SEPA United States Office of Eirargency & HW-8.14 Environmental Protection Remedial Response juna 1900 Agency Waihington. DC 20460 DESCRIPTIONS OF 43 RCRA SITES REPROPOSED FOR THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST This document consists of descriptions of 43 sites that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reproposing for the National Priorities List (NPL). The sites, proposed during 1983-85 in the first four updates to the NPL, are related to Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which regulates facilities involved in hazardous waste activities. EPA is proposing to place 13 of the RCRA sites on the NPL and to drop 30. Sites are arranged alphabetically by State and by site name. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Library x-" 230 South Dearborn Street y" Chicago, Illinois 60604 " '4 ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 MOTOROLA, INC. (52ND STREET PLANT) Phoenix, Arizona Conditions at listing (October 1984): Motorola, Inc., manufactures semiconductors and related components at a plant on 52nd Street in Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. The facility is situated approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Sky Harbor International Airport and is surrounded bv residential, industrial, business, agricultural, and recreational areas. Ground water beneath the 52nd Street Plant is contaminated with tri- chloroethylene (TCE), trichloroethane (TCA), and other oraanic and inoroanic compounds, according to analyses conducted bv EPA and Motorola. Contamination may have resulted from leakinq storaae tanks, leakina effluent lines, and oast disposal practices,, includinq the use of dry wells. Motorola detected TCF. and TCA in its monitorina wells at least 1 mile from the facilitv. ' Analytical results indicate that several private wells not used for drinkina and one irrigation well contain TCF above the State action level of 5 parts per billion. Prior to October 1983, Motorola installed 22 on-site and 6 off-site monitoring wells. This work was described in a Phase I remedial investiaation report. In October 1983, the Arizona Department of Health Services established a Task Force comprised of the State, EPA, and local aaencies. The Task ^orce has guided Motorola in development of a detailed workplan for a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the tvoe and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. The RI/FS workplan was approved in October 1984, and Phase II of the PI was beoun. The plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. Status (January 1986); Motorola has completed most of the field activities for Phase II of the RI/FS. The report is expected to be completed in Off-site well sampling has confirmed a plume extending at least 1 mile west of the plant. In 1986, additional monitoring wells will be installed, ground water and soil testing will be conducted, and a pilot plant for pumpina and treating contaminated ground water will be installed. Status (June 1988) ; EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the final NPL. On May 19, 1986, Motorola requested that the facility be converted to a hazardous waste generator. On July 29, 19R6, FPA confirmed that the plant was operating as a generator. Hence, it satisfies a component of EPA's NPL/RCRA policy- In May 1986, the State certified that a container storage area on-site had been cleaned up in accordance with Subtitle C. Motorola's draft RI/FS is scheduled td be available for public comment during the summer of 1988. Following the comment period, Motorola and the State will respond to comments on the FS, the State will finalize the decision on the remedy selected, and Motorola will then finalize the reoort and start to implement the remedy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP. (MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANT) Mountain view, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. manu- factures semiconductors in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. The facility occupies approximately 56 acres and is surrounded by residential and industrial areas. This site was originally proposed under the name "Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. (Mountain View Plant)." The company took the new name in 1986. Monitoring wells on the site are contaminated with trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1- and trans-l,2-dichloroethylene, according to analyses conducted by a consultant to Fairchild. Contamination is believed to have resulted from leaking underground tanks. About 270,000 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site for drinking water. Since early 1982, Fairchild has been investigating the site geology and hydrogeology and attempting to define the lateral and vertical extent of solvents underlying the site. Fairchild has installed two wells to pump and treat the contaminated ground water plume. The company is working with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to further define the extent of contami- nation and outline various cleanup strategies. The plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. This is one of 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chemicals, primarily chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common ground water basin. Although these sites are listed separately, EPA intends to apply an area- wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessary. Status (February 1986): Continuing efforts to determine the extent of ground water contamination, Fairchild has installed more than 100 monitoring wells. The two treatment wells are now in operation. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued Waste Discharge Requirements to the company. The reouirements are the board's legal mechanism for regulating facilities under its jurisdiction. On August 15, 1985, EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent under CERCLA Section 106(a) to Fairchild's Mountain View Plant, as well as to Intel Corp.'s and Raytheon Corp.'s Mountain View Plants. The order calls for the companies to conduct a joint remedial investigation/feasibility study of the area to determine the type and extent of contamination and identify alternatives for remedial action. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to drop Fairchild Semiconductor Corp.'s Mountain View Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C RCRA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- EPA has been overseeing the RI/FS required under the August 1985 order. A preliminary draft PS is scheduled to be available for public review in July 1988. Fairchild now has 25 wells in operation that pump and treat contaminated ground wtaer; has installed three underground slurry walls to control migration of contaminated ground water; and has sealed 4 old agricultural wells. EPA may also pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act {CERCLA) as amended in 1986 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.(SOUTH SAN JOSE PLANT) South San Jose, California Conditions at listing (October 1984); Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. manufactures semiconductors on approximately 20 acres in South San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Land use in the vicinity of the site is agricultural, residential, and commercial. This site was originally proposed under the name "Fairchild Camera & Instrument Corp. (South San Jose Plant)". The company took the new name in 1986. _ Soils and a portion of a major aquifer providing drinking water to about 65,000 people are contaminated with trichloroethane and other solvents, according to analyses conducted by the Great Oaks Water Co. and Fairchild. One municipal well within 3 miles of the facility has been taken out of service. In response to a request from the California Regional water Quality Control Board, Fairchild is voluntarily taking action to contain and reduce the plume of contamination. Fairchild has started an investigation to determine the extent of the problem at the site and is currently undertaking interim cleanup measures consisting of excavation of contaminated soils, the pumping and treatment of contaminated ground water, and construction of a slurry wall to reduce the spread of contamination from the site. The plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. This is one of 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chemicals, primarily chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common ground water basin. Although these sites are listed separately, EPA intends to apply an area-wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessary. Status (January 1986); Continuing its investigation to determine the extent of ground water contamination, Fairchild has removed contaminated soil from the facility, has installed a system to pump and treat contaminated ground water, and is constructing the slurry wall. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the final NPL. In 1982, the facility converted to a hazardous waste generator. Hence, it satisfies a component of EPA's NPL/RCRA policy. The slurry wall to keep on-site contamination from migrating has been completed. In a pilot test, vapor extraction proved to be a viable treatment for cleaning up the contaminated soil within the slurry wall. A full-scale system is scheduled to be implemented shortly. Contaminated ground water continues to be pumped and treated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 FMC CORP. (FRESNO PLANT) Fresno, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): FMC Corp. has been formulatina pesticides for nearly 30 years in an industrial area of Fresno, Fresno Countv, California. Ground water below the facility is contaminated with heavy metals and pesticides according to analyses conducted by the company. Fresno municipal wells near the site tap this contaminated around water. The wells are blended into the municipal water supply system, which serves about 250,000 oeoole. FMC has removed some soil contaminated with various pesticides and heavy metals from the facility and transported it to an approved landfill. FMC has conducted some site investioations at the direction of the California Department of Health Services and the California Reaional Water Quality Control Board. The plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act (PCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application-for surface impoundments. It filed a Part B in March 19^3 and in August 1983 submitted a closure plan for the surface impoundments. Status (January 1986); FMC's contractor has submitted to the California Department of Health Services an initial field investiaation report assessina the extent of soil contamination in one part of the site and a plan for a ground water monitoring program. The State approved a closure plan for the surface impoundment in February 1985. In November 1985, the facility lost Interim Status when it did not comply with the ground water and financial recaiirements of RC^A Section 3005(e). EPA has issued a Notice Letter to the company. The company is developina a workplan for a remedial investiaation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposina to drop FMC's Corp.'s Fresno Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storaae, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. In December 1986, EPA and FMC entered into a Consent Order under PCRA Section 7003(a) and CERCLA Section 106(a) reouirina FMC to conduct an RI/FS. Phase I of the RI is complete. Phase II is scheduled to be completed in mid- 1989 and the FS in early 1990. After that time, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the cleanup alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA and CERCLA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. FPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 HEWLETT-PACKARD Palo Alto, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): Hewlett-Packard manufactures optical instruments at 395 Page Mill Road in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. The 50-acre facility is surrounded by industrial and business areas. Monitorina wells on the site are contaminated with 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and toluene, according to analyses conducted by a Hewlett-Packard consultant. Contamination is believed to have resulted from leakina tanks. About 5fi,000 oeople use wells within 3 miles of the site as a standby source of drinkina water. Hewlett-Packard' is workina with the California Reaional Water Oualitv Control Board (CRWCCB) to determine the extent of contamination of around water and soils. This is one of 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chemicals, primarily chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common around water hasin. Although these sites are listed separately, EPA intends to apply an area-wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessary. Status (January 1986 ) ; The extent of the contaminated around wat^r olume is still being investigated. The CRWCCB, in conjunction with EPA and the California Department of Health Services, is considerina various response actions at the site. The State has called for Hewlett-Packard to submit a Part R permit application under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Rpcoverv Act (PCRA). Site investigation and any subseauent remedial action are reaulated HV the board's Waste Discharae Reauirements. Status _(June 1988); EPA is oroposina to drop Hewlett Packard ^rom t proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storaae facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. Hewlett-Packard has installed several wells to pump out contaminated arounH water and treat it to remove the organic chemicals. Under EPA and State supervision, Hewlett-Packard is conductina a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent o^ contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. Tb<= work is scheduled to be completed later in 1988. After that time, the oublic will have the opportunity to comment on the cleanuo alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. Hewlett-Packard is conductina a pilot study to determine if vapor extraction is effective in cleaning up contaminated soil. If current CRWCCB enforcement efforts fail, EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities. Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. will ensure that the cleanup protects public health' and the environment. FPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwillina to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 IBM CORP. (SAN JOSE PLANT) San Jose, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): IBM Corp. manufactures data- processing equipment on approximately 400 acres in the southern portion of San Jose, Santa Clara County, California. Land use in the vicinity of the site is agricultural and residential. Spent solvents are stored in a number of underground storage tanks at the IBM facility. Soils and a multiple aquifer system used for drinking water are contaminated with trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, Freon 113, and other industrial solvents, according to analyses conducted by the Great Oaks Water Co. and IBM. Two municipal wells within 1 mile of the facility have been taken out of service. About 65,000 people use wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. In response to a request from the California Regional Water Quality Contol Board (CRWQCB), IBM is voluntarily undertaking remedial measures to contain and reduce the plume of contaminants. IBM has recently completed an investiga- tion to determine the extent of the problem and is undertaking interim cleanup measures consisting of the removal of contaminated soil and the pumping and treatment of contaminated ground water. This is one of 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chemicals, primarily chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common ground water basin. Although these sites are listed separately, EPA intends to apply an area-wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessary. Status (February 1986): IBM has removed more than 10,000 cubic yards of soil and the leaking underground tanks and installed wells both on and off the site to pump and treat contaminated ground water. In March 1985, the State issued IBM a permit to treat and store hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to drop IBM Corp.'s San Jose Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C. With State oversight, IBM is conducting a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. The work is scheduled to be completed late in 1988. After that time, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the cleanup alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. If current CRWQCB enforcement efforts fail, EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities. Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 J.H. BAXTER 00. Weed, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): J.H. Baxter Co. has owned and operated a wood-treatment facility at the base of Mount Shasta in Weed, Siskivou County, California, since 1962. Prior to 1962, the plant was owned and operated by Long Bell Lumber Co. and International Paper Co. Rosebura Barest Products owns and operates a lumber products facility adiacent to Baxter. The chemicals used to treat wood include pentachlorophenol, arsenic com- pounds, and creosote. Analyses conducted bv the comDany and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) detected arsenic, polvnuclear aromatics, and pentachlorophenol in ground water beneath the site. Heavy metals, pentachlorophenol, tetrachloroohenol, and creosote have been detected in surface water downstream of the site. CRWQCB issued the company a Cleanup and Abatement Order in March 1983 and a Cease and Desist Order in May 1983. The company has installed monitorina wells and taken measures to collect and direct rainwater run-off. Status (February 1986): CRWQCB ordered J. H. Baxter, International Paoer Co., and Roseberg Wood Products Co. to develop a site characterization study in accordance with a workplan developed earlier by the companies. In December 1985, EPA issued Notice Letters to the companies. In response, the companies agreed to meet with EPA to develop a workplan for a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and develop alternatives for rsnedial action. Two units at the facility that were regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) have been closed. EPA and the State are now trying to determine if the closures meet RCRA recruirements. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposina to Place this oreviously proposed RCRA site on the NPL because it has a history of unwillingness to take corrective action. Although Baxter has had Interim Status since it filed Part of a RCRA permit application on November 19, 1980, it has consistently sought to withdraw that filing since 1983, and has continued to dispute RCRA jurisdiction over its facility. By these actions, the company has shown itself to be unwilling to comply with numerous State and EPA Regional demands for cleanup and/or closure under RCRA and other statutes. The company does not dispute that soi] and ground water at the site are contaminated; rather, it disputes the apolicabilitv of RCRA to those problems. Because it appears unlikely that corrective action can be achieved ouicklv under RCRA, EPA is dealing with the contamination under Superfund. After lenqthv negotiations failed with J.H. Baxter Co., International Paper Co., and Roseberq Wood Products over their conduct of the RI/FS, FPA started an RI/FS in January 1987. This site's score on the Hazard Rankino System, which EPA uses to evaluate sites for the NPL, has been revised. Therefore, EPA is solicitina comments on the revised score. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 LORENTZ BARREL & DRUM CO. San Jose, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): Lorentz Barrel & Drum Co. recycles drums at a plant in San Jose/ Santa Clara County, California. The 5 acre-site is surrounded by residential, industrial, and business areas. On-site monitoring wells are contaminated with trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethvlene, and tetrachloroethvlene, accordina to analyses conducted bv a consultant to Lorentz. Contamination is believed to have resulted from overflowina sumps and spills. About 250,000 peoole obtain drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. Lorentz is workina with the California Reaional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) to determine the extent of ground water contamination. The board issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order to the company in August 1983. The plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C the Resource Conserva- tion and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit appli- cation. On March 25, 1981, EPA removed the facility as a treatment, storaae, or disposal facility because it was not enqaaed in hazardous waste activities. This is one of 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chemicals, primarily chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common around water basin. Although these sites are listed separately, EPA intends to apply an area-wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessary. Status (February 1986): In March 1985, EPA and the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) discovered over 300 drum? containina phenols, methvlpn chloride, and PCBs stored on the Lorentz nrooertv. In response to action hv the Santa Clara County District Attorney, the company removed the drums. CRWQCB is overseeing the Lorentz investiaation to determine the extent of ground water contamination. CDHS will oversee the investiqation of soil contamination. On February 7, 1986, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a complaint against the company for violation of State hazardous waste laws. The facility has been shut down until procedures for compliance are developed. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the final NPL. The company is classified as a "non-filer." Hence, it satisfies a component of EPA's NPL/RCRA policy. In July 1987, the owner of the Lorentz site was ordered to shut down permanently, sentenced to 2 years in iail, and fined $2.04 million. Recent samplinq by consultants to CDHS has shown extensive contamination in soil and ground water, both on and off-site. In addition to the chlorinated organics identified earlier, pesticides, metals, and PCBs are present. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- On December I, 1987, EPA took over as lead aqencv for a remedial investi- gation/feasibility study at the site. In February 1988, CDHS completed an expedited response action consisting of excavatinq soil -with hiqh concentration? of PCBs. In March 1988, EPA and CDHS completed removal of 1,000 drums of hazardous materials. All materials were transported to reoulated disposal facilities. The site was then qraded and the surface sealed to control drainaqe. EPA expects to start construction in early 1989 of a system to pump and treat shallow contaminated qround water. ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 MARLEY COOLING TOWER CO. Stockton, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): Marley Coolina Tower Co. has fabricated coolina towers on land ad-iacent to Franklin Hiah School in Stockton, San Joacruin County, California, since 1942. Durinq 1966-82, the company used chromated copper arsenate to pressure treat wood. Since 1QR2, acid cooper chromate has been used instead. Since 1966, rainwater run-off contaminated with arsenic, chromium, and copper has been discharged to a 2-acre percolation pond. The sludoe in the pond and soil on-site are heavily contaminated with arsenic, chromium, and copper. Two on-site monitoring wells are contaminated with chromium, accordina to company analyses. No off-site ground water contamination has been detected to date. Marley is working with the California Department of Health'Sen/ices and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to deveJop a plan to determine the full extent of soil and around water contamination. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application for surface impoundments. Status (February 1986): Marley is scheduled to complete the initial Phase of a remedial investigation (RI) in February 1986. Current data indicate that the primary sources of soil and ground water contamination are the production/ product storage area and a retort pit used in the wood-treatment process? the pond is a secondary source. The second phase of the RI will focus on defining soil and around water contamination. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to drop Marley Coolina Tower Co. from the Proposed NPL. Because it is a treatment, storaae and disposal it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. Marley submitted to the State a plan for closina the hazardous waste management unit at the facility. The plan was available for public comment in December 1987. Marley is preparina to respond to the public comments and will finalizes the plan, and start to close the unit. In addition, a plant constructed by Marley to treat contaminated ground water is scheduled to start ooeratina in 1988. EPA is working with the State to develop a State remedial action order for a remedial investigation/feasibility study and corrective measures. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circumstances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investigation/feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned up Quickly and effectively; Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwillina to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act 4CERCLA) as amended in 1986 RHONE-POULENC, INC./ZOECON CORP. East Palo Alto, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): The Rhone-Poulenc, Inc./?oecon Corp. Site covers about 5 acres in East Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California. It is surrounded by residential and industrial areas. The site was originally proposed for listinq under the name "Zoecon Corp./ Rhone-Poulenc, Inc." Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., formerly manufactured pesticides containina arsenic at the plant. Zoecon Corp., which purchased the site in 1972, produces agricul- tural chemicals, but no contamination has thus far been traced to its operations. Monitoring wells on the site are contaminated with arsenic and other metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and selenium, accordino to analyses conducted by a consultant to Rhone-Poulenc. Contamination is believed to have resulted from leaking underground storage tanks. About 58,000 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. Rhone-Poulenc is working with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) to determine the extent of around water contamination. CRWQCB issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order to the company in December 1983. This is one of 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chemicals, primarily chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common ground water basin. Although these sites are listed separately, EPA intends to apply an area- wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessarv. Status (January 1986): In response to various Cleanup and Abatement Orders issued by the State, Zoecon and Rhone-Poulenc have initiated action to determine the extent of contamination. The companies submitted a remedial action plan to CRWQB in December 1984. CRWQB is workina with the companies to select and implement an appropriate remedial action plan. In February 1985, the State issued the facility an operatinq permit under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for tank storage and tank treatment units. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Rhone-Poulenc, Inc./ Zoecon Corp. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment anri storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. In August 1987, CRWQCB and the California Department of Health Service (CDHS) entered into an Administrative Consent Order with Rhone-Poulenc reouirina the company to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alterna- tives for remedial action. CDHS, CRWQCB, and EPA have reviewed two drafts of Rhone-Poulenc's RI/FS workplan. A final draft is expected shortly. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- If current CRWQCB enforcement efforts fail, EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities. Superfund enforcement authorities mav also be used. EPA- will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwillinq to clean up the site effectively. ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 SIGNETICS, INC. Sunnyvale, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): Siqnetics, Inc., manufactures electronic components at a plant in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara Countv, California. The facility occupies about 20 acres and is surrounded bv residential, industrial, and business areas. Monitoring wells on the site are contaminated with trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethane, accordina to analyses conducted by a consultant to Signetics. Contamination is believed to have resulted from cracks in acid neutralization tanks and underaround solvent tanks, as well as through localized spills. The same contaminants have been detected in monitoring wells off the facility. About 300,000 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinkina water. Signetics removed the leaking tanks and excavated contaminated soil from the facility. The company is workina with the California Reaional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) to determine the extent of around water contamination. The board issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order to the company in June 1984. The plant received Interim status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application for storage of hazardous waste. This is one of 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chemicals, orimarilv chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common around water basin. Although these sites are listed separately, FPA intends to apply an area-wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessarv. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposina to drop Sianetics, Inc., from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storaae facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. In March 1987, the State issued a RCRA storage permit to Sianetics. Under the June 1984 order, Siqnetics has been (1) pumping and treatina contaminated ground water and (2) conducting a remedial investiaation/feasibilitv study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. The RI/FS report is scheduled for 1990. After that time, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the cleanup alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. If current CRWQCB enforcement efforts fail, EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities. Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean UP the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO. Roseville, California Conditions at listing (October 1984); Southern Pacific Transportation Co. operates a train yard and locomotive service facility on a P40-acre site in Roseville, Placer County, California. The site is located to the northeast o^ Sacramento, a major metropolitan area. The cleanina operations at the facility reouire a varietv of industrial solvents. Waste streams from these operations were discharaed into a number of locations on the site. Five waste ponds and eiaht other locations that received waste discharges have been identified. The eiaht locations are no lonaer used. All waste streams are now routed to a central collection system and periodicallv removed to a hazardous waste landfill. Accordina to investiaations conducted bv Southern Pacific, soil and around water, both on- and off-site, are contaminated with heavy metals and oraanic solvents. About 10 domestic wells supply drinkina water to approximately 40 people living within 3 miles of the site. These wells are believed to draw from an uncontaminated, lower aouifer. In addition, water from a larae-volume municipal well, located within 3,000 feet downqradient of the facility, is blended into a water system serving about 34,000 people. Status (January 1986): In March 1985, EPA issued an order under Section 3013 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) reouirina the company to undertake a sampling and analysis program. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposina to drop Southern Pacific Transpor- tation Co. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a storaae and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. Under the 3013 order, Southern Pacific in 1986 completed chase I of a remedial investigation (Rl) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site. In September 1987, the State and EPA approved a plan, conditioned on further site characterization and remedial measures, for closina a surface impoundment under RCRA. A second inactive RCRA unit remains on-site. Also in September 1987, under Section 122fe) of CERCLA, EPA issued a special notice letter offering Southern Pacific the opportunity to complete the RI and conduct a feasibility study (FS) to identify alternatives for remedial action at the site. EPA and Southern Pacific have negotiated a Consent Order under CERCLA Sections 104, 106, and 122 reouirina the company to complete the RI and to conduct the FS. The Consent Order became effective in December lc>«7. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA and CERCLA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 VAN WATERS & ROGERS, INC. San Jose, California Conditions at listing (October 1984): Van Waters & Roqers, Inc., is a solvent distributor in San Jose, Santa Clara Valley, California. The facility occupies about 13 acres and is surrounded by residential, industrial, and business areas. Solvents are stored in 36 underground tanks connected to the facilitv through buried pipelines. Contamination is believed to have resulted from leaks in the underground storage tanks and pipinq as well as from localized spills. Contaminants found in monitorinq wells on the site include a wide variety of solvents such as acetone, chloroform, toluene, 1,1-dichloroethvlene, trichloroethylene, methanol, and isoprooanol, according to analyses conducted by a consultant to Van Waters & Rogers. About 132,000 people deoend on wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. Van Waters & Rogers is working with the California Regional Water Qualitv Control Board (CRWQCB) to determine the extent of soil and ground water contamination. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application to store and treat hazardous waste. This is one of1 19 sites in the South Bay Area of San Francisco. Facilities at these sites have used a variety of toxic chanicals, primarily chlorinated organic solvents, which contaminate a common around water basin. Althouqh these sites are listed separately, FPA intends to apply an area-wide approach to the problem as well as take specific action as necessary. Status (January 1986): In June 1985, the State issued a 5-vear RCRA storage permit to the company. In July 1985, the CRWQCB issued Waste Discharae Requirements to the company, which specify investiqative and cleanup activities to deal with the contamination. Status (June 1988): EPA is prooosinq to drop Van Waters & Roqers, Inc. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storaqe facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA, With State oversight, Van Waters & Rogers is conductinq a remedial investi- gation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contami- nation at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. The work is scheduled to be completed in late 1989. After that time, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the cleanup alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. If current CRWQCB enforcement efforts fail, EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities. Superfund enforcement authorities mav also be used. EPA will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that-the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List , Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 MARTIN MARIETTA (DENVER AEROSPACE) Waterton, Colorado Conditions at listing (September 1985): Martin Marietta's Denver Aerospace Plant covers approximately 5,200 acres near Waterton in southern Jefferson County, Colorado. Martin Marietta began operations in 1956 when it purchased undeveloped property and constructed facilities for development of missiles and missile components for the U.S. Air Force. Martin Marietta owns the property and continues its aerospace manufacturing activities for the Air Force. In the early 1960s, the company began disposing of waste oils, hexavalent chromium salts, volatile organic compounds, and other industrial wastes on the property in a number of ponds covering a few acres. The ponds stopped receiving wastes in 1979 and in mid-1980 were filled and closed. In early 1985, EPA found that ground water downgradient from the former waste disposal area con- tained chromium and organic chemicals. The area is approximately 1.5 miles upgradient from a Denver municipal water treatment facility. The facility may be capturing alluvial ground water and surface water moving from the inactive waste disposal areas. The facility provides up to 15 percent of the drinking water demand of more than 1 million people.in the Denver metropolitan area. In February 1985, the Colorado Department of Health issued an emergency order to the company to monitor ground water and to prepare a remedial action plan for surface water and ground water drainages adjacent to an active waste handling unit on the facility. The unit has Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In March 1985, EPA issued an Administrative Order under CERCLA Section 106 that required Martin Marietta to begin a comprehensive program at the site, including installation of monitoring wells and plans for containment and treat- ment of contaminated ground water. Under the 1985 EPA and state orders, the company is installing monitoring wells throughout the site and in the vicinity of the Denver water treatment facility. The company is planning further site investigations and also to install a system to capture, pump, and treat contaminated ground water. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Martin Marietta's Denver Aerospace Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C. Since 1986, the water treatment facility has been maintained on standby to suppplement Denver's water supply as needed. In February 1986, EPA and Martin Marietta entered into an Administrative Order on Consent under CERCLA Section 106 and RCRA Section 3008(h). Under the order, Martin Marietta agreed to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site, including the old closed lagoons, and identify alternatives for remedial action. The study is scheduled to be completed late in 1988. After that time, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the RI/FS report. The company also agreed to reimburse EPA for its costs in overseeing the work. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA and CERCLA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 CITY INDUSTRIES, INC. Orlando, Florida Conditions at listing (October 1984); The City Industries, Inc., Site covers 1 acre in Orlando, Orange county, Florida. From 1971 to mid-August 1983, the company operated a recycling and transferring facility on the site, handling a wide variety of chlorinated and nonchlorinated organic solvents, paint/varnish wastes, acid and alkaline plating wastes, PCBs, and waste ink. According to EPA tests, ground water, soils, and sediments are contaminated with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds. The company abandoned the operation in mid-1983, informing-the State that it lacked resources to continue operations and leaving approximately 1,200 drums and 12,000 gallons of unknown liquids and sludges in large tanks. In August and September 1983, the State funded a cleanup of the site; 41 tons of drums were crushed and removed, and 65 truck and tanker loads of contaminants were disposed of properly. The cost was $950,000. In February 1984, EPA issued an Administrative Order under CERCLA Section 106(a) requiring City Industries to clean sludge from holding tanks, remove contaminated soils, and treat contaminated ground water. The company did not comply. In March through May 1984, using about $500,000 of CERLCA emergency funds, EPA emptied, cut open, and cleaned the tanks, thus removing the threat of explosion and further soil contamination. EPA's emergency response team used an incineration device to treat about 1,700 tons of contaminated soil. The treated soil remains on the site. In February 1984, the State filed a civil complaint against the landowner, operator, and four companies associated with the operator. On April 24, 1984, the State held a meeting attended by generators potentially responsible for wastes associated with the site. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. The company filed Part B, but EPA denied the application twice for a number of reasons, including the fact that the company did not meet the financial guarantee and waste analysis requirements of RCRA. The company also failed to submit a closure plan. EPA terminated Interim Status on July 27, 1983. Status (June 1987); The generators formed a steering committee comprising approximately 200 industries. The committee has worked with the State to investi- gate ground water contamination. In August 1986, EPA issued Demand Letters to approximately 250 potentially responsible parties to recover Federal money spent for the 1984 emergency action. Status (April 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the NPL because it has lost Interim Status (and hence authority to operate) and has a history of unwillingness to take corrective action. The owner/operator has failed to submit an acceptable Part B permit application and to comply with Federal and 'State administrative orders. He has abandoned the site and stated that he is financially unable to clean up the site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT/UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. West Palm Beach, Florida Conditions at listing (October 1984); The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft/United Technologies Corp. Site comprises about 7,000 acres in West Palm Beach in north central Palm Beach County, Florida. Jet engines have been manufactured and tested on the site since 1957. Pratt & Whitney is a privately-owned Canadian- based operation and a division of United Technologies Corp. On the site are a sanitary landfill where solvents were disposed of, a solvent storage tank that leaked approximately 2,000 gallons of trichloro- ethane through an underground valve, a solvent distillation area, and jet fuel heaters which contained PCBs until the mid-1970s. Ground water and surface water are contaminated with PCBs and organic solvents, according to tests conducted by Pratt & Whitney. The company also found that the well serving its 7,200 employees is contaminated with solvents. Pratt & Whitney has installed a forced aeration system to remove volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) from its well fields and is involved in discussions with the State regarding PCBs and landfill remedial actions. The plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when it filed Part A of a permit application. In 1983, it submitted Part B of the application. Status (January 1986): On April 26, 1985, the company signed a Consent Agreement with the State under which the company is to implement a State- approved remedial action plan to deal with VOCs and PCBs. Other areas of contamination, including PCB-contaminated soil and a buried leaking waste oil tank containing VOCs, have been discovered on the property. The Pratt & Whitney facility was first proposed for the NPL as part of Update #2. In response to public comments received, EPA completely re- evaluated the site and made a significant change in its score on the Hazard Ranking System, which EPA uses to assess sites for the NPL. Consequently, EPA reproposed the Pratt & Whitney facility on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37950) as part of NPL Update #4 and solicited comments on the revised score. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Pratt & Whitney Aircraft/ United Technologies Corp. from the proposed NPL. Because it is a treatment and storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. Under the State-approved remedial action plan, Pratt & Whitney is pumping and treating contaminated ground water. In June 1987, the State issued a 5-year RCRA permit for treatment and storage units. EPA expects to issue the corrective action portion of the permit, which the State is not yet authorized to issue later in 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 OLIN CORP. (AREAS 1, 2, & 4) Augusta, Georgia Conditions at listing (September 1983); Olin Corp.'s plant in Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia, manufactures chlorine and caustic soda, generating a mercury-contaminated brine sludge in the process. Since the early 1970s, Olin has disposed of the sludge in two unlined disposal pits and in a lined surface impoundment (Areas 1, 2, and 4). The liner in the impoundment may have been damaged by dumping of construction rubble. About 32,000 tons of mercury- contaminated wastes have been disposed of in the three areas. All three areas, plus a retort ash and filter cake dump, occupy about 5 acres on the southern portion of the plant property. In April and July 1981, the company's on-site monitoring wells near the disposal facilities detected mercury in ground water. Within 3 miles of the disposal areas are 11 Richmond County drinking water wells. More than 10,000 people use ground water in this area. Large areas of fresh water wetlands are within 1.5 miles of the Olin plant. The plant acquired Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. EPA called in Part B of the application in August 1983. EPA certified that the company was in compliance with the financial requirements and ground water monitoring requirements of RCRA Section 3005(e). Status (June 1984); A State Consent Order executed in January 1984 required Olin to cease waste disposal in the two pits and to retain a consultant to fully define the extent of contamination. The company submitted the resulting Ground Water Assessment Program Report to the State for review. Status (January 1986): In May 1985, the State issued an order requiring Olin to submit a corrective action plan for all releases into the environment from all disposal units at the site. Olin appealed the order and in December 1985 the State agreed to rescind it. Then the State required Olin to meet the January 1984 order calling for closing the pits. However, the State required no further corrective action beyond that, and EPA is currently assessing the State-Olin agreement for consistency with RCRA requirements. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Olin Corp. (Areas 1, 2, & 4) from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. After EPA assessed the State-Olin agreement in September 1986, the state issued a RCRA permit, which includes a schedule for corrective action. Olin had installed a system to pump and treat contaminated ground water in June 1986, before the permit was issued. The company is meeting the schedule for corrective action. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 SHEFFIELD (U.S. ECOLOGY, INC.) Sheffield, Illinois Conditions at listing (October 1984); The U.S. Ecology, Inc., Landfill covers 45 acres in a strip-mined area in Sheffield, Bureau County, Illinois. The company, which was formerly known as Nuclear Engineering Co., began operating the site in the late 1960s. U.S. Ecology was purchased by Teledyne, Inc., in January 1981. The site ceased operation in January 1983. At one time, the site was the largest hazardous waste disposal site in Illinois. It accepted a wide variety of hazardous waste, including acids, bases, low-flash-point organic solvents, pesticides, and sludges containing heavy metals. Monitoring wells in the shallow aquifer at the site are contaminated with arenes, aromatic hydrocarbons, ketones, aliphatic hydro- carbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, ethers, and PCBs, according to tests conducted by the State Water Survey Division and the U.S. Geological Survey. An estimated 450 people use the shallow aquifer within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. U.S. Ecology has submitted a plan for closing the site according to RCRA requirements, but the State considers the plan incomplete. Status (January 1986); EPA is reviewing a revised closure plan submitted by the company and conducting monitoring to determine if the facility is meeting RCRA requirements. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to drop Sheffield (U.S. Ecology, Inc.) from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. On September 30, 1985, EPA and U.S. Ecology, Inc., signed a Consent Order under RCRA Section 3008(h) requiring the company to (1) conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action and (2) take corrective action. The RI/FS is scheduled to be completed late in 1988. After that time, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the cleanup alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. The closure plan requested earlier will not have to be resubmitted until the RI/FS is completed. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. .Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 FIRESTONE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS CO. Noblesville, Indiana Conditions at listing (September 1985): Firestone Industrial Products Co. manufactures molded rubber products in Noblesville, Hamilton County, Indiana. During 1938-73, Firestone buried debris, drums, and limestone contaminated with sulfuric acid and cyanide plating wastes on three areas covering 23.5 acres. About 7,750 drums were buried, according to information the company provided to EPA, as required under CERCLA Section 103(c). The wastes consisted of raw material wastes and cured and uncured products, including rubber- and solvent-base cement, organic solvents (chlorinated and nonchlorinated), paints, lacquers, process oils, resins, and chemical additives. On-site wells providing process water are contaminated with traces of chlori- nated organic solvents, according to EPA tests. The soil beneath the site is permeable, thus facilitating movement of contaminants into ground water, which is shallow. About 14,250 people depend on municipal wells within 3 miles of the site for drinking water. The nearest well is less than 1 mile from the site. The site is an inactive portion of an active facility that received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1980 when Firestone filed Part A of a permit application. In April 1985, Firestone submitted Part B of the application, which the State has reviewed and EPA is reviewing. Status (September 1986): The company is providing bottled water to homes closest to the facility. They formerly were supplied by the shallow wells. The company has also put water mains in place, but they have not yet been hooked up to the homes. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Firestone Industrial Products Co. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. Firestone has hooked up the homes with contaminated wells to public water mains. In July 1987, Firestone submitted a draft workplan for a study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for corrective action. EPA and Firestone are negotiating a Consent Order to accomplish the needed corrective action. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circumstances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investigation/ feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned up quickly and effectively; Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Super-fund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 PRESTOLITE BATTERY DIVISION Vincennes, Indiana Conditions at listing (September 1985): Prestolite Battery Division manufactures lead acid batteries on a 17.5-acre site in Vincennes, Knox County, Indiana. In 1945, Prestolite, a division of Allied Corp. of Ohio, purchased the property from Eltra Corp., which is no longer in existence. About 30.9 tons of hazardous wastes in the form of spills and uncontained piles are on the site, according to the State. Analyses conducted by a consultant to Prestolite detected high levels (up to 25,000 parts per million) of lead in on-site soil, threatening ground water. PCBs and sulfuric acid were also found in on-site soil. About 20,000 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. Other portions of the Prestolite facility are regulated under other Federal laws. A waste water lagoon on the site received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when Prestolite filed Part A of a permit application. Instead of seeking an operating permit, the company has decided to close the lagoon. Its closure plan is being reviewed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). When the waste water lagoon overflows, the contents go into the Vincennes sewer system. Storm water run-off from the facility enters Kelso Creek, which flows into the Wabash River. These waste water discharges are regulated under the Clean Water Act. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the final NPL. Much of the lead in soil comes from air emissions from the company's faulty air pollution control equipment. At this time, there is an unresolved question as to whether Subtitle C corrective action authorities of RCRA apply to all the contamination associated with the site. Hence, EPA proposes to deal with the problems under Superfund. After numerous revisions, IDEM approved the company's closure plan on December 30, 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 A. Y. MCDONALD INDUSTRIES, INC. Dubuque, Iowa Conditions at listing (September 1985); A. Y. McDonald Industries, Inc., formerly operated an iron and brass foundry on a site covering approximately 19 acres on the Mississippi River floodplain in Dubuque, Dubuque County, Iowa. From 1896 to 1983, the company placed piles of casting sands and sludge from air pollution control scrubbers on the property. The materials contained lead, according to EPA tests. Because the piles are unlined, unstabilized, and uncovered, they threaten to contaminate ground water, surface water, and air. About 62,300 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site for their drinking water. In the fall of 1983, the Iowa Department of Transportation acquired the site under eminent domain for a Federal highway project. On December 6, 1984, EPA issued an Administrative Order under Section 3008(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The order required the company to submit a complete closure plan for the disposal site and a ground water assessment plan. Status (September 1986): In September 1986, the company submitted a draft closure plan, which EPA determined was inadequate. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop A. Y. McDonald Industries, Inc. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. On August 21, 1987, EPA, the company, and the Iowa Department of Transpor- tation signed a Consent Order under CERCLA Section 106 to close the site. The order requires capping the site and expanding ground water monitoring to comply with RCRA closure and postclosure requirements, which call for maintenance of the cap and operation and maintenance of the monitoring system for 30 years. EPA may also pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repro- pose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 CHEMPLEX CO. Clinton/Camanche, Iowa Conditions at listing (October 1984); The Chemplex Co. facility is on the western edge of Clinton and Camanche, Clinton County/ Iowa. The facility has manufactured high- and low-density polyethylene since 1968. Wastes generated by this facility include peroxides, mineral spirits, vinyl acetate, and various organic hazardous substances such as styrene, benzene, toluene, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Unknown quantities of these wastes were disposed of in an unlined landfill on the site, which has been covered and is no longer used. Waste water containing some of these constituents was also stored in a 2-acre lined impoundment on the site. During dredging of the sediments from the bottom of the impoundment, the liner was ruptured, releasing hazardous substances. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. Ground water downgradient of the landfill and the impoundment is contam- inated with polyaromatic hydrocarbons and the other organic chemicals identified above, according to tests conducted by the company and its consultants. The company has recovered previously released hazardous substances and taken measures to prevent the release of additional hazardous substances. The company is conducting additional investigations to completely characterize releases from the landfill. About 5,000 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. Status (January 1986): Effective December 31, 1984, Northern Petro chemical Co., now USI Co., purchased substantially all assets of the company. The facility has installed a system for recovering contaminated ground water and treating it prior to disposal. In February 1985, the facility submitted Part B of its RCRA permit application. EPA is reviewing the application. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Chemplex Co. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. On September 19, 1987, EPA and the past and present owners/operators of the Chemplex plant signed an Administrative Order on Consent under CERCLA Section 106. The order calls for Chemplex to characterize an on-site landfill, sample Rock Creek, which is downgradient, and improve the ground water recovery system. EPA may also pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act {CERCLA) as amended in 1986 FRIT INDUSTRIES (HUMBOLDT PLANT) Humboldt, Iowa Conditions at listing (April 1985); The Frit Industries Site covers about 6 acres north of Humboldt, Humboldt County, Iowa. The company produces trace mineral additives for agricultural use. The process involves combining baghouse dust and waste sulfuric acid. Two waste treatment ponds on-site have received waste phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, fluoride compounds, and other hazardous materials containing high levels of lead and cadmium. Waste from air scrubbers has also been dumped on the ground south of the site, threatening ground water. About 4,800 people obtain their drinking water from wells within 3 miles of the site. Lake Nakomis, located about 1 mile from the site, is used for recreational activities. In 1980, waste pile and tank storage units of the plant received Interim Status under Subtitle c of the Resource conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when Frit filed Part A of a permit application. On September 30, 1983, the Iowa Department of water, Air, and Waste Management issued an Administrative Order under the State's Superfund law requiring Frit to develop appropriate cleanup actions. The company is appealing the order. Status (January 1986); The State has reviewed a remedial action plan submitted by Frit Industries under the September 1983 order. In January 1986, the State returned its comments on the plan to Frit. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Frit Industries' Humboldt Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. On July 13, 1987, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Frit signed a Consent Order under which the company will determine the nature and extent of the threat, if any, from the site and start the necessary remedial action. On September 30, 1987, EPA approved Frit's plan for closing a hazardous waste management unit in accordance with RCRA requirements. Frit will clean up contaminated soil and ground water to prescribed levels that will protect public health and the environment. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circumstances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investigation/ feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned up quickly and effectively; Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 JOHN DEERE (DUBUQUE WORKS) Dubuque, Iowa Conditions at listing (September 1985): John Deere operated a 160-acre landfill north of Dubuque, Dubuque County, Iowa, for disposal of wastes from equipment-manufacturing activities at its nearby Dubuque works. From 1946 until 1974, according to reports the company filed with EPAf as required by CERCLA Section 103(c), approximately 3,000 tons of solvents, paint sludges, acids, heavy metals, and cyanide were disposed of in the unlined landfill. An estimated 2,750 people use private wells within 3 miles of the site as their source of drinking water. The site is within 200 feet of the Mississippi and Little Masquoketan Rivers and adjacent to the upper Mississippi River wildlife and Fish Refuge and neighboring wetlands. An area of the Dubuque Works was used for treatment of hazardous wastes and storage of drums. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for these operations when John Deere filed Part A of a permit application. The landfill accepted solvents, acids, heavy metals, and cyanide. It ceased receiving wastes prior to the effective date of the RCRA permitting standards for land disposal and was not included in the permit application. In June 1985, John Deere submitted a closure plan for tank and container storage units. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to drop John Deere's Dubuque Works from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. On September 29, 1986, EPA and John Deere signed a CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order on Consent requiring the company to conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. The work is scheduled to be completed in July 1988. After that time, the public will have the opportunity to comment on the cleanup alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. EPA may also pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 U.S. NAMEPLATE CO. Mount Vernon, Iowa Conditions at listing (October 1984): U.S. Nameplate Co. manufactures aluminum, brass, and stainless steel nameplates on a 7-acre site near Mount Vernon in Linn County, Iowa. Ftchina and platina are amona the processes involved. Liauid wastes from these processes are acidic and have hiah concentrations of chromium, fluoride, lead, and zinc. Prior to 1979, U.S. Nameplate treated the wastes in septic tanks that discharaed into a drainaae field and a nearby creek. The NPL site involves the septic tank and drainaae field. In 1979, the State received complaints about the discharae to the drainaae field. In response, U.S. Nameplate constructed a waste water treatment laaoon system and began operatinq it in November 1979. In 1982, based on hiah fluoride levels (137 miIliarams/liter) detected in around water, the State determined that the lagoon was leakina. On March 12, 1984, EPA issued an Administrative Order under Section 3008(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The order recruires U.S. Nameplate to close the laaoon under RCRA and monitor ground water. Mount Vernon (population 3,300) draws its water from two municipal wells less than 1.5 miles from the U.S. Nameplate plant. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposina to drop U.S. Nameplate Co. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of PCRA. In December 1984, U.S. Nameplate filed a petition to remove the waste water treatment sludge from the list of RCRA Subtitle C wastes. On May 3, 19ap, FPA proposed to make the sludge no lonaer subject to Subtitle C regulations and permitting standards; the sludae treatment unit, however, would be subiect to all Subtitle C reauirements, includinq closure reauirements. The company has appealed the 1984 RCRA 3008(a) order on the basis that EPA's hazardous waste list as originally promulaated did not provide sufficient notice to U.S. Nameplate that its'waste was considered a listed hazardous waste. An Administrative Law Judge dismissed the appeal without prejudice, which allows EPA to file another order under RCRA 3008(a). EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects oublic health and the environment. In appropriate circumstances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investiaation/ feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned UP ouicklv and effectively; Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. ,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 3986 NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Furley, Kansas Conditions at listing (October 1984): The National Industrial Environ- mental Services (NIES) Site covers 160 acres approximately 10 miles northeast of Wichita and 3 miles south of the unincorporated community of Furley, Sedgwick County, Kansas. Approximately 30 households are within a 9-square-mile rural agricultural area surrounding the site. In 1977, NIES began operating a hazardous waste landfill on the 80-acre north half of the site under a State permit. Two evaporation and four treatment ponds were also in use. Wastes received at the facility included: liquid chromium, liquid cyanide, acids, bases, chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents, sludges, and bulk solid wastes. The facility received Interim Status in November 1980 under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWMI) bought the company in December 1980. In January 1982, the State closed the site when it discovered that off-site ground water, surface water, and soil were contaminated with toxic organic chemicals, including known carcinogens. In May 1982, CWMI submitted a hydrogeological report and remedial action plan to the State. The plan recommended digging drainage trenches, drilling an underground injection well for disposal of the liquid wastes, closure of treatment and evaporation ponds, capping of existing landfill areas, and construction of a new landfill. The drainage trenches and new landfill have been constructed, the treatment ponds decommissioned, and the old landfill area capped. Ground water pumped from the trenches is being hauled off-site to a CWMI RCRA-permitted facility. Monitoring wells are being sampled on a monthly basis. In 1984, the State issued a series of Administrative Orders to the company for various remedial actions. Status (January 1986): On May 31, 1985, EPA signed two Administrative Orders involving NIES, CWMI, and Waste Management, Inc. (parent company of CWMI). The orders, issued under Section 106 of CERCLA and Section 3008(h) of RCRA, are aimed at stopping migration of contaminated ground water and closing the land disposal units at the facility. Under the order, the responsible parties are to develop Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLS) for 89 contaminants detected in RCRA Appendix VIII analyses and other historical analyses conducted by EPA, the State, and the responsible parties. In November 1985, NIES updated Part B of its RCRA permit application to include proposed treatment, storage, and disposal units for expansion onto adjacent property. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop National Industrial Environmental Services from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- NIES has closed all land disposal units except one evaporation pond, which is scheduled to be closed by mid-1988. NIES is currently in compliance with the May 1985 orders. The ACLs developed by NIES were available for public comment until December 11, 1987. The ACLs are to be enforced at the downgradient boundary of the waste area. After EPA reviews the comments, it will determine if the ACLs protect public health and the environment at the nearest potential point of ground water consumption. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA and CERCLA authorities, and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 UNION CHEMICAL CO./ INC. South Hope, Maine Conditions at listing (April 1985): Union Chemical Co., Inc., operated a chemical recycling and incineration business during 1978-84 on a 0.75-acre fenced lot in South Hope, Knox County, Maine. The site is bounded on the east by Quiggle Brook and is in the 100-year floodplain. Grassy Pond, an alternate drinking water source for the towns of Camden, Rockport, Rockland, and Thomaston (approximately 22,800 people), is less than 1 mile downgradient. The site once contained approximately 2,500 drums and over 30 tanks holding 100,000 gallons of flammable materials and sludges. Among the wastes were PCBs, methylene chloride, cyanides, methyl ethyl ketone, and trichloro- ethylene. An on-site well and Quiggle Brook are contaminated with trichloro- ethylene, according to tests conducted by the Maine Department of Environ- mental Protection and EPA. Union Chemical lost Interim status in June 1984 under Maine's Uncontrolled Hazardous Substance Act because it failed to satisfy require- ments of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under Section 3008 of RCRA, EPA fined the company for failure to submit a complete Part B permit application. Using CERCLA emergency funds, EPA removed all surface drums, over 100,000 gallons of liquid wastes and sludges from aboveground storage tanks, and some contaminated soil from the site. The action was completed on November 8, 1984. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the NPL because it has lost Interim Status (and hence authority to operate) and has a history of unwillingness to take corrective action. The owner/operator has failed to submit an acceptable Part B permit application, failed to comply with Federal and State administrative orders, and stated that he is financially unable to clean up the site. Analyses conducted by the State in May and July 1987 found that total volatile organic chemicals in ground water on-site ranged from 250 to 1,000 parts per million. In July 1987, EPA analyses of 43 residential wells within approximately 0.5 mile radius of the site found trace levels of 1,1- dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethylene. EPA is conducting an additional round of sampling of numerous residential wells surrounding the site. On November 4, 1987, EPA and the State signed into effect a Consent Order under CERCLA Sections 122(d)(3) and (h) with 263 potentially respon- sible parties who generated and/or transported hazardous waste to the site. These parties agreed to (1) conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action and (2) reimburse the Federal government and the state for past cleanup costs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 HOOKER (MONTAGUE PLANT) Montague, Michigan Conditions at listing (September 1985): Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp., a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp., started to manufacture chlorine, sodium hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid on a 900-acre property in Montague, Muskegon County, Michigan,in 1954. Until February 1977, the plant also manufactured hexachlorocyclopentadiene, a toxic chemical used in pesticide production. The plant has been inactive since 1983; there are no plans to reactivate it. About 506,000 cubic yards of organic wastes were improperly disposed of on 50 of the 900 acres. The disposal has contaminated ground water and surface water on and off the site with chlorinated organic chemicals, according to EPA tests. A shallow aquifer below the site supplies drinking water to about 700 people. There is no alternative drinking water source. On February 21, 1979, the State filed suit against Hooker to compel cleanup of the site. Pursuant to a Consent Judgment, issued in November 1979, Hooker removed most of the waste on the surface in 1981 and 1982 and disposed of it in a concrete vault on the site. In 1983, the State certified closure of the vault. Since 1979, Hooker has been pumping and treating ground water with carbon to prevent contamination from migrating off-site. The site is an inactive portion of a facility that acquired Interim Status for a small barrel storage area under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and , Recovery" Act (RCRA) when Hooker filed Part A of a permit application. Hooker has ' now decided to close the storage area instead of seeking an operating permit. Status (September 1986): Hooker is pumping eight purge wells, including two installed in 1986, to contain the plume of contaminated ground water and has also upgraded the carbon treatment system. The State questions whether the purge wells are drawing enough ground water for treatment to prevent contami- nation from reaching nearby White Lake. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Hooker's Montague Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of subtitle C of RCRA. The State is seeking Department of Justice approval to re-open the 1979 judgment to include disposal of additional contaminated material found during cleanup operations. Hooker submitted a closure plan for drum storage units on January 30, 1985. In July 1986, the State found the plan deficient. It still has not been approved. EPA and Hooker are negotiating a Consent Order calling for a site investigation. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circumstances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investigation/ feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned up quickly and effectively; ( Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 KYSOR INDUSTRIAL CORP. Cadillac, Michiaan Conditions at listing (September 1985): Kvsor Industrial Corp. manufactures temperature control systems for the automotive industry on a 0.10-acre site in Cadillac, Wexford County, Michiqan. The process involves stamping and machininq metal parts. Prior to 1979, 665 cubic yards of liouid/sludqe wastes containinq solvents (1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloro- ethylene, toluene, and ethylbenzene) used to clean metal parts were disposed of in unlined earthen pits on the site, accordina to the State. In 19P1, the company excavated the pits and sent the materials to an off-site disposal facility. On-site monitoring wells that tap shallow qround water are .contaminated with solvents, including toluene and trichloroethvlene, accordina to tests conducted by consultants to the company. A shallow aouifer within 3 miles of the site provides water for 4,500 people, approximately R percent of Cadillac's population. The nearest surface water (0.4 mile downstream from the facilitv) is used for fishinq. A container storage area at Kysor received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (ROTA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. In Julv 19R4, FPA approved a plan for closing the area and qranted the facilitv small aenerator status. Status (September 1986): The State is conductina an area-wide remedial investigation/feasibility study to determine the tvpe and extent of con- tamination and identify alternatives for remedial action. The effort includes several NPL sites, among them Kvsor Industrial Corp. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposinq to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the final NPL. EPA's July 1984 action converted the plant to a hazardous waste generator. Hence, it satisfies a component of EPA's NPL/RCRA policy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 LACKS INDUSTRIES, INC. Grand Rapids, Michiaan Conditions at listing (October 1984): Lacks Industries, Inc., operates a die-casting and paintinq facility for the automotive and appliance industries on a 40-acre site in Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michiaan. A platina operation also existed until July 1984. Process wastes were deposited in two unlined lagoons, each covering about 0.25 acre. Monitorina wells on the site are contaminated with heavy metals, accordino to the State. The major concern is potential contamination of private drinkina water wells, althouah sampling in May and June of 1984 by Kent County showed no contamination. About 300 people (lower estimate) use wells within 3 mile? of the site as a source of drinking water. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C the Resource Conservation and Recoverv Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. In May 1985, the company filed Part B for a container and tank storage units and for a landfill to be used for disposal of hazardous wastes from surface impoundments beina closed. EPA's review determined that the Part P was incomplete. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposina to drop Lacks Industries, Inc., from the proposed NPL. Because it is a storaqe and disposal "faciTitv, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. The storaae tanks were closed in 1985. In May 1986, Lacks submitted a RCRA closure plan for the disposal impoundments that called for off-site disoosai of the hazardous materials in the impoundments. The units will have to have a RCRA postclosure permit, which calls for monitorina for 30 vears to ensure ground water duality. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Lacks industries are still workina on the details of the closure plan. The State approved a closure plan for container storaqe units in August 1986. In March 1987, the State certified the closure. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA. authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circumstances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investiqation/ feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned UP ouicklv and effectivelv; Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later reorooose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 CONSERVATION CHEMICAL CO. Kansas City, Missouri Conditions at listing (April 1985): The Conservation Chemical Co. (CCC) Site covers approximately 6 acres in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. It is on the south bank of the Missouri River near where the Blue and Missouri Rivers meet. CCC operated a waste treatment and disposal facility on the site from about 1960 to 1980. The primary wastes handled were metal-finishing wastes, including pickle liquors/ spent plating solutions, heat-treating materials, and alkaline cyanides; chlorinated and nonchlorinated solvents and other organics; alkaline refinery wastes; laboratory chemicals; and wastes containing arsenic and elemental phosphorus. Records indicate that approximately 300,000 tons of wastes were accepted. Some were incinerated, but most were buried in lagoons which were either unlined or inadequately lined-. CCC attempted physical stabili- zation of the lagoons by mixing the lagoon contents with fly ash and waste pickle liquor. The lagoons were then covered with soil. CCC obtained Interim Status for various storage tanks under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by filing Part A of a permit application. Subsequently, those wastes were disposed of off-site, and the tanks are no longer used. EPA has detected various hazardous substances in on- and off-site surface soil and in ground water downgradient of the site. This ground water is part of an aquifer used locally as a drinking and industrial water supply. Because the ground water and the Missouri River are hydraulically connected, the con- taminants are entering the river, which is used locally and regionally for recreation, industry, irrigation, and municipal water supply. On November 22, 1982, the United States filed a civil action under RCRA and CERCLA seeking a court-ordered site cleanup and reimbursement of the Government's investigative costs. The parties sued were CCC: its president and principal stockholder, Conservation Chemical Co. of Illinois (a related corporation); and four major contributors of waste to the site: Armco, Inc., FMC Corp., IBM Corp., and AT&T Technologies, Inc. (formerly Western Electric). On June 19, 1984, the four original generator defendants filed third-party suits against 152 other generators, 7 Federal agencies, and 16 insurance companies. On October 1, 1984, 77 additional third-party defendants were added to the lawsuit. Status (April 1987): On August 2, 1985, the government reached a pre- liminary settlement under which the four original generator defendants agreed to undertake remedial design and remedial action at the CCC site and to reimburse the government $500,000 of its response costs. Additional studies during the design identified conditions that would make the remedial action more difficult and expensive. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the NPL. Based on an evaluation of CCC's record of compliance, EPA has determined that the company has demonstrated unwillingness to take corrective action. In November 1987, EPA and the defendants agreed to a remedial action involving pumping and treating ground water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 FINDETT CORP. St. Charles, Missouri Conditions at listing (October 1984); Findett Corp. operates on a site near the St. Louis suburb of St. Charles, St. Charles County, Missouri, in the floodplain of the Mississippi River. The Findett facility covers about 3 acres; however, contamination originating at the facility may cover a much greater area. A municipal well field is within 1 mile of the site. Among its activities, Findett reprocessed fluids containing PCBs during 1963-74. Some wastes from the reprocessing were disposed of in a small pond on the Findett property. In 1977, after significant levels of PCBs were detected in the pond, Findett excavated and backfilled a portion of the pond. In further investigations in 1979, EPA found that the pond area was still contaminated with PCBs. As a result, EPA issued an Administrative Order under the Clean Water Act in 1980 requiring further excavation of the pond area. Additional sampling after the excavation indicated PCBs had migrated beyond the immediate pond area and into subsurface areas. The facility received Interim status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application for treating and storing hazardous waste. EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent under Section 3013 of RCRA in September 1982. The order required Findett to design and implement a monitoring, sampling, and analysis plan to characterize the nature and extent of PCB soil contamination, as well as the potential for ground water contamination in the immediate vicinity of the Findett facility. Findett installed monitoring wells and analyzed ground water for PCBs. Status (January 1986); EPA sampled wells in June 1985, identified other contamination in ground water beneath the site, and developed a workplan for a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. EPA is negotiating with Findett to conduct the RI under a CERCLA Section 106 Consent Order. Status (April 1988); EPA is proposing to drop Findett Corp. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment, storage, and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. A Superfund-financed RI to determine the extent and possible source of ground water contamination began in August 1987 after Findett declined to do the work. Field work has been completed. Analytical data are being evaluated, and a draft RI report should be available shortly. EPA may also pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD (SOMERS TIE-TREATING PLANT) Saners, Montana Conditions at listing (October 1984); Burlington Northern Railroad has treated ties on a 4.5-acre site in Somers, Flathead County, Montana, since around 1900. The plant's current operations are regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). An old waste disposal lagoon downgradient of the RCRA-regulated facility has not been used since 1974. The old lagoon was used to dispose of creosote wastes from the wood- treatment process. The wastes were discharged from the pond via a ditch to a marshy area on the shore of Flathead Lake, the largest fresh water lake west of the Mississippi River. The lake is extensively used for camping and fishing, and towns along the lake such as Somers use it for drinking water. On February 28, 1984, the state dug several shallow holes along the lake shore and took samples of creosote-saturated sand below the ditch outfall. Sludge/sediment samples were collected from the bottom of a 0.5-acre swamp pond located along the shore adjacent to the waste ditch. The material was silty-sand and stained with oil. Early in March 1984, consultants to Burlington Northern drilled approxi- mately 60 test borings in the vicinity of the swamp pond, in the waste ditch, and below the seasonal high water beach of Flathead Lake. About 46 percent of the test holes showed visual evidence of creosote contamination. The holes encompassed an area of approximately 3.5 acres, including the pond. Soil samples were collected from the test borings. Monitoring wells were installed at 10 sites around the pond. Status (January 1986): In May and June 1985, Burlington Northern removed contaminated sludge, soil, and water from the swamp pond under a CERCLA Section 106 Consent Order for an immediate removal. The materials were placed in two existing RCRA lagoons on the plant site which were reconstructed to meet RCRA standards. The company is moving the sludges and soils to another of its facilities at Paradise, Montana, where they are being placed in a waste pile that meets RCRA standards. Swamp pond water was processed through the plant's waste water recycling system. In December 1984, Burlington Northern voluntarily submitted to EPA a study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action. On October 9, 1985, EPA and Burlington Northern signed a Consent Order under CERCLA Section 106 for a remedial investi- gation/feasibility study (RI/FS) covering the old lagoon. The RI/FS activities are scheduled to be completed in approximately January 1987. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to drop Burlington Northern Railroad's Somers Tie-Treating Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a storage and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- Burlington Northern is closing the two existing RCRA lagoons according to a RCRA closure plan approved by the State. The company has submitted a draft RI/FS and Endangerment Assessment report to EPA for the old lagoon. Late in 1988, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the cleanup alternative recommended in the draft RI/FS report. EPA may also pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and will ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 LINDSAY MANUFACTURING CO. Lindsay, Nebraska Conditions at listing (October 1984); Lindsay Manufacturing Co. generates acid waste from a galvanizing process at its plant in Lindsay, Platte County, Nebraska. The wastes were discharged into a 0.1-acre unlined pond. On January 11, 1983, the company sampled monitoring wells near the pond. Analyses indicated that ground water was contaminated with acid and metals. In October 1983, the pond was closed. Prior to the closing, the plant received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. Under a Stipulated Agreement issued by the State, the company has removed the source of contamination and is purging the ground water. Five municipal wells serving Lindsay are within 1 mile of the site. Status (January 1986): Lindsay is pumping ground water and treating it by neutralization and precipitation. The State is monitoring the ground water restoration program. Data from off-site monitoring wells suggest that the program is controlling the migration of contaminants from the site. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the NPL because the wastes generated by Lindsay are no longer subject to Subtitle C corrective action authorities. On May 28, 1986, EPA published an amendment to its list of hazardous wastes which clarified that the wastes generated by Lindsay would be considered hazardous only if they exhibited one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. Lindsay's waste did not display hazardous waste characteristics when the surface impoundments were closed on November 2, 1987. Therefore, EPA intends to pursue cleanup under Superfund. In June 1987, a contractor to Lindsay detected volatile organic chemicals in on-site ground water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 MONROE AUTO EQUIPMENT CO. Cozad, Nebraska Conditions at listing (September 1985): The Monroe Auto Equipment Co. Site covers approximately 26.3 acres in the Platte River floodplain on the outskirts of Cozad, Dawson County, Nebraska. The company began manufacturing activities in Cozad in 1961. In 1981, it employed 600 workers and produced 40,000 shock absorbers each day. The company is owned by Tenneco and is still in operation. Manufacturing processes include metal finishing, welding, painting, and electroplating. Waste oil was also reclaimed, sludges generated from treating plant wastes contain chromium, cadmium, and zinc. This sludge is stored in .on-site surface impoundments. Organic solvents are stored in underground tanks. Results from a 1982 EPA Water Supply Survey revealed that two of Cozad's seven drinking water wells, located in the vicinity of the Monroe site, were contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other synthetic organic compounds. The well system serves 4,400 people. Subsequent sampling showed that significant levels of TCE and acetone exist in on-site wells. Additional data are needed to establish which part of the facility is responsible for the contamination. The Platte River and the Dawson County Canal (which is about 2,000 feet downstream of the site) are used for irrigation. On January 18, 1983, EPA Headquarters granted a temporary exclusion delisting Monroe Auto sludge under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The surface impoundments, therefore, were not subject to Interim Status requirements of Subtitle C. In 1985, the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (NDEC) issued a Stipulated Agreement requiring the company to take remedial action at the site. Since August 1985, the company has been pumping and treating ground water to remove TCE. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Monroe Auto Equipment Co. from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a storage and disposal facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA terminated the temporary exclusion on Monroe's sludge and the surface impoundments again became subject to Subtitle C on May 14, 1987. On August 6, 1986, NDEC approved the company's plan for closing the surface impoundments under RCRA. Closure of the surface impoundments was certified on July 17, 1987. Pumping and treating of ground water are expected to continue for several years. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that -the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circum- stances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investigation/feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned up quickly and effectively. Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 MATLACK, INC. Woolwich Township, New Jersey Conditions at listing (September 1985): Matlack, Inc., has operated a tank-cleaning and truck terminal in Woolwich Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, since 1962. During 1962-76, rinse water from the cleaning of tanks used for transporting a variety of materials (including resins, organic solvents, and acids) was disposed of in an unlined sand and gravel pit behind the terminal building. At the end of disposal operations, Matlack pumped the lagoon and left the sludge in place. The pit was subsequently filled with demolition rubble and clean fill. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Gloucester County Health Department, and Matlack have sampled ground water and soil both on- and off-site. The results indicate that on-site soils are contaminated with volatile organic chemicals, including trichloroethane, tetrachloroethane, and 1,2-dichloroethylene. A private residential well about 0.25 mile northwest of the site is similarly contaminated. The residents are now using bottled water. On January 18, 1984, NJDEP notified Matlack that it should investigate hydrogeological conditions at the site. In response, Matlack hired a consultant to install and sample additional monitoring wells. About 300 people are served by ground water within 3 miles of the site. This site is an inactive part of an active facility that received Interim Status for tank storage under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the owner filed Part A of a permit application. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Matlack, Inc., from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of subtitle C of RCRA. On May 26, 1987, Matlack agreed to an Administrative Consent Order issued by NJDEP under the State's Water Pollution Control Act and the Spill Compensation and Control Act. The company will (1) conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for remedial action and (2) implement the selected remedy. The RI/FS is scheduled to be completed in October 1988. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA or equivalent State authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. Salisbury/ North Carolina Conditions at listing (April 1985): National Starch & Chemical Core. manufactures specialty chemicals for the textile and furniture industries in two plants coverina more than 465 acres in Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. The company purchased the land and a plant from Proctor Chemical Co. in 1969 and in 1970 started construction of another olant. National Starch deposited about 350,000 aallons of liouid waste containina lead and various organic chemicals in unlined trenches in a 2-acre area. According to tests conducted by the company's consultant, around water beneath the trench area is contaminated with lead, xvlene, toluene, and other oraanic chemicals. The plants are located in a rural area that depends heavily on wells for drinking water. About 7,700 people use public and private wells within 3 miles of the site for drinkina water. The nearest well is ?,200 feet from the site. From November 1980 until June 1983, the Proctor Chemical plant (National Starch kept this name for one of the plants) had Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as a storer of hazardous waste. Interim Status was withdrawn in June 19R2 after the company ouit storina hazardous waste on-site for over 90 davs. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposina to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the final NPL. In June 19^3,the Proctor Chemical facility was removed from the list of hazardous waste storaae facilities and in November 1983, it was removed from the list of hazardous waste treatment facilities. The facility now has aenerator-only status. Thus, the National Starch & Chemical Corp. site satisfies a component of EPA's NPL/PCRA oolicv. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. (COSHOCTON PLANT) Coshocton, Ohio Conditions at listing (October 1984): General Electric Co. disposed of wastes on a 2.5-acre site at its Coshocton, Coshocton County, Ohio, plant. The wastes, from the production of resins, contained phenol. They were placed in a landfill and infiltration lagoons during 1946-77. Ground water near the lagoons is contaminated with phenol, barium, arsenic, and other pollutants, according to tests conducted by a consultant to General Electric. City and private wells within 3 miles of the site draw water from a shallow aquifer. About 15,000 people are involved. General Electric has hired a consultant to study ground water in the area of the waste site. The facility received Interim Status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application for storage of hazardous waste. Status (June .1988); EPA is proposing to drop General Electric Co."s - Coshocton Plant from the proposed NPL. Because it is a storage facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. On August 28, 1987, General Electric signed a Consent Order with EPA under RCRA Section 3008(h). The order requires the company to conduct a study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the site and identify alternatives for corrective action. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List / Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 ROHM AND HAAS CO. LANDFILL Bristol Township, Pennsylvania Conditions at listing (April 1985); The Rohm and Haas Co. Landfill covers approximately 60 acres adjacent to the Delaware River just south of Croydon in Bristol Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. During 1952-75, the landfill received wastes from the company's chemical manufacturing plants in Bristol Township and Croydon. Rohm and Haas reports that it disposed of 309,000 tons of wastes in the landfill, of which 4,600 tons were considered hazardous. The Bristol Township Sewage Treatment Plant and Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., now occupy the northwest corner of the filled area. In 1980, EPA detected contaminants in on-site ground water and surface water. Rohm and Haas is conducting a comprehensive study of environmental conditions in and near the landfill. The company reported the first results in April 1984. The investigation revealed that ground water, surface water, and soil within the landfill are contaminated. Among contaminants detected on-site are benzene, bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, trichloroethylene, toluene, xylene, chlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, various polycyclic aromatic hydro- carbons, and several pesticides. Although a fence exists around the site, parts of the site are accessible, so that people and animals can come into direct contact with contaminated on-site soil. Bristol Borough, Pennsylvania, and Burlington City, New Jersey, have public water supply intakes on the Delaware River within 3 miles upstream of the landfill. The water systems serve approximately 18,000 people. The river is tidally influenced in this area. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop Rohm and Haas Co. Landfill from the proposed NPL. The site is contiguous with a former treatment, and storage, facility having Interim status under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Hence, the landfill is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C. Rohm and Haas is conducting a study to determine the type and extent of contamination at the landfill, as well as at the adjoining Bristol and Croydon Plants. The study will also identify alternatives for remedial action. Rohm and Haas has taken hundreds of samples of ground water, soil, surface water, and air, and has completed several reports documenting its findings. EPA and Rohm and Haas are negotiating a Consent Order to ensure that the company continues to conduct studies and pursues cleanup in conformance with EPA regulations and guidelines. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circumstances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investigation/ feasibility study to ensure that the site is cleaned up quickly and effectively; Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 BUCKINGHAM COUNTY. LANDFILL Buckingham, Virginia Conditions at listing (April 1985): The Buckingham County Landfill covers 8 acres in a rural area near the town of Buckingham, Buckingham County, Virginia. This site was originally proposed for listing under the name "Love's Container Service Landfill." Love's Container Service operated the landfill from 1962 until February 1982. In 1972, the Virginia State Health Department issued the facility a permit to dispose of municipal waste. The permit was modified in 1977 to allow disposal of chemical wastes generated by the local furniture-making industry. In 1979, the portion of the landfill receiving the chemical waste was closed. In 1981, the facility received Interim Status as a hazardous waste disposal facility under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by filing Part A of a permit application. Subsequently, the facility accepted 1,254 drums of used organic solvents and flammable liquids/solids. These wastes were placed in trenches separated from the previously closed portion of the site. After purchasing the landfill from Love's Container Service in April 1982, the county closed the new portion in accordance with State regulations but not with RCRA Subtitle C requirements. Sampling conducted by EPA in September 1983 indicates that on-site ground water and off-site residential wells are contaminated by chromium and beryllium. In early 1985, one residential well was found to be contaminated. About 1,100 people depend on wells within 3 miles of the site as a source of drinking water. Status (January 1986): On November 8, 1985, the landfill's Interim Status was terminated under RCRA Section 3005(e)(2) because the county had failed to submit a Part B permit application for postclosure monitoring and did not certify compliance with applicable ground water monitoring and financial responsibility requirements. Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the NPL because it has lost Interim Status (and hence authority to operate) and because Buckingham County has stated it is unwilling and financially unable to clean up all the contamination at the site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as appended in 1986 CULPEPER WOOD PRESERVERS, INC. Culpeper, Virginia Conditions at listing (October 19,84); Since 1976, Culpeper wood Preservers, Inc., has treated wood with a chromated copper arsenate solution on a 20-acre site in the outskirts of Culpeper, Culpeper County, Virginia. In February 1981, approximately 100,000 gallons of waste containing significant levels of arsenic and chromium spilled from an impoundment, contaminating neighboring surface waters. In February 1981, EPA issued an Administrative Complaint against Culpeper Wood Preservers under Subtitle C of the Resource conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In September 1981, the site owner agreed to issuance of a Consent Agreement and Consent Order under RCRA Section 3008(a), which required certain remedial actions. Ground water under the site is contaminated with arsenic and chromium, according to analyses conducted by the State. About 2,000 people depend on the contaminated aquifer within 3 miles of the site for drinking water. Status (January 1986): In March 1985, EPA completed a search for parties potentially responsible for wastes associated with the site. In April 1985, EPA issued a Notice Letter informing Jefferson Homebuilders, Inc., of its respon- sibility for operations at the site. EPA assessed the need for removal action at the site in-July 1985 and concluded that a removal was not warranted at that time. i Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to place this previously proposed RCRA site on the NPL. The September 1981 Consent Order and Consent Agreement under RCRA Section 3008(a) stated that the facility would be exempt from future RCRA regulation once the specified remedial actions were taken. The company took the specified actions, and so is not regulated under RCRA authorities. If the facility agrees to clean up the site according to Subtitle C corrective action requirements, EPA would consider removing it from the NPL. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended in 1986 IBM CORP. (MANASSAS PLANT SPILL) Manassas, Virqinia Conditions at listing (October 1984); From 1970 to 1975, IBM Corp. degreased electrical components at its plant in Manassas, Prince William County, Virginia. The operations involved storing, usina, and recvclina chlorinated organic solvents. Spills during maintenance have contaminated ground water with a variety of chlorinated organic solvents, accordina to analyses conducted by IBM. The contaminated aquifer within 3 miles of the site provides drinking water to about 32,000 people. The plant received Interim Status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when the company filed Part A of a permit application. jtatus (January 1986): IBM is performing studies to determine the extent of the contamination. IBM has also excavated soil containina. chlorinated organic solvents. EPA is reviewina information provided bv IBM on the soil removal. In January 1985, IBM submitted Part B of a permit application for container storage and tank storaae units. Part B includes a workplan for taking corrective action under RCRA Section 3008(h). Status (June 1988): EPA is proposing to drop IBM Corp. (Manassas Plant Spill) from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storaae facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA has approved IBM's 24-month Plan of Study. The plan calls for IBM to install monitoring wells within 3 miles of the plant and to take action to contain or eliminate contamination of soil and around water. IBM connected homes with contaminated wells to Prince William Countv's water supply svstem. IBM has removed all known contaminated soil. If samplina finds additional contaminated soil, IBM plans to remove it. At present, IBM is pumpina and treating contaminated ground water at two locations on the site and one off the site. As work progresses, additional pumpina/treatina stations mav be necessary. In December 1987, the State issued the facility a permit for container and tank storage unit. EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the cleanup protects public health and the environment. In appropriate circum- stances, Superfund monies may be used for a remedial investiaation/feasibilitv study to ensure that the site is cleaned up ouickly and effectively? Superfund enforcement authorities may also be used. EPA can later reoropose the site for the NPL if it determines that the owner or operator is unable or unwillina to clean up the site effectively. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program ------- National Priorities List ^ Superfund hazardous waste site listed under the c Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (C6RCLA) as amended in 1986 MOBAY CHEMICAL CORP. (NEW MARTINSVILLE PLANT) New Martinsville, West Virginia Conditions at listing (October 1984); Mobay Chemical Corp. manufactures organic compounds, including polycarbonates and toluene diisocyanate, and ferrous oxide pigments in New Martinsville, Wetzel County, West Virginia. The site is bounded on the west by the Ohio River and on the south by Beaver Creek. Since starting operation of the plant in the 1950s, Mobay has disposed of wastes in various areas on the property. Information Mobay provided EPA in 1981, as required by CERCLA Section 103(c), indicated that about 540,000 cubic feet of process wastes, many containing hazardous substances, were disposed of on the property. EPA analyses of soil and ground water on and underlying the Mobay facility detected benzene, chlorobenzene, vinyl chloride, and other organic chemicals, many of them listed as being disposed of on the site. Approximately 1,700 people use wells within 3 miles of the site for drinking water. The plant is subject to the Interim status requirements of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) because the company was operating as a disposal facility after November 19, 1980, the deadline for submitting Part A of a permit application. The facility submitted a Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity on August 18, 1980 and filed Part A of a permit application for container, tank, storage, waste pile, tank treatment, and incinerator units. The facility filed a Part B on September 6, 1983, listing container, tank storage, tank treatment, surface impoundment treatment, and incinerator units. Status (January 1986); On January 16, 1986, Mobay entered into a Consent Order with EPA under RCRA Section 3013. The order calls for sampling and monitor- ing of the area surrounding and underlying the site. Status (June 1988); EPA is proposing to drop Mobay Chemical Corp.'s New Martinsville Plant from the proposed NPL. Because the site is a treatment and storage and facility, it is subject to the corrective action authorities of Subtitle C of RCRA. After reviewing Part B of Mobay's application for a permit under Subtitle c, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) issued the permit in January 1987, except for the corrective action portion, which WVDNR is not yet authorized to issue. In June 1987, EPA issued a draft of the corrective action permit for public comment. The only comments received (from Mobay) were ^incorporated. EPA issued the final permit on September 16, 1987, effective on ^October 16, 1987. s \ 15 \ The corrective action permit incorporates certain monitoring requirements and the schedules specified in the January 1986 Consent Order issued under RCRA Section 3013. To date, Mobay has met the schedules of the order, as well as £ ^corrective measures called for by studies done under the order. Mobay is 2 ^ g operating a system to pump and treat contaminated ground water. It has installed ^ E ° 104 monitoring wells and gathered extensive information on the extent of ground .£ -^E^ water contamination at and near the site. 5 « « .£ £ 2. o c EPA intends to pursue cleanup under RCRA authorities and to ensure that the § -: j= = cleanup protects public health and the environment. Superfund enforcement author i- •5 > 3 .ties may also be used. EPA can later repropose the site for the NPL if it determines ,5 C <$, §>that the owner or operator is unable or unwilling to clean up the site effectively. 'r'> § co In U>S- Environmental Protection Agency/Remedial Response Program :D cc CM o ------- |