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

-------