PB92-963252
United States Solid Waste And ; EPA/540/8-91/016
Environmental Protection Emergency Response September 1991
Agency (OS-240)
SUPERFUND:
Focusing on the
Nation at Large
1991
Update
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Publication #9200.5-701 A
September 1991
SUPERFUND:
Focusing on the Nation at Large
1991
n
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase additional copies of the National overview volume,
SUPERFUND: Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991) or any of the 1991 updates of
the State volumes, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface : v
Introduction:
Hazardous Wastes: Facing a Tough Challenge 1
Section 1
Hazardous Waste Problems Are Multifaceted 7
Section 2
Site Contaminants Pose Diverse Threats 13
Section 3
Citizens, Industry, and Government
Have Vital Roles in Superfund Site Cleanup 17
Section 4
Cleanup Successes: Measuring Progress 23
The National Progress Report 29
-------
PREFACE
In 1986, Congress enacted sweeping amendments to the nation's law to cleanup abandoned
hazardous waste sites. Two years later, Administrator Reilly set a course for the Superfund
program designed to improve the program's performance and to increase the role of the private
sector in paying for cleanup. As a result of these actions, Superfund has dramatically increased
its success. As of March 31,1991, cleanup has been initiated at nearly half of the sites that are a
national priority. Thousands of emergency actions have been taken around the country to make
sites safe. Enforcement actions have enabled EPA to recover more than $2 billion in cleanup
actions from responsible parties. Responsible parties are now actively engaged at 62% of the
national priority sites. After more than a decade of work, the program can report substantial
environmental progress in cleaning up sites.
The following six goals provide the direction for the Superfund program:
1. Reduce immediate threats: Control the imminent threats immediately and address
the worst problems at sites first.
2. Make progress toward permanent cleanup: Accelerate and improve long-term
cleanup action at sites.
3. Strengthen enforcement and maximize responsible party work at sites.
4. Bring innovative technologies to bear when cleaning up Superfund sites.
5. Implement an aggressive program of community involvement.
6. Communicate progress to the public.
This is an upclate^of the 1990 publication Superfund; Focusing on the Nation at Large. It describes
all work caWjletea at those sites deemed to be of national priority and placed on the National
Priorities Li&MNPL), including progress made since the initial publication through March 31,
1991. Information on the types of sites on the NPL is provided, as well as the progress made at
each site as it approaches construction of long-term cleanup remedies. This publication also
provides evidence of environmental improvement at 507 NPL sites nationwide.
This national summary publication is supplemented by individual State books that provide
information on the cleanup status and environmental progress for each of the 1,245 sites on the
NPL. EPA intends to continue to update both the site information sheets and the national status
information each year.
The road in front of us continues to provide challenges: new and complex scientific issues,
exciting new technologies that increase our capability to provide permanent solutions to prob-
lems, and a greater understanding of the multifaceted nature of the hazardous waste problems.
We at EPA will continue to work with you to implement this program professionally and
openly.
-------
INTRODUCTION
EARLY HAZARDOUS WASTE
STORIES REVEALED THE
DANGERS
As the 1970s came to a close, a series of
headline stories gave Americans a look
at the dangers of dumping industrial and
urban wastes on the land. First there was
New York's Love Canal. Hazardous waste
buried there over a 25-year period contami-
nated streams and soil, and endangered the
health of nearby residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred people. Then the
Valley of the Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention. The site of these leaking
storage barrels quickly became front page
news. The next national hazardous waste
headline was Times Beach. Oil contaminated
with toxic dioxin tainted the land and water in
this eastern Missouri community.
In all these cases, public health and the
environment were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values depreciated. It was
becoming increasingly clear that there were
large numbers of serious hazardous waste
problems that were falling through the cracks
of existing environmental laws. The magni-
tude of this problem moved Congress to enact
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
in 1980. CERCLA was the first Federal law
dealing with the dangers posed by the
Nation's abandoned and uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste sites.
AFTER DISCOVERY, THE
PROBLEM INTENSIFIED
Confidence Was High in 1980
Thus CERCLA, commonly known as the
Superfund, was launched as a direct and
limited effort to clean up the Nation's hazard-
Hazardous
Wastes:
Facing a Tough
Challenge
ous waste sites. Congress recognized that the
EPA could not address all sites, and therefore
directed it to set priorities for Federal action
under the Superfund. At that time, expecta-
tions were high that the $1.6 billion fund
created by Congress was sufficient to clean up
these priority sites.
But Problems Soon Surfaced Everywhere
The news stories turned out to be just the
beginning. Few realized the size of the
problem until the EPA began the process of
site discovery and site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of potential hazardous
waste sites existed, and they presented the
Nation with some of the most complex pollu-
tion problems it had ever faced.
In the years since the Superfund program
began, hazardous waste has surfaced as a
major environmental concern in every part of
the United States. It was not just the land that
was contaminated by past waste disposal
practices. Chemicals in the soil were spread-
ing into the groundwater (a source of drinking
water for many) and into streams, lakes, bays,
and wetlands. At some sites, toxic vapors
were rising into the air. Some pollutants,
such as metals and solvents, had damaged
vegetation, endangered wildlife, and threat-
ened the health of people who unknowingly
-------
INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS THE SUPERFUND
AND HOW IS IT FUNDED?
In 1980, Congress passed a law called the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly called the
Superfund. The Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) was
passed by Congress in 1986 to update and
improve the Superfund law. The law
authorizes the Federal government to
respond directly to releases, or threatened
releases, of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health, welfare or the
environment. Legal actions can be taken to
force parties responsible for causing the
contamination to clean up those sites or
reimburse the Superfund for the costs of
cleanup. If those responsible for site con-
tamination cannot be found or are unwilling
or unable to clean up a site, the EPA can use
monies from the Superfund to clean up a
site. The Superfund is actually the trust
fund that finances these cleanup actions.
CERCLA established a $1.6 billion fund
made up of taxes on crude oil and commer-
cial chemicals. When the Superfund was
reauthorized by Congress in 1986, the fund
was increased by $8.5 billion. These mon-
ies are made available to the Superfund
directly from excise taxes on petroleum and
feedstock chemicals, a tax on certain im-
ported chemical derivatives, an environmen-
tal tax on corporations, appropriations made
by Congress from general tax revenues, and
any monies recovered or collected from
parties responsible for site contamination.
Reauthorization of the Superfund was
incorporated into the 1991 Budget legisla-
tion recently passed by Congress and signed
by the President. This provides authority to
continue funding under the existing program
structure through September 30, 1994.
worked or played in contaminated soil, drank
contaminated water, or ate contaminated
plants or animals.
The Scope of the Cleanup Effort Widened
As site discoveries grew, cost estimates rose.
Clearly $1.6 billion was not enough to clean
up the Nation's most serious hazardous waste
sites. Realizing the long-term nature of the
problem and the enormous job ahead, Con-
gress reauthorized the program in 1986 for
another five years, adding $8.5 billion to the
Fund. The amended law was stricter, broader
in scope, and required that—"to the maximum
extent practicable" —solutions make use of
alternative or resource recovery technologies
and be permanent. This reauthorization also
allowed the EPA the long-needed opportunity
to develop a comprehensive management
strategy to meet the growing challenges of
this technically complex program.
EPA Identified More than 1,200
Serious Sites
The EPA has identified 1,245* hazardous
waste sites as the most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the "National Priorities
List," those sites targeted for cleanup under
the Superfund. But site discoveries continue,
and the EPA estimates that, while some sites
will be deleted after lengthy cleanups, this
list, commonly called the NPL, will continue
to grow by approximately 50 to 100 sites per
year, potentially reaching 2,100 sites by the
year 2000.
* 23 sites have been proposed for addition to the NPL
after site summaries had been written. These sites
will be included in next year's update of this edition.
-------
INTRODUCTION
THE NATIONAL CLEANUP
EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the Superfund pro-
gram, Congress recognized that the Federal
government could not and should not be
responsible for addressing all environmental
problems stemming from past disposal prac-
tices. Therefore, the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list of sites to target
Sites on the NPL (1,245) are thus a relatively
small subset of a larger inventory of potential
hazardous waste sites, but they do comprise
the most complex and environmentally
compelling cases. The EPA has logged more
than 35,000 sites on its National hazardous
waste site inventory, and assesses each site
within one year of being logged. In fact, over
92 percent of the sites on the inventory have
been assessed. Of the assessed sites, 52
percent have been found to require no further
Federal action because they did not pose
significant human health or environmental
risks. The remaining sites are undergoing
further assessment to determine if long-term
Federal cleanup activities are appropriate.
Where imminent threats to the public or
environment were evident, the EPA has
initiated or monitored more than 2,700 imme-
diate actions at more than 2000 sites.
THIS NATIONAL OVERVIEW
REFLECTS SUPERFUND'S
PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES
Success is Difficult to Define
However high initial expectations may have
been, the Nation is only now beginning to
confront the real dilemma of the Superfund:
how to reduce environmental risks from a
growing list of sites. Therefore, we speak of
success in terms of progress towards meeting
human health and environmental goals. This
book is an attempt to summarize the nature of
environmental problems at sites on the NPL
and Superfund's actions to date in cleaning up
these sites. This book does not address the
more than 1,800 sites not on the National
Priorities List at which emergency actions
have been taken to reduce imminent threats to
human health and the environment. The
results of these emergency actions are sum-
marized in an annual publication entitled
Superfund Emergency Response Actions,
available from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service (NTIS).
To understand the big picture on hazardous
waste cleanup, citizens need to hear about
both environmental progress across the
country and the cleanup accomplishments
closer to home. The public also should
understand the challenges involved in hazard-
ous waste cleanup and the decisions we must
make, as a Nation, in finding the best solu-
tions.
The National and State Books Describe
the Superfund Activities
In the pages that follow, you will read about
the scope of the national problem; what the
EPA, the States, and parties responsible for
contamination have accomplished toward risk
reduction and cleanup; and what is planned in
the years ahead.
The State books contain fact sheets on each of
the sites being cleaned up under Superfund.
These sites represent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the Nation, and often
require complicated and costly site solutions.
Each State book gives a "snapshot" of the
conditions and the cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in that State
through March 1991. In addition, the State
volumes explain the Superfund process,
provide an overview of State cleanup
progress, and define key terms used in the
-------
INTRODUCTION
NPL site summaries. These site summaries
will be updated annually.
Using the National and State Books
in Tandem
This National Overview volume—Superfund:
Focusing on the Nation at Large (1991) —
features the following structure. Section 1
describes the nature of the hazardous waste
problem nationwide. Section 2 briefly de-
scribes contaminants at NPL sites, and the
effects they have on human health and the
environment. Section 3 describes the vital
roles of various participants in the hazardous
waste cleanup process. Section 4 describes
the Superfund program's successes in clean-
ing up the Nation's worst hazardous waste
sites, and provides a clear discussion of
progress as measured by specific environmen-
tal indicators.
The National Progress Report in the back of
this National overview summarizes the status
of cleanup activities at each NPL site at the
time the fact sheets were prepared. Sites are
listed alphabetically by State. Each arrow
shows the most advanced phase of the
cleanup process that is completed or currently
underway.
While the National book provides an overall
picture of hazardous waste sites throughout
the nation, the State books specifically discuss
every State and U.S. Territory site on the
NPL. Central to each State book are fact
sheets that provide site-by-site descriptions
and details on the activities being taken to
clean up site contamination. An example fact
sheet from one of the State books is on the
facing page. It summarizes conditions at a
site and the cleanup activities and environ-
mental progress that have been made there.
These categories appear on each fact sheet:
1. Site Description — Describes the physical
and historical features of the site.
2. Site Responsibility — Lists the parties
who are involved in site cleanup activities.
3. Threats and Contaminants — Tells what
hazardous materials have polluted the site and
its surroundings, and what risks they pose.
4. Cleanup Approach — Details the activi-
ties completed, underway, and planned at the
site to clean up contamination and safeguard
public health and the environment.
5. Environmental Progress — Summarizes
the progress to date in protecting the public
and the environment against immediate and
long-term threats.
-------
INTRODUCTION
1. Site Description
2. Site Responsibility
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA REGION XX
CONGRESSIONAL DISTXX
COUNTY NAME
Site Description
NPL Listing History
Site Responsibility:
Threats and Contaminants
Cleanup Approach
Response Action Status
Environmental Progress
4. Cleanup Approach
5. Environmental Progress
3. Threats and Contaminants
-------
SECTION 1
PAYING THE PRICE INTO
THE 21ST CENTURY
Today we are paying the price for years
of abuse. There is no "quick fix"; that's
clear. Yesterday's inexpensive and
supposedly efficient disposal practices have
resulted in the costly and cumbersome
cleanups of today. Improperly disposed
hazardous wastes have threatened many
environmental resources, and the nature of
these toxic "soups" compounds the cleanup
problem (see Figure 1). Indeed, a national
hazardous waste program will probably be
necessary for many years.
The EPA estimates that the Superfund will
spend more than $27 billion on cleanup
construction at sites currently on the NPL.
Parties responsible for contamination are
expected to conduct 65 percent of the cleanup
work, which accounts for billions more in
cleanup dollars. It is expected to take about 7
years before all sites currently on the NPL
will have started engineered cleanup activi-
ties, and the EPA expects to add new sites to
the list each year. Currently, the average cost
of cleanup is $26 million per site, and there is
every reason to believe that these costs will
climb as some of the more complex sites
move into the cleanup phase of the process.
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
ARE DIVERSE
It's virtually impossible to describe the
"typical" hazardous waste site: they are
extremely diverse. Many are municipal or
industrial landfills. Others are manufacturing
plants where operators improperly disposed of
wastes. Some are large Federal facilities
dotted with "hot spots" of contamination from
various high-tech or military activities. The
Hazardous
Waste
Problems Are
Multifaceted
chief contributors of these wastes are in our
manufacturing sector (see Figure 2).
While many hazardous waste sites have been
abandoned, a site may still be an active
operation, or it may be fully or partially
closed down. Sites range dramatically in size,
from a 1/4-acre metal plating shop to a 250-
square-mile mining area. The types of wastes
they contain vary widely, too: some of the
chief constituents of wastes present in solid,
liquid, and sludge forms include heavy met-
als, a common by-product of many electro-
plating operations, and solvents or degreasing
agents. These are discussed in Section 2:
Threats and Contaminants.
NPL sites are found in all types of settings:
slightly more are found in rural/suburban
areas than in the urban areas, but very few are
truly remote from either homes or farms (see
Figure 3).
Yet the idea of a "site," some kind of disposal
area or dump, still does not portray the entire
picture. Transportation spills and other
industrial process or storage accidents account
for some hazardous waste releases. The result
can be fires, explosions, toxic vapors, and
contamination of groundwater used for
drinking.
-------
SECTION 1
What Were the Potential Threats* to the
Environment that Led to Listing on the NPL?
Percent of Sites
85.2 GROUNDWATER IMPACTS
73.1 DRINKING WATER IMPACTS
72.1
SOIL IMPACTS
50.4 SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
26.0
10.5
7.8
6.6
Actual threats are
determined during
comprehensive site studies
AIR IMPACTS
FLORA IMPACTS (VEGETATION)
ANIMAL LIFE IMPACTS
HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
Source: NPL Characterization Report (2/90)
Figure 1
Contamination is a
"Toxic Soup" of
Hazardous Wastes
Heavy Metals
Solvents
Organic Chemicals
Municipal Wastes
Inorganic Chemicals
Pesticides/Herbicides
Paints and Oil Wastes
Radioactive Wastes
EACH SITE IS UNIQUE: THERE
IS NO UNIFORM APPROACH
comes mainly from laboratory
studies of pure chemicals. There
still is much to learn about the
nature of the complex mixtures
of wastes generally found at
these sites, how they affect the
environment, and how best to
control them.
Only Groundbreaking Gives
Definitive Information
No matter how exhaustive pre-
liminary studies may be, sam-
pling and site observation simply
cannot reveal the full extent of
the problem at many sites.
Uncertainties exist right up until
the point where ground is broken
for the cleanup work and
throughout the final cleanup
That's why there is no ready answer
How long will it take?" On
Sites Display Many Different Variables
Every NPL site is unique, and
cleanups must be tailored to
the specific needs of each site
and the types of wastes that
contaminate it. The range of
possibilities is enormous.
First, the site's physical char-
acteristics (its hydrology, ge-
ology, topography, and cli-
mate) determine how con-
taminants will affect the envi-
ronment. Then, there is the
variation in site type: landfill,
manufacturing plant, military
base, metal mine. The list is
long. The type of wastes
present adds another complex
dimension. Information on
the health and environmental
effects of hazardous wastes
process.
to the question:
average 6 to 8 years will elapse between the
start of the cleanup study and remedy comple-
tion.
Wastes at NPL Sites Come from
Many Sources
389%
MANUFACTURING
ELECTRONIC AND
ELECTRIC
EQUIPMENT
ELECTROPLATING
LUMBER AND WOOD TREATING
PETROLEUM AND REFINING
PRIMARY METAL PRODUCTS
RUBBER AND PLASTIC PRODUCTS
TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
PAPERAND ALLIED PRODUCTS
CONSTRUCTION
ELECTRIC
AGRICULTURE
FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
OTHER MANUFACTURING
Source NPL Characterization Report (2/90)
Figure 2
-------
SECTION 1
EPA is
DEVELOPING NEW
SITE CLEANUP
TECHNOLOGIES
While technological con-
cepts were not fully field-
tested in the early 1980s,
hazardous waste cleanup
efforts have begun to yield
the information needed to
design permanent site
cleanup solutions. Since
1986, the move has been
away from "containment"
of hazardous wastes.
Containment entails segre-
gating the wastes in a
particular place, but unfor-
tunately many materials cannot reliably be
controlled this way. This is particularly true
of liquids, highly mobile substances (like
solvents), and high concentrations of toxic
compounds. For these wastes, treatment is
the preferred approach: it reduces the toxic-
ity, mobility, and volume of wastes at Super-
fund sites.
NPL Sites are Located in All Settings and Areas
81.8
47.4
41.6
34.5
26.7
I 10.6
| 8.5
24.1
Residential
Industrial Area
Commercial District
Agricultural
Forests/Fields
Military and other Federal Facilities
Mining
Other & Unspecified
Site Setting
Source: NPL Characterization (2/90)
Percent 50
Land Use in Site Vicinity
Figure 3
There has been a progressive increase since
1986 in the frequency with which treatment
(rather than containment) has been selected as
a remedy for controlling the primary source of
contamination at hazardous waste sites. In
1987, some type of waste treatment was being
used in about 50 percent of cleanup remedies
the EPA selected. By 1990, that number had
risen to more than 79 percent (see Figure 4).
EPA has Increased Use of Treatment Technologies
at NPL Sites
1987
1988
1989
1990
Treatment
Technologies
Source 1990 ROD Analysis
Figure 4
I I Containment and
— Removal
Technologies
-------
SECTION 1
LISTING SITES ON THE NPL —A
DYNAMIC PROCESS
The NPL identifies and tracks the progress of
the most serious hazardous waste sites in the
Nation: sites targeted by the EPA for cleanup
under Superfund. Each year, through a series
of updates, the NPL changes with new sites
proposed to the list, proposed sites added to
the final list, and finally, when all cleanup
actions have been completed and any long-
term monitoring has concluded, sites are
deleted from the list. In addition, some sites
listed on the proposed NPL may be deter-
mined to be ineligible for Superfund cleanup
and are dropped, or removed, from the NPL
because of new information that becomes
available.
This dynamic process has resulted in the NPL
growing from 406 sites proposed to the
original NPL in 1982 to its present number of
1,245 in September 1991. The NPL will
continue to change and grow in the future as
new hazardous waste sites are discovered and
other sites move through the site investigation
and cleanup process (see Figure 5).
New Sites Are Proposed to the NPL
When a site is found to pose a serious threat
to human health and the environment, it may
be considered for the NPL. Once proposed to
the NPL, a site becomes eligible for cleanup
under the Superfund program. To qualify for
the "proposed" listing status, sites must meet
at least one of the following criteria:
The Growth of the NPL
From the First List to the Present
2200
DELETED SITES
j FINAL SITES
PROPOSED SITES
Source: CERCLIS (10/91)
1986 1987
YEAR
1990 PRESENT
Figure 5
10
-------
SECTION 1
m Receive a health advisory from the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) recommending that
people be relocated away from the site;
• Score 28.5 or higher in the Hazard Rank-
ing System (HRS), which is the method
that the EPA uses to assess the relative
threat from a release, or potential release,
of hazardous substances; or
• Be selected as the State top priority.
Since last year's publication, the EPA has
revised the HRS scoring process for evaluat-
ing and adding sites to the NPL (see sidebar).
The new HRS places additional emphasis on
evaluating the potential for nearby residents
to be exposed to site contamination and
increases consideration of sensitive environ-
ments in the selection process for NPL sites.
As this report was being prepared, 22 new
sites have been scored and proposed to the
NPL using the revised HRS. This brings the
current total to 1,245 sites.
New Sites Are Added to the NPL
Once a site is proposed, a public comment
period is held, seeking public input on the site
scoring and other factors that lead to listing
the site on the NPL. If the review of com-
ments shows that the site remains eligible for
the NPL, the site will be finalized to the NPL
in a Federal Register rule, and the cleanup
process will continue. All proposed sites
reported in last year's publication have been
reviewed and there are now 1,185 sites on the
final NPL.
Currently, there are no sites on the final NPL
in the District of Columbia and four Trust
Territories, including American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, and the Virgin Islands. All fifty U.S.
states have sites on the 1991 NPL; New
THE NEW HAZARD RANKING
SYSTEM
The EPA recently released a revised HRS
scoring system to enhance the process for
identifying the most hazardous and threat-
ening sites for Superfund cleanup. Under
the new HRS, emphasis in selecting sites
for the NPL is given to sites where actual
threats to nearby residents and sensitive
environments occur. This expanded consid-
eration of pathways for human exposure
places increased attention on ecological
damage and immediate threats at the site.
These changes in the new HRS system are
designed to improve site selection by
targeting sites with actual threats to nearby
residents and sensitive environments. In
summary, the new HRS:
• Considers the effect on the HRS score
of early actions to clean up hazardous
wastes at the site
• Gives more weight to actual exposure to
hazardous wastes
• Examines the potential for air to be-
come contaminated from site wastes
• Assigns highest scores to sites where
residents and sensitive environments are
closest to the wastes
• Includes National Parks and monuments
in the list of sensitive environments
• Uses actual amounts and concentrations
of site contaminants to evaluate relative
risk posed by the site
• Expands the definition of toxicity to
include long-term effects of exposure to
non-carcinogenic wastes
11
-------
SECTION 1
Jersey has the largest number of final NPL
sites (109), followed by Pennsylvania (95),
California (88), and New York (83)*.
Sites Are Removed from the Proposed
NPL
If new information shows that the site does
not warrant listing, the site may be removed
from the NPL. Since the last publication of
the NPL Book, a total of 14 sites proposed to
the NPL were removed. The fact sheets for
all the sites that were removed from the NPL
have been dropped from the State volumes.
While the mission of Superfund is to clean up
the mistakes of the past and to address immi-
nent threats posed by hazardous wastes, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) is designed to clean up contamina-
tion at operating facilities regulated under this
statute. The RCRA cleanup process and
standards are similar to those under
Superfund, ensuring that all actions taken will
protect human health and the environment.
See the sidebar on page 15; These Federal
Laws Guard Against Future Contamination,
for a brief description of other statutes which
regulate the presence of contaminants in the
environment.
Sites Are Deleted from the Final NPL
Deletion is the final stage for NPL sites,
reserved only for those sites where cleanup
has been completed by the Superfund pro-
gram. Once a site meets all established health
and environmental goals and long-term
monitoring requirements, the EPA officially
can recommend that a site be deleted from the
NPL.
Since the last edition, five additional sites
have been deleted from the NPL, bringing the
total number of deleted sites to 34. A joint
decision to delete a site is made by the State
and the EPA, when all appropriate cleanup
actions have been completed aind the site no
longer poses a threat to human health or the
environment. Final actions and dates for the
latest sites deleted from the NPL are de-
scribed in the State volumes for each deleted
site.
* As of October 1991.
12
-------
SECTION 2
HAZARDOUS WASTE POSES A
VARIETY OF THREATS
Hazardous waste can include products
and residues from a variety of indus-
trial, agricultural, and military activities.
Some of the hazard lies in the waste itself: its
concentration and quantity and its physical or
chemical nature. But much of the danger
arises from improper handling, storage, and
disposal practices. The result is humans and/
or the environment are exposed to contamina-
tion.
Wastes were poorly managed in the past
because the disposers often failed to under-
stand their toxic effect and realize how strictly
they had to be contained. Dangerous chemi-
cals have often migrated from uncontrolled
sites. They may percolate from holding
ponds and pits into underlying groundwater.
They may be washed over the ground into
lakes, streams, and wetlands. They may
evaporate, explode, or blow into the air,
spreading hazardous chemicals. They may
soak into soil, making land and groundwater
unfit for habitat or agriculture. Some hazard-
ous chemicals build up, or bioaccumulate, in
plants, animals, and people when they con-
sume contaminated food and water.
Today's EPA-approved hazardous waste
disposal facilities and practices require spe-
cific safeguards to keep pollutants from
entering the environment. But the knowledge
of taking preventative precautions was gained
at considerable expense, and not before
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites had
contaminated the environment and threatened
human health.
HUMAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH ARE AT RISK
Determining the risks of hazardous waste to
human and environmental health is a complex
Site
Contaminants
Pose Diverse
Threats
undertaking. The EPA conducts risk assess-
ments at each site, analyzing the possible
ways people, animals, and plants could come
into contact with contaminants. Risk asses-
sors are concerned about the effects of contact
today and potential contact in the future.
How long were populations exposed? How
serious will the consequences be? Has the
nature of waste changed over time? Where
various wastes are present, what is their
combined effect? Scientists often find the net
risk in these situations difficult to quantify.
How Much Exposure Causes Harm?
Risk hinges upon how dangerous the chemi-
cal is, how people may come into contact with
it, how frequently, and in combination with
what other chemicals. The EPA has worked
hard to determine the amounts and types of
chemicals that can safely exist in water, air,
and soil. The Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) also conducts
its own independent assessments of the health
effects of contamination from Superfund
sites. The more sites that are analyzed,
however, the longer becomes the list of
potentially threatening substances and mix-
tures. EPA and private sector scientists are
working to determine the risks associated
with these newfound problems. They are
wrestling with the problems posed by the
toxic chemical "soups" that have been in
some holding ponds for years.
13
-------
SECTION 2
Some Common Toxic Chemicals at NPL Sites
Chemical
Contaminants
Heavy Metals
Volatile Organic
Compounds
(VOCs)
Pesticides and
Herbicides
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)
Creosotes
Sources of
Contamination
Common byproducts
of electroplating,
batteries and paint
pigments, photog-
raphy, smelting.
Mercury is
used in thermometers,
fluorescent lights, and
other products.
Solvents and degreas-
ing agents. Gasoline
octane enhancers.
Oils, paints,
varnishes, dry-cleaning
compounds, and
chemical manufacture.
Commercial pesticide
and herbicide produc-
tion, and agricultural
and industrial appli-
cations. Defoliants.
Electric transformers,
used in insulators and
coolants, adhesives,
caulking compounds,
and other products.
Wood preserving
operations, com-
bustion byproducts.
Environments
Affected
Groundwater
Surface Water
Soils
Air
Groundwater
Soils
Air
Groundwater
Surface Water
Air
Soils
Groundwater
Sediments
Soils
Sediments
Soils
Surface Water
Potential
Health Threats
Cadmium: Tumors, liver, and
kidney damage.
Chromium: Hemorrhages
and respiratory cancer.
Mercury: Kidney, brain, and
neurological damage. May
enter food chain via
bioaccumulation.
Lead: Brain, bone, and
neurological damage.
Prolonged exposure may lead
to learning disabilities in
children.
Cancers, impairment of
nervous system resulting in
sleepiness, headaches, and
possible kidney or liver
damage. Chronic exposure to
benzene can cause leukemia.
Hazardous compounds can
accumulate in the food chain
or result in diverse health
effects ranging from nausea
to nervous disorders.
Dioxin, a common byproduct
of pesticide manufacture,
is a suspected carcinogen and
known to be among the most
toxic substances.
Stored in the fatty tissues of
humans and animals through
bioaccumulation. May cause
liver damage or cancer.
PAHs and PNAs may cause
skin ulcerations and cancers
with prolonged exposure.
Sources
Toxic Chemicals — What They Am, How They Affect You (EPA, Region 5)
Glossary of Environmental Terms (EPA, 1988)
14
-------
SECTION 2
THESE FEDERAL LAWS
GUARD AGAINST FUTURE
CONTAMINATION
While commissioning the Superfund to
deal with current problems, Congress
designated other programs to avert
tomorrow's hazardous waste sites. These
programs were designed to keep toxic
substances out of the environment, by
either controlling or eliminating them.
• The Toxic Substances Control Act
strictly regulates the production of
substances that pose an unreasonable
risk to human health or the environ-
ment.
• The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act allows the States and
the EPA to track hazardous wastes
from their production through final
disposal to ensure that toxic chemicals
and wastes are handled safely and
disposed of properly.
• The Safe Drinking Water Act allows
the EPA to establish maximum safe
levels of contaminants in drinking
water to protect the public health.
• The Clean Water Act controls all
forms of water pollution by limiting
the concentrations of pollutants
discharged or dumped into national
waterways. Major oil spills, such as
the Exxon Valdez incident, are ad-
dressed under this law.
• The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act strictly regulates
the manufacture, sale, and uses of
pesticides and requires that all pesti-
cide products sold or distributed in the
U.S. be registered with the EPA.
Like the sites themselves, possible effects on
human and environmental health span a broad
spectrum. Adverse effects on people can
range from minor physical irritation to
chronic health disorders. They also can take
the form of slowly degenerating health or of
sudden damage. Plants and animals may
become contaminated and enter the food
chain. A sudden poisoning event like a
hazardous waste spill or the breaching of a
hazardous waste impoundment can pose
serious health risks.
Health and environmental risks are compli-
cated by the fact that if nothing is done,
people and ecosystems can suffer a gradual
deterioration for years, and may not show
adverse health effects until long after the fact.
In addition, there is the issue of sensitivity.
Certain populations are highly sensitive:
elderly people and children, endangered or
threatened plants and animals. Some environ-
ments are more sensitive in the way they
respond to the effects of hazardous chemicals:
wetlands, coastal areas, estuaries, and many
other water bodies, for example, or wildlife
refuges, or rare pine or shale barrens. These
are fragile and valuable assets that must be
protected.
What Are the Threats from Superfund
Sites?
The table on the facing page provides a brief
description of specific contaminants that are
frequently found in Superfund sites across the
Nation and their effects on human health.
This sampling of contaminant groups serves
as an illustration of the potential dangers
arising from uncontrolled or abandoned
hazardous waste sites. It also highlights the
dramatic need for the EPA to intercede to
protect affected residents and environments
impacted by contamination.
15
-------
SECTION 2
PROTECTING AGAINST
FUTURE RISK
The goal of the EPA's Superfund program is
to tackle immediate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive steps necessary
to eliminate any long-term risks to public
health and affected environments. But in
addition to the Superfund, other major laws
help the EPA control toxic substances (see
sidebar on previous page). Each focuses
legislative pressure on reducing contamina-
tion at the source, before human health and
the environment are threatened.
16
-------
SECTION 3
EPA MANAGES THE
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
T
he EPA's Superfund program is respon-
sible for:
• Enforcing Superfund laws and overseeing
Superfund cleanup activities;
• Studying sites and evaluating the contami-
nation and its risk to health and the envi-
ronment;
• Identifying and responding to hazardous
waste emergencies;
• Searching for those who created or con-
tributed to site hazards;
• Negotiating cleanup offers or settlements
with cooperating parties or suing uncoop-
erative ones;
• Selecting the best cleanup remedy for
each site;
• Monitoring cleanup at all NPL sites,
regardless of who does the work;
• Keeping the public informed about
progress at each site;
• Helping develop new cleanup technolo-
gies and expertise;
• Coordinating cleanup and enforcement
activities with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Department of
Justice.
EPA IS CULTIVATING EXPERTS
Over the past decade, the EPA has cultivated
a group of hazardous waste specialists who
can both manage and advise on approaches to
site cleanup: remedial program managers
(RPMs) and on-scene coordinators (OSCs).
The RPM oversees long-term site cleanup and
the OSC manages immediate cleanup actions.
Citizens,
Industry, and
Government
Have Vital
Roles in
Superfund Site
Cleanup
These technical managers continue to expand
their expertise and experience with hazardous
waste cleanups.
RPMs and OSCs deal with numerous com-
plexities. They must comply with a variety of
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
They must coordinate the activities and
interactions of State and local offices, con-
tractors, technical specialists, landowners, and
often the private individuals or companies
potentially responsible for site contamination.
And, as central players in the decisions
regarding the cleanup approach, they must
balance the technical feasibility of the cleanup
strategy with community concerns and fiscal
realities.
The EPA also has fostered the growth of
expertise in the private sector. National
environmental engineering firms that perform
the design and construction of hazardous
waste remedies across the country have
gained considerable knowledge about site
conditions, contaminants, and technological
approaches that work.
17
-------
SECTION 3
States Play An Important Role
The Superfund law authorizes the EPA to
transfer funds and management responsibility
to States to lead cleanup activities at NPL
sites. Over the past years, a strengthened
EPA/State partnership in the Superfund
program has developed. States are currently
involved with cleanup activities at 26 percent
of Superfund sites. When States take the lead
for cleanup activities at a site, their responsi-
bilities closely parallel the EPA's.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also depend upon local
citizen participation. The EPA's job is to
analyze the hazards and deploy the experts,
but the Agency needs citizen input as it makes
choices for affected communities.
Because the people in a community with a
Superfund site will be those most directly
affected by hazardous waste problems and
processes, the EPA encourages citizens to get
involved in cleanup decisions. Here are some
things citizens can do:
• Report hazardous waste dumping, no
matter how long ago it occurred. Call the
National Response Center toll free at
l-(800)-424-8802.
• Individuals or organizations that sus-
pect they are or may be affected by a
hazardous waste release, may petition
the EPA to perform a Preliminary
Assessment to verify the existence of
waste at a site, or may request the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Regis-
try (ATSDR) to perform a health assess-
CAN CITIZEN INPUT REALLY INFLUENCE EPA CLEANUP PLANS?
Public comment and involvement have influenced the EPA's plans for cleanups in a number
of cases and citizens have provided the EPA with valuable information about conditions at a
site. For example:
• At a site in Illinois, local citizens and businesses expressed concern that EPA's proposed
cleanup alternative would limit the use of a nearby lakeshore and harm the town's
economy. In response to these concerns, the EPA developed another cleanup option that
preserved the town's use of the lakeshore.
• At a site in Minnesota, local residents expressed a strong preference for treatment of local
contaminated wells over connection to the reservoir supply of a nearby city. After careful
consideration of information provided by the residents, the EPA proposed a plan to treat
the local wells to remove contaminants.
• Local residents are often an excellent source of information. Many have lived in an area
for years and can help identify those responsible for contamination and help locate sites
where wastes were illegally disposed of in the neighborhood. Many times local residents
have called the National Response Center at l-(800)-424-8802 to report hazardous mate-
rials that present an imminent threat.
The EPA's top priority is to protect human health and the environment. The Agency also
tries to include a community's preference in all actions taken at a Superfund site. Require-
ments of the Superfund law and regulations, however, may lead the EPA to take cleanup
actions that are not the communities' first choice.
18
-------
SECTION 3
ment. Contact the EPA Regional office
listed in your State book and request
information on the "Preliminary Assess-
ment Petition," or contact ATSDR at 1600
Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333 for
procedures for requesting health assess-
ments.
Find out when cleanup investigators
will arrive and share information with
them. Citizens' insights have identified
polluters, helped the cleanup team decide
where to dig and test, and raised specific
community concerns that have been
factored into cleanup decisions.
Get information from the EPA or State
Superfund office. Each State book
includes telephone numbers for the EPA
and State offices. These offices are
responsible for providing information to
citizens.
Learn about the EPA's Community
Involvement Programs. The EPA keeps
citizens informed about site conditions
and progress via news releases, free fact
sheets, and presentations on environmen-
tal and health issues to schools, commu-
nity groups, and business organizations.
Files that contain accurate, up-to-date
information on site conditions are usually
kept at a school, a library, or the town
hall.
Engage Experts. The EPA's Technical
Assistance Grants provide up to $50,000
to a community group wishing to hire
specialists who can interpret sampling
results, technical reports, and other docu-
ments.
Write the EPA for information on the
status of any site. Every site or spill
ever reported is in the EPA's computer,
including the many thousands that turned
out not to be hazardous. Citizens can get
all the details except for legal actions
against owners or possible polluters.
INFORMING THE PUBLIC
Informing communities of site progress and
activities is an important part of the cleanup
team's job. The particular outreach activities
that the Agency plans to conduct at a site are
laid out in a community relations plan. A
plan is created for every site, based on inter-
views with people in the affected community.
By creating a plan for each site, the EPA can
better ensure that the needs and interests of
each community are met.
For example, in a Massachusetts town with a
large foreign speaking community, the
cleanup team had all fact sheets translated
into Portuguese and had an interpreter on
hand for all public meetings. In another
instance, the EPA adapted to the scheduling
needs of many shift workers in a community
by holding availability sessions, instead of
public meetings. During these sessions
members of the cleanup team were available
in the town hall to talk with residents any time
during the day or evening, at the convenience
of the residents.
At a convenient location near every site, such
as a local public school or library, the EPA
establishes an information repository, which
contains site documents and general informa-
tion on the Superfund program. Information
repositories for each site are listed in the back
of the State volumes. Site updates, news
releases, media tours, and informal contacts
through telephone calls and visits to residents'
homes are just a few more of the ways the
EPA channels important information to
communities.
Another part of the cleanup team's responsi-
bility is to help citizens understand this
information and the impact it may have on
them. To do this, members of the site cleanup
team periodically hold public meetings and
meet with interested citizens' groups and
local officials. The EPA also funds the
19
-------
SECTION 3
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS: HELPING CITIZENS
UNDERSTAND COMPLEX
PROBLEMS
Recognizing the importance of commu-
nity involvement and the need for indi-
viduals living near NPL sites to be well-
informed, Congress included provisions
in the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) to establish
a Technical Assistance Grants (TAG)
Program. This program is intended to
foster informed public involvement in
decisions related to site-specific cleanup
strategies under the Superfund. The TAG
Program provides funds for qualified
local groups to hire independent technical
advisors to help them understand and
comment on technical factors in cleanup
decisions affecting them.
For example, at a site in Maine citizens
felt unable to comment on the Agency's
preferred cleanup plan, due to the com-
plexity of the technical issues involved.
They applied for and received a grant,
which they used to hire three technical
advisors. The technical advisors reviewed
and analyzed site documents and met
with citizens to explain the technical
aspects of the cleanup plan. Based on this
better understanding, the citizens were
able to make suggestions to the EPA on
its preferred cleanup alternative, which
the Agency subsequently adopted.
For more information on this Program or
to request a grant application, contact the
EPA's Regional offices. Telephone
numbers are provided in the State books.
Technical Assistance Grants Program, which
provides funds for independent technical
advice to community groups (see sidebar on
page 20).
The cleanup team seeks citizen input during
all activities at a Superfund site. This input is
particularly important when the EPA proposes
a method to cleanup the site. At this point the
cleanup team conducts many public outreach
activities, including a local newspaper notice,
fact sheet, and public comment period. Public
comments are considered and responded to in
a document called the responsiveness sum-
mary.
All of these activities are intended to encour-
age citizens to get involved in the decision-
making process. By understanding the
Superfund process and the specific circum-
stances at a site, citizens can and do affect the
EPA's decisions. To get more information
about the Community Relations Program,
contact any EPA or State Superfund office.
Their telephone numbers are listed in the State
books.
INDUSTRY PAYS FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP
Industry pays for hazardous waste cleanup
through specific taxes it pays. Over 80 per-
cent of the fund known as "Superfund" is
supported directly by excise taxes on petro-
leum and feedstock chemicals, some imported
chemicals, and corporate environmental taxes.
Financial settlements from site polluters also
are returned to the Fund.
Superfund dollars are used to clean up sites
when those who caused the contamination
cannot or will not pay. Companies are unable
to pay for a variety of reasons. They may be
too small: an individual or a small company
without sufficient assets. Perhaps they have
20
-------
SECTION 3
declared bankruptcy. In other cases, respon-
sible owners cannot be identified or found.
On the other hand, many companies can and
do pay for cleanup at sites they helped to
contaminate.
EPA IS MAKING POLLUTERS
PAY
The EPA spends considerable effort tracking
down the "potentially responsible parties";
firms and individuals who created or added to
a hazardous waste problem. Indeed, the
WHAT IS A
"POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE PARTY"?
A potentially responsible party (PRP) is
any individual or company that might have
contributed to or caused the contamination
problems at a Superfund site. Examples
include owners, operators, and waste
transporters or producers. Many PRPs did
not break a law when they disposed of their
hazardous wastes. Thus, when the EPA
compels a PRP to clean up a site, it is
usually imposing retroactive civil liability,
rather than criminal liability. Nonetheless,
the PRP can be legally ordered to pay for
or conduct the cleanup of its wastes. The
EPA begins the search for PRPs as soon as
a site is discovered and makes a more
concentrated effort to find them after a site
is added to the NPL. Once a PRP is lo-
cated and notified of its potential liability,
the EPA or the State begins the negotiation
process. The negotiations can lead directly
to a satisfactory settlement, or, if negotia-
tions fail, to a legal order that compels
cooperation under the threat of severe
financial penalty.
Superfund program makes it a high priority to
find parties who can perform or pay for
cleanup, because this helps maximize the use
of Superfund dollars.
The EPA uses a variety of enforcement tools
(e.g., administrative orders, consent decrees,
negotiations) to engage responsible parties in
site cleanup. Every successful negotiation of
a private-party cleanup means that the money
in the Superfund can be directed instead to
those sites that represent immediate emergen-
cies, or that have no hope of ever being
cleaned up by those responsible.
Cleanup Costs Can Be Recovered
Even if identifiable potentially responsible
parties refuse to undertake cleanup, they are
likely to pay in the end. The Federal govern-
ment can and does sue them to recover
cleanup costs. If a responsible party refuses
to comply with an EPA order, and the site is
cleaned up under Superfund authority, EPA
may choose to seek "treble damages." That
means the uncooperative polluter may pay up
to three times the amount of the cleanup costs
expended by the government. In cases that
require an emergency response, or where
legal actions appear too time-consuming
given the present danger, the EPA has the
authority to perform the cleanup using Fund
dollars and recover costs later.
If a polluter is clearly implicated at a hazard-
ous waste site, it is in the company's best
interest to cooperate in cleanup. The com-
pany can contain costs if it does the work,
rather than getting a bill for up to three times
the cost from the EPA in court. The EPA will
try to reach settlement with a polluter who is
cooperative concerning cleanup actions.
Cooperation first, with legal action as neces-
sary, is the process designed to move from the
planning stage to field cleanup actions as
21
-------
SECTION 3
PRPs Have Assumed Increased Responsibility at Superfund Sites4
1987
40%
1988
46%
1989
60%
1990
62%
Source: Senior Management Reports (3/91)
"Includes Removals, Site Investigations, Remedial Design, and
Cleanup Actions started in each fiscal year.
Figure 6
quickly as possible. The EPA or the State
monitors all work and ensures that it meets
government-stipulated standards.
Enforcement Successes Are Increasing
Success in making polluters pay is measur-
able. Participation in cleanups by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) increased from 40
percent in 1987 to 62 percent in 1990 (see
Figure 6). Strictly enforcing laws that enable
the EPA to recover cleanup costs has saved
the Superfund about $2 billion in work value
since 1980. Half of that sum has been recov-
ered since late 1986.
22
-------
SECTION 4
THE EPA TACKLES IMMINENT
THREATS IMMEDIATELY
Superfund responds immediately to
situations posing imminent threats to
human health and the environment, both at
NPL sites and sites not on the NPL. The
purpose is to stabilize, prevent, or temper the
effects of a hazardous release, or the threat of
one. Imminent threats might include tire fires
or discarded waste drums leaking hazardous
chemicals. Because they reduce the threat a
site poses to human health and the environ-
ment, immediate cleanup actions are an
integral part of the Superfund program.
The EPA has invested considerable resources
in identifying sites that present imminent
threats and in undertaking the required emer-
gency responses. The Agency also has
developed teams of professionals to combat
threatening situations. These emergency
workers may assist in cleanup of a dangerous
spill or advise State and local officials on the
need for a temporary water supply, air and
water monitoring, removal of contaminated
soils, or relocation of residents.
Immediate response to imminent threats is
one of Superfund's most notable achieve-
ments. The EPA has monitored and com-
pleted emergency actions that attacked the
most imminent threats of toxic exposure in
more than 2,000 cases. These include actions
at NPL sites and at sites not on the NPL in
communities across the Nation. The EPA has
used its enforcement authority to have respon-
sible parties perform emergency actions in
over 400 of these cases.
The EPA Is Making Progress on Site
Cleanup
In the last five years, the Agency aggressively
Cleanup
Measuring
Progress
has accelerated its efforts to clean up sites on
the NPL. More cleanups were started in
1987, after the Superfund law was amended,
than in any previous year. And, in 1991,
cleanup construction activity continues to
grow. Of the sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 have had cleanup construction
activity. In measuring success by "progress
through the cleanup pipeline," the EPA
clearly is gaining momentum.
Right now, 353 sites have cleanup work
underway, and the "pipeline" is full of sites
headed for cleanup (see Figure 7). Currently,
306 sites have completed remedy selection
and either are in the engineering design phase
or will be shortly, and 436 sites are at the
"investigation" step, where the nature of the
contamination problem is studied (see sidebar
on the next page for steps in the cleanup
process).
THE EPA IS MEASURING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
The Superfund "pipeline" shows step-wise
progress in moving sites toward final cleanup
and deletion from the NPL. Much of that
movement traditionally has been measured in
administrative and management milestones.
However, the start of cleanup construction
does not adequately reflect the magnitude of
environmental progress that is made. Such
23
-------
SECTION 4
SITE CLEANUP
NPL Sites: Current Stages Of Cleanup real progress often lags behind construc-
tion activity. For example, while construc-
tion of an incinerator initiates work at a
site, actual environmental progress won't
take place until hazardous wastes are being
destroyed. The EPA wanted to link
Superfund activities more directly to the
goal of protecting human health and the
environment. Greater emphasis now is
being placed on the environmental
progress the program is making; the
tangible physical evidence that the pro-
gram is achieving results.
*63 Sites have all
cleanup actions
completed
'353 Sites currently have
work underway
183 Sites currently have
designs underway
123 Sites with remedy selected
436 Sites currently have
investigations underway
Source- Senior Management Reports (10/91)
17 Sites with initial actions only
*(a total of 475 NPL sites
have had initial actions to
reduce immediate threats)
70 Sites evaluated for
immediate threats
1,245 Sites on the NPL
•Includes the 507 NPL sites where
cleanup construction has resulted
in environmental progress
Figure 7
To do this, the EPA examined official
records and discussed environmental
progress with site cleanup managers to
measure what actually has been accom-
plished in terms of protecting people and
the environment from exposure to hazard-
ous substances, and progress toward
STEPS THROUGH THE PIPELINE
Once a site is on the NPL, it is ready to enter the Superfund "pipeline." Here are the steps
sites must undergo before being deleted from the NPL:
A detailed study at the site. Analysts observe site conditions and take samples of wastes
and any soil, water, and air that may be affected and then study the range of possible
cleanup strategies.
Remedy selection. The EPA analyzes findings from the study and formally chooses the
best remedy from among the alternatives suggested.
Engineering design. The EPA or its designate, often the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
prepares specifications, drawings and plans for the selected remedy.
Cleanup construction and follow-up. Although various parties may construct or other-
wise carry out the remedy design, the EPA always is in charge. Cleanup often is followed
by a requirement to operate, maintain, or monitor the site for several years. This can
extend the official deletion of the site from the NPL by years.
On average, a site spends 6 to 8 years progressing through these steps. The public has the
right and opportunity to comment at every step in the process.
24
-------
SECTION 4
permanent cleanup. The results of this ap-
proach to measuring environmental progress
are summarized here and are discussed in
detail in the study report; Superfund: Report-
ing on Cleanup Activities Through Environ-
mental Indicators (EPA, 1991). TheEPA's
first report on environmental progress, pub-
lished in November 1990, documented
progress from the program's inception in
1980 through 1989. The second report cap-
tures the additional environmental progress
that occurred during 1990.
All NPL Sites with Cleanup Actions Were
Studied.
The EPA focused the Superfund Environmen-
tal Indicators study on NPL sites where,
through December 1990, construction work
for site cleanup actually had begun or imme-
diate actions had been completed. While
progress made by immediate actions taken at
sites not on the NPL also was examined, the
summary presented here discusses environ-
mental progress made at NPL sites only. For
information on the emergency actions taken at
the 1,253 sites not on the NPL, see the 1991
report
The study showed that the Superfund program
is:
• Reducing immediate threats by assessing
and controlling serious threats to people
and the environment.
• Making progress toward permanent
cleanup by achieving long-term cleanup
goals at NPL sites.
• Bringing technology to bear by increased
use of permanent treatment remedies at
NPL sites to remove contamination from
the environment and control the sources
of contamination.
In addition, the study supplements this infor-
mation with data collected on the large vol-
umes and quantities of waste materials that
have been managed during Superfund cleanup
actions at NPL sites.
The EPA is Reducing Immediate Threats
at NPL Sites
First, the Superfund program is required to
evaluate, stabilize, treat, or otherwise take
actions to make dangerous sites safe. At 507
NPL sites, immediate actions to protect
nearby populations and to control the immi-
nent threat of exposure to hazardous contami-
nants have been taken. As Figure 8 shows, at
403 sites those actions involved the removal,
treatment, or containment of wastes.
Estimates on the magnitude of these actions
indicate that more than 400,000 people with
contaminated household water supplies have
been provided with an alternate residential
water source. At 26 sites, the immediate
actions involved the relocation of populations
away from contaminated areas, resulting in
the evacuation or relocation of 4,000 people
during cleanup activities at these NPL sites.
After cleanup, 20 percent of the evacuated
residents were returned to their homes, while
the remainder have been permanently relo-
cated.
The net result of this work at NPL sites has
been to reduce the potential risks from haz-
ardous waste for an estimated 23.5 million
people who live within 4 miles of these sites.
This work includes the elimination of threats
posed by direct contact with hazardous waste
to more than 950,000 people who were
threatened by contact with contaminated land
or water supplies.
The EPA is Making Progress Toward
Permanent Cleanup
Once imminent threats are addressed, the
25
-------
SECTION 4
Reducing Immediate Threats:
Actions Taken to Protect Human
Health and the Environment
Reducing Immediate Threats Total NPL Sites
Removal, Treatment, or Containment
Site Security
403
NPL
Sites
264
NPL
Sites
Alternative Water
411,000 people provided with an
alternative water supply.
Population Relocation
4,000 people either temporarily or
permanently relocated.
Source. 1991 Environmental Indicators
Note: Any site may have more than one kind
of cleanup action.
Figure 8
EPA identifies and tackles the worst contami-
nation problems remaining at individual sites,
focusing its efforts on the permanent long-
term cleanup of the most threatening areas
before addressing any other contaminated
areas. Thus, long-term cleanup activities can
be in different stages at a single site. Any one
site may have various contaminated media,
each of which threatens health and the envi-
ronment in a different way. Figure 9 illus-
trates the land, groundwater, and surface
water media that are measured in the study.
Since 1980, progress has been made toward
achieving long-term cleanup goals at 373
NPL sites (see Figure 10).
Land Surface. Cleanup activities at NPL
sites have reduced or eliminated land con-
tamination at 333 sites. Clean-up of surface
contamination is complete at 196 of the 333
sites with land contamination. Land cleanup
often is undertaken first, because it substan-
tially reduces risk to people, animals, and
plants that might otherwise come into direct
contact with wastes at the site. These actions
also can forestall future groundwater cleanup
by removing a source that may percolate into
the subsurface water.
Groundwater. Most Superfund sites have
actual or potential groundwater contamina-
tion. Many Americans use groundwater as a
drinking water source, and its cleanup has
proven to be one of the most difficult environ-
mental problems to solve. Groundwater
cleanup is occurring at 97 sites, an increase of
5 sites during 1990. Experience to date
suggests that meeting health and environmen-
tal goals in this area may take many more
years of treatment and monitoring than was
expected even a few years ago.
Surface Water. Contaminated surface waters
can create substantial hazards for drinking
supply, wildlife, and recreational uses. Natu-
ral weather conditions, such as heavy rainfall,
may aggravate the situation by spreading
contamination via runoff and overflow of
contaminants from the site. Substantial
environmental progress to cleanup surface
water has been completed at 64 NPL sites.
Bringing Technology to Bear
The Superfund program uses a variety of
technologies to make sites safe and clean
because of the diversity of contaminants that
must be dealt with and the media in which
they occur. Increasingly, treatment technolo-
gies are being used to reduce the volume and
toxicity of hazardous wastes. Treatment
technologies were utilized at 203 of the 373
NPL sites* where progress toward long-term
cleanup goals is documented. Increasingly,
recent remedy selections include permanent
treatment of hazardous wastes. During 1990,
79 percent of the sites where remedies were
selected to control the source of contamina-
26
-------
SECTION 4
tion specified treatment-based remedies.
The sheer volume of hazardous wastes that
have been managed is another measure of the
application of technologies and the achieve-
ment of human health and environmental
goals. While these figures are rough esti-
mates, they illustrate an impressive aspect of
the environmental progress being made at the
NPL sites and other sites being addressed by
Superfund:
• Land contamination includes both soils
and solid and liquid wastes. Soils and
other solid waste managed during cleanup
actions thus far total nearly 13 million
cubic yards; this amount would cover a
* Since remedies were selected at most of these sites
early in the program, these statistics are not
indicative of the growing role of treatment
technologies.
football field more than one mile high.
Liquid wastes total over a billion gallons,
or over 4 gallons for each resident of the
United States.
• Groundwater treated to date totals ap-
proximately 6.3 billion gallons, enough to
provide the population of New York City
its drinking water for nearly five years.
• Surface water treated to date totals more
than 300 million gallons, equivalent to
approximately 1 gallon for each person in
the United States.
THE EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
The EPA has gained enough experience in
cleanup technologies to understand that
environmental protection does not end when
the cleanup remedy has been constructed.
Hazardous Waste Effects on Environmental Media
Land
Contamination
Surface Water
Contamination
Groundwater
Contamination
Figure 9
27
-------
SECTION 4
Many complex technologies, like those
designed to clean up groundwater, must
operate for many years in order to accomplish
their objectives.
The EPA's hazardous waste site managers are
committed to proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy constructed. No
matter who has been delegated responsibility
for cleaning up the site, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully followed and that
it continues to do its job.
Likewise, the EPA does not abandon a site
even after the cleanup work is done. Every
five years, the Agency reviews each site
where residues from hazardous waste cleanup
still remain to ensure that human and environ-
mental health still are being safeguarded. The
EPA will correct any deficiencies discovered
and will report to the public annually on all
five-year reviews conducted that year.
THE EPA WILL REPORT ON
FUTURE PROGRESS
The EPA is reporting annually on the environ-
mental progress the Superfund program has
made in cleaning up the contamination prob-
lems posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. In addition to reporting environmental
progress measures, the status of each NPL site
is highlighted in the fact sheets compiled in
the companion State volumes. These fact
sheets describe progress in terms of accom-
plishing the steps of the cleanup process, as
well as actual environmental results. The
State volumes are updated annually to report
current progress on a site-specific basis.
NPL Sites With Progress Toward Permanent
Cleanup Goals
Sites With Progress Toward Permanent Cleanup
373 Sites
Land
333 Sites
Surface Water
64 Sites
97 Sites
Note: Any site may have more than one media
contaminated.
Source 1991 Environmental Indicators
Figure 10
28
-------
THE NATIONAL PROGRESS REPORT
The following National Progress Report
lists all sites currently on, or deleted
from, the NPL and briefly summarizes the
status of activities for each site at the time this
report was prepared. The steps in the Super-
fund cleanup process are arrayed across the
top of the chart, and each site's progress
through these steps is represented by a series
of arrows (^>) indicating the current stage of
cleanup.
Large and complex sites often are organized
into several cleanup stages. For example,
separate cleanup efforts may be required to
address the source of the contamination,
hazardous substances in the groundwater, and
surface water pollution, or to clean up differ-
ent areas of a large site. In such cases, the
chart portrays cleanup progress at the site's
most advanced stage, reflecting the status of
site activities rather than administrative
accomplishments.
• An arrow in the "Initial Response" cate-
gory indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or currently
is underway. Emergency or initial actions are
taken as an interim measure to provide im-
mediate relief from exposure to hazardous site
conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent
further contamination.
• A final arrow in the "Site Studies" cat-
egory indicates that an investigation to deter-
mine the nature and extent of the contamina-
tion at the site currently is ongoing.
• A final arrow in the "Remedy Selection"
category means that the EPA has selected the
final cleanup strategy for the site. At the few
sites where the EPA has determined that
initial response actions have eliminated site
contamination, or that any remaining con-
tamination will be naturally dispersed without
Progress
To Date
further cleanup activities, a "No Action"
remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows
are discontinued at the "Remedy Selection"
step and resume in the "Construction Com-
plete" category.
• A final arrow at the "Remedial Design"
stage indicates that engineers currently are
designing the technical specifications for the
selected cleanup remedies and technologies.
• A final arrow in the "Cleanup Ongoing"
column means that final cleanup actions have
been started at the site and currently are
underway.
• A final arrow in the "Construction Com-
plete" category is used only when all phases
of the site cleanup plan have been performed,
and the EPA has determined that no addi-
tional construction actions are required at the
site. Some sites in this category currently
may be undergoing long-term operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the
cleanup actions continue to protect human
health and the environment.
• A check in the "Deleted" category indi-
cates that the site cleanup has met all human
health and environmental goals and that the
EPA has deleted the site from the NPL.
Further information on the activities and
progress at each site is given in the site "Fact
Sheets" published in the corresponding State
and Territorial volumes.
29
April 1991
-------
•a
0)
CO
m =
28.
£ co
0)
cc
o
O
£L
Z
o
O
n
Z
£
0)
OB
CO
A
(0
<
MM
0
55
CO
CO
0)
£
e
0
§
^D
15
1
UH
0
0
i.
•^1
0
1
UH
0
1
^L
0
•a
UH
0
0
i.
O1
^^
0
1
UH
0 0
0 0
§2 ^
OO *~H
O
(0
Q)
CO
_J
Q.
Z
(0
Q.
0 0
00 00
o\ o o\ o o o
go ^ go gs gN g\
•-H O -H O' O O
cj^ cc) c^ cjj CQ. 55.
CO OO I-H OO' OO OO
O O —i O O O
Cy ^0 ^3 ^3 ^3 Cy
e c c c c e
UH UH E E UH UH
OO OO CO
Z Z Z
oo oo oo
fc^ W farf
<< ^ «| Q ^ O
« 03 PQ ffi W K
pi pt! p< U pS U
0
UH UH UH
F
AR
a H z
algS
W W UH on
CB
O
CB
CO
CO
.2 £
i- ^
e
03
0)
4-1
CO
STE
c
CB
_g>
O
^
I,
(0 UH
CO D
2 I
o> E
o g
a ?S
April 1991
30
-------
0)
0)
s
s
ft ft
ft
O
O
Q. O>
3 C
i o
S g>
oo
if
cc °
0) 0)
CCO)
(0
8 T-
ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
« ftftftftftftftftftft
o
N
IS
18-
0)
DC
CO
Q
Q.
Z
I
O
0)
2
o5
0)
(0
0)
CO
o>
n
ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
CQ CO
13
S o o S o o
u u u o u
<
"o
ro
CO
0)
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
ftftftftftftftft ftft
w
S ftftftftftftftft
c
(0
ft
ft ft ft
ftft
ft ft
ON
gogogogogogogogogxgogo
&
5
ro O
O ^H
o
t~-
O
.S .S "aS .S .S .S .S ** .S "S
Cv w Cv Cv Cy
- c c c c
11
31
April 1991
-------
•o
1
0.2
3 a
£ a-
S E
ft
a. TO
3 C
Bs
?.§>
P w
Is
ft
a
ft ft
ft ft ft
ft ft
ft ft ft
a «
w
ft ft
CB
£ ft ft ft ft ft ft
•!§
Is-
o
DC
a
n
Q
O
(0
o
I
V)
0)
55 Q.
ft
ft ft ft
ft
ft ft ft
ftftftftftftft ftftftftftftftftftft ftft
ftftftft ft ftft ftft ftftftftft ftftftftftft ftft
^y t^H* ^^ >." ' l^* >J VJ1
*•* ^1 ^S. ^2. 22 22 2$.
A o ^ r^ cs ^ ^-,
S £ g S
ON O
TO
Cv TO TO TO
g c c g
TO
c
TO TO
cc
I .
TO
e
TO
,
TO
c
TO
c
U O
W « < < . , _
« « U U U U
April 1991
32
-------
a
a
a.3
a. O)
3.5
m °
3 g>
00
0
0 0
I
•o 000
c
oo
0
0 0
c 00 000 00
O
O
0 0
0 0
(0
a> .2
S -a
(0 3
(0
CO
£ 0000000000000000000000000
.2 §
I
o
O
n
(0
CO
O
M—
O
1
CO
-------
.
3 0>
go.
S E
go,
00
a
>•
•O
O)
Q.
w
a>
DC
a
O
a.
o
0
3
o
.
CO
as
O
CO
GO
0)
(0
a>
*-
00
_J
a
to
Q.
3
(0
^)
O
to
I
(0
CO
m m
E £
April 1991
ft
a
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft ft
ft
ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft
ft
ft
ft ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft
ftft ftftftft ftftft
8
Cv CQ TO TO W C3
cccccc
E PU UH UH
33SSSSSS
LJCOCOCOCOCOtOCOCO
34
-------
I
£
0.3
3 «
go.
S E
55
|f
m O
II
Is
Q)
000 0 0 Q 0000
000 000 0000
>>'
•O
o
o
0
000
000 0000
J ^
3 g; 3 o
lily
3B§
giisi
IB >H >H U
2 w w a
IIP
2 o^ (K to
35
April 1991
-------
»
a
a
a.£
3 a>
= a.
a. o>
3 c
5 °
gg>
00
a
a
D)
8
a
oc w
M
o .2
.« T3
"ffi
•o
0)
c
O
s
5
o
a
a
a
a
.2 o
••= Q.
C W
~~ 0)
oc
S
a
O
O
H—
0
5J
A
CO
0
\o ^o
OO 00
2- §•
R ^
s s
0
s
oo
1
0)
13 13
c e
£ tu
I
o
0)
a a
a
aat)
(0
a
£
g
IS
Q)
Q
fl) m o r—
£0 QO ^ QO
(B oo o ^T
•Ss R Ci R
CO g § ^
-------
*
«
Q
s
3 *
c Q.
o O
O o
ft
a. ra
3 c
o
o o
•§- =
a .5>
(D
ft
ft ft
ft
ft ft
ft
ft ft
>«TJ
•O »
O
O
ft ft ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
.•s -o
103
co
••= a
£ w
aj
O
o
i
(0
0>
Q
"5
0)
*••
OB
0)
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
ftftftftftftftftft
ft ft ft
ft
ft
ft ft ft ft
ro co ON ON ^D ^O co CO CO t*^ co ON CO f^ ON co CO co
<—ii—cm^\O»-H'—'OO«-HOor*-O<-H^i<—1>—i*—i
RR^,R^RR^5.CiRR^.^RRRCiR
ON ON co CO CN ^O ON oo OO r^* ON co oo r^ CO ON CN ON
OOO'-iOOOOOOOOOO'-'OOO
CQ CQ S3 Cv ?3 CQ C3 KJ TO Cv
.s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s
UH f^| fTi LJL LJL fTj |"Tt ["T^ FT ri.
•a 73
c c
ft ft ft ft
HH 1±H U, tt,
O
UL
B
1
CO
0)
^^
*-
e
ON
2£
O
*-H
•a
c
E
*-^
"c9
c
E
09/08/83
•3
c
E
ft
09/08/83
•a
c
E
08/30/90
•a
c
E
o
O
CO
0)
•s
(0
CO
CO
(0
Q.
3
C
(0
^)
O
•o
(5
I
co
(0
£
O)
o
o. <
37
April 1991
-------
"8
+*
»
0)
a
s
3 «
S"5.
S E
05
0
ft
D. O)
3 C
5 O
go.
00
ft
ft
0 ft
Ct ft
ftftft
ftftftft
ft ft ft
!!
(0
« .2
.« TJ
w 2
55
0)
3
O
O
(0
ftftftft ftftftft
ft ftftftft
ftft ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
ft ftftft ftftft ftftftftftft
ft
0)
DC
Q.
Z
o
u
(0
0)
j ^
.al
April 1991
38
-------
•§
0)
Q
s s
(0 =
a
CL O>
3 C
£'5
S 0)
00
>,
•o
a
fj
OCtf)
T3
0)
Q) •_
•S **
0>
o
o
a
CO ^
1*
— 0)
DC
€
o
0
0 00
d
CO
goQOgogogogogogogogoqN
Qp-^--g-ooooo\-^oO'—1-3-0
§8
39
April 1991
-------
•g
*
a
Q
S
0
a
Q
(0
B>
o
0)
2 *
"o
fll O ON
^•* 9^ S?
^0 rl !±
00 00
0
00 00000
0)
£ -g -a
cc
0 0
"
•a
.s "s
n CO
cc
0
0 0
go go
R cj
S S
S
C^ Cv
c c
tE iS
TO
c
0
(D
3
C5
(0
o
5J
(0
CO
0)
0
§
(0
0 0
0 0
i
0>
.t±
(0
(0
0)
CO
Q.
Z
Q.
3
C
(0
.2
O
•o
(5
3
(0
0)
2>
o>
o
D
O
(0 O
s
CO
O
pa
April 1991
40
-------
I
o>
Q
0
o o
o o
o
TJ
0)
3
0
a
a
a.
f
O
£ 0
o
(0
000000
0
m O O O
go go ON ON ^
oo oo o ^H o
OOO
goo^goa_\goo_sgogogopopo
OOOOO—iOO--<-3-^HOO'-H-H
O-HO
o
I
0)
tfm CO CO OT CO CO CO CO « CO CO CO CO CO W CO CO CO
*- .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3
(0
0)
*-
CO
_l
a.
+-
(0
a.
3
(0
JD
O
•a
1
(0
(0
s>
O)
o
41
April 1991
-------
II
53
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft
ftftftftftft ftftftftftftft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
go go go 90 50
OO OO ^*
CQ OT CQ CC TO 03
c c c c c c
E E E
+* ccceccccce
-^ «H «*H •»* <«M «3 .1^ «3 >a «^N .
w w w w
03
ft
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
2 §
April 1991
42
-------
»
0)
Q
s
a.S
3 > -
1*
II
-------
I
a
CO
8
co £
E 8.
^8
z
CD
s a a
3
CO
CO
a a
a
tj
fl) vo r*- co m o
+•* 02 02 S? 3P ^t
fR ^5 ^"^ OO OO CD
/^\ ^P t^*- ^> t^i OO
w* o o o o o
0)
^bv CO TO C9 CQ Cw
*" 'I E 'I E E
a
a a
a a
a a
a a a a
a a
a a
a a a a
S
S
April
44
-------
£
9
O
3 .£
g £
S E
Oo
o
Q. O)
3 C
= 0
u
Id
i£
.2 §
•5 o-
c en
CO
O
O.
Z
CO
9
tn
0)
CO
i
ft
ft ft
c5 ft ft
ft
VO O
co i §
U, E
ft ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft
ft
ft
CO
C
ftftftftftft ftftftft
ft ft ft ft
CO
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
Q_
ft
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ftftftftftftftft
ft ft
CO
1 ft ft ft ft
o
£ m^-cnoomfno
CM QO QO QO ^^ ^^ QO QO ^h
Cf ^5 c*i ^^ c^ rn f*s ^5 en
O SSS^00^?!00
CD
MM Cy CQ TO Cv CQ TO TO TO
*- .S .S .5 .5 .S .5 .S .S
^ LL^pHtUpHfcU-'tL.tU
45
t) J J H g
ui eg ^ a a g M
pa PQ u Q Q K
April 1991
-------
•o
i
smedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
tiected Design Ongoing Complete
_l
o.
«
Q.
3
C
03
0)
Progress Toward Cl
0 0
0
^ ^
O •— i
oo cs
o o
1 1
PH FTi
GRAVES
DAVffiS
|
&
2
P 0
GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER C
(MAYFffiLD LANDFILL)
GREEN RIVER DISPOSAL, IN
0
0
0 0
000
000
^ «S. si
£^ ^? ^^
o o o
111
pL< [T.< t^t
O r^
HARDIN
JEFFERSi
FLEMINC
^
r?
sr
CO
HOWE VALLEY LANDFILL
LEE'S LANE LANDFILL
MAXEY FLATS NUCLEAR Dl
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
SO £^
S 3
8 S
1 c
E k
_i
1 Q
§^
_,
E
5
<2
H-l
NEWPORT DUMP
RED PENN SANITATION CO.
0
0 0
0 0
s| s?
2 p5
^ S
CQ Cv
UH U,
CQ OQ
SMITH'S FARM
TRI-CITY DISPOSAL CO.
03
2
'55
"5
o
_j
<*—
o
5J
03
CO
^ ^.
o o o
s s i
TO TO Cw
.s .s .s
£ tS £
>*
%
Ii3§
^^. h_j ^^.
ST.TAM
IBERVEL:
ASCENSI
BAYOU BONFOUCA
BAYOU SORREL SITE
CLEVE REBER
0 0
0
^ f>
5 g
§ ^
1 1
JJL| [J^
•7
|5
LIVINGS
VERMLL1
COMBUSTION, INC.
D. L. MUD, ENC.
0 0
0 0
^ I>
S E>
5 S
TO C^
PH UH
0 0
ASCENS]
VERMIL]
H
^7 C/3
< w
0. S
DUTCHTOWN TREATMENT ;
GULF COAST VACUUM SER1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
1> «i
P? o
s §
1 1
U, (i,
o> 6
WEBSTE
ASCENS]
Z
O
P
LOUISIANA ARMY AMMUNI
OLD INGER OIL REFINERY
0
0
0
0 0
s $
1 1
1 1
* m
o
u>
z o
O «
^§
1 5
w «
> w
u
-------
•o
s
0.3
3 0)
= Q.
S E
O— o
o
0
0
Q. O)
3 C
= 0
3g
oo
0 0
cr
« .2>
P w
|S
000 0
000
00
>.T3
•O «
g t>
I-
Q) Q)
tr m
00 00
000 000
(0
«.«
.« T3
10 3
o>
cc
o.
Z
CO
CO
0)
O
0)
ffl
CO
0>
d> %w r-^
•s *i R
00 00
0 0
ON
ggggggog
Ctj TO TO w Cw CT3 TO C3 Cy
ccccccccc
ft E E E ft
ft ft ft
V> Z X Z «
Q> •< o ^ o O
±r -d o d a o
f/5 S H M OQ H
W S H g
00000000000
00000
47
April 1991
-------
I
Remedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
s Selected Design Ongoing Complete
m •
.-2=5
103
CO
-2§
Sm Q.
c co
&
£
a
a.
z
f
i
a
0)
CO
April
£
S
(0
JS
s
CO
CO
CO
s
Q^_
o
s
CO
**
(0
CD
+«
c
CO
+•*
CO
_J
CL
z
to
(X
3
C
CO
CD
Progress Toward Cl
1991
000 0 0
000 0 000000
000 0 000000
0000 0 0000000
000 0 00 000000
Orococo o^f^^OPOco^-cnvocnax
C^ S? £* C* ^^ ^^ ^? 1F^ ^* S* ^1 ^? ^? ^* ^^
tNO>^i^i CS'^HON^t^i^^^XOON'"^
s> s>i_]
nn KS KS rrl r^ KN KN KN ^y^
llll llsalllllll
2oj§ a^toco^uaSOs^
PQZO,S S^WW^SScQZSffl
G °
e 8 i d is
--' c 9 ft 5 •<
p^ S 1 1 Q w
81 fc 3 ^§
ll S 1 ^s
_• , 3 s J S SuP P ^d
^WuyW^p jeZ ^^ •^•^
S 1 1 S 1 "? giSx^^payS
Sslils?! 383 « §8 i g
^ll^lllililisll
^aSdD00^^^^^^^^^
slil^siliiiiliE
-------
Delel
o.S
3 0
SQ.
3|
"o
0
£0,
£ o
Sg>
oo
^* f
•g §>
II
>TJ
Tg S
0 o
E »
0 15
£E«
SS -D
w 2
55
o
Q.
(0
Q
a.
z
1"
^ ^
0)
S ft
o
o,
a" 0
o
CO
1a
CO
CO
CO
o
<1> co
^•5 Q'O
2 §
to i
o
^"^ .5
S x
JH w
55 g
—I O
a. g
0
0
co
8°
1
DDLESEX
CO tfIS K
« ^Z §
CO
,0)
O
O
S
CO
(/)
o
0
0
O\ ON O
go jc g\
•-i 3 O
co O co
co O oo
O 1-H O
0
000
000
0
ON CO c*1^
S 1 §
S S S
00
000
000
00 0
00 00
00 00
00000000000
0 000000 0000
ON
CO ON
ON CO CO CO
i— lOOi— '"-lOOO^OOOO
^0 ^0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
.S .S .S .S .S .S .S .S .S
-H go
, d ^
S S S
13 13 13
.S .5 .S
ATER SUPPLY
W DUMP
MUUUUUUCJ
WOR
TON
TER IND
TERY D
VOIX
49
April 1991
-------
•o
i
o
Q
0.2
S
0
Q. O>
3 C
i o
S °>
oo
m
•
1
35
l«
o>
oc
t
(0
•o
0)
o
o
0
0
0
00 0
000 0 00000
00 0 0 0 00 00000 0
£000000 OOOOOOOO 00000000000
u
s S
(0
+*
CO
CO
0_
Q.
3
C
CO
_o
o
E
I
(0
(0
£
CD
o
CL
g
I
t/3
9
SE9 ^ H
§ J5 O
S o < p
z ^ d ^
w S w <*
o S a o
B
FIL
P
g§
|g
e^e
SE
^ s
6O ^
F
PH >H
on C
PL)
CO.
ST
C
& G
55 S
2 fe ^ 5
0^ Oi (-1 /j
H H &0 ^
u 2 g M
d2gS
5 o
2 u
§s
ii
« «
o o
iSi
S w o
MOTOR
MUSKEGON C
NORTH BRONSON
April 1991
50
-------
•o
I
»
V
Q
H
si
53
0.0,
S'5
* ?
00
0
a
>
o
o
0)
3
C
o
o
ft 000
0
0
§,0000000000000 000 000000000
II
I
Q
=* 0
"5
5> g
2 it
co i1
0)
5 1
000 000000
^
OOOOOOOO-HOOO
73 73
.3 .3
00 0 000
'-iO
0 0
gogogxSgojogojo
gggO^-HOOOOOO
ssssssss
Cv Cy w 03 Cw 03 w 03 03 03 03
.3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .1 .3 .3 .3 .3
UHp^PUPUPUPUPUIiPUPUPU
. .
s s
H H 1
U, PH PU
.
(0
51
April 1991
-------
•§
S
»
Q
s
a a
m O-
$ E
53
a. TO
3 C
go
S g>
00
a t) a
a
II
TJ
a>
o
o o
cr o
•o « '^
1 qj O
<=« O
CO
0 .2
±••0
"
•2 o
••= Q.
C 0)
0
g, 0 0 0 0 0
000
0 000
(0
CD
C
0 00
00 00
co 0000000000000000000
0 0
00000000
CO
a
CO
0)
ro m ro \O •-<
50 go 50 go 5^
oo oo oo O <—'
^3 ^^ C5 '"^ *"^
I i I i s?
.
H,
CO TO W
S 2 "S
il! E Q
^H ^** O2 ^H ^H 00 ^J ^^ OO ^J *™^ ^^ ^J OO f~^ f~i *"H
^•5 ^"^ ^^ ^4 ^4 {d] f^i *™1^ f^> ^H ^4 ^4 ^^ <^> ^™< T^ PV(
o>
•!•• TOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO
*- .5 .2 .S .S .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2
w
CO
c
H g <
2 o ^
H X « <
<^ J S H
K < < H
O U J O
CO
Q>
CO
_J
0_
z
(0
^
O
•o
CO
I
(0
(0
2
o>
o
April 1991
52
-------
Deleted
s
ete
Q..
i Q-
3 E
o O
o o
ft
ft
a. o>
= .£
m °
$ g>
00
ft ft
ft
ft ft
if a! ft ft ft ft
0
ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
1| o ft ft ft ft ftft
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
CD *^
Si 8 ft ft ft ft ft
55 S>
ftftftftftftftftftftftft ftftftftft
£8
GC
ft ft ft
ftftft ft ft ftft
ftft
Q.
Z
t
0)
(0
O
«3
4—
0)
*O ON f"i f~i ^ ^O c*"j **O
go go go go go go go go
• oo oo -H o oo o
R R Ci ^ R C.
8 o 8 S o S
1-1 O OO ^H OO
vo
fO ^H
o
C3 CO TO OT TO OT OT Cv Cv flj
cccccccccc
£ E E E E E E E E E
O -H 00 ^H O
TO Cy Cv TO Cv
c c c c c
E E OH E PH
to
Sp
I
HE
U
53
April 1991
-------
"8
S
a..
3
Q.O,
5 °
3 g
oo
a
(J
o
0
0 0
a
fj
0
0
0 0
000
00 00
CO
.
(0
55 .2
(0
s «
.2§
C W
0)
CC
1
Q
Q.
Z
t
a.
Ott
0)
(0
(0
1 2
5 £
* ii
w Q.
Q ^ 5 P
9 ° H R
^ ss ^
FLOW
WS
C
WAL
3 00000
o
CO
(0
o
0)
cs
0)
C> ^5 C? CD CD CD CD CD »"H CD CD CD CD
CS CC C5 CO CO CO CO ^O ^O CO ^O CO CO CO
.s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s .s
OH U- UH UH PUUUtlHp-ilJHtlHU-HtlitlHUH
Q
KE
NO
OR
QU
S
April 1991
54
-------
. _
•§.!»
o> ~Z
DC
-------
®
«
Q
o
o
a
o
o
0 Q)
3-^00
Si
CO
0000
00 0
DC (/) (Q
Q.
O
CO
3
(0
tf)
2>
O)
o
000 0
o> 00000000
0 000000
o
c§ iii-^§i§s
o
AMI c^ ^5 i;g ^ ^ ^ ^5 Cg
cccccc
E '£ £ £ £ '£ E °£
[3
w ^ 2 5
slsSgyas
coc^SOSOOc^i
^ >H
a u
ise
n? ^
« < o y
to w o 2 S c^;
<, CQ CQ PQ PQ
O
-------
T3
»
2
o>
Q.
E
0
a. o>
a c
5 o
S g
oo
> r-
3 §)
E M
i*
•o
a>
oo
a
o
a
o
o
0)
DC
0)
0000 00000
0000
000
.« TJ
C/>2
U)
:S|
C (0
CD
oc
a
a
0.
z
f
o
U
0 0000000000000000000000000
0)
CO
Z
a>
0)
0)
0 00000
1
0 00 00
co co
go go
II
0 00000
^ co ro ro ^ O co
5O QO gO ^O QO Q\ ^O
R R R R R Ci R
ON ON ON ON ON OO ON
O O O O O O O
CO TO TO TO TO
C C C C C
E E E E E
1 c
E E
TO G> TO TO TO TO Cy CQ TO CC TO TO
C-BCCCCCCCCCC
Q E E E E E P-. E E E E
TO Cy TO CT3
.3 .3 .3 .3
UH UH {X fJn
gxg
5|SU
I
EW
AA
CQ
L CE
LL F
TEC
LA
F
F
57
April 1991
-------
1
•
0
Q
a.S
3 «
c "5.
o|
O. O>
|l
00
>• r-
If
(0
.2 §
~ Q.
s
0
•o
o
IS 3
«S° .E
S 0
00 00
0 00 00
0 0
0
0
0 0
000
00 0
00 0
00 0
.2 £
5ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
0)
0 0
00 0
0 0
00000000 00
.jj glagogogogogogcgogogogo
(Q ^r^»—ip^Orjr^Or^gg
fft cy\r-^foco^fNco5iC2\2v
*" f^^ f^ ^^1 f") f"^l <^*) f^ 1*^1 ^*^ t^*l ^J
CO O\
as. as.
Q
-------
a
®
a.2
3 O
c "5.
SE
53
D.O,
i o
go,
00
T3
Q)
000
0
0 0
0 000
0
« t>
£ 2
«
DC
W
«.£
Si -o
0)3
en
I
o
U
O
O
.
00 0 000000
000 000 0000 0
000000000000000000000000000
0000 00000
4
±:
(0
59
April 1991
-------
•o
1
3 9
C 75.
g£
o3
O. O)
3 .£
3 i>
00
.
E g
.
(0
w
.
0)
75 <=
•j= o
t
5
V)
0)
>>"§ c
11 00000
0 000
0 0000
0 0000
0 00
0 00 00
00 00 00
0)
2
0)
-3
0)
000000000000000000000000
000 0
0000000
000000 0
•*
go
CO
CO
-------
2
It
53
g o>
oo
0
ft ft
ft
ft
>
'
ft
ft ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
>>TJ
I
"
0)
DC
(0
a) .2
0)
.2 i
•
0)
DC
CO
a
a.
z
O
U
0)
CO
4>*
CO
a>
ft
ft ft ft
® ftftftftftftftftftft
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft
CO O\ O\ ON fl O
go go go 50 go g\
oo —< 3 -H oo o
§. Q §. d R ^
Cy CO C5 03 OT ra
cccccc
E E E E E E
ro m
go go
OT 03
ce
E E
TO TO
cc
E E
• £
oS^S§
0. OH C/-)
W
Q
^a
61
ApriM991
-------
s.
0
Q
0.2
3 0
c Q.
S E
ft
0.0,
S'o
S o,
00
>>
•O
me
sig
sign
>"0
18
E 0
0)
a)
ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
ft
ftftftftft ftft ft ft ft
vo
VO
2°
5. ^ S. 5. 5. 5. ^i
^* PO ^? ^P ON ^? '"^
^5 ^^ ^5 t1^ ^^ c^> ^^
Cv TO Cv TO TO TO TO
.S .5 .S .S .S -S .S
UH UH UH UH UH UH UH
S S
E E
•s "^
TO TO
E E
H
E
co TO co TO co
ccc
c
UH UH UH
LIV
Q Q y Q
« O! 5 O!
n en t/2 oa
8
00
UH
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft
ft
ON VO O
go go ON
VO vo
go go
£n O js Q P. P
S S S £ S 8
c c c c c c
E E E E E E
|1<
1SSH
SS
^
^ 00 V2
oi
e
oo t^5
sg§
i£fe!
^* 3 t? 5
J Q ^ oo
GSTON
(0
0
(0
_0)
O
^
CO
I
(0
(0
2
O)
o
ol
CIPAL LJ
s§
d •7
oo
a
FILL
RTESE L
o o o
u u u
d
UH
Q
U
SON RIVER PCBS
d
UH
u
C.
m$
CP
C S 5
iigii
-5 oo cyj oo g
rf O O O 5 S
H-i i—, i—, i—, W W
April 1991
62
-------
0)
Q
3 «
i "5.
S E
0.0,
£ '5
s °>
oo
E
r-
§,
T3
0)
o
ooo
ooo
o
ooo
o
o
"2 -8
« o
O
O
0 00 000
000
0000
0 0
.±S "O
(0 a
000000000000000000000000000
i
a
Q.
z
i
a>
CO
Z
(A
0)
o
o>
000
00 0
0 0 000 0 0 000
gogogogogogogogogogog^gogogogogogogogogogogogogogogo
RRRRRR^.RRR.clRRR.R^.RRR^.RRR^R^
§^D ON ON r^"~ Ox fO Ox ^0 ON 0s! ^D ON ON ^D ^^ ON ON ^D ^^ ON t**1 ^0 fO F"**
^> ^^ ^5 (^ C2 ^> ^2 ^2 C1 ^D ^3 C^ O1 ^D '•^ ^D (O ^^ *"H ^2 ^5 C1 ^5 ^^
>- u a
CL 2 j
sa^<«
04 00 00
63
April 1991
-------
*
0)
o
00
D.O,
S O
sg
oo
>> _
•§ o.
II
CO
n c
•— o
•« Q.
C «
0)
oc
t
CO
o
3
_C
7
C
o
o
0)
ft ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft
<0
_c
1
CO
ft
ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft
ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft Oftftftftftftftftft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
vo m
so 90
+•* o^ 50 go go go
(0 ° ° o o o o o
WOO rO ON ^? ON ^? ON
^^ c^5 ^i* fj ^^ {^5 ^^
0)
JC 13 13 73
*- c c c
ON ^O m m vo ON
TO TO TO
TO TO TO CQ TO TO
eecccB
E E E E E E
V)
0)
CO
CO
Q.
3
CO
.2
O
•o
CO
CO
£
O)
o
ft ft ft
April 1991
64
-------
•a
o>
0
O
S
3 «
S Q.
3 E
53
0
Q. D>
S*
s .TJ
"g -2
E8
CD "«
cc in
.•s -D
«3
(A
35
Is-
I °
o
o
g 0
1
(0
O 0
0
000000000
0
0 0
(0
Q
t
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
000
000
000
0
a
a
CL
z
o
u
0)
0)
mo______ . _ .
go^g\gogoc^gogogogogogogo
R^ ' " ~
0)
Q) m
S i
CO g
0>
(0
ON
ro
O
to
Q.
3
c
(0
.2
O
II
CO
^1
(0 S
(0 F
2> a
?1
Q: s
E S
D
65
April 1991
-------
s
.
D .«
go.
3 E
o °
0 O
0
0
0
0.0,
oo
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
S 0)
c w
Is
00 0 00 0 000
0 0
0 0
0
Q)
DC
•o
Q)
Of) ft 00 0 000
S o
1 O 0
55
0 0
0 0
0 0
0000000000000000000000
000 0
000 0 0
0 0
0 0
£
0)
n
Q
n
.
V)
OT rt Cv
I -I I
April 1991
66
-------
Delel
3 0)
S Q-
3|
"o
ft
Q. D)
M
s|
o o
ft
ft ft
ft
ft
sig
ft
ft
ft
ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft
ft
>"D
1|
££
CO
?
s
II
•S £
(0
Q
Q.
Z
£
CO
£
(0
TJ
S o
o
O
,0
O
ft ft ft ft
tJ
vo
Q> °° d
i. Q 3
G
CO
CO
O
(0
(0
0)
ft
ft
ft ft ft ft
ftftftftftftftftftft
° ft ft ft ft ftftftftft
00
28 CO g
Cw TO W ^9 TO ^Q C9 ^3 TO ^0
cccccccccc
E E E E E E E E E E
CO .2992
Z
ft ft ft
ft
ftftftftftftftft
ft ft
o
O)
6
"o
a\ o
•£ ^
ra ^-Huw'"^tM;uwt^'^j^-<
*•* dQ.ci^.$cic^ci
CO g8SS8B§8
-------
•o
0)
Q
.
3 0>
S Q.
3 E
"3
0.0,
'
00
_
§>
E I
0
0
0
0
a o a
>T5
•o »
ft
DO 0 0 0
oooooo
CO
*ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
(0
s I
.£ w
oc
o
o
o_
z
i
0 000 00000000
0000
55
U Q
DO
DO
April 1991
68
-------
2
O.S
3 «
go.
3 E
53
Q. O)
O £•
00
C M
m «
•o
0)
c
ft
ftft ft ft ft ftftftft
ftftft ft ft ftftftft
ft
ft
£»
o> ^
DC CO
ep .-
.« -o
WK
01
II
oc
1
Q
CL
Z
I
o
o
0)
(0
CO
O
O
(0
'E
(0
v>
c
c
0
Q.
a
CO
0)
(0
0)
CO
_J
Q.
<3
Q.
C
CO
.2
O
•o
1
.2
(0
(0
s>
O)
o
Q. 5
ft ft
ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft
ftftft ftft ft ftftftftft
ft ft
ftftftftftftftftftftftft ftftftftftftft
ft ftft ftft ft ftftft ftftftftftft
R^RR'QRRRRR£RRRR§RRRRR^RRRRR'
§OO ON CD rO ro O^ ON t—• O\ rO ON ON ^O ON CD r** ON O> ON fO f*^ r*"- ON O> ON C/N
OO~HOOOOOOOOOOO^OOOOOOOOOOO
^ •§
^3 TO CO TO CO W w CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ^O tp w CO CO ^O « W
- - - - - -^ c c c c g _c c c c .c .c _c ^c _c -3 _c _c .a c: c c:
69
April 1991
-------
S.
* w f \
TU 0> ^^
11 *«
00 00
00 000 0
(0
.52 §
.•= g.
»
(0
c
c
0)
Q.
H—
O
0)
+*
(0
*->
CO
Q)
00000000000000000000 000000
0000 0
000000 0 000 000 00
gogogogogogogogojcgogogogogo
RRRRR5.5.$.^^^^$.5.
<^VO
OO
gogo
R R R
§ s s
ss
je go
-nO— lOOOO—i-HO
c c c c c c c
E E E E E E
>H >H
1
E
TO TO
E E
CN O O
c> "—< »"H
•§
S § § §
April 1991
70
-------
S.
9
Q
S S
It
0
0 0
0
aa
£ °
8 g>
oo
>• e
*a
p w
Is
>»"D
*n Q)
o> "3
EOT
w
-
oo
00
M
S
CO
YO
o
u
E
o
c
o
0 0
go o^ go 90
i—I i-H i-H ^-4
s s s s
c3 c3 ^v ^3
.s .s .s .s
rt. [T..( [J^ IT t
71
April 1991
-------
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete Deleted
I
ft
ft^
z
|
CD
CO
2
S
Hco (Continued)
LL.
i
••»
Q.
C
CO
0>
CO
0_
CO
Q.
3
C
Progress Toward Clea
CO C^ CO
go go go
»-H ^ i-H
III
CQ CQ €Q
.s .s .s
LJL fT. F]^
^
JUNCOS
TOABAJA
BARCELONET,
>H
^
J>
JUNCOS LANDFE-L
NAVAL SECURITY GROUP ACT1
RCADELCARIBE
0
ft tJ
a a
go go
II
0 0
13 13
.S .S
PH FT
o go go
1—1 R ^S. R
S 8 2 S
cd cc ^3 «
.S .5 .S .S
MH PU UH UH
rh
GREENVILLE
CHESTER
SPARTENBURC
CHARLESTON
BEAUNIT CORPORATION
CAROLAWN, INC.
ELMORE WASTE DISPOSAL
GEIGER SITE (C & M OE-)
April 1991
72
-------
Remedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
Selected Design Ongoing Complete Deleted
v>
_ 0)
£5
CO 3
55
0)
(0
~ c
21
C CO
— o»
DC
£
Q
_J
Q.
Z
3
O
O
(0
0)
(7)
rolina (Continued)
(0
O
.c
*-
3
O
CO
H—
O
0)
CO
CO
o
^^
^^
c
G)
CO
Q.
*-
Q.
3
C
CO
0)
o
•a
i
|2
(0
(0
2>
O)
o
CL
ft
^
r^
Q
5
13
B
PL,
GREENVILLE
w
y
ex
w
C/5
Ni
EPTICT
on
OH
h- H
£
oo
a
d
a
ft
ft
o
^o
^
0
13
B
PU
ALLENDALE
d
s
J
O
U
^
A CHEMIC
§
J
a
ft
ft
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft
^ ^ ^
i— 1 1— I i-H
Q Q R
ON ON ON
C"""^l ^^ ^^
TO Cy CO
B B B
ft PL, PL,
BEAUFORT
BEAUFORT
FLORENCE
oo
y
1 1 •
8^ s
d H >"
^ >J "Z,
ENDENT N,
AA SPECIA
RS COMPA
K 5 w
pq < (X
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft ftftftftftftft ft
^^^^^^^^^^^
^H ^ I-H f-^ i—< c^ ^ 'O ^O '"^ *"~1
^^c^^^^^^^ci^
^^ ^H C^~] ^^ ^^ ^^ ^H ^^ ^^ ^H ^^
C3C^C3C^TOC3CUC^C^CyCu
BBBBBBBBBSB
E E E E E E E E E E E
w
< j
2 qj
r j 1— 1 ^ ^
^•pH^f-jM^J <^
r| | g oi S o S
liilfliiiHg
iiiliiiiill
ft
ft
ft
ft
m 0
^H SO
^2 »-H
^^ ^^
13 13
B B
E E
LEXINGTON
RICHLAND
0
U
U
DIXIANA
SEND SAW
U O
oo H
ft
ft
ft
^
T—4
Q
s
13
B
PH
BEAUFORT
y
I
WAMC
CO
+*
o
^
(0
Q
£
4-»
3
O
CO
M—
0
o>
OB
4^
CO
0)
^
^rf
c
™
(0
0)
CO
Q.
Z
«
Q.
3
C
CO
0)
o
•o
CO
1
0)
0)
2
O)
o
o!
o
o
0
13
B
E
MEADE/
PENNINGTON
w
&o
<
CQ
FORCE
|
^
-------
2
it
° o
Q. D)
go
go,
00
f §)
E «
0)
Q)
0
0
oo
fl
II
DC (A
« TJ
«3
(0
a>
a>
II
n
Q
0 0
0 0
&
3
at
CO
OT
$
!o 0000000000
0)
C
c
|^0 000 0000
"o
o5 ill^il^lli
0)
0)
o
oooo
oooo
!• S S S-
R Q R Q
g S 8 S
c
(0
O
"S
(0
I
(0
0)
O)
o
(0
CO
X
.0
CO
*-•
CO
(D
00000000
000000000
000000000
« c3 c3 co ^3 cd co ^o co
cccecccce
tu it, it, it it, it, it, it, PU
April 1991
74
-------
•o
1
a.3
3 0)
0
£ o
I?
oo
0
o
a
0 0
sig
oooooooooo
000
0 0
>.T3
T3 »
» "5
E ^
•o
a)
5 C
s«s -5
CO
3>
Q)
CC
*
o
Q.
Z
o
O
a
n
z
£
CO
C
O
o
¥
X
.0)
o
£
CO
0 0
OOOOOOOOOOO 000
00000000000000000000
00000 00000
oo m
80 go
f|ssss
Q
o
Q ^ ^
O VO c*l Tf
^\ QO QO QC
O ^5 OO ^^
§ I 8 8
OT Cv TO Cv TO CQ TO
.S .S .S .S .5 .S .S
(JU fT( r^ LJL^ ^Tt [T( p:<
TO CQ W TO CQ TO TO
c c c c c c c
U, PL, E E E E '"
slssgggaeiadsi^a
S33ig§8S£slgglss
ffl
<*-
o
I
0 00
0000
0
r- ^H o\
R 5. 5.
6 S =
c3 c3 « Cv
E E E E
75
April 1991
-------
5 Q.
S E
"S
a. o>
3 C
S O
Sg
oo
Reme
Desig
0> (E
<= tfl
o>
OB
W
-------
(D
Q
3 W
SO-
S E
53
ft
Q. O>
3 C
= 0
s»
oo
ft
>»
•D
sign
ft ft ft ft ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
>»T3
•O W
0) o
E o>
« »
OC (/)
V)
co 3
CO
^™ C
Eg.
.£ CO
CD
Q
CL
Z
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft
d>
3
i °
o
o,
w'ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
)
ftft ft ftft ftftftftftft
CO
a
CO
o
o>
ft ft
ftftftftftft ftft
ft ft
ft ft
^H O tN t-i O OO OO
£S jn JS JS JO Q^ ^
oggg-ggg
CO « CQ TO ^3 CO C^ (3 TO
.S .S .S .S .S .S .S .5 .S
tin fTi PH t^H [Ti fTi PL* t^ fTi
C
C
77
April 1991
-------
0)
Q
M
I
ft
ft
ft ft
O ft ft ft ft
ft
ft ft
ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft
ft
ft ft
oo m oo ~ ^H
§ ~ § " "
CO" ON OO i—i
t^i £^ ^H
^O ^O ^"^ CD ON t*^ ^D ^O CD ^D
OO^Hi^*'^'OOO^H'—'
^i^icici$.d^.cicici
VO^CSCSOOO'O^OCSCN
CD CD *^^ CD ^^ ^D CD CD CD CD
W C^
CC
11
TO
C
W OT w TO TO
CCCCC
'
W
C
TO TO
CC
TO TO TO TO TO
CCCCC
0)
n
22s
OO GO 03 CD CD CQ
(0
Q.
3
c
(Q
0)
O
^
(5
P
H
(0
(0
2
^
O)
0
<
1
<
H
I
to
>«"
<
CD
fc
w
g
g
uu
5
5?
<
•^
^,
w
&n
<
OQ
1
tt.
W
Q
CJ
April 1991
78
-------
•D
0)
Remedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
Selected Design Ongoing Complete Delet
w
0) .2
I?
55
75 c
»3 0
C (0
~ 0)
(E
i
a.
z
5
1
CO
n (Continued)
o
c?
•~
(0
CO
>
M—
0
0)
OB
CO
0)
£
_c
CO
Q)
CO
Q.
Z
(5
Q.
3
C
(0
O
O
•o
Progress Towar
ft ft ft
ft ft
O_N O_^ go go
CM CS ON ON
O O O O
TO TO TO TO
.S .5 .S .S
Sill
6 j
u tJ
2 fc fc- 1
*£ 3 *
§i«£
s
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft
i- § i-
^O ^O CN
c^ C> *~^
*2
111
£ E Q
5
KING
OKANOG^
CLARK
£
1
&£
i
d
l||
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft
go go no
g S S
Cy TO TO
.2 .5 .5
<
rj
g ffi
0 O >H
111
ll§
.2
C"
i_
•^
(0
0)
>
0
Q)
2
CO
0)
•I—
C
(0
0)
CO
_j
Q.
Z
CO
Q.
3
C
(0
0)
O
•o
Progress Towar
ft
ft
ft
ft
ft
m
8?.
1
1
E
>
KANAWR
PUTNAM
FIKE CHEMICAL, INC.
ft
ft
ft
ft ft
ft ft
oo oo
i— < «— H
11
TO TO
C C
E E
'jr
BROOKE
JEFFERSO
FOLLANSBEE SITE
LEETOWN PESTICIDE
ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft ft
ft
at S>
R R
S B
1 1
E E
<
3
MONONG.
MASON
00
(0
GO
(D
£
C
(0
d>
CO
_j
Q.
to
Q.
3
C
(0
CD
0
•a
Progress Towar
ft
ft ft
ft
r~- o Tfr
go ON go
rt O — i
ci Ci ci
r-~ oo ON
o o o
TO TO TO
C C C
PH U- UH
W
J< C^
^ O §
W OJ <
2 PQ Q
tu
i— 1 5
d o
|S
5 u
3 S
ALGOMA MUNICIPAL
BETTER BRITE PLATfr
CITY DISPOSAL CORP.
ft
ft
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft
•«* Tfr ON
as. 92. S2.
11^
TO TO TO
E E E
§ril
H
WALWOR'
EAU CLAI:
MILWAUK
WELL #4
ALWELL
SPOSAL
DELEVAN MUNICIPAL
EAU CLAIRE MUNICIP.
FADROWSKI DRUM DI
79
April 1991
-------
•a
3 j»
0) E
o,°
a. o>
If
00
>. _
^ a
>«T5
I!
(0
II
c w
0)
oc
o
U
0)
CO
3
CO
c
o
o
c
'55
c
o
o
O
0)
*-•
(0
+-•
C/)
(D
(0
0)
CO
_l
Q.
a
a tr
0
a
tr
ftftftftftftftftftftftftftftftft
ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft
ft ft ft ft
a
ft ftftft
ft ft
ft
ft ft ft ft
a o o a a
go
O^
oooooo
-^- ,- —.- ,^- J^- -^- —• ,>?• ^ ^^- -^* "- —i- —~~ ^- ^- ^- —•
O^ CN O^ CTv Ox CTN co *C ON O^ ON ON ^^ ON ON vO **- \c
OOOOOOOO OOOO—"OOOOO
TO W Cy TO W CO TO Cq TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO
cccccccccccccccc
G
E
U U U
< O
-------
Initial Site Remedy Remedy Cleanup Cleanup
ite Response Studies Selected Design Ongoing Complete Delet
IU
Q
Q.
Z
1
1
«J
I
V)
* U.S.
tate of Wisconsin (Continued)
(/)
0)
c
• MM
(0
0)
CO
Q-
z
to
Q.
3
Progress Toward Clean
G.P.O
§§
t-~ o
O 0
co w
C C
PU PU
88
li
TOMAH ARMORY
TOMAH FAIRGROUNDS
o\ o
go g\
—i O
£O JO
CO OO
0 0
OT OT
C C
PU tU
^
|T;
PO oo
o w
O <
S £
Eu
Q
TOMAH MUNICIPAL SANITARY L
WASTE MGMT OF WI, INC.
5.
8
13
c
PU
S
pH
3
u
D
<
w
o
H
<
WASTE RESEARCH AND RECLAIM
.:1992-311-893
ft
ft
o
0
13
c
tu
Z
O
(S
1
| WAUSAU GW CONTAMINATION
5
8
13
1
1
WHEELER PIT
tate of Wyoming
CO
OO *-H
1 1
Cv Ctj
c c
E PU
£ I
4
$ S
^1 r^
2
11
pq
00
Ig
2 oo
PQ CQ
April 1991
------- |