed'
by the state, and in 1982 an alternate water supply
was provided to residents in the vicinity of the site.
Subsequent   investigations  detected  significant
degradation of Little Bear Creek and its unnamed
tributary, which flow past the site to the east, as a
result of contaminated ground water.  Due to the
complexity  of the site, the  cleanup  will  be
organized into two  distinct  operable  units.  This
first operable unit addresses  the interception of
contaminated ground water  entering the Little
Bear Creek system.  The second operable unit will
address contaminated  soil, possible ground-water
remediation, source control,  and air and water
monitoring.  The primary chemicals of concern
affecting the ground water and surface water are
VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, vinyl
chloride, and xylene, other organics including PCBs
and pesticides, and metals including arsenic.

     The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water
that  would otherwise enter the Little Bear Creek
system using UV-oxidation, carbon  adsorption,
biological treatment  (activated sludge), filtration
with discharge to surface water, and environmental
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $11,751,000, which includes
estimated annual O&M  costs  of  $1,500,000 to
$1,600,000  for years one to five.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Effluent quality and stream discharge  will
meet state  NPDES levels that are dependent on
the final discharge point.  ARARs pertaining to
ground-water restoration  will be addressed in  a
subsequent overall ground-water operable  unit.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               249

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc 87
                             OUTBOARD MARINE CORP., 1L
                               First Remedial Action (Amendment)
                                         March 31,1989
    The Outboard Marine Corp. site is on the west
shore of Lake Michigan in Waukegan, Illinois. A
marine products manufacturing plant operated at
the site for approximately 20 years until production
ended in the early  1970s.   From 1961 to 1972
hydraulic fluid containing PCBs was used at the
plant in the die cast works.  This fluid was later
discharged to Slip 3 of the harbor, a parking lot
north of the plant, and three areas known as the
North Ditch, Oval Lagoon, and Crescent Ditch.
There is an estimated 700,000 pounds of PCBs on
site  and   approximately  300,000  pounds  in
Waukegan   Harbor.    In  1984,  EPA  began
engineering design work for the selected remedial
actions  presented in a 1984 ROD to clean up
contaminated soil and sediment at the site. During
1985, however, all actions were suspended due to
litigation between Outboard Marine Corporation
(OMC) and EPA regarding EPA access to OMCs
property.    Section  122 of SARA  specifically
addressed access problems  and upon its effective
date, negotiations  with  OMC  resumed  for
implementation of the remedy. After negotiations
between EPA and OMC were completed, a consent
decree was signed in 1986 by OMC.  Under  the
consent decree most portions of the remedial
action  described  in  the   1984 ROD  remain
unchanged.  An on-site treatment step was added,
however,  to meet  the SARA  preference  for
treatment requirement. The primary contaminants
of  concern  affecting the soil and sediment  are
organics including PCBs.

    The selected  remedial  action  for this site
includes construction  of a cutoff wall and slurry
wall to isolate Slip 3 and form a containment cell;
construction of a new  slip to replace  Slip 3, and
relocation  of  Larsen  Marine;   removal  and
treatment using a chemical extraction process or
thermal treatment of sediment in Slip 3 exceeding
500 mg/kg PCBs and soil and sediment exceeding
10,000 mg/kg PCBs from the Crescent Ditch/Oval
Lagoon Area; dredging of upper harbor sediment
above 50 mg/kg and placement of contaminated
sediment in the new Slip  3 containment  cell;
construction  of a west  containment  cell for
treatment  residues  and  lower  concentration
PCB-contaminated soil; construction  of an east
containment cell  around the parking lot area;
construction  of  a  temporary,  on-site  water
treatment facility for dredged water; construction
of a permanent water treatment  facility; on-site
treatment of containment cell water followed by
discharge to either a POTW or an on-site location;
capping of all containment cells; and ground-water
monitoring.  The estimated capital cost for this
remedial action is $19,000,000;  O&M costs were
not provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     A PCB  clean-up level of  50  mg/kg was
established  based on site-specific data.  Hot spots
for soil and sediment have been defined as greater
than 500 mg/kg PCBs in the Crescent Ditch/Oval
Lagoon and 10,000 mg/kg PCBs in Slip 3.  These
correspond to "muck" layers below which  PCBs
have  not significantly penetrated.   The on-site
treatment system is an extraction process that must
result in a 97  percent PCB removal level.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              250

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank:  781
                                 WATTE PARK WELLS, MN
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 28, 1989
    The 45-acre Waite Park Wells site is in Waite
Park, Stearns County, Minnesota, 1,500 feet east of
the Sauk River.  Waite Park municipal wells #1
and #3 served the city until December 1984 when
routine sampling detected organic contamination
in the ground water.  The contaminated plume
extends east-southeast from the Electric Machinery
Manufacturing Company to the wells which are
situated in the northeast corner of the Burlington
Northern Superfund  site.  In January 1985, the
state  issued a  health advisory to  residents to
discontinue using municipal water for drinking and
cooking.   A water  hook  up with  St. Cloud,
Minnesota was  completed in February 1985 to
provide the  3,500 Waite Park  residents with an
alternate water supply. In February  1988, the five
responsible parties at the site funded a municipal
water treatment system and wells #1 and #3 were
returned to service.   Remedial investigations did
not identify  any significant soil contamination at
the site in the vicinity of the Electric Machinery
Company; however,  ground-water contamination
was identified in  the shallow aquifer, and  to a
lesser extent, in the deep aquifer.   This ROD
represents the final response action for the Electric
Machinery portion of the Waite Park Wells site.
The primary contaminants of concern in  the
ground water are VOCs including PCE and TCE.
     The selected  remedial  action for the site
includes  ground-water  pumping  and  on-site
treatment of the contamination plumes of both the
shallow and deep  aquifers using packed towers
aeration  (air  stripping);  discharge  of  treated
ground water  from the packed  tower aeration
system to the Sauk River under an NPDES permit;
and  surface-water  monitoring  and   long-term
ground-water monitoring. The estimated present
worth cost  for this remedial action is $913,000.
O&M costs were not provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground-water risk reduction will be achieved
by continuing to pump and treat until the  more
restrictive of Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs or
the  state's  Recommended  Allowable  Limits
(RALs) for each VOC in the shallow and deep
aquifers are met. Chemical-specific cleanup  levels
include PCE 6.6 ug/1 (RAL) and TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL). Surface-water discharge to the Sauk  River
will comply with Clean Water Act Ambient Water
Quality Criteria. Chemical-specific discharge goals
include PCE 8.9 ug/1 and  TCE  123 ug/1.  In
addition, discharges to Sauk River will comply with
NPDES permit standards.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              251

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRante 132
                             WAUCONDA SAND & GRAVEL, IL
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                          March 31, 1989
    The 74-acre Wauconda Sand &  Gravel site
includes 52 acres of permitted and unpermitted
landfill  areas  and is located in Lake  County,
Illinois, north of the village of Wauconda.  The
area neighboring the site includes agricultural land,
residential properties including 12 homes within
one mile of the landfill, and two new residential
developments. Most residences use well water but
the  wells  lie  outside  the  ground-water  flow
boundaries  of  the   moderately  contaminated
shallow aquifer, which lies directly beneath the site.
A  deeper  aquifer,  which  is connected  to the
shallow aquifer and is the predominant source of
drinking water for area residents, does not appear
to be contaminated.  From  1941 to mid 1978, the
site  owner  accepted  primarily  nonhazardous
municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial
wastes;  there are, however, an estimated 30,000
cubic yards of hazardous wastes on  site.  The
landfill  was  closed  in  July  1978 and  was
subsequently covered by a layer of clay and soil.
Since the late 1970s, leachate has been discharging
to  a  nearby creek,  and surface-water sampling
taken  from  this   creek   has  revealed   low
concentrations of VOCs, PCBs, and metals. In a
1985  ROD, EPA determined that a  leachate
collection system was needed to prevent further
ground-water  contamination.   This  ROD, the
second   and   final   operable  unit,   further
characterizes ground-water quality via long-term
monitoring to ensure that  existing measures are
protective of human  health and the environment.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water, surface  water, and air are VOCs
including  vinyl chloride and  benzene, metals
including arsenic and lead, and methane.

    The  selected remedial  action for this site
includes long-term monitoring of ground water,
surface  water, and  air  emissions  with  possible
evaluation of additional remedial alternatives and
a ROD  amendment if action levels are exceeded;
further  upgrade of  the site cap  and  possible
relocation of  a nearby creek; installation  and
operation of an improved venting system with
possible  air  emissions  treatment;  continued
operation and/or maintenance of the  leachate
collection and venting systems, site cap, fence, and
monitoring well network; and implementation of
institutional controls to restrict ground-water use.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $12,155,606, which includes annual O&M
costs of $174,500.

Performance Standards or Goals

    SDWA MCLs  and State Public and Food
Processing Standards are considered ARARs for
off-site  ground-water quality.  If off-site ground
water exceeds  an MCL  or  a  10"5  cumulative
cancer-risk level for lifetime drinking water usage
(excluding arsenic and  vinyl chloride)  and the
representative    background    concentrations,
additional  investigations   will  be   performed,
possibly  resulting in a  ROD amendment.   The
leachate collection system will continue to operate
until  action levels are established and attained.
Air emissions will be controlled and treated if the
incremental risk to nearby residents is greater than
10"6 lifetime exposure.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will be implemented to
restrict  the use of ground water from the shallow
aquifer.
                                               252

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                NPLRanfc  905
                  WAUSAU GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, WI
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       December 23,1988
    The Wausau Ground Water Contamination
site, also known as the Wausau Water Supply site,
encompasses an area in the northern section of the
City of Wausau, Marathon  County,  Wisconsin.
The site contains five of six production wells in the
City Well Field and is located on both sides of the
Wisconsin River.  Production wells CW6, CW7,
and  CW9  are located  in a predominantly
residential area on the west side of the river and
are collectively referred to as the West Well Field.
The remaining  two wells, CW3 and  CW4, are
located in a predominantly industrial section of the
city on the east side of the river and are referred
to as the East Well Field.  The wells supply nearly
all  the  potable water for approximately 33,000
people, as well as irrigation and industrial water to
surrounding  areas.   In 1982, the city  discovered
that  wells   CW3,   CW4,  and  CW6   were
contaminated with VOCs. Since that time, several
systems  have been implemented to reduce VOC
levels   in   the  water   supply.      Initially,
uncontaminated water from CW9 and CW7 was
blended with water from CW3, CW4, and CW6 to
dilute  the  VOC   concentrations.   However,
increasing   VOC   concentrations  resulted  in
regulatory limits being exceeded.  In 1983,  EPA
granted  funds to help design and install a packed
tower VOC stripper, and in June 1984 installed a
granular activated carbon (GAC)  treatment system
on CW6 in response to  a continued increase in
VOC concentration.  CW6 previously had  been
pumped and  discharged directly into Bos Creek to
block the contaminated plume from reaching CW7
and CW9 to the north, but this resulted in surface-
water and sediment contamination in Bos Creek.
Water  from CW6,  CW3, and  CW4 has  been
pumped to the city water treatment plant following
the installation of VOC stripper towers at the
plant during  the  summer and fall  of 1984.
However,  there  is a significant risk of plume
migration   because  CW6  remains  the  sole
interceptor well  blocking contamination of the
remaining West Well Field.  Currently, the city
continues to blend  treated water with water from
uncontaminated supply wells to ensure low VOC
levels in its water supply.   The scope of this
expedited   operable  unit  is  limited  to  the
contaminant plume affecting CW6  in the West
Well Field. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the West Well Field at the site are VOCs
including TCE.

     The selected remedial action  for  this  site
includes ground-water  pumping and treatment
using air stripping with discharge to the Wisconsin
River, ground-water monitoring, and provision for
implementation of an additional extraction well as
necessary.   The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is  $750,000 with estimated
annual O&M costs of $105,000 for year one and
$81,000 for subsequent years.

Performance Standards  or Goals

     Remedy   addresses   plume   management
through pumping and treatment of ground water.
Effluent levels to be determined by the state will
satisfy the Best Available Technology requirements
of the CWA.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                             253

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                NPLRank:  905
                  WAUSAU GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, WI
                                 Second Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29, 1989
    The Wausau Ground Water Contamination
site, also known as the Wausau Water Supply site,
is in Wausau, Marathon County, Wisconsin. The
site includes six city ground-water production wells
along the east and west sides of the Wisconsin
River.  These wells supply drinking water to 33,000
people  and are  used for industry  in  the  area.
Three  primary  source  areas  of ground-water
contamination have been identified:  a municipal
landfill, the Wausau Chemical Company, and the
Wausau Energy Company.  The  landfill, which is
on the west side of the site, operated from 1948 to
1955   and  accepted  almost  all   commercial,
industrial, and residential waste generated within
Wausau.    The  landfill  appears   to  be the
predominant source of TCE contamination in the
underlying aquifer. On the  east side of the river
the  Wausau  Chemical  and  Wausau  Energy
companies are  suspected  sources  of soil and
ground-water contamination due to spills from past
operations.   Wausau Chemical,  a  bulk  solvent
distributer,  was responsible  for spilling  1,000
gallons of PCE-contaminated waste in 1983 alone.
Wausau Energy, a petroleum bulk  storage and
disposal center, has reportedly contaminated soil
and ground water with petroleum by-products.  To
provide sufficient water of acceptable quality, EPA
temporarily installed a granular activated carbon
treatment system on one well in 1984 and  VOC
stripping towers at the municipal water treatment
plant to treat water from two contaminated  wells.
The city  has  been  blending treated water with
uncontaminated water to reduce VOC levels. As
an interim remedy, EPA signed a  1989 ROD
implementing   ground-water  contamination
controls, which included pumping and treatment at
one  of the landfill  source  areas  followed by
discharge into the Wisconsin River, to prevent the
contaminant plume from migrating to the source
of the river. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting  the  soil and ground water  are VOCs
including PCE and TCE.

     The selected remedial  action for this site
includes treating contaminated soil using an in situ
soil vapor extraction  (SVE) system and treating
gases emitted from the SVE system  using vapor
phase carbon filters, and continued pumping and
treatment of  ground water   using existing air
strippers with  modified pumpage  rates.   The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $738,000, which includes present worth
O&M costs of $482,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Performance goals for this remedial action are
based on the state ground water standards which
include PCE 1.0 ug/1 and TCE 1.8 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

      Not applicable.
                                              254

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank:  812
                                        ENTERPRISES, INO, IN
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                          June 30,1989
    The 0.75-acre Wedzeb Enterprises, Inc. site is
located in Lebanon, Indiana, in a mixed residential
and light industry  neighborhood.   About 300
houses are located within  500 feet of the site
perimeter.   Originally, two warehouses, one of
which was used as  a storage facility for electrical
capacitors   and   transformers   containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were located on
site. In May 1981, the warehouse used for storage
was completely destroyed by fire, raising concerns
about the release of PCBs into the environment
and the potential formation of new compounds
such as  dioxins and furans.   The warehouse
contained an  estimated 77 tons  of  electrical
capacitors at the time, some of which exploded
during the fire. In October 1987, EPA completed
a removal  action  removing on-site debris and
contaminated soil and replacing it with clean fill.
The remediation of the sanitary sewer sediment in
this action serves as a cautionary measure because
contaminants may have been washed into the sewer
lines  during the  fire,  providing a  source  of
long-term contaminant release to the Lebanon
publicly owned treatment works (POTW).  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the
sewer sediment are organics including PCBs.
    The selected remedial action for this site
includes cleaning the sewer lines with hydraulic jets
and vacuum pumping to remove contaminants,
followed by filtering the resulting  water and
sediment to remove  PCB-contaminated sediment,
and discharging the  water to the POTW; offsite
incineration  and disposal of the estimated two
drums  of sediment  and  20  drums of remedial
investigation generated waste if PCB levels are 50
mg/kg or greater, or off-site disposal only if PCB
levels  are below 50 mg/kg; and a  television
inspection of the pipeline to ensure structural
integrity.  The estimated present worth  cost for
this remedial action is $45,000; there are no O&M
costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

    In  accordance  with health-based  guidance
clean-up levels set forth in the TSCA Spill Policy,
the PCB concentration in the sewer sediment will
not exceed a 10 mg/kg level.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              255

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                NPLRank:  606
                          WHITEHALL MUNICIPAL WELLS, MI
                                  First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29, 1989
    The Whitehall  Municipal  Wells site  is in
Whitehall, Michigan, and includes production well
three (PW3) which is the focus of this Record of
Decision.  PCE has been detected in the soil and
ground water. The suspected source of the PCE is
a nearby dry-cleaning operation which leaked PCE
until the problem was corrected in 1981. In 1980,
the  state  identified  PW3  as  the  source  of
contamination in the municipal drinking  water
supply and recommended that the city use PW3
only on an emergency basis. The state continued
to monitor the well, and until October 1988  the
city used the well only on an as-needed basis at
reduced pumping rates.  Results from the remedial
investigation conducted in J988-89 revealed only
low levels of contamination in the  wells;  no
contaminant  exceeded  MCLs or  MCLGs.  In
September 1989, the city permanently abandoned
PW3 because  of  the well's  poor  production
capacity, and because new wells   and  storage
facilities built since 1980 have reduced the need for
PW3.
    The selected remedial action for this site is no
further action because the findings of the remedial
investigation indicated that contaminant levels in
the site's wells do not exceed any state or federal
drinking water standards or criteria and there is no
longer a  continuing source of contamination.
There  are no  present worth  or O&M costs
associated with this remedial action.

Performance Standards  or Goals

    There  are  no   applicable  performance
standards  for  this  remedial action because  a
remedy of no further action was selected.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              256

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc 496
                                    WINDOM DUMP, MN
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 11-acre Windom Dump site is a former
municipal landfill in Windom, Cottonwood County,
Minnesota.  Land use in the vicinity of the site
includes   residential  areas  and   commercial,
industrial, and agricultural operations.  City water
supply wells northwest of the site lie downgradient
of the landfill. Landfilling operations began in the
1930s and continued until  1974.   During this
period, paint sludges from a large manufacturing
operation were disposed of along with municipal
refuse, resulting in low levels of toxic substances
contaminating an underlying aquifer that is used as
a water supply.   The  primary  contaminants  of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including  benzene,  PCE,  and TCE, metals
including arsenic, and other inorganics.

    The selected  remedial  action  for  this site
includes grading and capping the fill area with a
two foot clay cap overlain by one foot of granular
material,  topsoil, and new vegetation;  modifying
the existing municipal  water plant by installing
additional aeration nozzles and structure venting;
and ground-water monitoring. In the event  that
allowable contaminant limits are exceeded in the
monitoring wells, a contingency plan including a
ground-water pump and treatment system will be
implemented.  The estimated present worth cost
for this remedial action is $865,000, which includes
an annual O&M cost of $5,700 for 30 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    The municipal water treatment system will
remove VOCs and maintain a 10"5 lifetime excess
cancer risk and contaminant  concentrations less
than SDWA MCLs. Ground water will be pumped
and treated if the ground water exceeds any single
allowable contaminant limit. Specific intervention
limits are based on state solid waste management
rules  and include  TCE 7.8 ug/1, PCE 1.7  ug/1,
benzene 3.0 ug/1, and arsenic 12.5 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              257

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                          REGION 6
                        (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
                                                                                NPLRanfc  663
                             HOMESTAKE MINING CO., NM
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 27, 1989
    The  Homestake Mining Co.  (HMC)  site
consists of a uranium  processing mill  and  two
tailings embankments  in  Cibola  County, New
Mexico, about six miles  north  of  Milan.   The
tailings embankments contain a combined total of
22 million tons of tailings material covering 225
acres.  Four housing subdivisions are south and
southwest of the mill with the nearest residence
approximately   0.6  mile  from   the   tailings
embankments.  In 1983, elevated levels of selenium
were  found  in off-site  ground water prompting
EPA to require HMC, under a consent agreement,
to supply municipal water  to residents  in  the
subdivision south of the mill. Furthermore, HMC
implemented an aquifer protection and restoration
program   including   ground-water
injection/collection efforts at the site, which was
subsequently formalized, modified and approved
pursuant  to  requirements  of the  state.   The
restoration program continued to operate and has
been  largely successful in on-site containment of
tailings seepage.  This ROD addresses possible
radon releases from the uranium mill operations
into residential subdivisions.  From 1987 to 1989,
HMC, under an Administrative Order on Consent,
conducted an  investigation as to whether radon
associated with the uranium mill tailings operation
might be influencing outdoor and  indoor radon
levels in the subdivisions. Based on the results of
HMC's investigation, EPA has determined that the
uranium mill and tailings embankments at the site
are  not  contributing  significantly  to off-site
subdivision radon contamination and that it does
not have authority under  CERCLA to address
radon levels due to natural soil concentrations.  In
June 1986, the  Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) resumed jurisdiction over uranium mills in
the state and issued HMC a radioactive materials
license. NRC intends to close the site pursuant to
their  regulations  and  will  coordinate   their
requirements with EPA.

     The selected remedial action for this site is no
further action for  the Radon Operable  Unit.
However, EPA is recommending radon reduction
techniques to residents having elevated indoor
radon levels.

Performance Standards or  Goals

     Not applicable.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              258

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRanfc 27
                                      MOTCO, INC., TX
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 27, 1989
    The 11-acre Motco, Inc. site is in La Marque,
Galveston County, Texas. The site is on the Gulf
Coastal Plain at the edge of a coastal marsh system
and is within  the 100-year  tidal floodplain.
Significant site features include seven unlined pits
which  have a total surface area of 4.6  acres and
contain surface water, organic liquids, and various
sludges, tars, and other solids. The pits were used
by a styrene tar recycling business which operated
from 1959 to 1961, and by an industrial chemical
waste disposal facility from 1961 to 1968.  EPA
conducted  three  emergency  response  actions
between 1981 to 1983 to treat and discharge excess
pit surface water collected  in dikes  that were
constructed by the Coast Guard in 1980. In 1984,
an initial remedial measure (IRM) was conducted
by EPA and included removal and off-site disposal
of wastes from nine above ground storage tanks.
The first operable unit for the site was issued in
1985 and dealt  with  source  control  measures
including  excavation of the  on-site waste pits,
which   contained   12   million   gallons   of
contaminated water and organic liquids, down to
the  sludge/soil  interface  plus  one  foot,  and
incineration of those wastes. This ROD represents
the second and final operable unit, management of
migration, for the site and addresses the subsurface
beneath the waste pits and off-site contamination
of the  ground water, soil, and sediment. Ground
water at the site  is found in a transmissive zone
and the underlying Upper Chicot aquifer.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment,  and ground water are VOCs including
benzene, other  organics including PAHs,  and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.

    The selected  remedial action for  the  site
includes extraction and on-site treatment by best
available  technology  (BAT)  of  contaminated
shallow and deep  ground water;  extraction and
incineration of approximately one to two million
gallons  of  dense,  non-aqueous  phase  organic
liquids; installation of a ground-water gradient to
impede  further  contaminant  migration  from
shallow to deep ground water; implementation of
ground-water  compliance  monitoring   of the
shallow and deep ground-water  aquifers which
would trigger more aggressive removal operations
if indicator compounds exceed one-half MCL or a
10"6 risk  level; excavation, consolidation, and on-
site containment  and capping of approximately
140,000 cubic yards of contaminated surface soil
and sediment to a maximum depth of four feet;
and  implementation  of deed  restrictions  and
installation of additional fences around  the site.
The estimated total present worth  cost  for the
selected remedy is $8,810,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $453,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Treatment  of ground  water using   best
available  technology is expected to  meet federal
and  state   discharge  standards;   if  discharge
standards are not met, ground water will be sent to
a wastewater treatment plant. Clean-up goals for
the Upper Chicot Aquifer are SDWA MCLs or a
10"6 cancer risk level.   Treatment of  shallow,
transmissive zone ground water will  be to health-
based numbers (HBNs),  including  total allowable
for all PAHs 0.0028 ug/l.  Soil/sediment excavation
will be determined by a 10"6 risk level.

Institutional Controls

    Deed  restrictions will  be  implemented to
prohibit land development.
                                               259

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc 920
                                PESSES CHEMICAL CO., TX
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        December 22, 1988
    The 4.2-acre Pesses Chemical Company site is
located in Tarrant County, Ft. Worth, Texas. The
site is situated in a light industrial and commercial
area with approximately 19,500 people estimated to
reside or work within a one-mile radius.  The site
is divided into two sections. The northern section
is fenced and includes an occupied office building
and  brick warehouse as  well as  the  former
operations area composed of a  metal warehouse,
various equipment,  a  bag house, a storage yard,
and  two  underground  sumps.   The  southern
portion contains the abandoned south  field.  In
June 1979, the Pesses  Company began operations
to  reclaim  cadmium  and nickel  from dry-cell
batteries  and metal  sludges  without   required
construction  of operation permits.  During July
and  August  1979, excessive cadmium  emissions
were investigated by both the city and  state  air
pollution control offices.  After operations began
again, cadmium emissions were  measured as high
as 2,900 percent above permit limits. In January
1981, the parent company declared bankruptcy and
site operations were discontinued.  In March 1983,
a grass fire at the site resulted  in toxic cadmium
oxide  fumes  which  hospitalized  a firefighter.
Approximately 1,500 deteriorating drums remained
on site with heavy metal sludges, power, and empty
battery cases. Consequently, in April 1983, EPA
removed  3,400  cubic yards of soil,  drummed
material,  and debris from the site and installed a
clay cap  in  the south  storage yard to prevent
exposure to  contaminated soil.   Heavy metals
contamination of airborne dust  and surface-water
runoff are the  main potential threats at the site.
In addition to soil contamination,  two sumps in
the southern  portion  contain  1,914  gallons of
liquid contaminated with metals and  16.6 cubic
yards  of sludge contaminated with  cadmium and
nickel.  Furthermore,  limited  off-site sedmium
contamination  of soil exists.    The  primary
contaminants  of  concern  affecting   the   soil,
building,  equipment,  and  debris are  metals
including lead.

    The selected remedial  action for this  site
includes the following: consolidation of wastes and
contaminated off-site soil with incorporation  into
on-site  soil, followed by in situ stabilization and
installation of a concrete cap around  the fenced
portion of the site and a RCRA clay cap placed in
the  south  field;  decontamination  of  metal
warehouse  and  equipment  with resultant  solid
wastes combined with  the soil remediation  and
wastes  treated and  discharged  into  the  sewer
system;  off-site disposal of drums  and debris as
well as equipment which cannot  be  adequately
cleaned and water above discharge requirements;
and cleaning and sealing of sumps.  The estimated
capital cost for this remedial action is $1,100,000
with annual O&M of $7,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Target soil action levels are cadmium 15  mg/1
and nickel  100 mg/1 based on a  10"6 carcinogenic-
risk level.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               260

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 866
                          SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES, TX
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        December 29, 1988
    The 110-acre Sheridan Disposal Services site is
approximately nine miles northwest of the city of
Hempstead in Waller County, Texas.  The site is
located on the 100-year floodplain of the Brazos
River and is bordered by a lake to the south,
farmland, and a community of 20 residences to the
north.  The Evangeline aquifer, which runs under
the site, is used to meet the drinking water needs
of several communities nearby. Sheridan Disposal
Services operated as a commercial waste disposal
facility from about 1958  to 1984 using steam
distillation, open burning, incineration, and direct
disposal into a waste lagoon to dispose of various
organic and  inorganic chemical and solid wastes.
The site includes a 12 to 22-acre lagoon, a 17-acre
dike   surrounding   the  lagoon,  a  42-acre
evaporation/land  irrigation   system,   and   an
incinerator and nine waste storage and treatment
tanks located on the lagoon  dikes. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
sludge  are VOCs including benzene and toluene,
and other  organics including PCBs.

    The selected remedial action for the site
includes excavation of all material  with PCB
concentrations greater  than  25 mg/kg including
13,000  cubic yards of pond and dike soil, 31,000
cubic yards of pond sludge, and 300 cubic yards of
floating oil and emulsion in the pond and storage
tanks.     This  will  be  followed  by  on-site
biotreatment of contaminated soil, sludge, and oil
with stabilization and on-site disposal of residuals
in the  pond.   If  PCB  concentrations  in  the
residuals are less  than  50 mg/kg, they will be
placed under a RCRA-compliant cap.  Residuals
with PCB concentrations greater than 50 mg/kg
PCB will be placed in a RCRA-compliant landfill
in the pond area.   In addition, the remediation
requires capping the entire pond and dike area;
decontamination and off-site disposal of tanks,
drums, and debris; treatment  to  best  available
technology (BAT) of any contaminated wastewater
and  stormwater with  discharge  to the  river;
implementation of engineering controls to prevent
bank erosion on  the  river; and  ground-water
monitoring.  The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $27,956,000, which includes
total O&M costs of $863,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     An action level for PCBs was established at
25 mg/kg based on a health-risk analysis and the
TSCA Spill  Policy.   Waste residuals  will be
disposed of according to PCB levels.

Institutional Controls

     Restrictions were implemented at the site to
prevent ground-water use and to  preserve  the
integrity of the cap.
                                              261

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 866
                          SHERIDAN DISPOSAL SERVICES, TX
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 27, 1989
    The 110-acre Sheridan Disposal Services site is
nine  miles  northwest  of  Hempstead,  Waller
County, Texas. Agriculture and rangeland are the
predominant land uses in the area.  The site is
within the 100-year floodplain of the Brazos River.
Sheridan Disposal Services operated a commercial
waste disposal facility at the site from  1958 to
1984.  The  facility treated  a variety of organic,
inorganic, and solid waste by stream distillation,
open burning, and incineration.  Significant  site
features  include a lagoon which was  used as a
holding pond for overflow wastes and treatment
residues, a 17-acre dike surrounding the lagoon,
and a 42-acre  evaporation and land irrigation
system used for disposal of water accumulated on
the lagoon.  An incinerator and a group of nine
former  waste  storage and  treatment tanks  are
situated on  the lagoon dikes.  A source control
ROD was issued in December 1988 and addressed
risks associated with exposure to contaminated soil
and sludge  at  the  site.   This remedial action
represents the second of two operable units for the
site and  its goal  is  to prevent  exposure  to
contaminated   ground   water   and   maintain
protective  levels  in  the river.    The  primary
contaminants  of  concern affecting the  ground
water  are  VOCs including benzene,  PCE,  and
TCE, and metals including arsenic.
     The selected remedial action for this site is
natural  attenuation  and the  establishment  of
Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) as the site
ground-water protection standards; ground-water
monitoring to ensure  ACLs  are not exceeded;
sampling  and  analysis of  the  Brazos  River
immediately upgradient and downgradient of the
entry point  of  ground  water into the  river;
implementation of ground-water use restrictions to
ensure affected ground water is not consumed; and
the implementation of a corrective action plan if
ACLs are exceeded in the future.  The estimated
present  worth cost for the selected remedy is
$194,000, which is due entirely to O&M.

Performance Standards or Goals

     EPA has set ACLs for contaminants detected
in the ground water to meet drinking water criteria
in  the  Brazos  River.   Chemical-specific ACL
concentrations were selected for benzene 26 mg/1,
TCE 26 mg/1, PCE 41 mg/1, and arsenic 260 mg/1.

Institutional Controls

     Ground-water use at the site will be restricted
to ensure that contaminated ground water is not
consumed and that the integrity of the Brazos
River as a hydraulic barrier to  ground-water flow
is maintained.
                                               262

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRanfc 88
                                     SOUTH VALLEY, NM
                                   Fifth Remedial Action - Final
                                          March 30, 1989
    The South Valley/Edmunds  Street site  is a
portion of the South Valley Superfund site  - a
large area in the southern part of the city of
Albuquerque, New Mexico.  The South Valley site
surrounds a city municipal water well identified as
San Jose-6.  Within this larger area are a number
of industrial  properties owned and operated by
different groups and individuals. The site has been
divided into  operable  units to address soil and
ground-water contamination resulting from current
and historical industrial practices.  The operable
units  include Edmunds  Street  Ground  Water,
Former Air Force Plant  83/GE, San Jose-6, and
the final operable unit, Edmunds Street Source
Control.   Potential  sources of  ground-water
contamination within the Edmunds Street property
have been identified, but primary focus has been
given to a drainage pit area which receives most of
the drainage from the property.  Investigations in
all of the suspected potential contaminant source
areas, however, revealed little soil contamination.
Even if further migration  of contaminants to
ground water occurs, the ground-water treatment
system developed in the previous Edmunds Street
ground-water operable  unit  will be sufficient to
address   these   concerns.   There   are   no
contaminants of concern affecting the soil at this
site.

     The selected remedial response for this final
operable unit is  no further action.  Based  on
sampling data,  the soil has been determined to
contain  contaminant  levels   below  hazardous
contaminant concentration limits and poses no risk
to human health  or the environment.   The only
further  activities anticipated  at  the  site  are
sampling of soil  gases in the  drainage pit area
following the ground-water remedial action,  and
the  precautions   necessary   to   prevent   any
disturbance of drainage pit soil during the ground-
water remediation.   There are no remedial or
O&M costs associated with this operable unit.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Chemical-specific standards or goals are not
applicable for this no action remedy.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               263

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  537
                              UNITED CREOSOTING CO., TX
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29,1989
    The 100-acre United Creosoting Co. site is in
Conroe,  Montgomery County, Texas.  The  site
currently is occupied by a distributing company, a
construction   company,    and   a   residential
subdivision.  From  1946  to  1972,  the  United
Creosoting Company operated a wood preserving
facility at the site which used PCPs and creosote in
the wood preservation process. PCP and creosote
wastes were stored in two waste ponds  on the
property of the distributing  company.   During
1980, the county improved area  roads using soil
and waste  pond backfill from the site.  Because
residents  living near the  improved  roadways
experienced health problems,  the county sampled
and compared leachate  composition from  the
affected roadways and the site and determined that
the leachate from both the site and the roadways
were contaminated with PCPs. Roadway soil was
subsequently removed and disposed of using land
farm treatment.  In 1983, due to contaminated
stormwater runoff from the  former waste pond
areas, the property owner was directed under terms
of  an  EPA Administrative  Order to  regrade
contaminated  soil, divert  surface water drainage
away from the residential portion of the site, and
cap contaminated soil. This ROD specifies a final
remedy for the contaminated soil and complements
a 1986 ROD which determined that no action is
necessary to remediate shallow ground water.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
are organics including PAHs, PCPs, and dioxins.

    The selected remedial action  for this  site
includes  excavation  and  on-site   treatment of
94,000 cubic yards of soil containing contaminants
which exceed target action levels,  using critical
fluid  extraction  and recycling  or  discharging
wastewater generated during the treatment process;
incinerating and disposing of the liquid organic
concentrate residues off site; spreading treated soil
on  commercial portions  of the  site; backfilling
residential areas with clean fill; and air monitoring.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $22,000,000 which includes present worth
O&M costs of $19,750,000 for 30 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Contaminated  soil  will  be excavated and
treated  if soil exceeds established target action
levels. The target action levels vary depending on
whether the soil was excavated from the residential
or commercial portion of the site. Specific target
action levels  for carcinogens  in excavated soil
include PAHs  330 ug/kg  for the residential area
and PAHs 40,000 ug/kg for the commercial area of
the site. Target action levels for dioxins and furans
in excavated soil are based on  2,3,7,8-TCDD  1
ug/kg for the residential area and 2,3,7,8-TCDD 20
ug/kg for the  commercial area.  Specific target
action levels  for noncarcinogens include PAHs
2,000 mg/kg and PCP 150 mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               264

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                          REGION 7
                                (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
                                                                                 NPLRank:  100
                                ARKANSAS CITY DUMP, KS
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 19,  1989
    The 200-acre Arkansas City Dump  site,  in
Arkansas City,  Cowley County, Kansas,  abuts a
levee to the west and south which separates the
site from the Arkansas River.  Between 1916 and
1927, an  oil   refinery  was  operated  on  site
processing between 6,000 and 12,000 barrels of oil
per day. After an explosion destroyed the refinery
in 1927, the site was used as a municipal landfill.
The refinery treated  petroleum fractions with
sulfuric  acid to improve color and  to  remove
asphaltenes, parafins, and  resinous  substances,
generating acid  sludge waste in the process. The
sludge waste was disposed of on site in earthen pits
in the north waste area and remediation of this
area was addressed in a 1988 Record of Decision
(ROD), as operable unit one.  The second and
final operable unit addresses the remainder of the
site,  which contains  subsurface   petroleum
contaminants trapped in the soil below the water
table as a result of petroleum spills. Results from
remedial investigations revealed only low levels of
soil and ground-water contamination due to on-site
disposal of municipal wastes. These contaminants,
however,  are not  being  released in  significant
concentrations and do not pose a significant threat
to human health or the environment.

    The selected remedial action for this site is no
further action. Because EPA lacks jurisdiction or
authority under CERCLA/SARA to  undertake
remedial action for petroleum-related contaminant
releases, no further action will be taken under the
Superfund program. There are no costs associated
with this no action remedy.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Not applicable.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              265

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                       Group: 4
                                     CHEMPLEX CO., IA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 27,1989
    The Chemplex Co. site is in Clinton County
within five miles of Clinton, Iowa, and includes a
landfill, a wastewater  treatment  plant,  and  an
adjacent facility which manufacturers high and low
density polyethylene.   Several residences  with
private wells are located around  the site and a
tributary to Rock Creek lies to the west  and
southwest of the site.   Rock Creek  eventually
discharges to the Mississippi River just above the
Upper Mississippi River Wildlife Refuge.  The
direction of ground-water flow beneath  the site
appears to be toward the southwest, although a
mounding effect is causing ground water to flow
radially from the center of the landfill. From 1968
to 1978, the landfill area was used for disposal of
various plant wastes including black oily sludge,
scrap  polyethylene,  construction debris,   and
carbonate sludge.   The debutanized aromatic
concentrate  (DAC) area, which consists  of  a pit
and DAC product storage and loading areas, was
contaminated by DAC spillage. In 1987, waste was
reportedly removed from the pit and disposed of in
a RCRA-permitted landfill. Wastes and spills have
contaminated   the  soil   and   ground   water
underneath the landfill and DAC areas. This first
operable unit will address the plumes of ground-
water contamination.  A subsequent operable unit
remedy for this site will address the cleanup of soil
and other ground-water remediation that may be
required.  The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including
benzene,  toluene, xylenes, TCE,  and  PCE, and
other  organics   including  carcinogenic   and
noncarcinogenic PAHs.
    The selected remedial action  for this  first
operable unit includes pumping and pretreatment
of  ground  water  followed  by  treatment of
pretreated ground water  at the existing on-site
biological  activated  sludge wastewater treatment
plant with discharge to the Mississippi River via
Rock Creek, and implementation of ground-water
use restrictions. The estimated present worth cost
for this  remedial action is  $2,622,000, which
includes an annual O&M cost of $219,600 for 30
years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Ground-water  clean-up  goals  were  derived
from Health Advisory Levels (HALs), Negligible
Risk Levels (NRLs), CWA Water Quality Criteria
(WQC) and SDWA Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs). Specific goals include benzene  1.0 ug/1
(NRL), toluene  2,000 ug/1 (HAL), PCE 10 ug/1
(HAL), TCE 3.0 ug/1 (NRL), and xylene 10,000
ug/1 (MCL).

Institutional Controls

    Institutional controls will be used to restrict
use of ground water  until remedial actions achieve
cleanup of  the  contaminated  ground water to
required levels. In addition, deed restrictions will
be implemented  to prevent the sale of the landfill
or a change in land  use without state approval.
                                               266

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                    NPLRank:  55
                                  CHEROKEE COUNTY, KS
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 18,1989
    The Cherokee County site is a lead and zinc
mining area in the southeastern corner of Kansas.
The 25  square-mile Galena subsite is one of six
subsites within the  Cherokee County site and
consists of large  areas covered by mine wastes,
water-filled subsidence craters, and  open  mine
shafts.  Many of the  shafts are direct conduits to
the shallow ground-water aquifer which is the sole
source of drinking water for approximately  1,050
persons residing outside of the Galena city limits.
The approximately 3,500 Galena residents receive
their water supply from two  deep aquifer wells.
EPA began investigations of the Galena subsite in
1985 and determined that the shallow ground-
water aquifer and surface water were contaminated
with elevated  concentrations  of  metals.   EPA
Region  7 responded by installing water treatment
units on several private wells.  The first operable
unit for this site was  signed in 1987 and provided
for  the pumping of water  from  existing  deep
aquifer  wells and subsequent distribution of the
water to affected local residents through a pipeline
network. This ROD  represents the second of two
operable  units  and addresses  the  threat of
contamination to the  shallow ground-water aquifer
and surface water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water and  surface
water are metals including cadmium, lead, and
zinc.
     The selected  remedial action  for this site
includes the removal, consolidation, and on-site
placement in mine pits, shafts, and subsidences of
surface mine wastes; diversion and channelization
of  surface   streams   with  recontouring  and
vegetation of land surface; and investigation of
deep aquifer well quality followed by plugging all
abandoned and inactive wells and rehabilitating
active wells, if necessary.  The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $8,295,215,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $14,963.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The selected remedy provides action levels for
the selective placement  of mine  wastes  below
ground.  Chemical-specific action levels include
lead 1,000 mg/kg,  cadmium 25 mg/kg, and zinc
5,000 mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional  controls  will include  deed
restrictions prohibiting future mining or excavation
on the affected properties.
                                               267

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 234
                           DOEPKE DISPOSAL (HOLLIDAY), KS
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 21, 1989
    The Doepke  Disposal  (Holliday) site is an
inactive industrial-waste  landfill located  east of
Holliday, Johnson County,  Kansas.  The  80-acre
site is within 500 feet of the Kansas River and lies
upstream of the well field and Kansas River water
intakes that supply water to approximately 200,000
county residents.   Additional features bordering
the site include an inactive landfill and an active
landfill. During the 1950s and early 1960s,  the site
was used as a landfill for residential refuse.  In
1963, Doepke Disposal Service, Inc. leased the
property and operated a commercial and industrial
waste landfill until 1970, when the state shut down
the  operation.   Materials such  as fiberglass,
fiberglass  resins,  paint  sludges, spent solvents,
metal  sludges,   soaps,  and  pesticides  were
reportedly disposed of at the landfill. In 1966, fire
debris and  up to  374 drums of solvents  and
organochlorine and  organophosphate pesticides
were disposed of at the site as a result of a fire at
a Kansas City chemical plant.  Initially, wastes and
residues brought to the site were burned, however,
in the late 1960s burning operations ceased and
solid wastes were buried on site and liquids were
disposed of in two  surface impoundments.  In
1977,  rock  material   excavated  during  the
construction of an interstate was dumped on site
and in some cases over the deposited waste.  The
current owner uses portions of the site for storage
of clay, crushed  shales,  and  crushed limestone.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil  and  ground  water  are VOCs  including
benzene,  toluene,  and xylene,  other  organics
including PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides, and metals
including chromium and lead.

     The  selected  remedial action  for  this site
includes   removal  and  off-site  treatment  of
approximately 96,000 gallons of liquids currently
ponded   underground   in  former   surface
impoundments; construction of a multilayer cap
over the  majority of  the  waste disposal  area;
collection of ground-water seepage  and off-site
treatment at a POTW, as necessary; ground-water
monitoring; and implementation  of deed and
access restrictions.  The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $5,970,000, which
includes  an  estimated annual  O&M  cost of
$107,000 for 30 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     No clean-up criteria were established for soil
because soil is going to be capped. Ground-water
standards  for ground-water  seepage treatment
and/or discharge were  based  on  federal  water
quality criteria for protection of aquatic life and
state water quality standards and were determined
for four metals and five organic pesticides.
Institutional Controls

     Deed  and  site access  restrictions will
implemented as part of this remedial action.
be
                                               268

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                        Group: 10
                                    FDMDE1T CORP., MO
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        December 28, 1988
    The Findett Corp. site is located just north of
the city  of  St. Charles,  in  St. Charles County,
east-central Missouri.  The site lies 3.2 miles south
of  the  Mississippi  River  and  is  within  the
floodplain.   Land  use  in  the site  vicinity  is
primarily agricultural, but also includes a small
industrial park containing Findett  Corporation,
Cadmus   Corporation,   and   several   other
commercial and light industrial establishments. In
addition,  there  are  several  residences within
approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,500 feet
south of the site.  The Elm Point Wellfield, the
primary drinking water supply for St.  Charles, is
located 1,800 feet northeast of the site.  Until
1980, Findett Corporation reclaimed heat transfer
fluids or  oils, some of which  contained PCBs, and
received  waste  solvents  for  reclamation  or
recycling.   Subsequently,  Findett  has custom
blended  or  manufactured organic chemicals for
other companies. The Findett site originally came
to EPA's attention  when Findett  Corporation
reported  handling PCBs at the site. There is PCB-
contaminated soil at the Findett facility as well as
at the adjacent Cadmus Corporation facility. The
Elm Point   Well   Field  is  also  at  risk  of
contamination by releases from the site. Findett
conducted several  voluntary  PCB  soil cleanups
pursuant to  EPA Administrative Orders in  1981
and 1982; however, PCBs as well as VOCs remain
in the soil in concentrations above recommended
levels.  In addition, ground-water investigations
revealed substantial  VOC contamination in the
shallow aquifer near the contaminant sources and
in the deep aquifer tapped by the nearby well field
as  a  drinking  water  source.    The  primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil  and
ground water  are  VOCs, and other organics
including PCBs.

     The  selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes  on-site  ground-water  pumping   and
treatment using air stripping with discharge to the
publicly owned  treatment works  (POTW),  and
excavation of contaminated soil with either off-site
disposal or treatment.   The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $8,306,000
with annual O&M cost of $398,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Contaminated soil will be removed and either
disposed of off site or treated. Ground water will
be treated to remove organic contaminants before
it  is discharged  to the sewage  treatment plant.
Individual contaminant goals were not provided for
either soil or ground water.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              269

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank:  386
                               HASTINGS GROUND WATER
                                   CONTAMINATION, NE
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       September 26, 1989
    The Hastings Ground  Water Contamination
site is a contaminated aquifer in the vicinity of the
city of Hastings, Adams County, Nebraska.  The
site consists of several source areas, referred to as
subsites,  contaminated  with various chlorinated
volatile industrial chemicals. This ROD addresses
the Well Number Three subsite which consists of
a ground-water plume contaminated with carbon
tetrachloride  emanating from a  former  grain
storage facility.  The state  first identified volatile
organic contamination in Well Number Three in
1983.  Between 1986 and 1989, EPA conducted a
field  investigation  which   identified the  grain
storage  area  as the  source of  ground-water
contamination, probably resulting from accidental
spills of liquid fumigants used during grain storage.
This interim source control  operable  unit was
developed to reduce the migration and volume of
volatile contaminants present in the soil.   The
primary contaminants of concern in the soil which
impact the ground  water are VOCs  including
carbon tetrachloride and chloroform.
    The selected remedial action for this site
includes utilization of in situ soil vapor extraction
to remove  approximately 400 pounds of VOCs
from the soil; treatment of vapor emissions by a
vapor phase granular activated carbon system; and
replacement of spent granulated activated carbon
filters followed by off-site disposal at an approved
treatment facility for regeneration or incineration.
The estimated capital cost for this remedial action
is $874,000 with an annual O&M of $154,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    This interim source  control action is not
designed to restore the aquifer to  drinking water
standards; therefore, no clean-up levels have been
established for ground water at this time.  Clean-
up  effectiveness will be based on  the  volume  of
volatile contaminants recovered  from the soil.  It
is estimated that the soil vapor extraction method
will recover approximately 400 pounds  of VOCs.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               270

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc  571
                                JOHNS' SLUDGE POND, KS
                                    First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 22, 1989
    The Johns' Sludge Pond site is in a relatively
undeveloped area in the city of Wichita, Sedgwick
County, Kansas.   The  0.5-acre site,  which lies
within the 500-year floodplain of the nearby Little
Arkansas River, neighbors a large rail  yard, an
interstate highway, a large borrow pit, and farm
land.  The city of Wichita owns approximately one
third  of the site as a result of condemnation for
highway drainage. During the 1950s and 1960s, the
Super Refined Oil Company used the sludge pond
for the disposal of waste oil and up to 15,000 cubic
yards  of oily sludge generated by the oil recycling
and reclamation operation.  Because sulfuric acid
was used  to  refine waste  oil for  recycling, the
wastes dumped into the pond  were very acidic.
Additionally,  high lead  concentrations  and low
PCB concentrations (less than 50 ppm) were also
detected in the sludge.  As  surface water flowed
into the pond, an extremely acidic layer of water
formed  on  top   of  the  sludge   which  often
overflowed into nearby surface waters.  The city
subsequently built berms to prevent further surface
runoff.   In  1983, EPA  ordered the  city to
undertake  interim  clean-up  activities  which
consisted of excavating and solidifying the sludge
using  cement kiln dust with redeposition of the
treated  sludge into a compacted clay-lined cell
followed by capping using a compacted clay cap.
Surface- and  ground-water monitoring following
the  interim   action  have  not  detected  any
contaminant  levels that would require  further
action.

     The selected  remedial  action  for this site
includes a  no further action scenario.  Previous
interim   remedial  activities were  adequate to
protect human health and the environment. There
are no costs associated with this no action remedy.
The  city will continue  to provide post-closure
maintenance.  The county will continue to provide
post-closure monitoring.

Performance  Standards or Goals

     Land use controls, in deed restrictions, have
been instituted preventing or controlling future site
uses  which could damage the effectiveness of the
remedy.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               271

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfo 687
                             KEM-PEST LABORATORIES, MO
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Kern-Pest Laboratories site is a former
pesticide  manufacturing  facility   approximately
three-miles northeast of Cape Girardeau,  Cape
Girardeau County, Missouri.  This six-acre site is
in a rural area devoted primarily to agricultural
activities.  Contamination at the site resulted from
the manufacturing of pesticide products from 1965
until 1977. Production activities took place in an
on-site  concrete  block  formulation building.
Sewage and plant wastes were disposed of in an
on-site lagoon which was backfilled  with clay  in
1981. EPA investigations beginning in 1981 have
identified pesticide and volatile and semi-volatile
organic  contamination  in  soil,   sediment   in
drainage channels, and in ground water.  This
operable  unit addresses contaminated  soil and
sediment.   Future operable  units will  address
ground water and the formulation building.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and sediment are VOCs including xylenes, other
organics including organochlorine and pesticides,
and metals including arsenic.
     The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes excavating approximately 4,050 cubic yards
of contaminated soil and  sediment with  off-site
disposal  in   a  RCRA-approved   commercial
hazardous waste landfill; sampling to verify that
the  extent  of excavation  is  sufficient to meet
health-based clean-up goals; and  backfilling the
excavated area with clean soil and revegetating.
The estimated  present worth cost for this remedial
action is $2,600,000 with no O&M required.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Contaminated  soil and sediment  will  be
excavated down to a level consistent with a  10"5
cancer risk level.  Chemical-specific goals were
provided for ten pesticides and for arsenic.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                                272

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEBFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 517
                            SOLID STATE CIRCUITS, INC, MO
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 27, 1989
    The Solid State  Circuits, Inc. (SSC)  site,  a
former industrial and manufacturing facility, is
located  in Republic, Missouri,   approximately
twelve miles  southwest  of  Springfield.    The
approximately 1/2-acre site has residential areas to
the east, west, and south, and light industry and
warehousing to the north and south. The city of
Republic obtains its drinking water from three
municipal wells (two, three, and four) which draw
from the deepest of three underlying aquifers. The
site currently consists of a former manufacturing
building, two air strippers, and an excavated yard
area (from prior removal actions). Uses of the
facility since 1902 included milling, refrigeration,
printed   circuit  board   manufacturing,  and
photoprocessing,  as  well  as  other,  unknown
activities.  The major wastes generated appear to
have been  cleaning  solvents used in  the  circuit
board process and wastewaters from  the  circuit
board activities.  Sampling  by the state in 1982
revealed  contamination with TCE in Municipal
Well Number One, 500 feet south of the site. The
SSC site  was identified  as a possible  source.
Subsequent actions by MDNR, EPA, SSC, and the
city included pumping tests, several major soil and
debris   excavations   and  removals   (thereby
eliminating the  source of  contamination), and
taking Municipal Well Number One out of service.
This   ROD   addresses   the   ground-water
contamination  found  in  all  three  aquifers.
Contamination  was  found in  the ground water,
water  in   utilities,  and  air.    The  primary
contaminants of concern are VOCs, particularly
TCE.

     The selected  remedial action for this site
includes  ground-water  pumping  and  on-site
treatment using existing air strippers, discharging
the treated water to a POTW, plume control via
pumping,   and   BACT  (as  required)  for  air
emissions,  and  air and  water monitoring.   The
estimated present  worth cost for this remedial
action is $4,629,000, which includes  an annual
O&M cost  of $445,300.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The target  for the ground-water  extraction
process is a 10"6 cancer risk and a hazard indices
(HI) ratio of less than one. All ground water with
a TCE level exceeding 5 ug/1 will be remediated at
a POTW.  Ground water with TCE levels above
the POTW pretreatment standard of 200 ug/1 will
be  treated  in the on-site air strippers before
discharge to the POTW.  The POTW must meet
the state NPDES average monthly discharge limit
of TCE 2 ug/1.

Institutional Controls

     City   ordinances will prevent new drinking
well construction in or near the plume to prevent
ingestion of contaminated water.
                                              273

-------
Progress  Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NFL Rank: 154
                               LAWRENCE TODTZ FARM, IA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        November 4, 1988
    The 2.7-acre  Dupont  Impoundment  at  the
Todtz Farm site is part of the 12-acre parcel of
land known as the Todtz Farm Landfill, which is
located  on a 120-acre farm 1.25 miles west of
Camanche, Iowa.  Originally a sand and gravel
mine, the landfill received municipal waste from
1969 to 1975.  In 1971, Dupont constructed the
impoundment in the northwest  corner  of  the
landfill and disposed of an estimated 4,300 tons of
wet end cellophane process wastes from 1971 until
its  closure in 1975.   Impoundment wastes  are
periodically in direct contact with the ground water
beneath the site, which flows southeasterly toward
the Mississippi River.   Domestic wells and  the
municipal water supply wells for Camanche located
downgradient  of the site may  be affected  by
contamination from the site.  In addition, several
ponds  and  lakes in  the  vicinity  are potential
receptors  for contaminated runoff and recharge.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs  including toluene, carbon
disulfide, tetrahydrofuran, and benzene, and metals
including  arsenic, lead, and chromium.

    The  selected remedial action for  this  site
includes installation of a soil  cover over  the
Dupont   Impoundment;   implementation   of
institutional controls including deed and land use
restrictions; provision of an alternate water supply
for an affected residence by relocating an existing
well;  and ground-water monitoring.  EPA  has
determined that further remedial actions will be
immediately implemented if ground-water trigger
levels provided in the ROD are met or exceeded.
If  ground-water  monitoring   indicates   that
contaminant  levels exceed  the  less stringent
chemical-specific action levels provided in  the
ROD, ground-water pumping and treatment will
be implemented; if the more stringent action levels
are  exceeded,   a   treatability   study   of   the
impoundment waste will be conducted and either
a   permanent   treatment   remedy   of   the
impoundment material or a  cap  and  slurry wall
containment system will be  implemented.   The
estimated present  worth cost for this  remedial
action is $1,030,000 with present worth O&M cost
of $510,000. If trigger levels are met or exceeded,
the estimated present worth cost of the remedy
would be $2,500,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Not applicable unless chemical-specific action
levels (based on MCLs) provided  in the ROD are
exceeded in ground-water monitoring wells.

Institutional Controls

     Deed  and  land use  restrictions  will be
implemented to prevent  the sale  and future
development of the site without further remedial
action or consideration of impacts to public health
and  the  environment.   Access   restrictions will
include fencing.
                                               274

-------
Process Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc 804
                               VOGEL PAINT & WAX CO., IA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 20, 1989
    The Vogel Paint & Wax Co. (VPW) site is an
approximately two-acre  disposal area  2 miles
southwest  of the town of  Maurice,  in Sioux
County, Iowa.  Adjacent land uses are primarily
agricultural; however, several private residences are
within  one-quarter  mile  of  the  site.    An
intermittent stream flows through the  site  and
discharges to the West Branch Floyd River one
mile away.  A surficial sand and gravel aquifer
underlies the site and supplies nearby private wells
and the Southern Sioux County  Rural Water
System, located a mile and one half southeast of
the site.  Paint sludge, resins, solvents, and other
paint manufacturing wastes were disposed of at the
site between 1971 and 1979.  The disposal area is
on  two acres of an 80-acre tract owned by VPW.
Liquid wastes were poured  into trenches along
with filled or partially filled drums  and other
debris  and capped with one to two feet of soil.
VPW records indicate  that approximately 43,000
gallons of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons and
6,000 pounds of metals waste were buried at the
site. The disposal area was  covered with clay in
1984.   The  primary  contaminants  of  concern
affecting the soil and ground  water are VOCs
including benzene, toluene, and xylenes, and metals
including chromium and lead.

    The selected  remedial action  for this  site
includes  excavation  of contaminated  soil  and
separation  of solid  and  liquid wastes;  on-site
bioremediation of  3,000  cubic yards  of the
contaminated  soil in a fully  contained  surface
impoundment unit, or on-site thermal treatment if
soil contains high metal content; stabilization of
treated  soil, if necessary to prevent leaching of
metals, followed by disposal in the excavated area;
off-site incineration, recycling, or disposal of solid
and liquid wastes; recycling of leachate and off-site
treatment at POTW of excess leachate; ground-
water pumping and treatment using air stripping
with discharge of treated water to a nearby stream;
and  ground-water and  air  monitoring.   VOC
emissions to the  atmosphere from both the soil
and  ground-water   clean-up  actions  will  be
controlled by carbon adsorption, if necessary. The
estimated present worth cost  for  this remedial
action  is  $1,851,000 which  includes an  annual
O&M cost of $54,600.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil treatment will achieve leaching standards
and ground water will be treated to health-based
levels.  Ground-water clean-up goals are based on
SDWA  MCLs/MCLGs  or state  action  levels.
Specific  ground-water  clean-up levels  include
benzene  0.001  mg/1 (state),  toluene  2.0  mg/1
(MCLG), xylenes 10.0 mg/1 (MCLG),  chromium
0.10 mg/1 (MCL), and lead 0.005 mg/1 (MCLG).

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              275

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                          REGION 8
                  (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
                                                                                      Group:  11
                         BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
                          (SOMERS TIE-TREATING PLANT), MT
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 27, 1989
    The  80-acre Burlington Northern  Railroad
(Somers  Tie-Treating  Plant)  site is  a  former
railroad tie treatment facility in Somers, Flathead
County, Montana.   Residential areas border the
site on three sides and wetlands are located along
Flathead Lake, 1,200 feet to the east,  and in a
slough area  adjacent to the plant.  Flathead Lake
is currently  the source of the  Somers municipal
drinking water  supply.   Burlington   Northern
operated the treatment plant from 1901 to 1986
and generated wastewater primarily consisting of
stream condensate containing  zinc chloride  and
creosote which was discharged to a lagoon south of
the treatment building.  Overflow from the lagoon
flowed through an open drainage ditch to a pond
which formed in a  swamp area  adjacent to the
ditch, and eventually into  the lake. Contaminated
soil and sediment areas in addition to the drainage
ditch, swamp pond, and lagoon include a drippage
area along the railroad tracks  where treated ties
were  removed from the treatment building, a
slough area where treated ties were stored, and a
beach area extending into Flathead Lake. Ground
water in the vicinity of the lagoon and the swamp
pond is  also contaminated.  In May 1985, EPA
performed  an  emergency removal action  and
removed  approximately  3,000  cubic  yards of
contaminated   soil  and  100,000  gallons  of
contaminated  water from the swamp pond and
drainage ditch areas.  The excavated areas were
backfilled and  covered,  and  excavated soil was
transferred to an off-site  RCRA-regulated facility
to await treatment.   Contaminated water  was
treated on-site to recover usable materials.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, and ground water are organics including
creosote constituents such as PAHs and phenols,
and metals including zinc.

    The  selected remedial action for this site
includes   excavation  and   on-site   biological
treatment of 11,700 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and sediment from all source areas except the
beach area; on-site restoration or replacement of
wetlands  areas; installation  and operation of an
innovative hot water flushing system and a water
treatment system using ozone/uv or peroxide/uv in
the lagoon and swamp pond areas to treat creosote
contaminated ground water, and in situ biological
treatment to degrade residual contaminants in the
ground water and contaminants adsorbed onto the
aquifer matrix; ground water will be reinjected or
discharged to a POTW; ground-water monitoring;
and  implementation of temporary  institutional
controls  to restrict  ground-water  use.    The
estimated total present worth cost for this remedial
action  is $12,031,000,  which includes an annual
O&M  cost of $661,000 for years  one  to  two,
$811,000 for years three to ten, and $72,000 for
years eleven to thirty.   The present worth  cost
includes  remediation of  beach sediment. Under
the selected action, beach  sediment are left in
place.  Reducing this cost by a volume ratio gives
approximately $11,000,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Soil exceeding concentrations of cPAHs 3.6
mg/kg, total PAHs 1,875 mg/kg, zinc 15,750 mg/kg,
or total  phenols 3,000 mg/kg will be  excavated.
The established excavation levels for total cPAHs
in soil is based on a 10"5 risk level. The initial soil
treatment goal is based on a  10"4 risk level and will
be achieved by reducing  total cPAHs to 36 mg/kg
(BDAT level).  Treatment will be continued until
the decrease in total PAHs  has been less than 20
percent per year or background levels  have been
reached.  The goal of the continued treatment is a
risk level of 10'6.  Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals are based on the risk assessment,
                                               276

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND                               Fiscal Year 1989
CWA water quality criteria,  and SDWA MCLs       Institutional Controls
and include cPAHs 0.03 ug/1 (WQC), total PAHs
0.30 ug/1 (10~5 risk-based level), phenol 2,500 ug/1           Institutional controls will  be designed to
(WQC), benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL), and zinc 110 ug/1       prohibit construction of new wells downgradient
(WQC).                                           from the contaminated aquifer until ground-water
                                                  quality returns to acceptable levels.
                                            277

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfo  528
                    LIBBY GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION, MT
                                      Second Remedial Action
                                        December 30, 1988
    The Libby Ground Water Contamination site
(also known as the Champion Mill site or the
Libby  Pesticide site)  is  on  the  Champion
International Corporation lumber and  plywood
mill in the city of Libby, Lincoln County, Montana.
Champion is the third owner of the facility, which
has been in operation since 1946.  The area around
the site includes residential areas and businesses.
The site  is bordered on the west by Flower Creek,
on the east by  Libby Creek, and on the  north by
the  Kootenai River.  The city and  surrounding
areas have a population of approximately 11,000.
The contaminated soil/ source area is within the
confines  of the facility;  however, ground-water
contamination extends well into the city  of Libby.
Wood treating fluids  and  their  constituents,
including creosote and PCP, are the contaminants
of concern at the site.  They are found in soil and
sediment at several different locations,  including
former waste pits, tank storage areas, and butt dip
and treatment  sites.  The contamination is the
result of spent fluids, overflow of treatment tanks,
and spills.   In addition  to  creosote and PCP,
certain carrier  fuels or oils were used at the site
and contributed VOC contaminants. Investigations
at the site were initiated by the state in 1979 after
a residential well was found to smell of creosote.
A ROD signed in September 1986  provided an
alternate water source to residents  whose wells
were contaminated. The site has been divided into
three  operable  units;  however, they require
concurrent  remediation.   The operable  units are
the soil/source area within the confines of the
facility;  the upper aquifer, historically  used for
drinking water  and irrigation but currently severely
contaminated;   and the  lower  aquifer,  highly
contaminated  with  oil and  non-aqueous  phase
liquids (NAPL).  The primary  contaminants  of
 concern affecting the soil, sediment, and ground
water at the site are VOCs  including benzene,
 other organics  including  dioxin, PAHs  (creosote
 constituents), PCP, metals including arsenic, and
 oil.

     The selected remedial actions for this site have
been developed based on operable units.   The
selected remedial action for the soil/source  area
includes   excavation   and   consolidation   of
approximately 30,000 cubic yards of unsaturated
soil and debris in the waste pit area, followed by a
two-step   enhanced   biodegradation   process
composed of enhanced natural biodegradation and
subsequent  transfer to  a  land treatment  unit
consisting of a 3.5-acre lined treatment  cell for
land  farming  and  final  deposition;   in  situ
bioremediation treatment of saturated soil in the
waste disposal pit  using a closed loop system
involving  ground-water  pumping  and  physical
treatment in a fixed-bed bioreactor with reinjection
through  a  rock percolation  bed,  and  in-situ
biodegradation  stimulation to  prevent  further
leaching of  source material to  ground water
(recovered NAPL will be processed in an oil/water
separation and stored on site for recycling and
incineration); and capping of the waste pit, butt
dip, and tank farm  areas. The selected remedial
action for  the upper  aquifer  includes  in situ
ground-water bioremediation of the upper aquifer
that is  separate from the process used in the
saturated zone  of the waste pit area. The selected
remedial  action for the lower  aquifer includes
implementation of a  pilot  test for  the  oil-
contaminated lower aquifer using biorestoration in
conjunction with oil recovery and oil dispersion
techniques (this is an interim remedy for the lower
aquifer); implementation of institutional controls
including   deed, land  use,   and  ground-water
restrictions; and on-site ground-water monitoring.
The estimated present worth cost of this remedial
action is $5,777,000 with annual O&M of $670,200
for year two,  $521,200  for years  three  to  five,
$232,200  for years  six to eight, and $80,000 for
nine to thirty.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Treatment of soil and debris will attain total
cPAHs 88  mg/kg  based on a 10"5 risk  level;
napthalene  8.0 mg/kg,  phenanthrene 8.0 mg/kg,
pyrene 7.3 mg/kg, and PCP 37.0 mg/kg all based on
                                                278

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
best demonstrated available technology (BOAT)       Institutional Controls
concentrations; and combined chlorinated dibenzo
dioxins and dibenzo furans 0.001 mg/kg. Saturated            Remedy will implement deed, land use, and
zone (i.e., ground water below the waste pit area)       ground-water use  restrictions  to prevent  sale
and  upper aquifer ground-water treatment  will       without acknowledgement of on-site hazardous
attain total noncarcinogenic PAHs 400 ng/1, total       wastes, future development, and drilling drinking
cPAHs 40  ng/1,  PCP  1.05 mg/1, benzene  5  ug/1       water wells.
(MCL),  and arsenic  50 ug/1 (MCL).   Other
organics/inorganics are not to exceed a 10"5  risk
level. Treatment levels were not provided for the
lower aquifer because an interim remedy is being
used; therefore, an ARAR waiver is applicable.
                                             279

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank:  629
        MONTICELLO RADIOACTIVELY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES, UT
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The Monticello Radioactively Contaminated
Properties  site,  also  known  as the Monticello
Vicinity   Properties,  is  a  federally-owned,
abandoned vanadium and uranium mill area in the
city of Monticello, San Juan County, Utah. Land
use in the area is residential, however, there  is
limited commercial  use  as  well.   Milling  of
vanadium and  uranium  occurred from 1944 to
1960.   Throughout  the  operating  period, mill
tailings were used in the city of Monticello for
construction purposes including fill for open lands;
backfill around water, sewer,  and electrical lines;
sub-base for  driveways, sidewalks, and concrete
slabs; backfill against basement foundations; and as
sand   mix  in  concrete,  plaster,  and  mortar.
Currently,  the  site  consists of a dismantled
vanadium and uranium mill,  and stabilized mill
tailings piles.    The  Monticello  Radioactively
Contaminated Properties were accepted into the
Department   of  Energy's   Surplus   Facilities
Management Program in 1980 for remedial action.
The Vicinity Properties were formally included on
the NPL in 1986 and, therefore, must comply with
requirements of CERCLA In October 1989, the
Millsite itself was also listed  on the NPL. DOE
established an official list of Vicinity Properties
designated  for  remedial   action  based  on
radiological surveys conducted from 1971 to 1984.
As of March  1989,  91 properties   had  been
identified to be included in the Monticello Vicinity
Properties.  Of these 91 properties, 53 remedial
actions have been completed and 12  additional'
properties are slated for  remedial action in 1989.
Approximately 100,000 cubic yards (135,000 tons)
of contaminated construction  debris  and  wind
blown deposited contamination is estimated to be
within the  Vicinity  Properties.  The  primary
contaminants of concern in construction material
and debris are thorium230, radium226, and radon222
contained in the vanadium and uranium mill
tailings.

    The selected remedial action for this site
includes  excavation  and  removal  of residual
radioactive  material from affected properties and
restoration/reconstruction using clean materials, or
modification  of existing  structures  to  isolate
radiation sources from inhabitants;  filling and
regrading excavated  areas;  and  disposal and
temporary storage of all contaminated material at
the Monticello Millsite.  The millsite is addressed
separately  under  a   1988  Federal  Facilities
Inter-agency Agreement.  The estimated present
worth cost  of this remedial action is $65,000 per
Vicinity Property for 91 "included' properties, or
$5,915,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Cleanup will ensure that the concentration of
radium226 in land averaged over 100 square meters
shall not exceed the background level of 2 pCi/g by
more than 5 pCi/g averaged over the first 15 cm of
soil or 15 pCi/g averaged over 15  cm thick layers of
soil more  than  15 cm below  the  surface.   In
addition, in an occupied or habitable building the
level  of  gamma  radiation  shall  not  exceed
background by more than 20 microroentgens per
hour. These goals are based on the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               280

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                                 Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank: 36
                              SAND
INDUSTRIAL, CO
                                      First Remedial Action
                                       September 29,1989
    The Sand Creek Industrial site is in Commerce
City, Adams  County, Colorado. Land use in the
vicinity of the site is industrial,  including trucking
firms,  petroleum  and chemical production, and
supply companies, warehouses, small businesses
and  several residences.   The  site contains  the
property and buildings of the  Colorado Organic
Chemical Company (COC) and approximately 13
residences.     Production   wells   north  and
downgradient of the study area are the source of
water   supply  to  the  county.    Pesticide
manufacturing operations began at COC in  the
1960s.   Fires in  1968 and  1977 and improper
pesticide storage practices resulted in high levels of
organiphosphate   pesticides,   chlorinated
hydrocarbons, and thermally-altered  pesticides
being released at the site. In 1978, COC removed
some  contaminated  soil,  and  in  1984  COC
removed drums of waste,  excess  product, and
contaminated soil, and installed fencing at the site
in  response  to an  EPA  order.   This  ROD
represents the first of five planned operable units
for the site and addresses soil, buildings, and tanks
contaminated by pesticides, volatile organics, and
metals.   The  primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, on-site buildings, and tanks are
VOCs including TCE and PCE, and other organics
including pesticides.

    The  selected  remedial  action for the site
includes  in situ vacuum extraction  to  remove
     VOCs  from  contaminated  soil  and   on-site
     treatment of off-gas by air stripping; excavation
     and off-site incineration of approximately 1,000
     cubic yards of soil contaminated with greater than
     1000 mg/kg  halogenated  organic  compounds
     (HOC), with off-site residual disposal in a RCRA
     landfill; backfilling of excavated areas with clean
     soil; demolition and off-site disposal of buildings in
     conformance with land disposal regulations; and
     ground-water monitoring at the site  for 30 years
     following  remediation.   The estimated  present
     worth cost for the selected remedy is $5,349,600.

     Performance Standards or Goals

          Acceptable  site-specific soil  concentrations
     (action levels) were calculated for VOCs using a
     soil-water leaching model which assumed ground-
     water  concentration  corresponding to  SDWA
     MCLs or a  10"6 cancer risk level.   Chemical-
     specific clean-up levels  were  provided for PCE
     1,095 ug/kg and TCE 285 ug/kg.  ARARs specify
     the clean-up objectives for the pesticide 2, 4-D, an
     HOC. LDRs have established treatment of HOCs
     >. 1,000 mg/kg based on BDAT, which for 2,4-D is
     incineration.

     Institutional Controls

          Not applicable.
                                              281

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 300
                            WOODBURY CHEMICAL CO., CO
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 29, 1989
    The  Woodbury  Chemical  Co.  site is in
Commerce City, a northern suburb  of Denver,
Colorado, and neighbors a primarily industrial area
which includes automobile salvage yards and a
petroleum refinery.  From the 1950s to 1971, the
Woodbury Chemical Company operated a pesticide
formulation facility that  was destroyed by fire in
1965  but subsequently  rebuilt.   Contaminated
rubble and debris from the fire were disposed of
on a  2.2-acre  vacant lot east of the Woodbury
facility.  During a 1985 remedial investigation of
the 2.2-acre lot, EPA identified high levels of
pesticides and metals in surface and subsurface
soil. Although EPA issued a ROD later that year,
site clean up was delayed due to the discovery of
significant  additional   contamination   at  the
Woodbury facility and adjacent properties to the
west and north of the facility. As a result of the
discovery  of  additional  contamination,  EPA
determined  it  would be more cost effective to
simultaneously implement the clean-up activities at
the 2.2-acre lot, the Woodbury chemical facility,
and adjacent properties.  The selected remedial
action addressed in this ROD incorporates and
builds  upon  the   1985  ROD.  The  primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil  are
VOCs  including PCE and TCE, other organics
including pesticides, and metals including arsenic.

    The selected  remedial action for this  site
includes excavation and off-site incineration of 850
cubic yards of highly-contaminated soil followed by
off-site disposal; excavation and off-site disposal of
11,520  cubic yards of less-contaminated soil at  a
RCRA-permitted landfill; and backfilling  and
revegetation of the excavated area.  The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is
$6,962,600 which includes annual O&M  costs of
$31,400.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil clean  up will attain an excess  lifetime
cancer  risk of 10"6.  Specific  clean-up goals are
based  on ARARs  and background  levels  and
include arsenic 5'10 mg/kg, TCE 0.52 mg/kg,  and
PCE 1.9 mg/kg.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               282

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                           REGION 9
                       (American Saomoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Nevada)
                                                                                   NPLRank: 288
                                ATLAS ASBESTOS MINE, CA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           July 19, 1989
    The Atlas Asbestos Mine site  is in Fresno
County,  California,  and  is  being remediated
concurrently with the Coalinga Asbestos Mine site.
This ROD does not address the mines, but rather
a separate area in the city of Coalinga, where
asbestos  from the  Atlas-Coalinga mines  was
deposited to await handling and shipment.  This
107-acre  site  has  been designated as  the  first
operable unit for the Atlas Asbestos  Mine and the
Coalinga Asbestos  Mine sites.  From the 1960s to
the  mid-1970s,  extensive  asbestos  mining  and
milling took place in areas near the site, and until
1980 the  site operated as an asbestos  milling,
manufacturing, storage, and transportation center.
The site  consists of four  distinct areas: (1) the
warehouse which  was once  a  mining waste
distribution  center and which currently houses
1,600 cubic yards of mining waste;  (2) a storage
yard which contains asbestos-contaminated stacked
pipes; (3) a shipping yard which was used as an
asbestos distribution  center by  the Atlas Asbestos
Company; and (4) the U.S. Asbestos  Company
which   currently  stores   piles   of  asbestos-
contaminated  mining waste.   In 1980,  a  state
inspection revealed elevated levels of asbestos in
the nearby aqueduct which suggested  that the Atlas
Asbestos Mine and Coalinga Asbestos Mine sites
were probable asbestos  sources.   Subsequent
sampling programs, conducted  between 1983 and
1987, revealed that  surface water  and air  also
contained elevated levels of asbestos. As a result
of these findings, EPA issued  an Administrative
Order  to  a major landowner, Southern Pacific
Transportation Company (SPTC), requiring SPTC
to conduct an additional remedial investigation and
a feasibility study and to perform interim measures
to stabilize the site. Because airborne emissions of
asbestos pose the greatest threat  to neighboring
residents,  this remedial response will limit the
amount of asbestos and nickel released from the
soil  and  emitted  into  the air.   The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris  are metals  including nickel,  and other
inorganics including asbestos and mining wastes.

     The  selected  remedial action for 'this site
includes excavating and consolidating 14,500 cubic
yards  of  asbestos,   chromium,   and
nickel-contaminated  soil  and  building  debris;
constructing an underground waste management
unit   (WMU)  to   contain   and  dispose  of
contaminated soil and waste on site; capping the
WMU  area;  regrading  the   excavated   area;
decontaminating debris;  monitoring soil moisture
content, ground water,  air, and personnel;  and
implementing institutional controls. The estimated
present worth cost for this action ranges between
$1,500,000 to $2,500,000, which includes  annual
O&M costs of $35,000.

Performance  Standards or Goals

     All contaminated soil and  mining wastes will
be cleaned up to at or below background levels for
nickel, and at or below one area percent asbestos
using polarized light microscopy.

Institutional Controls

     Deed restrictions  will be implemented to
prevent disturbing the cap and to prevent releasing
asbestos fibers or nickel contaminants into the air.
                                               283

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEEFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 665
                    BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS (Porterville Plant), CA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 26,1989
    The Beckman Instruments (Porterville Plant)
site, which includes  the Beckman plant and
surrounding study area, is in the city of Porterville,
California.   The  12-acre  Beckman plant  has
manufactured electronic instrument assemblies and
circuit boards  since  1967.   Wastewater from
industrial processes including electroplating and
degreasing, contains spent halogenated solvents,
inorganic and acid solutions, salts, metal-laden
solutions, and plating bath sludges. From 1974 to
1983, wastewater was discharged to an on-site solar
evaporation pond; however, since 1983, wastewater
has been treated  on site.  Ground  water in the
vicinity of the pond was used for domestic and
agricultural purposes until  1983 when ground
water was found to be contaminated.   Beckman
subsequently closed the  pond, provided alternate
water supplies to approximately 300 residents in
the area, and  began ground-water pumping and
treatment using air stripping in 1985.  Additionally,
soil beneath the former pond as well as near a
former pesticide operation area are  known to be
contaminated with elevated levels of lead.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and ground water are VOCs including TCE, and
metals including lead.
    The selected  remedial action for this site
includes excavation and off-site disposal of lead-
contaminated soil; continued  operation  of  the
ground-water pumping and treatment system for
the upper  aquifer; pumping and  treatment  of
ground  water from  upper aquitard and lower
aquifer using air stripping; off-site discharge of all
treated water into infiltration basins or irrigation
canals;  and  ground-water  monitoring.    The
estimated  present  worth cost  for the  selected
remedy  is $4,740,000.  This  estimate does  not
include  costs  for  continued  operation  of  the
existing pumping and treatment system.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Soil contaminated with lead above 200 mg/kg
will be excavated and disposed of off site. Ground-
water cleanup will attain state or federal MCLs or
state action levels. Chemical-specific ground-water
clean-up goals include TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL).

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                               284

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPESFVND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  289
                             COALINGA ASBESTOS MINE, CA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           July 19,1989
    The Coalinga Asbestos Mine site is in Fresno
County,  California,  and is  being remediated
concurrently with the Atlas Asbestos Mine site.
This ROD does not address the mines, but rather
a separate area in the city of  Coalinga, where
asbestos  from the  Atlas-Coalinga mines  was
deposited to await handling and shipment. This
107-acre site  has  been  designated as the first
operable unit for the Atlas Asbestos Mine and the
Coalinga Asbestos Mine sites.  From the 1960s to
the  mid-1970s,  extensive asbestos mining  and
milling took place in areas near the site, and until
1980 the site operated  as an asbestos  milling,
manufacturing, storage, and transportation center.
The site consists of four distinct areas:   (1) the
warehouse  which  was  once a mining waste
distribution  center  and  which currently houses
1,600 cubic yards of mining waste;  (2) a storage
yard which contains asbestos-contaminated stacked
pipes; (3) a shipping yard which was used as an
asbestos  distribution   center  by  the  Coalinga
Asbestos Company; and (4) the U.S. Coalinga
Company which currently stores piles of asbestos-
contaminated  mining waste.   In  1980,  a state
inspection revealed elevated levels of asbestos in
the  nearby  aqueduct  which  suggested that the
Coalinga Asbestos Mine and Atlas Asbestos Mine
sites were probable asbestos sources. Subsequent
sampling programs, conducted between 1983 and
1987, revealed that surface water  and  air also
contained elevated levels of asbestos. As  a result
of these  findings, EPA issued an Administrative
Order to a major  landowner, Southern  Pacific
Transportation Company (SPTC), requiring SPTC
to conduct an additional remedial investigation and
a feasibility study and to perform interim measures
to stabilize the site. Because airborne emissions of
asbestos pose the greatest threat  to neighboring
residents,  this remedial response will  limit the
amount of asbestos and nickel released from the
soil  and  emitted  into  the air.   The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
debris  are metals including nickel, and other
inorganics including asbestos and mining wastes.

     The  selected  remedial  action for this site
includes excavating and consolidating 14,500 cubic
yards  of  asbestos,   chromium,   and
nickel-contaminated  soil  and  building  debris;
constructing an underground waste management
unit  (WMU)  to   contain   and  dispose  of
contaminated soil and waste on site; capping the
WMU  area;  regrading  the   excavated   area;
decontaminating debris;  monitoring soil moisture
content, ground water,  air,  and personnel;  and
implementing institutional controls. The estimated
present worth cost for this action ranges between
$1,500,000 to $2,500,000, which includes  annual
O&M costs of $35,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     All contaminated soil and  mining wastes will
be cleaned up to at or below background levels for
nickel, and at or below one area percent asbestos
using polarized light microscopy.

Institutional Controls

     Deed restrictions will be implemented to
prevent disturbing the cap and to prevent releasing
asbestos fibers or nickel contaminants into the air.
                                               285

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  305
                             COAST WOOD PRESERVING, CA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 8-acre Coast Wood Preserving (CWP) site
is  an active wood preserving facility in a rural,
agricultural  area three miles south of  Ukiah,
California. Wood preserving operations began at
the site in 1971 and since then near-surface soil
contamination has occurred primarily as a result of
drippings. Investigations by CWP beginning in the
early 1970s  revealed  elevated  chromium  and
arsenic  concentrations in near-surface soil  and
elevated chromium concentrations in ground water
particularly near the main treatment and storage
areas. In addition, off-site migration of chromium
has  occurred via ground water.  A number of
measures  have been  implemented by  CWP to
improve overall site conditions including extending
the  area  covered  by surface  paving, erecting
canopies  over  the  wood treatment  area,  and
constructing berms  to divert and control surface
runoff from  treated  wood  storage  areas.   In
addition,   interim   remedial   measures   were
conducted in 1983 to intercept and limit migration
of   chromium   in   ground   water   including
constructing a slurry cutoff wall along the eastern
site  boundary, a  ground  water extraction trench
immediately upgradient of the slurry wall to recycle
ground  water back into the operation,  and  a
ground water extraction well and an injection well
in the area of highest contamination.  As a result
of  these  interim  measures,  health  risks via
exposure to contaminated soil and ground water
have been significantly reduced.   The primary
contaminants  of concerns for soil and ground
water are  metals including arsenic and chromium.
    The selected remedial  action  for this  site
includes paving exposed soil;  onsite treatment of
soil after site closure in 10 years using the best
available technology at the time; plume control
and aquifer remediation via ground water pumping
and  reuse  in  CWP's operations to the extent
possible or electrochemical treatment  of excess
ground water which cannot be recycled followed by
discharge to the Ukiah Sewage Treatment Plant
and/or reinjection; ground water monitoring; and
development of a contingency plan for off-site
ground-water  remediation  if needed.    The
estimated   total  cost  for  the  source control
component of the remedy is $1,000,000.  The total
cost of the ground water remedy was not provided;
however, the estimated O&M cost for the ground
water remedy was estimated as $19,500 for a  20
year period.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Post-closure  remedial  measures   for soil
include on-site treatment of contaminated soil to
a depth of 1.5  feet for  areas containing greater
than 100 mg/kg of total chromium and 15 mg/kg
(background  level)  of  arsenic.     In   high
contamination areas, the depth of excavations is
expected to be 5 feet.   Ground water will  be
treated  to  remove  metal  contamination  in
compliance  with state and   Federal   clean-up
standards including  arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL) and
chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL).

Institutional Controls

     A deed of restriction on real property will be
developed.
                                               286

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                       Group: 16
               FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR (Mountain View Plant), CA
                                 First and Second Remedial Actions
                                    June 9, 1989 - June 30, 1989
    The Fairchild Semiconductor (Mountain View
Plant) site is one of three Superfund sites that are
being remediated concurrently.  The other two
sites  are  Intel  (Mountain  View  Plant)  and
Raytheon.    The  sites  are  located  in  the
Middlefield/Ellis/Whisman (MEW) Study Area in
Santa Clara County in the city of Mountain View,
California. Land use in the area is  primarily light
industrial and commercial, with some residential
areas.   There are  no natural  surface drainage
features within or surrounding the site; most of the
runoff is intercepted by a storm drain system and
discharged to an off-site creek. Various industrial
activities were conducted in the vicinity of the site,
including semiconductor  manufacturing,  metal
finishing  operations,  parts  cleaning,  aircraft
maintenance, and other activities requiring the use,
storage, and handling of a variety of chemicals,
particularly solvents. Site investigations at several
of these  facilities during  1981 and  1982 revealed
significant soil and ground-water contamination by
toxic  chemicals, primarily VOCs.   The primary
cause of the contamination was leaking storage
tanks and lines, and poor management practices.
Before and  during additional site  investigations,
which were  conducted under  a  1985 Consent
Order, interim clean-up activities were conducted
at the site  by  Fairchild, Intel, and Raytheon.
These included tank removals, soil removal and
treatment, well sealing, construction of slurry walls,
and  hydraulic  control and treatment of  local
ground  water.   The primary  contaminants of
concern  affecting the  site  are  VOCs including
TCE, TCA, PCE, toluene, and xylenes, and other
organics including phenols.

   The selected remedy for this site includes in
situ vapor extraction with treatment by vapor
phase GAC of contaminated soil found within the
Fairchild and Raytheon slurry walls. There may be
some limited soil excavation and treatment  by
aeration for some areas outside of the slurry walls,
with on-site disposal of residues in the excavated
area; ground-water pumping and treatment using
air stripping, and in some cases liquid phase GAC,
with emissions controls consisting of GAC vapor
phase  carbon units, followed by  reuse  of the
ground water (reuse options including reinjection
are being developed) and, if necessary, discharge to
surface water; sealing of any conduits or potential
conduits to protect the deep aquifer; and ground-
water monitoring. The present worth cost for this
remedial action is  $49,000,000  to $56,000,000,
which includes O&M costs,

Performance  Standards or Goals

    The clean-up goals for  soil are based on
ensuring the success of the ground-water clean-up
goal (attaining MCLs) in  the shallow aquifers.
Individual goals include TCE  1 mg/kg inside the
slurry walls and TCE 0.05 mg/kg outside the slurry
walls.   Ground-water clean-up goals  for  the
shallow aquifers, which are not currently used for
drinking water, are based on MCLs and a 10"4 to
10"5 excess cancer risk and include TCE 5  ug/1
(MCL); goals for the deep aquifers, which are used
for drinking water, are based on a 10-6 cumulative
cancer  risk and include TCE 0.8 ug/1. Attainment
of these levels will also assure cleanup of other
VOCs to at least their respective MCLs.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              287

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc 310
               FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR (South San Jose Plant), CA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                          March 20,1989
    The Fairchild Semiconductor (South San Jose
Plant)   site   is   a  former  semiconductor
manufacturing  facility in San Jose,  California.
Operations were conducted at the site from April
1977 until it closed in October  1983. In late 1981,
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation discovered
that an underground organic solvent  waste tank
had failed, resulting in soil and on- and off-site
ground-water  contamination  by a  mixture  of
solvents.   TCA  contamination was  discovered
exceeding drinking water standards  in a public
drinking water supply well located  approximately
1,800 feet downgradient from  the site. The well
was subsequently destroyed and sealed; however,
several  wells  remain   active   downgradient.
Fairchild has been  investigating and cleaning up
soil and ground-water pollution at the facility since
contamination was first detected in 1981.  Interim
actions taken by Fairchild include source removal
and on-site soil cleanup (removal of defective tank
and  excavation   of  3,389   cubic   yards   of
contaminated  soil),  installation of a  slurry wall
around the perimeter of the site, conducting pilot
studies for on-site aquifer flushing and in  situ soil
vapor extraction, hydraulic containment  of  the
plume with on-site  and  limited off-site  ground-
water  treatment   using   air  stripping,  and
implementation  of  ground-water  conservation
measures.  Although the interim clean-up actions
have  significantly   decreased  the   size  and
contamination of the plume, some areas outside
the slurry wall still exceed state drinking water
action levels,  and on-site soil and ground water
still contain high concentrations of chemicals. This
ROD provides a final remedy which addresses on-
site soil and  ground water, and off-site  ground-
water contamination.  The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil and ground water are
 VOCs including PCE, TCA, DCE,  and xylenes.
    The selected  remedial  action for this  site
includes on-site soil vapor extraction (aeration);
on-site shallow ground water and off-site  ground
water from well  RW-25 pumping and treatment
using air stripping, followed by off-site reinjection
of treated ground water and discharge to  surface
water  after  aquifer  reuse  capacity  has been
exhausted; deep ground water from off-site wells
RW2  and  RW22,  followed  by  discharge  of
untreated ground water to surface water via storm
drains; conducting laboratory and field study of
biodegradation of on-site chemicals; implementing
institutional controls including deed restrictions to
limit ground-water and land use; and ground-water
monitoring.  The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $9,393,100 which includes
total O&M costs of $7,231,700.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The soil remediation goal  is  1  mg/kg  for
VOCs including PCE, TCA, and xylenes; however,
this goal will be re-evaluated based on treatability
test results.   Off-site  ground water  will attain a
hazard index of 0.25  which will be achieved by
reducing DCE concentrations to below detection
(i.e., 
-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  284
                 FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., (Salinas Plant), CA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                        September 13,1989
    The 256-acre Firestone Tire (Salinas Plant) site
is in an agricultural are in Salinas, California. The
facility was operated as a tire manufacturing plant
from 1963 to 1980, in which a variety of chemicals
and chemical  formulations were used including
solvents and surfactants.  In 1983, as part of the
requirements for the closure of a RCRA-regulated
storage area at the facility, Firestone conducted an
environmental investigation and determined that
some chemicals had been released to the soil and
ground water.  Sampling indicated that a plume of
VOC-contamination  extends  about 2-1/2  miles
northwest of the former facility. Consequently, on-
site and  off-site ground  water  pumping  and
treatment was initiated to further reduce chemical
migration.  Furthermore, evaluation of potential
sources of contamination  resulted in cleaning and
removing storage tanks and above-ground facilities,
as  well  as  excavating  5,300 cubic yards  of
inorganic- and organic-contaminated soil for final
disposition offsite. This final remedy provides for
additional cleanup of ground water under the site
and as much as 2-1/2 miles from the site.  Soil
analytical data indicated that the residual risk from
soil contamination after  remedial measures  had
been  implemented  warranted  no  further  soil
remediation.   The  primary  contaminants  of
concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including  1,1-DCA,  1,1-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA,  TCE,
PCE, benzene, toluene, and xylenes.
    The selected remedial  action for the site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water
at the existing treatment facility using  carbon
adsorption   and  air  stripping,  with  offsite
discharging of treated ground water to surface
water; ground water monitoring to ensure that the
ground water plume is declining; crop testing to
ensure that there  is no  plant  uptake  of  the
contaminants; and developing a contingency plan
for water  in  the  deep  aquifer in  case   of
contamination.  The estimated present worth cost
for this  remedial  action  is $1,742,000,  which
includes an estimated O&M cost of $1,517,000 for
3-1/2 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

    Cleanup levels for ground water will be based
on chemical-specific ARARs, a cumulative health
index  of 1 for noncarcinogens, or  a carcinogenic
risk of 10"6 depending on which is more stringent.
Chemical-specific goals include benzene 0.7 ug/1
(State),  1,1-DCA 5.0 ug/1 (State), TCE 3.2 ug/1
(10-6 risk level), PCE 0.7 ug/1 (10'6 risk level),
1,1-DCE 6.0 ug/1 (HI=1), toluene 20 ug/1 (HI-1),
and xylene 70 ug/1 (HI=1).

Institutional Controls:

    Not applicable.
                                               289

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                       Group:  11
                                  IBM (San Jose Plant), CA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        December 15,1988
    International Business Machines (IBM) owns
and  operates   a  data   processing   machine
manufacturing facility in the Santa Teresa Basin in
San Jose, California. IBM has operated the facility
since December  1956 using organic chemicals
including TCA, acetone,  xylenes, and petroleum
naphthas.   The  organic  chemicals have  been
handled  and  stored   on  site   in  drums,  and
aboveground and underground tanks. In addition,
waste organic solvents were stored in concrete or
steel underground tanks or drums;  however,  the
concrete tanks were designed only to store organic
wastes.  In October 1980, while excavating tanks in
Tank  Farm  No.  1,  IBM   discovered  soil
contaminated with organics.   Investigations in
November  1981 revealed extensive  ground-water
contamination.  The ground-water plume is more
than three miles long and more than 180 feet deep.
Fourteen active or potentially active water supply
wells are downgradient of the plume; however,
none of these  public  wells has been found to
contain VOCs  above state and federal  drinking
water standards.   Nineteen sources of  soil and
ground-water contamination have been identified,
including tank  overflows, spillage  from  drum
handling, and tank and pipeline fitting failures.
Actions have been taken to prevent further solvent
migration from the IBM source areas, including
removing underground storage  tanks which were
replaced with aboveground tanks, and excavating
more than 23,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil.
Interim remedial  measures begun in November
1982 to clean up the plume have included off- and
on-site ground-water pumping with  discharge of
untreated  ground water to storm drains.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and  ground water  are VOCs including  TCA,
toluene, and xylenes, and other organics.

     The selected remedial action for this site
includes  on-site soil  vapor  extraction;  on-site
shallow and deep  ground water and off-site deep
ground-water pumping and treatment using air
stripping, followed by on-site discharge of treated
ground water to the aquifer and off-site discharge
to surface water after the reuse capacity of the
aquifer is exhausted.  Remedial action costs for
this remedy were not provided.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The soil remediation goal is 1 mg/kg for all
contaminants of concern. Ground-water treatment
goals were provided for contaminants of concern in
the   upper   and   lower   aquifers.     The
chemical-specific goals for ground water are based
on state action levels, and EPA reference doses
and  lifetime health  advisories.  Individual goals
include TCA 200 ug/1 (state), toluene  100 ugA
(state), and xylenes  200 ug/1 (state) in the upper
aquifer zone, and a hazard index of 0.25 with TCA
50 ug/1 in the deeper aquifer zones.
                                               290

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  879
                         INTEL CORP. (Mountain View Plant), CA
                                      First Remedial Action
                                          June 9, 1989
    The Intel Corp. (Mountain View Plant) site is
one of three Superfund sites  that  are  being
remediated concurrently.  The other two sites are
Fairchild Semiconductor (Mt. View) and Raytheon.
The   sites   are   located   in   the
Middlefield/Ellis/Whisman (MEW) Study Area in
Santa Clara County in the city of Mountain View,
California.  Land use in the area is primarily light
industrial and commercial, with some residential
areas.   There are no  natural  surface drainage
features within or surrounding the site; most of the
runoff is intercepted by a storm drain system and
discharged to an off-site creek.  Various industrial
activities were conducted in the vicinity of the site,
including  semiconductor  manufacturing,  metal
finishing  operations,  parts  cleaning,  aircraft
maintenance, and other activities requiring the use,
storage, and  handling of a variety of  chemicals,
particularly solvents.  Site investigations at several
of these facilities  during  1981 and 1982 revealed
significant soil and ground-water contamination by
toxic chemicals, primarily VOCs.  The primary
causes of the contamination were  leaking storage
tanks and lines, and poor management practices.
Before and during additional site investigations,
which were  conducted  under a  1985 Consent
Order, interim clean-up actions were conducted at
the site by Fairchild,  Intel, and Raytheon.  These
included  tank  removals,   soil  removal  and
treatment, well sealing, construction of slurry walls,
and hydraulic control  and  treatment of  local
ground  water.   The primary  contaminants  of
concern affecting the site  are  VOCs  including
TCE, TCA, PCE,  toluene, and xylenes, and other
organics including phenols.
     The selected remedy for this site includes in
situ vapor extraction with treatment by vapor phase
GAC of  contaminated soil found  within the
Fairchild and Raytheon slurry walls. There may be
some limited  soil excavation and  treatment by
aeration for some areas outside of the slurry walls
with on-site disposal of residues in the excavated
area; ground-water pumping and treatment using
air stripping, and in some cases liquid phase GAC,
with emissions controls consisting of GAC vapor
phase carbon  units, followed by  reuse  of the
ground water (reuse options including reinjection
are being developed) and, if necessary, discharge to
surface water; sealing of any conduits or potential
conduits to protect the deep aquifer; and ground-
water monitoring. The present worth cost for this
remedial action is $49,000,000  to $56,000,000,
which includes O&M costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The clean-up goals for soil  are based  on
ensuring the success of the ground-water clean-up
goal (attaining MCLs) in  the shallow aquifers.
Individual goals include TCE 1  mg/kg inside the
slurry walls and TCE 0.05 mg/kg outside the slurry
walls.   Ground-water clean-up goals  for the
shallow aquifers, which are not currently used for
drinking water, are based on MCLs and a 10"4 to
10"5 excess cancer risk and  include TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL); goals for the deep aquifers, which are used
for drinking water, are based on a 10"6 cumulative
cancer risk and include TCE 0.8 ug/1. Attainment
of these levels will also ensure cleanup of other
VOCs to at least their respective MCLs.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                              291

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  704
                      KOPPERS CO., INC (OROVILLE PLANT), CA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 13, 1989
    The Koppers Co., Inc. (Oroville Plant) site is
a 200-acre operating wood treating plant in Butte
County, California, just south of Oroville. The site
is bordered on  the west by a Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation facility, which is also a Superfund site,
and lies within the floodplain of the Feather River,
which runs 3,000 feet to the  east. Land use in the
vicinity of the site is mixed agricultural, residential,
commercial, and industrial.  Although there is a
history of wood treating operations at  the  site,
wood treating operations were greatly expanded in
1955  when Koppers Company, Inc. became the
owner and operator.    Chemical  preservatives
including pentachlophenol  (PCP), creosote, and
chlorinated  copper arsenate solution have been
used in the wood treating processes. Wastewater
discharge and other site activities have resulted in
contamination of unlined ponds, soil, and debris.
In 1971, PCP was detected in on-site ground water
and, in 1972, in residential wells to the southwest.
Pursuant  to  a  state  order, Koppers conducted
clean-up activities from 1973-74, including ground-
water pumping and discharge to spray fields and
off-site disposal of  contaminated  debris,  and
process  changes,   including construction  of a
wastewater treatment  plant.  In 1986,  Koppers
provided  an alternate water supply for  domestic
uses to affected residents.  In 1987, an explosion
and fire occurred at a PCP wood treatment process
facility prompting EPA to issue a removal order
requiring cleanup of fire debris and removal and
stabilization of surface soil.  This ROD addresses
the remaining contamination in on-site  soil, and
ground water affected by site contamination.  The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
and ground water  are  VOCs including toluene,
xylenes,  and benzene,  other organics including
PAHs,  PCP,  and  dioxins/furans,  and  metals
including arsenic and chromium.

    The  selected  remedial  action  for  this site
includes a soil  component and a ground-water
component. The soil remedy includes four discrete
soil treatment areas:   in situ biodegradation  of
 110,000  cubic  yards  of PCP-contaminated  soil;
excavation and soil washing of 200,000 cubic yards
of soil contaminated with wood treating wastes
with  redisposal of  treated  soil  on  site  and
treatment of residual contamination in the washing
fluid in an on-site treatment facility; installation of
a low permeability cap over the wood treating
process  area  and downgradient  extraction wells
with future treatment  of 20,000 cubic yards of
contaminated  soil  beneath  this  area  as  soil
becomes accessible during equipment change or
ceasing of operations; and excavation and chemical
fixation  of 4,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated
with metals, followed by on-site disposal.   The
ground-water  remedy   includes  pumping  and
treatment of approximately 22,000,000 cubic yards
of  ground  water  using activated carbon,  and
reinjection of treated waste to the ground water,
and formalization of the provision of an existing
alternate water supply and extension, if needed, of
the water supply during implementation of the
remedy. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is $77,700,000, which includes an
estimated present worth O&M cost of $37,100,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The  soil  clean-up goals  for  the  major
contaminants at the site  are PCP  17 mg/kg,
dioxin/furans 0.030 ug/kg, background for arsenic
and chromium, and cPAHs 0.19 mg/kg. Soil goals
were  set  to  meet   10"6  cancer-risk   targets.
Remedial objectives for ground water are the more
stringent of 10"6 cancer risks or state action levels.
Specific goals include PCP 2.2 ug/1, cPAHs 0.007
ug/1, dioxins 0.00000053 ug/1 or the lowest available
detection limit, and background levels for arsenic
and chromium.

Institutional Controls

     Not specified.
                                               292

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRank: 283
                            LITCHFIELD AIRPORT AREA, AZ
                                 Second Remedial Action - Final
                                       September 26, 1989
    The Litchfield Airport site, also known as the
Phoenix-Goodyear Airport  Area  site,   covers
approximately 35 square miles and, except for the
airport, is almost entirely in the city of Goodyear.
The surrounding  area  is primarily agricultural,
however, residential development is anticipated in
the near future.  A ground-water divide running
under the area effectively divides the site  into  a
northern and southern  area.  Between 1981 and
1983, the state discovered that the ground water
was contaminated with solvents, metals, and VOCs.
Sampling data identified contaminated areas in the
northern and southern portions of the site due to
on-site industrial activities and waste handling by
the  former  Goodyear  Aerospace  Corporation
(GAC),  the former  Litchfield Park Naval Air
Facility, and UniDynamics, Phoenix, Inc. A 1987
ROD addressed ground water in an area of the
southern portion  of  the site contaminated with
VOCs.  This ROD addresses soil (vadose zone)
and ground-water remediation for the remainder of
the  site,   with    the  exception  of
chromium-contaminated soil in  the sludge drying
beds at the former GAC facility. GAC owners are
currently performing an  expedited response action
under an Administrative Order on Consent for the
chromium sludge beds. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the  soil and ground water are
VOCs including TCE, toluene, and xylenes, and
metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.

    The selected remedial action for the northern
portion  of the site includes treatment of soil with
VOC soil gas levels greater than 1 ug/kg using soil
vapor   extraction   (SVE);  and   ground-water
pumping and treatment using air stripping, liquid
phase  granular activated  carbon, and  granular
activated carbon polishing on the air emissions,
followed by reinjection  or discharge of treated
ground water to the municipal  water system.
Remedial activities for the southern portion of the
site include treatment of 284,100 square yards of
VOC-contaminated soil using SVE; and ground-
water pumping and treatment using air  stripping
and wellhead treatment,  followed by discharge to
the municipal water system. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action ranges between
$30,227,000 and $31,693,000. O&M costs will be
determined during the remedial design.

Performance Standards or Goals

     VOC- and metal-contaminated soil outside of
the sludge pits will  be removed until remaining
levels will not cause or contribute to ground-water
contamination in concentrations exceeding ground-
water clean-up standards.  Ground-water clean-up
goals are based on SDWA Maximum Containment
Levels (MCLs), state action levels (SALs) or CWA
Ambient  Water  Quality  Cirteria  (AWQC).
Chemical-specific  ground-water clean-up goals
include toluene 340 ugl (SAL), TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL),
xylenes  440 ugA  (SAL),  arsenic 50 ug/1 (MCL),
chromium 50 ug/1 (MCL), and lead 50 ug/1 (MCL).

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                             293

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRanfc  119
                          NINETEENTH AVENUE LANDFILL, AZ
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29, 1989
    The 213-acre Nineteenth Avenue Landfill is in
an industrial area of Maricopa County, Phoenix,
Arizona. The landfill is divided by the Salt River
channel into two sections or  cells.   A 200-acre
section, Cell A, lies north of the channel and a  13-
acre section, Cell A-l,  lies south of the channel.
State permitted landfill operations were conducted
from  1957   to  1979,  during  which  time
approximately  nine  million   cubic  yards  of
municipal refuse, solid and liquid industrial wastes,
and some medical wastes and materials containing
low levels of radioactivity were deposited in the
landfill.  Sampling of the landfill contents has
revealed no concentrated sources of contamination;
however, the State ordered the landfill closed in
1979 due to the periodic inundation of the landfill
by  flood  waters from  the  Salt  River channel.
Subsequently, the city  covered the site with fill,
stockpiled soil for final capping, installed ground-
water monitoring wells, built  berms around  the
landfill, and installed  a methane gas collection
system.   This remedial action is  designed to
mitigate threats resulting from flooding of  the
landfill, which has  occurred intermittently since
1965. The primary contaminants of concern in the
soil/refuse  include  VOCs such as  toluene and
xylenes.  There is little risk to public health from
ground-water  pathways because ground-water
contaminants are of small magnitude, and only
limited migration has occurred off the site.
     The selected  remedial action for this  site
includes  containing  landfill  wastes  on-site  by
constructing  an impermable  cap and surface
drainage structures over the landfill, as well as soil-
cement  levees  along the river  at the landfill
boundary; widening the river  channel; collecting
and flaring landfill generated gases; instititutional
controls  and  access  restrictions;  and  air  and
ground-water monitoring. A contingency ground-
water  treatment  plan  will  be  implemented
whenever ground-water standards are exceeded at
the  landfill  boundary.   The estimated present
worth cost for this  remedial action is $42,990,000,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $1,010,000
for 30 years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Not applicable  to landfill wastes.  Ground
water currently does  not pose a  risk to human
health or the environment.  If monitoring detects
concentrations  exceeding SDWA MCLs at the
property boundary,  a contingency plan will be
implemented.

Institutional Controls

     Institutional controls will be implemented but
were not specified.
                                               294

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRanfc  329
                                PURITY OIL SALES, INC, CA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                        September 26, 1989
    The seven-acre Purity Oil Sales, Inc. site is in
Fresno County, California, one-half mile south of
the Fresno city limits.  The  site is located in a
predominantly industrial area; however, there  are
adjacent residential  properties,  including  three
houses  and a trailer park.  The ground-water
aquifer in the Fresno area has been designated as
a  sole-source  aquifer.    The   shallow  aquifer
underlying the site is probably hydrogeologically
connected with deeper  aquifer  zones  providing
domestic  water  supply  for  Fresno  and  the
surrounding area.  The Purity site operated as a
used oil recycling facility from 1934 to the early
1970s.    In 1976,  a fire  destroyed  the  main
warehouse building.  Equipment remaining, with
the exception of seven steel above-ground storage
tanks, was removed from the site,  and the area was
partially regraded.  One of the remaining storage
tanks is lined with asbestos.  Waste pits filled with
soil, debris, and rubble, cover most of the site.
The state conducted a remedial  investigation in
1982  during  which  time the EPA  Emergency
Response Team removed  1,800  cubic yards  of
hazardous oily and tarry materials from the site.
This first of two planned operable units addresses
the cleanup of the ground water  and the removal
and  off-site disposal of storage  tanks  and tank
contents.     A  future  ROD   will   address
contaminated soil.  The primary  contaminants of
concern affecting ground water are VOCs including
benzene and TCE, and metals. Contaminants of
concern in the tank sludge are  VOCs  including
benzene,  toluene  and  xylenes,   other organics
including  PCBs, PAHs,  pesticides, and phenols,
and metals including lead.
     The selected remedial action  for  this site
includes  ground-water  pumping  and  on-site
treatment with greensand to remove metals and air
stripping to remove VOCs; disposal of treated
ground water by either reinjection into the aquifer,
disposal in a canal or disposal in local infiltration
basins; provision of an alternate water supply  to
affected private well owners; creation of a ground-
water management zone to maintain ground-water
levels; ground-water monitoring; removal, on-site
solidification (if necessary), and off-site disposal of
22,500 gallons of contaminated sludge from the
seven on-site steel tanks; and cleaning, dismantling,
and  off-site  disposal  of  the tanks  including
appropriate off-site disposal of the asbestos walled
tank.  In addition,  treatability studies  will be
conducted on the site  soil to  determine the
effectiveness  of   several  emerging   treatment
technologies. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $11,660,000, which includes
a total cost of $500,000 for removal of the steel
tanks.  A present worth O&M cost of $6,960,000
is included in the total  present worth estimate.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Ground-water treatment will meet federal and
state SDWA MCLs and state action levels (SALs).
Chemical-specific clean-up goals for ground water
include benzene 1 ug/1 (SAL)  and TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL).

Institutional Controls

     Institutional   methods  to   control  well
construction and pumping will be implemented  to
maintain  ground  water  levels  at  the  desired
configuration.
                                               295

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   NPLRank:  880
                                   RAYTHEON CORP., CA
                                       First Remedial Action
                                           June 9,  1989
    The  Raytheon  Corp. site  is one of three
Superfund   sites   that  are  being  remediated
concurrently.   The  other two are  Fairchild
Semiconductor (Mt. View) and  Intel  (Mountain
View Plant).    The  sites are  located  in  the
Middlefield/Ellis/Whisman (MEW) Study Area in
Santa Clara County in the city of Mountain View,
California.  Land use in the area is primarily light
industrial and commercial,  with  some residential
areas.   There  are  no natural surface drainage
features within or surrounding the site; most of the
runoff is intercepted by a storm drain system and
discharged  to an off-site creek.  Various industrial
activties were conducted in the vicinity of the site
including semiconductor manufacturing,   metal
finishing  operations,  parts  cleaning,  aircraft
maintenance, and other activities requiring the use,
storage, and handling  of a variety of chemicals,
particularly solvents. Site investigations at several
of these facilities during  1981  and 1982 revealed
significant   contamination  by  toxic  chemicals,
primarily VOCs, in soil and ground water.  The
primary causes of the contamination were leaking
storage tanks  and  lines, and  poor management
practices.   Before  and  during  additional  site
investigations, which were conducted under a 1985
Consent Order, interim  clean-up activities were
conducted  at  the  site by Fairchild,  Intel,  and
Raytheon.     Clean-up  actions  included  tank
removals, soil  removal and treatment, well sealing,
construction of slurry walls, and hydraulic control
and treatment of local ground water. The primary
contaminants  of concern affecting the site  are
VOCs including PCE, TCE, TCA, toluene, and
xylenes, and other organics including phenols.
     The selected remedy for this site includes in
situ vapor extraction with treatment by vapor phase
GAC  of  contaminated soil found within  the
Fairchild and Raytheon slurry walls. There may be
some limited  soil excavation and treatment by
aeration for some areas outside of the slurry walls,
with on-site disposal of residues in the excavated
area; ground-water pumping and treatment using
air stripping, and in some cases liquid phase GAC,
with emissions controls consisting of GAC vapor
phase  carbon units,  followed  by reuse of  the
ground water (reuse options including reinfection
are being developed) and, if necessary, discharge to
surface water;  sealing, of any conduits or potential
conduits to protect the deep aquifer; and  ground-
water monitoring. The present worth cost for this
remedial action is $49,000,000 to  $56,000,000,
which includes O&M costs.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The clean-up goals for soil are based on
ensuring the success of the ground-water clean-up
goal (attaining MCLs) in  the shallow aquifers.
Individual goals include TCE 1 mg/kg inside the
slurry walls and TCE 0.05 mg/kg outside the slurry
walls.    Ground-water  clean-up goals  for  the
shallow aquifers, which are not currently used for
drinking water, are based on MCLs and a 10"4 to
10"5 excess cancer risk and include  TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL).  Goals for the deep aquifers, which are
used for  drinking water,  are  based on a 10"6
cumulative cancer risk and include TCE  0.8 ug/1.
Attainment of these levels will also ensure cleanup
of other VOCs to at least their respective MCLs.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                                296

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                   Group:  7(F)
                            SACRAMENTO ARMY DEPOT, CA
                                     First Remedial Action
                                       September 29,1989
    The  485-acre  Sacramento  Army  Depot
(SAAD)  site,  7 miles southeast  of  downtown
Sacramento, California,  is surrounded  by  land
zoned as commercial and light industrial property.
SAAD is an electronic maintenance and repair
depot consisting  of storage,  maintenance, and
office facilities. Present operations include shelter
repair, electro-optics  equipment  repair, metal
plating, and treatment of metal plating wastes.
From approximately 1947 to  1972  paint sludges,
oil,  grease  wood,  trash,  solvents  and  other
industrial wastes were burned and disposed of on
site in burn pits.  SAAD has since removed most
of the burned material from the burn pits.  The
burn pits were subsequently covered with soil and
revegetated.  Ground-water samples, collected by
SAAD from 1981 to 1984, indicated that several
chemical compounds were present at levels above
drinking water  standards in  two  areas.   The
primary contaminants  of concern  affecting the
ground water are VOCs including TCE and PCE.
    The selected remedial action for this interim
remedy   includes  ground-water  pumping  and
treatment using ultraviolet light/chemical oxidation
followed by discharge  to the regional treatment
plant and industrial reuse of the treated ground
water. The estimated capital cost of the remedy is
$1,764,000 with an estimated annual O&M cost of
$264,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

    The overall quality of the ground water will
be  restored  to  meet  current  drinking water
standards for  TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL) and for PCE 4
ug/1 (state action level).

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                             297

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                 NPLRanfo  390
                          SAN FERNANDO VALLEY (Area 1), CA
                                     Second Remedial Action
                                          June 30,1989
    The San Fernando Valley Basin (SFVB) Area
1 site is one of four Superfund sites  (including
SFVB Areas 2,3, and 4) being remediated as one
large site. The SFVB lies within the approximately
328,500-acre Upper Los Angeles River area. This
remedial action  is for the Burbank Well Field
operable unit  of the SFVB Area 1 site, located
within   the  city  of Burbank,  California,  and
addresses a  portion  of the overall ground-water
problem in  the SFVB Areas 1,  2, 3, and 4 sites.
The SFVB  aquifer  is an  important  source  of
drinking water for approximately 600,000 residents
in nearby cities and  is also used for commercial
and industrial purposes.   Contaminated ground
water is difficult to replace in this area because
water from  the  metropolitan water district,  an
alternate source of drinking water, may  not always
be  available due to  periodic drought  conditions
and state  and  federal  water  rights  issues.
Contaminated ground water in the SFVB wells was
first discovered in 1980. Results of a ground-water
monitoring program conducted from 1981 through
1987 revealed approximately  50 percent  of  the
water supply wells in the eastern portion of the
SFVB were contaminated with TCE and PCE at
concentrations exceeding state and federal drinking
water standards.  All of Burbank's production wells
have been  shut  down   due  to this   VOC
contamination. In 1987, the primary contaminant
TCE was found in concentrations exceeding State
Action Levels (SALs) in 48 percent of the SFVB's
120 production  wells, and PCE levels exceeded
SALs in 18 percent of the SFVB wells. In 1987,
EPA selected a  remedy  to  address another
operable unit  in Area 1, specifically the threat of
contaminated  public water supply wells located in
the city of North Hollywood. The selected remedy
for the North Hollywood operable unit included
the construction of an  extraction and aeration
facility to pump  and treat contaminated ground
water in the North Hollywood area.  The facility
has been operational since March  1989.   The
remedy selected for the Burbank operable unit will
control  the  migration of contaminated  ground
water in the SFVB where additional downgradient
public water supply  wells are threatened by
contamination and will aid in aquifer restoration in
the  immediate  Burbank  area.   The primary
contaminants of concern affecting  the  ground
water are VOCs including TCE and PCE.

     The selected  remedial action  for this site
includes pumping and treatment of ground water
contaminated with TCE exceeding 100 ug/1 or PCE
exceeding 5 ug/1 using air or stream stripping, with
vapor phase GAC adsorption units if air stripping
is  used,  and discharge  to the  municipal water
supply  distribution  system,  and  ground-water
monitoring.  The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $69,000,000, which includes
an estimated present worth O&M of $43,900,000
(for a 20-year period).

Performance Standards or Goals

     The ground water will be treated to attain
MCLs including  TCE 5.0 ug/l,  and  State Action
Levels (SALs) including PCE 4.0 ugA for treatment
plant effluent concentrations.

Institutional Controls

     Not applicable.
                                               298

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPERFUND
                            Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 306
                             SOUTH BAY ASBESTOS AREA, CA
                                  Second Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 29,1989
    The South Bay Asbestos Area site is at the
northern end of the Santa Clara Valley and at the
southern end of the San Francisco Bay, in San
Jose,  California.  The 550-acre site includes the
community of Alviso in the city of San Jose and
neighbors a national wildlife refuge, marshland,
and wetlands which support several endangered
and threatened species.  The land surrounding
Alviso has been artificially raised with  soil and
debris fill, some containing asbestos to offset the
effects of subsidence. From 1953 to 1982, the site
operated as an asbestos-cement pipe manufacturing
plant  with  asbestos-contaminated  waste  being
disposed of on site in three landfills.  In 1983, the
state  collected soil samples which  revealed that
asbestos  was  randomly distributed  throughout
Alviso, including the Alviso Rim levee. The state
also determined that the Guadulupe River levee
contained asbestos-contaminated waste debris and
soil.   Contaminated  soil from the levee was
removed and several emergency removal actions
followed to reduce exposure  to  asbestos.   To
address  the asbestos contamination  at the site,
EPA  divided remedial  activities into two ROD.
The first ROD addressed contamination at the rim
levee.  This second and final ROD addresses the
asbestos contamination found at the remainder of
the site.  The  primary contaminant of concern
affecting the soil, debris, and air is asbestos.

     The selected  remedial action  for this site
includes paving approximately 128,500 square yards
of  an  asbestos-contaminated  truck  yard  and
industrial yard; controlling dust emissions through
monthly wet sweeping of streets; off-site disposal
of asbestos-contaminated debris; air monitoring;
and implementation of deed restrictions and other
institutional controls. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $7,561,000 which
includes  annual O&M costs of $134,900  for 30
years.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Paving will be required for target areas with
high potential for soil disturbance and for areas
which are found to contain greater than one area
percent asbestos by polarized light microscopy.

Institutional Controls

     Deed  restrictions  and other  institutional
controls will be  implemented.
                                              299

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                         REGION 10
                                (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
                                                                                  NPLRank: 394
                                  COMMENCEMENT BAY,
                               NEARSHORF/TIDEFLATS, WA
                                     Second Remedial Action
                                       September 30, 1989
    The Commencement Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats
site is in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington at
the southern end  of the main  basin of  Puget
Sound.    The  site  encompasses  an   active
commercial seaport and includes  10 to 12 square
miles of shallow water, shoreline, waterways and
adjacent land.  Site contamination is the result of
a long history of industrial activity in the area.
More than 281 active industrial facilities are in the
area and approximately 34 of  those are  NPDES
permitted  dischargers.   Releases  of hazardous
substances to  the  marine  environment have
resulted in contamination of bottom sediment in
the waterways of the Tideflats Industrial Area, and
along  the shoreline in the Nearshore Area. This
ROD  represents two of six operable units for the
site and will address source control and marine
sediment contamination in the Nearshore/Tideflats
environment.   Eight problem areas are being
addressed  independently  by this remedy.  The
remaining  operable  units will address  remedial
response  to  releases  of hazardous substances
associated  with the  Tacoma  tar  pits  and  the
ASARCO   Tacoma  smelter.     The   primary
contaminants of concern affecting the sediment are
organics including PCBs and  PAHs, and  metals
including  arsenic, mercury, lead, and zinc.

    The  selected remedial  action for  this  site
includes an 8-year active clean-up phase for source
control and sediment remediation, and a 10-year
natural   recovery   phase.     Source   control
remediation includes the identification and control
of  sources of contamination into the  marine
environment at the site.  Sediment remediation
includes a combination  of natural recovery  for
areas expected to recover naturally within a 10-year
period  after  source  control   measures   are
implemented, and the utilization, as appropriate, of
four  active  sediment  control  alternatives  to
remediate approximately 1,181,000 cubic yards of
contaminated  sediment.    The  four  sediment
confinement  options  include  in situ  capping,
(placement of clean material on top of existing
substrate), confined aquatic disposal (removal of
contaminated sediments with confined disposal in
shallow or open-water aquatic environments using
capping with clean dredged material), confined
nearshore disposal (removal and confined disposal
in the nearshore environment  with  capping and
diking),  and  removal   and  upland  disposal
(transferring  dredged  material  to  a land-based
confinement facility.  In addition, the remedy will
implement site use restrictions and source and
sediment monitoring. The estimated total cost for
sediment remediation at  the site is $32,300,000,
which includes O&M costs for 10 years.  Costs
associated with source control activities are not
included in this ROD because of the difficulty in
determining  what   proportion   of   total
source-related cost can be  attributed directly to
achieving remedial objectives.

Performance Standards or Goals

     Sediment quality objectives will be achieved
within 10 years following source control in each
problem area.   Sediment  clean-up  levels  were
developed   for   each   of  the   confinement
technologies using the apparent effects  threshold
(AET)  approach.   An  AET  is the  sediment
concentration  of  a  chemical  above   which
statistically significant biological effects are always
observed. A sediment clean-up level of 150 ug/kg
was derived  for  PCBs  to attain  a fish tissue
concentration objective   of   36  ug/kg  which
translates to  a 10"S individual lifetime risk factor
for fish  consumption.   Other specific sediment
                                               300

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
quality objectives include arsenic 57 mg/kg, lead       Institutional Controls
450 mg/kg, and PAHs 17,000 ug/kg.
                                                       Site use restrictions  will consist mainly of
                                                   public warnings and educational programs intended
                                                   to reduce potential exposure to site contamination,
                                                   particularly ingestion of contaminated seafood.
                                              301

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 918
                                NORTHSIDE LANDFILL, WA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 30, 1989
    The 345-acre Northside Landfill is in a mixed
residential and agricultural area, in the northwest
corner of the city of Spokane, Spokane County,
Washington.  The landfill has been used since the
1930s by the city of Spokane and a variety of
private   and   public  haulers for  disposal  of
residential and  light commercial refuse.   The
landfill is divided into four disposal units; refuse
unit, a grease skimmings unit, an  old open burn
unit, and a sewage sludge unit.  Only the refuse
unit is active; however,  this unit  is scheduled to
close by  1992.  The western one third of the
landfill   lies  over   the   large   Spokane
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (SVRPA).  In
1978, EPA designated SVRPA as a sole source of
water supply  for the Spokane-Coeur d'Alene area.
Investigations  conducted  in 1981  and  1983
indicated the presence of  VOCs beneath  the site
and in off-site residential wells located northwest
of the landfill.  The city immediately supplied the
19  affected residences with bottled water  and has
since extended municipal water lines to the area.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
ground water are VOCs including PCE, TCA, and
TCE.   In addition, iron and lead  exceed the
secondary drinking water standards off site.

    The  selected  remedial  action  for this site
includes immediate closing of the inactive units of
the landfill with final closing of the active  portion
by 1992; capping all disposal units; constructing an
interim pumping and treatment facility for ground-
water remediation until landfill closure effectively
reduces contaminants to below the MCLs, followed
by off-site  discharge of  treated water into the
Spokane   River;   ground-water   monitoring;
providing an alternate supply of drinking water to
residences affected by the contaminated ground
water; implementing institutional  controls  to
restrict site access,  protect the landfill cap, and
prevent  construction of  domestic wells  in the
contaminated plume; and controlling landfill gas
emissions.  The estimated present worth cost of
this remedy is $30,000,000.

Performance Standards or Goals

     The selected remedy is expected to control
the migration  of ground-water contaminants  off
site  and meet  MCLs or AWQC, whichever  is
applicable.  Chemical-specific ARARs for ground
water include TCA 200 ug/1 (MCL) and TCE 5 ug/1
(MCL).  The  performance  criteria  for PCE  is
stated as 5  ug/1.

Institutional Controls

      Institutional   controls  will  address  the
installation of new wells within the contaminated
plume and  restrict site access.
                                                302

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                  NPLRank: 694
                            NORTHWEST TRANSFORMER, WA
                                   First Remedial Action - Final
                                        September 15, 1989
    The Northwest  Transformer site (NWT), a
1.6-acre former salvage yard, is approximately
two miles south of Everson in Whatcom County,
Washington.  The site is in a rural area and is
bordered by low-density residential areas to the
north and east, and farmland to the south.  The
NWT site was used for transformer storage and
salvage.   Storage  and salvage  operations were
conducted  in  an  on-site  bam  where  PCB-
contaminated dielectric fluid was drained from the
transformers  before  dismantling.   Transformer
casings and associated parts  were incinerated on
site, and some of the recovered oil was burned to
heat the barn.  Spillage and leakage of PCB-laden
oil  on the ground appeared to have  occurred
frequently, and some oil apparently was dumped
directly into a seepage pit on site, contaminating
soil and possibly ground water.  EPA performed
several soil  and ground-water sampling studies
between  1977  and  1985 and identified PCB
concentrations as high as  38,000 mg/kg.  In 1985,
EPA performed an Immediate Removal Action to
address the danger posed by  PCB contamination,
including  removing 1,400 cubic yards of  PCB-
contaminated soil  and debris, 6,660 gallons of
PCB-contaminated liquids, several contaminated
transformer casings, monitoring ground-water, and
imposing site access restrictions. In 1987, sampling
during  an  RI/FS   identified  sufficient  PCB
contamination in the soil to warrant further site
remediation.    This  operable  unit  includes
investigations of ground  water  and the on-site
barn to determine whether either is sufficiently
contaminated to merit a subsequent operable unit.
The primary contaminant of concern affecting the
soil is PCB.

    The selected remedial action  for this  site
includes excavation, consolidation, and treatment
of approximately 1,200 cubic yards of soil with a
PCB concentration greater than 10 mg/kg using in
situ vitrification; placement of two feet of clean fill
over the entire site; abandonment of an on-site
well; and ground-water monitoring and sampling of
the wood in  the on-site barn to determine if a
second operable is necessary  to address PCB-
contamination in these  media.   The  estimated
present  worth cost for  this remedial action is
$771,000 for  soil treatment only with no O&M
required.

Performance Standards or Goals

    The contaminated  soil  will be treated until
the concentration  of PCBs  in  the  remaining
residue is less than 1 mg/kg.  This concentration is
below the TSCA-required treatment concentration
of 2 mg/kg PCBs in contaminated materials.

Institutional Controls

    Not applicable.
                                              303

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND               Fiscal Year 1989
                                    APPENDIX
                                        D

   EPA Annual Report to Congress:
     Progress Toward Implementing
          CERCLA at EPA Facilities
                        As Required  by
          CERCLA Section 120 (e) (5)
                 Table of Contents
1.0  Introduction 	   306

2.0  EPA Progress in Meeting Requirements of CERCLA Section 120
   During Fiscal Year 1989 	   307

3.0  State-By-State Status of EPA Facilities Subject to Section
   120 of CERCLA	   308

   Exhibit C-l 	   309
                    305

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                                      Appendix
                                                                                            D
1.0     Introduction
        Section 120(e)(5) of the Comprehensive
Environmental  Response,  Compensation,  and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA)  of 1986, requires each department,
agency,  or   instrumentality  responsible   for
compliance with  section  120 of  CERCLA to
furnish an   annual  report  to  the  Congress
concerning its progress  in  implementing the
requirements  of that section.

Requirements  of CERCLA Section 120(e)(5)

        The annual reports to Congress required
by section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA are to  include,
but need not be limited to, each of the following
items:

(A)     A report  on the progress in reaching
        interagency agreements  under CERCLA
        section 120(e)(2);

(B)     The specific cost estimates and budgetary
        proposals  involved in each interagency
        agreement;

(C)     A brief summary of the public comments
        regarding  each  proposed interagency
        agreement;

(D)     A description of the instances in which no
        agreement was reached;

(E)     A  report on progress in  conducting
        remedial   investigations  and  feasibility
        studies required  by  CERCLA   section
        120(e)(l) at National Priority List (NPL)
        sites;
(F)    A report on conducting remedial actions
       at NPL sites; and

(G)    A  report  on  progress in  conducting
       remedial action at facilities which are not
       listed on the NPL.

       The annual report is also  required to
contain a detailed description, on a state-by-state
basis, of the status of each facility subject to  this
section, including  a  description of  the  hazard
presented by each facility, plans and schedules for
initiating  and   completing   response  actions,
enforcement status (where applicable),  and  an
explanation  of  any postponement or failure to
complete response actions.

Environmental Protection Agency Program

       The Environmental  Protection  Agency
(EPA) has  given  high  priority to  maintaining
compliance with CERCLA requirements at its own
facilities.  To  ensure  compliance, EPA uses its
Environmental Compliance Program  to heighten
regulatory awareness, identify potential compliance
violations, and coordinate appropriate corrective
action schedules  at  its laboratories and  other
research facilities.
       As  part  of   EPA's   commitment   to
environmental  compliance,  the Environmental
Compliance   Program   has   instituted   an
environmental auditing  program to  accomplish
many of its compliance objectives.   Audits  are
conducted at EPA facilities to identify potential
regulatory   violations   of  federal   (including
CERCLA),  state,  and   local  statutes.     By
performing these detailed facility analyses, EPA is
better able to assist the facilities in complying with
environmental regulations.
                                              306

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
2.0    EPA Progress in Meeting
       Requirements of CERCLA
       Section 120 During Fiscal Year
       1989	

       EPA is required to report on progress in
meeting the requirements of CERCLA section 120
in terms  of interagency agreements,  remedial
investigation/feasibility studies at NPL sites, and
remedial actions at NPL and non-NPL sites.

•      EPA does not have any facilities listed on
       the National Priorities List (NPL). As a
       result, EPA has not entered  into  any
       Interagency  Agreements  (lAGs)   for
       remediation that would require reporting
       under  CERCLA sections  120(e)(5)(A),
       (B),(C), or (D).

•      EPA did not have any facilities placed on
       the NPL during fiscal 1989, and has  not
       been involved with remedial investigation/
       feasibility study (RI/FS)  or remediation
       activities  that  would require reporting
       under CERCLA sections 120(e)(5)(E) and
       (F).

•      For  purposes  of  CERCLA  section
       120(e)(5)(G), only the following facilities
       with   past   releases   or   documented
       contamination  will  be included  in  the
       discussion.

a.     Environmental   Photographic
       Interpretation Center, Virginia

       The EPA Environmental  Photographic
Interpretation  Center (EPIC) is  located on  the
Army's Vint Hills Farm  Station in Warrenton,
Virginia.  The  Army, as owner of the facility, has
conducted a PA/SI  and a contamination  survey.
The  status  of NPL ranking and  subsequent
remedial action by the Army is being researched.
       EPIC has submitted  a  PA per  direction
from the  Environmental Compliance Program to
ensure that  its past activities are  disclosed  for
congressional and public review.

b.     Region 2 Environmental Service Division
       Laboratory, New Jersey
        The Region 2 laboratory occupies several
buildings on the  Raritan  Depot installation in
Edison, New Jersey.  Originally, the Department of
Defense (DOD) owned the site and used it for
munitions  testing  and  storage.    GSA  took
possession of the  property in 1961 and in 1988
transferred 165  acres to EPA Although residual
contamination from past DOD and GSA activities
persists at  the facility, EPA has  not  stored,
released, or disposed of any hazardous substances
on the property.
        EPA Region 2 is  in  the process of
conducting (using DOD Defense Environmental
Restoration   Program  funds)  a  listing  site
insepection (LSI) needed to rank the facility under
the HRS II.  If placed on the NPL, the facility will
be remediated as required  by EPA Region 2.  If
NPL placement  does not occur, the facility will be
remediated,  as  mandated  by  CERCLA,  in
accordance  with  all state and  local clean-up
criteria.
c.
Gulf Breeze Laboratory, Florida
       The Gulf  Breeze  facility submitted its
preliminary assessment on April 17,1988.  Testing
revealed that the contaminant concentrations are
below the levels of concern.  Regional review of
the  findings will  determine what subsequent
actions are required.

d.     Region  10   Environmental   Services
       Division Laboratory, Washington

       The Region 10 laboratory is located on an
abandoned Navy submarine net  depot  and open
storage area. A PA has been conducted and an SI
has been completed: The SI indicated that current
trace levels of contamination  offer no threat to
public health or the environment, regardless of the
pathway under consideration.

e.     Region 10  Washington State University,
       Washington

       During the  1970s,  Washington State
University provided a research  plot for use by
EPA's Office of Research and Development. EPA
utilized the  plot to study  pesticide degradation.
The research was terminated in  1980.  Although
this site is not identified in the  federal facilities
docket  and no  data suggests   any  significant
                                              307

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPEKFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989
migration  of hazardous  substances offsite, the
Agency is  in the process  of conducting a PA for
the research plot. Regional review of this PA will
determine the need for further action.
3.0     State-by-State   Status   of  EPA
        Facilities Subject to Section 120 of
        CERCLA	

        EPA has identified 14 of its facilities that
it believes  are  subject  to the requirements of
CERCLA section 120. These facilities along with
an indication of the type of problem, and progress
of activities required by CERCLA are presented by
state in Exhibit D-l.
                                             308

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
Fiscal Year 1989

























































ect Status
•g-
fx-






M
i
S
1
•3
I
3
CO
S
0
S









&
1
(2
g


V
S
to
I
£ - 1 1 %• ** i*
1 I a | 1 £ |j3
c 2 £ < Q 50 o «3

'§ § CX ° Q IX DN W
1 * i Ml gl«
i i f i i 1 111
| Q J | 'f g | 1 g
1 if, f I f ^ o «

"S u *•* o* w w 'Hj S
E 'S 3 8 " Si «: «
§ ^tsa •§ §" f •§ 1 «
I § l| 1 1 J* H§
wi £j Q Ju ^ W •<, 'JS <-* g •£
I11II 1 "8 ^f 1 I 1 1 1 I ^ Issf
31331 itSgllllll 1^3? llr
1 1 1 1 1 i i^i! 1 1 1 1 i iiii ii|
33 3 3 3 S—K^o 3 3 3 3 O.WSiu U3a)
« « «« S « wi 5Q.", Q Q tSP"
'§§§§§§ $- 1
|| 1 1 a I I ||| «
fi-s&aalaa BCes 1
f 1 € I I i I i fr 11 sS I
8 I S i I I 1 { ! J i Si 1
es-S^gg BE t£ w — 2* B
1 1 - I i < it 1 i i 1 II I
a Z O & K W KK <^HZw6 S.

^8^d2S S2 OOo2> ^



















o_
W
"3
§
'«
Q
a-
M
•a
"R
E
3
E
i
«
1
5-
1
K

3
on was compiled foi
^3
I
•S
.3
{5
3
O
C/l
                                    309

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND	Fiscal Year 1989

                                                    APPENDIX
                                                          E

                                      Report  of the
                      EPA  Inspector  General

                         Table of Contents

Summary of Results	   312
Scope and Objectives	   312
We Found That	   313
     CERCLIS Data Quality Work Group and Monthly Data Quality Audits 	   313
     Annual Report Section 4.1: "Use and Development of Permanent Technologies" 	   314
     Annual Report Preparation Process	   315
                             311

-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                       THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Audit Report No. EISFFO-11-0018-1100026
Review of Fiscal Year 1989 Superfund Report to Congress

John C.
Inspector Gferteral (A-109)
         \J
William  K. Reilly
Administrator (A-100)
Summary of Results
       We have completed  our  review of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) report
to Congress  on Progress Toward Implementing
Superfund:  Fiscal Year 1989 (Annual Report).
Most of the portions of the Annual Report which
we  reviewed  were   reasonable  and   accurate.
However,   we   have  concerns   about   the
reasonableness and  accuracy  of sections of the
Annual Report containing information on the pre-
remedial, removal, and remedial programs, and on
the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program. Further, while the Report was
submitted late to Congress,  the Agency has made
improvements in the process used  to prepare the
Report.
Scope and Objectives

       The objectives  of our review were to
determine  whether  the  Annual  Report  was
reasonable  and accurate, as required by Section
301(h)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response,  Compensation,  and  Liability  Act
(CERCLA).
                                           We began our review of an early draft of
                                    the Annual Report on December 6, 1989, at EPA
                                    Headquarters.   We  completed our  review  in
                                    August 1990, by analyzing the final changes made
                                    to the Annual Report.

                                           Our work focused on fiscal year (FY) 1989
                                    activities. We performed detailed audit work to
                                    verify the accuracy of selected key information
                                    presented in  the Executive  Summary and the
                                    following Annual  Report sections  and  related
                                    Appendixes:

                                    •      1.1: "Enforcement Program Activities;"

                                    •      4.1: "Use and Development of Permanent
                                           Technologies;"

                                    •      4.1.5:  "90-Day Study Activities;"

                                    •      4.3:   "Report on Facilities  Subject  to
                                           Review Under CERCLA section 121(c);"

                                    •      5.5.3: "Fiscal 1989 Superfund Contracting;"
                                           and
                                             312

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
•      Appendix D:  "EPA Annual Report to
       Congress: Progress Toward Implementing
       CERCLA at EPA Facilities."

We also reviewed the actions taken by the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response to improve
the  quality  of  the  data   in  the  CERCLA
Information  System   (CERCLIS).     Where
appropriate, we  compared  information  in  this
Annual Report pertaining to FY87 and FY88 back
to those prior reports.

       Throughout the course of our review, we
brought a  number of concerns to the  Report
Coordinator's  attention.     He  satisfactorily
addressed all  of these concerns, except the ones
discussed in this report.

       Except as  noted  below, our work  was
performed  in accordance  with  the Government
Auditing Standards (1988  revision) issued by the
Comptroller General  of the  United States.  Our
audit was limited to verifying the reasonableness
and accuracy of selected information in the Annual
Report.  We did not perform extensive  tests to
determine if internal controls are adequate.
We Found That

       Key information contained in the Annual
Report on  the following  topics was generally
reasonable and accurate:

•      enforcement program activities;

•      the use and development of permanent
       technologies, including the SITE Program
       (except as noted below);

•      activities undertaken in response to the
       Administrator's study,  A  Management
       Review  of the Superfund Program, also
       called "The 90-Day Study;"

•      facilities subject to review under CERCLA
       Section 121(c);

•      Superfund  contracting,  especially  the
       contract  laboratory  program  and  the
       Alternative   Remedial   Contracting
       Strategy;

•      EPA's implementation of CERCLA at its
       own facilities; and

•      statistics and accomplishments pertaining
       to FY87 and FY88.

       However,  we  have  concerns  about  the
reasonableness and accuracy of selected CERCLIS
information,  some information on   the  SITE
Program, and the Annual  Report preparation
process.
CERCLIS Data Quality Work Group
and Monthly Data Quality Audits

       Although we did not review the data in
CERCLIS  this  year,  we  nevertheless  remain
concerned-about its accuracy. This data forms the
basis for much of the Annual Report sections on
pre-remedial,    removal,   and   remedial
accomplishments.

       In our reviews  of the FY87 and  FY88
Annual Reports, we identified problems with the
accuracy of CERCLIS data on the pre-remedial,
removal,  and remedial programs.   Significant
portions of the accomplishments claimed in those
reports  were not  supported  by valid  source
documents   in   the  regions,  and    some
accomplishments were not recorded in the correct
fiscal year.  In a few cases, accomplishments were
double counted in different years, or did not meet
the Agency's definition of an accomplishment at
all.  In contrast, we found enforcement  data  in
CERCLIS to be much more accurate.

       Throughout  the course  of  these two
reviews, we brought our concerns to the attention
of  the  Office  of Emergency  and Remedial
Response (OERR) management.  After the FY88
audit, OERR officials advised us that they were
taking two corrective  actions:    establishing a
CERCLIS Data Quality Work Group to  review
input  controls;  and performing  monthly  data
quality audits.  These  actions  did not  occur,
however, in time to impact the FY89 data.
                                             313

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
        We  commend  OERR for taking  some
actions to improve the quality and reliability of the
CERCLIS data.  However, based on our current
audit work,  we do not believe that the actions
actually  taken  fully  addressed  our  concerns.
Specifically, the work group has not yet visited the
regions  to evaluate the input controls first hand,
even  on a sample  basis.   We were, however,
advised  that there are plans to  visit three regions
to, among other things, test data entry procedures.
Also, the data quality audits are, for the most part,
checks for  logic (i.e., programming correctness)
and data completeness.  We do  not consider these
to be sufficient checks for data accuracy, because
the data input to CERCLIS has not actually been
verified  to  the  source  documents.   It  is  the
accuracy of the data input to CERCLIS that is of
concern to us, even more than the completeness
and processing of it.

        OERR officials acknowledged  that  the
work group has  not done any source document
data accuracy audits.  They stated that the work
group has focused its efforts on: (1) report select
logic consistency; (2) audits of specific data groups;
(3) development of specialized data quality audit
reports  to be used by regional staff  to check on the
accuracy and completeness of their data; and (4) a
comprehensive  audit  report  to   measure  the
accuracy of CERCLIS information. These officials
stated that in FY90 the  regions  have corrected
almost 60 percent of the errors identified in  this
audit report at the start  of the year.   They
attributed  many  of  the  remaining  errors  to
problems in the downloading of financial data from
the new Integrated Financial Management System.

        We reviewed examples of these computer-
generated audit reports.  These reports  help to
ensure  that CERCLIS entries meet the  official
Agency definitions of accomplishments and  are
complete. However, we are still concerned about
the  validity of the  support for data  entries in
CERCLIS, especially since a more  detailed review
of the  input controls  themselves has not been
performed.

        OERR officials further stated that virtually
all Superfund program management activities are
based on CERCLIS  data, including  allocation of
resources  and   management  accomplishment
reporting.  These officials added  that CERCLIS
produces a set of monthly management reports
which are used to monitor the status of virtually all
aspects of the program in minute detail. In our
opinion,   these  statements   demonstrate  the
importance of accuracy in the  CERCLIS  data,
because even things  like the number of full time
personnel each region has are based on CERCLIS
information.

       The OERR  officials also advised us that
responsibility for the accuracy of the CERCLIS
data lies with the regional offices. They added that
"while it is possible, and even likely, that there are
some  inaccuracies in the data, the constant usage
of  CERCLIS data   for  program  and  project
management purposes minimizes the possibility of
gross errors in the statistics presented in the FY89
Superfund Annual Report to Congress."

        In its "Report on CERCLIS Reporting"
(audit report no.  E1SFF9-15-0023-0100187, dated
March 12,1990), the OIG discussed more concerns
about the reliability of CERCLIS. The OIG stated
that there was an absence of good controls over
documentation, software changes,  and testing.
Documentation at  the  programming  level was
found to be poor; control over  report programs
was inadequate; and formal testing and acceptance
procedures  for  new  report  programming  or
changes to old reports did not exist.  The auditors
concluded that material errors have arisen within
CERCLIS  reports,  and any information being
reported by the system must be considered suspect
and employed cautiously.
Annual Report Section 4.1:   "Use and
Development of Permanent Technologies"

        Annual   Report   section  4.1.1,  "The
Superfund  Innovative  Technology  Evaluation
(SITE) Program," presents Ogden Environmental
Services (Ogden) as being one of seven technology
developers who completed a field demonstration
during FY89. However, a  recent OIG audit ("The
SITE Demonstration Program:  Much Promise But
Delayed Results," Audit Report No. E1SKF9-11-
0031-0100228, dated March 28, 1990) found that
Ogden had withdrawn  from the SITE Program
without ever doing a full-scale field demonstration.
                                               314

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND
                           Fiscal Year 1989
        In March 1989, Ogden performed a pilot
test of its technology at an off-site location.  This
was not a full-scale field test at a hazardous waste
site, as  is  normally  conducted  in  the SITE
Demonstration Program. During January 1990, we
learned that Ogden was withdrawing  from the
SITE Program and  would  not demonstrate its
technology.  This was confirmed in the January 12,
1990, SITE Program Quarterly Status Report that
shows  the  accomplishments and  status of each
SITE project.  This status report never mentioned
that the Ogden pilot-scale test was  considered a
full-scale  demonstration   of  the   technology.
Further, an Ogden official  advised  us that  they
were  unable  to  proceed  with  the  full-scale
demonstration.

        We believe that  the Office of Research
and  Development is now  considering Ogden's
March 1989, pilot test a full-scale demonstration.
However, we believe that this is incorrect, and as
a result the Annual Report is not accurate in
stating that  Ogden's  pilot test is equivalent  to a
full-scale field demonstration.

        Agency  officials  stated  that  the SITE
Program's report to Congress for FY89 properly
includes Ogden's demonstration  as  one of the
seven field  demonstrations completed  that  year.
They maintained that the Demonstration Program
occurs in many stages that are not always readily
quantifiable. They added that to be consistent with
the SITE Program's  report to Congress,  it  is
appropriate  to  retain  Ogden  as one  of  the
completed demonstrations in this Annual Report.
Annual Report Preparation Process

        As we found in our reviews of the last two
Annual Reports, the process used to prepare this
year's  was not  fully  effective.  Although  this
Annual Report was due to  Congress January 1,
1990, it was not submitted to OMB until March
1990.  One reason for this  was  because of the
lateness in issuing prior years' reports.  In fact,
while the Report Coordinator was preparing the
FY89 Report, he was still devoting  much of his
time to the FY88 Report (the FY88 Report did
not go to Congress until April 1990, 15 months
after it was due).  Similar delays in preparing the
FY87 Report slowed the FY88 process.

        However, this year's process was much
more efficient and effective than in the past.  For
example,  the  delivery of  the draft  to  OMB
occurred  six  months  earlier than last  year.
According to the Report Coordinator, centering
this year's Report  around a definite theme (the
Superfund pipeline, i.e., the cleanup process from
site identification to  actual remediation), having
increased resources to work on it, and simplifying
its format all contributed to a more timely and
readable report.  We commend the Agency on the
actions taken to improve this process.
                                               315

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND             Fiscal Year 1989
                                 APPENDIX
                                     F

           Office of Solid Waste and
  Emergency Response Reply to the
    Report of the Inspector General
                  317

-------
USE,
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                        OCT  |  o  1990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
                    Draft Audit Report No. E1SFFO-11-0018 -- Draft Review of Fiscal Year 1989 Superfund
                    Report to Congress
                    Don F
                    Assistant Administrator fdr

                    John C. Martin
                    Inspector General
                                            Waste and Emergency Response
       I reviewed your draft audit report on the
Fiscal Year 1989 Superfund Report to Congress.
I agree that the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) has made improvements in the
process used to prepare the Rep'ort. I appreciate
your commending the Agency for a much more
efficient and effective Report that is more timely
and readable.

       I also appreciate your recognition that
OERR has taken actions to improve the quality
and   reliability  of  the   Comprehensive
Environmental  Response,  Compensation, and
Liability Act Information System  (CERCLIS).  I
agree that  the CERCLIS Data  Quality  Work
Group has not done any source  document data
accuracy audits. The Work Group has focused its
efforts on:   (1)  report select logic consistency;
(2) audits of specific data groups; (3) development
of specialized data quality audit reports to be used
by Regional staff to check on the accuracy of their
data;  and  (4) a  comprehensive  audit report
(AUDT-26) to measure the accuracy of CERCLIS
information.  So far in FY90, the Regions have
corrected almost 60 percent of the errors identified
on AUDT-26 at the start of the year. Many of the
remaining errors are  due to  problems in the
                                                        download of financial data from the new Integrated
                                                        Financial Management System.

                                                                Responsibility for the accuracy of the data
                                                        lies with the Regional Offices.  While no specific
                                                        source  document audits  have been  performed,
                                                        virtually all  Superfund  program  management
                                                        activities are based on CERCLIS data. Superfund
                                                        also produces  a set  of monthly  management
                                                        reports from CERCLIS that monitors the status of
                                                        virtually all aspects of the program in minute
                                                        detail.  In addition, the accomplishment of certain
                                                        key events are routinely and aggressively reviewed
                                                        for quality assurance and control on a quarterly
                                                        basis.   Copies  of all  RODs  are maintained  in
                                                        headquarters. Regular calls between headquarters,
                                                        regional coordinators,  and regions  continually
                                                        validate  key events,  such as removal  starts,
                                                        negotiation  status,  and  remedial  design  and
                                                        remedial action starts.  Documentation of many of
                                                        these events is available through reports, as well as
                                                        reviews of the financial management system.  The
                                                        INSITE  reporting package on the Headquarters
                                                        LAN not only allows managers to view the reports,
                                                        but also to call up all of the site and event specific
                                                        backup data  for each of  the data points on the
                                                        report. While it is possible, and even likely, that
                                                        there  are some  inaccuracies  in the  data, the
                                                                                        Printed on Recycled Paper
                                              318

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
constant usage of CERCLIS data for program and
project  management  purposes minimizes  the
possibility of gross errors in the statistics presented
in the FY89  Superfund Report to  Congress.  I
believe,  therefore,  that   the  CERCLIS  data
presented in  the FY89 Report is the best data
available.

       In  regard  to your  comments  on  the
Superfund  Innovative  Technology  Evaluation
(SITE) Program, we understand the concerns you
express  regarding  the  status  of  the  Ogden
Environmental  Services   Demonstration.    The
Office  of   Environmental  Engineering   and
Technology Demonstration, which is responsible
for the SITE program, maintains that the SITE
program Report to Congress, which  is the source
for the  FY89  Report,   properly  includes  the
demonstration by Ogden as one of the seven field
demonstrations   completed  in FY89.     The
demonstration program occurs in many Stages  that
are not always readily quantifiable, and to maintain
consistency with  the SITE Report,  we have
retained  Ogden  Environmental as  one  of  the
completed demonstrations in the FY89 Report.

       I request that you  finalize your draft audit
report, and we will  publish it, as  required by
statute, as an  appendix to  the Annual Report.
                                             319

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989
                                                                              APPENDIX
                                                                                       G
                                                     List  of Sources
       The following is a list of reference sources that were used in the preparation of this Report. Sources
for data used in graphics within the text are cited on the graphics and also listed below. Other references were
used for background information and also for fiscal year accomplishment data.


Statutes

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, P.L. 96-510 (11 December 1980),
       42 U.S.C. § 9601 et. seg.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P.L. 94-580 (21 October 1976), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et. seq.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, P.L. 99-499 (17 October 1986), 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et. seq.


Rulemakings

"Reportable Quantity Adjustments," Proposed Rule, 52 FR 8140 (March 16, 1987).

"Technical Assistance Grants to Groups at National Priorities List Sites," Interim Final Rule with Request
       for  Comments, 53 FR 9736 (March 24, 1988).

"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites," Final Rule, 52 FR 27620 (July 22,1987).

"Reporting Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances," Proposed Rule, 53 FR 12868 (April 19, 1988).

"Reporting Exemptions for Federally Permitted Releases of Hazardous Substances," Proposed Rule, 53 FR
       27268 (July 19, 1988).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan," Proposed Rule 53 FR 51394 (December
       21,  1988).

"Hazardous  Ranking System (HRS) for Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Releases; Appendix A of the
       National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan," Proposed Rule, 53 FR 51962
       (December 23,  1988).

"Designation of Extremely Hazardous Substances as CERCLA Hazardous Substances," Proposed Rule, 54 FR
       3388 (January 23, 1989).

"Superfund Program; Regulations Governing Citizen Suits," Proposed Rule, 54 FR 3918 (January 26,1989).


                                            321

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
"Cooperative Agreement and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions," Interim Final Rule
       with Request for Comments, 54 FR 4132 (January 27, 1989).

"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Final Federal Facility Site Update," Final
       Rule, 54 FR 10512 (March 13, 1989).

"Administrative Penalty Procedures,"  Interim Final Rule, 54 FR 21174 (May 15,1989).

Reportable Quantity Adjustment - Radionuclides; Final Rule, 54 FR 22524 (May 24, 1989).

"Arbitration Procedures for Small Superfund Cost Recovery Claims," Final Rule, 54 FR 23174 (May 30,1989).

"Citizen Awards for Information on Criminal Violations Under Superfund," Final Rule, 54 FR 26142 (June
       21,1989).

"Worker Protection Standards for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response," Final Rule, 54 FR
       26654 (June 23, 1989).

"Reporting  and Liability Exemptions  for Federally  Permitted Releases  of  Hazardous  Substances,"
        Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule, 54 FR 29306 (July 11,1989).

"National Priorities List for  Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites:  Update #9 -- Federal Facility Sites,"
        Proposed Rule, 54 FR 29820 (July 14, 1989).

"Reportable Quantity Adjustments," Final Rule, 54 FR 33418 (August 14, 1989).

"Reportable Quantity Adjustments; Delisting of Ammonium Thiosulfate," Final Rule, 54 FR 33426 (August
        14,  1989).

"Reportable Quantity Adjustments," Proposed Rule, 54 FR 35988 (August 30,  1989).

"Response Claims  Procedures for the Hazardous Substance  Superfund," Proposed Rule, 54 FR 37892
        (September 13, 1989).

"Technical Assistance Grants to  Groups at National Priorities List Sites," Amendments to the Interim Final
        Rule with Request for Comments, 54 FR 49848 (December 1, 1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,"  Final Rule, 55 FR 8666 (March 8,
        1990).

"Reporting Hazardous Substance Activity When Selling or Transferring Federal Real Property," Final Rule,
        55 FR 14208 (April  16,  1990).

"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
        Final Rule, 48 FR 40658 (September 8, 1983).

 "Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
        Final Rule, 49 FR 37070 (September 21, 1984).

 "Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; the National Priorities
        List," Proposed Rule, 49 FR 40320 (October 15,  1984).
                                               322

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFVND                                Fiscal Year 1989
"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
       Final Rule, 50 FR 6320 (February 14, 1985).

"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
       Proposed Rule,  50 FR 14115 (April 10, 1985).

"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
       Final Rule, 50 FR 37630 (September 11, 1985).

"Amendment to National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List,"
       Proposed Rule,  50 FR 37950 (September 18, 1985).

"National Priorities List  for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites -- Final Update No. 5," Final Rule, 54 FR
       13296 (March 31, 1989).


Memoranda

Memorandum; Subject:  The Role of Expedited Response Actions Under SARA; From: Henry L. Longest
       II, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; To: Advisees; OSWER Directive 9360.0-15;
       OERR; April 21, 1987.

Memorandum; Subject:  Removal Program Priorities; From: J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator; To:
       Regional Administrators, Regions I-X;  OSWER Directive No. 9360.0-18; OSWER; March 31,1988.

Memorandum; Subject:  Proposed Expedited Response Actions at NPL Sites in Region VII; From: David A.
       Wagoner,  Director, Waste Management Division; To:  Henry L. Longest, II, Director, Office of
       Emergency and  Remedial Response; OSWER Directive 9360.0-1; Region VII; May 20, 1988.

Memorandum; Subject:   Guidance on Non-NPL  Removal  Actions Involving Nationally  Significant or
       Precedent-Setting Issues; From: Henry C. Longest, II, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial
       Response;  To:  Director, Waste Management  Division,  Regions I, IV, V, VII,  VIII; Director,
       Hazardous Waste Management  Division,  Regions  III, VI; Director,  Emergency and Remedial
       Response   Division,  Region   II;  Director, Hazardous  Waste  Division, Region X;  Director,
       Environmental Services Division, Region I, VI, VII; OSWER Directive 9360.0-19, March 3, 1989.

Memorandum; Subject:  LDR Soft Hammer Checklist;  From: Timothy Fields, Jr., Director Emergency
       Response  Division; To:  OHM Coordinators,  Regions  I-X, Joseph  Lafornara, Environmental
       Response  Team, March 15, 1989.

Memorandum; Subject:  Policy for Superfund Compliance with the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions; From:
       Jonathan  Z. Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator; To:  Region Administrator, Regions I-X,
       OSWER Directive 9347.1-02, April 17, 1989.

Memorandum; Subject:  Final Guidance on Implementation of the "Consistency" Exemption to the Statutory
       Limits on Removal Actions; From: Johnathan Z.  Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator; To:
       Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, OSWER Directive  No. 9360.0-12A1, June 12, 1989.

Memorandum; Subject:  Draft Guidance on  CERCLA § 106(a) Administrative Orders for Removal Actions;
       From:  John Cross, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement; To:  Oil and Hazardous Materials
       Coordinators, Regions I-X, June  19, 1989.
                                             323

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989
Memorandum; Subject:  Unaddressed NPL Sites, From:  J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator; To:
       Regional Administrators, Regions I-X; OSWER Directive 9200.2-01, July 6, 1989.

Memorandum; Subject:   Use of Removal Approaches to Speed Up Remedial Action  Projects; From:
       Jonathan Z. Cannon, Acting Assistant Administrator; To:  Regional Administrators, Regions I-X;
       OSWER Directive 9355.0-25A; July 6, 1989.

Memorandum; Subject: Action Memorandum Guidance and Removal Procedures Strategy; From: Timothy
       Fields, Jr., Director, Emergency Response Division; To:  Adressees, July 18, 1989.


Reports

"A Management Review of the Superfund Program," May  1989.

"A Management Review of the Superfund Program," Implementation Plan, September 1989.

Superfund Program Report-Regional Branch Chiefs, Quarterly Update, OERR.

FY88 ROD Summary Report, HSCD/OERR, March 1989.

FY89 ROD Annual Summary Report, HSCD.

Progress Toward Implementing Superfund:  Fiscal Year 1987, OERR, April  1989.

Progress Toward Implementing Superfund:  Fiscal Year 1988, OERR, April  1990.


Guidance Documents

Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.0-4A, OERR, June
        1986.

Preliminary Assessment Guidance for Fiscal Year 1988, OSWER Directive 9345.0-01, OERR, January 1988.

Guidance on Preparing  Superfund Decision Documents:  The Proposed Plan and the Record of Decision
        (Review Draft), OERR, March 1988.

Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Draft), OSWER
        Directive 9355.3-01, OERR, March 1988.

Interim Guidance on Administrative Records for Selection of CERCLA Respone Actions, OSWER Directive
        9833.3A, OERR, March 1, 1989.

Completion and Deletion Status of National Priorities List Sites, HSCD/OERR, September 1, 1989.

Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program, OSWER Directive 9375.5-02,
        October 18,  1989.

Revised Interim Final Guidance on Indian Involvement in the Superfund Program, OSWER Directive 9375.5-
        02A, November 1989.
                                            324

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SVPEEFUND                               Fiscal Year 1989


Other Sources

Management of Construction in the Superfimd Program (Training booklet), HSCD, July 31, 1986.

"The New Superfund:  Protecting People and Their Environment;" EPA Journal, Office of Public Affairs,
       January/February 1987.

"Superfund:  Looking Back, Looking Ahead;" Reprinted from EPA Journal, Office of Public Affairs, April
       1987.

"Federal Facilities Added to the National Priorities List;" 52 FR 27620 (July 22, 1987).

Pre-Remedial Strategy for Implementing SARA, OSWER Directive 9345.2-01, OSWER, February 12,1988.

"Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket;" EPA initial list of Federal Facilities Under CERCLA
       Section 120(c), 53 FR 4280 (February 12, 1988).

Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Version), OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B, OERR,
       March 1988.

"EPA revises policy for listing RCRA sites on NPL," Hazardous Intelligence Materials Reports, August 5,1988.

"Superfund Program Status:  Regional Branch Chiefs Quarterly Update;" OSWER, October 24,1988.

Superfund Site Completions and Deletions from the October 25,1988 National Priorities List, HSCD/OERR,
       October 25, 1988.

"Availability of Final Versions of Toxicological Profiles," Notice, 54 FR 14037 (April 6, 1989).

"Availability of Final Versions of First 25 Toxicological Profiles," Notice, 54 FR 26417 (June 23, 1989).

"Availability of Final Versions of Toxicological Profiles," Notice, 54 FR 49816 (December 1, 1989).

"Hazard Ranking System (HRS) for Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Releases; Field Test Report," Notice
       of Availability of Data and Request for Comment, 54 FR 37949 (September 14, 1989).

"Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket;" First six-month update of list of Federal Facilities
       Under CERCLA Section 120(c) and revisions to  initial list, 53 FR 45364 (November 16,  1988).

"Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket," Notice of Second Update of the Federal Agency
       Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Pursuant to CERCLA Section 102(c), 54 FR 51472 (December
       15, 1988).

"1989-1993 Training Strategy;" OSWER.

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
       of Deletion of Site from the National Priorities List, 53 FR 51780 (December 23, 1988).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
       of Deletion of Site from the National Priorities List, 54 FR 2124 (January 19,1989).
                                             325

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989
"Presque Isle Superfund Site; National Priorities List Deletion," Notice of Deletion of Site from the National
        Priorities List, 54 FR 6521 (February 13, 1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
        of Deletion of Site from the National Priorities List, 54 FR 7424 (February 21, 1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
        of Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 7548 (February 22, 1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
        of Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 7549 (February 22, 1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
        of Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 11203 (March 17,  1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
        of Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 11949 (March 23,  1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
        of Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 23212 (May 31, 1989).

"National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update," Notice
        of Deletion of Site from National Priorities List, 54 FR 38994 (September 22, 1989).

Agency Review of SARA Capacity Assurance Plans, OSWER Directive 9010.00A, October 16, 1989.

Solicitations for Research Grant Proposals -1990, Exploratory Research Grants, EPA/60019-89/074, August
        1989.

"Highlights of Superfund Grants Programs," ORD, September 1989.

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program, EPA Research Symposium, EPA 540/889/002,
        April  10-12, 1989.

Political Subdivision-Lead for Remedial Response, OSWER Directive 9375.5-03, May 1, 1989.

State and Local Involvement in the Superfund Program, OSWER Directive 9375.01/FS, Fall 1989.

An Analysis of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, Prepared by the Environmental Law Institute for
        HSCD, August 1989.

Active Superfund Contractor Listing FY 1988-1989, EPA Office of Administration.

EPA Superfund Budget Documents.

EPA Superfund Budget Analysis Resource System.

List of FY88 Requests, Superfund Docket and Information Center.

Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan.

CERCLA Information System.

                                               326

-------
Progress Toward Implementing SUPERFUND                                Fiscal Year 1989



Congressional Budget Submissions.

EPA Contract Laboratory Program, Sample Management Office.

Final Strategic Targeted Activities for Results System.

Removal Tracking System, Emergency Response Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Strategic Planning and Management System.

1989 Report to Congress on Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation  (March 1990), "Highlights of
       Superfund Grants Program; ORD.

"Superfund Environmental Indicators Evaluation of Public Response," April 1989, Westat, Incorporated.
                                             327
    «• US. GCVEnNMENTPRINTlNQOFFICe:19ei-54a-187/2C615

-------