EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National
Priorities
List Sites:
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-240)
EPA/540/4-90/013
September 1990
IDAHO
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
EPA/540/4-90/013
September 1990
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITES:
Idaho
U.S. Environmental r.:,'?-ction Agency
Region 5, Library !"' " '
77 West Jackson ! , i^iu Floor
Chicago, IL 60oG , , __J
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response
Office of Program Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
If you wish to purchase copies of any additional State volumes or the National
Overview volume, Superfund: Focusing on the Nation at Large, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
-------
PAGE
INTRODUCTION:
A Brief Overview iii
SUPERFUND:
How Does the Program Work to Clean Up Sites vii
How To:
Using the State Volume xvii
NPL SITES:
A State Overview xxi
THE NPL PROGRESS REPORT xxiii
NPL: Site Fact Sheets I
GLOSSARY:
Terms Used in the Fact Sheets G-l
-------
INTRODUCTION:
WHY THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM?
As the 1970s came to a
close, a series of head-
line stories gave
Americans a look at the
dangers of dumping indus-
trial and urban wastes on the
land. First there was New
York's Love Canal. Hazard-
ous waste buried there over a
25-year period contaminated
streams and soil, and endan-
gered the health of nearby
residents. The result: evacu-
ation of several hundred
people. Then the leaking
barrels at the Valley of the
Drums in Kentucky attracted
public attention, as did the
dioxin tainted land and water
in Times Beach, Missouri.
In all these cases, human
health and the environment
were threatened, lives were
disrupted, property values
depreciated. It became in-
creasingly clear that there
were large numbers of serious
hazardous waste problems
that were falling through the
cracks of existing environ-
mental laws. The magnitude
of these emerging problems
moved Congress to enact the
Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act in 1980.
CERCLA commonly
known as the Superfund
was the first Federal law
established to deal with the
dangers posed by the
Nation's hazardous waste
sites.
After Discovery, the Problem
Intensified
Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the
process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hun-
dreds, but thousands of
potential hazardous waste
sites existed, and they pre-
sented the Nation with some
of the most complex pollution
problems it had ever faced.
In the 10 years since the
Superfund program began,
hazardous waste has surfaced
as a major environmental
concern in every part of the
United States. It wasn't just
the land that was contami-
nated by past disposal prac-
tices. Chemicals in the soil
were spreading into the
ground water (a source of
drinking water for many) and
into streams, lakes, bays, and
wetlands. Toxic vapors
contaminated the air at some
sites, while at others improp-
erly disposed or stored
wastes threatened the health
of the surrounding commu-
nity and the environment.
EPA Identified More than
1,200 Serious Sites
EPA has identified 1,236
hazardous waste sites as the
most serious in the Nation.
These sites comprise the
"National Priorities List":
sites targeted for cleanup
under the Superfund. But site
discoveries continue, and
EPA estimates that, while
some will be deleted after
lengthy cleanups, this list,
commonly called the NPL,
will continue to grow by ap-
proximately 100 sites per
year, reaching 2,100 sites by
the year 2000.
THE NATIONAL
CLEANUP EFFORT IS
MUCH MORE THAN
THE NPL
From the beginning of the
program, Congress recog-
nized that the Federal govern-
ment could not and should
not address all environmental
problems stemming from past
disposal practices. Therefore,
the EPA was directed to set
priorities and establish a list
of sites to target. Sites on the
NPL (1,236) are thus a rela-
111
-------
tively small subset of a larger
inventory of potential hazard-
ous waste sites, but they do
comprise the most complex
and environmentally compel-
ling cases. EPA has logged
more than 32,000 sites orv its
National hazardous waste
inventory, and assesses each
site within one year of being
logged. In fact, over 90 per-
cent of the sites on the inven-
tory have been assessed. Of
the assessed sites, 55 percent
have been found to require no
further Federal action because
they did not pose significant
human health or environ-
mental risks. The remaining
sites are undergoing further
assessment to determine if
long-term Federal cleanup
activities are appropriate.
EPA IS MAKING
PROGRESS ON SITE
CLEANUP
The goal of the Superfund
program is to tackle immedi-
ate dangers first, and then
move through the progressive
steps necessary to eliminate
any long-term risks to public
health and the environment.
The Superfund responds
immediately to sites posing
imminent threats to human
health and the environment
at both NPL sites and sites
not on the NPL. The purpose
is to stabilize, prevent, or
temper the effects of a ha/:-
ardous release, or the threat
of one. These might include
tire fires or transportation
accidents involving the spill
of hazardous chemicals.
Because they reduce the
threat a site poses to human
health and the environment,
immediate cleanup actions
are an integral part of the
Superfund program.
Immediate response to immi-
nent threats is one of the
Superfund 's most noted
achievements. Where immi-
nent threats to the public or
environment were evident,
EPA has completed or moni-
tored emergency actions that
attacked the most serious
threats to toxic exposure in
more than 1,800 cases.
The ultimate goal for a haz-
ardous waste site on the NPL
is a permanent solution to an
environmental problem that
presents a serious (but not an
imminent) threat to the public
or environment. This often
requires a long-term effort. In
the last four years, EPA has
aggressively accelerated its
efforts to perform these long-
term cleanups of NPL sites.
More cleanups were started
in 1987, when the Superfund
law was amended, than in
any previous year. And in
1989 more sites than ever
reached the construction
stage of the Superfund
cleanup process. Indeed
construction starts increased
by over 200 percent between
late 1986 and 1989! Of the
sites currently on the NPL,
more than 500 nearly half
have had construction
cleanup activity. In addition,
over 500 more sites are pres-
ently in the investigation
stage to determine the extent
of site contamination, and to
identify appropriate cleanup
remedies. Many other sites
with cleanup remedies se-
lected are poised for the start
of cleanup construction activ-
ity. Measuring success by
"progress through the
cleanup pipeline," EPA is
clearly gaining momentum.
EPA MAKES SURE
CLEANUP WORKS
EPA has gained enough
experience in cleanup con-
struction to understand that
environmental protection
does not end when the rem-
edy is in place. Many com-
plex technologies like
those designed to clean up
groundwater must operate
for many years in order to
accomplish their objectives.
EPA 's hazardous waste site
managers are committed to
proper operation and mainte-
nance of every remedy con-
structed. No matter who has
been delegated responsibility
for monitoring the cleanup
work, the EPA will assure
that the remedy is carefully
followed and that it continues
to do its job.
Likewise, EPA does not
abandon a site even after the
cleanup work is done. Every
IV
-------
five years the Agency reviews
each site where residues from
hazardous waste cleanup still
remain to ensure that public
and environmental health are
still being safeguarded. EPA
will correct any deficiencies
discovered and report to the
public annually on all five-
year reviews conducted that
year.
CITIZENS HELP SHAPE
DECISIONS
Superfund activities also
depend upon local citizen
participation. 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 di-
rectly affected by hazardous
waste problems and cleanup
processes, EPA encourages
citizens to get involved in
cleanup decisions. Public in-
volvement and comment does
influence EPA cleanup plans
by providing valuable infor-
mation about site conditions,
community concerns and
preferences.
This State volume and the
companion National Over-
view volume provide general
Superfund background
information and descriptions
of activities at each State NPL
site. These volumes are
intended to clearly describe
what the problems are, what
EPA and others participating
in site cleanups are doing,
and how we as a Nation can
move ahead in solving these
serious problems.
USING THE STATE AND
NATIONAL VOLUMES
IN TANDEM
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
should understand the chal-
lenges involved in hazardous
waste cleanup and the deci-
sions we must make as a
Nation in finding the best
solutions.
The National Overview
volume Superfund: Focus-
ing on the Nation at Large
accompanies this State vol-
ume. The National Overview
contains important informa-
tion to help you understand
the magnitude and challenges
facing the Superfund pro-
gram as well as an overview
of the National cleanup effort.
The sections describe the
nature of the hazardous
waste problem nationwide,
threats and contaminants at
NPL sites and their potential
effects on human health and
the environment, the Super-
fund program's successes in
cleaning up the Nation's
serious hazardous waste sites,
and the vital roles of the
various participants in the
cleanup process.
This State volume compiles
site summary fact sheets on
each State site being cleaned
up under the Superfund
program. These sites repre-
sent the most serious hazard-
ous waste problems in the
Nation, and require the most
complicated and costly site
solutions yet encountered.
Each State book gives a
"snapshot" of the conditions
and cleanup progress that has
been made at each NPL site in
the State through the first half
of 1990. Conditions change as
our cleanup efforts continue,
so these site summaries will
be updated periodically to
include new information on
progress being made.
To help you understand the
cleanup accomplishments
made at these sites, this State
volume includes a description
of the process for site discov-
ery, threat evaluation and
long-term cleanup of Super-
fund sites. This description
How Does the Program
Work to Clean Up Sites?
will serve as a good reference
point from which to review
the cleanup status at specific
sites. A glossary also is
included at the back of the
book that defines key terms
used in the site fact sheets as
they apply to hazardous
waste management.
-------
The diverse problems posed by the Nation's hazardous
waste sites have provided EPA with the challenge to
establish a consistent approach for evaluating and
cleaning up the Nation's most serious sites. To do this, EPA
had to step beyond its traditional role as a regulatory agency
to develop processes and guidelines for each step in these
technically complex site cleanups. EPA has established proce-
dures to coordinate the efforts of its Washington, D.C. Head-
quarters program offices and its front-line staff in 10 Regional
Offices with the State governments, contractors, and private
parties who are participating in site cleanup. An important
part of the process is that any time during cleanup, work can
be led by EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, by
private parties who are potentially responsible for site con-
tamination.
The process for discovery of the site, evaluation of threat, and
long-term cleanup of Superfund sites is summarized in the
following pages. The phases of each of these steps are high-
lighted within the description. The flow diagram below pro-
vides a summary of this three step process.
STEP1
Discover site
and determine
whether an
emergency
exists *
STEP 2
Evaluate whether
a site is a serious
threat to public
health or
environment
STEP 3
Perform long-term
cleanup actions on
the most serious
hazardous waste
sites in the Nation
* Emergency actions are performed whenever needed in this three-step process
FIGURE 1
Although this State book provides a current "snapshot" of site progress made only by emer-
gency actions and long-term cleanup actions at Superfund sites, it is important to understand
the discovery and evaluation process that leads up to identifying and cleaning up these most
serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Nation. This discovery and
evaluation process is the starting point for this summary description.
VII
-------
How does EPA learn
about potential
hazardous waste
sites?
STEP 1: SITE DISCOVERY AND EMERGENCY
EVALUATION
Site discovery occurs in a number of ways. Information
comes from concerned citizens people may notice an odd
taste or foul odor in their drinking water, or see half-buried
leaking barrels; a hunter may come across a field where waste
was dumped illegally. Or there may be an explosion or fire
which alerts the State or local authorities to a problem. Rou-
tine investigations by State and local governments, and re-
quired reporting and inspection of facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste also help keep EPA
informed about either actual or potential threats of hazardous
substance releases. All reported sites or spills are recorded in
the Superfund inventory (CERCLIS) for further investigation
to determine whether they will require cleanup.
What happens if
there is an imminent
danger?
As soon as a potential hazardous waste site is reported, EPA
determines whether there is an emergency requiring an imme-
diate cleanup action. If there is, they act as quickly as possible
to remove or stabilize the imminent threat. These short-term
emergency actions range from building a fence around the
contaminated area to keep people away or temporarily relo-
cating residents until the danger is addressed, to providing
bottled water to residents while their local drinking water
supply is being cleaned up, or physically removing wastes for
safe disposal.
However, emergency actions can happen at any time an imminent
threat or emergency warrants them for example, if leaking
barrels are found when cleanup crews start digging in the
ground or if samples of contaminated soils or air show that
there may be a threat of fire or explosion, an immediate action
is taken.
If there isn't an
imminent danger,
how does EPA
determine what, if
tatyf deamtp actions
should be taken?
STEP 2: SITE THREAT EVALUATION
Even after any imminent dangers are taken care of, in most
cases contamination may remain at the site. For example,
residents may have been supplied with bottled water to take
care of their immediate problem of contaminated well water.
But now it's time to figure out what is contaminating the
drinking water supply and the best way to clean it up. Or
vm
-------
EPA may determine that there is no imminent danger from a
site, so now any long-term threats need to be evaluated. In
either case, a more comprehensive investigation is needed to
determine if a site poses a serious but not imminent danger,
and requires a long-term cleanup action.
Once a site is discovered and any needed emergency actions
are taken, EPA or the State collects all available background
information not only from their own files, but also from local
records and U.S. Geological Survey maps. This information is
used to identify the site and to perform a preliminary assess-
ment of its potential hazards. This is a quick review of readily
available information to answer the questions:
Are hazardous substances likely to be present?
How are they contained?
How might contaminants spread?
How close is the nearest well, home, or natural resource
area like a wetland or animal sanctuary?
What may be harmed the land, water, air, people,
plants, or animals?
Some sites do not require further action because the prelimi-
nary assessment shows that they don't threaten public health
or the environment. But even in these cases, the sites remain
listed in the Superfund inventory for record keeping purposes
and future reference. Currently, there are more than 32,000
sites maintained in this inventory.
Inspectors go to the site to collect additional information to
evaluate its hazard potential. During this site inspection, they
look for evidence of hazardous waste, such as leaking drums
and dead or discolored vegetation. They may take some
samples of soil, well water, river water, and air. Inspectors
analyze the ways hazardous materials could be polluting the
environment such as runoff into nearby streams. They also
check to see if people (especially children) have access to the
site.
preliminary
assessment shows
tKat a serious threat
may exist what's the
next step?
Information collected during the site inspection is used to
identify the sites posing the most serious threats to human
health and the environment. This way EPA can meet the
How 4oes EPA use
the results of the
site inspection?
IX
-------
SUPERFUND
requirement that Congress gave them to use Superfund mo-
nies only on the worst hazardous waste sites in the Nation.
To identify the most serious sites, EPA developed the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS). The HRS is the scoring system EPA
uses to assess the relative threat from a release or a potential
release of hazardous substances from a site to surrounding
groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. A site score is based
on the likelihood a hazardous substance will be released from
the site, the toxicity and amount of hazardous substances at
the site, and the people and sensitive environments potentially
affected by contamination at the site.
Only sites with high enough health and environmental risk
scores are proposed to be added to EPA's National Priorities
List (NPL). That's why there are 1,236 sites are on the NPL,
but there are more than 32,000 sites in the Superfund inven-
tory. Only NPL sites can have a long-term cleanup paid for
from the national hazardous waste trust fund the Super-
fund. But the Superfund can and does pay for emergency
actions performed at any site, whether or not it's on the NPL.
Mow do people fitid
national priority foir
listed in this book.
The proposed NPL identifies sites that have been evaluated
through the scoring process as the most serious problems
among uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous wast? sites in
the U.S. In addition, a site will be added to the NPL if the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issues a
health advisory recommending that people be moved away
from the site. Updated at least once a year, it's only after
public comments are considered that these proposed worst
sites are officially added to the NPL.
Listing on the NPL does not set the order in which sites will be
cleaned up. The order is influenced by the relative priority of
the site's health and environmental threats compared to other
sites, and such factors as State priorities, engineering capabili-
ties, and available technologies. Many States also have their
own list of sites that require cleanup; these often contain sites
not on the NPL that are scheduled to be cleaned up with State
money. And it should be said again that any emergency action
needed at a site can be performed by the Superfund whether
or not a site is on the NPL.
-------
STEP 3: LONG-TERM CLEANUP ACTIONS
The ultimate goal for a hazardous waste site on the NPL is a
permanent, long-term cleanup. Since every site presents a
unique set of challenges, there is no single all-purpose solu-
tion. So a five-phase "remedial response" process is used to
develop consistent and workable solutions to hazardous waste
problems across the Nation:
1. Investigate in detail the extent of the site contamination:
remedial investigation,
2. Study the range of possible cleanup remedies: feasibility
study,
3. Decide which remedy to use: Record of Decision or ROD,
4. Plan the remedy: remedial design, and
5. Carry out the remedy: remedial action.
This remedial response process is a long-term effort to provide
a permanent solution to an environmental problem that
presents a serious, but not an imminent threat to the public or
environment.
The first two phases of a long-term cleanup are a combined
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) that
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site,
and identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. These studies
may be conducted by EPA or the State or, under their monitor-
ing, by private parties.
Like the initial site inspection described earlier, a remedial
investigation involves an examination of site data in order to
better define the problem. But the remedial investigation is
much more detailed and comprehensive than the initial site
inspection.
A remedial investigation can best be described as a carefully
designed field study. It includes extensive sampling and
laboratory analyses to generate more precise data on the types
and quantities of wastes present at the site, the type of soil and
water drainage patterns, and specific human health and
environmental risks. The result is information that allows
EPA to select the cleanup strategy that is best suited to a
particular site or to determine that no cleanup is needed.
Alters site is added
to tfie NPk, what are
tfee steps Jo cleanup?
XI
-------
Placing a site on the NPL does not necessarily mean that
cleanup is needed. It is possible for a site to receive an HRS
score high enough to be added to the NPL, but not ultimately
require cleanup actions. Keep in mind that the purpose of the
scoring process is to provide a preliminary and conservative
assessment of potential risk. During subsequent site investiga-
tions, the EPA may find either that there is no real threat or
that the site does not pose significant human health or envi-
ronmental risks.
How are cleanup
alternatives
identified and
evaluated?
EPA or the State or, under their monitoring, private parties
identify and analyze specific site cleanup needs based on the
extensive information collected during the remedial investiga-
tion. This analysis of cleanup alternatives is called a feasibility
study.
Since cleanup actions must be tailored exactly to the needs of
each individual site, more than one possible cleanup alterna-
tive is always considered. After making sure that all potential
cleanup remedies fully protect human health and the environ-
ment and comply with Federal and State laws, the advantages
and disadvantages of each cleanup alternative are carefully
compared. These comparisons are made to determine their
effectiveness in the short- and long-term, their use of perma-
nent treatment solutions, and their technical feasibility and
cost.
To the maximum extent practicable, the remedy must be a
permanent solution and use treatment technologies to destroy
principal site contaminants. But remedies such as containing
the waste on site or removing the source of the problem (like
leaking barrels) are often considered effective. Often special
pilot studies are conducted to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of using a particular technology to clean up a site.
Therefore, the combined remedial investigation and feasibility
study can take between 10 and 30 months to complete, de-
pending on the size and complexity of the problem.
Does the public have
a say in the final
cleanup decision?
Yes. The Superfund law requires that the public be given the
opportunity to comment on the proposed cleanup plan. Their
concerns are carefully considered before a final decision is
made.
xn
-------
The results of the remedial investigation and feasibility study,
which also point out the recommended cleanup choice, are
published in a report for public review and comment. EPA or
the State encourages the public to review the information and
take an active role in the final cleanup decision. Fact sheets
and announcements in local papers let the community know
where they can get copies of the study and other reference
documents concerning the site.
The public has a minimum of 30 days to comment on the
proposed cleanup plan after it is published. These comments
can either be written or given verbally at public meetings that
EPA or the State are required to hold. Neither EPA nor the
State can select the final cleanup remedy without evaluating
and providing written answers to specific community com-
ments and concerns. This "responsiveness summary" is part
of EPA's write-up of the final remedy decision, called the
Record of Decision or ROD.
The ROD is a public document that explains the cleanup
remedy chosen and the reason it was selected. Since sites
frequently are large and must be cleaned up in stages, a ROD
may be necessary for each contaminated resource or area of
the site. This may be necessary when contaminants have
spread into the soil, water and air, and affect such sensitive
areas as wetlands, or when the site is large and cleaned up in
stages. This often means that a number of remedies using
different cleanup technologies are needed to clean up a single
site.
Yes. Before a specific cleanup action is carried out, it must be
designed in detail to meet specific site needs. This stage of the
cleanup is called the remedial design. The design phase
provides the details on how the selected remedy will be
engineered and constructed.
Projects to clean up a hazardous waste site may appear to be
like any other major construction project but, in fact, the likely
presence of combinations of dangerous chemicals demands
special construction planning and procedures. Therefore, the
design of the remedy can take anywhere from 6 months to 2
years to complete. This blueprint for site cleanup includes not
only the details on every aspect of the construction work, but a
description of the types of hazardous wastes expected at the
If every cleanup
action needs to be
tailored to a site/ does
the design of the
remedy need to be
tailored too?
Xlll
-------
site, special plans for environmental protection, worker safety,
regulatory compliance, and equipment decontamination.
Once the design is
complete, how long
does it take to
actually clean up the
site and how much
does it cost?
The time and cost for performing the site cleanup called the
remedial action are as varied as the remedies themselves.
In a few cases, the only action needed may be to remove
drums of hazardous waste and decontaminate them an
action that takes limited time and money, m most cases,
however, a remedial action may involve different and expen-
sive measures that can take a long time.
For example, cleaning polluted groundwater or dredging
contaminated river bottoms can take several years of complex
engineering work before contamination is reduced to safe
levels. Sometimes the selected cleanup remedy described in
the ROD may need to be modified because of new contami-
nant information discovered or difficulties that were faced
during the early cleanup activities. Taking into account these
differences, a remedial cleanup action takes an average of 18
months to complete and costs an average of $26 million per
site.
Once the cleanup
action is complete, is
the site automatically
"deleted" from the
NPL?
No. The deletion of a site from the NPL is anything but auto-
matic. For example, cleanup of contaminated groundwater
may take up to 20 years or longer. Also, in some cases the
long-term monitoring of the remedy is required to ensure that
it is effective. After construction of certain reimdies, opera-
tion and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of ground cover,
groundwater monitoring, etc.) or continued pumping and
treating of groundwater, may be required to ensure that the
remedy continues to prevent future health hazards or environ-
mental damage, and ultimately meets the cleanup goals
specified in the ROD. Sites in this final monitoring or opera-
tional stage of the cleanup process are designated as "con-
struction completed".
It's not until a site cleanup meets all the goals and monitoring
requirements of the selected remedy that EPA can officially
propose the site for "deletion" from the NPL. And it's not
until public comments are taken into consideration that a site
can actually be deleted from the NPL. Deletions that have
occurred are included in the "Construction Complete" cate-
gory in the progress report found later in this book.
XIV
-------
Yes. Based on the belief that "the polluters should pay," after a
site is placed on the NPL, the EPA makes a thorough effort to
identify and find those responsible for causing contamination
problems at a site. Although EPA is willing to negotiate with
these private parties and encourages voluntary cleanup, it has
the authority under the Superfund law to legally force those
potentially responsible for site hazards to take specific cleanup
actions. All work performed by these parties is closely guided
and monitored by EPA, and must meet the same standards
required for actions financed through the Superfund.
Because these enforcement actions can be lengthy, EPA may
decide to use Superfund monies to make sure a site is cleaned
up without unnecessary delay. For example, if a site presents
an imminent threat to public health and the environment, or if
conditions at a site may worsen, it could be necessary to start
the cleanup right away. Those responsible for causing site
contamination are liable under the law for repaying the money
EPA spends in cleaning up the site.
Whenever possible, EPA and the Department of Justice use
their legal enforcement authorities to require responsible
parties to pay for site cleanups, thereby preserving the Super-
fund for emergency actions and sites where no responsible
parties can be identified.
Can EPA make parties
responsible Cor the
contamination pay?
XV
-------
HOW TO:
. he Site Fact Sheets
presented in this book
: are comprehensive
summaries that cover a broad
range of information. The
fact sheets describe hazard-
ous waste sites on the Na-
tional Priorities List (NFL)
and their locations, as well as
the conditions leading to their
listing ("Site Description").
They list the types of con-
taminants that have been dis-
covered and related threats to
public and ecological health
("Threats and Contami-
nants"). "Cleanup Ap-
proach" presents an overview
of the cleanup activities
completed, underway, or
planned. The fact sheets
conclude with a brief synop-
sis of how much progress has
been made on protecting
public health and the envi-
ronment. The summaries also
pinpoint other actions, such
as legal efforts to involve pol-
luters responsible for site
contamination and commu-
nity concerns.
The following two pages
show a generic fact sheet and
briefly describes the informa-
tion under each section. The
square "icons" or symbols ac-
companying the text allow
the reader to see at a glance
which environmental re-
sources are affected and the
status of cleanup activities.
Icons in the Threats
and Contaminants
Section
Contaminated
Groundwater re-
sources in the vicinity
or underlying the site.
(Groundwater is often used
as a drinking water source.)
Contaminated Sur-
face Water and
Sediments on or near
the site. (These include lakes,
ponds, streams, and rivers.)
Contaminated Air in
the vicinity of the
site. (Pollution is
usually periodic and involves
contaminated dust particles
or hazardous gas emissions.)
Contaminated Soil
and Sludges on or
near the site.
Threatened or
contaminated Envi-
ronmentally Sensi-
tive Areas in the vicinity of
the site. (Examples include
wetlands and coastal areas,
critical habitats.)
Icons in the Response
Action Status Section
Actions
have been taken or
are underway to
eliminate immediate threats
Site Studies at the
site are planned or
underway.
Remedy Selected
indicates that site
investigations have
been concluded
and EPA has se-
lected a final cleanup remedy
for the site or part of the site.
Remedy Design
means that engi-
neers are prepar-
ing specifications
and drawings for the selected
cleanup technologies.
Cleanup Ongoing
indicates that the
selected cleanup
remedies for the
contaminated site or part
of the site are currently
underway.
Cleanup Complete
shows that all
cleanup goals have
been achieved for
the contaminated site or part
of the site.
xvu
-------
Site Responsibility
Identifies the Federal, State,
and/or potentially responsible
parties that are taking
responsibility for cleanup
actions at the site.
SITE NAME
STATE
EPA ID# ABCOOOOOOOO
NPL Listing
History
Dates when the site
was Proposed,
made Final, and
Deleted from the
NPL
EPA REGION
CONGRESSIONAL DIST
County Name
Threats and Contaminants
Environmental Progress
A summary of the actions to reduce the threats to nearby residents and
the surrounding environment; progress towards cleaning up the site
and goals of the cleanup plan are given here.
XV1H
-------
WHAT THE FACT SHEETS CONTAIN
Site Description
This section describes the location and history of the site. It includes
descriptions of the most recent activities and past actions at the site that have
contributed to the contamination. Population estimates, land usages, and nearby
resources give readers background on the local setting surrounding the site.
Throughout the site description and other sections of the site summary, technical
or unfamiliar terms that are italicized are presented in the glossary at the end of
the book. Please refer to the glossary for more detailed explanation or definition
of the terms.
Threats and Contaminants
The major chemical categories of site contamination are noted as well as
which environmental resources are affected. Icons representing each of the
affected resources (may include air, groundwater, surface water, soil and
contamination to environmentally sensitive areas) are included in the margins
of this section. Potential threats to residents and the surrounding
environments arising from the site contamination are also described. Specific
contaminants and contaminant groupings are italicized and explained in more
detail in the glossary.
f i '/'$';'''<"
Cleanup Approach
This section contains a brief overview of how the site is being cleaned up.
Response Action Status
Specific actions that have been accomplished or will be undertaken to clean up
the site are described here. Cleanup activities at NPL sites are divided into
separate phases depending on the complexity and required actions at the site.
Two major types of cleanup activities are often described: initial, immediate or
emergency actions to quickly remove or reduce imminent threats to the
community and surrounding areas; and long-term remedial phases directed at
final cleanup at the site. Each stage of the cleanup strategy is presented in this
section of the summary. Icons representing the stage of the cleanup process
(initial actions, site investigations, EPA selection of the cleanup remedy,
engineering design phase, cleanup activities underway and completed cleanup)
are located in the margin next to each activity description.
J vC^.' f ^/;. 4 :-t.-^ f V « ' ;
Site Facts
Additional informatipn on activities and events at the site are included in this
section. Often details on legal or administrative actions taken by EPA to achieve
site cleanup or other facts pertaining to community involvement with the site
cleanup process are reported here.
xix
-------
The fact sheets are arranged
in alphabetical order by site
name. Because site cleanup is
a dynamic and gradual
process, all site information is
accurate as of the date shown
on the bottom of each page.
Progress is always being
made at NPL sites, and EPA
will periodically update the
Site Fact Sheets to reflect
recent actions and publish
updated State volumes.
HOW CAN YOU USE
THIS STATE BOOK?
You can use this book to keep
informed about the sites that
concern you, particularly
ones close to home. EPA is
committed to involving the
public in the decisionmaking
process associated with
hazardous waste cleanup.
The Agency solicits input
from area residents in com-
munities affected by Super-
fund sites. Citizens are likely
to be affected not only by
hazardous site conditions, but
also by the remedies that
combat them. Site cleanups
take many forms and can
affect communities in differ-
ent ways. Local traffic may
be rerouted, residents may be
relocated, temporary water
supplies may be necessary.
Definitive information on a
site can help citizens sift
through alternatives and
make decisions. To make
good choices, you must know
what the threats are and how
EPA intends to clean up the
site. You must understand
the cleanup alternatives being
proposed for site cleanup and
how residents may be af-
fected by each one. You also
need to have some idea of
how your community intends
to use the site in the future
and to know what the com-
munity can realistically
expect once the cleanup is
complete.
EPA wants to develop
cleanup methods that meet
community needs, but the
Agency can only take local
concerns into account if it
understands what they are.
Information must travel both
ways in order for cleanups to
be effective and satisfactory.
Please take this opportunity
to learn more, become in-
volved, and assure that
hazardous waste cleanup at
"your" site considers your
community's concerns.
xx
-------
NPL Sites in
State of Idaho
The Middle Rocky Mountain State of Utah is bordered by Idaho and Wyoming to the
north, Nevada to the west, Colorado to the east, and Arizona to the south. Utah covers
84,899 square miles and consists of high Colorado plateau in the southeast, the broad,
flat, desert-like Great Basin in the west, the Great Salt Lake and salt flats in the north-
west, as well as the Rocky Mountains and the valleys and plateaus of the Wasatch
Front. Utah experienced a 15.7 percent increase in population during the 1980s and
currently has approximately 1,690,000 residents, ranking 35th in U.S. populations. Prin-
cipal State industries include manufacturing, tourism, trade, services, mining, transpor-
tation, and education. Utah manufactures guided missiles and parts, electronic compo-
nents, food products, fabricated metals, steel, electrical and transportation equipment.
How Many Idaho Sites
Are on the NPL?
Where Are the NPL Sites Located?
Proposed
Final
Deleted
3
6
_Q
9
Cong. District 01
Cong. District 02
2 sites
7 sites
How are Sites Contaminated and What are the Principal* Chemicals ?
10-r
GW Soil SW Seds
Contamination Area
Groundwater: Heavy metals
(inorganics), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
Soil: Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), heavy metals (inorganics),
creosotes (organics), and acids.
Surface Water and Sediments.
Heavy metals (inorganics),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
'Appear at 33% cr more sites
State Overview
XXI
continued
-------
Where are the Sites in the Super-fund Cleanup Process*?
Site
Studies
Remedy
Selected
Remedy
" Design
Cleanup
Ongoing
Construction
Complete
Initial actions have been taken at 3 sites as interim cleanup measures.
Who Do I Call with Questions?
The following pages describe each NPL site in Idaho, providing specific information on
threats and contaminants, cleanup activities, and environmental progress. Should you
have questions, please call one of the offices listed below:
Idaho Superfund Office
EPA Region X Superfund Office
EPA Public Information Office
EPA Superfund Hotline
EPA Region X Superfund Public
Relations Office
(208) 334-5879
(206) 442-1987
(202) 477-7751
(800) 424-9346
(206)442-1283
"Cleanup status reflects phase of site activities rather than administrative accomplishments.
State Overview xxii
-------
The NPL Progress Report
The following Progress Report lists the State 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 Superfund cleanup process are arrayed across the top of the
chart, and each site's progress through these steps is represented by an arrow (*) which
indicates the current stage of cleanup at the site.
Large and complex sites are often 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
different 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" category indicates that an emergency cleanup or
initial action has been completed or is currently underway. Emergency or initial actions
are taken as an interim measure to provide immediete relief from exposure to
hazardous site conditions or to stabilize a site to prevent further contamination.
«* An arrow in the "Site Studies" category indicates that an investigation to determine the
nature and extent of the contamination at the site is currently ongoing or planned to
begin in 1991.
* An 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
contamination will be naturally dispersed without further cleanup activities, a "No
Action" remedy is selected. In these cases, the arrows in the Progress Report are
discontinued at the "Remedy Selection" step and resume in the final "Construction
Complete" category.
*- An arrow at the "Remedial Design" stage indicates that engineers are currently
designing the technical specifications for the selected cleanup remedies and
technologies.
* An arrow marking the "Cleanup Ongoing" category means that final cleanup actions
have been started at the site and are currently underway.
* A arrow in the "Construction Complete" category is used on//when all phases of the
site cleanup plan have been performed and the EPA has determined that no additional
construction actions are required at the site. Some sites in this category may currently
be undergoing long-term pumping and treating of groundwater, operation and
maintenance or monitoring to ensure that the completed cleanup actions continue to
protect human health and the environment.
The sites are listed in alphabetical order. Further information on the activities and progress
at each site is given in the site "Fact Sheets" published in this volume.
xxiii
-------
cd
d
cd
M
co
fi
>H
0)
M
«PH
Cf)
03
V
8
(A
(A
2
c
.2
3
4*
D)
CU
i
T
CO
CO
o
CD
0
"to
c
u_
Z
LU
O
CO
1 1 1
CO
CC
CL
cr
LU
h-
LU
CC
LU
I
ARRCOM CORP (DREXI
i
CO
2S
CO
o
CD
0
"CD
c
LL
LU
HOSHOr*
CO
d
CC
^3
_1
<
LU
_J
QC
LU
=3
CD
CO
0)
LC?
o
LD
0
CL
O
a!
ANNOCK
QQ
Z
<
1
z
O
o
co
EASTERN MICHAUD FL
CD
CO
CO
,
CM
5
"CD
LL
LU
CQ
CD
1
CD
Z
CC
LU
LU
Z
z
LU
_]
Z
g
o
X
Q
CO
CD
00.
^"
0
o
"To
C
LL
ARIBOU
a
CL
O
_i
o
LU
O
LU
LU
d
O
cr
cr
LU
0
CD
00
UO
O
LO
o
Q.
o
ARIBOU
o
P
i
CL
co
a
z
cr
MONSANTO (SODA SP
CM
CD
^~
i
O
Q.
O
CX
LMORE
LU
LU
CO
<^
CQ
LU
0
cc
O
MOUNTAIN HOME AIR
"^
«
i
t
i
""
^
00
,
CM
35
o
"CD
c
LL
ANNOCK
m
d
u
Z
_J
o
u
1 1 1
CC
CC
ID
LL
LU
Q
1C
CJ
LL
U
CD
*
QO
^
CM
CO
o
"co
C
LL
ANNOCK
CO
6
o
CC
CC
o
LL
1
z
0
z
CO
~
-------
-------
ARRCOM (DRE
ENTERPRISES)
IDAHO
EPA ID# IDD000800961
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Kootenal County
Rathdrum
The Arrcom (Drexler Enterprises) site covers a little over an acre approximately 3 miles
southwest of Rathdrum. From 1960 until the facility was abandoned in 1982, Arrcom
recycled waste oils containing a variety of organic solvents, lead, and polychorinated
bipheny/s (PCBs). Activities at the site have resulted in the contamination of soils and
sludges, as well as the production of hazardous waste materials including storage tanks
and trucks left on the site. Approximately 6,300 people live within 3 miles of the site.
The residents in the area depend on groundwater for drinking water as well as for the
irrigation of fields. The nearest well is 150 feet away from the site. The Spokane
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer runs approximately 135 feet underneath the site and is
the sole source of drinking water and crop irrigation for 350,000 people in the region.
Three groundwater monitoring wells surround the site.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through
Federal actions.
I\IPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date' 12/30/82
Final Date- 09/08/83
Threats and Contaminants
Soils on the site contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including
toluene, xylene, and methyl ethyl ketone; heavy metals including lead and
mercury; acid; PCBs, and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Buildings on the site
have been found to have been constructed using asbestos materials.
Accidental ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil particles or
asbestos may pose a potential health risk. No contamination has been
found in the groundwater.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: immediate actions and a long-term remedia!
phase directed at cleanup of the entire site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
1
continued
-------
ARRCOM (DREXLER ENTERPRISES)
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1983, the EPA began removing and treating
contaminants at the site. Tanks containing PCB-contaminated products
were pumped and flushed. The volume of contents in the remaining tanks
was approximately 32,000 gallons. Approximately 10,700 gallons of oil and water
mixture were recycled, 1,140 pounds of PCB flushings were incinerated off site, and
134 cubic yards of contaminated soil was disposed of in an approved landfill. In 1987,
the EPA removed and segregated all the hazards. A containment tent was constructed
for asbestos removal in the boiler room. A mobile laboratory was set up and monitoring
and instrument surveying were conducted throughout the site. Samples were taken of
soil and asbestos. The tanks and trucks were cleaned, disassembled, and disposed of.
Approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils were removed. All buildings
and vehicles have been removed. In 1990, the EPA removed approximately 1,500
cubic yards of soil contaminated with lead and PCBs. Post-removal soil sampling was
conducted; and the site was backfilled with clean fill and regraded.
Entire Site: The EPA will conduct a study at the site to ensure that all site
risks have been addressed by the initial cleanup actions and to determine
if additional work is required at the Arrcom site.
Environmental Progress
All of the contaminated containers, structures, and soils have been removed from the
Arrcom site, thereby significantly reducing the threat of exposure to hazardous
materials at the site. The EPA will continue to monitor site conditions to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedies used to clean up the site.
-------
BUNKER HIL
METALLURGI
IDAHO
EPA ID# IDD048340921
Site Description
NG & REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 01
Shoshone County
Kellogg
Alias:
Northern Idaho Phosphate Company
The Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex site covers 21 square miles and
encompasses the communities of Pinehurst, Page, Smelterville, Kellogg, and Wardner.
The facility includes the Bunker Hill mine, a mill and concentrator, a lead smelter, an
electrolytic zinc plant, a phosphoric acid and fertilizer plant, a cadmium plant, and
sulfuric acid plants. Mining operations began in 1889, with lead smelting starting in
1917. During the majority of the time the smelters were operating, few environmental
protection procedures or controls were used. As a result, there is widespread
contamination of soil, water, and air from lead and other heavy metals. Prior to 1938,
all liquid and solid residues of mine tailings from the complex were discharged directly
into the Coeur d'Alene River and its tributaries. Thereafter, waste streams were
directed to a large outwash plain located west of Kellogg and just north of the Bunker
Hill complex. Lead smelter slag was deposited in a pile on the west end of this plain.
On the east end of the plain, a central impoundment area was developed and was
surrounded by a 70-foot high dike of mine tailings and waste rock. All liquid wastes,
including mine pump effluent, were directed to the pond for settling and then
discharged to the river. In the early 1970s, a central treatment plant was constructed
on the edge of the pond to treat water before discharging it to the river; however, a
considerable amount of seepage is lost to groundwater through the unsealed bottom of
the pond. In 1973, public concern arose over the effects of chronic air pollution
associated with Bunker Hill operations after a fire occurred in the baghouse of the
smelter. Smokestack and other emissions from the smelting operations have
contaminated the hillsides and other areas surrounding the complex, destroying large
areas of vegetation. In the 1970s, the smelter owners began a revegetation program;
however, large areas still remain unvegetated. All operations but the mine, mill, and
concentrator are inactive at this time. The population of Shoshone County is
approximately 19,200. The City of Kellogg, the largest community in the county with a
population of approximately 3,400, is about a mile from the former Bunker Hill
Complex. Most residences in the area use municipal water supplies obtained from
surface water for drinking water. However, there may be some private wells in the
area.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
IMPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 12/30/82
Final Date- 09/08/83
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
3
continued
-------
BUNKER HILL MINING & METALLURGICAL
Threats and Contaminants
II
Groundwater, sediments, soils, and surface water contain heavy metals
including lead, cadmium, and zinc. Surface water also contains
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). People may be exposed to health risks
by touching, accidentally ingesting, or inhaling contaminated groundwater,
soil, surface water, or sediments. In 1982, a significant number of
Kokanee trout returned to the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River,
which had been totally devoid of fish below Kellogg for many years.
Improved conditions can be attributed to the installation of the treatment
facilities for wastes that once were discharged untreated into the river.
Because of elevated levels of lead in the blood of children around Kellogg,
airborne lead was a cause for alarm in the early 1970s. Control measures
subsequently taken by the company and intervention by both State and
Federal officials reduced lead blood levels.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four stages: immediate actions and three long-term
remedial phases focusing on cleanup of the residential soils, non-populated areas, and
the alleviation of household dust.
Response Action Status
Immediate Actions: In 1986, the EPA removed approximately 8,750
cubic yards of contaminated soils from sixteen public areas, such as parks
and playgrounds, and stored it on site. About 7,150 cubic yards of backfill,
13,500 square feet of sod, and 1,132 tons of asphalt pavement were used in the
renovation operations. The EPA stored all excavated contaminated soil in a temporary
on-site storage facility. The waste soils were placed within a polyvinyl chloride
envelope and surrounded with a containment dike to minimize surface runoff. This
initial action was completed with the installation of a security fence around the
temporary storage facility.
Residential Soils: In 1989, the EPA developed a residential soil removal
program. Yards chosen for the program contained soil lead levels of 1,000
parts per million or greater and were households where children less than
4 years old or expectant mothers resided. 81 homes and 2 large apartment complexes
had gardens replaced, and yards restored, graded, and reseeded. Actions are ongoing
in the summer of 1990, and approximately 100 properties are expected to be
completed. In addition, the State is conducting an investigation to determine the total
type and extent of contamination in the residential areas, including home interiors.
Once this investigation is completed in 1991, the most appropriate measures will be
recommended for the residential cleanup.
continued
-------
BUNKER HILL MINING & METALLURGICAL
Response Action Status (cont'd)
Non-Populated Areas: In 1989, Gulf Resources and Bunker Limited
began initial actions in the non-populated areas, under monitoring by the
EPA. Several thousand feet of fence were installed around the smelter, a
copper dross flue dust pile was stabilized, and a substantial amount of deteriorating
asbestos was removed. In addition, Gulf Resources, under EPA guidance, is
conducting an investigation to determine the extent and type of contamination in the
non-populated areas. The field work for the investigation has been completed, and a
draft report of the investigation is expected in spring 1991.
Household Dust: In 1985, the State began an investigation to determine
the extent of contamination in household dust. A pilot program was
begun to determine if carpets and furniture can be adequately cleaned of
the contaminated dust. Once the program is completed in 1992, and the results are
analyzed, the most effective measures will be recommended for the household dust
cleanup.
Site Facts: In 1987, the EPA and Gulf Resources signed an Administrative Order under
which the company agreed to conduct an investigation of the site. In 1989, Gulf
Resources and Chemical Corporation and Bunker Limited Partnership were ordered to
begin immediate cleanup actions.
Environmental Progress
The EPA and the potentially responsible parties have conducted many cleanup efforts
at the Bunker Hill site. Among these actions which have helped to reduce the potential
for exposure to contaminants are: removal and storage of contaminated soil in a secure
containment facility on the site, construction of a security fence around this area,
treatment and restoration of 81 yards of the affected homes in the area, and the
beginning of a household dust abatement pilot program. Further studies of the non-
residential areas of the site and the type and extent of total contamination are currently
being conducted and will result in permanent solutions for all areas of the site.
-------
EASTERN MI
FLATS CONT
IDAHO
EPA ID# IDD984666610
Site Description
N
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bannock County
Near Pocatello
Aliases:
FMC Corporation
J.R. Simplot
The Eastern Michaud Flats Contamination site covers 2,530 acres near Pocatello. The
FMC Corporation has operated a phosphate processing plant on the site producing
approximately 250 million pounds of elemental phosphorus per year from two million
tons of shale, silica, and coke. The wastes generated from this process include waste
slag, ferrous-phosphate solid residuals, precipitator dust, phossy water, slag cooling
water, non-contact cooling water, and calciner scrubber water, all of which contain
heavy metals. Waste slag has in the past been used as highway construction materials
or has been deposited on two large on-site waste piles. The ferrous-phosphate
residuals are crushed, stored on bare ground, and later sold for its vanadium, iron, and
chromium content. The precipitator dust slurry and cooling and process water are
pumped to 18 waste ponds; 8 of these are unlined. The J.R. Simplot vicinity of the
site is located adjacent to the FMC facility. Since 1944, Simplot has produced
concentrated phosphoric acid, triple super phosphate, ammonium phosphate, and
diamonium phosphate from phosphate-containing ore. Ground phosphate rock is
digested with suifuric acid to produce phosphoric acid and calcium sulfate (gypsum).
Gypsum is pumped as a thick slurry to a stack, which presently contains approximately
28 million cubic yards of waste. A former gypsum stack was abandoned in 1966. The
Simpiot facility currently utilizes a wastewater treatment system consisting of three
lined ponds and two unlined ponds to collect and treat all wastewater not recycled. In
1976, a drinking water well downhill from the FMC facility was condemned by the State
due to elevated arsenic levels. Contaminants have been found in the deep confined
aquifer. Approximately 55,000 people use drinking water from public and private wells
within 3 miles of the site. The closest private well is about 800 feet from an on-site
lagoon. Groundwater is also used to irrigate about 2,000 acres of forage crops within 3
miles of the site. The Michaud Flats are on the Snake River Plain and are bordered by
the American Falls Reservoir, the Portneuf River, Rock Creek, and on the south by the
foothills of the Deep Creek Mountains and Bannock Range. The Portneuf River is used
for fishing, recreation, and irrigation downstream from the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
Federal and potentially responsible
parties' actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
EASTERN MICHAUD FLATS CONTAMINATION
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater contains heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, and
selenium. Sediments contain similar heavy metals, with the addition of
copper, lead, vanadium, and zinc. Contaminants are leaching from the
unlined waste ponds into the shallow and deep groundwater aquifers.
People who drink or touch the contaminated groundwater or sediments
may be at risk. There is no alternative, unthreatened water supply readily
available to private well users outside of the Pocatello city limits.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: In 1991, the parties potentially responsible for site
contamination, under EPA monitoring, are scheduled to conduct a study to
determine the type and extent of contamination. Once the study is
completed, the most appropriate remedies will be recommended for site cleanup.
Environmental Progress
After proposing the Eastern Michaud Flats site for listing on the NPL, the EPA
performed preliminary evaluations and determined that no immediate actions were
necessary while the investigations leading to the selection of a permanent remedy for
the site contamination are taking place.
-------
IDAHO NATIO
ENGINEERIN
(US DOE)
IDAHO
EPA ID# ID4890008952
Site Description
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Butte County
Near Idaho Falls
Alias:
Idaho Operations Office
The Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) site, now owned by the U.S.
Department of Energy, covers 890 square miles in southeastern Idaho, near Idaho Falls.
The Atomic Energy Commission set up the National Reactor Testing Station on the
grounds in 1949 to build, test, and operate various nuclear reactors, fuel processing
plants, and support facilities. Earlier, parts of the site were used by the Department of
Defense. In 1974, the facility assumed its present name to reflect the broad scope of
engineering activities it conducts. INEL consists of a number of major facilities,
including the Test Reactor Area (TRA), Central Facilities Area, and Idaho Chemical
Processing Plant. These three facilities and others at INEL contribute contaminants to
the Snake River Plain Aquifer and draw water from the aquifer. Approximately 17,300
tons of hazardous materials were deposited at the TRA through an injection well
extending 100 feet into the Snake River Plain Aquifer and also into numerous unlined
ponds and an earthen ditch. Waste materials disposed of in this area included
chromium-contaminated cooling tower blow-down water, waste solvents, sulfuric acid,
radionuclides, and laboratory wastes. The Snake River Plain Aquifer is the source of all
water used at the INEL and is an important water resource in southeastern Idaho.
Although the three adjacent facilities at the INEL are several miles apart, they will be
considered together for this site cleanup due to the extent of chromium contamination.
Over 3,000 people draw water from wells within a 3-mile radius of the site. The facility
employs approximately 10,500 people. The nearest large population center is Idaho
Falls, which is approximately 30 miles east of the site.
Site Responsibility: ynjs sjte js being addressed through
Federal actions.
Threats and Contaminants
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 07/14/89
Final Date: 11/21/89
Hexavalent chromium has been detected in monitoring and drinking water
wells completed in the Snake River Plain Aquifer at the Test Reactor and
Central Facilities Area at the INEL. Acetone, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric
acid, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected to a lesser
degree. Tests conducted in 1987 by INEL and the U.S. Geological Survey
at the Radioactive Waste Management complex on the site indicate that
carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene (TCE) have migrated from
where they were buried to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Potential health
risks may exist from drinking or coming in direct contact with the
contaminated groundwater.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
continued
-------
IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING LAB (US DOE)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases focusing on the Test
Reactor area, the Central Facilities area, the Chemical Processing Plant, and the
Radioactive Waste Management Complex.
Response Action Status
Test Reactor Area: An investigation into the extent of contamination in
this area and a study to identify alternative technologies for the cleanup
are scheduled to begin in 1990. The EPA has reviewed a draft of the
investigative work plan.
Central Facilities Area: An investigation into the extent of contamination
in the Central Facilities area and a study to identify alternative technologies
for the cleanup are scheduled to begin in 1991.
Chemical Processing Plant: An investigation into the nature and extent
of contamination in the Chemical Processing area and a study to identify
alternative technologies for the cleanup are expected to begin in 1990.
Once the studies have been completed, the most effective remedies will be
recommended.
Radioactive Waste Management Complex: An investigation into the
extent and types of contamination in this area and a study to identify
alternative technologies for the cleanup are scheduled to begin in 1990. A
draft work plaafor the investigation is under review.
Site Facts: In July 1987, the EPA, INEL, and the U.S. Geological Survey signed a
Consent Order call ing for site investigation and cleanup. Currently, the EPA has 12
groundwater and 12 monitoring, analysis, and testing plans under EPA and State
review.
Environmental Progress
After adding the Idaho National Engineering Lab site to the NPL, the EPA conducted
preliminary studies into the site conditions and determined that the site does not pose
an imminent threat to the surrounding population or the environment, while
investigations leading to the selection of final cleanup alternatives for the site are being
completed.
-------
KERR-MCGEE
CHEMICAL CO
IDAHO
EPA ID# IDD041310707
Site Description
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Caribou County
1 mile north of Soda Springs
Alias:
Soda Springs Plant
The Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation site covers 158 acres and is located 1 mile north
of Soda Springs. The site is in a broad, flat valley near the western base of the Aspen
Range. From 1963 to 1988, the plant generated a number of liquid wastes and stored
them in on-site ponds. The Monsanto Chemical Company, another large industrial
complex nearby that is also on the National Priorities List (NPL), supplied Kerr-McGee
with the by-product ferrous-phosphate solids that were processed into vanadium
pentoxide. The two largest on-site ponds hold over 12,000 cubic yards of waste. The
hazardous chemicals found in these ponds are vanadium, arsenic, copper, and silver.
Groundwater beneath the site has been affected by the chemicals in the holding ponds.
An on-site monitoring well also shows contamination and is located near the drinking
water supply for the plant. Approximately 23 people live within a mile of the site, and
approximately 3,000 people live within 3 miles of the site. Public springs and private
wells that provide drinking water to over 3,000 people and a private well that irrigates
165 acres are located within 3 miles of the site. Significant agricultural crops in the area
include wheat and hay.
Site Responsibility;
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Final Date: 10/04/89
Threats and Contaminants
On-site monitoring wells and ponds contain vanadium, arsenic, copper,
and silver, according to tests conducted as part of an EPA site inspection
in 1987. Potential health risks may exist by drinking contaminated
groundwater or direct contact with or inhalation of blowing dust. The
topography in the area prohibits the migration of contaminants to surface
water off the site.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
10
continued
-------
KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the site is expected to begin in 1990. Once the
investigation is complete, the EPA will recommend the most effective
remedy for the site.
Environmental Progress
After listing the Kerr-McGee site on the NPL, the EPA determined, based on preliminary
evaluations, that no immediate cleanup actions were required while the extensive
investigation leading to the selection of the final cleanup remedies for the site is taking
place.
11
-------
MONSANTO C
CO. (SODA SP
PLANT)
IDAHO
EPA ID# IDD081830994
Site Description
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Caribou County
North of Soda Springs
The Monsanto Chemical Company plant encompasses 530 acres and processes locally
mined phosphate ore to produce elemental phosphorus. The facility consists of over a
dozen administrative and processing buildings plus ore piles, slag piles, by-product
materials, surface impoundments and a waste landfill. The site was purchased by
Monsanto in 1952. Approximately, a million tons of phosphate ore are processed
through the plant each year. Ore is stockpiled on site prior to being processed for
introduction into electric arc furnaces along with coke and silica. All process waters,
with the exception of non-contact cooling water, are held and treated on site and then
reused. The non-contact cooling water is discharged from the site to Soda Creek,
which is used in agricultural irrigation. The process wastes, previously stored in unlined
ponds or impoundments, have been implicated as sources of contamination to the local
groundwater. Other potential sources of pollution include waste slag, windborne dust
emissions, and air emissions from ore processing and the electric arc furnaces. All
currently active process wastewater impoundments have been lined. Soil from the old
ponds has been removed and backfilledwith clean cover material, A network of
approximately 52 monitoring wells is maintained to assess plume migration. Land use
in the vicinity of the Monsanto facility is primarily industrial and agricultural. The plant is
staffed with about 400 employees, and 3,100 residents live within 3 miles of the site.
Most of the residents' water is supplied by the Town of Soda Springs from springs
located north of the plant. The closest surface water is Soda Creek, located
approximately 2,000 feet west of the facility. Many of the nearby residents depend on
domestic wells, but most are upgradientoi the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 05/05/89
Threats and Contaminants
Groundwater underlying the site and the surrounding vicinity has been
contaminated with cadmium, selenium, vanadium, and fluoride. A health
threat may exist for individuals who use or come into direct contact with
contaminated water.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
12
continued
-------
MONSANTO CHEMICAL CO. (SODA SPRINGS PLANT)
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase directed at cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: An investigation into the type and extent of contamination
was scheduled to begin in 1990. At the conclusion of the investigation,
scheduled for 1994, recommendations of effective alternatives for the final
cleanup of the site will be made.
Environmental Progress
After proposing the Monsanto site for inclusion on the NPL, the EPA performed
preliminary evaluations of the site conditions and determined that the site does not
pose an imminent threat to the surrounding communities or the environment while the
investigation leading to the selection of the final cleanup alternatives is taking place.
13
-------
MOUNTAIN HO
FORCE BASE
IDAHO
EPA ID# ID3572124557
Site Description
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Elmore County
Southwest of Mountain Home
Alias:
USAF Mountain Home Air Force Base
Mountain Home Air Force Base was established in 1943 and is located on
approximately 9 square miles of land on a plateau southwest of Mountain Home. The
base has been under the control of the Tactical Air Command since 1965. Hazardous
materials and wastes have been used and generated at Mountain Home for aircraft
maintenance and industrial operations. Prior to 1969, base wastes were disposed of by
several methods that were accepted practices at that time, including incineration and
iandfilling of solid wastes, discharge of liquid wastes to sanitary sewers, and the use of
waste oil for road oiling. The facilities of concern at the base include two abandoned
landfills, a waste oil disposal site, four abandoned and one existing fire training areas,
and an entomology shop yard where pesticides were rinsed from application
equipment. Wastes disposed of at these locations include waste oils, solvents, and
pesticides. The area around the base is primarily agricultural, and wells supporting
approximately 14,000 people and land irrigation are 3 miles from hazardous substances
on the base. On-base water supply wells are the only source of drinking water for base
residents and workers.
site Responsibility:
sjte js bejng addressed through
Federal actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date- 07/14/89
Threats and Contaminants
Bromoform from solvent use was detected in on-site drinking water wells
in 1987. Trichloroethylene (TCE), lead, and cadmium have also been
found in the groundwater. Contaminants in wastes on site included the
pesticides DDT, dieldrin, and lindane, carbon tetrachloride and bromoform.
Drinking or conning into direct contact with contaminated groundwater
resources may pose a health risk.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
14
continued
-------
MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in four long-term remedial phases focusing on cleanup of
the abandoned landfills, the waste oil disposal site, the fire training areas, and the
entomology shop.
Response Action Status
Abandoned Landfills: An investigation into the type and extent of
contamination at this portion of the base was begun in 1987. At the
conclusion of the investigation, recommendations will be made for the
most effective alternatives for cleaning up the landfills.
Waste Oil Disposal Site: An investigation into the type and extent of
contamination at the waste oil disposal area will be conducted. At the
conclusion of the investigation, recommendations will be made for the
appropriate alternatives for cleaning up the area.
Fire Training Areas: There will be an investigation into the type and
extent of contamination at the fire training area. Once the investigation
has been completed, recommendations will be made for the most
effective cleanup alternatives.
Entomology Shop: The Air Force will conduct an investigation into the
type and extent of contamination in the shop yard. Upon the completion
of this investigation, a selection of the most effective alternatives for
cleaning up the site will be made.
Site Facts: The Mountain Home Air Force Base is participating in the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP). Under this program, established in 1978, the Department of
Defense (DOD) seeks to identify, investigate, and contain contamination from
hazardous materials at military or DOD installations.
Environmental Progress
The Air Force, under guidance from the EPA, is conducting investigations at several
contamination areas which will lead to the selections of the most appropriate
permanent cleanup alternatives for the various contaminated areas of the Mountain
Home Air Force Base site.
15
-------
PACIFIC HID
RECYCLING C
IDAHO
EPA ID# IDD098812878
Site Description
UR
REGION 10
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bannock County
Pocatello
The Pacific Hide and Fur Recycling Company site covers approximately 10 acres near
commercial and residential areas in Pocatello. The site has been used as a metal
resalvaging yard from the late 1950s to 1983. Most of the site has been used for the
disposal of scrap metal including vehicles, truck bodies, machinery, wire rope, tin cans,
and other debris. At the center of the site is a 20-foot deep gravel pit where battery
casings, spent automotive oil filters, and other debris were disposed of, as well as
transformers and capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Portneuf
River is located about 1,100 feet south of the site. The population of the City of
Pocatello is 44,900 people. The city is supplied with drinking water from wells within 3
miles of the site. Private and industrial wells are also supplied by the aquifer \\\ai lies
under the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Soils, both on and off the site, were found to be contaminated with PCBs
from prior waste disposal activities. People may suffer adverse health
effects from accidentally ingesting or making direct contact with
contaminated soil.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
16
continued
-------
PACIFIC HIDE AND FUR RECYCLING CO.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in two stages: emergency actions and a long-term
remedial phase focusing on cleanup of the entire site.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1983, the EPA removed 593 capacitors, 30 cubic
yards of contaminated soils, and 21 drums containing hazardous materials.
Monitoring wells and a security fence were also installed. The
decontamination of large scrap materials was accomplished in late 1989.
Entire Site: In 1988, the following remedies were selected for the site:
(1) excavation of soil to an average of 1 1/2 feet followed by screening to
separate large contaminated materials and testing for further
contamination; (2) stabilization of a portion of the soil using an immobilization technique;
(3) construction of a bottom clay liner, where necessary; (4) capping of the stabilized
and remaining materials; and (5) deed and access restrictions. If the fixation technology
is found to be impracticable, on-site containment will be implemented as the final
remedial action.
Environmental Progress
By conducting "an emergency removal action and constructing a security fence to
restrict access to the Pacific Hide and Fur Recycling site, the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials was significantly reduced. The final remedy selection has been
made, and the design and specification phase is now under way.
A
17
-------
UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD CO
IDAHO
EPA ID# IDD055030852
Site Description
REGION 1O
CONGRESSIONAL DIST. 02
Bannock County
Pocatello
The Union Pacific Railroad Company site comprises about 3/4 acre in Pocatello. From
1961 until 1983, Union Pacific dumped sludge from its oil/water separation plant into a
1/2-acre unlined sludge pit. The Pacific Hide and Fur site, another National Priorities
List (NPL) site, is located approximately 300 yards from the pit. There are approximately
45,000 people living within 4 miles of the site. Private and municipal wells are located
within a mile of the site. Private wells in the area are screened in the lower aquifer.
The municipal wells for the City of Pocatello are located within three miles of the site.
Site Responsibility:
This site is being addressed through
a combination of Federal, State, and
potentially responsible parties'
actions.
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 09/08/83
Final Date: 09/21/84
Threats and Contaminants
Private drinking water wells are contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) including trichloroethylene (TCE). Low levels of
solvent, TCE, and tetrachloroethylene were found in groundwater near the
sludge pit. The sludge/soil material in the pit area is contaminated with
heavy metals including cadmium, lead, chromium, arsenic, zinc, and
mercury, and organic solvents. The sludge pit area is completely fenced,
restricting public access. The potential health threat of greatest concern
to people is drinking contaminated groundwater or performing household
activities with untreated groundwater from private wells, and the
inhalation of contaminated particles. The concentrations of TCE and
tetrachloroethylene in the groundwater are well below standards for
drinking water, and these chemicals are not threatening the public water
supply in the area. Studies have also confirmed that runoff from the site
does not flow from the sludge pit into the nearby Portneuf River.
March 1990
NPL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
18
continued
-------
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
Cleanup Approach
The site is being addressed in a single long-term remedial phase focusing on cleanup of
the entire site.
Response Action Status
Entire Site: The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) voluntarily began an
investigation of the sludge pit in 1985. Additional field work necessary for
the investigation began in 1988. The field work consisted of the
construction of additional groundwater monitoring wells, soil and sludge borings, soil,
sludge, and groundwater sampling, and river flow measurements. UPRR is in the
process of finalizing their report. All work conducted by UPRR has been under
monitoring by the EPA and the State. The investigation will define the contaminants of
concern and will recommend alternatives for the final cleanup. The investigation is
planned to be completed in 1990.
Site Facts: In 1988, the EPA and the UPRR signed an Administrative Order requiring
UPRR to conduct a study of the nature and extent of contamination at the site and to
recommend cleanup alternatives.
Environmental Progress
The Union Pacific Railroad is-currently finalizing a report of the extensive site studies
performed with guidance from the EPA and the State. The results of the investigations
will lead to the final selection and design of the permanent cleanup alternatives for the
site. While these activities are taking place, the site does not pose an imminent threat
to the surrounding population or the environment.
19
-------
GLOSSARY
!: his glossary defines the italicized terms used in the site
fact sheets for the State of Idaho. The terms and abbre-
viations contained in this glossary are often defined in
the context of hazardous waste management as described in the
site fact sheets, and apply specifically to work performed under
the Superfund program. Therefore, these terms may have other
meanings when used in a different context.
llilli
Administrative Order On Consent: A legal and enforce-
able agreement between EPA and the parties potentially
responsible for site contamination. Under the terms of
the Order, the potentially responsible parties agree to
perform or pay for site studies or cleanups. It also de-
scribes the oversight rules, responsibilities and enforce-
ment options that the government may exercise in the
event of non-compliance by potentially responsible parties. This Order is signed by
PRPs and the government; it does not require approval by a judge.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel capable of storing water within
cracks and pore spaces, or between grains. When water contained within an aquifer is
of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be tapped and used for drinking or other pur-
poses. The water contained in the aquifer is called ground water.
Backfill: To refill an excavated area with removed earth; or the material itself that is
used to refill an excavated area.
Cap: A layer of material, such as clay or a synthetic material, used to prevent rainwater
from penetrating and spreading contaminated materials. The surface of the cap is
generally mounded or sloped so water will drain off.
Consent Order: [see Administrative Order on Consent].
Containment: The process of enclosing or containing hazardous substances in a struc-
ture, typically in ponds and lagoons, to prevent the migration of contaminants into the
environment.
Effluent: Wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer,
or industrial outfall. Generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Impoundment: A body of water or sludge confined by a dam, dike, floodgate, or other
barrier.
G-l
-------
Installation Restoration Program: The specially funded program established in 1978
under which the Department of Defense has been identifying and evaluating its hazard-
ous waste sites and controlling the migration of hazardous contaminants from those
sites.
Lagoon: A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial action, and oxygen work to purify
wastewater. Lagoons are typically used for the storage of wastewaters, sludges, liquid
wastes, or spent nuclear fuel.
Landfill: A disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land.
Leachate [n]: The liquid that trickles through or drains from waste, carrying soluble
components from the waste. Leach, Leaching [v.t.]: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through soil by water or some other
percolating liquid.
Long-term Remedial Phase: Distinct, often incremental, steps that are taken to solve
site pollution problems. Depending on the complexity, site cleanup activities can be
separated into a number of these phases.
Migration: The movement of oil, gas, contaminants, water, or other liquids through
porous and permeable rock.
Mine (or Mill) Tailings: A fine, sandy residue left from ore milling operations. Tail-
ings often contain high concentrations of lead and arsenic or other heavy metals.
Pentachlorophenol (PCP): A synthetic, modified petrochemical that is used as a wood
preservative because of its toxicity to termites and fungi. It is a common component of
creosotes and can cause cancer.
Plume: A body of contaminated groundwater flowing from a specific source. The
movement of the groundwater is influenced by such factors as local groundwater flow
patterns, the character of the aquifer in which groundwater is contained, and the den-
sity of contaminants.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): A group of toxic chemicals used for a variety of
purposes including electrical applications, carbonless copy paper, adhesives, hydraulic
fluids, microscope emersion oils, and caulking compounds. PCBs are also produced in
certain combustion processes. PCBs are extremely persistent in the environment be-
cause they are very stable, non-reactive, and highly heat resistant. Burning them pro-
duces even more toxins. Chronic exposure to PCBs is believed to cause liver damage. It
is also known to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues. PCB use and sale was banned in 1979
with the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
G-2
-------
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs): Parties, including owners, who may have
contributed to the contamination at a Superfund site and may be liable for costs of
response actions. Parties are considered PRPs until they admit liability or a court makes
a determination of liability. This means that PRPs may sign a consent decree or admin-
istrative order on consent [see Administrative Order on Consent] to participate in site
cleanup activity without admitting liability.
Radionuclides: Elements, including radium, and uranium-235 and -238, which break
down and produce radioactive substances due to their unstable atomic structure. Some
are man-made and others are naturally occurring in the environment. Radon, which is
the gaseous form of radium, decays to form alpha particle radiation, which can be easily
blocked by skin. However, it can be inhaled, which allows alpha particles to affect
unprotected tissues directly and thus cause cancer. Uranium, when split during fission
in a nuclear reactor, forms more radionuclides which, when ingested, can also cause
cancer. Radiation also occurs naturally through the breakdown of granite stones.
Runoff: The discharge of water over land into surface water. It can carry pollutants
from the air and land into receiving waters.
Sediment: The layer of soil, sand and minerals at the bottom of surface waters, such as
streams, lakes, and rivers that absorb contaminants.
Seepage Pits: A hole, shaft, or cavity in the ground used for storage of liquids, usually
in the form of leachate, from waste disposal areas. The liquid gradually leaves the pit
by moving through the surrounding soil.
Sludge: Semi-solid residues from industrial or water treatment processes that may be
contaminated with hazardous materials.
Stabilization: The process of changing an active substance into inert, harmless mate-
rial, or physical activities at a site that act to limit the further spread of contamination
without actual reduction of toxicity.
Trichloroethylene (TCE): A stable, colorless liquid with a low boiling point. TCE has
many industrial applications, including use as a solvent and as a metal degreasing
agent. TCE may be toxic to people when inhaled, ingested, or through skin contact and
can damage vital organs, especially the liver [see also Volatile Organic Compounds].
Upgradient: An upward slope; demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the movement of polluted groundwa-
ter.
G-3
-------
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs are made as secondary petrochemicals.
They include light alcohols, acetone, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, dichloroeth-
ylene, benzene, vinyl chloride, toluene, and methylene chloride. These potentially toxic
chemicals are used as solvents, degreasers, paints, thinners, and fuels. Because of their
volatile nature, they readily evaporate into the air, increasing the potential exposure to
humans. Due to their low water solubility, environmental persistence, and widespread
industrial use, they are commonly found in soil and groundwater.
G-4
------- |